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

May 11, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-11 (PDF)

L119 - Wed 11 May 2011 / Mer 11 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 May 2011 Mercredi 11 mai 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

GASOLINE PRICES

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ENERGY POLICIES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

FAMILY SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEFERRED VOTES

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PAUL MARAI

LONG-TERM CARE

PLASCO ENERGY GROUP

CHRISTOPHER PERKINS

CATHOLIC EDUCATION /

ÉDUCATION CATHOLIQUE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION TRAINING /

FORMATION EN RÉANIMATION CARDIORESPIRATOIRE

FIREFIGHTERS

THUNDER BAY ECONOMY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH /

MOIS DE LA PRÉVENTION

DE L’AGRESSION SEXUELLE

FAMILY SERVICE DAY /

JOURNÉE DES SERVICES À LA FAMILLE

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

FAMILY SERVICE DAY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH /

FAMILY SERVICE DAY

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS

KIDNEY DISEASE

DOG OWNERSHIP

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

DOG OWNERSHIP

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

PARAMEDICS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

WIND TURBINES

SPEED LIMITS

PARAMEDICS

MATTHEWS HOUSE HOSPICE

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 9, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 186,

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

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Bill 186 is entitled “Reducing Contraband Tobacco.” It doesn’t seem to go to the point of eliminating tobacco, and I question that. I don’t know whether this government is concerned about rubbing some groups the wrong way.

My opposition colleagues and I have stood in this House on many occasions asking for the crackdown on illegal tobacco, and time and time again over the last eight years these requests have been ignored. Now we have this bill before us that reduces contraband, ostensibly, but it doesn’t seem to work to eliminate it. Why is that? That’s the question I’ll put out there.

Illegal tobacco is destroying communities. Along with cheap smokes, the contraband market brings with it weapons, drugs and an obvious disregard for the law. Illicit tobacco is ruining corner stores; we’ve heard that a number of times in our finance committee. It’s robbing the Ontario government of somewhere between $500 million and $600 million a year in taxes. Corner store operators have been forced to dig into their pockets to comply with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, yet the McGuinty government turns a blind eye to those selling illegal cigarettes to underage children.

Again, when you have a high-tax item like tobacco, the legal trade cannot compete with the illegal, tax-free tobacco trade.

This has been deplorable. It’s been eight years now. Eight years ago, we didn’t really have any illegal tobacco of any significance. Eight years ago, we didn’t have the greedy, tobacco-tax-grab Liberal government in power. Eight years of tobacco tax hikes have created this crisis, this mess. What we see now is an unintended partnership between government policy and the underground economy. It’s put tobacco farmers, manufacturers and retailers at a competitive disadvantage. It reminds me of a quote by Samuel Johnson: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in my area, Haldimand–Norfolk—obviously Brant county with Six Nations. In Caledonia, home of the five-year land dispute, residents have reported seeing children transporting illegal packs of cigarettes into town on the handlebars of their bicycles. We have smoke shacks on Ontario government property just outside the town of Caledonia.

I’d like to talk a bit about Doug Fleming of Caledonia. He attended the Queen’s Park media studio in 2007 to talk about smoke shacks. Mr. Fleming had grown tired of watching those kids ride into town on their bicycles with illegal smokes, and eventually he decided to put an end to it.

In an attempt to draw attention to the matter, Mr. Fleming set up his own smoke shack in town. When he suggested to the OPP that he was breaking the law and should be arrested, the OPP refused. While in the media studio, Mr. Fleming said, “I had turned to a life of crime in an attempt to have the law enforced, but it wasn’t working.” In conclusion, Mr. Fleming said, “If Premier McGuinty wants to create a smoke-free Ontario, it seems to me that he’s not doing a very good job.”

Come down to Caledonia. You’ll see the smoke shacks blatantly located on Ontario government land—on MTO property on provincial Highway 6—and on Hydro One property. One of them is under one of the large towers that militants have blockaded any wires going up on.

Allowing an illegal market undermines this government’s very own anti-tobacco policy. People buy cigarettes out of the trunk of a car. It’s significantly cheaper. If you’re underage, you’re not asked for ID. And again, why would teenagers pay $62 for 200 cigarettes when they can get them for $6? Lowering taxes, increasing enforcement, and beefing up education and information is an answer. Basic economics kick in on the tobacco trade.

Along with illicit tobacco come other criminal elements, as I’ve mentioned. I could see supporting Bill 186 if the bill’s goal was to eliminate illegal tobacco. That’s not the goal. It’s to reduce illegal tobacco—maybe reduce it something like from 50% to 45%; we were not given the figures.

Three years ago the federal government and the RCMP announced a program. What’s happened? Contraband has gone up. Illegal factories have gone up, and even the legal ones—the federal government licenses the legal ones. There are well over 50, legal and illegal, in Ontario and Quebec. Organized criminal activity has gone up. So much for that strategy.

There’s a simple way to eliminate contraband tobacco. Two years ago, I introduced a bill, the Tobacco Tax Reduction Act. This was done previously in 1994 to eliminate the incentive, to eliminate the motive, for illegal use. If tax policy, plus enforcement, education and border control, breaks the back of the illegal trade as it did in the early 1990s, then government can go into that cycle again and slowly start increasing taxes.

People argue that high taxes are necessary to prevent smoking. The problem is, close to half of the people pay no taxes at all—zero taxes, a zero tax market—hence, in that group, consumption goes up.

This tax-cut solution is not new. In 1994, then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Premier Bob Rae and four other provinces realized illegal tobacco was out of control, like it is now. They dropped taxes and shut down hundreds of illegal smoke shacks overnight. They brought it down to something like 10% of the illegal rate—considerably less than it is today. To quote our local MP of the day: “In my riding alone I have 200 smoke” shacks “on the reserve. I have had many people including the band council and most people on the Six Nations say ... ‘would you please do something about this problem. This problem is hurting our community.’”

For 20 years, I worked for the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. As I mentioned, back in the early 1990s, there were 200 smoke shacks locally. Taxes were crashed. Overnight—I was there literally the next morning—200 smoke shacks disappeared.

Cutting provincial taxes can only be done on the understanding that the federal government will follow suit, and I look to the spirit of co-operation we had in 1994. Again, the federal government and five provinces slashed taxes and shut down the shacks. It’s up to both levels of government to address the criminal networks that have set up shop across the country.

As far as legal manufacturing, it’s fine for the federal government to license, but they also have to inspect. They have to go into those native communities that have federally licensed manufacturing operations.

In 2009, Cancer Care Ontario and Hamilton’s public health department spoke up on contraband tobacco. There was an

article in the Hamilton Spectator, which I quote: “We are very concerned about the impact of inexpensive contraband cigarettes on smoking rates.” This is Rob Cunningham of the cancer society. I’ll continue his quote: “We do know it’s very bad in southwestern Ontario and has gotten worse in the last couple of years.”

I’ll also quote Jan Johnston, a public health nurse: “It’s the contraband that has the negative effect on all the progressive tobacco control measures because of the availability and affordability.”

There is little doubt that the government has lost control of the tobacco market. I’m not sure if allowing this illegal trade to continue for the last eight years is the Premier’s way of being politically correct. I do recognize that there is mention of words like “native” and “Indian” inscribed in this legislation, and opening up or reaching out for facilitation or discussion with elected band councils, not that the elected band councils are involved in the illegal tobacco trade; they have very little control over this as well.

But for whatever reason, what we’ve seen over the last eight years indicates to me that there is no excuse for this government to lose control of the tobacco market. We are probably unique among jurisdictions in North America in losing control of half the tobacco trade.

Now, we all know that this is a revenue bill; it’s not a health bill. It’s a revenue bill introduced by a revenue minister doing the bidding of a Premier who never saw a tax he didn’t like—there’s quite a list of tobacco taxes that have come in over the last eight years.

We see legislation. It sets the sights very low by “reducing” contraband, because this government has dug the hole so deep and allowed such a criminal network to get so organized that if they tried to eliminate contraband, all hell would break loose in certain parts of Ontario.

I’d like to quote Gary Grant, spokesperson for the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco: “We’re talking about a situation where 175 organized crime groups are smuggling illegal cigarettes, drugs and guns into this province and the McGuinty government is unwilling to act. It’s really bewildering the government seems to be so out of touch with the reality of the situation.” That was a press release from that organization on March 4 of this year, underlying the fact that they were “shocked” at the time to hear the Ontario Minister of Revenue “reveal that the McGuinty government has decided not to introduce anti-contraband tobacco legislation....”

I guess the pressure ramped up; the big guns swung around on this government and here we are in the dying days of the McGuinty Liberal government finally, after eight years, debating legislation to do something about illegal tobacco.

Just to quote Mr. Grant and his organization further, “We gave the McGuinty government a grade of F for their response to contraband tobacco in 2010....” Well, here we are: It’s May 2011 and yet another change of mind by this McGuinty government. Again, look at what you have created.

I’ll quote my former employer, the Addiction Research Foundation, also known now as the—well, I call it the Addiction Research Foundation; there’s a good reputation there—“Contraband tobacco accounts for 43% of all cigarettes consumed by Ontario high school daily smokers in grades 9 to 12.” Obviously, those are our children, our grandchildren.

Right now, when it comes to tax policy, tax hikes are no longer forcing people to quit smoking; it forces them to find a cheaper alternative, whether it’s that van or that trunk of a car or the smoke shack that you can visit at Six Nations or most other native communities across this province—certainly in Caledonia and elsewhere. There’s probably about 200 smoke shacks in the riding of the member for Brant.

As far as tax policy, if you continue to jack up taxes, at a certain point you do reach the economic law of diminishing returns. This was reached a number of years ago. In my view, there is an approach, as I’ve said: tax cuts, coupled with enforcement, coupled with border control, coupled with a ramped up education program, something we have not seen from this government—something that we really have not seen from the federal government, even though they’ve had a three-year program now. I know some posters were out; I don’t know whether anybody in this room has seen any of those anti-illegal-smoking posters.

But it’s going to take a bit more than this if both the provincial and the federal governments are going to have any impact on this war against organized crime.

With respect to the legislation and the proposal for Ontario to get involved in native community taxation, I’ll pass on some information coming forward from the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, AIAI. This is from Grand Chief Randall Phillips. This is an editorial in our local Turtle Island News. As we would know, the First Nation leaders have been meeting with the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs—not the Ministry of Health, by the way.

The quote: The changes introduced last week, as he says, “stand in direct opposition to the rights and interests expressed by AIAI in those conversations.” This is from Grand Chief Phillips. He said he was taken by surprise. “There are many outstanding issues regarding jurisdiction, economic development and trade that are not even referenced in the proposed amendment.” This is the Ontario government legislation.

Further on—again, we do hear this a lot—it’s putting forward the argument “that the cultivation and trade of tobacco is an inherent aboriginal right and the province has no jurisdiction on the issue.” This is from Phillips.

This is the deputy chief now: “Tobacco was a trading commodity for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, and is an existing aboriginal right under

section 35 of the constitution.” This is a statement from Deputy Grand Chief McCormick. He goes on to say, “Additionally, the province has yet to state its position on the legality of First Nation manufacturers that hold only a federal tobacco license but not a provincial one.”

So the legislation proposes to be working more closely with native communities, with the Mohawk reserves. The only thing I can say with respect to that: Good luck.

They make mention of federally licensed manufacturing facilities, and it’s fine for the federal government to give these licences out for tobacco factories, but there has to be inspection. There have to be government bureaucrats who are willing to work in native communities, to sit inside these factories and document what’s going in, what’s going out, and further to that, what else is happening with respect to the supply chain.

I’ve been involved with the tobacco business in many different roles over many, many years. I used to work in tobacco; I guess that’d be 1972. I know a little bit about tobacco. I’m not sure if either federal or provincial government employees know an awful lot about tobacco farming, the movement of raw leaf, the threshing, the shredding or the processing, let alone the manufacturing and the retailing. I’m not sure whether federal bureaucrats are up to the job with respect to dealing with the native tobacco trade.

And as far as facilitation with native communities working with—whether it be legal or illegal—tobacco, these kinds of discussions, say, around the manufacturing, have to include the non-native manufacturing as well. They have to include the non-native retailers as well.

As far as the enforcement end of this, it’s not going to have any impact unless we give our police the support—the moral support and the financial resources—to do the job.

I don’t think this bill goes far enough. I do recognize that, at least at the 11th hour, they’ve come forward with something and are willing to at least talk about contraband tobacco.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an honour to stand and follow my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk. He’s certainly a statesperson in this place and always has very reasoned and thought-out comments.

Let’s be very clear about the role of tobacco in our province: It kills 13,000 people every year. It kills one person every 40 minutes. If you look outside any high school, if you look outside ministry buildings, about 50% of the butts you find are contraband butts. This is a problem, there’s no question, and we in the New Democratic Party see it as a problem. The question is about what sort of solution.

This, I might say, is a typical McGuinty government bill. It goes an inch when you need a mile. It’s a punitive bill. We don’t think punishment is the answer for any addiction issue. We think education, treatment—a whole range of responses is what this issue demands. To that effect, there are some great templates that have been produced in this province. The nurses’ association and the cancer society, among others, have produced many that this government could really simply adopt, but doesn’t.

The real problem here is the role of health promotion versus treatment of disease. If you look at the comparison between the two budgets, for health and for health promotion, you’ll see very quickly that there’s very, very little emphasis that the McGuinty government puts on health promotion of any sort—never mind on this issue, which is a scourge, there’s no question.

Some 13,000 people die a year; one person every 40 minutes. Children, especially young women, are taking this up. We have flatlined in terms of our war on tobacco in this province. We need to do way, way more. So I look forward to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to stand in my place today to speak about the Supporting Smoke-Free Ontario by Reducing Contraband Tobacco Act, 2011. This certainly is a long-standing problem and one that we have to address as more of the youth are picking up these cheap cigarettes in the schoolyards and elsewhere. We then get into trying to break them of this habit. As adults, we know so many people ourselves—my wife was one—who smoked for so many years. She quit cold turkey about 20 years ago, and it was just amazing that she was able to do it because a lot of people can’t give up the habit.

What we’re going to do is increase oversight over the distribution of raw leaf tobacco in the province—that’s necessary because we know the tobacco companies are involved in this as well, trying to get more of their product out there—and to permit police to seize illegal tobacco found in plain view and arrest people. I just can’t understand how we can let these criminals prey on our kids in our schoolyards.

This bill will enable us to do more of that and, for the first time ever, require fine-cut tobacco to be marked so we’ll be able to identify it better. That’s where the bill is going. It’s going in the right direction.

I was pleased to work with Mayor Bob Chiarelli in the city of Ottawa in 2001 and 2002 to bring in new legislation for this whole province with the smoke-free Ottawa bylaw. I was pleased to work with people like Dr. Cushman and so many people around Queen’s Park when the Liberals brought in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and we got rid of all that advertising that normalizes cigarettes that the kids were seeing in retail—the last vestige of advertising of this terrible product by cigarette companies.

So I think this is a positive bill that will bring us closer to being able to do something to protect our children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to re-enter this debate on the contraband illegal tobacco act put forward by the Minister of Revenue.

I’d like to compliment my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk. He has been a constant source of information in this Legislature, given the amount of contraband tobacco and illegal smoke shacks in his own community. He has reinforced in this chamber, on several occasions, the need for the government of Ontario to act on these illegal contraband tobacco smoke shacks.

I did have an hour-long debate where I was able to contribute my view in a very meaningful way to this debate. At the time, I was able to acknowledge several members of my caucus who, I believe, have been leading voices in cracking down on illegal and contraband tobacco in Ontario.

I’d like to start with my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills who, as you will recall, put forward one of the first pieces of anti-smoking legislation in Ontario. I then move over to my colleague from Simcoe North who, as our corrections critic, has often been a leading voice on cracking down on illegal tobacco, as have my colleague from Halton, my colleague from Thornhill, my colleague our health critic from Whitby–Oshawa, my colleague beside me from York–Simcoe and then, of course, my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk. This is a legislative group of people who have fought against this illegal trade, the underground economy, putting these cigarettes in the hands of children.

They could have done more. Sadly, for the last eight years, they have done nothing. It’s very disappointing that they think that at the 11th hour they can get away with this. But not this time. No one believes them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll get a chance to speak a little bit more fully on this, and I think people will not be surprised when I raise the issue in regard to those issues that affect the First Nations directly. The government is trying to do what I think is essentially a good thing, and that is to—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Boy, they’re having fun this morning, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): What don’t you understand about “order”?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Can I go now? Thank you.

Anyway, I was just saying that the government generally is trying to do something that I think is positive, which is trying to control access to tobacco on the part of kids. I think we can all agree that that is a laudable goal; I don’t think that’s an issue. However, there are particular concerns when it comes to First Nations, which I’ll talk about later, that I think need to be taken into consideration.

First Nations have been pretty clear, in speaking to the ministers responsible, that there needs to be further dialogue before this particular piece of law goes forward because, as they see it, what the law essentially does is put their band councils under administration in a weird kind of way. I think there’s far too much example in the province where the federal government specifically, and in some cases the provincial government, has had a pretty colonial attitude when it comes to how they deal with First Nations.

Is there an issue? Absolutely. Is there an issue that the government wants and needs to deal with? Absolutely; I don’t disagree. But I don’t think that you can do this in such a way that doesn’t take into consequence the serious concerns that First Nations have, which are legitimate concerns, and I’ll speak to that a little bit later in debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Haldimand–Norfolk, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you to the members for Ottawa–Orléans; Nepean–Carleton, our revenue critic; and the member from Timmins–James Bay.

The member for Beaches–East York used the phrase that this is legislation that goes an inch, not a mile; it’s not going far enough. The stated goal is to reduce contraband. Let’s set our sights a little higher: Let’s eliminate contraband. Let’s adopt the goal that was adopted by the federal and five provincial governments back in the mid-1990s.

I regret that this legislation is a revenue policy. That’s the mindset of this government: to look at tobacco through the lens of revenue. A revenue policy on this is not enough. The revenue enforcement officers who will be going on farms and into factories are going to need an awful lot of training to know a bit about the tobacco industry. The enforcement aspect of this will come to naught if we don’t support the officers and if we don’t resource the officers.

Regulations are not enough. There are already 200 regulations in Ontario with respect to the tobacco industry. Half the people in the industry do not follow these 200 regulations; they follow zero regulation. We can add more regulation, as will occur with any piece of legislation, but it’s not going to have an awful lot of impact when close to half of the tobacco industry in Ontario is illegal; half the industry pays no tax at all. This is the harvest that we reap when we jack up taxes to the extent that half the people involved in this industry, and the customers, walk away and don’t pay any taxes at all.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to put on the record that generally we’re supportive of the direction of this legislation. I think most people would see the direction as a laudable one to try to deal with the issue of how we make sure that we don’t make the proliferation of tobacco products so available to young people. I think we all understand the importance on the health front of making sure that we limit that as much as possible.

But in saying that, there are a few things that the government needs to take into consequence, and to try to go back and fix the problem that they’ve created here. Those are specifically the issues and concerns raised by First Nations.

I want to put on the record a letter that was written by one of the grand chiefs to the minister just recently. She would have received this letter on May 5. I think it’s going to lay out a little bit what the issues are from the First Nations’ perspective. I’ll speak to it a little bit more fully.

He writes the letter to the minister responsible, saying, “I hope that this letter finds you in good spirit and health. I am writing to you on behalf of the member nations of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians to express my deepest concern regarding Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.” He says, “While I understand that Bill 186 is one component of the wider smoke-free Ontario campaign”—and there is an acknowledgment there on behalf of the First Nations, saying that they understand what the government is trying to do. However, they say that “the legislation itself is primarily focused on punitive actions against producers and buyers of tobacco products,” and hence is part of the problem here.

We’re not doing what we need to do at the front end, which is that we need to be much more aggressive as a province—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Health Promotion—in really trying, by way of education, to discourage the use of tobacco. I think it’s part of the point that’s being made here. If you just deal with the punitive side, people are still going to do it.

I grew up, as you, Mr. Speaker, at a time when tobacco was probably much more prevalent in our society than it is today. Kids smoked at a fairly young age. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the same thing repeating itself again. If we go to a lot of schools in my riding or, I would argue, ridings here in Toronto, we’re seeing far too many children—children, specifically—who are using tobacco products. They do so, a lot of times, buying contraband cigarettes. That is the truth. Why? Because cigarettes at a corner store are expensive when you put all of the tax in.

Kids, like a lot of people who don’t have a lot of money, try to buy it for as cheap as they can. So if you put the emphasis strictly on the punitive measures, kids are going to buy the tobacco because it will still be available.

I just make the point—and I don’t agree with this, but I make the point—that there is a lot of contraband in our society, a lot of it is very harmful to health, and we speak about drugs. We have very punitive measures to deal with people who are in the business of selling drugs in our society. But it still finds its market; there are still people who want to buy it. And no matter how punitive you are to try to discourage the distribution of the product, you will still have people who want to buy it. This is the reality.

How do you turn that around? I think one of the things that’s lacking in this bill—and this is the point that the First Nations are making—is that we need to put more emphasis on the front end of trying to discourage people from the use of tobacco.

It will not entirely go away, but every dollar spent, I would argue, on the prevention side and the education side is far more effective than every dollar spent on the punitive side, because you will always have somebody who will be in the market to produce these products and to sell them, even if you throw it underground, and the proof of that is what’s happened in the drug trade. We saw in the United States a huge, huge initiative on the part of the federal government, dating back to the Reagan and Clinton eras, where they went to the “war on drugs,” and at the end of the day, do you know what?

The banditos are still making the drugs and people are still buying them, in larger numbers, and all they’ve effectively done is filled their prisons.

Does that say that I condone the use of drugs? Absolutely not. They’re the scourge of this planet; they’re the scourge of our communities; they’re the scourge of families and individuals. But clearly the approach of the punitive side has not had the effect that people thought it would have.

I think that’s the point that the chief makes about this particular initiative, in saying that if you put your emphasis on the punitive side—and he doesn’t say this in the letter, but I’m making the connection that it’s not going to be as effective as it would be if you did it on the education side, trying to prevent people from using these products. I think the proof of that is what has happened in the drug trade.

He goes on to say, “In its current form, Bill 186 presents a narrow set of interests while ignoring those of First Nations.

Provisions that place regulatory authority of raw leaf tobacco under the Ministry of Revenue, that penalize producers and sellers of ‘unmarked’ tobacco products and that enable law enforcement officials to make seizures without ministry approval all impact on our rights and interests.” This is an important fact; I know some people may disagree with this, but this is a reality. “First Nations have used and traded tobacco since time immemorial and never have we alienated ourselves from this inherent and constitutionally protected right.

Ontario’s attempt at regulating First Nation tobacco is an intrusion of our jurisdiction and in violation of

section 35 of the Canadian constitution.”

I had to be reminded of that. I’m the First Nations critic for our party, I reside in a riding where there are many Cree and Ojibway members in the communities that I represent, and I had to be reminded that the reality is that tobacco was a form of currency at one time within First Nations; it was a primary trading product. That might run against how we see an economy having to evolve, and we may not like the idea of the trading of tobacco, but it is a reality. First Nations have been trading tobacco for many, many years, and it’s been almost like a currency, to a certain extent, when it came to trading.

The point that the chief makes in this letter is that “We’ve always had, and we always view and shall always view that we have a right to produce tobacco and to sell it.” They’re okay with the idea of finding some regulatory authority about how you distribute the legal product within our society, and I think that’s what they want to talk about. But if you come at it strictly from the punitive side, we don’t like that, for the reasons I said up front as far as punitive is not as effective as being proactive at the front. The other

part is, it runs against the rights under the Constitution, afforded them under

section 35.

What I believe the chief is saying here, and I think it’s a good point, is that they understand that the government’s got a problem. They understand that society’s got a problem. They understand that something has to be done. But they’re saying your approach is the wrong one, and they’re saying, “Please come back and talk to us so that we can talk about how we move forward, so that we’re able to get the stated goal”—and I think there’s nobody in this House that disagrees.

I, as a New Democrat, as the member for Timmins–James Bay, as a father and a grandfather, understand and support ways of being able to promote people and be proactive so that they don’t use tobacco, something that is bad for the health, and that we need to find some way of dealing with that in a more proactive way.

Strictly saying that we’re going to go out and we’re going to fine people for the sale of illegal tobacco—which is actually a legal product, which is kind of funny—it seems to me that we’re really not dealing with the issue, because at the end of the day, people will buy it. If they can’t make it as contraband, they’ll pay the higher price, so let’s not kid ourselves. What we need to do is come at it from the other side, and I think that’s the point that he makes.

He goes on to say: “I understand that the legislation attempts to capture the interests of First Nations in

section 25, which enables the province to enter into agreements with bands for the purpose of administering the Tobacco Tax Act. This provision, however, only serves to facilitate the introduction of provincial regulation onto reserves through band consent and administration. It does not acknowledge the authority of First Nations to create their own regulations.”

I want to remind the government that in 2003, when they were elected, or shortly after, they talked about—and I applauded, along with Howard Hampton, our then leader, and other leaders in northern Ontario, this government for saying that they wanted to have a new relationship with First Nations; that they wanted to do away with the relationship that has existed in this province, that has existed in other provinces and has existed in this nation for years when it comes to dealing with First Nations so that we really do deal with First Nations on a government-to-government basis, have mutual respect and understanding of each other’s position and find ways to talk through how we work our way through the many issues that we have to deal with, for the First Nations, in this case, and sometimes, yes, for ourselves.

The government made that announcement.

I was quite heartened, quite frankly, when the announcement was made because it looked back at the date when Bob Rae signed the Statement of Political Relationship with First Nations. I’ve always believed that we need to try to find a way to be able to work together so that we can find solutions to the many problems that face First Nations. But when we see the government, time and time again—in Bill 191, the Far North planning act, and Bill 151, the new pricing system for forestry products. When we look at all kinds of initiatives that this government has had, it has flown in the face of that new relationship that the government says it wants to have.

What the chief is saying in this letter is, what you’re essentially doing is returning to a form of colonialism by basically saying, “We will impose on you what our solution is, and we’re not going to have the dialogue with you in order to find how we can both, First Nations and non-First Nations, get to the same end result”—which is, yes, trying to find a way to keep tobacco away from the reach of children and others.

He goes on to say: “The legislation is also mute on the point of provincial acceptance of federally licensed tobacco products.” This is important; this is very important, and I repeat this: “The legislation is also mute on the point of provincial acceptance of federally licensed tobacco products.” What he’s saying there is, the tobacco products that they produce are licensed under the federal government.

So here you’ve got the bands dealing with law as established by our federal Parliament, and the province is going in and basically trying to change the rules of the process without consultation with the federal or First Nations levels of government; just doing it on their own. He’s basically saying, “We’re doing what we’re asked to do under the law, and now you’re changing the game and you’re not even talking to us or the federal government about how that game should be changed.” I think that’s an important point.

“As a result,” he goes on to say, “the bill does little to advance the current impasse presented by Ontario’s unilateral imposition of its own regulations”—and this is the point that I made earlier. “Since the economic livelihood of many First Nation families is currently tied to the tobacco industry, it is of the utmost importance that legislation of this kind protects the inherent rights and interests of First Nations while respecting previously established regulatory authorities.”

So the first part of what he says is, “We’re working under the laws established by the federal government. If you want to change the game, it’s incumbent upon the province to bring the three parties together—the feds, the First Nations and the province—to come to some sort of accommodation about how this is to be done.”

If you’re going to say as a province, “We want you out of the tobacco business”—because, essentially, that’s what this legislation is doing, I believe—then it’s incumbent upon the province to try to find a way to stimulate some other type of economic activity at the very least within those First Nations so that people can go on to another way to make a living. You’ve got to be clear. You’ve got to say, “We accept that you are in a legal business. Tobacco is not a contraband product. We want to find a way with you to license your product so that we’re able to deal with those in the field who are doing it illegally.”

It seems to me that you’ve got one of three choices: You do nothing—and I don’t advocate that because I think you need to do something, and two is, you sit down with First Nations and you figure out a way that you can properly license the production and the distribution of tobacco from First Nations into society. Why is it that we have one rule for Rothmans and du Maurier and then we have another set of rules for First Nations? I just ask the question.

If Rothmans makes cigarettes, and du Maurier and Belvedere and Player’s etc—I don’t remember what all the other makes are—and they basically take a legal product, which is tobacco, and convert it into a cigarette or a cigar, whatever it might be, and then they sell it legally in stores in Ontario, why, all of a sudden, are we saying to First Nations, “You guys are illegal”? Then let’s shut down Rothmans and du Maurier.

It seems to me it only stands to reason that if you apply a law, it should be applied equally in the province. If the stated goal that we have is that we want to take tobacco out of our society, then make it illegal for anybody to sell tobacco. But what the First Nations are saying is that, in the case of tobacco, tobacco has been for some communities—and I wouldn’t say all; there is a limited amount of communities that make their living from tobacco, but there are some.

We either have to find a way to license them properly for the production and distribution of the product or, at the very least, it seems to me that the third choice the government has is to say, “Okay, let’s work with you to figure out how we properly prepare people to move to the new economy,” whatever that new economy might be.

I know this is not easy. Listen, I don’t pretend, to the minister who’s listening to this debate today, that it’s an easy solution. I recognize that this is a very difficult solution. But if you’re true to your principle that you set in 2003, which is wanting to have a new relationship with First Nations, then I think you’ve got no choice. Otherwise, the new relationship is the same old, same old.

It’s the same stuff that we’ve always had, where the provincial or federal government comes in and says, “Oh, my children, the First Nations, we know best, and we’re going to tell you how to do things because we know better than you.” I just say that to me, that seems like the wrong approach. I think the government was right in 2003 in wanting to have a new relationship and I think you need to prove that you’re serious about that new relationship.

He goes on to write, ”All levels of government are required to consult with First Nations on matters that may impact on their aboriginal and treaty rights. For this reason, AIAI had been in contact with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to begin identifying solutions to the many issues surrounding First Nation tobacco products.” He’s telling you in the letter to the minister that he recognizes that something has to be done. “But do it with us,” he says. “Don’t impose a solution on us.” And it goes back to my first point, which is, if you have a new relationship, please demonstrate that you do.

“With this in mind, it is curious that your ministry did not inform First Nations of this initiative until shortly before the tabling of the legislation. Furthermore, I am disturbed by the notion of First Nation input being sought only after the tabling of the legislation.”

I spoke to people who were involved in that meeting with the Chiefs of Ontario about a month ago. I do understand that the ministers had a bit of a rough ride in that meeting, because when the First Nations raised this issue with the ministers, First Nations were pretty hard in saying, “Hang on a second. We need to deal with these issues in a way that accommodates your need as a province and also accommodates our realities as First Nations. You’re moving without our consent. You’re moving without a discussion.

You’re moving without doing what needs to be done to live up to this new relationship,” and you had a pretty tough go. The ministers of the day then said, “Listen, we’re going to set up some meetings so that we can have a chat about this before we table the legislation.”

What ends up happening is, the night before the legislation is tabled, they get a phone call saying, “By the way, we’re tabling the legislation tomorrow morning.” Well, you can imagine, they were not exactly thrilled and excited—our First Nations brothers and sisters—when they heard that, because there is a constitutional guarantee that you must consult and accommodate under the Constitution. The chiefs reminded the ministers at the meeting, prior to the introduction of the legislation.

The ministers engaged in, “Yes, we will meet with you and try to work out the problems,” and the next thing you know, it’s, “By the way, the legislation is coming tomorrow.” Well, you can imagine they’re not exactly thrilled and excited about what has happened here.

To go on, it says, “As a consequence of this backward process, we now have a limited opportunity within a constrained time frame to broaden the scope of the legislation so that it protects the rights and interests of First Nations. These circumstances are further undermining the relationship between Ontario and First Nations”—to my first point that I made earlier—“one that the Liberal government committed to recognizing through its participation in the Ipperwash Inquiry Priorities and Action Committee.” This, again, was something that the government undertook that I thought made some sense.

Let’s learn from Ipperwash and let’s move forward and never repeat those mistakes again. What they’re essentially saying is that you’re forgetting the commitments you made, not only under the new relationship pledge but also under the priorities and action committee of the Ipperwash inquiry.

He closes by saying, “I therefore request that you remove Bill 186 from the consideration of the Legislative Assembly until proper consultations and negotiations between Ontario and First Nations have taken place and a win-win solution is reflected in this legislation.”

It’s pretty clear: You don’t have the support of the First Nations. I recognize it would be a difficult thing to try to figure out how we make this happen. I recognize that. If I was the minister, I would recognize that there’s some work to be done to get to an agreement. I don’t pretend that it’s going to be easy for the provincial government.

I just want to end on this point: You have made a pledge and a commitment to First Nations, and that is, that you are going to have a new relationship. When you see examples like this, where the government is not living up to that relationship, I think it drives First Nations further and further away, and that is not something that serves the interests of Ontario, our citizens and our country in the way that it should.

I ask the government to take into consideration what has been said, not only by myself, but what has been said by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. I think you need to live up to your commitment and to do what you said you would do, and that is to have this new relationship with First Nations that they so much want.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments relative to the comments of the member for Timmins–James Bay?

Mr. Bob Delaney: I found the member’s comments very helpful and edifying. I just want to remind people what it is that the legislation is there to do. It’s there to prevent youth from starting to smoke. It’s there to enhance smoking cessation resources and supports. The member touched upon one aspect of the legislation’s objectives of reducing the availability of cheap and illegal tobacco.

The member made some good points regarding Ontario’s relationships with First Nations, and I need to bring the member back to this focus on the other two parts: preventing youth from starting to smoke, enhancing smoking cessation resources and supports, and the part that he discussed, reducing the availability of cheap and illegal tobacco.

It’s an issue that requires the support of, not merely our partners in First Nations, but also the federal government, the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba—our neighbouring jurisdictions—and the bordering US states. The member knows as much as we do that illegal tobacco hurts our communities and threatens more than a decade of success in Ontario’s fight to control tobacco and to reduce its consumption.

This is a whole new initiative, if you will, where traditional sources of tobacco have actually seen their share of the market decline, and this cheap and illicit tobacco, as said, rather than be part of the solution, the purveyors of it—and I’m not suggesting that the First Nations are the sole purveyors of it, but those who are involved in the production, the distribution and the sale of illegal smokes—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Am I out of time?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): You are. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to enter into debate with my colleague from Timmins–James Bay. I often enjoy his interventions in debate because he will often bring the experiences his constituents have on a particular bill to this floor. He is also a great champion of natives in our province and of the north, and I appreciate that. He raises some very valid points.

I believe that the big challenge that we have with this legislation on this side of the House—and as I’ve mentioned in my leadoff, we will be supporting it because some of these efforts need to be done. We just feel in the official opposition that more ought to have been done earlier, and that’s why there’s an awful lot of room for criticism of this government through its eight years of allowing the illegal contraband tobacco trade to continue, which has forced illegal and contraband cigarettes into the hands of Ontario’s youth. It has also reduced revenues by anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion annually as a result of their lack of enforcement.

I think in this whole debate, the most poignant quote came through my colleague from Thornhill about a year ago, and it came from Police Chief Bill Blair from Toronto, who said—and I paraphrase, because I don’t have the quote in front of me—that because they’ve allowed the illegal contraband tobacco/drug trade to occur, a lot of that money is going towards guns on our streets. The reality is that there is a huge underground economy and there is a huge linkage with organized crime that could have been dealt with eight years ago, and on the eve of this Parliament rising, we’re now dealing with it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parkdale–High Park for questions and comments.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always engaging to listen to the member from Timmins–James Bay. He knows his stuff. What we didn’t hear from the government side in response was an answer to his fundamental question, which is, why did this government not consult with First Nations before they moved ahead with a bill that clearly had to do with First Nations and First Nations constitutional rights? We haven’t heard a word on that from the government side.

Listen, if the government wanted to just punish those who purvey cigarettes, this bill doesn’t do it very well, it doesn’t have many teeth, and the OPP themselves have said they’re stretched already just enforcing the laws that are already on the books. So it doesn’t punish well, and it certainly—in contrast to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville—does not help kids not start smoking. It doesn’t do anything in the prevention field. This bill does neither well.

In fact, what it has done, and the only thing it has done well, is to insult First Nations, insult their constitutional rights and refuse to engage with them in any kind of meaningful consultation. Yet again, we’ve seen other examples of that in this House. The member from Timmins–James Bay has stood on many occasions on behalf of First Nations and talked about their rights and the fact that this government, really, despite their promises in 2003, have not followed through on that portfolio.

So I’m looking forward to his summation, but it would be very interesting, I would think, if in further debate the government would actually answer the challenge that the member from Timmins–James Bay brought before us; that is, why did this government not consult with First Nations about a project that has been part of really their métier since the beginning of time in this country? That I wait for.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I’m very pleased to comment on this bill. First of all, the bill has two objectives, really: to prevent youth from starting smoking; and, secondly, to stop contraband cigarette distribution.

Our government is taking action to increase oversight of the distribution of raw leaf tobacco in the province and to permit police to seize illegal tobacco found in plain view. I was shocked just lately when I walked into a long-term-care facility and saw a man walk in with a bag of 250 cigarettes and sell those cigarettes to the people—I would call them patients—the residents of this long-term-care facility.

Besides this, I remember being on a standing committee way back after I got elected the first time in 1995—we used to call it the Ombudsman standing committee. At the time, the Ombudsman was Mrs. Jamieson. Mrs. Jamieson came to the committee and recommended to the government of the time that we should look seriously at giving or authorizing a licence to a First Nation to manufacture cigarettes. That was turned down. Probably, it was a mistake at the time. If we had done it, we probably would have proper control on these illegal or contraband cigarettes.

Let me tell you, going back last year, we found out in an

article in the paper that they even found animal skin in the tobacco of cigarettes that came from Asian countries. Really, we want better control over this, and that’s exactly what our government is—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member from Timmins–James Bay, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My, my, my, where do I start? Sometimes it gets a bit frustrating in this place. I think we’re all trying to do the right thing. I don’t give a darn if you’re a Liberal, New Democrat or Conservative; we all come at it from a bit of a different perspective, but we try to do the right thing. Unfortunately, because of the way this Parliament, over the years—the power has run from this very chamber to the corner office of the Premier. I don’t mean just Dalton McGuinty, but it’s gone on for far too long. This place becomes less relevant, because we don’t learn from the debates, we don’t learn from each other to the degree that we need to.

I was very cautious in my comments about this particular bill. I said at the very beginning that I understand what the government is trying to do. If I was the minister, I would be trying to find a solution as well because there’s some very real problems that have to be dealt with. But essentially, there are two things that I was trying to say, and unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if much of it is going to be taken heed of. And that is, if we want to deal with the use of contraband tobacco, let’s do so, but let’s do so with a strategy that involves the First Nations, because, yes, they are part of the source.

They’re not the only, and I argue they’re not even the major source, but they are part of the source, and we need to find some way of dealing with that. What I suggested was that you had three approaches: Do nothing, which I don’t favour; try to find a way to fix regulation so that it achieves the objective that we all want and, at the same time, respects that right of First Nations under the Constitution and lives up to the commitment of the government; and/or find something else for these people to do. That’s the other option, and that’s very difficult, I understand.

But the other part was that there’s no emphasis on the promotion side. We can make this stuff as illegal as you want, and you can lock people in jail, but at the end of the day, people will still buy contraband tobacco. Why? Because it’s cheaper, and that’s what drives people to buy it. So we need to find other solutions to this problem as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The member for Oak Ridges–Markham. I don’t know why I had a block against that; I apologize.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It’s a very beautiful and wonderful riding, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is a pleasure to enter into the debate on Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Certainly, the war against tobacco is something that I’ve been involved in for at least 25 years. In my former capacity as the medical officer of health for York region, I had the opportunity to observe, in fact, both previous governments and the actions that they took in this regard.

But I’d like to actually go back even further. Our colleague from Timmins–James Bay did allude to the groundbreaking work that was first done by the US Surgeon General Luther Terry in 1964 with his report on smoking and health, where gradually the awareness of the harms not only of tobacco use but also of second-hand smoke were brought to the fore in North America.

It was remarkable that US Surgeon General Everett Koop released, first in 1982, a whole series of reports related to smoking and health—literally, in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1988. He showed not only that smoking caused more deaths from heart disease than from cancer but also that smoking was the major cause of illness and death from chronic obstructive lung disease in the United States. He also mentioned very specifically that nicotine was a highly addictive substance, even likening it to cocaine and heroin addiction.

We’ve heard in the House, over the course of the debate on this bill, many stories about family members or individual members here who have struggled with this highly addictive substance.

This is why legislation in this regard is not easy. You’re dealing with scientific evidence. You’re dealing with, perhaps, very powerful lobby groups. You’re dealing with a substance that people like. So it’s not in the least surprising, in fact, that legislation to control tobacco has taken us so long. I see Bill 186 as an excellent additional, incremental step in this war against tobacco use, and essentially, I truly believe that this should be a non-partisan issue. I’m very optimistic that all parties will see fit to vote in favour of this legislation. It certainly deserves that consideration, and we have heard some positive remarks in that regard.

I do want to acknowledge, going back to when I was first the medical officer of health in York region in 1988, on the health committee, that the regional councillors on that committee all smoked. As a new and enthusiastic medical officer of health, I did bring to the attention of the regional chairman that I felt this was entirely inappropriate in view of the literature, the science, that was known at the time. I’m happy to say: January 1, 1989, the health committee of York Regional council was smoke-free.

However, we knew that we had to do far more than simply make some symbolic changes like that. I was extremely involved in the early 1990s as president of the public health association at that time and came to this Legislature and spoke at committee in favour of the NDP government’s legislation, the 1994 Tobacco Control Act. It was far-reaching. It prohibited selling or supplying tobacco to anyone under the age of 19. Vendors were responsible for ensuring that customers were of legal age by requiring photo identification. There was a requirement to post age restrictions, health warnings etc. In fact, the emphasis was very much on education.

After the passage of the Tobacco Control Act, local public health units were charged with enforcing the legislation. Certainly in York region, we took the approach that with education we would see real societal change. I remember that at that committee hearing we urged the province at that time—we, the health professionals that appeared—to go even further. However, in the judgment of the government of the day, we felt that, fundamentally, it was over to municipalities to pass bylaws to regulate smoking in their own jurisdictions.

In York region, it took us some six years to get a regional bylaw. The region of York is composed of some nine area municipalities, and we had to obtain a triple majority in order to pass a region-wide bylaw. What that meant was that we needed at least five municipalities to agree to the bylaw, those five municipalities had to make up a majority of the population of York region, and then we had to have a majority on regional council to have a region-wide bylaw.

I’m actually delighted because my assistant in that struggle in York region was an individual named Soo Wong. She’s a public health nurse; lately, a Toronto school board trustee. She was my right-hand woman to go and educate area municipalities and all the stakeholders—the restaurants, the bars and so on—in York region in order to pass our regional bylaw. I was so delighted last Saturday, May 7, to be at the nomination of Soo Wong as our Liberal candidate in the riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. I know that should she be successful on October 6, she will bring great expertise in this particular area given her great experience with York region public health.

Having passed our municipal bylaw in York region, what we of course discovered was that there were issues around boundaries, certainly for York region. The city of Toronto had a somewhat different bylaw; the same with Durham region and Peel. We started approaching the then government to say that clearly there was a need for province-wide legislation. I must say that in the late 1990s we felt—and I’m rather surprised by the Conservative caucus members who stood up and urged us to do more. They had every opportunity during the Harris-Eves years to do far more in terms of moving towards province-wide legislation.

I will mention, however, that the minister of the day, Elizabeth Witmer, did make some forward progress. She did convene an expert panel in 1999. It was composed of tobacco control decision-makers and they consulted with experts across Canada and the United States to, in fact, look at a renewal of the Ontario tobacco strategy and look at best practices, especially from the US Centers for Disease Control. But in terms of actual forward movement, there was very little during those years.

I’m happy to say that when the McGuinty government took office in 2003, those of us who were still in the field renewed our pressure for province-wide legislation. I was certainly delighted, in 2005, to know that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act’s passage would do a great deal in this ongoing war, yet another very positive step forward. The creation of the Ministry of Health Promotion also shows that our government has placed a very high premium on the value of health promotion programs, education and gradual societal change.

Now, coming to the issue of contraband—of course, this issue is not new at all. In the early 1990s there was a major issue. Tobacco taxes were actually reduced by the federal government and the effect of the deliberations over where tobacco taxes should go—they were quite high—meant that contraband was very much in evidence in Ontario. Some of the statistics, though, recently have become very alarming, so that over the last few years the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit has released a special report. They released this January 2005—actually, they released it in June 2006.

They were looking at statistics over some 18 months, from 2005 to 2006. Their finding was that some 37% of Ontario smokers purchased cigarettes on reserve, with 26% saying they had done so in the past six months. The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council also released a study that concluded that contraband in Canada is increasing and their statistics showed that some 22% of cigarettes smoked in Canada were illegal and that that had increased from some 16.5% in 2006.

Of course, their point was also that government was losing some $1.6 billion per year in tax revenues, and in Ontario, that amount was estimated at some $449 million.

It was also noted that the primary sources of contraband were on First Nation reserves in the St. Lawrence basin.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): It being 10:15, pursuant to standing order 8, this House will be in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I just wanted to wish my dad a happy birthday. He turns 72 today.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m very pleased to introduce, from Kitchener-Waterloo Counselling Services, the executive director, Leslie Josling; president of the board, Wayne Hobbs; and a director, Liz Watson-Palermo, here today for family services day. I know that Dr. Sue Horton is here as well. Congratulations.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to introduce four people from my riding who are here from the beautiful town of Bobcaygeon. They’re here in the west members’ gallery: Jim and Carol Young, and Lorna and Andy Harris.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m very pleased to be able to introduce members of Family Services York Region: Elisha Laker, the executive director; Mariana Benitez, the clinical director; and Susan Warren, manager of Families and Schools Together, group and cultural support services. Please help me welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to welcome Mr. Raymond Boyer, executive director of the Sudbury Counselling Centre, who is here for family services day today. He does great work in the community, and I’m happy to have him here with us in the Legislature today.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to introduce two people from my riding: Deborah Lavender from Halton Family Services, and Susan Jewett from Burlington Counselling and Family Services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re here even from Timmins–James Bay. We have Richard Lambert-Bélanger, who is the executive director of the Timmins unit, and we also have Garry Dent from the community of Kapuskasing.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Joining us in the west members’ gallery are page Melanie Soltau’s parents, Tony and Karen, and it looks like grandmother Gloria Richards has decided to join them as well.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d like to introduce a couple of individuals from my riding. First, with the Ontario Community Support Association, Patti Lennox is here. She is the supervisor of caregiver support services at Community and Primary Health Care.

I’d also like to introduce Allan Hogan, who’s the executive director of Family and Children’s Services of Leeds and Grenville. He’s here for Family Service Ontario day.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s a great day in the Legislature today. There are several people from London. First, I’d like to introduce Bev Noble and Sandra Savage. They’re with Family Service Thames Valley.

I’d also like to introduce Brian Dunne from Participation House, who’s here for Ontario Community Support Association day.

And I’d like to introduce Diego Ortiz, a constituent of mine from London North Centre.

Welcome, all.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome Mr. Steve Rudback to Queen’s Park today. He’s the father of page Allison Rudback, and he’s here to watch his daughter in action today. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Rudback.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Jon Thompson, executive director of Riverside Community Counselling Services in Fort Frances. He too is here as part of the family services day. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I have a number of guests today as well. Alan McQuarrie is the executive director of the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing, and he’s here with board member Derek Thompson. They’re way up there, and we welcome them.

I also want to welcome today my good friends Jason and Nancy Corbett. Many of my colleagues will know Jason. He was my constituency assistant for many years. They’re here today to enjoy the Legislature. Welcome, Jason and Nancy.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome Sue Stinson from Peterborough, who is here with the Ontario Community Support Association; and also, Kelsey Ingram, who is the daughter of His Honour Judge Alan Ingram and Dr. Jenny Ingram, from Peterborough.

Mr. David Caplan: Two wonderful volunteers from Don Valley East are here: Diana Dong and Jane Wu. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to introduce the grade 12 class from Stephen Lewis Secondary School in my riding of Mississauga–Erindale. Together with their teachers Ryan Harper and Michelle Smith, they are seated in the west gallery. I want to welcome them to question period and to the Legislature as well.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to introduce some guests from Catholic Family Services Peel-Dufferin: Executive Director Mark Creedon; Acting Board President Jim Leising; board member Ehsan Khandaker; and from the Catholic Family Services Peel-Dufferin mentorship sistering program: Theresa Koutzodimos, Margaret Czach, Valerie Anderson, Parveen Sodhi and Lama Osman. They’re here for family services day at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce Heather Bebb, the executive director of the Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County. She’s in the gallery up above.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome in the members’ east gallery from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre, here for family services day, Nancy Chamberlain, the executive director of the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre; Abi Sprakes, the manager of clinical services; Darlene Niemi, a board member from Children’s Centre Thunder Bay—a great example of partnership between agencies in the community of Thunder Bay; and Connie McLeod, a past board member of the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre who is now a board member of Family Service Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’d like to introduce April Zheng, mother of the great page Viktor Zhou, who’s here with us in the gallery today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today, and ask the members to do so, regional councillor Bruce Timms from St. Catharines.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m delighted to see my friend the executive director of Stratford family services, Susan Melkert, here today. Welcome.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to introduce to you today the family services groups that are here in the House for family services day. I would like to welcome them, especially John Ellis, the executive director, and Alex MacDougall, the board president.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome as well Patricia Hollingsworth, the executive director of the Northumberland Community Counselling Centre. She does a great job, along with her whole team.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Like my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, I want to welcome members from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre. But I also want to introduce Carol Cline from the Catholic Family Development Centre in Thunder Bay as well. Welcome, Caroline.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I just want to introduce Vivi Dong from Norstar Times, a major Chinese publication in the Scarborough area, who is visiting with us today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I am absolutely delighted to introduce to the Legislature distinguished members from the government of Cuba. They are Her Excellency, Madam Carmelina Ramirez Rodriguez; the consul general, Jorge Soberón; and the minister counsellor of the Republic of Cuba, Antonio Rodriguez Valcarcel. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome, Ambassador—it’s nice to see you again—and Consul General. It’s a pleasure to have you here today.

On behalf of page Hamza Naim and the member from Ajax–Pickering, we’d like to welcome his mother, Sylvia Naim, and his father, Mohammed Naim, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery for family service day here at Queen’s Park, I’d like to welcome Sandra Savage, Bev Noble, Alex Connoy and Martha Connoy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the press gallery this morning, I’d like to welcome the press gallery summer intern, Chris Herhalt. Chris will be working with the Queen’s Park press gallery until September. He will then be returning to Carleton University to complete his studies in journalism. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Chris.

With all the introductions today, anybody who was not formally introduced, welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, I laid out a PC plan to help give families relief from skyrocketing hydro bills by ending your sweetheart Samsung deal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. That took a grand total of 18 seconds for interjections, and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of the Environment. Member from Sault Ste. Marie. Member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Ontario PCs will end your sweetheart Samsung deal and the massive subsidies through your FIT program to give Ontario families the break they need.

Later on this afternoon, we’ll continue our efforts to give average families a break with our motion to call on the McGuinty Liberals to stop raising taxes on Ontario families. I know you’re addicted to tax increases. I know that’s the path that the McGuinty Liberals want to go down. Our motion calls on you to stop your tax increases.

Will you just be direct? Minister, is your plan to increase the HST, to bring in a carbon tax, the eco taxes, or all of the above?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The official opposition introduced a job-killing policy yesterday—a job-killing policy that will undermine the development of a new sector in this economy and that will undermine the development of a range of communities, from Windsor through to Ottawa.

Let me give you some of the reaction to your announcement yesterday. Here’s what a fellow named Paco Caudet, the general manager of Siliken Group, a Spanish manufacturer of solar panels, said: “We would have no more basis to operate here”—I’m sorry; it was Klaus Dohring, the president of Green Sun Rising. “It would have a devastating effect (on the sector).”

I will give more quotes to the Leader of the Opposition. We will stop you and your job-killing plan. We’re going to stand up for Ontarians. New jobs, a greener economy and a healthier economic future for—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: On October 6, the Ontario PCs will stand up for Ontario families and end this job-killing government that has chased 300,000 manufacturing jobs from our province.

There are two things that you’re guaranteed from the McGuinty Liberals: one, hydro bills will go through the roof; and, two, you will raise taxes once again.

We’re simply asking you, Minister, wouldn’t it be a bit more honest just to say right now what your plan is? Are you going to increase the HST by one point, or is it two? Are you going to bring in a carbon tax? Are you going to bring in the eco tax, or all three of the above? We remember Premier McGuinty swearing he wouldn’t raise taxes. He has done it over and over again.

Minister, are you really going to go for the hat trick and increase the HST once again?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Under the next McGuinty government, there will be no carbon tax and there will be no increase in the HST.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton. The Minister of Education. The member from Burlington. The member from Oxford. The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan. The member from Sarnia–Lambton. The member from Nepean. The member from Oxford. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We won’t allow that party to kill more jobs in Ontario. We will stop you in your tracks. We’re going to speak up for Ontario farmers. You want to take away their feed-in-tariff contracts.

The Leader of the Opposition didn’t tell the full story. The feed-in tariff is important to develop a new industry, cleaner energy and new jobs in rural and urban Ontario. That leader and his party will kill them. The people of Ontario will stop you dead in your tracks.

We’re going to stand up for new, clean jobs with the tax regime we have today that will build a better future for our children and for our province.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: So now we’ve seen the Liberal campaign slogan: “The McGuinty Liberals won’t raise your taxes. This time, we really mean it.” Minister, come on. We’ve seen this movie before. In 2003, Premier McGuinty said, “I won’t increase taxes.” He nailed families with the so-called health tax. In 2007, he said, “This time I won’t raise your taxes; I mean it.” He hit us with the greedy HST tax grab.

Minister, people are on to you. Won’t you admit it today: Your plan is to increase the HST and hit Ontario families once again?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Boy, the wisdom from pages. We just had an interesting discussion—the observations of pages.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: People are on to the Leader of the Opposition. They know now that he will kill jobs in favour of opening the market to competition. What happened last time they did that? Prices spiked 40%. Then they had to cap them. They know that you want to close hospitals, lay off nurses, fire teachers and undermine the gains we’ve made in health care and education that benefit this economy.

We have an economy that’s growing again. We have recovered the jobs that were lost in the downturn and more. We will continue to build a new clean renewable energy sector in Ontario that benefits our farmers, that benefits our cities, that benefits our children and that builds a better future for all Ontarians.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier: Our motion later today calls on the McGuinty Liberals to stop raising taxes on Ontario families who have been hit many times by Liberal tax increases before. They’re hit by $1.41 gasoline, where your HST is costing them 10 cents more a litre. The McGuinty Liberals’ response? Well, they scrambled and cobbled together their own motion that says that the McGuinty Liberals won’t raise taxes; they won’t cut them either. That sounds familiar. We remember that story from 2003, when you signed the Taxpayer Protection Act, and then, once you had the keys to the Premier’s office, you ripped up your promise to Ontario families and jacked up taxes.

Deputy Premier, Ontario families won’t be fooled again. They want change. They—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition is simply manufacturing this to fill the void in what he hasn’t said. He hasn’t said he’s going to cut the HST, but we think he is, and he’s going to take $3 billion out of health care. He has now confirmed that he’s going to kill the green energy sector, a growing sector that will help clean up our environment, that will give us better power and a better future. He said that.

They said before they wouldn’t close hospitals, and they closed 18 hospitals when given the chance. We’re building new hospitals, we’re hiring nurses, and we’re hiring teachers. We’re creating full-day learning; we know they’re going to cancel that.

This is all about a better future for Ontario. We’ve laid out a plan. It’s clear and consistent. Their secret agenda will undermine the growth of this province and lead, in our view, to a return to the dark days of Harris economics in—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: There are two things guaranteed from McGuinty Liberals: You’ll increase hydro rates, and you’ll raise taxes on families once again.

The Ontario PCs will stand up for hard-working families. We’ll give them relief on the skyrocketing hydro bills and we will cut taxes across the board to give families relief and the chance to catch up. To date, Minister, you took $3 billion from the so-called health tax. You took $3 billion from your HST tax grab. You took $1 billion by turning the debt retirement charge into a permanent tax grab, but you still have a $17-billion deficit. My question is simple: How many points do you have to increase the HST to pay off your $17-billion deficit?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition yesterday gave us a preview of what Ontario will look like. He’s going to kill 16,000 direct and indirect jobs in the green energy sector. He is going to cut money from health care; he’s going to cut $3 billion from health care. He is going to shut down full-day learning in kindergarten and junior kindergarten. He is going to do what Mike Harris did to municipalities, downloading costs to municipalities, which represented a huge tax increase to all ratepayers. Ontarians have seen that movie. They will reject it—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North will withdraw the comment that he directed to the minister.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m not sure what I said to the minister.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw the comment, whatever it was.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No. Just an unequivocal withdrawal.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Withdraw.

Interjection: I didn’t say anything.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You did say something.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound may want to lobby his leader for a question.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I wish they’d withdraw what they said yesterday, that they’re going to kill jobs in Ontario. We’re going to continue to lower taxes, which we’ve done. We’re going to continue to build a clean, green renewable sector—better environment, better health care, better education and a better future for all Ontarians.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s a simple matter of arithmetic: Either our spending must be restrained to meet our revenues or our taxes must be raised to pay for all the McGuinty Liberal spending. The McGuinty Liberals won’t tell you what they’ll do, but we all know: McGuinty Liberals will raise taxes. It’s what you always do. You can’t help it.

The Ontario PCs will not. We will cut taxes across the board, give families a break they deserve. Why are you bound and determined to increase taxes on the backs of Ontario families? You’ve already killed 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs. It’s time for change that will give families the relief they deserve.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: When we cut income taxes for Ontario’s families, he voted against it. When we lowered the business rates for small businesses, he voted against it. When we created the Ontario clean energy benefit to reduce energy prices by 10% for all Ontarians, he voted against it.

He has now confirmed that they will cut nurses from our hospitals. If you’re a nurse in this province, watch out for that party. If you’re a teacher in this province, watch out for that party. If you’re a student in school, anywhere from junior kindergarten to post-secondary, watch out for that party, because they’re coming after you. They’re coming after your future.

We’re going to fight them and we’re going to beat them on October 6.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sergeant-at-Arms, can you confirm that there is a defibrillator outside the door, please? I’m a little concerned about the energy coming out of some members today.

I would just remind members on both sides—and actually this is not even directed to the third party, but it’s directed to the government and the loyal opposition—that we have a number of guests here. We have a group of students up here, probably grade 10 civics students, who we are trying to ensure receive a good education in this province, an education that demonstrates respect for different opinions, allowing somebody to speak and listening to an answer. I would just remind everyone of the example that we’re trying to instill in them. What’s happening in here is not useful for our future leaders.

New question.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year, New Democrats requested information relating to the government’s unfair HST. In January 2010, the freedom-of-information coordinator recommended that the government release information immediately. Can the Acting Premier explain why this request was delayed until May 2010?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m proud of our record of compliance with freedom of information, which is higher than any other previous government. The information she has referenced has been released, and I look forward to continuing to work under the auspices of that particular act and the regulations that ensure true, better, more transparent government for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On January 19, 2010, the staff responsible for the freedom-of-information act wrote an email to the finance minister’s political staff recommending that two documents related to our freedom-of-information request be mailed the following day. In response, a member of the minister’s political staff emailed, “Please phone me before this.” The documents were then delayed for four months, conveniently close to the end of that session. If this wasn’t another case of political interference, what was it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It was an email, and I remind the leader of the third party that all the information requested has been released in accordance with the act.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, in January of last year, the civil service recommended that information about the HST be sent out that day. Political staff in the minister’s office intervened, and the information went into limbo for four whole months. Will the Acting Premier disclose what was discussed in the phone call that resulted in that delay?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: “Limbo” is not in the Ministry of Finance. I’m not privy to what was in that phone conversation. It may have been in fact to make sure the information was being released. I don’t know the answer to that.

What I know is this: All the information requested has been released, it’s in public hands, it’s been subject to questions here and subject to debate across the province, and we look forward to that kind of transparency and accountability moving forward.

GASOLINE PRICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Acting Premier: This morning, gas prices are averaging $1.37 a litre across Ontario and are approaching $1.50 a litre in northern communities like Wawa and Marathon. Many people just don’t know how they’re going to cope with these rising prices. Why is this government cutting corporate taxes for banks and oil companies that make millions speculating on gas prices while drivers are being asked to pay more and more and more?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, the leader is right: This phenomenon that is happening around the world is seeing gas prices—I saw last night that here in Toronto it went up to $1.416 at a couple of service stations downtown. I believe they are in fact at $1.50 and higher in some northern communities, which we think is very problematic for families and for our whole economy.

The challenge for all governments is to determine what steps are appropriate to deal with this, what steps will in fact help consumers, help the economy. Those are complicated questions; they’re complicated by who has jurisdiction. For instance, anti-combines legislation is the jurisdiction of the federal government. It’s further complicated by a range of other issues related to the tax system. I look forward to a further discussion with the leader after her supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are looking for any help that they can get, but the McGuinty Liberals have different priorities. The mom who has to drop the kids off at child care and then drive to work isn’t getting any help at all. There’s no plan to confront gas price gouging. In fact, there is a new tax on the cost of filling up. But the McGuinty Liberals are offering some relief to the corporations making record profits off the high prices of gasoline. When will this government start actually putting the people of this province first?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, those tax policies have helped businesses that are being negatively impacted by the price of gasoline. Does she not think, for instance, that our auto manufacturers have to ship product both into the plant and out of the plant? She’s taking what I would call a very short-term view of this thing and, frankly, not really dealing with the problem.

A couple of issues: first, we would call on the federal government to exercise its power under the anti-combines act to look at collusive pricing among oil companies. That is one thing that could happen. The federal government also has some $300 million in special tax cuts for the oil industry. The Prime Minister has said he’ll get rid of them by 2015. Ontario says, “Get rid of them today.” That’s what we ought to be doing, that’s where a difference can be made, and we would support those moves immediately.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s this Liberal government that is not doing anything to deal with the problem. The McGuinty Liberals refuse to even discuss a plan to confront gas price gouging. They don’t want to make things better. Then they brought in the HST, which actually made things even worse. Now, I know this government doesn’t care about helping people who are paying more at the pumps every day, but are they willing to reconsider their corporate tax giveaways to businesses making a fortune from those very gas prices?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We want to help the forestry sector in northern Ontario get back on its feet. They have to buy gasoline and other oil products. We want to continue to build that northern economy. We want to help small businesses. That’s why we cut the small business rate by 17% to help them at a time when the dollar is going up and the price of oil is going up.

With respect to consumers, we now have the lowest tax rate on the first $37,000 of income, which that member voted against. We have the most generous sales tax credits in Canada on the HST.

Those are the right moves. Now it’s up to the federal government to exercise its proper authority under anti-combines legislation and get rid of the special tax cuts for oil companies in the country.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The Ontario PC leader understands that families are squeezed by all of Premier McGuinty’s increases to skyrocketing hydro bills. It’s why he announced yesterday that an Ontario PC government will give families relief from paying a $7-billion tab for a sweetheart Samsung deal you’re adding to hydro bills. Premier McGuinty is so out of touch he thinks Ontario families can afford to pay, so you mocked the relief that we would provide Ontario families. It backfired badly when you didn’t even know the details of the $7-billion sweetheart deal that you signed. Did you only get a blacked-out copy of the deal as well?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Interesting question. I want to share a quote from the Tillsonburg News with the member opposite. This is what it said: It said that Siemens is currently in the process of hiring around 300 permanent employees for their blade plant. It said that renovations at the plant are currently under way, creating 600 additional construction jobs. Let me quote directly from the

article as it refers to a comment made by the member for Oxford: “Hardeman said the province’s deal with Samsung and Siemens could survive under a Tory government.... ”

That stands in stark contrast to the very comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday. I think workers—the thousands of workers that your plan is going to put out of work across this province—deserve to know: Who is calling the shots over there? Who is right? Is it the leader—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would just ask the government members to be respectful of their own minister. Your own minister was up answering a question and you are shouting him down.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I don’t think he tried to answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You just asked the question. You should be listening very hard for the answer.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: An Ontario PC government will stand up for families and seniors; you stick with a $7-billion sweetheart deal by adding it to their hydro bills. Premier McGuinty chooses his foreign multinational corporations over Ontario families. He is so out of touch with Ontario families that he thinks they have an unlimited ability to pay for his sweetheart deal. You’ll say and do anything to keep—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’ll say and do anything to keep Ontario families paying for a $7-billion sweetheart deal that hasn’t produced a single watt of power or the jobs that you promised.

But it turns out you don’t understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies. Your minister is sitting right behind you. He needs to hear the question.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Whoever is playing the little trumpet under their breath can cease.

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But it turns out that you don’t understand the deal you signed, or you haven’t read it. How could you stick Ontario families with paying a $7-billion tab for a sweetheart Samsung deal that you haven’t even bothered to read?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to share with the member opposite what the mayor of Windsor thinks about the announcement of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday: “We all know in this region that the Green Energy Act gave birth to the renewable energy sector in this province, and has created thousands and thousands of jobs. If anybody has any doubts about the jobs being created I would invite them to the city of Windsor and we’ll certainly give them a guided tour of the employment lines where people are now finding jobs and opportunities that once did not exist.”

My colleagues from Windsor and I would like to cordially invite the member opposite and his leader to Windsor so that he could meet with those workers face to face: the thousands of workers in Windsor who are getting employment through our Green Energy Act and who they want to put out of work. Perhaps they can explain to those workers why they want to put them out of work. Just—

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

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue dureé. The McGuinty government has promised to open 25 nurse-practitioner-led clinics by 2011, yet as of today, only eight clinics are funded and operating. That leaves 17 clinics that have been announced but have not been funded.

Nine out of 10 Ontarians face unacceptable primary health care wait times and one in 11 has no access to primary care. Will the minister open the 17 remaining nurse-practitioner-led clinics, clinics that she promised? Will she open them before the next election?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this very innovative approach in Ontario, the nurse-practitioner-led clinics. What I can tell you is that people from across the country and beyond are looking at this model because they really do believe, as I know the member opposite does, that this is part of what we need to do to improve access to primary health care.

I am delighted that we learned from the pilot in Sudbury and have announced 25 more nurse-practitioner-led clinics that are opening right across this province. I can tell you, last week I was in Essex with the member from Essex to open the newest nurse-practitioner-led clinic. I can tell you that the patients who were there are ecstatic about the care they are receiving, and the professionals who are working there are also—

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

M me France Gélinas: I take from this that the promise will be filled for eight out of 25 and not filled for 17 out of 25.

The minister knows that there are serious problems accessing primary care in Ontario, and she knows that adequate numbers of nurses working to their full scope of practice is an essential piece of relieving that pressure. Yet today, Ontario has the second-lowest registered-nurse-to-population ratio in all of Canada, and nurse practitioners still do not have open prescribing rights. If we want to address Ontario’s problem in primary care, we must strengthen nursing in Ontario.

Minister, will nurse practitioners have open prescribing before October’s election?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that our commitment to improving access to primary care is as strong as can be. We have seen tremendous progress: 1.2 million more Ontarians with access to primary care than when we took office. We are now at 94% of Ontarians with access to primary care. It’s not as high as we’d like it to be, but we have made tremendous progress, and we’re committed to actually continuing with that progress.

We believe that having access to primary care is fundamental to the strength of our health care system, and that’s why we have taken the steps we have. I was very pleased yesterday to be part of an announcement: 170 more doctors have chosen Ontario than have left Ontario. We have reversed the brain drain, and that’s only—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The Leader of the Opposition has just brazenly criticized the McGuinty government’s work in creating jobs through the FIT program and the Green Energy Act. At a time when our province’s economy is on the road to successful recovery, the member opposite is promising to kill good Ontario jobs if his party is elected this October. This makes no economic sense.

As a result of the McGuinty government’s green energy initiatives, one of the world’s largest solar companies decided to locate its solar panel manufacturing plant in my riding, supporting 500 jobs. And I know that many more ridings have got green energy jobs.

Can the minister explain why any party would vow to—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to attempt—attempt—to understand the rationale between that opposition leader and his policy released yesterday to gut the Green Energy Act, which is exactly what he announced.

It is extremely disturbing when the number one issue for people is jobs. The number one is, how are we recovering our economy, when his buddy the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said, “a fragile economic recovery.” We need stability. The worst thing that we could see in a business investment climate is instability, which is what the Leader of the Opposition introduced.

It isn’t just in Guelph where we see the hundreds of jobs. There are hundreds of jobs in every pocket of Ontario related to the new green industry. It is nonsense. It’s just incomprehensible that they would choose this tack to actually kill jobs in Ontario when we need more jobs in Ontario—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: There’s another element to the Leader of the Opposition’s critique of the McGuinty government’s FIT and Green Energy Act programs. The member opposite continually promises to provide Ontario families with relief from growing hydro bills. He blames the FIT programs that are creating jobs for these hardships. Would killing programs in a new and growing sector that is providing jobs to my constituents and thousands of other people right across this province bring relief to Ontario families—getting rid of their new jobs?

I would like to ask the minister to inform this House as to why Ontario needs to invest in and support the green energy sector.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I have got to set the record straight. This same Leader of the Opposition suggested those green megawatts or kilowatts—they’re not even attached to the grid yet. So how, in fact, are we paying for them and them being embedded in the price? He admits they’re not done yet, so it’s clearly not affecting the price.

The truth is that even in his own backyard we have the potential of investors. The mayor of Port Colborne was here yesterday telling us that there are two European companies travelling to Port Colborne now that are interested. His own economic development commission has been working with this company to land them here—two of them.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition, what are we to say to these foreign investors? What are we to say when they are coming to the Niagara region for green jobs, jobs that we’re fighting for? We’re fighting against every other jurisdiction. We have moved mountains to bring these jobs to Ontario and they’re coming. That job killer is sending them away—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Shurman: To the Minister of Energy: Ontario PCs are listening to families who are looking for a leader and a party that will give them relief—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I did want the clock stopped, please.

Please continue.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Our leader announced relief for families who pay the tab for your $7-billion sweetheart deal with Samsung. But McGuinty Liberals are so out of touch they are trying to say that the $7-billion, sweetheart Samsung deal adds only $1.60 a year to hydro bills. That’s as laughable as saying that your energy experiments will add only 1% to hydro bills or that hydro bills have remained flat year over year.

What makes you think that you can treat Premier McGuinty’s increases to hydro bills as if they were the—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: If they really cared about families, how could they have put the use of coal up 127% during their time in office? The Leader of the Opposition’s announcement yesterday totally scuttles the incredible progress we’ve made over eight years to replace dirty coal with cleaner sources of power.

Let me share with you, though, how the medical profession feels about this. I want to quote the executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. This is what he said: “The Conservatives’ proposal to kill green energy will be a disaster for human health and the environment. It will mean returning to coal—the world’s most climate-destructive fuel—and the thousands of illnesses and hundreds of deaths that coal causes in Ontario each year. Doctors are appalled that Mr. Hudak would embrace such an irresponsible plan.”

We share the sentiments of doctors and medical professionals across this province. They’re placing the health of ourselves and our kids—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Fairy tales; I ask questions and I get those kinds of answers.

The Premier and this minister are so out of touch that the next thing you know, they’ll say that the smart meter tax machines actually save you money. Even Premier McGuinty admitted that the Samsung deal was a large contributor to hydro bills, going up another 46% over the next four years. Ontario families have been squeezed during the recession. An Ontario PC government will stand up for families who pay the bills by using every tool at our disposal to give them relief options. Renewable energy will be part of our energy supply. Why do you insist that renewable energy will only be part of your supply mix if it is too expensive for Ontario families to afford?

Hon.

Brad Duguid: Just as we’re turning the corner, recovering from the global recession; just as our globe-leading clean energy economy has created 13,000 jobs by the end of last year, and we’re well on track to create 50,000 new jobs; just as Ontario’s clean energy economy has attracted billions of dollars from the private sector; just as our Samsung initiative is in the process of opening four new manufacturing plants; just as another 30 manufacturing plants have been announced, that Leader of the Opposition this week wants to bring that incredible progress to an end, kill our clean energy economy, kill the thousands of clean energy jobs that we’re creating and send a message to the world that Ontario lacks the boldness to compete for private sector investment.

The worst threat to jobs, the worst threat to our health, the worst threat to our future is a reckless Leader of the Opposition with a—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development, if outbursts like that continue, I will have to warn you.

New question.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. To great fanfare some months ago, you announced what was called the northern growth plan. A lot of people in northern Ontario—municipalities, mayors, aldermen, media and others—found it quite laughable. Essentially, what you did was to have a plan to make a plan.

Recently we saw in the province of Quebec that a northern growth plan was announced, but specific to that plan was not only a timeline of what they want to do but the associated dollars for making that plan work. Are you planning to do the same in Ontario? Are you going to follow the Quebec lead?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s great to have an opportunity to speak once again about the excitement surrounding the northern Ontario growth plan release. May I say that I think the member is quite incorrect. There’s tremendous support for it, certainly among municipal leaders and the private sector.

In terms of Plan Nord, which was released yesterday, we congratulate the province of Quebec. Certainly, the northern Ontario growth plan stacks up very favourably, in terms of the commitment to investments that we are making in northern Ontario.

In fact, let’s look at some of the investments that are in place already in terms of northern Ontario resources: $5.6 billion every year in the mining supply and services sector over a 25-year period if there is no growth—and we expect substantial growth in the mining sector—that’s $125 billion; let alone the northern Ontario heritage fund, a $100-million fund which we do not see in the province of Quebec. Our investments in highway infrastructure—millions over the last number of years.

We are very excited about the northern Ontario—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The fact is, you tied no money to the plan that you announced a few months ago. What you’ve essentially done is developed a plan to make a plan. People in northern Ontario are quite specific: What are you going to do when it comes to the investments that are needed to build the infrastructure necessary to support the communities—both on the physical side, in terms of infrastructure, and the social infrastructure that needs to be dealt with?

We saw the plan come out of the province of Quebec. La province du Quebec said, “We’re going to associate some dollars. Here’s what they are.” They’ve demonstrated in their plan how much they’re prepared to spend over a period of years.

The question to you is, are you prepared to at least follow the lead of Quebec and tie dollars to your plan so that at the end of the day it actually becomes something of value?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: You know, this certainly isn’t a competition. We are very pleased about the plan brought forward by the province of Quebec yesterday. The investments that are committed in our growth plan not only compare favourably but are probably substantially more, when one looks at the investments in northern highways—it’s very, very true—let alone our commitment in terms of developing the northern policy institute and our multi-modal transportation strategy.

There’s no question that, in terms of their plan and ours, we have many, many common goals—which is to develop our economy in the northern parts of our province. The commitment by the Dalton McGuinty government is a substantial one that is backed up by billions of dollars in infrastructure, which will continue on a commitment we feel very, very strongly about. We are incredibly proud of that and incredibly proud of the investment in the northern Ontario heritage fund in terms of the mining supply and services sector, let alone the mining development in terms of the Ring of Fire that we are committed to as part of our Open Ontario plan—

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

FAMILY SERVICES

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today in the Legislature, we’re joined by members of Family Service Ontario. Family Service Ontario represents 46 not-for-profit member agencies that provide community-based mental health services and programs to over 250,000 individuals and families annually. They have agencies throughout Ontario, including my own riding of Essex, that assist individuals with emotional, psychological, social, physical and financial struggles.

Minister, please tell the members of this House how our government is working to support the important work being undertaken each and every day across our province by Family Service Ontario.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member for Essex for his great question, and I’d like to welcome again the members from Family Service Ontario who are with us today in the Legislature.

Family service agencies provide a wide spectrum of services to assist Ontarians of every age group and socio-economic status. I am proud to say that my ministry’s annualized funding to Family Service Ontario has more than tripled since we first came into office in 2003. My ministry also provides violence-against-women funding to 29 agencies that are members of Family Service Ontario. This includes funding for counselling programs, the transitional and housing support program, as well as the early intervention program for children who witness violence. I look forward to our continuing—

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

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Family Service Ontario agencies cover a large spectrum of services. FSO agencies offer relationship and financial counselling, programs to assist substance abuse, as well as services for people with disabilities.

As you mentioned, Minister, Family Service Ontario also plays an important role in helping individuals who are victims of domestic violence, but they also have a role in providing counselling to individuals who are offenders.

Minister, please tell this Legislature what our government’s role is in the partnership with Family Service Ontario in providing these important services to Ontarians.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My colleague from Essex makes a very important point. It really is a partnership, a relationship between services that the family services provide throughout the province of Ontario and the government.

I’ll give you a couple of examples. A family might be in crisis because of domestic violence, so the partner assault response program, funded by the government of Ontario through many different agencies, not only assists the perpetrator but provides safety, support and counselling for the victim. The new changes in the family approach, the approach to family cases, will ensure that these very difficult and emotional cases can move through the system faster, with less confrontation and much more affordably, and I’m surprised the NDP don’t—

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

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, we now know that you have been working on the decision to close the Sarnia jail for three straight years. During that time, you and your ministry consulted local leaders a total of zero times and have since refused to supply any supporting documentation to justify your decision.

Last week, we learned, thanks to Sarnia Police Chief Phil Nelson, that the cost of security at the Sarnia courthouse will double to over $770,000 as a direct result of your closure of the jail.

As we all know, there’s only one taxpayer, and this is an increase in taxes. When will you show some transparency and let us know—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East.

Please continue.

Mr. Robert Bailey: As we all know, there’s only one taxpayer, and this is an increase in taxes. When will you show leadership and transparency and let us in on the big secret that there’s a real cost to closing the Sarnia jail?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That information has been provided. You know that the ministry officials will provide to any minister who happens to have that job the information on how savings can be effected overall in the corrections system in the province. You will know, for instance, that when your party was in power, you closed a number of jails in the province.

In fact, I have a quote from Mr. Runciman that says the following: “What we are doing with respect to the restructuring process is addressing the call of the Provincial Auditor in two reports, talking about the very high-cost system of corrections in Ontario. We currently have the highest-cost provincial system in the country.... We are making an effort, which the NDP initiated some time ago, to close our older, high-cost, inefficient and in many respects unsafe facilities.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: When you’re starting to quote from history—and I see you have no argument—you’ve got no defence. We didn’t close that jail because it didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t make sense now.

A week ago, the customs and immigration border guards union stated the decision to close the Sarnia jail seemed as if it was made without “proper analysis.” Not surprisingly, Local 19 was not consulted prior to your decision. As a result of your decision, border guards will now have to make a five- to six-hour round trip down Highway 40 to take prisoners to the finance minister’s riding.

By my count, we now know that in making this decision, you failed to consult with the mayor of Sarnia, the Lambton county warden, the Sarnia police chief, the First Nations community, the First Nations police force, the OPP, the RCMP, jail administration, jail guards, Canada Border Services, the border guards, the Sarnia law association, the business community, the local MP and the MPP. Minister, who did you speak with—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I promised not to quote Ted Arnott on this one today, but I will. It may be the same people who are quoted, when the Conservative government closed the jails in Cobourg, Haileybury, L’Orignal, Waterloo—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Halton.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think the same kind of consultations took place in Cobourg, Haileybury, L’Orignal, Waterloo–Wellington, Parry Sound, Barrie, Peterborough, Guelph, Cornwall, the Burtch facility, Lindsay, Whitby, Brampton, Millbrook and Sault Ste. Marie. Those are all jails which were closed by the previous Conservative government. Because, as my friend the member for Wellington–Halton Hills said at the time, “I think the people of Ontario would expect us to look at how we’re operating the system of provincial jails and find ways to do it better and cheaper.”

I know that it’s very difficult when you think of history, of all the jails that were closed by the previous—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Four years ago, right before an election, the McGuinty Liberals promised to redevelop the former Grace Hospital site into a long-term-care home, but it’s a mess. Construction hasn’t started. Windsor families are left with clogged emergency rooms, and the situation is so bad, it’s been declared a crisis by the LHIN.

The finance minister, in fact, has recently questioned his own government’s management of the project. Does the Minister of Health agree with the finance minister’s assessment?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I am more than happy to say is that we need these long-term-care beds in Windsor and we need them as soon as we possibly can. There have been challenges with the progress, there is no question about that. We are working very hard with various parties to get these beds built and open for the people of Windsor and area as soon as we possibly can.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Just in case the health minister is unaware of the criticism levelled by her cabinet colleague, let me quote his comments: “As finance minister it really bugs me that there wasn’t better analysis done beforehand.”

Does the minister agree with the finance minister that their government—her government, this government—botched the project? And the most important question is, when will we actually see shovels in the ground on this project?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I do want to say is that this is a project that we are very focused on. There have been key goals that have been achieved: the incorporation of a single-purpose organization entity as required by the lender; there’s been submission of a fully executed site plan control agreement; submission of a fully executed management contract between the operator and Extendicare Inc.; submission of sub-trade tender results; and a draft copy of the project’s final estimates of cost.

We are continuing to monitor this project on a daily basis. I will underline how important it is for the people of Windsor and Essex county that this building be built as soon as possible.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My riding of Scarborough Southwest is home to newcomers from around the world. When newcomers get settled into Ontario and into the workforce, it’s important that they know their workplace rights. Newcomers who are adjusting to a new work culture must be aware of what constitutes harassment and discrimination. If they feel their employer is treating them unfairly, newcomers need to know who they can turn to for help. They need to know what their rights are and how to exercise them.

Minister, what is the government doing to educate Ontario newcomers about their human rights in this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re fortunate here in Ontario to benefit from the significant contributions that thousands of newcomers make to this province each year. Ontario’s fundamental values of inclusion, diversity and respect for human rights make our province the best place in the world to call home.

When our newcomers arrive in Ontario, we have a number of ways to ensure that they’re aware of their rights. These include our Welcome to Ontario guide, our website ontarioimmigration.ca and through our many settlement age