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

September 28, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 28 September 2009 Lundi 28 septembre 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

RELEASE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

PUBLIC SERVICES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TAXATION

SKILLS TRAINING

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

EDUCATION FUNDING

VICTIMS OF CRIME

DRIVER LICENCES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

DRIVER LICENCES

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

POWER PLANT

JADE SCOGNAMILLO

WORKPLACE SAFETY

POWER PLANT

SMART METERS

SHOP THE SHORE

REGIONAL EQUINE AND AGRICULTURAL CENTRE OF HURON

MID-AUTUMN MOON FESTIVAL

PETITIONS

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

CHILD CARE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

SHARK FISHERY

FERTILITY TREATMENT

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TAXATION

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms.

Andrea Horwath: I'd like to welcome municipal leaders and members of Mississauga and Oakville residents' associations who have worked really hard to clean up the polluted Clarkson airshed, including Mayor Hazel McCallion, city of Mississauga; Pat Mullin, councillor, city of Mississauga; Max Khan, Oakville city councillor; Allan Elgar, Oakville city councillor; Dorothy Tomiuk, secretary of the Mississauga Residents' Associations Network; Doug MacKenzie, president, Chartwell-Maple Grove Residents Association of Oakville; and members of the Whiteoaks Lorne Park residents' association, the Clarkson Fairfields ratepayers' association, the Sheridan Homelands in Mississauga, and the Joshua Creek residents' association of Oakville.

Welcome, everyone.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Also joining this illustrious group from Mississauga and Oakville, I would like to mention that joining Her Worship Mayor McCallion, we also have Julie Desjardins; Pat Mullin, the councillor; Dr. Boyd Upper; Mike Douglas; Hugh Arrison; Maureen Shaw; Andrew Ganguly; Bill Wittman; Liesa Cianchino; Wendy Davies; Michelle DeGasperis; Ivan Sack and more. I apologize to those I have missed. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Dave Levac: In the gallery we have, visiting us from the great riding of Brant, the parents of page Beth: Susan and Henry Stulen. They do have–unable to join us today—an exchange student from France, who will be told the entire story of how we behave in question period.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I'd like to welcome two guests from my riding, Michael and Eileen Holmes. They're here visiting Queen's Park for the first time from the beautiful town of Bethany.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: There are many residents from Oakville in the audience who are here today to protest the OPA's proposal. Among some of the residents' groups that are here are Chartwell-Maple Grove, Clearview, Joshua Creek, and Trafalgar-Chartwell.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm delighted to welcome the family members of page Kaitlin Wagner. With us in the gallery today, we have her mom, Johanna Wagner; her aunt Linda Van Wyk; and a former page who has come back to visit us, Elise Wagner, who is Kaitlin's cousin. I assume Elise had a great experience, and now her cousin has come back.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: We will shortly be joined by some 100 students from grade 10 at Brother André Catholic High School in Markham.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to announce that we have a guest, the father, John Grassby, of page Robbie Hamel-Smith Grassby, who is here in the gallery with us today.

Mr. Michael Prue: On behalf of page Connor, I would like to welcome guest Kyle Ahluwalia, who is the brother of the page, and Eileen Riley, the grandmother. They're in the east gallery.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Monday, September 14, 2009, the member for Leeds—Grenville, Mr. Runciman, rose on a question of privilege, alleging that certain government ministers had misled the House when they indicated last June that a private company had been retained to conduct an outside audit of eHealth Ontario. The member for Welland, Mr. Kormos, and the member for Nipissing, Ms. Smith, also made submissions on this point of privilege.

I've had an opportunity to review Hansard, the relevant precedents and parliamentary authorities, and I am now prepared to rule on the matter.

As the member for Welland indicated when he spoke on the matter last Monday, there is a difference between privilege and contempt. Let me briefly explain the meaning of each. Erskine May, at page 75 of the 23rd edition, describes privilege as follows:

"Privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. Other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

Erskine May, at page 128 of its 23rd edition, defines contempt as follows: "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

That is what Erskine May says on privilege and contempt.

It is important to be aware of the distinction between the two because, having reviewed our precedents and parliamentary authorities, I am of the view that a question of privilege alleging that a member has misled the House follows under the rubric of contempt as opposed to a breach of privilege. The same view was taken by Speaker McLean in an October 17, 1995, ruling and by Speaker Carr in a June 17, 2002, ruling.

In the 2002 ruling, Speaker Carr explained the parameters for finding a prima facie case of contempt relating to a charge of misleading the House as follows: "The threshold for finding a prima facie case of contempt against a member of the Legislature on the basis of deliberately misleading the House is therefore set quite high and is very uncommon. It must involve a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead the Legislature.

In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct independently proved, a Speaker must assume that no honourable member would engage in such behaviour or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or honest mistake."

In coming to this view, Speaker Carr examined the infamous Profumo incident in 1963, when the UK House of Commons passed a resolution to the effect that a minister was "guilty of a grave contempt of this House" after he admitted that he had misled the House when it was revealed that parts of a prepared personal statement he had made in the House earlier that year were not true.

The value of citing the Profumo incident lies in demonstrating how different that situation is from what is before me now. In that case, there was not only clear evidence that the House had been misled but that Profumo had deliberately set out with the intention of doing so. I would submit it is not the case here.

Also in his 2002 ruling, Speaker Carr examined a February 1, 2002, ruling by the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, a ruling that was mentioned by both the member for Leeds—Grenville and the government House leader. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken dealt with an allegation that then-National Defence Minister Art Eggleton had deliberately misled the House. By the time Speaker Milliken ruled on the matter, Mr. Eggleton admitted to the House that incorrect information had previously been provided, but that "at no time did I intend to mislead the House. I was answering with what I believed to be the correct information...."

This fact situation in the House of Commons is thematically more similar to the case at hand in that there is an absence of any evidence of a deliberate intent to mislead the House. Indeed, the member for Welland, during his arguments on this point of privilege, conveyed his belief that back in June "neither the Minister of Health nor the Premier had full possession of all of the accurate facts."

This question of intent is of utmost importance. David McGee, in the third edition of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, addresses this effectively on pages 653 and 654 of that volume:

"There are three elements to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt by reason of a statement that the member has made: The statement must, in fact, have been misleading; it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time ... that it was incorrect; and, in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House."

In the absence of any such criteria establishing intent, Speaker Milliken did not find a prima facie case of privilege had been made out in the Eggleton case. Nevertheless, he allowed a motion to be put to refer the matter to a standing committee, without objection from any member of the House. I have no reason to believe there would be similar tolerance of me taking such a liberty in this case.

In that vein, let me address the opposition House leader's suggestion that I could make a direct referral of this matter under standing order 108(

g) to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, without the House having dealt with a privilege motion in response to a finding of a prima facie case of contempt in the Legislature. This is simply not possible. The member will know that standing order 108(

g) only allows the Speaker to request that the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly review the standing orders and the procedures in the House and its committees. Nothing in that standing order cloaks the Speaker with the authority to make a referral concerning a member's conduct to the committee.

Earlier I quoted part of a statement that the member from Welland made when he argued this point of privilege on September 14. In fairness to him and to the record, let me finish the quote. The member for Welland went on to say that "what we're not prepared to live with is that they didn't correct the record at the earliest opportunity."

Here again, David McGee in Parliamentary Practice is helpful. Specifically addressing ministerial replies to oral questions, he says:

"A deliberate attempt to mislead the House would be contempt, and if a minister discovers that incorrect information has been given to the House, the minister is expected to correct the record as soon as possible. But subject to these circumstances, accuracy or otherwise is a matter that may be disputed and the Speaker is not the judge of it. It is a matter for political criticism of the minister concerned if members believe that a minister has answered incorrectly."

It seems apparent, in the absence of such corrections or retractions, that the Minister of Health is of the view not only that he and the Premier had not made a misstatement, but also that they believed their statements in the House were accurate at the time they were made and that there is nothing to correct. Presumably this view is bolstered by the fact that by the time the House resumed earlier this month, additional information had become common knowledge.

The Speaker is therefore left without any clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and instead with what comes down to disagreement between members on opposite sides of the House as to the facts.

Since the circumstances that are the subject of this point of privilege fall short of establishing "a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead" the House, I cannot find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established. I appreciate that members may hold divergent

interpretations as to what transpired in June and during the adjournment, but these matters can be pursued and have been pursued in question period and other proceedings; it is not a matter of contempt.

In closing, I'd like to thank the member for Leeds—Grenville, the member for Welland and the member for Nipissing for their helpful suggestions in this matter. Thank you.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I respect your ruling and accept your ruling. In your comments you talked about the restraints placed on you by precedent and the standings orders, and I would ask for unanimous consent from this House to put a motion to the assembly to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member seeks unanimous consent for a motion to refer this to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed? I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Acting Premier: The McGuinty Liberals initially forecasted a $600-million surplus for 2008-09. Then the Premier revised his plans and forecasted a $500-million deficit. He revised them yet again and said it would be a $3.9-billion deficit, and then we found out late Friday the actual deficit for that year: $6.4 billion. How can Ontario taxpayers trust the Premier when he missed his projections by some $7 billion?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Governments around the Western world have experienced similar situations. In fact, our government was the first one to acknowledge that deficits were happening. I remember the day I announced it, our federal counterparts were talking about surpluses into the distant future.

These are challenging times. We did see a drop-off in our corporate tax revenues of almost 50%—48%—resulting from the enormous downturn in the economy, and we have laid out a plan to address the challenges in the economy to create jobs that is consistent, straightforward and will let Ontario get back to a rate of growth that will allow us to sustain the very important public services that we, on this side, want to protect: health care, education and a cleaner environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: A $7-billion error is equivalent to the entire budget of the province of Saskatchewan, and the Premier's projections for this year are no more credible. First, he said it would be a deficit of a whopping $14.1 billion, and then again, at the end of the day Friday, he revised that figure to say he plans to spend $18.5 billion more than he takes in in revenue. People simply no longer believe Premier McGuinty's numbers, and they don't believe that we've hit bottom with this record $18.5-billion deficit. Is Premier McGuinty going to plunge Ontario into $20-billion to $25-billion deficits?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the member's wrong. I think people do understand. I do—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the member's wrong. I think the people of Ontario, Canada, the United States and Great Britain understand that we've had the worst economic downturn in history. I think his concerns are completely misplaced. I think that we've invested in those areas and continue to invest in stimulus like our federal partners did. I remind the member that our deficit, the GDP and all the ratios that matter are all consistent with what's happening to governments of all sizes across Canada and the Western world. I disagree with the member. Ontarians do understand it, and I think they are glad we've invested in stimulus.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I notice that the minister avoided answering how deep a hole he's going to dig. Here's what rightly angers hard-working Ontario families: Premier McGuinty increased taxes on Ontario families and businesses after promising that he would not; he raked in an additional $27 billion in revenue and then he blew every penny. Now, we find out that Premier McGuinty has turned a $27-billion cushion into a deficit hole of untold billions. I'll ask the finance minister very clearly: Will you confirm that the deficit for this year will not be a penny more than the record $18.5 billion?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government, unlike the previous government, has been completely candid with the people of Ontario. I remember that when we came to office, there was a $5.6-billion hidden deficit. Unlike my Conservative opponent, I don't think spending on education is a waste of money. Unlike my Conservative opponent, I don't think better health care outcomes are a waste of money. Unlike Mr. Hudak and our Conservative opponents, I don't believe that creating the greenbelt is a waste of money.

There is no doubt that there are enormous challenges in our economy today, and there's no doubt that they call for leadership and difficult choices. The people of Ontario entrusted those choices to this government because they don't trust that member or his party to act in their best interests.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: Certainly the Ontario PC caucus believes that multi-million dollar contracts to Liberal-friendly consultants at OLG and eHealth are an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars. The Ontario Liberals used to delight in pointing out that every hour, the Bob Rae government spent a million dollars more than they received in revenue. Today the McGuinty Liberals are spending $2.1 million more per hour than you receive in revenue. Acting Premier, how is it possible that you have been able to make Bob Rae look like a financial wizard?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'd remind the member that we have pretty good company in Jim Flaherty in the federal government. He trivializes the challenges in the economy. He makes fun of the investments we're making in infrastructure, for instance to build roads, hospitals and schools to employ tens of thousands of Ontarians. He trivializes the need for governments to take an aggressive approach, which has been determined, by the way, by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the G20. We have chosen to invest in those stimulating programs to create jobs as the economy goes down.

There is no question that there are difficult choices ahead, and we will undertake those decisions in a clear, candid and honest way, just as the people of Ontario have entrusted us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let's be clear: We all know that a global recession hit, but Dalton McGuinty uses it as his crutch. Under Premier McGuinty's failed leadership, Ontario fell first, it fell faster and it fell farther than any other province in Canada. The Premier had a $27-billion cushion of additional revenue, and you turned it into an eye-popping deficit. You're now adding $2.1 million to the deficit every single hour of every single day. Blaming the global recession for that simply is not credible.

When will the Premier quit blaming everybody else and get his own fiscal house in order?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite won't take my advice on this, so here's what Jim Flaherty said on May 26: "It's necessary in the short term to run a large deficit ... to make sure that Canada gets through this well." We concur. That's why our deficit-to-GDP is very comparable to the Canadian. That's why it's actually in better shape than some other comparable jurisdictions.

There's no question that a deficit of that order of magnitude is something that should be of concern to all of us, and there's no question that we will continue to manage, through these challenging times, the best we can.

What I can assure the member, however, is that unlike the member opposite and his party, we will not eliminate the deficit on the backs of those most vulnerable. We will do it in a responsible fashion. We will make sure the books are completely transparent and open so that any government, when it comes to office, doesn't have to find what we found: a hidden deficit of $5.6 billion.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the minister: A short-term deficit; give me a break. This is a record, whopping $18.5-billion deficit, and you plan on running deficits for seven more years at least—as far as the eye can see. Minister, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. You've been in office for six years. You increased program spending in those years by some 60%. There's not a family in the province of Ontario that has done the same.

Just like Ontario families, the Ontario PC caucus believes that governments should live within their means. To the finance minister: Why did Premier McGuinty increase spending by 60% when he knew it would leave us vulnerable when times got tough?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Now that he has confirmed that, let's find out: Does that mean he and his colleagues are opposed to new hospitals? Does that mean they're opposed to rebuilding our schools? Does that mean they're opposed to retrofitting schools? Does that mean they're opposed to new transit lines?

Interjection: They can't have it both ways.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They're trying to have it both ways; they haven't laid out a plan. There's a whole range of things, and as they try to have it both ways, they can't.

We've done what governments throughout the Western world have done. We've done it in a way that's responsible, and in keeping with the measurements of these things, we will continue to make those kinds of responsible choices, the choices the people of Ontario have entrusted this government with.

RELEASE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the finance minister. The public accounts released Friday included a sign-off letter from the Auditor General dated July 31, 2009. Why did it take the McGuinty government an additional 55 days to publicly release the audited statements?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Throughout our time in office, on at least two other occasions, we have released the statements in late September. This year, by the time we had incorporated the signed-off public accounts numbers into our forward-looking approach with respect to the next fall statement, which will be coming up shortly—I'll have information on that soon—this was the appropriate time to do it. It will be delivered in this House, and it will be done in an open and transparent fashion, as we do with all documents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2008, 2007 and 2006, the public accounts were released in August. But this year, with a bombshell that blows the government's fiscal assumptions wide open, they were delayed until after a by-election, coincidentally. Can the minister provide an explanation to this House?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member conveniently ignored 2004 and 2005, and in 2004, it turned out that there had been a hidden deficit of $5.6 billion. We released the fully audited statement towards the end of September, as we've done in past years. It is an open and transparent process.

I'll have more to say about the implications of those numbers with respect to the full year ahead at the time of my fall statement. We will continue to focus our efforts on creating jobs and addressing the enormous challenges that face governments throughout the Western world.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians have a right to know about the province's finances. After all, it is their money that we're talking about. The budget information belongs to all of us. It's not the personal property of this minister or the Premier.

In Ottawa, the parliamentary budget office provides impartial analysis on the state of federal finances. Will this minister create such an office here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government created the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, the most sweeping piece of legislation designed to protect the interests of Ontarians. That act requires the auditor not only to sign off on our quarterly statements and public accounts, but to attest to the veracity of budget numbers going into an election.

That is the most far-reaching piece of accountability legislation that exists in Canada. It is the right approach, it's the approach we took some years ago, and it remains the right approach to ensuring that the people of Ontario have full and meaningful accountability of their government with respect to the management of their tax dollars.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again to the Minister of Finance: The Minister of Finance made it clear over the weekend that Ontarians should expect drastic cuts to public services. I'm going to quote what he said: "We are going to have to take a hard look at everything on the expense side and make some difficult choices." What is this minister planning to cut?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite may not want to engage in that kind of discussion, but we do have to take those kinds of serious discussions.

I would suggest that she embellished my language that she quoted—a moment after she embellished it.

I would say this—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I withdraw that—a moment after she had extended the intent of what I had said.

I would submit—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The sustainability of our public services is dependent on our ability to pay for them.

I look forward to the debates going forward that will allow us to sustain and enhance those public services, and I look forward to the contribution the member opposite will make.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister is talking about slashing public services but does not say whether that means fewer nurses or longer hospital wait times. Meanwhile, the minister seems to be perfectly content with a $2-billion-a-year corporate tax giveaway. When we're closing hospitals and threatening further cuts to public education, how can the minister justify such a massive giveaway?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The challenge to all Ontarians today is to ensure a competitive economy that will yield the ability to preserve and indeed enhance our vital public services. This requires difficult trade-offs and difficult choices. You cannot have it both ways. We will be engaging in this sort of a dialogue as we move forward.

I acknowledge that these choices are difficult. I acknowledge that they will require leadership with respect to promoting a stronger economy to enhance the revenues that we need to invest in public health care, but I also assure the people of Ontario that we will have that robust kind of discussion and we will work very hard to not only protect but enhance those vital public services that all of us come to depend on.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On the weekend the minister is ruminating about belt-tightening, but it's children in schools and seniors waiting for long-term care who are going to be feeling the squeeze in this province. Yet the minister is completely unwilling to reconsider his reckless plan for $2 billion in corporate tax giveaways.

There was a time, once upon a time, when this government actually talked about balanced priorities. Does this minister think that forcing cuts on people and the services they rely on in these very difficult times, while giving away $2 billion in corporate tax cuts, is showing balanced priorities for the people of this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we don't want to do is give away jobs in the future because we can't compete with other jurisdictions.

These are enormously difficult choices that all governments—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are jobs gone in every major jurisdiction in North America. Those in the United States and heavily industrial jurisdictions like ours have been particularly hard hit. It's incumbent upon governments and incumbent upon all of us to describe very carefully how we are going to get Ontario through these challenging times, create the jobs and create the revenue base that will not only sustain but allow us to enhance the vital public services that all of us come to rely on. Those are difficult choices, they are difficult balances that must be found, but we are committed to enhancing and improving the quality of public services across this province and, most importantly—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Last week, the Premier ushered his Liberal friends on eHealth out the back door and helped them avoid accountability for spending scandals. On Thursday, the Premier tried to avoid his accountability for his huge tax grab by saying he hadn't read the four-page MOU that he negotiated. On Friday, he ducked accountability again by filing the public accounts just before the Clerk locked the office to go home for the weekend—the 12th press release of the day on Friday. Is it because he's embarrassed for promising a budget surplus when it turns out he delivered a $6.4-billion deficit?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the people of Ontario recognize and understand that governments throughout the Western world have experienced precisely what Ontario has experienced. Yes, we did seriously overestimate our corporate tax revenues last year—there's no question about it—as did the federal government, as did a number of our provincial counterparts.

Interjection: By billions?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, by billions, absolutely, and we saw what the results of what happened in the downturn were. This government will continue to implement the policies we believe very strongly are the right policies for the time, the sensible measures that will create jobs, create investment opportunities and help restore the economy to the point that we can enhance and invest in those vital public services that all of us believe very strongly in.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again for the Premier: This morning, CBC Radio's financial columnist said it was obvious several months ago that there were serious problems with your budget numbers. The reporter said the McGuinty Liberals were either "incompetent or dishonest." To the Acting Premier: Which is it?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Notwithstanding that he was quoting, I would just ask him to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: It was on the radio, but I'll withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The reporter on CBC Radio was wrong. Last October, at the fall statement, I acknowledged that Ontario would have a deficit. I also signalled very clearly that that deficit could continue to rise if the downturn in government revenues continued. I updated those numbers in December and again acknowledged that those numbers could in fact be out of date; we may see an increase. I again acknowledged it in March, that it would be going up, and unfortunately, that acknowledgment bore out the truth.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre des Finances. Ontarians are already seeing where some of the cuts are being made. It is perfectly clear as this government shuts Fort Erie's emergency room. The residents, the mayor, the regional council and the Ontario Medical Association have all called for a moratorium on this closure until the recommendations of the rural and northern health care panel are released in a month's time. Why has this government ignored this community's request?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to remind the member opposite that in fact this government has made enormous investments in health care. We have to always be looking forward in terms of how we best manage the challenges in the health care system. I would remind the member that both the absolute dollar value investments in health care as well as the percentage of the provincial budget have continued to grow in quite a robust fashion.

I'll have a chance to speak to this in my supplementary, but we've made enormous progress on a whole variety of fronts, in terms of reducing wait-lists and so on. Again, these are always difficult issues to manage, but this government will manage them with the eye to ensuring that we continue to make those investments in the vital public services that all Ontarians come to rely on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: We're talking about an issue of access in rural Ontario. Your government established a rural and northern health care panel, it has been up and running since this summer, yet nobody can get access to their mandate. My question will be very simple: When will the government release the rural and northern health care panel mandate? And can the minister guarantee that, in that mandate, every community that wants a public consultation will get one?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No government has moved to address the challenges in rural health care more than this government. I would remind the member that we have funded 1.69 million new procedures and reduced wait times for all Ontarians, including those in rural Ontario. We have funded—907,000 more Ontarians have access to family care, including people in rural Ontario. We have 14 new MRI machines and are doubling the number of MRI hours of operation; the people of rural Ontario benefit from that. There are 1,794 more doctors practising. Those doctors are serving all Ontarians, including Ontarians in rural communities.

This government will continue to work with rural Ontarians. It will continue to work with all Ontarians to ensure that we have the finest quality of public health care available and will make the decisions that have to be made to ensure that Ontarians can continue to count on those vital services—

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Windsor-Essex has been one of the hardest-hit areas of the province during this economic downturn. The restructuring of the auto industry and the decreased demand for manufactured goods have resulted in significant plant closures and layoffs in my riding and in the surrounding area. Job security is a top concern for my constituents and, quite frankly, the constituents of many communities across the province of Ontario.

It's for this reason that I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, what's the government doing to help the Windsor-Essex region rebound from the negative effects of the current economic downturn?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very pleased to address this question from the member from Essex, who works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and frankly advances a number of projects that have sat for years as merely dreams, but in fact today are becoming a reality. This member in particular has participated in more capital projects in Essex than any other MPP in the history of Ontario's government, which is a tribute to this particular member.

Let me say that we know the bailout of two of our Big Three was probably the most significant action in this past year that has had much influence over all of southern Ontario—in particular, Windsor-Essex—for our auto parts and auto assembly workers. In addition, we've made some significant changes to tax policy so that we know our businesses will stay competitive as we go forward.

These are important initiatives. We look forward to a bright future in Windsor-Essex and we are doing a number of things to make sure that new industry will come to our area.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It's certainly reassuring to know that this government's working so aggressively to counteract the negative effects that the current downturn is having on the people of Essex-Windsor and the rest of the province. I applaud you for these efforts.

However, in the response, the minister mentioned the need to diversify and attract new industries to bring new capabilities and new jobs to our economy. The minister also made mention of the government's five-point economic plan, with reference to the needed support of innovation and to be partners in business. It's for this reason that I ask the minister, what have the ministry and this government done to bring leading-edge business to Ontario, specifically in the economically challenged regions of the province like Windsor-Essex?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very pleased to announce that both the member from Essex and I were participating in an announcement this past Friday in Windsor. It was actually right on the border between this member's riding and that of the member from Essex. It is the perfect example of two parts of our five-point economic plan, which include supporting innovation as well as supporting these leading-edge businesses by partnering with them. WindTronics announced on Friday that it is setting up shop in Windsor. It's very telling that it will be in a facility that was formerly used to make auto parts.

They will be making a small wind turbine that will be used for both small commercial and residential applications.

This is the perfect example of turning to the future and looking for additional manufacturing opportunities outside of the typical automotive sector, but knowing that we can produce products that will be in demand around the world. This is an example of government—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Acting Premier. I'm wondering if the Acting Premier could answer a technical question about the public accounts for me today. Where is the column showing the money that went to your Liberal friends?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'd remind the member opposite that the format for public accounts is agreed to by this Legislature, and presumably she and her caucus agreed to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again for the Acting Premier: The Liberals gave $1.3 million in the past two years to the Premier's former chief of staff at Pollara. Allard Johnson Communications, of Adscam fame, received $3.5 million as a quid pro quo, one could assume, for donating $20,000 to the Ontario Liberal Party—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think the honourable member is treading down some territory and making accusations that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm going to move to a new question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Education: Minister, your government is obsessed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I welcome the member's point of order, but I would certainly welcome it at the end of question period.

The member for Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, your government is obsessed with EQAO test scores. Your control and manipulation of the process reached new heights when we found out that Lorna Earl, who is on the board of directors for EQAO, also runs a private company which specializes in showing boards how to get the numbers up. What Ms. Earl is doing in her own interest is also in your interest. Is that why you're ignoring this clear conflict of interest?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I spoke with the chair of the EQAO this morning. The EQAO does, as the member opposite I'm sure knows, have conflict-of-interest provisions in place. But in order to be completely transparent, the chair is referring this situation to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and we will await a ruling on the situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm glad that you're doing that, Minister, because in the interview on CBC, you didn't think there was one. We were concerned about that because, in my mind, this is no different from a teacher tutoring students on a for-profit basis to pass a test that he or she has influence over.

Here are some quotes from school board documents showing why Linda Earl was hired:

"To refine school improvement planning and

interpretation of data"—from Thames Valley.

"Emphasis will be on system-wide improvement of student results on a measure of performance targets"—from Lakehead.

So Linda Earl is hired to improve the test scores, and the government, through Bill 177, is prepared to take over school boards that fail to improve their test scores.

My question was, how could the minister allow this clear conflict of interest to continue? But I'm glad you are referring that for a conflict.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the case except to say the woman's name is Lorna Earl, not Linda Earl.

The facts are that we are very conscientious in terms of our oversight of the EQAO tests. I spoke with the chair. I've said that the issue is being referred to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I think that the understanding that what we need are the best professionals to be advising us on our student achievement is exactly what we have attempted to put in place with all of our agencies and with all of our bodies.

The member opposite needs to get his facts straight. I have said to the press that this has been sent on to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and I will not comment on the specifics until we hear that ruling.

TAXATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. The transportation and warehousing industry plays an important role in the riding of Brant, and the transportation and warehousing sector provides a sizable number of good jobs in Brant. The people provide for their families through these jobs and contribute to Ontario's economy. Employers such as Keith Hall and Sons Transport Ltd., which employs 150 people in the county of Brant, and Lumsden Brothers, which employs roughly 500 people in the city of Brantford, make an incredible difference in our community.

Trucking and warehousing businesses come in all shapes and sizes, from large firms to small mom-and-pop operations, as you know.

I've been talking to my constituents in this particular sector, and they have concerns about the implementation of the HST and what it's going to mean to them and their families and employees. A report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business last week shows that there is little understanding of HST in the community. Minister, what effect is the HST going to have on these sectors in my riding?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question, and from my recent visit to his riding, I know how important the transportation and warehousing sector is in the riding of Brant. I want to let you know—and I hope you can share with your constituents—that estimates show that Ontario's transportation and warehousing sector will save roughly $500 million a year, net, as a result of our tax reforms. I know that is good news in Brant and across the province. Now, this includes some $480 million through the harmonization of sales tax plus another $60 million through corporate income tax savings, another $35 million as a result of the elimination of the capital tax.

Times have changed, and we have to make sure that our businesses can compete and win in a highly competitive global economy. Our tax reforms, the harmonization of the sales tax, and some $15 billion worth of income tax cuts over the next three years for people, for small businesses and corporations is designed to get people back to work—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the minister's bringing some clarity to this, and we all know that there's some misinformation out there regarding the HST. Some people are only telling half the story—half the story. Minister, Michael Smart's study on the effect of HST on the Atlantic provinces revealed that harmonization led to consumer price reductions and an increase in business investment. Over 130 countries, as we know, have already harmonized their sales tax.

Supporters of the HST in Ontario include TD Financial bank, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Association of Food Banks, and the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. I know that a group of businesses recently came together to support the government in its HST, and that is the Ontario Trucking Association and the Ontario Road Builders Association.

Minister, Ontario needs to be more competitive and create jobs. How can we believe one side that tells us half the story, or do we want to trust the Ontario Trucking Association—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: Well, I want to assure the House that on this side of the House we will always tell the whole story about our tax reform package—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just admonished an honourable member over her line of questioning—over imputing some motive. And here you go doing exactly the same thing.

New question. The member from Kitchener—Waterloo.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, dozens of people have been laid off, and they were shocked and devastated to be notified late last week that they would not receive funding from the Second Career program for courses which were to begin today and into the future.

Minister, this is cruel, and it's very insensitive. People who have been laid off have enough problems trying to meet their rent and their mortgage payments and seeing the end of their EI, and now they have to deal with this sudden, last-minute cancellation of their retraining plans. As one man said in an e-mail, "A promise was made and broken by the government. I have hit rock bottom." Minister, will you tell these people today when the funding for the Second Career program will start again?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the honourable member's question. I just want to provide a little bit of context to the Legislature about the Second Career program. It came into play in June 2008 with the target of 20,000 people over three years. I informed the House last week, I believe it was on Wednesday, that we had 17,500 people who had been approved. I'm happy to inform the House that as of Friday, we have approved close to 21,000 people.

At the same time, this September, we have approved close to 10,000 people into the program. That is an 800% increase over what happens in a normal month. The average is about 1,200. I recognize that there is a backlog in the system, and officials—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Minister, your response is cold comfort to the laid-off workers in Waterloo region and elsewhere who are dependent on retraining. I talked to Conestoga today—people showed up this morning hoping against hope that you would have restored the funding. I would like to tell you about Mike Weppler. He was laid off as a land surveyor after 20 years. He was to start today at Conestoga. His EI will run out on November 14. He says, "I need help.... I need retraining"; about people like Jane Code, a 46-year-old woman who says, "I need the course.... I need to work.... I'm a widow"; and Chris Laramie, whose EI payments finished on Friday and who planned to start a course today.

Minister, you have broken your promise to these people. When will the funding be restored for the Second Career program?

Hon. John Milloy: I know that the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that there are people whose approvals have been revoked. We have approved close to 10,000 people. I acknowledge that there is a backlog in the system. Officials were working over the weekend and they continue to work to address this backlog, and also to bring forward new guidelines for the program so that we can manage it moving forward.

I'd like to remind the member that it's her party that first of all voted against this program and spent last year standing up in this House criticizing it. We have been able to help nearly 21,000 people in the province of Ontario. I am very proud of the success of Second Career, and we're going to continue to work with the program to make sure we can welcome more people into it.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Local politicians and residents from Oakville and Mississauga are here today. They want to know why this government insists on building a billion-dollar, polluting gas plant near their homes when electricity demand is down across this province, when 23,000 residents have signed a petition against the plant, and air pollution contributes to the premature deaths of more than 1,000 Peel and Halton residents each and every year. If the McGuinty government is so committed to green energy, why is it bulldozing ahead with a polluting gas plant?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, let me also welcome the people from Oakville and Mississauga here, including of course Mayor Hazel McCallion, the dean of Ontario's municipal leaders.

Let me also say that I've had the opportunity to meet with the various groups in the Mississauga area on at least two occasions—the last being about two or three months ago, a meeting that was attended by Mayor McCallion as well. I can assure you that any plant that is going to be built there is going to meet the high air quality standards that we have in the province of Ontario.

Interruption.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You know, they can laugh about it, but we are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We welcome our guests here to the Legislature. We ask that you observe the deliberations. As much as you may want to participate, you're not allowed to. Thanks.

Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We have improved the air quality standards in this province by 57 new standards since we became the government. I can tell you that any proponent will be required to address the cumulative potential impacts that there may be as a result of any plant being built in the area. We want to make sure that the people of that area and the people of Ontario have the best air quality that can possibly be in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government talks about offsetting pollution from the plant by reducing industry emissions, but the gas plant will pollute so much that the government would have to shut down Ford, Petro-Canada and dozens of other plants to offset this gas plant's emissions. Since this government has already stalled the plant for a month to come up with the half-baked, offset idea, will it now commit to a one-year moratorium and put in place an independent review of the health impacts and alternatives to this polluting gas plant?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We have been dealing with this issue for the last two years within the Ministry of the Environment on an ongoing basis. Let me once again state to the member that the proponent will be required to address the potential cumulative impacts of this particular project at all stages of the approval process. First of all we need energy; we all turn the lights on at night, including the people of Mississauga and Peel, so we want to make sure that the air quality standards are as high as they can possibly be and that any cumulative impacts that this plant is going to bring into the equation will have to be dealt with to meet our air quality standards.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, I understand that this morning, you announced that over the summer the McGuinty government delivered over one million library books to Ontario schools. I know that schools in my riding of Ottawa Centre have benefited from this investment, as have vendors in Ontario.

We know these are tough economic times. I want to ask the minister if she can tell the House why this is a sound economic investment.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his work, particularly on the economic file. He understands that there are a number of things that we have to do as a government to deal with the economic downturn. Restructuring our tax system is one of them. The other one is we've got to make sure that our students are successful. We've got to make sure that they have the resources that they need.

This morning, I was at Terry Fox Public School with the member for Ajax—Pickering. By the end of this school year, we are going to have delivered more than two million school book resources to our schools' libraries. That means that students in schools across the province have new materials to work with, that means that kids who maybe aren't engaged in traditional materials have graphic novels to read, that means they have talking books that they can use on MP3 players, that means that the resources in our schools are up to date, and that means that more kids will succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The minister referred to the future competitiveness of Ontario and economic success. My riding of Ottawa Centre is home to many young families. Parents often tell me about their concerns regarding their children's education prospects. Investing in more library books sounds like a great idea.

How does the minister know that the government's investments and initiatives in publicly funded education are working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On top of the advantage to our kids, there are 72 Ontario vendors which were part of this process and which were able to provide these resources.

When I go to schools around the province—I know that everyone in this House who has visited schools can share in this opinion—there are wonderful things happening because of the staff in our schools and because of the support that those adults are giving our kids.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Attorney General. Patricia Marshall and her daughter were here last Wednesday asking for your help, and they're here again today. They left last week shocked by the fact that you simply accepted the decision of the crown attorney in St. Catharines, a decision not to proceed with a charge of criminal harassment against a young man who was caught on video masturbating outside her daughter's bedroom window. Despite a videotaped, properly obtained confession, the crown withdrew the charge.

This is clearly not a case where there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Can you tell us, Attorney General, why these charges were dropped?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I indicated last week, the conduct that affected the family was deeply disturbing. People have the right—the right—to be secure in their homes. They have the right to be secure and to know that they will be secure in the future. The police investigated, as they should, thoroughly. Then the matter went to consideration by the crown, who is, of course, required to apply the facts to the provisions of the Criminal Code as they exist.

The crown wrote a very extensive letter to the family where he indicated that one thing he should have done—absolutely should have done—is sit down with them. He didn't do that, but he always had his responsibility, as the crown, and the protection of the community—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The fact remains that Ms. Marshall and her daughters are not living in safety in their own homes. They feel threatened. The threatening continues. They've been abandoned by our justice system, and the only means of defence they have right now is a video camera in their backyard. Even that's not secure because last Friday, they received a letter from the young man's lawyer telling them that they needed to remove the camera or there were going to be consequences.

Attorney General, you have options. What are you going to do to ensure Ms. Marshall's and her daughters' safety?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: With respect to the latter matter, I won't discuss anything in relation to the video camera. I think there are other avenues within the community that it's not my power to intervene on.

I would simply come back to this: I understand. I get the fact that somebody in your situation, I say through you, Speaker, to them, would be very, very concerned—absolutely. It is deeply disturbing conduct. The police conducted a very thorough investigation and they provided the material to the crown, who did his responsibility, who reviewed the facts in relation to the charges laid and took a look at the factors, assessing community safety, and made the decision. We all want to safeguard—

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

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you will know that one of the important things for young people is getting that driver's licence. If you can get your driver's licence, as a young person it's the first step towards independence and sometimes getting a job. It's no different for the people living on the James Bay coast, but here's the problem: They're required to have the licence, which is right, but you can only get a drive test twice a year in Moosonee.

Tell me how that's fair for those people to be able to get access to get their drivers' licences in Moosonee. Shouldn't we increase the service beyond twice a year?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would be happy to review that with the member. I'm glad he asked that question. He represents a northern community and many of the sites are much more remote in the northern part of the country than they are elsewhere, and there are different circumstances. I think that when we think of the province as a whole, we recognize there are many areas that are adequately served. The member draws to our attention a specific—and he may even have some other circumstances where he feels that people are not served as they might be.

It's particularly important for employment purposes, I know that, but even for doing things that families have to do together and so on. All of that is extremely important.

I'm very pleased that he took advantage of the opportunity in this House to raise this issue with me and I'll be more than happy to look into it and get further information from him on that and perhaps other circumstances that are facing people within his riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the minister, is that really untenable? If you live in Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Fort Hope or any other place, you cannot get a test to get your driver's licence. You've got to pay big money to get on an airplane, because they're landlocked communities, a thousand bucks a pop to get into a town like Moosonee or Cochrane to get your drive test.

Here's what's worse: They make appointments, they buy the airline ticket, they fly themselves at $1,000 a pop down to Moosonee or Cochrane, then they get cancelled at the last minute. My question to you, Minister: Are you prepared, at the very least, to reimburse these young people for the flights they've had to take because of the cancellations by DriveTest?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have to say to the member that I'm more than happy to look into the issue. I'm glad that he provided me with further details on it, and I know that if I were to ask him to do so, he would provide even greater detail on it. I fully expect he is going to, because for the people who reside there it's extremely difficult. We want to ensure that, as much as possible in the province, we have an opportunity for people to be able to obtain a licence.

I say that there's a particular circumstance that the member has brought to our attention where there's an extreme cost to come down, and the cancellation is extremely unfortunate. So I will be happy to look into that with the member and work with him, as I always do, so carefully on matters of this kind.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, as you are no doubt aware, consumers play a vital role in Ontario's economy. In fact, three out of every five dollars in Ontario's GDP is attributed to consumer spending. This is the largest percentage of any Canadian province. Now, more than ever, an informed consumer is a source of strength and confidence in our markets and our economic growth.

Ensuring that consumers have access to adequate information and enjoy consumer protection is extremely important. In my riding, I know my constituency office is frequently contacted by Ontarians concerned about business practices who are looking for information about their rights as a consumer. How does your ministry protect consumers?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, what can I say? My thanks, obviously, to my honourable colleague. He's absolutely right: Consumers do play a vital role in the Ontario economy.

I'm proud to say that the McGuinty government is standing up and protecting consumers every single day. Our view is that we're here to help.

The consumer protection branch at the Ministry of Consumer Services works with Ontarians to ensure that they know their rights and responsibilities as informed consumers. This involves dealing with thousands—in fact, over 10,000 concerns last year: everything from collection agencies, home renovations, telecommunication services, motor vehicles, what have you. In the last year, our ministry has secured over $570,000 in refunds for consumers and over—

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: Minister, I'm pleased to learn that your ministry takes consumer complaints seriously, and I'm surprised to learn of the volume of inquiries handled by your ministry annually. However, enforcement and corrective action taken by your ministry are just one side of the coin. While it is vital that Ontario's consumers have a method to redress potential wrongs, it's equally important that we create the conditions to minimize complaints and nip problems in the bud.

In my riding, I often hear from constituents, especially seniors, about their concerns and desire for greater consumer education.

Minister, what steps does your ministry take to educate consumers, and what are some of the rights consumers in Ontario deserve in the marketplace?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Again, my thanks to my honourable colleague who fights so hard to protect consumers in his riding.

Annually, my ministry contributes to effective consumer education through a variety of resources. Many members of this House know and, I'm sure, distribute our annual Smart calendar, which provides useful information about preventing identity theft, protecting seniors—

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: In different languages.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —and in many, many different languages, my colleague adds. He's correct.

We deliver over 100 public consumer education seminars annually and we do this because we believe Ontarians need to know their rights as consumers.

Smart consumers are good for business, and smart businesses value informed consumers.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, there's more fallout from your DriveTest centre strike. A constituent of mine inadvertently allowed his licence to expire and was told that the one requirement to have it reinstated is a vision test. So far, so good. Unfortunately, he can't get that vision test—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would ask you to just withdraw the comment and watch what you're saying.

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Unfortunately, the ministry only recognizes their own vision test. It's no good to get a vision test from an optometrist, which he's prepared to do so he can have his licence reinstated. They're telling him, "No, you've got to have it done here at the DriveTest centre." Well, the DriveTest centres are closed. This person now has had to hire a driver at great expense to get around because your ministry will not reissue his licence. Will you remedy this now, Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I wish it were that simple, I must say. I must say to my good friend who has brought this to my attention—I want to say to members of the House, first of all, he was kind enough to bring it to my attention earlier and we had a discussion about it. He's very good at doing those kinds of things and is genuinely concerned about it.

The problem that you encounter is consistency: consistency of vision tests that are administered in the province of Ontario. The second is, even if you were able to get that information from an optometrist or ophthalmologist, it still has to be processed by the people who work for Serco itself. It has to be entered into the system. They are on strike at this point in time. I would hope that both sides would work together to end the strike—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, you're on the record as saying that someone would not be denied a renewal of their licence because of this DriveTest centre strike. This is precisely what is happening because of a technical thing. If you're going to get your eyes tested, are you telling the people of Ontario, "Don't go to the optometrist anymore, don't go to the ophthalmologist. Come to one of our DriveTest centres. We're better"? This is no reason to be holding a man up from getting the licence that he requires to make a living. He is a dance instructor who drives from community to community and has now had to hire a driver in order to make a living.

This is a technical thing that you can, I believe, remedy. Anybody who can get a test from a qualified ophthalmologist or optometrist should be able to get their licence reinstated while this DriveTest centre strike is going on. Will you rule in their favour, please?

Hon. James J. Bradley: In this specific case, and the member was kind enough to point this out to me when we had our discussion, the individual had allowed his licence to lapse. In other words, he did not renew that licence, unfortunately. Where there are people who want to renew a licence and want to make an appointment to do so, we said that we would extend it. In this particular case, the individual had allowed his licence to lapse. There are not exceptions made for people who allow that to happen. It's unfortunate. They don't do it deliberately. You and I know that they don't do it deliberately, but it does happen that way.

Your government set up Serco, my friend, and you will recall that there were some very difficult challenges that arose when you privatized Serco in the province of Ontario.

I know the member and I will continue to work together on this. I wish it were as easy as the member thinks. Unfortunately, it is not in this case and we will work hard with the Minister of Labour to get—

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

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This point of order is related to at least two standing orders, 23 and 37, and deals, of course, with your ruling finding the question from the member from Nepean—Carleton out of order earlier today.

Your ruling, Speaker, has significant implications for the opposition parties. I would like to give you notice, Speaker, that I would appreciate the opportunity to research precedent and take a closer look at the standing orders with respect to this issue because of its implications for the opposition to perform its role effectively. What I would suggest is that I will pursue the details with respect to the point of order tomorrow, if that's appropriate from your perspective.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I spoke briefly with the opposition House leader about this matter and about our desire to join with him in this point of order. It's a peculiar thing, because we're certainly not challenging the Chair by any stretch of the imagination. As Mr. Runciman indicated, we're referring to 37, in particular 37(a), and also to 23(

h) and (i), both of which involve, first, making an allegation against another member and, secondly, imputing false or unavowed motives to another member.

Our job here is to hold the government accountable. This is what question period is about: It's about accountability. So with respect—and I appreciate that this is a dog of a little bit of a different colour—I ask you to accede to the request of Mr. Runciman, and I indicate that we will be joining with him. It won't be lengthy. Quite frankly, you may want to tell us what time you prefer that we deal with this so we can do it in a manner that's most convenient to you.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that they are challenging your authority to make the ruling that you made earlier today. We do support you in your ruling of earlier today, but should you choose to hear this in a more fulsome manner, we will be prepared to make submissions as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to thank all the honourable members, and I certainly welcome and will hear the deputation from the honourable members and would encourage everyone, because I think anything that we can do to help improve the flow of question period benefits all members. We've had a lot of discussion in this chamber about questions coming from all sides of the House, and I think that anything that we can do to help improve that, because—a couple of things. I will say that certainly, to my mind, I have warned members about imputing motives, and that comes from both sides of the House.

Yes, I recognize that, as the honourable member has said, it's specifically a member. I did listen closely to the honourable member's supplementary. It was very clear and unequivocal that an assertion was being made that there were motives.

As I say, I certainly welcome hearing from the member from Leeds—Grenville, and I would welcome the input from the member from Welland and the government House leader. If there's anything that we can do to help improve the performance of question period, I would welcome it.

I think it would probably be preferable to see that after question period, if it's after question period tomorrow. I wouldn't want to do it before then. I think it would be better to do it following question period.

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

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to take the opportunity to introduce Teresa Osterback from Dundas—Flamborough-Ancaster West, if I haven't mangled the name of the riding too badly, our guest today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr. Ted Arnott: The McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg showcases much more than art. It showcases the very best in our province and our country. Soon the rest of the world will have the chance to see that too. I'm pleased to report that the McMichael collection exhibit Challenging Traditions is en route to the Olympic Museum in Lausanne, Switzerland. It's all part of that museum's exhibition program recognizing Canada's hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, just over four months away.

The McMichael exhibition highlights some 40 living Canadian artists using the traditions, forms, styles and materials of west coast First Nations art. The exhibition also builds on the tradition and extraordinary generosity of the late Robert and Signe McMichael, who I was honoured to know.

I want to acknowledge the artists' creativity and their important place in the cultural history of Canada. Further, I want to congratulate Tom Smart and all the staff at McMichael for their exceptional job in creating this timely and groundbreaking exhibition.

I'm privileged to serve as the opposition critic to the ministers of culture and aboriginal affairs. The McMichael exhibit shows us the best of both.

A few days ago, I returned to the McMichael gallery, one of my favourite art galleries, and the first one I visited more than 20 years ago. It was great to be back and see first-hand the works that depict our scenic beauty in Wellington—Halton Hills. We in Ontario are very fortunate to have this cultural gem in our own backyard.

POWER PLANT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I rise in the House today to announce my support for Oakville's demand for cleaner air and better health.

You may know, Speaker, that my community has actively protested the Ontario Power Authority's proposal to build a natural gas power plant in the Oakville community, and their efforts have my support. The residents of Oakville have sent hundreds of e-mails, they've signed petitions, and they've attended rallies. Today, they were with us at Queen's Park. They're asking the Ontario Power Authority to cancel their plans.

Oakville town council, led by Mayor Rob Burton, has also fought the plan and urged for a reduction in pollutants. I commend the approach they have taken. Town council has passed an interim control bylaw that bans the construction of power plants within Oakville.

Our government promised to take action to improve the health and the environment of our province. Today, during question period, Minister Gerretsen promised action on cumulative emissions, and that certainly is welcome news.

The Green Energy Act, the Toxics Reduction Act and a commitment to close coal plants by 2014 will significantly improve Ontario's health and the environment. However, the Ontario Power Authority's plans to build a power plant will simply increase emissions in what is already an overtaxed airshed. So I join with my community and municipal leaders in urging the Ontario Power Authority to reconsider their intention to increase pollution in Oakville and to meet my community's demand for clean air and better health.

JADE SCOGNAMILLO

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I am very pleased today to honour a young woman from my riding of Dufferin—Caledon. This summer, Jade Scognamillo from Caledon officially became the youngest swimmer ever to cross Lake Ontario, at the age of 15. Jade completed this historic swim in 19 hours, 59 minutes and 49 seconds.

Swimming across Lake Ontario should have been enough, but Jade did all this for a great cause—two great causes, in fact. Jade did the swim to raise money for the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Jade's swim helped raise more than $47,000 to purchase an incubator for the hospital's neonatal unit. She also raised another $5,000 for the local Headwaters Health Care Centre in Orangeville.

I had the pleasure of meeting Jade this summer as she took her oath of citizenship on Canada Day. You see, Jade just became a Canadian citizen on July 1. She wanted to be able to do this historic swim as a Canadian.

Jade has proven to be a fantastic role model for young people across the province. Jade's motivation to improve the lives of others and volunteer within her community really does make a difference.

Congratulations, Jade.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I would like to take a moment to remind members about the McGuinty government's initiatives to address the serious issue of workplace injuries. Our workers are among the most productive, and this government is committed to having the highest safety standards to protect workers and their families. As a key part of this injury prevention strategy, safety inspectors will blitz construction throughout October to eliminate electrical hazards that could lead to injury or even death.

The dedication of the McGuinty government to the safety of Ontario workers has been exemplified through the Minister of Labour's compliance program that ran from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2008. This program helped reduce lost-time injury rates by 20%, or more than 50,000 incidents. This reduction also saw a drop in the annual rate of lost-time injuries, with employers avoiding about $5 billion in direct and indirect costs over the last four years. This lessened the strain on the health care system, and fewer workers off the job meant increased productivity in Ontario's economy.

The McGuinty government recognizes the skill and value of Ontario workers, and while there's always more to do, we will continue to implement strategies to promote the overall well-being of Ontario workers.

POWER PLANT

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, as you know, we heard from visitors in this House today on just how lost this government has become in planning for future energy needs. Since 2006, the Conservative member from Halton, Ted Chudleigh, has been trying to get the government's attention to allow the people of Mississauga and Oakville and, indeed, people across the province input into power plants planned for their area.

The year 2006 was the same year that the Ministry of the Environment found the Clarkson airshed was taxed or compromised and contained elevated levels of particulate matter in the air. Yet, in that same airshed, this government has pushed forward with plans for an 850-megawatt gas-fired power plant—a plant that 23,000 have now signed petitions against, a plant that close to 1,000 came out to an Oakville park this summer to protest, and a plant that people have packed the galleries to object to. As the Halton member told the Oakville crowd, "I fail to be convinced that we need this power plant.

I'd like to see the government build power plants in airsheds that aren't overtaxed. I'd like to see the government build power plants in areas where people aren't."

Perhaps the government members haven't heard that their lack of planning has turned an economic downturn into a debacle and has made it unnecessary to build these kinds of new generating stations. It's time for this government to go back to the drawing board, crunch today's numbers, not those of three years ago, and clean up the air.

SMART METERS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: There's no question that building a smart grid in Ontario is advantageous to us, but the investment in smart meters in individual homes and small businesses is a mistake. It's the wrong direction for Ontario, and it means that we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on penalizing people for trying to cook lunch for themselves at midday when we could be taking that hundreds of millions of dollars and putting it into insulation in people's homes, on long-term rental or lease programs. We could put it into solar panel siding for hospitals and schools.

We could be putting it into a wide variety of efficiency and conservation investments. But that money is going to be used up making sure that seniors who spend their whole day at home with a refrigerator going they are not going to turn off, listening to a radio or watching television, just trying to get about their daily lives, are going to pay more in future than they've paid in the past for everyday living. That is not the direction this province should be going in.

I've heard from seniors and I've heard from small businesses that they are hit hard during the day because they don't have the opportunity—well, frankly, would it be a good thing for them to stay up all through the night to take advantage of the low-cost electricity and sleep during the day? That's not a practical thing for them; they can't shift that way.

The province, the Liberal government, has made a huge mistake with this, and we will continue to pay for it for decades to come.

SHOP THE SHORE

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: In Etobicoke—Lakeshore we are passionate about what is good for the community and we're always looking for ways to harness past success into future opportunities. So this year, our local business improvement areas, along with the Our Lakeshore group, have brought back the highly successful Shop the Shore. Shop the Shore brings residents together to discover all the lakeshore has to offer. At its core is the desire to do better for our neighbourhood and increase revitalization of the lakeshore community. It is the dedication of involved community members that has brought this event to life.

The lakeshore BIAs are helping to ensure that this year's event is even bigger than it was in 2008.

Shop the Shore gives us the opportunity to shop locally and discover our businesses, both new and old, in the area. By doing this, we all help to support the local economy as well as the hard work that community volunteers put into organizing a great event for residents of all ages.

Last week, I shopped at the shore in Long Branch; this weekend, I shop the shore in New Toronto. I want to extend my thanks and congratulations to all involved. As we like to say in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, "Shop local. It's good for our community, good for the environment and good for you."

REGIONAL EQUINE AND AGRICULTURAL CENTRE OF HURON

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I rise today to tell you about a wonderful success story from my riding and from my own hometown. Just over two weeks ago, the town of Clinton in the municipality of Central Huron held the grand opening ceremonies for the wonderful and long-awaited Regional Equine and Agricultural Centre of Huron. This state-of-the-art centre will function as a "motel for education," offering innovative programming as well as recreational activities to support both the equine and agricultural industries. The REACH centre combines a large indoor riding arena with a full-service educational facility that includes classrooms, boardrooms and media rooms. There's also an outdoor show

section for exhibitions and other entertainment purposes.

This grand opening was especially exciting, as the government played a large

part in its coming to fruition. As a government, we provided $850,000 through the rural economic development fund and the rural infrastructure investment initiative. This government has continued to show its support for all facets of the agricultural sector in rural Ontario. This is yet another shining example of that strong commitment.

I want to wish congratulations to the community of Clinton and invite all of you to stop by and see this absolutely magnificent facility, if your travels take you to the most beautiful riding in the province of Ontario, that being Huron—Bruce.

MID-AUTUMN MOON FESTIVAL

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I am pleased to share with the Legislature that the Mid-Autumn Moon Festival which will be celebrated across Ontario on October 3. The Mid-Autumn Moon Festival, also known as the Chinese Moon Festival, is one of the most important days on the Chinese calendar and has been celebrated for over 3,000 years. This holiday marks the end of the summer harvest season and is held when the moon is at its fullest and brightest, symbolizing abundance and togetherness. It is a time for family reunions and friendship.

The Mid-Autumn Moon Festival is traditionally celebrated by gathering with friends and family to admire the full moon and, of course, by eating the many varieties of moon cakes prepared for the special occasion.

The Chinese community in my riding of Ottawa Centre is a vibrant community. Organizations such as the Federation of Ottawa Chinese Community Organizations, the Chinese Community Association of Ottawa and the Federation of Ottawa Chinese Canadians enrich our society by sharing the values, customs and heritage of the Chinese people.

I'm also pleased to announce that the government of Ontario is contributing $125,000 towards the construction of a gateway to Ottawa's Chinatown. The gateway, a traditional arch designed by the city of Beijing, will become a cultural landmark in the city of Ottawa, and will enhance tourism and economic development in Ottawa's Chinatown. It recognizes the important contributions of Ottawa's Chinese community to the rich cultural mosaic of our city.

I would also like to thank the Somerset Street BIA, the gateway committee and the many volunteers who have made the gateway dream a reality. Together we are creating a united and prosperous Ottawa.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition to do with the McGuinty sales tax and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is planning to merge the 8% provincial sales tax and the 5% federal sales tax; and

"Whereas the new 13% sales tax will be applied to products and services not previously subject to provincial sales tax such as gasoline, home heating fuels, home renovations, haircuts, hamburgers, television service, Internet service, telephone and cell services, taxi fees, bus, train and airplane tickets, and dry cleaning services; and

"Whereas rural and northern Ontarians will be particularly hard hit by Mr. McGuinty's new sales tax, as will seniors and families;

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

"That the McGuinty government should remove the new sales tax from its 2009-10 budget."

I support this petition.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) conducted 22 months of ambient air monitoring and determined that the Clarkson, Mississauga, airshed study area was taxed for respirable particulate matter (PM2.5); and

"Whereas the average annual PM2.5 concentrations measured in the Clarkson airshed were among the highest found when compared to data obtained from the ministry's air quality index monitoring stations; and

"Whereas the interim 24-hour ministry ambient air quality criterion for PM10 was exceeded on several occasions; and

"Whereas the study found that emissions of acrolein and acrylonitrile exceeded provincial limits; and

"Whereas concentrations of toluene, xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, trichloroethene and acrolein were higher than those at the 12 Environment Canada national air pollution surveillance stations in Ontario, including those located in Toronto (4), Brampton, Windsor, Hamilton, Sarnia, Kingston, Ottawa, Kitchener and London; and

"Whereas annual average 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations were found to be among the highest when compared to provincial air quality index stations in the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas; and

"Whereas the MOE stated that industrial emissions may contribute as much as 25% of the PM2.5 concentrations in the Clarkson airshed study area; and

"Whereas the MOE stated that it would focus on achieving reductions of the target pollutants from the 57 identified emitters that currently operate in the area; and

"Whereas the Ontario Power Authority is accepting proposals from companies for the operation of a gas-fired power plant in the Clarkson airshed study area that would see a new, very significant source of additional pollution into an airshed already determined as stressed by the MOE;

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

"That no contract be awarded by the Ontario Power Authority for the operation of any gas-fired power plant that would impact" the east Oakville environment and "the Clarkson airshed study area."

I agree with the petition and will sign it and send it down with Robert.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services, Madeleine Meilleur, has decided that grandparents caring for their grandchildren no longer qualify for temporary care assistance; and

"Whereas the removal of the temporary care assistance could mean that children will be forced into foster care; and

"Whereas the temporary care assistance amounted to $231 per month, much less than a foster family would receive to look after the same children if they were forced into foster care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately reverse the decision to remove temporary care assistance for grandparents looking after their grandchildren."

I agree with this petition and am pleased to affix my name to it and give it to page Kingsong.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to present another 200 names regarding a petition to bring a PET scan to Sudbury. It goes as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Charles Sousa: I have a petition that reads as follows.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) conducted 22 months of ambient air monitoring and determined that the Clarkson, Mississauga, airshed study area was taxed for respirable particulate matter (PM2.5); and

"Whereas the average annual PM2.5 concentrations measured in the Clarkson airshed were among the highest found when compared to data obtained from the ministry's air quality index monitoring stations; and....

"Whereas the study found that emissions of acrolein and acrylonitrile exceeded provincial limits; and....

"Whereas the MOE stated that industrial emissions may contribute as much as 25% of the PM2.5 concentrations in the Clarkson airshed study area; and

"Whereas the MOE stated that it would focus on achieving reductions of the target pollutants from the 57 identified emitters that currently operate in the area; and

"Whereas the Ontario Power Authority is accepting proposals from companies for the operation of a gas-fired power plant in the Clarkson airshed study area that would see a new, very significant source of additional pollution into an airshed already determined as stressed by the MOE;

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

"That no contract be awarded by the Ontario Power Authority for the operation of any gas-fired power plant that would impact the Clarkson airshed study area."

I affix my signature and provide it to Jacob.

TAXATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes in ... 2003..., but in 2004 brought in the health tax, the biggest tax hike in Ontario's history; and

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

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new ... sales tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as: coffee, newspapers and magazines, gas at the pumps, home heating oil and electricity, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, real estate transactions, veterinary care, arena ice and soccer field rentals;

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

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

I affix my name in support.

SHARK FISHERY

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over 100 million sharks are being brutally killed, mutilated and butchered by the abhorrent practice of shark finning, which involves the removal of the fins of live sharks and then throwing the finless, immobile, shark back into the ocean, where it is destined for a slow and torturous death;

"Whereas sharks are a vital component of the ocean's interconnected ecosystem...; and

"Whereas the practice of shark finning can have disastrous effects on other fisheries...; and

"Whereas the United Nations General Assembly itself has noted that the decline in the shark population could have 'an impact on broader ecosystem functions';

"We, the undersigned, urge the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the prohibition of shark finning and to call upon the federal government to support the prohibition of this cruel act ... and these wasteful and inhumane methods used to obtain shark fins for the purpose of making things like shark fin soup."

I support this petition and I affix my name to it.

FERTILITY TREATMENT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a petition here from many residents petitioning the Legislature for full funding of in vitro fertilization. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the prevalence and growing incidence of infertility in our population is a medical issue that demands the attention of our public health care system and should be placed on the agenda for funding;

"Whereas fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization, is a proven medical solution that is unfairly limited to those with the financial means to pursue it and it should receive significant coverage through the Ontario health care system as soon as possible;

"Whereas in vitro fertilization should be fully funded when deemed medically necessary, without discrimination based on cause or gender; and

"Whereas it is long overdue that financial assistance for fertility treatment be offered to" all "Ontarians. We are residents of the province of Ontario and request that the Ontario provincial government address this important issue.

"We, the undersigned, strongly support the inclusion of financial assistance by the Ontario Ministry of Health under the Ontario health care program for all fertility treatment for Ontarians, male and female" alike.

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to sign my name to it.

TAXATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have a petition for the Legislature here.

"Whereas residents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke do not want the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, hydro, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to home sales over $400,000; and

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

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

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

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

I support this petition. I affix my signature to it and send it down with page Carlos.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Joe Dickson: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas current changes to ServiceOntario will expand and improve access to licensing, registration, health card renewal and other services, it will also close effective and service-oriented local businesses and cost us local jobs, such as the licence office that the Donald family has owned and operated in Whitby and Durham region for over 50 years; and

"Whereas we recognize the quality of service provided by the Donald family to be rated above the 100% efficiency level, including extended hours;

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

"That the Donald family be maintained as a licence bureau of the highest quality in the region of Durham."

I do present quite a large assembly of petitions and I affix my signature to it and pass it to this young page, Kaitlin.

TAXATION

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

"Whereas residents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke do not want the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, hydro, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to new home sales over $400,000; and

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

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

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

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

I support this petition strongly and I pass it to the table with Robert.

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have this petition that you may be familiar with, but since I received it last week, I have to read it to you again. It's to the Parliament of Ontario and minister of infrastructure services and the Minister of Transportation. It reads as follows:

"Whereas GO Transit is presently planning to tunnel an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West and west of Old Weston Road, making it easier for GO trains to pass a major rail crossing;

"Whereas TTC is presently planning a TTC right-of-way along all of St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair Avenue-Old Weston Road bridge;

"Whereas this bridge ... will be: (1) too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way, since it will leave only one lane for traffic; (2) it is not safe for pedestrians (it's about 50 metres long). It's dark and slopes on both east and west sides, creating high banks for 300 metres; and (3) it creates a divide, a no man's land, between Old Weston Road and Keele Street. (This was acceptable when the area consisted entirely of slaughterhouses, but now the area has 900 new homes);

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that GO Transit extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Avenue West so that trains will pass under St. Clair Avenue West, thus eliminating this eyesore of a bridge with its high banks and blank walls. Instead it will create a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful continuous cityscape with easy traffic flow."

I am delighted to sign this because I believe in it 100%.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 24, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector / Projet de loi 201, Loi prévoyant l'examen des dépenses dans le secteur public.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to continue the debate on Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector. The lead on this bill is the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Takhar.

I did have an opportunity on Thursday to start speaking to this bill. It's my feeling that the bill is really a PR exercise, and it's come about because of the scandals we've seen happening this summer, particularly the scandals at eHealth, with the spending, the out-of-control expenses at eHealth—the $25,000 speech, the $2,700 a day for consultants—which were brought to light by the PC Party and the freedom-of-information requests we put forward and were very diligent with to eventually get a lot of information.

The same can be said for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., where we started back in January doing freedom-of-information requests. The government has taken a different tack with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming commission, deciding to just drop all of the information—except for information about untendered contracts—at one time hoping that it wouldn't be a media story with quite as much legs, I would say.

But I find it ironic, as I've stated before, that the minister responsible for bringing this bill to the Legislature, Minister Takhar, is the only member who has ever been found in violation of the Members' Integrity Act. Coulter Osborne, in his January 4, 2006, report, found the minister in violation of the Members' Integrity Act, and yet nothing happened from that. The Premier didn't do anything about it, didn't hold the minister to account. He has yet to hold any minister, really, to account in the government, and Minister Takhar is still a minister.

Now he wants, with this bill, to have the the Integrity Commissioner's office provide oversight for some 80,000 employees of 22 of the larger agencies and boards. I think that's just not possible for the Integrity Commissioner, with their staff of nine people, unless they're planning on a huge bureaucracy being built at the Integrity Commissioner's office. So I certainly have concerns about that.

Let's look at the numbers. If each public servant only put out one report each month, then nine people will have to review 960,000 documents each year. If each staff member at the Integrity Commissioner's office worked 35 hours a week—that's 1,750 hours a year, less the two weeks of vacation—every hour his staff would have to review and scrutinize a minimum of 68 expense reports. That's less than a minute per document. How could they possibly do that?

So this isn't a real plan. This is a public relations exercise for the government to change channels on all the scandals that have been coming forward. That's certainly my position on this.

If the government is really interested in accountability—the public accounts just came out, and they have to come out by today, which show how much the government actually spent last year. So how did the government—this government that's supposed to be in favour of accountability—release the public accounts? Well, it was Friday afternoon. In the 12th news release of the day, on Friday afternoon, is when the actual public accounts were released. I think just when the Clerk was about to lock the office for the day is when they were released.

I'm sure that was planned so as to draw as little attention to the public accounts as possible. Because back in March, when the budget came out, the Minister of Finance stated that the deficit was going to be $3.9 billion. He had revised that, and I'll cut him a little slack: Obviously, when they started the budget year, they weren't expecting the huge, worldwide financial meltdown. But they revised their budget so that in March, at the end of the year, they said the actual deficit was going to be $3.9 billion.

What we learned in public accounts was that the actual deficit for the year that ended March 31, 2009, was $6.4 billion, and that was largely attributed to a drop in corporate tax revenues.

As I drove in this morning, I was listening to CBC. They had the financial analyst—

Mr. Ted Arnott: Michael Hlinka.

Mr. Norm Miller: —Michael Hlinka on, and he said that surely the Minister of Finance knew, and that it was either incompetence, if he didn't know, or dishonesty: They made a deliberate decision not to reveal the true numbers back in March of this year. That's what was on the radio this morning as I drove in: The minister would have had to know. So the way they released the public accounts was a strategy on the part of the government.

I asked a question about this today. I had to ask the Deputy Premier, even though I would have liked to ask the Premier, but I think that is also part of the strategy. I can't talk about attendance, so I won't talk about attendance, but I did ask the question of the Deputy Premier today, as much as I might like to have asked the Premier about this release of the public accounts.

But I think the public accounts really confirm what we've known all along: Dalton McGuinty has lost all credibility when it comes to managing Ontario's economy. It really raises the question, how can you believe the McGuinty government? The government is drowning in red ink. This new figure for last year is a $6.4-billion deficit. In March of this year they said the deficit this year was going to be $14 billion, and now we learn it's going to be $18.5 billion. At least that is what they're saying at this time. Who knows whether they're going to revise that again?

There was a big drop in corporate tax revenue. I think the drop in corporate tax revenue is one more sign of how terrible the business climate has become under the high-tax, high-regulation reign of the McGuinty government.

Dalton McGuinty cannot simply blame this on the global recession. Ontario was already falling before the global recession hit. We fell faster and harder than the other provinces. The unfortunate thing is that there's still no plan to dig us out of this very large hole the government is putting us in. As I say, we're going to have an all-time record deficit this year, if it doesn't grow still bigger. We asked questions about that today in question period, and the Minister of Finance conveniently didn't answer the question, "Is it going to be greater than $18.5 billion?" That makes us worry that the deficit will grow still more.

It was pointed out that back in the Bob Rae days, the then-opposition, the Liberal Party at that point, was making a big deal about the fact that Bob Rae was spending $1 million an hour more than he was bringing in. Every hour his revenues were $1 million less than expenses. Now this government, with the current $18.5-billion deficit, is spending $2.1 million an hour—every hour, 24 hours a day, the whole year round—more than they're bringing in. That's a big hole that's being dug.

I pointed out in the past that I don't buy the government's plan to get us out of the deficit—they say they're going to restrain government program spending to 2.3% a year—when in effect their average increase in spending over the last six years has been 7.4% per year. So I just don't see that coming.

I can see I am pretty much out of time.

I definitely view this as more of a PR exercise than anything else and find it very ironic that it's being introduced by the only minister who has been sanctioned by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I've had occasion to listen to not only this latter part of Mr. Miller's contribution but also to the first part when he began it—a valuable participation in this debate.

I'm interested in hearing what government members have to say. There are a number of them here—obviously, enough to keep a quorum; not much more than that—and I'm eager to hear what they've got to say.

It's just like—and I'm going to have a chance, and I'm going to repeat it—the recent amendments to the Coroners Act which relieved the Solicitor General, the Minister of Community Safety, of the responsibility and right to order a public inquest into a death. It makes life so much easier for the minister when he doesn't have that power. I'm going to have a chance to speak to this more later.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm pleased to offer a couple of minutes in response to the comments from the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka on the Public Sector Expenses Review Act, 2009, brought forward by Minister Takhar on behalf of our government.

I think it's a bit of an unfortunate turn of phrase to refer to what is before us today as a public relations exercise. I'm not sure that anybody who is following the debate on television who has an interest in this particular topic will ever view the effort to advance transparency and accountability as a public relations exercise.

The opposition parties may have some feelings and opinions on this, that they feel it isn't going far enough or it should go farther, and perhaps during their time to speak on this particular piece of legislation they'll make suggestions in terms of what we could do to make it even better. But to refer to something such as this as a PR exercise, I think, is a bit unfortunate.

I do want to speak just a little bit specifically to one of the comments made by the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka. He quoted a number in his remarks, in terms of the number of filings that he expected were going to occur should this legislation pass. I forget the number, I didn't write it down, but it was in the hundreds of thousands; I think I heard the member say something like 700,000 or 900,000. It was a very large number. While I'm not able to stand here today and tell you exactly how many people will have to file these expense claims, I don't think it's going to be 700,000 or 900,000.

I think it's very clearly articulated in the legislation that there are 22 agencies that are going to be affected by this legislation, should it pass, and that the only people in those agencies who are going to be expected to file their claims are senior management personnel. So I think that there's a bit of an exaggeration there. And if it does require a bit of cost on behalf of government to ensure transparency and accountability, I think we're all willing to contribute to that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Wellington—Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I was glad to hear the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka give his presentation this afternoon, following up on the speech that he initiated last Thursday with respect to Bill 201, and I found it very interesting. Our member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is our newly minted critic for finance, and he was able to bring a number of issues related to that portfolio into the discussion.

Certainly, he informed the House today, I think for the first time, that the government's deficit of $18.5 billion means that the government is spending about $2 million an hour more than it's taking in. I recall sitting here in the years between 1990 and 1995, when our party in opposition reminded the House and the people of Ontario constantly that the government was spending $1 million an hour more than it was taking in, and it was seen to be a fiscal crisis as a result. Now we see the current government spending more than $2 million an hour, something to ponder and something to think about.

I have before me the Hansard from the Minister of Government Services, who, when he introduced this bill for second reading debate on September 17, said that this bill was intended "to provide further accountability and transparency with regard to the use of taxpayers' dollars."

Interestingly, this Minister of Government Services is, I think, still the first and only member of this Legislature who has been condemned by the Integrity Commissioner for a breach of the Members' Integrity Act. So it is highly ironic—I think if I were a government member I'd find it very embarrassing to have to stand up in this House and defend that minister and talk about Bill 201, which would have the effect, according to the government, anyway, of creating more transparency and accountability.

So I look forward to further debate on this issue. I know our party has many serious concerns about this, and we're going to have a lot of speakers talking about it this afternoon. We look forward to their participation and I look forward to the participation of all members as we continue to debate Bill 201.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Member from Toronto—Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this issue. There is no question that the events of the last year have shown the necessity of an opening of doors so that there can actually be an assessment, an accounting for, an understanding of what has been spent in the name of the public.

This government showed through a variety of events, such as the so-called Collegate spending, a year-end dishing out of large amounts of cash to organizations without any process whatsoever for assessing the validity of those applications, without giving the rest of the public an opportunity, that it had a huge amount of difficulty in actually accounting for the public dollar. The eHealth issue that has come up, the OLG—in all of those circumstances we have a government that does not seem to have learned many of the fundamentals of accounting and spending control.

When I speak about spending control, I don't talk about those terms used as code words for cutting back on social services. I talk about the simple business expedient of being able to know that the money you put out the door is actually being spent on something of value. This government doesn't seem to be able to do that.

We heard today about the construction or the proposed construction of a gas-fired power plant in the southwest GTA. Demand for power is dropping. We have a health problem in that area already. Mayor McCallion was here, residents were here, all making it very clear in their arguments that a rational assessment of options and needs had not been made in making that decision. This government needs a lot more than this act to clean up its act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you for the comments from the member from Welland, who pointed out that government members, other than doing the two-minute hits per speech, have decided not to speak to this legislation. The member from Welland also talked about ministerial responsibility and accountability, and that's something that seems to be sorely lacking in the McGuinty government.

I really am not sure what a minister has to do to lose his job in the McGuinty government, but certainly it's my feeling that ministers need to be a lot more responsible and need to be overseeing the areas of their responsibility more than they are. The Minister of Finance has repeatedly claimed that his government has been open and transparent. Is that why the staff in the Premier's office tried to block our freedom-of-information requests, as was stated by Kelly McDougald, the fired CEO of OLG, in her statement of claim, in which it's pointed out that the government delayed giving out information, delayed the freedom-of-information applications from our party on every occasion?

Let's be clear: The reason this bill is being debated in the Legislature is because our party did freedom-of-information requests and found out there was a lot of money being wasted at eHealth Ontario and at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. We've done hundreds more freedom-of-information requests on other agencies because there are 630 agencies and boards in the province of Ontario. We've done two of them, and we found a lot of waste, and we will continue with that.

This bill, I believe, is a PR response to a scandal that the government has faced at eHealth and OLG.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I've only got about 20 minutes to speak to this legislation. It's not a lengthy bill; that's because most of it isn't here. There's a big hole—it's a doughnut bill. There's a big hole in the middle of it because it's all about regulation. We have no idea what the government's talking about, what's going to be reviewable and what's not going to be reviewable and how it's going to be addressed.

I do want to share with my colleagues, though, a fascinating reference. The Speaker this morning referred us to McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. Of course, all of us always struggle to abide by the rules—people like Mr. Yakabuski, who shares with me this passion for ensuring that we stay within the goalposts, that we don't go over the edge. Again, I was so grateful when he was sitting closer to me because he and I would counsel each other about saying, "Whoa, slow down.

You're getting close to the edge here." I can tell you, we were very upset from time to time when we were found to have violated the standing orders or broken the rules in one way or another. It hurt. It's like a blow to the solar plexus. So we struggle, we fight with ourselves and with our passions to ensure that we remain inside the rules of the game.

So I was delighted to see this reference in McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, because it has all to do with the business of misleading: We can't accuse a member of lying. One of the ironies about this place is that you can lie but you can't be called a liar. I suspect it happens every day, even the little white lies, little fib lies, and maybe sometimes really big ones. People can do that because, of course, everybody's presumed to be telling the truth.

But I found this remarkable observation, and I want to share it with you too, Speaker, because I know you're going to be called upon, I'm sure, in short order to rule on this type of language.

McGee at page 189 says, "If an accusation that a member has deliberately misled the House was correct"—and the Speaker gave a ruling on that this morning, a very high standard, so you've got to be beyond any doubt—"the member would have committed a contempt, and a member who believes that another member has misled or tried to mislead the House should raise this as a matter of privilege." That's fair enough; we've all learned that over the course of the years.

"That a member must not accuse another of lying does not mean that the correctness of the other's statements may not be questioned and it is in order"—it is in order, not out of order—"to accuse a member of having misled the country"—or, I presume, the province, or the people of Ontario, or the voters of Ontario.

So I say to my colleagues, in the interests of civility here in the provincial Legislature, let's remember that you can never accuse an honourable member of lying, you can never accuse another honourable member of misleading the House, but we can accuse them of misleading the province. We can accuse the member of misleading the people of Ontario. We can accuse the member of misleading the voters of this great province of Ontario: McGee, Parliamentary practice in New Zealand, page one hundred and—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Welland is most eloquent, but I would ask him to return to the order of the day, which is Bill 201.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have to explain to the member, my good friend the previous speaker, that there are two ways to get to Welland from Toronto.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I like the long way.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You can take the QEW, then go down the 406, six and eight lanes of traffic and you get there fast, but it