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

September 23, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Sep-23 (PDF)

L046 - Thu 23 Sep 2010 / Jeu 23 sep 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 23 September 2010 Jeudi 23 septembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

WEARING OF RIBBONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

NUCLEAR WASTE

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TOURISM

DEFERRED VOTES

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GREEN LEGACY PROGRAM

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

TUTUS FOR TANNER

PAT SILVER

GIRL GUIDES

LEGION WEEK

FRED OLIVER

TASTE OF STREETSVILLE

SHERMAN HEALTH SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO

BUY LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’ACHAT

D’ALIMENTS LOCAUX

PAR LE GOUVERNEMENT

DE L’ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

WORLD HEART DAY

NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DES BIOTECHNOLOGIES

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY WEEK

WORLD HEART DAY

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

WORLD HEART DAY

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TAXATION

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CONDOMINIUMS

ARTHUR WISHART AMENDMENT ACT

(FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ARTHUR WISHART

SUR LA DIVULGATION

RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME

DU DROIT DE L’ENFANCE

CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CONDOMINIUMS

ARTHUR WISHART AMENDMENT ACT

(FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ARTHUR WISHART

SUR LA DIVULGATION

RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME

DU DROIT DE L’ENFANCE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 14, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts in respect of water conservation and other matters / Projet de loi 72, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur le développement des technologies de l’eau et modifiant d’autres lois en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’eau et d’autres questions.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: This is the first opportunity since the summer break that I’ve had to rise in the Legislature and debate anything; I’m pleased that it is the Water Opportunities Act.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Let the whip know you need more time. I want to hear you.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You want to hear me?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yeah.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You’ll get a chance.

This is the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, Bill 72, that we’re talking about today. The first thing that came into my mind this morning, as I thought about debating this bill, is that the middle word of Water Opportunities Act is “opportunities.” Opportunities, in the context of the government of the day, is code for “taxation.” It’s an opportunity to tax.

It’s a good day to be looking at this act. As I thought about what I would say this morning, I took a look at a government website called the Environmental Registry and the description of the act. The first paragraph says that Bill 72 was introduced, received first reading, back in the spring, in May, and, if passed—which I always find strange: if passed? Do the math: There are 70 of them, 25 of us and 12 NDP; I think it’ll pass—by the Legislature, “the act would establish a framework to drive innovation, create economic opportunities, sustain water infrastructure and conserve Ontario’s water.

It would lay the foundation for new Ontario jobs and make our province a North American leader in the development and sale of new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment.”

I read that this morning and I thought, “Boy, if I were a member of the public and reading that for the first time, I would say to myself, ‘Aspirations, indeed. What a terrific idea.’” But then I might pick up a newspaper that doesn’t ordinarily get delivered to the Shurman home, the Toronto Star, and I might read a story that appears this morning that begins like this:

“Great Lakes pollution is getting worse because sewage systems are outdated and Ontario’s north is turning into a Wild West for miners and forestry companies, warns Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller.

“His annual report slams Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government for talking a good game on the environment but not following through, putting at risk everything from drinking water to air quality and wildlife.”

It goes on to say, “It’s been 27 years since the province tightened cleanliness standards for sewage treatment plants emptying waste water into the Great Lakes—a major problem because of the fast-growing population in southern Ontario.

“‘We have the technology to treat the sewage to very low concentrations,’ Miller said, noting the Americans have done a better job through their Clean Water Act and have cleaner beaches and shorelines than Ontario.”

It strikes me that it’s the Americans that have the economic problems that dwarf ours these days, and we’re looking at Bill 72, the Water Opportunities Act. I think I’m beginning to sound like a broken record speaking to these bills. This bill is not particularly different than any other bill that comes under the general heading of environment that has been introduced by this government. The bill states some principles, some aspirations—they sound pretty good. The government spins what they say the bill will do, but without that detail in the bill, no one can honestly say what the bill will or will not do.

So the conclusion that people on this side and, for that matter, members of the public, have to draw is that this government, after seven years of its watch, has not only sold Ontario down the river but is now ready to sell the river. That’s the Water Opportunities Act, Bill 72.

So all we can do is go on precedents; all we can do is go on experience. As economic development critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Tim Hudak, I must say that the portion of the bill that most interests me is the creation of a corporation called Water Technology Acceleration Project, or TAP. Boy, does this government love acronyms—TAP. The objects of the corporation, as stated in the bill, should give Ontarians great pause. The first object is to promote the development of Ontario’s water and waste water sectors. Boy, that Star

article this morning that comes from the report issued by Environment Commissioner Miller yesterday does say it all.

The Liberals have said this does not mean selling Ontario’s water resources or increasing water-taking permits, but what concerns us is that they haven’t said what it does mean. If Ontarians want to know what this bill is really all about—let’s be clear: This is the Green Energy Act for water. I want to call the attention of particularly those of us who are concerned about the environment—I would hope it’s everybody—and those watching on television, with particular reference to your concerns about the environment.

This government, the government of the day, would like you to believe that if you didn’t support the Green Energy Act, then you don’t care about the environment because you don’t care about green energy. The quick jump from that is, if you don’t support this act, then you don’t care about clean water. Those conclusions would be patently untrue.

These acts are being passed with a view to what? This Legislature probably has—I haven’t done the count—less than 90 sitting days left before it dissolves sometime in the early spring and we move into election mode. So this legislation and anything else that’s presented are really meant as feathers for the nest to present a platform on the part of the Liberals who seek re-election on October 6, 2011, and who I can say are going to have a heck of a time doing it. In any event—I digress—the bill has not stated what it truly means. Fresh water is described by some as the oil of the future.

There is no doubt that the lakes and streams and the adjacency to the Great Lakes makes Ontario an interesting place if the goal is fresh water. With the abundance of fresh water in Ontario, the rest of the world looks to us for leadership.

If the rest of the world comes knocking on Ontario’s door looking to pay basically a king’s ransom for Ontario’s water, what do you think the McGuinty Liberals would do? Again, we have to look at the past in order to get an indicator for the future. Let’s look at the recent past and let’s look at a deal that was made in aid of promoting renewable energy in the province of Ontario. The Samsung deal has shown Ontarians that the McGuinty Liberals will sell out this province and its people at the drop of a hat: “We need wind energy.

If you don’t support the Green Energy Act, you won’t get wind energy; there’s no other way to do it.

Let’s take seven billion of your tax dollars, send them to Korea and get a company that makes fantastic cellphones, marvellous computer screens, and they’ll come in and build us a wind technology infrastructure the likes of which you’ve never seen.” And they’d be right about “the likes of which you’ve never seen,” because at the point that Samsung was announced as part of our wind technology plan—their wind technology plan—Samsung had one wind turbine operating in California on a test basis because, although it may be a great big company, it hadn’t entered the wind area at all.

This is the group—not Samsung particularly, but the Ontario government under Dalton McGuinty—that would take and clean up our water.

The irony is that a king’s ransom is not being paid by some foreign multinational; it’s being paid by the taxpayers of this province. Jobs get exported to a foreign country. So let’s export the jobs and let’s export the water.

Ontarians pay the price many times over: the loss of good-paying jobs in Ontario to a foreign national. Look over the course of the last year—just the last year; forget about the entire three years of this term and the four years before that, that the McGuinty Liberals have been in charge. We have been told over the course of the past year under the aegis of the budget, under the aegis of the Green Energy Act and certainly, most recently, under the aegis of the harmonized sales tax, that there would be a million new jobs created in the province of Ontario over the course of the near to medium term.

We don’t see jobs being created. We see employment figures published on a month-by-month basis—my office particularly tracks them—and we have a huge net loss and continuing accumulated losses on a month-by-month basis. At the same time, as we saw the other day, we have a couple of consecutive months now, since the HST was introduced, where the consumer price index in the province of Ontario outstrips by quite a substantial margin all other provinces—in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Jeff Leal: You’re wrong.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You can protest all you want; the figures speak for themselves. It’s not me saying this; it’s Statistics Canada.

And let’s not leave it to that alone; let’s look at our energy bills. Anybody who has opened their electricity bill over the course of the past couple of months knows that there are four new line items that they have to contend with. My constituents report increases at or in excess of 50% at this point, over what they used to pay. If these are the tenets that we have to refer to in terms of the past so that we can try to discern what the future might look like, we’re in serious trouble.

This is more than just passing commentary; this is devastating.

It’s devastating on two particular ends of the demographic spectrum, which causes me and should cause anyone sitting in this chamber great concern: It’s devastating for young families, because young families are the people who struggle to make the mortgage payment every month because they want to make sure that the family home, the primary and most significant asset in most people’s lives, is protected; and it’s devastating for seniors on fixed incomes who have already had to sustain major hits over the course of the past couple of years because the recession has hit them.

They may not have what they used to have in what is commonly known by the term “nest egg,” and they get hit with what? Incredibly accelerated hydro bills, with a prediction from independent studies that these will rise at approximately 7% a year over the course of the next five years. They get hit with a harmonized sales tax—and now estimates that whatever this water bill is going to do, it’s going to cost you more.

One of the things that it purports to do is mandate municipalities to fix aging infrastructure. This is something that should have been done a long, long time ago and on an ongoing basis. Twenty-five per cent of the water that is distributed in our municipalities is the estimate for spillage in the infrastructure we’ve got now. So 100% of the water that goes into the system results in 75% getting to you and 25% going into the ground—witness the sinkholes that occasionally appear in various places in our province, not least in the area of Toronto, when pipes that are too old burst.

The McGuinty government would tell you, “Well, that’s why we introduced the bill. Part of it addresses the whole infrastructure question.” Guess who’s going to pay? You are, taxpayers: You’re going to pay. And the instantaneous response might be, “Well, that’s who should pay. Taxes pay for replacement of infrastructure.” Of course they do. But the tax burden on Ontarians at this point is just too much to bear. We can’t pay any more. And that comes down to how you use the money that you’ve got. It comes down to the McGuinty government saying, “This is our money. We’ll distribute it any way we want.

It’s our set of priorities, at least for the course of this four years, so we’re going to set those priorities, and we’ll cover infrastructure; we’ll cover anything we’d like to do.” That’s how we resulted in a $20-billion deficit last year, this year and predicted somewhere in that territory for next year. Ontario families can no longer pay.

As economic development critic, I’m pretty concerned about what soaring hydro rates will mean to keeping businesses in Ontario. I have to add to that soaring water rates, which are around the corner, because make no mistake: This bill will pass. This is the last day, I would estimate, of debate on this bill. It will be put to a vote, it will pass second reading, it will make it speedily to third reading and it will become law. Then we’ll find out what it really wants to do.

The hallmark of Ontario’s success economically has been the availability of an affordable, reliable energy supply. I use energy continually here as the example because energy and water are irrevocably locked together under the general heading of environment. That’s why there’s a statue erected to Adam Beck, the father of hydroelectricity in Ontario. Skyrocketing hydro costs are making Ontario less and less competitive, where businesses are concerned; it’s already happening.

What’s going to be the situation when the costs are brought to bear to implement whatever this bill winds up being by the time the regulations are applied? What’s going to happen to our competitive situation? And I won’t say “edge” because I don’t believe it to be an edge.

I can tell you, again with my economic development hat on, that I get visits from stakeholders who use water and who use energy in the province of Ontario. What I hear are allusions—and maybe I could use a stronger word than that—to the fact that we’re getting to a tipping point.

And I’m not talking about small businesses; I’m talking about significant industry and I’m talking about first-hand information that says, “You know, if you keep doing this to us, there are other jurisdictions in Canada, there are other jurisdictions in the United States where we can or even where we do have plants, where we can do the same things that we do in Ontario, where labour force is available, where energy is in abundant supply and where it is relatively cheap.”

Let’s not forget that when the Green Energy Act was originally introduced, then-Minister Smitherman said that the bill would only raise energy rates by 1%—in this chamber a year and a half ago. It was déjà vu when the environment minister said that this bill was not about raising water rates, since those rates are set by municipalities. What are municipalities to do when there’s a mandate coming from Action Central here at Queen’s Park that says, “You will do this. You will do it now. Oh, and by the way, you raise the money, because we don’t have it to give to you”? That’s what we’re talking about.

People know that. People at this point, even at the general population level, know that when legislation like this comes out of this chamber, ultimately, it means my pocketbook—mine, as an Ontario taxpayer. Given the track record on the Green Energy Act and on hydro rates only one year in, Ontario families and businesses should really be bracing themselves for what this legislation is going to do to their water bills. It makes Ontario’s business environment just that much less competitive. It will drive more businesses out of Ontario to cheaper jurisdictions.

The second objective of this new corporation that will be created is to assist in the commercialization of clean water technologies. That begs a number of questions, questions like: Why does government need a bill to do this? Why can’t it just be done? Why does government need a new corporation to do this—a new corporation, which means what? More overhead, more staff—an already-bloated bureaucracy that will become that much more bloated as a result.

With a $20-billion deficit, why does this government keep looking for ways to spend money that, let’s face it, it really doesn’t have? In what alternate universe can this type of expenditure be a priority when emergency rooms are closing and hospital services are being cut, when nurses are being fired and when children with serious mental health issues are languishing on waiting lists?

This is the way I’d like to end this presentation. This is about the word that this party has been talking about for a period of years now, when it comes to the McGuinty government. It’s about priorities. It’s about what you say you’re going to spend the pool of money that you have on; it’s not about what you’re going to do going forward with a pool of money that is not available to you but you’re going to spend anyway. So prioritization dictates what you do, and prioritization is not in the lexicon of the government of Ontario of the day. For that reason, I will not be voting for Bill 72.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to echo some of the comments that were made by my good friend—I’m sorry; I don’t know the riding, Mr. Shurman.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thornhill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thornhill. I know we can’t give the names, but it takes me a long time, after 20 years, to know the ridings in this place.

I just want to say that he’s right when he touches on the issue that folks back home are really feeling the pinch, and that is the point that Andrea Horwath and New Democrats have been raising day in and day out. If you don’t get whacked on the HST when you buy fuel for your truck, if you don’t get whacked by a smart meter when you get your hydro bill, if you don’t get whacked by a new water tax that will be coming your way soon—I don’t know what’s happening, but at the end of the day people are really feeling the pinch of this government’s intrusion into their pockets.

I think people are saying, “Listen, we understand that governments have a responsibility to do a number of things,” including ensuring that we have safe drinking water and that we have an infrastructure that works, such as a health infrastructure, a social infrastructure and hard infrastructure, but how much can the individual family, how much can the individual person take when it comes to the pressure that that puts on one’s pocketbook?

I can tell you, in my constituency offices across my riding, from Timmins to Peawanuk, it’s much the same. People have been receiving their hydro bills. They are beside themselves at the point to which these bills have gone up—to extraordinary amounts; over 100%, in a lot of cases. They look at the smart meters in our area that are now going to start applying the differential rate during the day. Supposedly we’re going to have to do our washing and our cooking some time at 2 o’clock in the morning when everybody else is sleeping.

People are saying, “Listen, enough is enough. When is somebody going to speak up for me? When is somebody going to say, ‘Listen, you need a break and we’re there to do it for you’?” Certainly, this Liberal government has not been doing that.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to respond to the member for Thornhill on the Water Opportunities Act, 2010. Already this program has projects moving forward in small municipalities under 5,000 people. That was announced at the municipalities meeting in August. They’re looking for sustainability in these small systems, which are very difficult to run efficiently, and conservation of water. They’re looking at what their pumping costs are, what the costs of the leakage from the systems are. Sustainability, of course, is very important. There are $75 million going to those small projects in municipalities under 5,000.

They’re trying to get some of them together that are very small. These are issues that are very important. They cost a lot of money when there is a breakdown.

A party that has brought Walkerton to us should not lecture this government on what we’ve done. I spent 35 years as a consulting engineer in this province, often associated with water and water services. It’s about looking at the energy costs, at the efficiencies, at conservation of water. We pump 30% or 40% of the water and it’s lost in our pipe systems; it does not arrive at the tap.

We must be looking at these systems in a different way than we have in the past of just pumping more water through leaky pipes. The challenges for the taxpayer dollars are many, of course, and we have a lot to learn about the conservation of water and better use of this finite natural resource.

We arrived at this situation after 100 years of development, and there was a lot of pollution of our air and water. Replacing infrastructure is not easy, but this government has done a lot. We have not only been talking, we’ve been doing, and we will continue to replace—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the member for Thornhill, who is also our economic critic and does an outstanding job, for the presentation he made this morning on Bill 72,

an act to enact the water opportunities act in respect of water conservation and other matters. I think he made some excellent points. Some of them that I would like to reiterate: the fact that a bill of this nature obviously sounds great on paper, just like your Green Energy Act did and maybe other acts did, but the reality is that there’s going to be a tremendous cost, not only for families but also for businesses, large and small. This bill, like the Green Energy Act and also like the HST, is going to make this province much less competitive.

This takes me back to 1995, when our government assumed power. This province had become totally, totally uncompetitive in the global economy. We were losing jobs, and there was simply a barrier around the province. You are constructing that same barrier, because we’ve already seen the increase in energy costs. Whether you are a household or a business, we know that some of the prices have gone up 50%. It’s simply unaffordable. Your act has created this situation. When we take a look at energy, we need to always keep in mind, “Let’s do what’s affordable and let’s do what obviously creates a reliable supply of energy.” You’re simply not doing that.

So we look at this bill. Again, you pretend you’re doing what’s in the best interests of the residents in this province, and you just are not, because you are going to force municipalities to raise their taxes.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member from Thornhill has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you to the members for Timmins–James Bay, Ottawa–Orléans and Kitchener–Waterloo for their comments with regard to my presentation. The first thing I would say, particularly to the member for Ottawa–Orléans, is that when it comes to lecturing, don’t lecture me about Walkerton. Walkerton wasn’t caused by any Progressive Conservative government; Walkerton was caused by somebody who had too much liquor and was responsible for controls.

You know it and I know it, and I’m tired of hearing history lessons from a government on the other side that continues to enact legislation that turns our province into a wasteland, while Saskatchewan and British Columbia and Quebec overtake us, because you don’t understand how to progressively legislate and how to put tax structures into place that attract business to our province. Instead, you tax the taxpayers and try to make it happen that way. The truth is that if you want—I’ll read another newspaper to you, one that is not the Toronto Star. Here is the Toronto Sun this morning:

“Deteriorating water quality in the southern Great Lakes, the unchecked health and well-being of far northern caribou herds and slack rules for locating large natural gas plants were among concerns raised by Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller in his latest report.” And it goes on, the point being that you people, the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty, have been on watch for the past seven years. Don’t look historically at what happened. The legacy of the Harris government is one outstanding job of creating a million net new jobs in the private sector.

You people have done nothing but lose jobs, and how you’ve done it is by making our province as uncompetitive as it could be and now doing it even more so by taking taxpayers, particularly Ontario families, and putting them behind the eight ball on a consistent basis by enacting legislation like this.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I don’t want to take a lot of time, but I just want to put on the record a couple of things that I think need to be part of this debate. That is, to the degree that municipalities are struggling in order to pay for water and sewer infrastructure, we all know that there have been changes to water regulations in this province—for good reason—as a result of what happened out of Walkerton. But the pendulum has really swung very hard on the protection side—which we all understand; nobody argues that there shouldn’t be protection.

But it has forced municipalities and it has forced private landowners to make fairly significant investments in their water systems and their sewage treatment systems in order to be able to meet these new regulations that are out there. All I can tell you is that there is hardly a community in my riding—and I would imagine it’s the same in most other members’ ridings across this province—that isn’t struggling to figure out where they are going to get the money to pay for the work that needs to be done.

I look at the city of Timmins as an example, which has a $60-million water project that they want to get moving forward on. To the credit of both the federal and provincial governments, they’ve both put up the $20 million. But where does the municipality come up with the $20 million, where you’re a municipality of 45,000 people and you have other infrastructure projects that are screaming for investment, everything from roads to fixing up the roofs on buildings etc.? It is very, very difficult for municipalities to come up with that money.

On top of that, in the city of Timmins we’re having to redo our sewage treatment plant, which is going to be a very expensive project in itself. The bottom line is, it’s going to fall back on municipal ratepayers and it’s going to fall back on provincial and federal taxes, which means to say that we’re all going to pay for it through our pocketbooks yet again.

It goes back to the point that I made earlier, which Andrea Horwath, as the leader of the New Democratic Party, has been raising, and that is: People understand. People are a lot smarter than we sometimes give them credit for. They get it. There need to be good rules when it comes to water and sewer treatment, for good reason. They get it. There needs to be a good health infrastructure that yes, we understand, costs money. They know when they’re sick or a family member is sick and they show up at the doctor’s office or the hospital, they want the best of services for that person or for themselves, in the event that they need to turn to our health care system.

But there comes a point when you can’t afford to pay any more. What we’re starting to see—and I think you’re seeing it in this municipal election with what’s happening with the mayoralty candidates in the city of Toronto. I think we’re going to see it in the next provincial election and probably the next federal election. Certainly, you’re seeing it in the United States with this Tea Party phenomenon. I don’t see it so much as a shift to the right.

Some people would like to categorize it as, “Oh, it’s because they’re all coming back to the right wing and there are going to be right-wing zealots running the country yet again. We’ll be so much better off.” I don’t think it’s the case. The issue is that people are saying, “Yes, those things need to be done, but do they all have to be done now?” And more importantly, “Let’s first of all make sure there’s a capacity to pay before you start making decisions about spending this kind of money by changing the rules that force these types of investments to happen.”

I can tell you, as a ratepayer in the city of Timmins—I own a home and I own a cottage in the city of Timmins. I pay twice to my municipality for two different properties. It’s an expensive thing. And I understand. I’ve got to pay municipal taxes. I get it: I understand it costs money for the municipality to run the services that connect to my home and that my children and our own family have used when it comes to going to get them. But there’s only so much I can pay, and I make a pretty good buck. I make 130,000 bucks a year working here.

If I’m starting to feel it, as a person who has upper-middle income—I would probably say higher middle-income—imagine how those folks at the lower end of the income scale are feeling.

There are many people in our society, in our communities across this province, who are working for far less money than we MPPs and others who are fortunate enough to make the kind of money that we do. They’re working for $14-an-hour jobs because the $26- and $30-an-hour jobs that used to exist in industry are no longer there. A lot of these people have gone into the service industry, where they’re working for $14, $15, $16 an hour. They’re trying to maintain their homes, pay their mortgages, pay their hydro bills, pay their water bills, feed their families and put their kids through school.

They’re just feeling the pinch. Again, I say, if you see the Rob Ford phenomenon going on in the city of Toronto, I don’t see it so much as a right-wing thing; I just see it as the voter and the taxpayer saying, “Hold it. I just can’t take no more.”

I was flying back to Timmins last Thursday, as I do travelling to and from my home to Queen’s Park every week, and I was sitting next to a woman. I won’t say what her name is because she didn’t give me permission to use this conversation publicly, but it really struck me, because it exemplified what a whole bunch of people are going through. Here’s a woman. She’s 49 years old. She and her husband have three kids, one who’s just entering college and two others who are in high school.

He used to work for the Ministry of Natural Resources in the department that basically did the electronic stuff for the ministry—telephones, radios and telecommunications—that kind of stuff. The MNR, in their wisdom, decided to privatize that service, so he was shifted to the private sector, with the successful bidder who got the contract, to do that work.

Within a year of being shifted out to that private contractor, he became ill. He has a heart condition. He’s not able to work because they’re not able to operate on him for some very complex reasons, and he’s not able to exert himself because he’ll have another heart attack. No benefits with the employer. That’s the new reality. That’s the new job people are going to. People are being hired by people who pay them far less than they used to make in the old, traditional jobs in industry and government. They’re working at jobs that have little or no benefits.

In this case, this guy has no benefits when it comes to a sick plan or long-term disability, other than what the employment insurance system provides him. So they have lost the income, he is out of EI and his wife is the only one who works.

Now, she is a bookkeeper who used to work for a company that has since gone under because of what has happened in this recession. Why do I meet her on a plane? Because she’s flying back from Fort McMurray. She flies to Fort McMurray on a three-week rotation, where she works 12 hours a day for $14 an hour, and then—luckily her employer pays for her flight—she comes back to Timmins for a week that she can spend with her family. She said to me on the plane—and I think this is worth repeating—“You know, I’m 49 years old. My husband is 51. We have three kids. We thought, when we set out, that at this point in our lives, life would be a little bit easier. And do you know what? It’s gotten harder.”

We continued the conversation and she said, “Do you know what I’ve got to do this week? We’re really excited. Our oldest daughter has gone to college, and she’s been accepted in a nursing program in the city of Timmins. We can’t afford the cost of tuition”—she’s not able to get the kind of OSAP support you would normally get because the income she has doesn’t allow her to get the full amount—“so we’re having to remortgage our house.

We thought that at this point in our lives we’d be looking at staring down the last four or five years of mortgage payments so that we could be in a position to start thinking about our retirement.” She said, “I don’t know. I’m 49 years old and I feel like I’m 21 starting all over again.”

So I just say to this government: I understand why the government is excited about announcing new programs that are going to do these great and wonderful things, but this woman I sat next to on the plane the other day is not very impressed. She just says, “Listen, I just want to know that it’s going to get better, and I feel that it’s getting worse. The only thing I know, when I open my hydro bill, when I go to get gas at the gas station, when I buy food at the grocery store, is that I get my paycheque and I make less money than I did before and I pay more out of my pocket now. I want life to get easier.”

I think that is what Andrea Horwath and New Democrats have been trying to tell you for this last little while. The Liberal government is not an evil bunch of people sitting there trying to do dastardly things that maybe the right wing would like to portray you as. But I think we need to live within our means. We need to be able to say that, yes, these are important things to do and, yes, they need to be done, but maybe we don’t do them all at the same time, maybe we don’t do them all today, maybe we do them in a staggered way, when we’re better able to afford to do them.

So I say to the government that this is an interesting bill. I’m not going to vote against this bill, because I think it’s interesting enough to send to committee. But I’ll be interested to see what the public has to say once it goes to committee, because the difficulty in the end is, can the taxpayer afford to pay more at a time when we’re feeling that we’re falling behind?

So on behalf of New Democrats and the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, Andrea Horwath, I just put out a plea: Let’s make things easier for folks, for a change, so they can dream that tomorrow is going to be a better day and we don’t have to continue on the downward spiral that we’re all feeling in our family incomes.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m certainly pleased to rise and comment on the remarks made by my colleague from Timmins–James Bay. Certainly, on our side of the House, we are extremely sensitive to many of the issues that the member described. We know that many people in our society are truly hurting. The type of economic conditions we faced—a very difficult, deep recession—are ones that our government has taken extremely seriously. Of course, we have put in place measures that economists have recommended, in terms of stimulus funding and so on.

But we know that people are being very frugal—the case that was described clearly illustrates that—and we want to remind people with this bill that they in fact have an opportunity to be frugal with their water.

Just to remind the member, the average person here in Ontario uses some 267 litres of water per day. If we compare that with the average in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and France, people use only some 150 litres per day. There are opportunities for people to move towards what is clearly possible with water-efficient fixtures. Part of the bill relates to changes in the building code. We’re looking at, certainly, new homes having toilets that flush only 4.8 litres compared to the current six litres. There will be labelling on products so that people can make a choice as to what is the most efficient system they can use.

There are many issues related to this bill. I feel this is a good step forward. It will allow individuals to save water, and that’s a good thing.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: It was very interesting listening to the presentation by my friend from Timmins–James Bay, who amplified on a theme that I raised and I think that everybody on this side of the House is raising. People who watch us at home draw the automatic conclusion that because my friend from Timmins–James Bay is from the New Democratic Party and I’m from the Progressive Conservative Party, we couldn’t possibly agree on anything. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We may come from different segments when it comes to how you fund things and how you disburse funds, but we come from the very same place when it comes to the issue of how individual Ontario families deal with the exigencies of running those families.

He talks about encounters that he has had with people—he mentioned somebody on an airplane. I have encounters too, and I don’t represent a riding as rural or as vast as my friend. I represent a riding that we can get to from this place by driving in a car for 20 minutes—Thornhill. Thornhill is known as one of the richest ridings in the province. It has an average household income in excess of $100,000, so we’re talking about people—sure there are poor people in Thornhill as well—but an average household income in excess of $100,000.

When I took office in 2007, some people talked to me about making ends meet. Now, three scant years later, many, many people talk to me about making ends meet. They talk to me a lot about what happens when they open their hydro bills. They talk to me a lot about six cents, five cents plus HST for garbage bags. They talk to me a lot about what this water bill may mean ultimately, because we calculate that the number that will be attached to what they pay for water now through their water taxes and through their municipal taxes could be in the $700 to $800 additional range. People cannot afford any more.

That’s the message that this government has to take, and it’s the one we’ll discuss next year.

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also want to add my comments to those of the member for Timmins–James Bay. I think all of us recognize how sensitive water is. The whole issue of what happened with Walkerton, when we hear about “boil water”—we know that we have a very fragile resource here that can be contaminated and can become almost dangerous very quickly. We need to make sure that we protect that in every way possible.

For most of us, as Canadians, because we see it around us so much, as we drive along—my husband and I did a road trip. We went into northern Ontario. You see nothing but pristine lakes there, and you think, “How can we talk about such a vast resource being in such danger?” Yet we know from our experience with Walkerton that it is in danger and that it’s very possible, and we do need to do everything we can to protect it.

The member from Timmins–James Bay talked about municipalities and the cost that municipalities are experiencing. I remember, as a municipal councillor in a very small township, the kinds of things that had to happen, the kinds of discussions we had at the council table and the reluctance that some of the members and the councillors had in terms of making the proper, adequate and right decisions around increasing property taxes. We avoided doing those kinds of things because we were afraid to raise property taxes. There’s a consequence that comes with that.

That means that, after a while, you’re behind; you’re not taking care of the infrastructure the way you should. Then, all of a sudden, you’re faced with a dilemma where you have to do something about the sewers, you have to do something about water, and suddenly you’re putting this on to the tax base and it comes on in a big chunk. So, in some respects, we need to be responsible and take responsibility as councillors—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I am pleased to add a few comments to the Water Opportunities Act discussion that we’re having this morning, just to add to some of the excellent comments already made by my colleagues the members from Thornhill and Kitchener–Waterloo.

I would like to say, to start, that this is just another piece of legislation that this government is famous for introducing: something that sounds good, something that sounds green. How could you possibly not be in favour of clean water? Well, of course we’re in favour of clean water. We’re in favour of developing clean water technology. But, right now, in the economic climate that we’re dealing with right now, how can we possibly say yes to something—another government agency, another bureaucracy—where a cost has not yet been established?

We don’t know what this is ultimately going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario, and I think if we’re doing our jobs as responsible members of this Legislature, we need to have that information.

We’ve heard the perspective from the member from Timmins–James Bay, who has a vast northern riding, and we’ve heard the perspective from the member for Thornhill, who has a more urban riding. I represent a suburban riding, Whitby–Oshawa, and I can tell you that that is a place where most of our population commutes into the city every day. We have vast problems with transit, with infrastructure, with getting services coming to our neck of the woods, with the 407 being extended. These are all priorities that make a big difference to people in their day-to-day lives, but we’re not dealing with that here.

We’re dealing with an idea of some wonderful green energy that sounds really good and that we can talk about up here while we’re not dealing with the problems that make a difference in people’s day-to-day lives.

So I urge this government: Let’s start talking about it; let’s start talking about the 407, how we get it extended to 35/115. Live up to the obligations that you’ve already set for yourselves. Once we finish with those, let’s talk about something else, but let’s do what we really need to do to get this province moving again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Timmins–James Bay has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank all the members for responding to what I had to say. In closing, I just want to say that people are finding it tougher and tougher, and what this bill is going to do in the end is create some sort of an organization that’s going to figure out how we can ration water so we don’t use as much. But the buzzword, at the end of the day, is that they’re going to pass the bill on to the consumer.

So all Andrea Horwath and I are saying as New Democrats is, people have just had it. There’s just so much ability to pay, and they’re saying, “Listen, make sure that, first of all, you manage what you have now.” We’re in a recession. People understand that when their family incomes go down, they have to make some hard choices in their budgets, and the provincial government has to do the same. Maybe some of the things that you’re trying to do which are good ideas—I wouldn’t argue that this is not a good idea.

It really needs to be well thought through and making sure that number one, if it’s done, it’s not going to cost more for the end user, and number two, if it is going to cost more for the end user, that we maybe put it on hold for a while until people can afford to pay.

This is not the first initiative of this type that this government has done. You put the smart meters on. Why? You said, “Because we want to conserve energy.” Conserve, my eye. It’s not about conserving energy; it’s about socking people with a higher hydro bill, and people can’t afford to pay. We have seen it with Stewardship Ontario, where the government said, “Oh, well, you know, we’re going to make sure that we’re able to have a system that deals with making sure that we invest in recycling, reusing and repackaging etc. so that we lessen the impact on the environment.” What ended up happening?

It was a fiasco this summer, and it continues to be a fiasco. People are fed up, and are saying, “I work harder, I make less money, but the costs are going up,” and this Liberal government has to understand that they’re going in the wrong direction when it comes to passing all these costs on to the consumer. I’m with Andrea Horwath. This has got to stop.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? Seeing none, orders of the day.

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Wilkinson, moved second reading of Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard some noes.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be deferred until after question period today, during deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Orders of the day.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr. Phillips has indicated “no further business.”

This House stands recessed until 10:30, at which time we’ll have question period, hopefully.

The House recessed from 0955 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to welcome to the east gallery my constituents Mr. Peter Hughes and his wife, Melodie Hughes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome today Harold Wilson, who is with the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, who will be awaiting with anticipation the vote on Bill 191.

Mr. Jim Brownell: In the public gallery, I’d like to welcome the Knights Templar delegates from around the world who are in Canada for the international convent and investiture. It is the Priory of St. James, Knights Templar of Jerusalem, hosting for the first time in Canada this convent and investiture. Welcome to Ontario and welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: This morning I’m pleased to welcome in the west gallery Len Rempel from New Hamburg in the township of Wilmot, from the riding of Kitchener–Conestoga. Len is the father of Emily Rempel, one of our pages. Welcome this morning, Len.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to welcome members of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, better known as POGO, with us here: Dr. Corin Greenberg, Dr. Mark Greenberg, Ian Kennedy, Madeline Riehl, Susan Portner, Barbara Dyce, Vanessa Yakobson, Jacqui DeBique and Bruna DiMonte. I know all members are very happy to have POGO joining us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to thank, in the Speaker’s gallery today, Gloria Richards, the Speaker’s apartment coordinator, for her 40 years of service to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, to the members and to all the Speakers she has assisted. Thank you, Gloria.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): See, we all love you, Gloria.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

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

Seeing no further introductions, it’s time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you have turned the Ontario Power Authority, the OPA, into the eHealth of the Ontario energy sector. While Ontario families get stuck with the bills, the Ontario Power Authority has ballooned from some 15 to 300 bureaucrats, and they can’t get the basic job done. They’ve not produced the long-term energy plan yet, despite five years on the job, but they seem to be more than happy to be the propaganda arm for your expensive energy experiments.

Premier, why is it that after five years, the OPA has yet to show itself up to the job but excels at expensive ad campaigns and spin for the McGuinty Liberals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just can’t share my honourable colleague’s negativity when it comes to the electricity circumstances in the province of Ontario. I think the people at the OPA have done quite a good job of helping to develop a long-term plan.

Again, my honourable colleague knows that in fact there is a long-term plan on the books. It’s 20 years long, and it requires that every three years, we revise that plan in keeping with the then projected outlook.

The good news in Ontario is that we in fact have a long-term plan. They did not have one. We’re investing heavily in new transmission and in new generation. There are costs associated with that. We understand that those costs have consequences for our families. There are a number of things that we have done with our families. We will continue to look for ways where we can work together with families to help them manage their electricity bills as they go up. But our single most important responsibility is to make sure the lights come on in the province of Ontario, and we will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, let me give you some facts: The OPA bureaucracy has grown by 464%. The number of six-figure salaries across your government, as a whole, has gone up 134%—shocking enough, but at the OPA, Premier, a 1,300% increase in bureaucrats making more than $100,000 a year. Despite the fact that the OPA has ballooned like this, you’ve spent some $80 million in contracts and consultants beyond that, but they still have yet to produce the Premier’s much-anticipated, forever-delayed energy plan.

Premier, why are families, who are stuck struggling with the bills, paying for your expensive energy experiments? What are they getting in return for the $732-a-year more they are paying because of your poor—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague of the mess that he helped create when they were in government. One of the things that they did was they left to our children and grandchildren $19.4 billion in stranded hydro debt. Paying off that debt is a significant component of every Ontario hydro bill. Every single month, when Ontario families pay their bills, they have to pay something connected with the hydro debt. More than that, when they recklessly froze prices in the province of Ontario and passed that on to taxpayers, that cost Ontarians $900 million.

We’re not going there. We’re acting responsibly, building new generation, keeping the lights on and working with families to keep their costs down.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let’s see, here, if we can pierce the Premier’s bubble and keep him abreast of what’s happening in the real world today. Ontario families are getting stuck with higher and higher hydro bills because of your out-of-control energy experiments. You have turned the Ontario Power Authority into the eHealth of the energy sector. Both have runaway spending, both have become a feeding frenzy for Liberal-friendly consultants, and the OPA is stacked with Liberal hacks and flacks. Just like with eHealth, friends of the McGuinty government are getting rich off the OPA while ordinary, hard-working families and seniors are getting stuck with the bill.

Premier, why didn’t you learn your lesson? How did you let the rot of eHealth creep into the energy sector with your eHealth-style Ontario Power Authority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: So far today, my honourable colleague has not advanced anything which has a foundation in fact.

When we talk about some things that are going up, I think it’s important to understand that coal generation went up 127% on their watch. Carbon dioxide emissions went up 124% on their watch.

We have in place a plan to create 50,000 clean, green energy jobs. The first Ontario plant for Canadian Solar is in Guelph. It’s creating 500 new high-tech jobs in Guelph. Heliene Canada will be opening a plant in Sault Ste. Marie shortly; they will be opening a solar module manufacturing plant. The Siemens company recently announced they’re going to be building wind turbine plants as part of our Samsung deal; that’s 900 new jobs.

I ask my honourable colleague: Why is he standing against electricity reform in the province? Why won’t he join us and create those—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier and back to the real world: Premier, you know that your expensive energy experiments and your runaway taxes and red tape have chased some 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs out of our province, and you’re not done yet. Every day, members of the Ontario PC caucus hear from hard-working families, we hear from seniors, we hear from people with disabilities who cannot afford your expensive energy experiments any longer. They’re afraid to open up their hydro bills that sit on the kitchen table for days and days on end because they know your rates are going up.

Premier, if you don’t understand that, I suggest you get out of your bubble and talk to these families we hear from every day.

Will you call an end to your expensive experiments and heel the OPA, which has become the eHealth of the energy sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is confronted with a responsible, sensible, progressive, long-term plan to ensure that we have electricity in the province of Ontario. I understand he opposes that, and given their record in government, I can see where they’re coming from.

We understand there are costs associated with revitalizing and modernizing our electricity system. When we’re done, we will have in fact revitalized over 80% of our electricity system.

There are things that we’re going to do specifically to help Ontario ratepayers. I’ll get into those momentarily, but in each and every instance where we proposed to help ratepayers, my colleague has opposed that. I’ll get into those details momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here’s the reality: Your expensive energy experiments are turning the lights off on businesses in the province and you’re chasing seniors from their homes. The runaway OPA bureaucracy is resulting in skyrocketing hydro bills. Your smart-meter experiment has been nothing more than a tax machine to take more money out of people’s pockets. All told, as you know, Premier, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters report that families will be paying an additional $732 more per year as a result.

Let me tell you about some of those families. Families in Barrie, Richmond Hill and Markham will be paying $60 more each and every month. Families in Toronto, Etobicoke and Scarborough will see their bills go from $149 a month today to $210 a month. Premier, why do you see Ontario families as an open-ended ATM for your energy experiments?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say, with the greatest respect to my colleague, that I just don’t believe his numbers. But I’ll tell you about a few numbers which are very important. We are proposing an Ontario energy and property tax credit which, if passed, will provide $1.3 billion every year in tax relief for families. My honourable colleague maintains that he will vote against this measure. They’re for northern Ontario energy costs. We have in place a plan for up to $130 for a single person and up to $200 for a family every year. My colleagues will not be supporting this.

Then there’s our northern industrial electricity rate package, a $150-million plan that will help reduce electricity prices for northern Ontario businesses by approximately 25%.

In each and every instance where we’ve put forward relief for ratepayers, business or homeowners, they vote against those measures.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the $732 more a year families will pay because of your energy experiments comes from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. You’ve heard me say that many times. And maybe you don’t believe the manufacturers and exporters. Maybe you think they’re making this up. But let me ask you to do this: Just go to see one family in Ottawa. Ask them to open up their hydro bill for you, and you’ll see that it’s going up from $143 to $205 a month. Just talk to one family in your hometown of Ottawa.

In Peterborough, in Mississauga, in Brampton, we’ll similarly see bills going from $138 to $200 a month. And families in Lindsay, whose monthly hydro bill is $167, will soon pay a whopping $229 a month.

Premier, when will you rein in your expensive energy experiments, your eHealth experiment at the OPA, show some mercy on families and help understand what families—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re not going to go back to the days of Conservative government irresponsibility when it comes to managing our electricity system. We’re not going to put in place emergency diesel generators in our cities. We’re not going to put homeowners and businesses at risk of brownouts and blackouts. We’re not going to reopen our coal-fired generation, although they would like us to do that. We’re not going to eliminate our Green Energy Act and the thousands and thousands of jobs that that is spurring on as part of the evolution of the Ontario economy. We’re not going back there. We’re going to continue to find ways to move forward.

We will invest in new generation, we will invest in new transmission, we will work with families when it comes to conservation and we will work with families when it comes to these kinds of energy tax credits, which I would ask my honourable colleague to support.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Ontario families are scrambling to deal with sky-high hydro bills. Does the Premier think it’s fair to actually ask consumers to pay even more just to ensure healthy profits for hydro utilities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to speak to this again. I think we really need to be focused in terms of what’s happening to electricity in Ontario. First of all, rates are going up. My colleagues opposite are not prepared to accept that, and they’re not prepared to understand why it is that that is happening. I take it that their implicit, if not shortly to be explicit, position will be that they’re going to freeze rates; they’re not going to go up one penny in the province of Ontario. And that, in a word, is irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that we have to make significant new investments in an outdated, dilapidated and rundown electricity system.

We’re going to invest billions and billion of dollars in new transmission, new generation and new conservation. We’re getting rid of coal; we’re bringing in clean, green electricity; and we’re going to harness the power of the wind and the sun and biomass. We’re going to do something that our children will be proud of.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last year, the Ontario Energy Board held a hearing to decide if there needed to be any change in what is called the return-on-equity rate; in other words, how much profit utility companies needed. Independent Canadian experts at these hearings said that no change was needed, but American experts brought in by the big utilities said that profits should be higher and Ontario should be paying more for those profits. They won, and now households are on the hook for $240 million in new profits.

Why should families, struggling with their bills, fork over an extra $60 a year just to fatten the profits of already-profitable utilities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What I can do and will do is speak to what we’re doing here in the Ontario government. Again, we’re going to put into place—and we’d love to have the honourable member’s party’s support in this regard—$1.3 billion a year in tax relief for families in our new Ontario energy and property tax credit. That’s something that we can do through the provincial government, and I would ask my honourable colleague to support that effort.

There’s also our northern Ontario energy credit: $130 for a single person and $200 for a family. It would be great if we had the support of the NDP in that measure as well.

For a long time, they talked about the challenges faced by industries in the north when it comes to their electricity costs, so we put in place the northern industrial electricity rate program. It’s a $150-million plan that will help reduce electricity prices for businesses by approximately 25%. Again, I would ask my honourable colleague to support that measure as well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, something just doesn’t smell right here. Finance experts from the University of Toronto and York University argued that the current formula was just fine, maybe even a little bit generous. The hired-gun American experts argued that utility profits were far too low in Ontario, that Ontarians should be paying more. The utilities got exactly what they wanted. Can the Premier now explain to hard-working Ontarians why $240 million—$60 per household—is coming out of their pockets just to pad the profits of these utilities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague of the NDP record when they were in government. They raised hydro rates by 40%. They built no new electrical supply in Ontario in five years. They paid $150 million to cancel our lifeline with Manitoba. They voted against putting the Conservative price cap on and then they voted against taking the Conservative price cap off. They ended all conservation initiatives. Those savings would have equalled, had they maintained those in place, 5,200 megawatts by the year 2000. That is their record. We have a responsible record.

It is not an easy record for Ontario families; we understand that. We’re investing heavily in new generation and transmission. There are costs associated with that. We’re going to continue to work with families to help them manage those costs.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, who actually needs to worry about his own record. Between smart meters that don’t work, sweetheart deals for private power companies and of course the HST, families are being squeezed in this province. Harold and Sandra Douglas from Campbellford write, “For 62 days, from November 24, 2009, to January 25, 2010, our total bill was $734.42 for hydro, a simply outrageous amount.”

Mr. and Mrs. Douglas want to know: With all of the increases, how can the Premier justify hiking their bill by another $60 by giving already profitable utilities another handout?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague says she doesn’t like our plan to increase electricity supply in Ontario. She puts no alternative plan forward and she says she doesn’t like ours. I take it from that that she doesn’t like the fact we are eliminating coal-fired generation in Ontario. I take it from that that she doesn’t like the fact that we are creating an entire new industry for clean and green electricity generation, creating some 50,000 jobs. I take it from that that she doesn’t like the new 500 high-tech jobs in Guelph being put there by Canadian Solar.

She doesn’t like the 300-some jobs that are going into Sault Ste. Marie, put there by Heliene Canada, who are opening up a solar module plant. She doesn’t like the 900 new jobs coming from Siemens, which her own colleague is asking go to the city of Hamilton.

We will continue to find a way to work with families when it comes to managing their costs. We’ll also keep moving forward to make sure we have an intelligent, long-term electricity plan in place for our homes and our businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve actually heard from more Ontarians. Dorothy MacMenamin from Napanee says that her hydro bill has risen from $90 in 2005 to $171 today and writes, “I am angry.” Josie Roberts from Perth writes, “At age 70, I’m feeling squeezed even though I own my own home, and stress adds to poor health in the future.”

The Premier needs to explain to Ms. Roberts and Ms. MacMenamin why his government would raise utility profit margins, hiking their bills by another $60, when experts said profit margins were just fine as they are.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It would have been nice had we inherited an energy system from the NDP and the Conservatives that was in a state of good repair, that was robust, that was dynamic, that was modernized, was not laden with debt and not dilapidated, but those were not our circumstances. Our responsibility in the face of those circumstances was to act responsibly. That’s what we have done and that’s what we will continue to do.

My honourable colleague says that we should freeze rates in the province of Ontario. That would not be helpful. That would not provide the assurance to our businesses and homeowners that they need to know, when they flick on the switch, the lights are going to come on. More than that, when the lights come on now, they’re coming predominantly from clean, green electricity and they’re also helping to create good, new jobs which Ontario families count on.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This Premier needs to start listening to Ontarians.

Jennifer Seebeck writes this: “I’m just worried because we bought a larger house last year and I’ve just found out that I’m expecting. In buying our house, we budgeted for a higher hydro bill, but I opened our bill the other day and it had doubled!”

Kelly Lynch from Oakville adds, “I received my hydro bill and it was $800. I had just paid $652 two months ago. Help me!”

As people like Ms. Seebeck and Mr. Lynch look for some hydro relief, why did the Premier allow utilities to hike the bills by another 60 bucks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can’t agree with my colleague, who is proposing that we freeze electricity prices in the province of Ontario. That, in large measure, was what got us into this mess in the first place, because we didn’t act responsibly and we weren’t forthright with the people of Ontario, especially ratepayers.

The fact of the matter is, we inherited a system in a terrible state of disrepair. We were at risk of brownouts and a blackout. We knew we had to make some massive investments. We have done that and we will continue to do that.

At the same time, we’re investing heavily in conservation. At the same time, we’re bringing on line new jobs to create energy from the wind and the sun. We also want to work with our families, in particular, who are being challenged by these electricity rate increases. We understand that. If there was another way around this, believe me, we would have found it.

We’ve got to make these investments. There are costs associated with that. We will continue to find ways to work with families to help them address their costs.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. In just five years since the McGuinty Liberals created it, the Ontario Power Authority has spent $223 million. Even though it was initially billed as a virtual and transitional entity, the OPA billed Ontario families $35 million on concrete and capital projects. Families paid $88 million for the OPA staff and board. They paid almost the same amount for consulting contracts.

The OPA isn’t subject to freedom of information, so I have to ask, Premier: Has Liberal-friendly Courtyard opened an energy practice?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Power Authority has been asked to assume a number of responsibilities around building stronger conservation, a well-planned, reliable, clean energy system, eliminating coal, and bringing on renewables: wind and solar energy. I can understand why the Conservatives don’t support that, because they don’t support any of those very critical initiatives.

The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition had his chance. He sat in cabinet and he did nothing to tackle these very important challenges. He did nothing to invest in a strong, modern system. He did nothing to invest in a cleaner energy supply. He did nothing to invest in reliability. He was preoccupied with selling off hydro assets. He was—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock—no, keep the clock running. Sergeant-at-Arms, this is two days in a row that these props have appeared. If these props appear on Monday, without warning, the members will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We are hurling insults across the floor and calling one another “juvenile,” and I’m sure that students and viewers at home must be wondering who is juvenile.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The difference between us and them is that we want to take Ontario forward; they want to take us backwards. The difference between us and them is that they are afraid of the future. We’re seizing the future so we can build a strong, reliable, clean energy system for our generation and future generations. They simply don’t believe in that—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: No wonder the McGuinty Liberals don’t want their friends exposed to freedom of information. While the OPA hasn’t produced a long-term energy plan, families are paying more for the cost of the OPA’s promotional giveaway of air miles to the first 150,000 families who pledge to become “laundry smart.” This is on top of the almost $80 million in sweetheart consulting—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Finance will please come to order. I would like to hear—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need assistance from others in the chamber.

The member from Renfrew, please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: This is on top of the almost $80 million in sweetheart consulting deals the OPA has handed out. The Ontario PC caucus has learned that the OPA’s new advertising campaign, which is essentially Liberal spin, will add another $3 million to the hydro bills.

With all the money that families are paying for the OPA’s Liberal spin, are you thinking of changing the name to the Ontario propaganda authority?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can understand why the Tories would not want Ontarians to know all the good things that are happening in the province of Ontario when it comes to energy. I can understand why the Tories would not want Ontarians to know about the 8,000 new megawatts of energy we’ve brought on. I can understand why the Tories would not want Ontarians to know that they have saved 1,700 megawatts of energy through our conservation efforts. I can understand why they wouldn’t want Ontarians to know that.

I can understand why they wouldn’t want Ontarians to know about the 5,000 kilometres of transmission we’ve invested in to build a more reliable system for the people of Ontario and this province. I can understand why they wouldn’t want to know that.

I can understand why they wouldn’t want Ontarians to know we’re building a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy in this province: because that would shine the light on their record, which delivered a weak, unreliable and dirty system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please come to order. I would ask the members to come to order. Minister of Finance. Member from Renfrew. Order. Member from Nepean.

Perhaps you all need to come back to Elgin county and enjoy some of the good fresh air at the International Plowing Match.

New question.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier; maybe we need to bring him to the Far North and find out just how much we need a government to help us.

My question to the Premier is as follows. Yesterday the Environmental Commissioner, in his press conference in regard to his annual report, was asked questions by the media in regard to First Nations who are offside with Bill 191, the Far North planning act, and how that would hamper development should the Far North nations not be on side. He said, “If these [disputes] aren’t resolved, then the whole thing will degrade into conflict. And we won’t get the jobs.”

My question to you is simply this: Why are you moving forward with Bill 191 when absolutely nobody in northern Ontario supports it, and we know it will add to conflict?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m really pleased to answer this question and to comment on what has been happening over the last few weeks.

Certainly, I was really pleased to have had the opportunity to visit the Far North this summer. I visited eight different communities and was able to talk with a number of chiefs and elders and young people.

I was disappointed when we got to clause-by-clause consideration, when the opposition failed to put any amendments on the table to improve the legislation. In fact, they walked out of the hearings. It would have been really helpful had they stayed at the table because this is about land use planning and protection of the Far North, and we need the opposition to participate in that conversation. It’s only healthy, because we believe in land use planning. We think it’s an important thing to do as well as protecting the Far North.

It’s important that we have all those parties come to the table and participate in that conversation. This is the beginning of the conversation. We want to continue to work with our First Nations communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, the minister says she went to eight communities in the Far North.

Let me ask you this: When there is going to be civil disobedience on the part of First Nations in places in the Ring of Fire, when there will be civil disobedience on behalf of First Nations because they will not allow their future generations to live the experience that they’ve had of living in poverty and being left out of the economic benefit that can come from the natural resources, will this government go to those First Nations and try to deal with trying to fix the damage that you’ve done under Bill 191, or are you going to be sending in the police—or will you send them to jail, as you did in the case of KI?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I think we all know that there are some unique opportunities in the north, and this is about working together. It’s about working with First Nations and northern Ontarians, about building on all that potential. Together, we’re going to create Ontario jobs and we’re going to support families in the north while we protect the boreal forest region.

Resource development in the Far North is one of the best economic opportunities to come across Ontario in a very long time. We want to lead it and we want our communities to be part of it. We put in legislation, which is on the table, that will allow First Nations to direct that land use planning, decide whether they’re going to do it and approve it.

This is historic legislation. We’ve never done business like this before, and it’s important to recognize that that conversation has happened over the summer. It will continue onwards. This is about working together with First Nations communities, and we appreciate that we have land use plans in place now. We will continue—

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

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My riding of Scarborough–Rouge River is home to many newcomers who have come to our province to contribute their skills and experience, and it is our responsibility to help newcomers in my community and across Ontario get the best start possible in their new home. This is important because, within a decade, immigrants will make up nearly 100% of Ontario’s net labour growth.

To ensure that our newcomers succeed, we must help them access the settlement services, language training and job training that they need. Can the minister explain what the government is doing to help newcomers and their families get the settlement services they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I certainly thank the member for this very important question. Ontario is very fortunate, in fact, proud to receive almost half of all newcomers that arrive in Canada each and every year. That’s about 120,000 newcomers. Over the last five years, these newcomers have benefited from the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, an agreement that invests in our newcomers and their families. This agreement has funded settlement services, language training and other resources to help our newcomers prosper.

Earlier this year, however, the first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement expired, and unfortunately we are still waiting for Ottawa to spend the remaining $207 million that they promised our newcomers under that first agreement. We’ve also repeatedly asked the federal government to begin negotiations on a new comprehensive agreement that benefits our newcomers.

Today, on behalf of Ontario’s newcomers, I urge the federal government to immediately come to the table so we can negotiate a new agreement that puts the needs of our newcomers—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Helping our newcomers get settled and integrated must be a priority of governments of all levels, whether they are federal, provincial or municipal. Each level of government must work together to help our newcomers get the services they need, when they need them and wherever they need them. Governments must make the settlement process simple, efficient and effective so that local needs of newcomers are addressed.

The minister said that he wants the federal government to begin negotiations on a new agreement that puts the needs of newcomers first. Can the minister tell us what Ontario wants in a new, comprehensive agreement with our federal government?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Quite frankly, Ontario needs a new partnership that puts the needs of our newcomers first, a partnership that gives Ontario and settlement agencies increased ability to meet the local needs of our newcomers. We need a new partnership that gives Ontario a greater voice in immigration funding and greater control over how that funding is disbursed. This new partnership would improve the delivery and the responsiveness of newcomer services by aligning both the federal and the provincial programs.

Yesterday, I tabled a resolution in this Legislature calling on the federal government to give Ontario newcomers the remaining $207 million from the first agreement and to immediately begin negotiations on a new comprehensive agreement. Helping our newcomers succeed is a priority of the McGuinty government, because when our newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. You are a member of the legislation and regulations cabinet committee that recommended and rubber-stamped the secret G20 law. Why did you participate in rubber-stamping this law?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the member that you need to ask a question that relates to a minister’s portfolio.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Attorney General. You are a member of the legislation and regulations cabinet committee that recommended the secret G20 law that was rubber-stamped by the Premier. Why did you support the rubber-stamping of this legislation?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’m very pleased that yesterday a review was called by the government into the Public Works Protection Act legislation. As you know, my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services called this.

It is noteworthy that former Chief Justice McMurtry is leading this review, a person who, for more than a decade, stood in the chair that I stand in as Attorney General, who has not only been the chief justice of the province of Ontario, but brings to this review—I think we would all agree—a sense of knowledge, passion, impartiality, determination, to give the best possible recommendations and a fearlessness in saying what needs to be said.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The terms of the McMurtry review have nothing to do with holding those accountable, like the Minister of Health Promotion, for the secret G20 law—and anything that they had to do to take in account for. The Minister of Health Promotion was at the table that thought it was a good idea to pass the secret G20 law. So were the Attorney General and the ministers of revenue, citizenship and immigration, municipal affairs, natural resources, labour, and consumer affairs. Guess who else was at the table?

Let me tell you: the members for Peterborough, Ottawa Centre, Ottawa–Orléans, Mississauga–Streetsville, Willowdale, Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Ajax–Pickering and Algoma–Manitoulin. They all had seats at the table when this secret G20 law was stamped, so why didn’t one of them speak up while people were being arrested in this city?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the member will know, it was the Prime Minister of Canada who named Toronto as the host. Toronto was the host of a conference. It was the federal government, led by the Prime Minister of Canada, the RCMP and the Toronto Police Service that requested additional security measures.

It is very, very important to remember the context in which the question is asked—and I’m sure my friend opposite will be able to call up the Prime Minister and ask him to conduct any inquiry that she wishes and provide any answer that he has to the question. She lives very close to the Prime Minister’s residence.

We’re conducting a review with former Chief Justice McMurtry to get the best possible advice.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. There have been no amendments to the Condominium Act since 1998, and during that time, we have seen a huge increase in the number of people living in condominiums, and with it, a large number of problems. Condo owners are subject to a Wild West legal system that gives them no protection whatsoever.

I spoke to owners from northern Etobicoke who are paying $1,000 a month in maintenance fees and who have had $800,000 in reserve funds disappear—and the government acts as if there is nothing wrong with the Condominium Act.

When will the government admit that people are suffering because of weak legislation and change the act to give them better protection?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Obviously, this has to do with the member’s private member’s bill that’s coming up later on today.

I should tell the member that yes, he is correct that there have been no amendments made since 1998. We are currently doing a questionnaire and a survey on-site. We’ve received something like 2,500 comments already. The questionnaire, which is accessible on the ministry’s website, will be open and available to the general public until about the middle of October. We will be taking a look at any suggestion that comes along in order to better protect consumers, in order to better protect the condominium owners, and we’ll take a look at the member’s act as well to see how that fits into it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: If the minister is proud of his government’s inaction over the last three years, and if he’s so proud of his little survey, then maybe he might join me in the rally at 12 o’clock and give that information to the people. I invite you.

A condo owner from Guelph spent $30,000 to sue a developer over a badly constructed basement, and that’s just to get a hearing. A 75-year-old woman from Richmond Hill called us because her property manager is threatening to sell her unit for no apparent reason. A downtown Toronto woman got injured in her elevator and was forced to pay $1,800 to get the same elevator professionally inspected.

This afternoon, I will be debating my bill, Bill 79. This will be my third attempt to change the Condominium Act. Will the government finally respond to the concerns the condominium owners have been raising for years by supporting Bill 79?

Hon. John Gerretsen: The member knows that the condominium owners already have rights and protections with respect to the condominium corporations right now. They are members of the corporation. They can be members of the board of directors that make these kinds of decisions. They can go to their annual meetings.

But, as I mentioned before, we are doing a survey right now. We’ve already heard 2,500 different responses. We will be tabulating that to see what changes should be made, because he is quite correct that there are over 500,000 condominium unit owners across this province.

What we’re all about on this side of the House is to give the consumer the best protection possible that they can have in the province of Ontario.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We all know that cancer is a serious issue that has devastating effects on individuals who are diagnosed, as well as their families and friends. In order for our people, and especially our children, to have the brightest future, we need to make sure that they are able to live full and prosperous lives well into adulthood. We know that the prospects for children surviving cancer are high, but we need to remain diligent.

Could the minister tell the House what she is doing to protect our people, especially our children, from that awful disease?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member for London–Fanshawe is absolutely right. We need to make sure that our kids, especially those diagnosed with cancer, get what they need so they can live prosperous, healthy lives well into adulthood.

Today, we’re recognizing that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. More than 400 children are diagnosed with cancer every year in Ontario; 60 to 70 of those are treated in London at the Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario. I recently visited the hospital and welcomed Dr. Paul Gibson. He’s joining a team of three oncologists to provide better care for kids with cancer. Our government is fully supportive of the hospital’s tireless efforts to ensure that each patient and their family receives the best possible care and support.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of POGO, the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. Many members are in the gallery today, and I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It’s great to hear that there are tangible options for children and their families as they move through their cancer treatment.

You mentioned the role of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, or POGO, and their work in helping children with cancer. We need organizations like POGO to continue this important grassroots work in providing care for children with cancer. With 14 centres across the province, POGO has been able to provide invaluable care, easing the child’s journey through, as well as after cancer treatment.

Could the minister please explain to this House the important role that POGO plays in pediatric cancer treatment?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: POGO is a truly wonderful organization led by wonderful people. Since 1983, POGO and their growing number of partners—hospitals, other organizations and volunteers—have walked with children throughout their cancer journey. We are proud to partner with POGO.

Last year, we provided them with $5.4 million for programs and services that they provide. One of those services is after-care services—services for kids after they have completed their cancer treatments. POGO also provides nurses who support children, their families and local health caregivers during the very difficult time when active treatment is going on.

Today, about 3,000 kids in Ontario are getting cancer care. That means that 3,000 families need our support getting their families through that ordeal. The good news is—

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

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. I’m pleased to hear the minister’s concern for children. In the east gallery, anxiously awaiting the answer to this question, are Melodie and Peter Hughes, parents of 17-year-old Cody Hughes. Rheumatoid arthritis has virtually disintegrated the joints in Cody’s jaw. He’s in desperate need of having those joints replaced with titanium joints. The pain is excruciating and continuous. His morphine prescription is at the dose of a dying cancer patient. The family has been advised that Cody will have to wait four years for a procedure to remedy this situation.

It has been six weeks since I wrote to the minister and asked her to intervene. I have yet to hear from the minister. I can only assume that that’s because she hasn’t received the letter. I ask the minister this: Will she agree, following question period, to meet for five minutes—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to say to Cody’s parents, yes, of course, I would be honoured to meet with you after question period. We’ll make those arrangements.

I want to thank the member for bringing this situation to my attention. It is one that I have been informed of, and we are looking very carefully at what we can do to make sure that this young man gets the care he needs as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the minister for her reply. I am concerned, however, about the kind of research that her office has made into this situation. Although I wasn’t responded to for six weeks by her office, when the media made an inquiry, Fil Martino of Rogers’ First Local news received an email, in fact, within hours. Here was the quote from Ivan Langrish: “I know there are several hospitals which do pediatric dental procedures. Do you know if their doctor has explored referring Cody to another physician which may have a shorter wait time for the procedure?”

This shows a complete ignorance of the reality. There are only two doctors in the entire province who perform these procedures. The funding, which was set at $250,000 in 1995, has not increased one nickel—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the initial question, this is an issue that I am committed to looking into. I will happily meet with the parents following question period.

I know that these are very, very difficult challenges facing our health care system, and we are committed to increasing funding in health care every single year going forward. Sadly, it is the party opposite that has chosen to take a position to reduce health care spending in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. Order.

I would just remind the honourable members that, yes, we do work in an environment that can get heated, but we do have to ensure that we have the ability to ask questions and hear the responses to questions, and that we do so in a respectful manner. There have been a number of occasions during today’s question period when there have been interjections across the floor, member to member. I would just say to those individuals—because others hear that, and it starts to raise the temperature in the House as a whole.

If you have personal comments that you desire to make to one another, there are lobbies on either side of the chamber, and I would encourage members to have those discussions out there.

The leader of the third party.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Seventy Great Lakes mayors and dozens of environmental groups and First Nations communities all oppose transporting 16 radioactive nuclear steam generators through the Great Lakes to Sweden. This shipment was not part of Bruce Power’s initial proposal, and it exceeds by 50 times international limits for radioactivity on a single ship.

Why isn’t the McGuinty government taking action to prevent this unprecedented and unnecessary threat to our Great Lakes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I understand that Bruce Power has applied to ship 16 decommissioned steam generators to Sweden via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is mandated to protect the health and safety and security of Canadians as well as the environment. I understand that this process that they are undertaking will allow Bruce to reduce the volume of waste that they have in storage by about 90%. That’s a pretty good contribution in terms of improving environmental circumstances here in this province and across the country.

But it is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that’s responsible for these kinds of shipments. I think the member opposite knows that.

We know the member doesn’t support nuclear energy. The member should know that that’s 50% of our generation. That’s the workhorse of our system. We certainly will always be working with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to ensure that we’re providing that power responsibly—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government and this minister keep saying that this is a federal responsibility, but the Ontario government is responsible for the protection of our Great Lakes. The government of this province owns Ontario Power Generation, which owns and operates the radioactive waste site where the generators are stored.

When will the McGuinty government finally stop passing the buck and order OPG to slam the brakes on this hare-brained plan to ship radioactive nuclear waste through the Great Lakes?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I understand the concern the member is raising, but it is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that is responsible for these issues. We can’t rewrite the Constitution just because you want us to.

I think what’s at issue is here is, once again, the NDP is opposed to something. They’re opposed to everything. They’re opposing our investments in aging infrastructure. You’re opposing our measures that we’re taking to create jobs and create an—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will please come to order, and he knows that he should be in his seat.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: They oppose clean, reliable, emission-free nuclear power that generates half of our energy supply. They’re opposing the modernization of our energy system. They’re opposing support for northern Ontario and helping them deal with energy bills. And they oppose the agreement with Samsung, which is creating 16,000 jobs in this country.

This is the member that had the gumption to get up on her feet just a few weeks ago to talk about jobs. She wants—

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

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

Madame la Ministre, est-ce que vous croyez que cette journée dédiée aux Franco-Ontariens et aux Franco-Ontariennes atteint ce but visé?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour sa question et pour son appui pour les francophones. Notre gouvernement déploie des efforts constants afin de soutenir les communautés francophones fortes. Le Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes est une étape de plus dans cette direction. Cette journée sera reconnue dans les quatre coins de la province. C’est un moment idéal pour faire le lancement de cette grande première.

Cette année, nous célébrons le 35 e anniversaire du dévoilement du drapeau franco-ontarien, le 100 e anniversaire de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, le 35 e anniversaire du Festival franco-ontarien, le 25 e anniversaire de la Fondation franco-ontarienne et bien d’autres anniversaires. Alors, ce sont des marques importantes de notre histoire et c’est pourquoi cette première journée a une signification particulière cette année.

J’invite tous les membres de l’Assemblée à célébrer ce jour avec les Franco-Ontariens de leur circonscription.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Madame la Ministre, comme symbole, le Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes nous démontre l’engagement du gouvernement McGuinty envers les Franco-Ontariens.

La communauté franco-ontarienne est la deuxième plus importante population francophone au Canada après le Québec, et elle a grandement contribué au développement et à la prospérité de cette province. Donc, je suis fier que samedi, nous pouvons célébrer ensemble cette histoire.

Madame la Ministre, est-ce que vous pensez qu’un geste purement symbolique, comme cette journée, est satisfaisant pour notre communauté francophone?

Donc, ce samedi, nous avons tous beaucoup à célébrer : non seulement une histoire francophone, mais aussi un futur avec beaucoup d’espoir.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, farmers have told you over and over again that the current support programs are not working and that they need a business risk management program in order to survive.

You said the program would not work without federal support, but then six weeks ago you announced the program for grain farmers.

If it works for grain farmers with only provincial dollars, why won’t it work for all the other sectors in our agricultural communities?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do appreciate the question from that side of the House. We know that what the farmers are looking for is bankability, predictability and stability. The work that the grain and oilseeds did in the development of their risk management program came from the grassroots up. It addressed the cost of production and it spoke to the need for what is in store for them in the future. By extending the grain and oilseeds, they have been absolutely crystal clear: In order for the program to work, all three have to be at the table.

We have heard from G&O, we have heard from the non-supply-managed sector, that the producers, the province and our federal government have to be at the table in—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, farmers couldn’t be more clear. Beef farmers, pork producers, and fruit and vegetable growers are all in trouble, and they are all asking for the same thing: a business risk management program based on the cost of production.

Our leader, the leader of the PC Party, has committed to a risk management program for all farmers in all sectors.

Farmers have consulted with their grassroots. They’ve done their research and provided you with all the information you need. They have worked together like you asked. So, Minister, will you commit today to immediately funding the provincial portion of the business risk management program for all sectors? If not, could you please explain to farmers why you believe one sector deserves more support than the other sectors?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I did happen to notice that that was a position the Leader of the Opposition put forward. I’ve got to say that the farmers found it just a little passing strange, because when they were in government, they didn’t provide any income stabilization—nothing. We have put $1.8 billion to support our farmers. So when we see the Leader of the Opposition stand at the plowing match and commit to that, well, why didn’t they then? They understand the track record.

But we are working with the coalition. We understand that the programs aren’t working. We have taken that to the federal government and taken it to the table of the federal-provincial-territorial, and for the first time, the federal government has acknowledged that ag stability is not working for our farmers.

TOURISM

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Across northern Ontario, bookings at tourist resorts are down by between 40% and 60%. This has devastated the economy in many northern Ontario communities. Can I ask: What is the McGuinty government doing to help tourist operators survive these devastating economic conditions?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are certainly very conscious of the challenges that are being faced by the tourism industry in northern Ontario, but I can tell you that some of the economic development opportunities that are being brought forward to us, which we are very excited about, I think are helping them a great deal.

Certainly I know that there was a report brought forward which Greg Sorbara worked very hard on in terms of developing some opportunities for the tourism sector in northern—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would just remind the honourable member that we use riding names, not individual names.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that this was a very important report that was brought forward, which has given some real impetus to some of the tourism development in terms of setting up regional tourism zones in the north that we know are going to make a great difference. Each one of the members in northern Ontario is working very, very hard with the tourism sector—certainly I am, along with all my colleagues—to help them develop plans for the future that will bring them even more prosperity in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Speaker, I heard a lot of words; I’m quite sure I didn’t hear an answer.

Let me spell out the nature of the problem to the minister. Tourist resorts in northern Minnesota do not charge the HST. Tourist resorts in Manitoba do not charge the HST. If someone is coming to a resort to spend $5,000 for a week’s stay, the difference amounts to $300 or $400 a week cheaper if they stay in Manitoba or in northern Minnesota. That’s exactly what’s happening. If I can quote the executive director of Sunset Country Travel Association, he says, “In my opinion, the HST is a spending killer from a consumer point of view.”

Your government is killing the tourism industry across northern Ontario. What are you going to do to fix that?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The member is ignoring the many positive developments that have taken place across the province in terms of tourism, let alone across northern Ontario. Since 2003, we have invested almost $700 million in our tourism agencies, and certainly across the north—we have $65 million in each of the next two years to support the transition to the regional tourism organizations I referenced in my first response, and $40 million in annual funding to support the tourism region starting in 2012 being very well received by the sector.

The Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership is another very, very positive part of the campaign that we’re generating. This has generated more than 1.5 million trips and $270 million in visitor spending, and our Celebrate Ontario funding, supporting so many festivals all across northern Ontario, was a massive success over this past summer.

We’re very pleased to continue to work—

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

DEFERRED VOTES

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 191,

An Act with respect to land use planning and protection in the Far North / Projet de loi 191, Loi relative à l’aménagement et à la protection du Grand Nord.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Brown, Michael A.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Carroll, Aileen

Chiarelli, Bob

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murray, Glen R.

Orazietti, David

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

DiNovo, Cheri

Elliott, Christine

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Tabuns, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 46; the nays are 26.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts in respect of water conservation and other matters / Projet de loi 72, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur le développement des technologies de l’eau et modifiant d’autres lois en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’eau et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1148.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Michael A.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Carroll, Aileen

Chiarelli, Bob

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murray, Glen R.

Orazietti, David

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Elliott, Christine

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 55; the nays are 17.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

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

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Ms. Susan Birnie, deputy provincial commissioner, Ontario Council, Girl Guides of Canada, and Ms. Lyn Lunsted, past president of the 1st Richvale Trefoil Guild of the Girl Guides, to the House today.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GREEN LEGACY PROGRAM

Mr. Ted Arnott: We should never take our trees for granted. They purvey beauty, greenery, shelter and habitat for animals. In removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, trees support life on earth. Yet we are planting only three million trees per year in southern Ontario—not enough, says Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller. The commissioner’s annual report, released yesterday, calls on the government to raise its target of 50 million trees planted in southern Ontario by 2020 to a total of one billion trees, which is certainly an ambitious goal.

But one municipality in particular is already doing its part. In fact, the county of Wellington has been leading the way since 2004 when it launched its impressive Green Legacy tree-planting program. This initiative has brought communities together, involving local environmental groups, service clubs, schools, municipalities and private landowners, farmers and other organizations. After achieving their goal to plant 150,000 trees in 2004, the county will have planted a staggering one million trees this year. That millionth tree will be planted Sunday, October 3, at the Wellington County Museum and Archives.

It’s no wonder that the county’s Green Legacy program has just received a Grand River watershed award for its outstanding conservation and environmental work with the community.

To the hundreds of leaders and volunteers who have made Green Legacy such a success, thank you, and well done.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Charles Sousa: Our government has made education a priority in the province of Ontario. The initiatives that we have undertaken are helping students to access safer schools and achieve higher test scores. But one of the greatest achievements is the increase in graduation rates due to our Learning to 18 initiative. Learning to 18 requires that our students stay in school until the age of 18 or until they graduate. By providing a range of innovative programs to students, we are helping them to engage more effectively in their learning.

The results of our initiatives in education speak for themselves: 53,000 more students have a high school diploma today than they did under the Hudak-Harris era. This means that more of our students have the education and tools they need to succeed in life. We know that when Ontario students succeed, Ontario excels.

We know that having access to safe and effective education can help provide access to a better future. That’s why education remains one of our core priorities. It’s vitally important for our students and for the future of Ontario.

TUTUS FOR TANNER

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Last summer I was able to meet some very remarkable people, and it all came about because of Twitter.

Catherine Connors, who’s a resident of Bowmanville here in the province of Ontario, made the world aware of her nephew Tanner. He’s a boy fighting Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and he fights this disease daily. It’s debilitating. Catherine, a great Ontarian, created a run for her nephew. It was called Tutus for Tanner, and I’m sure many of you heard about it.

On the way to New York City, Air Canada disassembled his wheelchair. It went through Twitter. A man from Oakville, Scott Stratten of UnMarketing, tweeted about this. It reached a lady in Nepean named Krista House, and then it reached me at about 10:30 on an evening. My staff and I decided to get involved. We were able to contact the then transportation minister, John Baird, to work with Air Canada, and we were finally able to get—through thousands of people who were following this saga on Twitter—Tanner his wheelchair back.

This Legislature played an exemplary role. We were able to host Tanner and his family here before they went back to British Columbia, and Speaker Peters actually brought this young man on to the floor of this House. Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, a former MPP whom many of us in this chamber are very fond of, also invited Tanner and his family to the Royal Ontario Museum. For Tanner, the most exciting part of Toronto was the fact that the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature lives here, and he was stuck on that the entire time he was here.

I’d also be remiss not to say thank you so much to a man named Jack Matrosov. When I contacted his Mississauga company to see if we could arrange for transportation for Tanner when he was in Toronto, they stepped up to the plate.

We have a great province here and a lot of great people. Tutus for Tanner was a very important event. Thousands of people helped him. They ran for him and they fought for him.

I think it’s very important for this Legislature to know what we were able to do in August of this past year.

PAT SILVER

Mr. Michael Prue: Each year the Beach community honours one of its citizens, a citizen who has, through their own extraordinary efforts, enhanced and built the community that we lovingly call the Beach.

This year, citizens will be gathering at the Millennium Gardens at Eastern Avenue and Coxwell Avenue at 5:30 on October 1 to honour the Beach Citizen of the year, Pat Silver. Pat Silver is a member of the Beach Triangle Residents Association. She’s been instrumental in helping the Beaches Alternative school, the East Alternative School and the Beach synagogue. She’s been instrumental, as well, in helping to found the Danforth Mosaic BIA, which is doing an amazing job along the Danforth and revitalizing that area and bringing the community to shop in the stores.

One of her accomplishments is that she is a member of the Sphere Clown Band. I was not aware of this, but the Sphere Clown Band is an international organization that travels around the world bringing joy primarily to children, but they’ve also played at the White House and in China.

So the citizens of the Beach have decided that she is the exemplary citizen whom we will be honouring. Everyone is welcome to come to the Millennium Gardens on October 1 at 5:30, where we’ll engrave the stone with the name Pat Silver.

GIRL GUIDES

Mr. Reza Moridi: I am pleased to rise in this House today on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Girl Guides in Canada. Over seven million Girl Guides, ranging from the youngest Sparks through to Brownies, Pathfinders and finally to Rangers, are volunteering in communities across Ontario and Canada. The Guiding movement is active in over 145 countries.

The training that Girl Guides receive will help them to conquer challenges they will face and enable them to become knowledgeable, confident and resourceful citizens. The development of leadership skills will help to ensure that they will mature into active citizens and make a difference in the world.

This weekend I will have the pleasure to visit an exhibit showcasing the past 100 years of Guiding, being hosted by the Trefoil Guild in Richmond Hill. This branch of the Girl Guides is made up of long-time active members of Guiding, who participate in service projects and provide younger Guides with assistance.

It is my honour to recognize the Girl Guides of Canada today.

LEGION WEEK

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I rise today to recognize Royal Canadian Legions across Ontario during Legion Week. Legions are a strong advocate for Canadian veterans and their families and are respected community organizatio