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

November 1, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-01 (PDF)

L063 - Mon 1 Nov 2010 / Lun 1er nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 1 November 2010 Lundi 1 er novembre 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

SMART METERS

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

TAXATION

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PLANT CLOSURE

TAXATION

AIR-RAIL LINK

CONSUMER PROTECTION

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROBERT RUNCIMAN

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

SUMMERSTOWN TRAILS

XOGEN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LANDFILL

ACTION ONTARIO

CANADIAN MUSEUM OF NATURE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXOTIC WILDLIFE

IN CAPTIVITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ANIMAUX

SAUVAGES EXOTIQUES

GARDÉS EN CAPTIVITÉ

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

HOME CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PENSION PLANS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. John Milloy: I know members in this House are probably very familiar with Skills Canada, an organization that promotes trades among young people. One of the ways they do that is through a competition. Skills Canada Ontario is represented here today at Queen’s Park, as well as the winners of the national Skills Canada competition that was held in Waterloo. These young individuals will be going on to represent Canada at the international skills competition in London, England.

I’d like to recognize them here today. They’re over in the gallery. We have, first of all, Ian Cunningham, a director with Skills Canada Ontario, and Gail Smyth, executive director of Skills Canada. Then we have the student competitors: Tyler Hackney, Jonathan Sinke, Ryan Gomes, Benjamin Church, Adrian Schut and Tom Middlebro. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

There’s a reception tonight for Skills Canada-Ontario at Stop 33 at the Sutton Place. All members are welcome to celebrate Ontario’s champions.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to welcome the family of today’s page captain, Eric O’Brien, from the great riding of Oxford. Here with us today at Queen’s Park in the members’ gallery are his mother, Kristine Hamilton, his father, Steve O’Brien, his brother Liam and his cousin Evan Samson. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to introduce Elle Doherty’s father and sister, Lonny and Maya. Elle is our page from the beautiful riding of Huron–Bruce.

I also have in attendance my nephew Justin Jain and my daughter Jasmine Mitchell.

Welcome, all. It’s a great day for Huron–Bruce.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d like to introduce Lucas DaSilva, who is here to watch question period on his day off from school today. Welcome, Lucas.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I’d like to take an opportunity to introduce His Worship Fernando Campos, mayor of Boticas in Tras Montes, in the northern region of Portugal. He’s joined by his wife, Dona Graca, as well as Mr. Abel Barroso and Aldina Barroso. They’re joined by Mr. John Goncalves and Mrs. Idila Goncalves, who are the organizers of their visit, together with Mr. Raimundo Favas and Lucia Santos, long-time volunteers in our community. They were here this weekend to support Santa Casa da Misericordia de Boticas, and they were joined by Minister Peter Fonseca as well.

Remarks in Portuguese.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, families in Ontario woke up this morning to find out that you’ve turned time-of-use smart meters on their heads; now they’re being charged the highest use for energy between 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Obviously, it will hit families quite hard.

The additional surprise, we understand, that you have in store for Ontario families is an expansion of your already hidden and greedy hydro tax, which cost consumers some $53 million last year.

Is it true, Minister, that you plan on expanding this greedy hydro tax to natural gas, just as we’re heading into the winter heating season?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is misinformed. The Ontario Energy Board came out with the regulated price plan for consumers. It was very clear, and it was just a number of weeks ago.

Time-of-use pricing for consumers on smart meters was adjusted as follows, and I suggest the Leader of the Opposition take note: Off-peak price decreases went from 5.3 cents to 5.1 cents per kilowatt hour; mid-peak did go up from 8 cents to 8.1 cents per kilowatt hour; on-peak prices remain unchanged. The estimated price impact for residential consumers on time of use will be a reduction of $1.21 per month. I recognize that’s not a lot, but nonetheless it is a reduction.

One would think that the Leader of the Opposition would recognize the importance of encouraging people to shift off of peak usage; how that saves the—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Yet again, another promise by a McGuinty cabinet minister that hydro prices are going down. Quite frankly, families won’t believe this promise, because every promise you’ve made on hydro prices has been broken. They’re going through the roof.

Let me put this into perspective, Minister. Now, as we’re heading toward the cooler winter season, you’re increasing the cost of using energy in the mornings, as families are getting ready to go to school, and in the evenings as the kids come home for dinner and to do their homework. On top of that, in addition to the $53-million tax grab you had on hydro bills, you’re planning on putting this on natural gas. Millions and millions of Ontario families depend on natural gas to heat their homes. Minister, please tell us it’s not true that you’re going to slap down a brand new tax on natural gas just when the winter season is hitting.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition is speculating, as he likes to do, trying to use fearmongering to consumers at a time when consumers need transparency. I’m looking forward to bringing forward the long-term energy plan for this province, which will provide that transparency, that certainty, and maybe take away some of the opportunities in which the Leader of the Opposition likes to engage in fearmongering and trying to ensure that consumers in fact don’t know what actually is going on around the province.

What I can say is this: The Leader of the Opposition came forward with his own idea not long ago, an idea that he indicated would bring prices down. We’ve looked into it. His idea of providing options would do nothing but put prices up for consumers right across this province. They would increase administration costs; they would—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I appreciate that the minister says that he’s looking forward to bringing forward his long-term energy plan. We’re also looking forward to the Leafs finally winning the Stanley Cup. The problem is, we don’t know just which one is going to come sooner.

I say to the minister, you are now, with your new smart meter time-of-use rates, these tax machines, actually telling families that they have to have the kids showered and ready for school before 7 a.m. When they get home, I guess they can hang out in the dark until they can do their homework after 9 p.m., with your new rates. And now, Minister, you are planning on bringing in an increase on taxes on natural gas, just as we’re hitting the cold winter season.

You’re saying that we’re speculating; Minister, you gave yourself authority to do so in the legislation. We think you’re going to use it. Yes or no: Are you planning another sneaky tax grab on natural gas bills just when we’re hitting the winter season?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not going to speculate, as the Leader of the Opposition would want me to do on that, in any way. What I will say is this, and this is the fact: The Leader of the Opposition would try to claim that he’s proposing something that would save everybody money. Clearly, we’ve looked into it. It will not. What he’s proposing would create confusion and uncertainty among consumers. What he’s proposing would kill the benefits of time-of-use pricing while increasing its costs through billing system changes and more administration, sinking the investments that we’ve made in smart meters.

What he’s proposing would increase the administrative burden on local distribution companies, driving up their costs and forcing them to recover that from consumers.

He says one thing in this Legislature, but when he finally comes out with something, it’s very clear that he didn’t think it through. The Leader of the Opposition, if we were to listen him today, would be putting up the rates of consumers right across this—

Interjection.

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

The member from Nepean will withdraw the comment she just made, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

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

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Energy: If your smart meter tax machines were such a good thing, then consumers would choose them. The Ontario PCs believe in giving Ontario families a choice. Whether they want to participate in the program or not, you want to force it down their throats.

But Minister, with all due respect, you seem to be trying to get around my question a bit here. It’s a very simple, straightforward question. You have given yourself the authority to impose a new tax on natural gas just as we hit the winter season. Despite your advice to consumers to turn off the air conditioners in November to save on their time-of-use pricing, surely you understand that natural gas usage goes up in the winter time, when it tends to snow and get colder. Let me ask you, Minister, very directly: Will you, yes or no, bring in a new tax on natural gas in the province? Yes or no? Please say no.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I said earlier that all of our initiatives will be made very, very clear in the long-term energy plan. I’m not going to speculate on that idle speculation taking place over there. I can tell you that we have no plans to move forward in that direction, but I’m not going to speculate on that in any way.

What I will say is this: The Leader of the Opposition gets up in his place day in and day out and talks about his concern about rising energy rates, yet when he does come forward with some initiatives, they have the effect of increasing costs to consumers. In the same speech that he moved forward with his so-called option to consumers—and the only option it’s going to involve is increasing rates to consumers—he also speculated on nuclear. He said that we should be purchasing nuclear units today. It would have cost us billions more dollars if we had taken his advice to buy nuclear—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Perhaps I could, with respect to the minister, ask him to temporarily leave the fantasyland of his last number of questions and deal with the hard realities that Ontario families are facing today.

Under the McGuinty government, hydro bills are going through the roof. They’re impacting quite hard on senior citizens and Ontario families. You’ve added an 8% increase with the HST now on hydro bills in the province. You brought forward a sneaky hydro tax that you have buried in the regulatory charges so it doesn’t even appear directly on the bills. You’ve claimed these things are conservation initiatives, but it goes into the general revenue fund.

All of that is bad enough. All of that is hitting hard on Ontario families today. All I’m asking you is to just say no to another greedy tax grab on natural gas, particularly as we’re heading into the winter season. Just say no.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve been very clear. In a time when we do have to increase investments to ensure that we deliver a strong, reliable and clean energy system, we’re doing everything we can to bring those prices down. So let’s be very clear about that. We’re doing everything we can. We’re making sure that our energy partners do everything they can to ensure that whatever increases they need to come forward with, it’s only increases that are providing value for money.

We’ve had to come a long way and we’ve had to build up this energy system that was left in distress seven years ago when the previous government was not making the important investments in the system, when the previous government was not ensuring, in fact, that we had enough supply to meet the demand of Ontario families. We’ve had to make important investments to ensure that we provide the strong, reliable and clean energy system that—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Every time that the Premier wants to install another greedy tax grab, he tends to dress it up as an environmental initiative. We saw that with your eco tax grab that would slap a new tax on 9,000 items that families use each and every day, and I’m proud that the Ontario PCs stood on the side of Ontario families and fought that tax and caused you to back down.

Now we’re taking up the fight again. We know that you have a plan to bring in an additional tax, not only on hydro bills, which you hide under the regulatory charges, but on natural gas as well. Minister, this is simply unaffordable to Ontario families. They cannot take any more of these hits on their pocketbooks by Premier McGuinty. Please tell us right here, right now, that you are cancelling your plans to slap a new tax on natural gas in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has no idea what he’s talking about. There’s no such plan. He’s speculating. It’s idle speculation. It’s the typical fearmongering on hydro rates that’s been going on far too long, and that’s why I’m looking very much forward to moving forward with our long-term energy plan. Our long-term energy plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: They had their chance when they were in power, and what did they leave us? They did not invest in a strong and modern energy system. They did not invest in a cleaner energy system. They did not invest in reliability. They were preoccupied with selling off hydro assets. Their experimentation with deregulation cost our consumers a billion dollars. Every time I look at my bill and see that debt retirement fund, I see that Leader of the Opposition’s face—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The McGuinty government’s new time-of-use hydro rates are kicking in today and families are getting ready to be whacked with another round of hydro bill hikes. Can the minister assure households that every single penny of their sky-high hydro bills is going to be put to good use?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the leader of the opposition for the question. Obviously, when the Ontario Energy Board came out just a few weeks ago and indicated that indeed the regulated price plan would be small and modest decreases for consumers, this is what they said: Off-peak prices will be decreased from 5.3 cents to 5.1 cents. That’s a decrease, not an increase, as the Leader of the Opposition, I think, would have people believe. Mid-peak price increases would go up from eight cents to 8.1 cents—a little bit; not very much—and on-peak prices would remain the same. The estimated bill impact for residential consumers of time-of-use would be a reduction of $1.21 per consumer.

We recognize that that’s a modest reduction, but it’s a far cry from the fearmongering of the leader of the third party.

We’re doing everything we can to ensure that our consumers are getting value for money. We’re working very hard with our—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I specifically asked the minister was: Is every single penny going to be put to good use? That was my question.

Elections Ontario records show that the Ontario Liberal Party accepted thousands of dollars in donations from municipally owned utilities. Essex Power put nearly $3,000 into Liberal Party coffers, while Thunder Bay Hydro made a donation to the Thunder Bay–Superior North Liberal riding association.

Why are families who are already feeling the squeeze funding the Ontario Liberal Party when they’re paying their hydro bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the opposition gets up day after day and criticizes the important investments that we’re making to build a strong, reliable and cleaner system of energy. Just a few weeks ago, we took four coal units off of power, something we couldn’t have done—we couldn’t have taken them out of our system without these important investments.

There was a time when the NDP stood for something. There was a time when the NDP believed in cleaner air, when the NDP believed in healthier outcomes for our kids and grandkids. There was a time when the NDP supported initiatives to get us off of coal, but day in and day out the NDP stand up and oppose the important investments we’re making to ensure that we can get the system to where it needs to go.

I think they’ve lost their way. I think they’ve lost their principles. There was a day they stood for something. I think today—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There’s more local utility largesse flowing into Liberal coffers. Hydro ratepayers in Oakville made a generous $15,000 donation to the Ontario Liberals, and Sudbury hydro customers helped out the governing party, too.

Why should Ontario families believe that their skyrocketing hydro bills will go to new electricity infrastructure when they see tens of thousands of dollars going straight to the Liberal Party?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the leader of the opposition gets up and—it was only about a month or two ago when she got up in this Legislature to give us figures that were 500% wrong.

I think it’s important that we talk about the things that are important to Ontarians, things that used to be important to the NDP. Just to show you how far the NDP has strayed, let me quote from Dr. Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, when he said this: “More clean energy jobs in Ontario isn’t just good news for workers.... It’s good news for everyone who wants cleaner air and lower emissions. Across this province, we’re creating jobs and replacing old, polluting energy like coal with clean, modern energy like wind and solar.”

He goes on to say, “People who want to go backwards”—and I think he’s pointing his finger over there—“and use less renewable energy need to be honest.... They’re fighting job creation. Energy companies are hiring people in Ontario as a direct result of Ontario”—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Minister of Energy. Families are telling us that they simply can’t afford to pay any more. Every single penny of their household budget counts, and they don’t want to see those pennies funding the Ontario Liberal Party.

The new smart meter bills kick in today. Why are rates increasing at the exact same time when families are busy preparing to get off to work and school in the morning and when they’re getting home from work and school in the afternoon?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Whatever happened to the days when the NDP cared about cleaner air? Whatever happened to the days when the NDP cared about the health of ourselves and our children? Whatever happened to the days when the NDP believed in energy conservation—or at least they talked about it. When they were in office, they actually cut conservation programs, but at least they used to talk about it.

Today, they stand in this place, day after day, and criticize the important investments we’re making in conservation, the important investments we’re making that are allowing us to get off of dirty coal, create cleaner air and help ensure that we have healthier outcomes for ourselves and our children.

There’s no question at all: The third party has lost their way. I can say that when I look at comments from the steelworkers, a group that used to support that party, comments that I’ll be happy to speak to in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Victoria Morrison of Ajax tells me, “To live with the new rates under the smart meter plan, I will have to learn to sleep all day, getting up at 9 p.m. and going to bed at 7 a.m. If not, the cost of my meals and keeping warm, having light on a winter day, will cost me two to three times more.”

Why are seniors like Ms. Morrison being hit with sky-high rates at exactly the time when they need to use electricity the most?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m still waiting to see the leader of the third party’s next newsletter. I’m sure by now the leader of the third party is very aware of our energy and property tax credit, a tax credit that will go to two thirds of Ontario seniors, a tax credit that will go to 2.8 million lower- and middle-income Ontarians, a tax credit that’s going to help provide relief when it comes to rising energy costs. I’m sure the leader of the third party would want her constituents to be aware of this important tax credit, because it does provide relief.

We know that Ontario families have gone through a rough time when it comes to the global recession, and we know that rising energy rates are challenging to Ontario families. That’s why we’re working very hard with Ontario families. We’re working very hard with the Minister of Finance, who brought forward this energy property tax credit to provide relief.

We’re going to keep working with Ontario families, but I would ask the leader of the third party to start dealing with facts and start ensuring that her—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Joyce Sloat and her husband are nearing retirement. She writes, “We have electric heat in our home.... I have been environmentally responsible by using a clothesline to dry our laundry for 36 years! [But] my pockets have bottoms and the McGuinty HST has them blowing in the wind!” This government has hit women like Joyce with hike after hike after hike. She doesn’t want to pay the HST on hydro, and she certainly doesn’t want the money that she does pay going into the pockets of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Why is the Ontario government hitting her with higher rates the second she comes home from work and refusing to give her a break by simply taking the HST off her hydro bill?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I spoke earlier about the fact that our energy and property tax credits will be going out to the benefit of two thirds of Ontario seniors, and the very constituents that the leader of the third party is talking about will benefit from that.

But maybe the leader of the third party might want to take advice from her own critic, when he said not to “ignore the economic opportunities that are presented by conservation and renewable energy—not to mention the enormous costs if we do nothing. Science is not on their side. Nor is public opinion.” I think that’s something we would certainly agree with. The member’s own critic is standing in stark contrast to the positions that she has taken in this Legislature day after day. She has lost her way.

She’s driving a wedge between herself and the environmentalists, she’s driving a wedge between herself and the Steelworkers, and she’s even driving a wedge between herself and her own environment critic.

SMART METERS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the energy minister. While Premier McGuinty sold his smart-meter experiment by telling Ontario families that time-of-use would save them money, 60% of those with smart meters say they’re paying more. This morning, Ontario families woke up to discover that Premier McGuinty will make them pay even more for time-of-use rates that are the highest between 7 to 11 a.m. and 5 to 9 p.m., when people are getting home from work. The Premier’s advice to people who are struggling with skyrocketing hydro bills? Turn down the air conditioners this winter.

Why doesn’t Premier McGuinty understand that Ontario families do not have an unlimited ability to pay for all of his expensive energy experiments?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I said it before, and I’m going to say it again, because it bears repeating: The Ontario Energy Board regulates the price of energy. They made it very clear a number of weeks ago, when they indicated that off-peak prices would be decreasing from 5.3 cents to 5.1 cents, that mid-peak prices would be increasing—but it’s very small, 8 cents to 8.1 cents—and on-peak prices would remain the same. The estimated bill impact for residential consumers for time-of-use would be going down—not up, but down—by $1.21.

Those are the facts. That’s what consumers deserve to be hearing from the opposition. We welcome their constructive ideas. We’ve had to make some transformational changes in the energy sector because we’ve had to shift it from the distress it was in when they were in power to building a strong, reliable and clean energy system. We still have more work to do, and certainly we would welcome constructive ideas, but the petty things that they’re coming up with now—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: These are important issues. Our PC leader has called for Ontario families to be given a choice between flat-rate hydro use and time-of-use pricing. When you add the cost of smart meters, delivery charges, debt retirement charges, regulatory charges and global adjustment in HST to the 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour Premier McGuinty charges during peak hours, Ontario families pay substantially more for hydro than in California and Florida, where families are given a choice.

When will Premier McGuinty realize he does not have a more intelligent understanding than Ontario families and give them a real break on their skyrocketing hydro bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The opposition continues to put out information and comments that are just designed for fearmongering. Let’s stick to the facts. The fact is that the Ontario Energy Board came forward with what amounts to a decrease of $1.21 per month when it comes to consumers. That’s good news for consumers.

We know that there’s still work to do. We know there are still investments to be made. We’re going to ensure that we don’t do what they did seven years ago. We’re not going to leave consumers in the lurch, where they didn’t have enough power to provide the support they need in their households for their families. We’re going to ensure that we continue to make investments in the system that ensure we have a reliable system, unlike the system that they left us seven years ago that was in an absolute state of decay. We’re going to ensure that we don’t do what they did, and that is to let the use of coal go up 127% during their days in office. By the year 2014—

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Labour. A few months ago, a Toronto server, who was being forced to share her tips with her manager, asked the minister to change the law to protect her and thousands of other servers across Ontario who are being ripped off.

The minister responded, and I quote him, “Tips are not wages. The manner in which tips are split between employees and employers is determined by the two parties.”

In view of the unanimous support given by MPPs in this House on Thursday and editorial support on Bill 114, will the Minister of Labour now tell us whether he still supports the rip-off of servers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First, I’d like to thank the member for introducing his private member’s bill and allowing all members here to engage in this very important debate.

I think I speak for all of us when I say that our waiters and waitresses, our bartenders and hostesses do an amazing job, a commendable job for our hospitality industry. These are good, hard-working men and women. The type of service they provide—having spoken to many different establishments, managers and owners understand that having competent, caring and well-compensated staff is the equation to success when it comes to any of the businesses within this industry.

I’m very proud of the record of this government when it comes to protecting our employees. We’ve made many changes to the Employment Standards Act—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister just doesn’t get it. Tens of thousands of restaurant workers in Ontario are being ripped off by their bosses. They’re forced, under pain of losing their jobs, to pay with their tips. We learned that this situation is spreading, and more and more workers will face this extortion if we don’t put the brakes on this practice right now.

Will this government do the right thing to protect all low-wage servers and immediately take steps to ensure the swift passage of Bill 114, or, in the alternative, bring in your own bill to do the same?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We take the rights of hard-working men and women in Ontario very seriously. Again, that’s why we have made significant changes to the Employment Standards Act.

If any restaurant employee, hotel employee, any employee in Ontario feels that they have been mistreated, I do ask that they contact the Ministry of Labour so our officials can investigate.

I think the member fails to remember that after nine long years of not seeing one cent added to the minimum wage, this party has increased that minimum wage every single year to—right now in Ontario, where those members voted against that, we have the highest minimum wage of any province in Canada. It’s something that we’re proud of. We will continue to fight for the workers of Ontario.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Clean, renewable hydroelectricity is an important part of Ontario’s energy supply mix. In northern Ontario, water in particular is an essential source of electricity needed to power our communities, industry, hospitals and schools.

Many of the more remote communities would not have power at all if not for the investments being made to enhance our hydroelectric generating capacity in the north.

Can the minister reaffirm the government’s commitment to hydroelectricity as a critical element in powering northern Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Absolutely. I thank the member for Algoma–Manitoulin for the question. I can assure him of this government’s commitment to clean, renewable hydro power and our commitment to continuing to invest in energy reliability in northern Ontario.

In fact, I can tell him of an exciting new development on the Upper Mattagami River near Timmins. Ontario Power Generation has been wanting to refurbish and enhance the aging hydro infrastructure on the Mattagami River for quite some time. Some of it was approaching 100 years old.

Just last week, thanks to the investments made by this government, the fully refurbished and enhanced Sandy Falls hydro station came into service. This new hydro station will produce 30 kilowatt hours of clean, renewable energy every year, enough to power 3,000 homes in northeastern Ontario.

Revitalizing Sandy Falls is just one of a number of large hydro projects under way on the Mattagami River. I’m happy to expand on that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Getting power to the communities in the north is vital and certainly no small undertaking; even better when the power can be produced locally and renewably.

It is well known that the investments the government is making in modernizing the electricity system and enhancing our generating capacity from clean, renewable resources like hydroelectricity are creating thousands of jobs across Ontario.

Can the minister tell the House: In terms of jobs, what sort of impact do these projects have on northern Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m glad the member brought up job creation, because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, it’s something that we care very greatly about, especially in the north.

I can tell the member that the development on the Upper Mattagami River, including Sandy Falls, is creating 500 jobs in northern Ontario. The expansions taking place on the Lower Mattagami River are creating 800 jobs. That’s 1,300 jobs in Timmins–James Bay on the Mattagami River alone.

Not once have I heard the member from Timmins–James Bay or his leader utter a single word about the importance of these jobs in that community.

The leader of the third party clearly is not interested in job creation, opportunities for First Nations or energy reliability in the north. She’s interested in two things: fearmongering and short-term political opportunity, and putting that ahead of cleaner air and job creation in the north. Ontarians deserve much better than that.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. In response to a media interview last week, one of your colleagues demonstrated how out of touch your colleagues are in regard to your portfolio. The member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex is so out of touch—

Interjection: How out of touch is she?

Mr. Robert Bailey: —that last week in a media interview, she said cutting the HST for everyone would only help the rich, who can afford this tax. That’s news to Ontario families, who work hard every day and are struggling to pay the $1,000 a year the HST adds to their family bills.

Was the member relying on talking points from your office for her out-of-touch comments, or were they really her own?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I thank the member very much for the question. First, let me just say how great a job our member from Lambton–Kent does. The member as well as the government—we are here about creating jobs. That’s why we introduced the HST. That’s why we have a comprehensive tax package. In fact, while we know 93% of all Ontarians have seen a personal income tax cut, we know that we are helping Ontario families with tax cuts and tax credits. It’s about more jobs for Ontarians, it’s about building a stronger economy, and we are committed to continue going on that road.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: My supplementary to the minister: Obviously, the McGuinty Liberals also show how out of touch they are when this same member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex tried to say that the federal government made her and her colleagues vote for the HST. Ontario families know that she and 70 other McGuinty Liberals put the Premier’s priorities over their own. They are unhappy about paying $1,000 a year more for the HST. Now you’re scrambling to come up with gimmicks to ease the pain of Premer McGuinty’s HST tax grabs.

But if anyone needed more proof of how out of touch you’ve become, you expect to be thanked for taking away $1,000 and then giving Ontario families $50 back. How did you and your Liberal colleagues get so far out of touch?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Again, I wonder if the member had the opportunity to speak with Patricia Davidson, the federal MP from Sarnia, who I think voted for the HST. She voted for the HST. That’s a smart member.

But let me talk a little bit more about our comprehensive tax package. It’s about creating jobs; that’s what we are committed to. It’s about tax cuts. It’s about tax credits. It’s about building a business environment that is competitive. We want our businesses to succeed so that they can have more money to put into innovation and more jobs. That’s what this is about, and I hope the member would support building on 600,000 more jobs for the province of Ontario.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, in 2008—October 2008, in fact—your government passed legislation that gave part-time professors and support staff the right to organize. Minister Milloy, in the committee of estimates, said that he was very proud of this legislation. Indeed, many ministers are nodding in their pride of having passed that legislation two years ago.

Yet today, more than a year after thousands of workers signed membership cards and voted on unionization, the ballots remain in sealed boxes, uncounted. What happened to that pride of yours that you had in passing that legislation? When will the ballots be counted?

Hon. John Milloy: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I know the member knows, or ought to know, that this is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The Ontario Labour Relations Board, as a tribunal, will work through this process, working with the parties, assisting the parties with this.

The Ministry of Labour is very proud of the labour relations that we have in Ontario. They have been very effective. Actually, right now in Ontario, we have the best labour relations record that we have had in the last 35 years. That speaks volumes for the way that the parties handle themselves.

But whenever there is a dispute, when there is something that parties cannot see eye to eye on, we do have the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and this is where this matter sits today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Both ministers are abdicating their responsibility. In my mind, it doesn’t speak to the pride in the bill that his government passed. The colleges are, in my mind, violating your bill. They are flouting your bill; your bill is being circumvented by the colleges.

Frankly, both of these ministers are a little coy. Minister Milloy, in particular, is very modest about his authority. According to another act, the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, the minister has the authority to simply order the colleges to withdraw their objections to the vote. Here’s a way for the minister to restore pride in his bill and take responsibility. Will Minister Milloy make the order and end this debacle?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As Minister of Labour, I take my responsibilities very seriously, and I respect the process that we have in the province of Ontario. The process allows the parties, if they have a dispute, if they have a conflict or something that needs to be worked through, to take that to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That’s where the matter sits today. I would hope that the member would not play politics with this and would allow the process to work itself through.

In this province, we have very stable labour relations. We have excellent labour relations. I think that’s because of the model that we’ve set up. Please allow the process to work its way through, I say to the member.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As you know, Ottawa Centre includes Carleton University, has the University of Ottawa situated next door and has Algonquin College and La Cité collégiale within a very short distance. As such, I have many students who live in my riding, and my constituents are generally very attuned to the importance of post-secondary education as a key component of a prosperous and well-equipped Ontario.

Minister, I hear a lot from my community, and students especially, about rising tuition fees and their concerns that post-secondary education is becoming unaffordable, especially for those with limited financial resources.

Can the minister assure my constituents that a post-secondary education, especially in this critical time as we see such a strong need for skilled workers in the 21st-century economy, remains accessible to those with limited financial means but also affordable for those who are making a smart investment in their future?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for a very important question and for his advocacy on behalf of post-secondary education, particularly students and their families.

I’m very, very proud that Ontario boasts one of the most generous student assistance programs in the country. This spring, we announced further enhancements and an expansion of the program, totalling some $81 million. I’ve had an opportunity to go out and meet with student groups who have been very receptive to the changes.

Just to share with the Legislature what some of these changes are: Under the new plan, we provided more assistance for tuition, living costs, book supplies and equipment; we’re allowing students to keep more of the money they earn from part-time jobs; we’re providing a no-interest, no-payment period on student loans for six months after graduation; we’re providing additional support for married students and students with children; and we’ve introduced a new grant for part-time students. As well—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I think it is valuable for us to consider another factor in this discussion, one that I feel is equally important to those engaged in or looking forward to a post-secondary education. It is important to consider the enhanced educational experience our students are getting because of massive investments in the facilities and classrooms of our colleges and universities. It’s obvious that a learner in a modern and well-equipped facility will ultimately benefit more than a learner using an outdated, crowded or dilapidated setting. There’s little doubt that students are savvy consumers. They know when they get value for their dollar.

Minister, could you tell us what investments our government has been making in improving the learning environment in Ontario’s colleges and universities and how this will continue to enhance the value of a post-secondary education in the new economy of the 21st century?

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member is correct: The bricks-and-mortar side of the equation is equally important. Our 2010 budget confirmed the provincial investment of some $780 million over two years to help upgrade and build new facilities at our colleges and universities.

For the Ottawa area, which the member is proud to represent, I’m sure he’s aware that in 2009, as part of this funding, our government provided over $26 million to Carleton University’s interdisciplinary academic building. The University of Ottawa received $50 million in provincial funding for the Vanier Hall renovation and tower addition. In addition, Algonquin College received $35 million for their Environmental Demonstration Centre for Construction Trades and Building Bridges, and La Cité collégiale received $13 million for their Emergency Services Training Centre 911 Institute. These are all great examples of investments which are paying off—

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

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Acting Premier: On September 30, I encouraged the Premier to pick up the phone and to call Smucker’s after news that the company would be closing its Bick’s Dunnville processing facility as well as its Delhi tank farm. These closures will devastate the town of Dunnville, as well as farmers who grow cucumbers, peppers, beets, onions, cauliflower and tomatoes.

It’s been a month. Has your Premier made the call to Smucker? Has he picked up the phone to talk to other food processors who may be interested in this state-of-the-art tank farm and the processing facility? My question, Acting Premier: What progress is being made on this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you very much for the question. The McGuinty government understands that any plant closing has a significant impact on both the employees’ family and community. We continue to support improved competitiveness in Ontario’s food and processing sector. We have made significant investments through our rural economic development program, and we continue to work with the growth and expansion through our Open Ontario plan.

I look forward to even further expanding on the investments that we have made with our processors, specifically in rural Ontario and the conversations that we have had. But I want to assure the member from across the way that we have been on the ground working in the past and we are working today. Those calls have been made.

I’m very proud of the—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, Minister of Agriculture, this reminds me of what your McGuinty government allowed to happen in 2008 with the peach and pear canning operations in St. Davids. CanGro closed shop after more than 100 years because they discovered that in McGuinty Ontario, it’s more efficient to can fruit from China.

Back to Smucker: Are you offering assistance through the rural economic development fund or your so-called job creation funds? In the last year, your government has sat by while hard-working people in my area have been kicked in the teeth, not only by Smucker but by two separate, massive labour disruptions at US Steel, a lockout at the former Heckett and plans to close down OPG Nanticoke.

How do you expect hard-working families in Haldimand–Norfolk to survive when you oversee these massive job losses, or do you just not care anymore?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I just want to say that there could not be anything further from the truth. We understand how significantly it does affect the community and, specifically, the employees.

I want to say that $290 million was invested in the food processing sector. We understand how critical it is. It’s the second-largest industry in Ontario, and that’s why those investments have been made. I want to speak specifically to the $290 million. That has retained and created 6,200 jobs. I am very proud of the investment that we have made on this side of the House. We know that there was not the investment made from that side of the House.

We recognize there’s more work to do, and that, quite frankly, is why we have the Open Ontario plan. The investments have been made in the—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Middlesex Power Distribution customers in the Dutton area are seeing red. They’re facing a double whammy of hikes in hydro bills: Next year, they’re going to be paying more as a result of the new time-of-use billing, and today, they’re going to be whacked after the Ontario Energy Board approved the 16% increase to the distribution portion of their hydro bill.

Why won’t the minister give Dutton-area families a break by taking the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Here we go again: the leader of the third party getting up and not supporting investments that are being made in infrastructure.

Yes, we know that energy prices are going up, and they’re going up because local distribution companies have had to put greater investments in their infrastructure to ensure the reliability of the systems right across Ontario. One of the reasons they have to do that—and the leader of the third party may know it—is because the Tories froze prices back when they were in power. Those investments could not be made, so many of these local distribution companies are still playing catch-up.

But I suggest that the leader of the third party, before she gets up again, listen to the steelworkers of Ontario when they said this: “From steelworkers making wind turbines to electricians installing solar panels, workers can support their families by working in clean energy....”

These are important investments that are being made across this province, investments that the old NDP would have—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The hydro bill spike that Dutton-area families are facing is just plain unfair, especially as the cold weather arrives, and the McGuinty HST adds insult to injury. Families in the Dutton area—in fact, families all across this province—deserve a break.

This afternoon, the McGuinty government can support the NDP’s motion to take the HST off hydro. Will the minister commit to hard-hit families in Dutton and elsewhere in the province that this government will vote for the motion that we’re debating this afternoon?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think once again, the leader of the third party needs to inform her constituents of what’s being done to mitigate many of the increases that are taking place.

Whether it’s the Ontario energy and property tax credit, which is going to two thirds of Ontario seniors and 2.8 million low- and middle-income Ontarians across this province, whether it’s the 93% of Ontarians who are receiving income tax cuts in the range of about an average of $200 per family, a number of measures have been taken through tax credits and income tax cuts to ensure that we mitigate those initiatives.

But what the leader of the opposition needs to do is ensure that her constituents know how important the investments we’re making are in ensuring that we build a strong, reliable and clean energy system. That’s what she’s forgotten; that’s what her constituents deserve to know. She should come clean with her constituents and—

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

AIR-RAIL LINK

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As part of the Georgetown South expansion project, GO is building a tunnel in the Weston community. The local community has been supportive of this tunnel, as it is a significant part of the improvements that have been made to the original project. The Weston community will also benefit from a new GO station, increased GO service and access to the air-rail link.

Last Thursday, I participated with constituents in an open house organized by Metrolinx to consult the community on the design of the Weston tunnel. At the meeting, concerns were expressed about possible changes to the tunnel.

Could the minister please update my constituents on the status of the tunnelling project—have there been any changes?—and provide assurance that community members will continue to be fully informed as construction proceeds?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member opposite for her advocacy. She has been a real champion for her community, and many of the improvements have been made because she’s worked so closely with us.

In fact, over the summer, I was able to go and look at the project with the member for York South–Weston and we were able to see the positive impact of this project on the community.

Since the summer, because of her advocacy and because of her work with us, Metrolinx has been involved in changing the way they communicate with the community. There’s been extensive community engagement. To date, two community offices have been opened, Strachan and Weston, with on-site staff to answer questions. A regular e-news bulletin goes out to update community members; 10,000 flyers have been delivered to neighbourhood homes; and just last week, as the member opposite said, there was a community meeting to talk about the tunnel.

Metrolinx will continue to communicate with the community, and the member opposite will work on that with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: As part of the design process for the Weston tunnel, last week nine homeowners in the village of Weston received a letter from Metrolinx that caused them much concern. The letter indicated that as part of the construction of the tunnel, the properties would be acquired.

Some of the affected constituents, whom I visited and talked to personally, expressed the strong desire not to leave the community. To put it in their own words, their property represents much more than just a residence. It is their home, where they’ve lived for 20, 30 years. They’ve raised their families, built relationships and made friends.

Just last Thursday, the minister committed to having Metrolinx contact the affected homeowners to discuss their options. Can the minister tell us whether Metrolinx will be in touch in writing with my constituents about options and next steps?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m really happy to be able to clarify the situation. Over the weekend, a follow-up letter, which did clarify what was happening, was handed to all of the affected homeowners. A member of the GO Transit community relations team spoke personally with the majority of the affected homeowners. As with similar situations, GO Transit will be communicating in writing the specific options available to each homeowner. I know you understand that each situation will be somewhat different, but each homeowner needs to get those options in writing, and as the situations evolve, that will happen.

I want to assure the member and the House that the homeowners in question will have ample opportunity to talk about their personal circumstances with GO Transit, and we’ve clarified that. As I’ve said earlier, it’s critical to us that community engagement be an ongoing part of what GO and Metrolinx do in this community. That’s what’s happening.

As I’ve said, they’ll be communicating to each homeowner in writing—

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: In June of this year, I alerted the minister to the fact that a Scarborough Toyota dealership had issued a safety certificate signed by the dealership’s mechanic, even though subsequent independent inspections confirmed that the vehicle was unfit and should never have been issued a safety certificate. Despite the evidence, the ministry claims that it is unable to pursue the issue because of a six-month statute of limitations on Highway Traffic Act charges.

I trust the minister will agree that this is an unacceptable response. Will she agree to direct her ministry staff to fully investigate this matter, to ensure the integrity of the safety standards certificate process in our province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, I appreciate the member opposite bringing forward his concerns. I can’t comment on an individual case. I know he understands that.

The motor vehicle inspection program has been in place for many years, before 2003. I believe the member opposite was a Minister of Transportation at one point.

The reality is that if there are mechanics and garages out there that are not following the rules, then obviously there are laws in place to deal with that.

We recognize that there needs to be oversight. We’ve established a call centre where consumers can contact us with their complaints about garages. We’re making sure that mechanics actually have the credentials that they’re telling us they have. If we can’t verify their credentials, we won’t let them issue safety standard certificates. So we’ve taken action to deal with some of the issues that the member opposite is raising.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Actually, the reason I’m raising the question is because the ministry is refusing to take action.

There are two serious issues here. First of all, we have a car dealership that is issuing certificates fraudulently. The integrity of the entire inspection system is at stake here. But the more important issue is that the ministry is unwilling to pursue the matter and is apparently content to simply allow this dealership and others, obviously, to continue to do business in an inappropriate manner.

How can the minister justify her ministry’s washing their hands of this issue? Will she agree to order a full investigation into this case and the dealership’s business practices, and also order a comprehensive review of the entire system in this province that is being used under the safety standards certificate process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Garages that break the law can be fined up to $20,000 and have their licences revoked. There are already very stiff penalties in place. It’s a regime of—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s the second phone that has gone off. I’d just ask members to make sure—they should be.

Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a regime of regulation and legislation that is very rigorous, and as I said, the member opposite is very aware of it because he was a Minister of Transportation and these rules have been in place since before 2003.

As I said before, I cannot comment on a specific case. I will certainly take the issue under advisement. I appreciate him raising it again.

In Ontario, we have some of the safest roads in North America. The safety regime that we have in place is really second to none. I think that the member opposite raising questions about a specific case when there are rules in place, when the law is being followed, really only serves to undermine.

Thank you for raising it. I will certainly take it under advisement, but I think—

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

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, your government has told the Mary Berglund Community Health Centre in Ignace that there will be no increase in their annual budget this year. At the same time, the landlord that owns the building that the community health centre works out of has told them there’s going to be a 100% increase in the rent—a $100,000-a-year increase in the rent.

In a small community health centre such as this, that means cutting two positions; that means cutting health services for the community of Ignace and Savant Lake. These communities have no other real option. Why is your government forcing the Mary Berglund Community Health Centre to cut health services in the community?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will be more than happy to look into the specifics of this situation. What I can tell you is that we have led the largest-ever expansion of community health centres across this province. It is a model that serves a very important niche in many communities. It is a model that has really served communities extremely well.

I will look at this particular situation, but to the best of my knowledge—I will undertake to look at the specifics of this situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I’m asking the minister to do that because at the same time that your ministry is telling the Mary Berglund Community Health Centre there’s no increase in their annual budget, your government, through the Ontario Realty Corp., is telling them you’re going to raise the rent $100,000 a year. One arm of the government says, “No increase in the budget”; the other arm of the government says, “We’re going to increase your rent by $100,000 a year.”

I think any reasonable person would say that is absurd. You have to know this will force them to cut full-time services at the health care centre. You have to know that it’s not an answer to go two and a half hours to Thunder Bay. They’d be told, “No doctors there.”

What are you going to do to fix this absurd situation, where your government is forcing them to cut health care services?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said to the member opposite, I will look into this particular situation and find out what is actually going on there.

One thing we do know for sure is, when the NDP was in power they cut medical school spots by 13%. Thanks to the action of that government—and the member opposite was sitting around the table at the time—we’ve lost 228 potential doctors, 568 overall. We have done exactly the opposite. We’ve expanded medical school spaces. In fact, we built a new medical school in the north that is training doctors today to support the north tomorrow.

Last week I was very pleased to announce we’ve now added one million Ontarians to—

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

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of the House to wish the Leader of the Opposition a happy birthday today. Happy Birthday.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Beaches–East York has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning the practice of tip-outs. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Haldimand–Norfolk has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs concerning Smucker’s closing the Dunnville processing and Delhi tank farm. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

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

The House recessed from 1138 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROBERT RUNCIMAN

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m proud to rise today to recognize a man who certainly needs no introduction in this chamber. On Thursday, I will attend the Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce awards night, where it will be my honour to present Senator Bob Runciman with the organization’s 2010 Citizen of the Year Award. It’s a long-overdue recognition for a man whose service to the community spans more than three decades. In that time, Senator Runciman has often, without any publicity, worked to make Brockville and Leeds–Grenville a better place for all of us.

As a former member of his staff, I know that Bob didn’t care if he got any credit for helping an important project get finished. He just wanted it done and wouldn’t rest until it was. Typically, he shied away from any personal glory upon learning he’d even earned the chamber’s award, telling a reporter that his first thought was that his late father, Sandy, really deserved it.

As you know, Senator Runciman spent 29 years on both sides of this chamber, where his reputation as a tenacious debater and skilled orator won him the respect of all MPPs from all parties. Since being appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the red chamber is getting used to the mad dog we all know and love.

I’m sure my colleagues here at Queen’s Park will join me in congratulating Bob and his wife, Jeannette, on this most deserved honour.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Paul Miller: I first want to congratulate all of the successful candidates in last Monday’s province-wide municipal elections and thank every candidate for making the commitment to run for elected office.

In Hamilton, we have a new mayor, Bob Bratina, and some new city councillors, including, from my riding of Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Brenda Johnson, the new councillor for ward 11, and Alex Johnstone, the new trustee for wards 11 and 12.

I’m very pleased to offer my special congratulations to the new public school trustee for ward 5, Todd White, who is my constituency assistant. Todd ran an extremely well-organized campaign, knocking on every door in ward 5. He did an excellent job and deserves this win, which is an even bigger win for the parents and schoolchildren of ward 5.

In this time of excessive job losses and economic downturn, I’m looking forward to working with the new city council to bring new industry and new employment programs to Hamilton. We have lots of work ahead of us, and our collaborative efforts will be needed to start Hamilton turning that economic recovery corner.

SUMMERSTOWN TRAILS

Mr. Jim Brownell: I rise in the House today to announce that Summerstown Trails in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry has received a provincial grant of $36,515 through the healthy communities funding. This fund plays a key role in helping the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport achieve its vision of healthy communities working together and Ontarians leading healthy and active lives.

The Summerstown Trails were constructed over 30 years ago by the Ministry of Natural Resources and have been enjoyed in all seasons by cross-country skiers, hikers and bikers.

With the recent funding, Summerstown Trails will be purchasing 28 pairs of children’s snowshoes and 38 pairs of cross-country skis, boots and poles, as well as 10 pairs of adults’ snowshoes. Their goal is to introduce cross-country skiing to children in the hope that they will continue the activity as adults.

I wish to congratulate ski enthusiasts Iris and Stanley Swerdfeger for their extraordinary volunteer work at the Summerstown trail in their community of South Glengarry. It is through their work with the township and others, and a handful of local volunteers, that the trails have been properly maintained and groomed since they were created.

The funding will also help to fund new grooming equipment and a new snowmobile to replace two aging machines.

The October 22 announcement displays the commitment the McGuinty government has for the health and well-being of citizens of eastern Ontario, my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and indeed all Ontarians.

XOGEN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to rise today to congratulate Xogen Technologies in my riding of Dufferin–Caledon for being named one of four finalists for the Mind to Market Award.

The Mind to Market Award is presented annually to recognize outstanding research collaboration between industry and an academic research team that results in successful commercialization.

Xogen Technologies, based in Orangeville, has a patented technology that treats raw waste water using an electric process that not only eliminates biosolids but also requires a much smaller footprint than conventional treatment approaches, thereby lowering capital costs. As a by-product, the process produces a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas that can be used to generate energy through combustion or a fuel cell, energy that can be sold back to the grid or reused to help further reduce costs. Their patented technology has attracted international interest, with inquiries coming from Washington, Seattle and Malaysia.

Xogen has made a point of keeping jobs local, as all of the technicians they have hired have been from the Orangeville area.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet with Xogen’s CEO, Angella Hughes, and had a tour of their facility. I was impressed with their innovation and goal to bring more jobs to the community.

I’d like to again congratulate the management team and the board of directors for being one of the four outstanding organizations nominated for this prestigious award.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: Just recently, I was ecstatic to hear that Ontario has hit an important milestone: one million more being served by a family doctor than had access in 2003. That is the equivalent of finding a doctor for 16 people every hour, which was not the case under the previous Conservative government.

Today, 94% of Ontarians over the age of 16 have a family doctor. In order to do this, the McGuinty government has increased investments in health care.

We have hired 21% more internationally trained doctors and have created 10,000 new nursing positions.

We have expanded our MedsCheck program by adding three new programs for seniors, long-term-care residents and those with diabetes.

We have built new hospitals like the one in Sioux Lookout, which will provide essential health services and create 300 new jobs.

These outstanding statistics did not exist under the previous government, and they will disappear because, if elected, the Leader of the Opposition has a plan to cut $3 billion from front-line health care annually.

Ontario families understand that when it comes to health care, there’s only one party that has been clear and unwavering in support of our publicly funded health care system, and that is the McGuinty government and Ontario Liberals.

LANDFILL

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very proud to say that a large part of my riding of Durham is made up of the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt and is home to many gravel pits that have provided aggregate for Ontario and the GTA for decades.

One specific concern in my riding today is located at site 13471 on Lakeridge Road, the border between Uxbridge and Port Perry, where, despite a stop-work order issued by the township of Scugog, the company Earthworx has continued to bring in commercial fill. The municipality simply lacks the resources to police the site appropriately.

Now that many of these sites have been abandoned or emptied, owners are turning to commercial fill operations to fill them back up, or site reclamation. Communities in my riding are looking for a new economy and opportunities. They want to do the right thing but do not want to become a dumping ground for contaminated fill.

This is an issue where the Minister of the Environment has a very important role to perform. The worry is the lack of enforcement and that contaminated fill may be mixed with clean fill in order to, if you will, distort the soil testing that’s being done.

I have spoken directly with and have called on the Minister of the Environment and this government to examine the issues surrounding the protection of the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt, not just in words but actions, surrounding commercial fill operations, and to set up proper guidelines to ensure residents no longer have to worry about the groundwater being contaminated by inappropriate activities on the moraine.

ACTION ONTARIO

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Chronic pain affects nearly 20% of Ontarians, and 60% of those are over the age of 65. Today, I had the opportunity to meet with members of Action Ontario, as have many of my colleagues. I would like to welcome Action Ontario, which is here for their inaugural Queen’s Park day to increase awareness about chronic pain.

Action is an innovative, non-profit organization made up of doctors, researchers, health care professionals and patients committed to seeing improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of Ontarians who suffer from neuropathic pain and other forms of chronic pain.

Neuropathic pain destroys careers, relationships and even the will to live. Its direct impact on health care costs is estimated to now exceed $250 million annually, with a broader impact on lost income and productivity estimated at several billion dollars per year.

On November 9, during National Pain Awareness Week, Action will be holding their national symposium at the MaRS Centre with a theme of patient input for system change, and I encourage all members to attend.

I would like to especially thank Dr. Angela Mailis-Gagnon, a constituent of mine and the chairperson of Action Ontario, for her hard work and dedication to this organization. On behalf of the government, I want to extend a sincere thank you to all volunteers at Action Ontario for the work they are doing on behalf of Ontarians suffering from pain.

CANADIAN MUSEUM OF NATURE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The Canadian Museum of Nature, a landmark in my riding, has been celebrating the centennial year of its historic Victoria Memorial Museum building. The institution itself is approaching its 155th anniversary in 2011, but “The Castle,” as it’s known, has been a truly special part of my community and a special place for our nation these last 100 years.

For the last six years, this remarkable building has been undergoing extensive renovations and just this spring has reopened fully for the public to enjoy.

I say that this building is an important part of our heritage because many people may not be familiar with one of the building’s earliest tenants, and that was Canada’s Parliament. On a bitter cold February 3, 1916, a massive fire destroyed the Centre Block of Parliament. By the afternoon of February 4, the members of Parliament were back at work in the atrium of the museum and would work there, along with the Senate, for four years.

It’s important to note some key points of our history that took place there. The First World War acts instituting conscription, as well as a certain temporary measure called the Income Tax Act, were passed there. The act granting voting rights for women, a key point in our history, was debated and passed there in 1918. In 1919, one of our greatest Prime Ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, laid there in state.

Congratulations to the museum’s leadership: Maureen Dougan, interim president and CEO; Michel Houle, interim VP and COO; and Irene Byrne, the board secretary, and of course the many people who work there and make it a special place.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bill Mauro: The municipal elections have come and gone and I want to offer my thanks and congratulations to all of those who allowed their names to stand on the ballot, including mayor-elect Rob Ford and all the councillors here in Toronto.

In my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, we’re home to one of only two mass transit manufacturing plants in all of Canada, that being the Bombardier plant in the Westfort part of my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. There’s been a tremendous amount of good news there in the last little while: $3.5 billion worth of contracts, $1.6 million of that being provincial government funding, as well as about $9.5 billion that we’ve announced for infrastructure in Ontario.

Additionally, my riding has received about $10 million in gas funding from the province, committed to mass transit improvements. I know the city of Toronto has received somewhere in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

My point is this: In 2009, along with the Premier, I announced a $1.2-billion streetcar contract at the Bombardier plant in my riding, $400-million-plus of that being provincial—no federal money in that. There has now been public speculation that this particular contract might be reviewed and potentially reconsidered.

It’s my hope that, as the GTA continues to expand and prepares for the Pan Am Games, the new mayor and council in the city of Toronto will have regard for the commitments made to mass transit by our government and that they will have regard for the abilities of the management and the Canadian Auto Workers in my riding at the Bombardier plant to deliver the finest mass transit vehicles in the world and to meet their contractual obligations.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I beg leave to present a report on bridge inspection and maintenance from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: As you know, the public accounts committee considers recommendations of the Auditor General, whose report came out in December 2009. In March 2010, the committee decided to call in front of it the Deputy Minister of Transportation to ask about the constructive criticisms that the auditor made with regard to the inspection of our bridges across the province of Ontario.

It’s interesting to note that there are 14,800 bridges in the province of Ontario. Of these, approximately 12,000 fall under the responsibility of Ontario’s 444 municipalities. The other 2,800 are under our provincial highway system.

We make some recommendations and ask the Deputy Minister of Transportation to respond to us with their oversight with regard to the provincial bridges, those 2,800 bridges.

However, there was a great deal of concern by the committee members with regard to the other bridges, the 12,000 bridges under municipal control. That’s because some very small and poor municipalities, in terms of their financial capability, have, in some instances, a large number of bridges. These municipalities are typically in the north and in the remote areas of the eastern part of our province as well.

Some of the recommendations ask the ministry what it is doing with regard to the inspection of those bridges. While the municipalities have the responsibility for these bridges, it’s of our concern that they just do not have the financial capability of properly inspecting them and properly repairing them. So we asked the ministry to work with the municipalities to create some kind of system where there would be uniformity across the province of Ontario, where municipalities could measure and inspect their bridges.

As well, we asked the ministry whether or not, when they were allocating funds for infrastructure work with municipalities, they would consider doing it on a priority basis once a good system has been set up to establish where the most dangerous problems lie.

I believe it’s a very constructive report to the Ministry of Education, and I notice the Minister of Education is here—

Mr. John O’Toole: Transportation.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Sorry—as she then was. I notice the Minister of Transportation is here with us today, and I say to the minister: I would be more than willing to sit down with her, as I’ve offered to other ministers, to go over the report. I believe it’s got some very constructive suggestions to you.

With that, I would like to adjourn the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXOTIC WILDLIFE

IN CAPTIVITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ANIMAUX

SAUVAGES EXOTIQUES

GARDÉS EN CAPTIVITÉ

Mr. Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 125, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Dave Levac: I would like to take just two seconds to introduce, from the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Melissa Matlow and Michelle Cliffe. We thank them for being here.

From the explanatory note: The bill amends the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, by adding a new

part III.1 that provides rules concerning the keeping of exotic wildlife in captivity.

Some of the highlights of the part:

People are prohibited from keeping exotic wildlife in captivity unless they hold a licence to do so—see

section 47.2 of the act.

Those that keep exotic wildlife in captivity must ensure that the wildlife are not released and that they do not escape. If exotic wildlife does escape or is released, those who kept them in captivity are generally responsible for recapturing them—section 47.3 of the act.

Part III.1 of the act must read as being consistent with the regulation 60/09 standards of care under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and any regulation made under the act concerning exotic wildlife must be consistent with that regulation—section 47.7 of the act.

A provision of a municipal bylaw prevails over

part III.1 to the extent that it prohibits the keeping of exotic wildlife or is otherwise more restrictive than the provision of

part III.1 or a regulation made for the purposes of that part—section 47.8 of the act.

The act is amended to permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations with respect to exotic animals—section 112 of the act.

The

short title is the Exotic Wildlife in Captivity Act.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

“Whereas, in March 2007, the McGuinty government announced that the eastward extension of the 407 from Brock Road to Highway 35/115 would be completed”—here’s the important part—“by 2013; and

“Whereas the commitment was contained in a signed contract between the federal government and the McGuinty government dated March 2, 2007; and

“Whereas the McGuinty government has recently announced that the eastward extension of the 407 will end at Simcoe Street in Oshawa; and

“Whereas ending the 407 at Simcoe Street will mean added traffic congestion on smaller rural roads in northern Oshawa which are not equipped to handle the volume of traffic entering the highway; and

“Whereas ending the 407 at Simcoe Street will have significant negative effects on commuters, business, tourism, agriculture, public transit and all the citizens of Durham region;

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

“That the government of Ontario and Premier McGuinty take all and any necessary steps to complete the 407 eastward extension to Highway 35/115 in a single stage, in accordance with the original signed agreement with the federal government.”

I’m pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m reading a petition to support extending the Ombudsman of Ontario’s jurisdiction to include the Tarion Warranty Corp.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas homeowners have purchased a newly built home in good faith and often soon find they are victims of construction defects, often including Ontario building code violations, such as faulty heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, leaking roofs, cracked foundations etc.;

“Whereas often when homeowners seek restitution and repairs from the builder and the Tarion Warranty Corp., they encounter an unwieldy bureaucratic system that often fails to compensate them for the high cost of repairing these construction defects, while the builder often escapes with impunity;

“Whereas the Tarion Warranty Corp. is supposed to be an important part of the consumer protection system in Ontario related to newly built homes;

“Whereas the government to date has ignored calls to make its Tarion agency truly accountable to consumers;

“Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support MPP Cheri DiNovo’s private member’s bill, which calls for the Ombudsman to be given oversight of Tarion and the power to deal with unresolved complaints;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to provide that the Ombudsman’s powers under the Ombudsman Act in respect of any governmental organization apply to the corporation established under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and to provide for necessary modifications in the application of the Ombudsman Act.”

I clearly agree with this, will affix my signature and send it with Bridget to the table.

HOME CARE

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I’ve received this petition from a Mr. Diaz, and it’s to the Parliament of Ontario and the minister responsible for senior citizens. It’s about minimum allowances for caregivers. It reads as follows:

“Whereas seniors who are disabled and/or ill are presently suffering at home; and

“Whereas the cost of a caregiver on a monthly basis who looks after a senior in their home is around $1,200, including room and board; and

“Whereas the cost of taking care of someone at home is at least 10 times less than the cost of a hospital bed; and

“Whereas most seniors with disabilities and/or illness are crowding an already overburdened health care system;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly request that a basic government subsidy be established (based on a doctor’s evaluation) which will pay at least a minimum allowance for a caregiver.

“Seniors deserve to live at home as long and as independently as possible.”

Since I agree, I’m signing my signature to it.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas agriculture plays an important role in Ontario’s economy and deserves investment;

“Whereas PC MPP Bob Bailey has introduced a significant tax credit for farmers who donate agricultural goods to food banks, helping farmers, food banks and people in need; and

“Whereas over 25 million pounds of fresh produce is disposed of or plowed back into Ontario’s fields each year while food banks across Ontario struggle to feed those in need;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call MPP Bob Bailey’s private member’s bill, Bill 78, the Taxation Amendment Act (Food Bank Donation Tax Credit for Farmers), 2010, to committee immediately for consideration and then on to third reading and implementation without delay.”

I agree with the petition and I applaud my seatmate, MPP Bailey. I will sign it and send it to the table with page Carina.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) regulations for ‘loss of sponsor’ of defined benefit pension plans only permit windup and annuity purchase; and

“Whereas, in the present economic climate, the cost of annuities is at a 25-year high, with no relief in sight;

“Therefore the purchase of annuities exacerbates the punitive impact of windup on Nortel pension plan members and others in similar situations, and increases the costs passed on to the taxpayers of Ontario;

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

“To amend the PBA regulations to permit the administrator and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) to apply other options in the ‘loss of sponsor’ scenario which will provide more benefits to Nortel pension plan members and others in similar situations, such as the continuation of the pension plan under responsible financial management by a non-government institution.”

I shall sign this petition and send it to the clerks’ table with Ffion.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is in support of Bill 100.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas pedestrians and cyclists are increasingly using secondary highways to support healthy lifestyles and expand active transportation; and

“Whereas paved shoulders on highways enhance public safety for all highway users...; and

“Whereas paved shoulders help to reduce the maintenance cost of repairs to highway surfaces; and

“Whereas Norm Miller’s private member’s Bill 100 provides for a minimum one-metre paved shoulder for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists;

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

“That Norm Miller’s private member’s Bill 100, which requires a minimum one-metre paved shoulder on designated highways, receive swift passage through the legislative process.”

I support this petition and am pleased to affix my name to it and give it to the page to take to the table.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis;

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known, universally practised procedure that is low-risk and at relatively low expense;

“Whereas, while more research is needed, MS patients should not need to await such results;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario allow people with multiple sclerosis to obtain the venoplasty that so impacts their quality of life and that of their family and caregivers.”

I shall sign this and send it to the clerks’ table with Jonathan.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Robert Bailey: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) recently and unilaterally announced that it would euthanize all animals in its care at its Newmarket shelter, citing a ringworm outbreak as justification;

“Whereas the euthanasia plan was stopped in the face of repeated calls for a stay in the Legislature and by the public, but not until 99 animals had been killed;

“Whereas the Premier and Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci refused to act, claiming the provincial government has no jurisdiction over the OSPCA;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately implement the resolution tabled at Queen’s Park by Newmarket–Aurora MPP Frank Klees on June 1, 2010, which reads as follows:

“‘That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario Legislature call on the government of Ontario to review the powers and authority granted to the OSPCA under the OSPCA Act and to make the necessary legislative changes to bring those powers under the authority of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to ensure that there is a clearly defined and effective provincial oversight of all animal shelter services in the province, and to separate the inspection and enforcement powers of the OSPCA from its functions as a charity providing animal shelter services.’”

I agree with the petition. I’ll affix my signature and send it down with Nicholas.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis;

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known, universally practised procedure that is low-risk and at relatively low expense;

“Whereas, while more research is needed, MS patients should not need to await such results;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario allow people with multiple sclerosis to obtain the venoplasty that so impacts their quality of life and that of their family and caregivers.”

Since I agree, I’m delighted to sign this petition.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas, in March of 2007, the McGuinty government announced that the eastward extension of the 407 from Brock Road to Highway 35/115 would be completed in 2013;

“Whereas this commitment was contained in a contract between the federal government and the McGuinty government dated March 2, 2007;

“Whereas the McGuinty government has recently announced that the eastward extension of the 407 will end at Simcoe Street in Oshawa;

“Whereas ending the 407 at Simcoe Street will mean added traffic congestion on smaller rural roads in north Oshawa, which are not equipped to handle the volume of traffic exiting and entering the highway;

“Whereas ending the 407 at Simcoe Street will have a significant negative effect on commuters, businesses, tourism, public transit and all citizens of Durham region;

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

“That the government of Ontario take all necessary steps to complete the 407 eastward extension to Highway 35/115 in a single stage in accordance with their agreement with the federal government.”

I’m certainly in agreement with this. I’ll affix my signature and send it to the table.

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, between 1869 and 1939, more than 100,000 British home children arrived in Canada from group homes and orphanages in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland; and

“Whereas the story of the British home children is one of challenge, determination and perseverance; and

“Whereas, due to their remarkable courage, strength and perseverance, Canada’s British home children endured and went on to lead healthy and productive lives and contributed immeasurably to the development of Ontario’s economy and prosperity; and

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

“Enact Bill 12, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Jim Brownell on March 23, 2010,

an act to proclaim September 28 of each year as Ontario home child day.”

I shall sign this petition and send it to the clerks’ table.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is regarding provincial oversight of the OSPCA.

“Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) recently and unilaterally announced that it would euthanize all animals in its care at its Newmarket shelter, citing a ringworm outbreak as justification;

“Whereas the euthanasia plan was stopped in the face of repeated calls for a stay in the Legislature and by the public, but not until 99 animals had been killed;

“Whereas the Premier and Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci refused to act, claiming the provincial government has no jurisdiction over the OSPCA;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately implement the resolution tabled at Queen’s Park by Newmarket–Aurora MPP Frank Klees on June 1, 2010, which reads as follows:

“‘That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario Legislature call on the government of Ontario to review the powers and authority granted to the OSPCA under the OSPCA Act and to make the necessary legislative changes to bring those powers under the authority of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to ensure that there is a clearly defined and effective provincial oversight of all animal shelter services in the province, and to separate the inspection and enforcement powers of the OSPCA from its functions as a charity providing animal shelter services.’”

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition signed by a number of constituents from Dundas county in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and it reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis;

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known, universally practised procedure that is low-risk and at relatively low expense;

“Whereas, while more research is needed, MS patients should not need to await such results;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario allow people with multiple sclerosis to obtain the venoplasty that so impacts their quality of life and that of their family and caregivers.”

I shall sign this petition and send it to the clerks’ table.

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls upon the McGuinty government to immediately remove the HST from all hydro bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to bring this motion to the Legislature today and to begin the debate on it. It is a very simple motion. It barely even takes up two lines in our order paper today. The reason it’s a very simple motion is because it simply asks the government to take the HST off hydro, something that can be done very quickly, very easily to provide a whole bunch of relief to the people of this province who are simply unable to keep up with the day-to-day costs of everyday living.

The HST is something the New Democrats disagreed with from day one. We did that consistently here in the Ontario Legislature, as did our federal leader at the national level.

But when it comes to what this government has done, particularly in terms of the hydro system in this province, people are telling me, from one end of Ontario to the other, that they simply cannot pay their hydro bills anymore. This government has made decisions that are driving the cost of hydro through the roof and is not acknowledging, not paying attention, not listening to the people of this province, who are saying they simply cannot afford to pay their bills anymore.

This government has systematically brought forward initiatives while not being concerned at all about the impact that’s going to have on people’s pocketbooks.

No matter where I go in Ontario, whether I’m in Thunder Bay, Windsor, London or Sudbury, everybody is telling me the same thing: They simply cannot afford their hydro bills. The bills are going up at a pace that cannot be met by the people of this province.

I’m talking to all kinds of different people. I’m talking to people who are senior citizens. I’m talking to people who are young families, who are families with young children. I’m talking to people who are just regular working folks who are trying to make ends meet and who have seen an enormous spike in their hydro bills.

The government likes to pretend that in fact there’s nothing they can do about this, that this is all about—what’s their favourite refrain?—keeping the lights on, modernizing our infrastructure. This is one of their favourite little phrases: “We’re modernizing the infrastructure. The opposition simply doesn’t want to admit that that has to be done.”

What the government doesn’t want to admit is that they have the ability to take 8%—the salt that is in the wounds of your hydro bills—off of the bill. The government can do that, and they need to do it today. That 8% doesn’t do a single thing. That 8% doesn’t contribute at all to the infrastructure that the government likes to talk about. So they are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to pretend, first of all, that their decisions were the right ones, the decisions that are driving those bills up, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

But then they’re trying to pretend, they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes, to say to people that in fact this 8% is going to have some impact on that very infrastructure work, and we know it isn’t. That 8% is going directly into the government coffers and then very quickly out the door to huge corporate tax giveaways.

This is not the way to run a province, by burdening everyday folks with huge increases in their hydro bills, making it impossible for them to be able to stay warm in the winter, keep their lights on and do their everyday functions, and at the same time shoving that money out the door to corporations that are not guaranteeing anything in terms of job creation and investment in this province.

Shame on the Liberal government. What wrong-headed policies. What wrong-headed road are they taking us down?

I want to talk about some policies. This government has put in place a number of initiatives that are simply wrong-headed when it comes to our hydro system, when it comes to our electricity system in the province of Ontario.

I hearken to the one that’s so irritating for many folks that they talk to me about it regularly: a $7-billion, behind-closed-doors, sole-source negotiated contract with our former energy minister and Samsung.

This is the government that refused to even allow our public generation system, the public utility that generates electricity in Ontario, to participate in the green energy initiatives of this province. Shame on them. Why would they do that? I don’t know why they would do that. We think that was the wrong thing to do. Instead, they sole-sourced this $7-billion scheme with Samsung—shame on them—while not letting the public interest come to the fore in terms of provision of energy in this province.

What else did they do? Everybody knows, because today the time-of-use pricing is starting, right? Today, people get their time-of-use pricing. So, of course, the other issue that we think was extremely wrong-headed was the implementation of the smart meter plan. We have said from day one that those not-so-smart meters—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Minister of Transportation. Order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —were the wrong thing to do. New Democrats advised the government against it, but they went ahead blindly and now they’ve wasted $1.5 billion on a not-so-smart meter plan that does what? It does nothing. It was supposed to help people conserve energy. It’s not doing that. It was supposed to help people reduce their electricity costs. It is not doing that. It is a dismal, dismal failure, and each one of you today is going to get to experience that dismal failure, because today the time-of-use pricing starts. Your not-so-smart meter is going to not help you conserve energy and not help you save money, starting today.

What else? This government thinks it’s good to cook up deals with generators of nuclear power to generate electricity that doesn’t get used. We pay for Bruce nuclear to not generate power. How smart is that? That is something that doesn’t make any sense at all. This government is paying all kinds of money—actually, we’re paying all kinds of money in our hydro rates—so that Bruce Power gets the money but they don’t have to generate the electricity; they don’t have to generate the hydro. That doesn’t make sense at all—yet another wrong-headed decision and move by this government.

There are many, many examples of this government’s failure when it comes to understanding that they have an obligation to pay attention to what their policies do to the people of this province. On the hydro file, these policies have been a failure from one end to the other. From the smart meters to their sweetheart deals with their friends at Bruce nuclear and Samsung, these things are simply wrong-headed.

Then we have the Ontario Energy Board, which decides, against all advice from Ontario experts, against all advice from people who know our energy system, and instead relying on the advice of American experts, that they should be granting the utilities, who are lobbying for this, an increase in their return on equity. What does that mean? That means, basically, that the Ontario Energy Board has said to all of the people of Ontario, “You have to pay a little bit more so that can you guarantee profits for those utilities”—shameful. And what makes it most shameful is that that decision was made over the protests of, against the best advice of, experts here in Ontario.

I have a list that I’m happy to share with you of people who, after that decision was made, were very quick to get on the record to say that they agree with the NDP that this was a wrong-headed move. So it’s not just the NDP that’s talking about this Ontario Energy Board decision; it’s groups as diverse as the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Consumers Council of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. All of those folks have written to the minister objecting to that decision, and we’ve objected to it too. But do you know what the minister says? “There’s nothing I can do.

This was a decision of the OEB.” Well, that’s not quite true. The minister actually can send a directive to the OEB. The minister can actually act in the interests of the people of this province, as opposed to the interests of the utility companies that simply want to gouge more profits for their corporations.

This government has long forgotten whose interests they are supposed to be serving. On the energy file alone, this government has shown that it has completely lost touch with the people of this province. No matter where I go in Ontario, no matter who I’m talking to, everybody agrees the government has lost touch. They are arrogant and they take care of their well-connected insiders before they take care of a senior citizen or a young mum who’s got to worry about putting food on the table, paying the rent and paying the hydro bill.

What we are asking for in this motion is something very, very simple. What we are asking for is something the government can do that will make a little bit of a dent in the costs that people have to fork over every month on their hydro bill, and that is to simply take the HST off the hydro bill. On top of all of those policies that I rhymed off where this government has gone wrong and forced those hydro bills up, the salt in the wound of those increases is the HST that this government has foisted on the people of Ontario. It’s a very simple solution. It means an 8% reduction. That is significant. Take that 8% off. Give people a little bit of a break.

What does that mean? That means that close to six million households would see a break on their hydro bills. The average family with two kids or more: $135—nothing to sneeze at. That’s $500 million that the people of this province would have back in their pockets, if the government only took the HST off of hydro.

We’ve been bringing that issue to the Legislature over and over again, and as we’ve been doing that, we’ve also been telling the stories of regular families. I’m going to share some of those stories again today, but not very many, because I have a number of MPPs who are here in the NDP caucus, New Democrats who want to speak to this issue, who want to also talk about some of their concerns and why they believe that it’s important to take the HST off of hydro. But I am going to share a couple of these stories, because I think they’re important.

This is from Joanne. She happens to live in Mississauga and happens to be a constituent of the Minister of Government Services. She writes this: “My name is Joanne Leader and my home address is” in Mississauga. “I totally agree with the NDP ... that the HST should be removed from hydro. When I received my first hydro bill with the HST on it, I was shocked at the increase. Hydro is an essential service.”

Joanne, we agree with you 100%. In fact, many Ontarians are using the same kind of language: They’re shocked. They’re appalled. They’re just amazed at the rate of increase on their hydro bill, the amount of money that they suddenly are forced to pay for hydro. In fact, only in Ontario do people say that they’re literally afraid to open their hydro bills—only in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario.

Here’s another one. This person is from Nipissing and happens to be a constituent of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the government House leader.

“HST should be removed from hydro bills immediately,” says Caroline Landry.

“Had the government realized that there are many people in northern Ontario who heat with hydro? What about us? We have higher-than-average hydro bills. You can’t turn the heat off when you are not at home—your pipes will freeze. Those of us in rural areas also have to run pipes in for incoming water and outgoing water and sewage. Has anyone thought about that?

“In the past year, it has not been unusual to have a $700 to $800 hydro bill in January—and believe me, we are not toasty warm (we do not have a secondary source of heat)—the thermostats are usually set no higher than 15. The HST added to an $800 hydro bill is $104—that is highway robbery. And this is going to go on monthly ... people can’t afford this, especially those on set income. The incentive my family received will not cover the HST on my hydro for the first year, let alone anything else and going ahead.

“That has to stop. Something has to be done to help out people who heat with hydro in northern communities.”

I’m glad that I chose this letter particularly, because when the Liberal members get up and make their speeches, I’m sure they’re going to talk about all of these hoops that they’ve asked people to jump through to get a little bit of relief through tax credit processes and everything else.

We don’t think people should have to jump through hoops. We don’t think people should have to save receipts and make applications for tax credits on their income tax at the end of the year, as opposed to getting some immediate relief. That’s what we think they should do. We think they should get some immediate relief, not have to jump through any hoops, and actually just get a point-of-sale reduction, or removal, of the HST off of hydro. It is fair. It is simple. It can be done immediately. It will provide money in people’s pockets right away. And it will show the people of this province that maybe the government actually gets it.

One of the reporters asked me today during the scrums, “What happens if the government actually votes with your motion today? What if they vote with your motion and they actually steal this idea from you and take the HST off hydro?” I said that I welcome them to do that. I hope they do. I would support that wholeheartedly. It’s not about whether it’s my idea or not. What really matters is the people of the province and that they get some relief.

I say to the Liberal members across the way: Think about it and actually join us in the call. Get your Premier, your energy minister and your finance minister to do the right thing by the people of this province and take the HST off of hydro.

I’m going to close by saying this: I want to thank the thousands of people who have participated with us on the HST campaign; first, the initial campaign, when we were trying to convince this government not to go ahead with the HST, but of course they ignored 80% of the people of Ontario and they rammed through the HST. Now we’ve had thousands more people participating with us in this effort to try to get the HST off of the hydro bills.

You send us emails, letters; you phone our offices; you provide us with information about your particular situation, and we do our best to bring those stories into the Legislature. We wouldn’t be able to do that. We wouldn’t be able to tell your story if you weren’t telling it to us.

I want to wrap up my remarks by thanking the good people of the province of Ontario. We get letters and emails from everywhere, and people from all parts of the province are signing our online petition at hstoffhydro.com. If you haven’t shared your story yet, that’s where to go: hstoffhydro.com. Thank you. It’s unfortunate that your frustration, your anger, is falling on deaf ears on that side of the House, the government side. But know that New Democrats have been listening to you, that we appreciate that you’ve taken the time to support our efforts, and that we know that the right thing to do here is to provide some relief for folks who are really having a hard time making ends meet.

The government seems to think everybody is doing fine, everybody is flying high like all their friends whom they happen to provide extra money to through consultants and lobbyists and all of those kinds of well-connected folks. They think everybody is like that. I think they’ve forgotten that the vast majority of Ontarians are just regular folks who want to have a decent quality of life, who want to have a decent future for themselves and their kids, who want to have a clean environment and a positive outlook for the future. The government has forgotten that; we haven’t.

Thank you for sharing your stories, and we look forward to fighting to get the HST off of hydro bills.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Before we continue with the debate, I want to alert the House—the member from Nepean–Carleton brought this to my attention—that we have Yvonne Jones in the west members’ gallery. She is the Liberal leader from Newfoundland. Please welcome her.

Further debate?

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the dialogue that we’re having this afternoon on a motion from the member from Hamilton Centre: “That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls upon the McGuinty government to immediately remove the HST from all Ontario hydro bills.” Very clearly, it says, “all Ontario hydro bills,” and I believe she referred to it that it can happen simply and just like that.

First and foremost, I’ll just address that. I’ve got three directions I’d like to take for a moment. The first direction is to basically say where we’ve come from. The second part of that is where we are today and the acknowledgment of an economic downturn that the world saw. The third is to provide some information that I believe is maybe counter to what the member from Hamilton Centre has been trying to say.

First and foremost, I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on how people are living their existence within their own ridings. I think it’s an unfair characterization to assume that anyone who is in this place doesn’t care about their riding, doesn’t care about the people in it and has not, probably in their own private life, done some kind of public work to assist those who need our help. I want to make perfectly clear that I would not be bringing or casting aspersions on any member who would be working in their community and trying to help people who need it in that area. That’s the first thing I want to talk about.

Now, where did we come from? I want to suggest to you that before 2003, we saw a billion dollars that got lost because of a 4.3-cent cap on hydro that was imposed by the previous government. During the 13 years previous to that, there was no new public generation in Ontario and there were no new supply links to any jurisdiction. There was a failure to implement an effective conservation strategy. The price cap, as I said, when we talk about money, cost the Ontario taxpayers a billion dollars, with no incentive to conserve.

Despite the dream team that was actually hired and was paid $40 million for the refurbishment of Pickering unit A4, it was supposed to cost $457 million and ended up costing $1.25 billion and was years behind schedule. Under the previous government, we became a net importer of electricity from the United States, when we used to be an exporter.

The promises that we were having 2,050 megawatts from the Pickering restart by 2001 and 1,200 megawatts from interlink with Quebec across the Ottawa River—neither one of those happened, and nothing for eight years during the government time that we had a lifeline from Manitoba after the NDP cancelled that project in 1990.

So I look at where we were: in disarray, confusion, chaos, with inconsistent pricing, no vision for the future, and no continuation of the future, of where we are now. Also, if I’m not mistaken, we bought a rainforest somewhere with the intention of it being classified as our contribution to conservation. So where we were to where we are today is a good contrast. I just wanted to make sure that that happened.

During that time frame, OPG—Hydro One—was exempted from having any freedom-of-information requests to take a look at what we now know is an extensive use of consultants. By the end of that term, it was $650 million on consultants. It’s down to $350 million or something like that now. I wanted to make sure we made that picture clear, the challenges that we had and had to pick up from now.

Let me make the first statement I made again and then I’ll make my last statement. The first statement I made was talking about an understanding of where people are today because of the economic meltdown that we saw. Yes, there are frustrations out there. Yes, each and every one of us has been receiving emails of concern about pricing, the HST and costs to the individual. Yes, we have done some things to mitigate that, which again gets minimalized by the member from Hamilton Centre as something that is not beneficial to people. Quite frankly, I disagree with that vehemently. A hundred dollars in somebody’s pocket is a lot of money for any one of us who understands that.

I agree with the people who have contacted me by saying that giving us some type of relief and acknowledgment is not only the fact that they’re getting that money, but it’s also an indication that we understand that there are some difficulties. Since 2003, the government has continued to show in its deliberations and the policies that it has produced that it continues to understand what we want to do for Ontarians and not to them.

So what I want to talk about now is, as we recover from this, that the NDP is trying to say that this one issue is the be-all and end-all of the frustration.

Quite frankly, you can take that out and plug in any other topic you want and they’ll keep asking the same question: “Do you want to pay more or do you want to pay less?” We know that the answer’s going to be, “I want to pay less,” but it’s got to be done in such a way—I’ve always talked about the fair-mindedness of people in Ontario who recognize that we came from a disaster in the energy sector and we’re moving towards a consistent and predictable situation with more power coming on, more conservation happening, and also, what I think is important, a shift from burning coal and the use of that and moving towards biomass, solar, wind and other opportunities that are presenting themselves not just for energy purposes but for industry, allowing us to use those jobs that are going to be coming towards us.

I wanted to say that.

Conservation: Between 1993 and 1995, Ontario Hydro ended all conservation initiatives, and those were savings of 5,200 megawatts by 2000. That would have equalled that much, but they were all cancelled, and what government was it? The NDP government. The NDP voted against putting on a price cap, and then they voted against taking the cap off when we introduced its removal. During the five years of NDP rule, hydro rates went up 40%.

Interjection: Forty per cent?

Mr. Dave Levac: Forty per cent. The NDP cancelled the hydro lifeline to Manitoba. That’s the one I referred to earlier. They’re the ones who cancelled it. That deal actually cost us $150 million in cancellation fees. Instead, the NDP thought, “Here’s the replacement. We’ll buy that rainforest in Costa Rica and that will be our soul and our conscience for that.”

I really do believe that this particular motion we’re talking about is wrong-headed. I honestly believe that, at the end of the day, as easy as she thinks it is, she knows there’s going to be a negotiation that’s going to be requested and required from the federal government.

You’ve got a government now that has already gone through—I’ve got a list of about 20 different things we’ve done, and I’d better put a couple of them on the record, in terms of the tax credits and the tax breaks, like the one that we just had in OED. I’ll just simply announce there was a 3% reduction in the Ontario rates, so we’re going to be seeing some downward pressures on the cost of energy.

Quite frankly, they voted against every measure we had to help our seniors and those who are disadvantaged. The NDP has voted against every single one of those measures. I think that’s more telling that their motion today.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to be here to debate on behalf of Tim Hudak and the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus. I want to assure my colleagues in the third party that we will be su