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

February 17, 2010

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Feb-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 February 2010 Mercredi 17 février 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

CULTURAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

PENSION REFORM

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

DRIVER LICENCES

TENANT PROTECTION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ROSE CITY SENIORS ACTIVITY CENTRE

BRIAN WARREN

ROTARY CLUBS

PROVIDENCE HEALTHCARE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU

EDUCATION FUNDING

CANADIAN WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'APPRENTISSAGE DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

(RESOURCES PROCESSED

IN ONTARIO), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

(RESSOURCES TRANSFORMÉES

EN ONTARIO)

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

(NOISE REMEDIATION), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DES VOIES PUBLIQUES

ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

(RÉDUCTION DU BRUIT)

MENINGITIS AWARENESS

DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA MÉNINGITE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN /

JARDIN D'ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

PETITIONS

TAXATION

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

CLIMATE CHANGE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 16, 2010 on the motion for second reading of Bill 235,

An Act to enact the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 235, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d'énergie et modifiant d'autres lois.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Good morning. It's my privilege–maybe not my pleasure, but my privilege—to speak about this bill. We've had presentations now by government and the official opposition on the bill and its provisions for the people of this province.

I would like to say first off that the bill is based on a continuation of practices based on a conception of how we deal with energy and electricity in this province that I think, at its heart, is faulty. It tries to apply Band-Aids in a situation where far more profound change needs to happen.

I'll talk first about the smart meter

section of the bill, and then go on to talk about the door-to-door energy marketing. They are tied together, they are problematic, and frankly, this bill needs substantial revision. I hope that revision will be apparent in the course of committee hearings, and I hope the government will be open to substantial amendment so that in fact the people of this province get a fair deal, get the kind of energy and electricity services they deserve at prices they can afford.

I want to talk first about the

section on sub-meters for tenants. When you look at the bill, you'll find that the actual content of most of the tenant "protections" in Bill 235 will depend greatly on the attendant regulations. Now, we don't have those regulations; we don't know exactly what will be in them. So to a great extent, for those who are concerned with this particular piece of legislation, we don't know yet what you will or won't get when this bill is ultimately passed, as I expect this majority government will do.

The government has to actually ask the more profound question: Should it proceed with individual and smart metering in the multi-residential sector at all? I ask that question because there are a lot of different ways that one can come to grips with energy consumption, with conservation, with efficiency, dealing with the strategy that we have for energy overall.

One broad tack that one can take is essentially throwing the burden on consumers and saying that they, in the end, will be the ones who will have to make all the necessary changes, make the necessary investments to reshape the way we deal with electricity. Frankly, I say that that is not a viable strategy. It's a painful strategy for those who have very low incomes, fixed incomes. But in terms of actually bringing about the change that's required, historically that is not the way things have happened.

I've had an opportunity in the last while to read books about technological transformations in other countries and in other spheres. If you look at the history of microprocessors, of the Internet, of commercial aviation, all very substantial technological and social changes, those changes weren't driven by driving up the cost of driving a car from one end of the country to the other; they weren't brought about by deciding that fax networks were inadequate.

Those technological and social changes came about through investment by governments in strategic areas to substantially reshape the technical landscape, reshape the tools that were available to people and businesses, organizations, and it was that reshaping of the landscape that in fact brought about the development of the Internet, brought about commercial aviation.

We have not seen a revolution in technology that has come about because we go after low-income tenants who have difficulty paying for the heating or cooling of their apartments, and we've decided that they, in the end, are going to be the ones who have to carry the burden.

In the early 1990s I had the opportunity, the privilege, to serve on Toronto city council, and worked on the whole question of energy efficiency for the city, its office buildings, its commercial buildings, its institutional buildings. The reality that we found time after time after time was that when we tried to get large commercial buildings in the city of Toronto to invest in energy efficiency and conservation, they had a substantial structural stumbling block.

That was that the landlords owned the buildings and were responsible for capital investment, and the tenants paid for the electricity, paid for the energy they consumed in their offices. Since they didn't have any control over the capital end of things, they weren't going to go around replacing their lighting; they weren't going to go around insulating the walls of their office buildings. What they did try to control was the demand for power for their desktop utilizations—their computers, their desk lights, things like that—not the core and really expensive costs of energy.

So we found that this was in fact a huge obstacle. Those large buildings would invest in common-area changes, but weren't that interested in investing in areas where they never paid the energy bill—the electricity bill or the heating bill.

We go to multi-storey apartment buildings. I've lived in multi-storey apartment buildings, and frankly it can be a pretty good way to live. But the reality is that most landlords who have concerns other than the immediate energy costs in their buildings don't spend a lot of time making sure that the outer envelope of the building—the walls, the windows—is as energy efficient as possible, and they don't spend a lot of time putting in high-efficiency appliances.

What we find here is a push for putting tenants on meters and leaving those tenants with units where the windows will leak heat in the winter and cool air in the summer. We'll find those tenants in buildings where the insulation in the walls is not adequate. We'll find them in buildings where it's hot on one side of the building, because of the way the building is positioned with regard to the sun, and cold on the other, with no investment in balancing energy flows from one side to the other.

If those landlords are completely freed from the cost of dealing with electricity, heating and cooling in those apartments, then their incentive to make those buildings energy efficient drops pretty close to zero. That's particularly the case at a time when there is a very low vacancy rate. They can then pass on all kinds of inconveniences to tenants with no concern that it's going to affect their bottom line. So if we want to make sure that apartment buildings all across Ontario are energy efficient and have the investment that's needed, moving the cost of energy from the landlords to the tenants is frankly a mistake.

Look at the consumption of energy in most homes: hot water, fridges, stoves, heating and air conditioning. Tenants don't bring their own stoves and fridges into these buildings. Hot water is generally supplied centrally. You may have a reduction in the length of time that people keep their televisions on, but it isn't going to change their whole approach to keeping their food cool in their refrigerator. Most people in apartment buildings don't have washers and dryers in their apartments; those are centralized.

So you are going to have some impact. My prediction is that for those people who live in buildings that are electrically heated, they, without the money to deal with the windows and the external skin of the building, the walls of the building, are going to cut back their heat so that they can afford electricity. In the summer, they're going to cut back on their air conditioning so that they can afford electricity.

And I'll say to you, having lived in an apartment that was oriented so it got an awful lot of sun in the summer, that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to be comfortable without having an air conditioner on—I don't think we got much below 30 degrees centigrade in my apartment, even with an air conditioner.

What this bill does with regard to those tenants is take the whole burden of energy costs, puts it on their shoulders and removes the incentives for landlords to make the investments that are necessary. I frankly think that what's needed is a large-scale investment in energy efficiency and conservation in multiple-unit buildings, with financing and incentives provided by government. I think a feed-in tariff makes lots of sense to spark investment in renewable energy; in fact, I think it should be replacing conventional energy right across the spectrum in this province.

But let's take a similar idea and see how much we can get out of apartment buildings by providing an investment and incentive program to drive down energy consumption. If in the end what's left to tenants is the energy they use for their televisions, their radios and their desk lights, frankly, I would ask whether it would be worth the cost of installing and monitoring a meter, and billing for that on a monthly basis. I can't see the economic or the financial logic in doing that.

It's logical if they're stuck with the heating and cooling costs—not fair, not efficient, not effective, but I understand why you could make that argument.

Now, when you actually look at the direction that we have to take—obviously, I've said that if you go forward on this basis, you have to have a focus on conservation and demand management programs for landlords and tenants. You have to have education and social marketing targeted at landlords and tenants, to give landlords and tenants the information that they need to reduce usage.

It doesn't help a lot if you impose a meter on tenants and don't assist them in actually making the smartest choices they can among the limited number of options that are available to them to deal with the increased costs that will be on their shoulders. Frankly, coming back to this, if you don't have a program that drives down energy consumption in buildings, then you will be causing a huge disservice to tenants and to the environment.

I don't believe that the drive that this government currently has to install individual meters and smart meters in the residential tenancy sector is actually going to give you the results you think you're going to get.

But again, it is going to be very difficult for us in this chamber responsible for passing these laws to know what we actually pass, because the regulations upon which the real action is going to rest aren't before us. That's a huge problem. That's a great difficulty for us, to make rational decisions when we don't know what the regulations are that will follow on.

If, in fact, the government is determined to go forward and install individual meters in residential units in multi-unit buildings around this province, then it should look at what tenant advocates are talking about when they look at this situation and when they talk about the implications of this bill going forward. They suggest a low-income rate assistance program must be implemented, because, to be honest with you, when you talk to a lot of tenants, when you talk to seniors who are living on CPP, a little old-age assistance, maybe some savings, their incomes are small; they are hard-pressed.

And if you are actually going to go from the situation where in the past their rent included all of their electricity costs to a situation where they're going to get dinged, when they're going to have the whole cost of electricity for that building put on their shoulders without assistance, then the minimum that decency would require would be a low-income rate for those tenants so that they have some protection.

Tenant advocates—not just me—suggest a publicly funded, multi-residential conservation program to support energy retrofits in the multi-residential rental sector. Again, that's a minimum. If you're going to put this burden on tenants and take landlords out of the picture, then you have a responsibility to protect as many of those tenants as you possibly can. That means that you should, in fact, be putting in place the funding, putting in place the program to drive down energy consumption in those buildings.

Tenant advocates recommend that the onus of proceeding with these projects is placed on landlords to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for permission to install suite meters, subject to their meeting stringent requirements. The burden shouldn't be placed on tenants to apply for rent decreases after the fact.

I'm currently working with tenants in my riding at 25 and 80 Cosburn Avenue; we're dealing with a rent increase. I've been going door to door with tenant representatives talking to the current tenants about the rent increase and the impact it's going to have on their lives. I have to say, the reality is that tenants, like the rest of the population, have a lot on their plate at any given time. They are not property managers. They are not political organizers. They are not campaigners. They are people trying to live regular lives, lives in which going around and organizing politically is not something that's required.

The idea that in fact these tenants would have to fight for a rent decrease is completely unfair—completely unfair. If, in fact, this is going to go forward, it's going to have to be on the landlord's shoulders to actually put together the case, to provide the notification of rent decreases in advance and at least level the field between tenants and landlords in this kind of issue.

Now, there are concerns about the ongoing affordability of rental stock, and that draws us into the larger question of the electricity strategy of this government. I think the electricity strategy of this government is a crude and ineffective one. First of all, this is a government that has perpetuated the privatization of the electricity system that was started under the Mike Harris regime. That, in and of itself, speaks to higher electricity costs because the reality is that any operator is going to have to make sure that a cut of their operation goes to paying a profit.

There is going to be duplication of administration. There are going to be all the problems that we see with the private health care insurance system in the United States, which we have avoided in Canada through having a single-payer, publicly owned central insurance system.

That's the first mistake that this government is making with the electricity system. It didn't turn its back on the Mike Harris regime. In fact, it continues on a slow-motion basis to chop off pieces and pieces and pieces of the electricity system. Just before Christmas there were news reports about the hiring of Goldman Sachs and CIBC World Markets to look at large-scale sell-off, privatization, leasing—we don't know the mechanism yet of our electricity system, Hydro One and OPG. That is a massive mistake.

When we discussed the Green Energy Act—and a feed-in tariff has been a useful tool in a variety of countries—the government would not allow OPG to participate in the feed-in tariff. It doesn't have any problems with the Korea Electric Power Corp., controlled by the South Korean government, coming into this province and being the lead partner in a consortium to build renewable power. Apparently foreign publicly owned companies can participate in the renewables market in Ontario, just not Ontario-based publicly owned power companies.

So the first substantial error in the electricity strategy of the Liberals is to continue the electricity strategy of Mike Harris. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that instead of actually looking at the electricity system and taking the advice from a variety of people who have good analytical ability, like the Pembina Institute, David Suzuki Foundation, David Suzuki personally, and investing in a very substantial way in energy efficiency and conservation to dramatically drive down consumption of electricity in Ontario, this government instead has had a policy of building gas-fired power plant after gas-fired power plant; very expensive power, hostage to natural gas prices; a strategy that means that transmission and distribution lines have to be built.

So it isn't just a question of generation cost, but of all of the things that go with centralized power generation. And then this government decides that it has to stay stuck to its nuclear option.

It was interesting yesterday to hear the presentation by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure talking about going forward with the refurbishment at Darlington and keeping the Pickering B plant going. The reality is that an ongoing commitment to nuclear locks us into high prices, overruns and delays. It means ultimately that the tenants who will be stuck with these meters are going to be paying more for electricity than they should.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I thought environmentalists liked higher prices.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I find it interesting that some people will argue that high prices are a good strategy, and I want to address that because I think it's a very interesting argument.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Didn't you used to say that?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: No, I want to address that. The simple reality is that the transformation that takes place technologically in a variety of sectors takes place because new technologies are introduced that either allow for substantial change in the way things are done, allowing for productivity gains, or drive down costs. So the steam engine, when it was introduced, allowed substantial reductions in the cost of operating mines. That's why it spread rapidly. The introduction of microchips: Their spread went quite radically and quite quickly because they allowed the very rapid processing of information—initially very costly, becoming a very cheap way to process information.

In fact, I think that's the strategy that's needed: an investment in energy and conservation efficiency and investment in development of renewable technologies, so that efficiency, conservation and renewables become cheaper than conventional alternatives. A high-priced strategy simply to pay for the dying technology of the 20th century is not an intelligent strategy. It doesn't result in the investment that has to happen. In fact, it locks us into technologies that don't have a future, won't provide us with jobs and, frankly, cut off the money that's needed to invest in the future. That's where we have to go.

Electricity costs increasing due to the strategies of the Liberals with regard to the electricity sector, that's part of the future. That's part of the future for tenants.

Under the current system of vacancy decontrol, there's no reason to think that shifting the responsibility to tenants to pay electricity bills will result in lower rents, particularly upon vacancy. Why wouldn't landlords take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them? They don't run charities. I've met some very capable, intelligent, far-thinking landlords who have a 10-year or 20-year perspective on their building, but they are driven by the necessity of maximizing their profit, either in the short or the long term. They are not going to be maximizing that by driving down their rents.

Thus, they won't be driving down their rents. This burden of cost is being put on the shoulders of tenants, and that's a mistake. It won't give us the energy efficiency and the environmental advantage that we need.

Tenants will face possible rent hikes due to landlord applications for rent increases because of retrofit work. This will affect the ongoing affordability of rental stock, particularly in large urban centres. Landlords need to recover the costs of investments that they make in buildings, but they also, in the rents that they charge tenants, need to reflect the savings that they are given when they make those investments. It can't all be the tenants paying for capital improvements and the landlords reaping all the savings.

I've said this before and I'll repeat: Many tenants will be forced to pay for electricity service directly, without any control over factors which could reduce electricity bills. They aren't going to go out and buy new Energy Star fridges or high-efficiency stoves; they're not the ones who are going to be replacing the hot water heaters in their buildings. This bill is not going to address those issues.

Most of the Bill 235 suite-metering protections apply only to sitting tenants. This means that over time, a smaller and smaller proportion of tenants overall will have any protection, because as you move into a unit as a new tenant, you're stuck. You're simply going to have to carry that particular burden; you aren't going to have a choice.

It is not clear at this point, and it needs to be made very clear, what the landlord's obligations concerning necessary retrofits are. Those obligations would likely only extend to current sitting tenants. This means that tenants will face potentially higher bills due to factors entirely within the landlord's control, which in turn will affect tenants' ability to pay their rent.

Those are substantial problems with this bill. Those problems need to be addressed. This bill is going to go to committee. It's going to hear from tenants; I'm sure it will hear from landlords. It needs to adopt a strategy that will actually make an energy difference in those buildings and not simply put the burden—put the cost—on the shoulders of tenants. That has to happen.

Part of the thinking in doing what is being brought before us is the focus of suite metering on sending "price signals" to tenant households to reduce their discretionary energy use. It would be interesting to see if there are studies showing that that does make a difference. I've talked to people who tell me, "I'm not going to turn my fridge off during the day"—the fridge being a very large consumer of electricity—"because I have a higher electricity bill." If people need to be cool because it's 35 degrees or higher outside, they're going to turn on their air conditioning, particularly if they're ill or elderly and need protection from very high heat.

I want to note that over 30% of Ontario's tenant households live at or below the poverty line. Any increase in shelter costs, including those costs associated with utilities, has a disproportionate impact on these low-income households. What we have before us on the individual meter, the smart meter application for tenants, is highly problematic. It needs to be amended based on what we hear from the public when we go into hearings on this.

I want to talk now about the question of energy retailers. You know, there are a lot of different approaches one can take here. If you go back and look at old headlines—here is a headline I found interesting on June 20, 2003: "Direct Energy Marketing Ltd. and Ontario Energy Savings Corp. Fined for Fraud." They were fined "a total of $232,000 after some of their agents apparently forged signatures on 31 consumer contracts, the Ontario Energy Board said today. Direct Energy was fined $7,500 for each of the 21 switched consumers, and Ontario Energy Savings Corp. was fined the same amount for 10 switched customers.

The Ontario Energy Board said it had determined the signatures on 31 contracts were forgeries and not those of customers. Both companies are entitled to a hearing before the board on the decision. The board said it has notified police of its findings."

I talked to my mother, who has had energy marketers at her door who demanded to see her hydro bill. She's pretty energetic, so she had no difficulty telling them they would be better off moving down the street. But a number of her friends who are later on in their 80s have difficulty dealing with those energy marketers; sometimes think that they've cancelled contracts with energy marketing firms and find that in fact no cancellation ever took place; that the electricity bill they get, which has shocked them, is still being routed through one of those energy marketers they thought they had gotten rid of.

We've had trouble for most of this decade, and every so often governments say, "Well, we need to do something about energy marketers." I actually think what would make the most sense, except for the sale of renewable power, would be to end these energy marketing operations for gas and electricity because I don't see the advantage to customers. If you're buying electricity in Ontario, there's one system that makes electricity and sells it: through Hydro One. There is no way to get big advantages. You've got people who are playing on the system and making money as a salesperson—not even as a middleman.

They ride on the back of the middleman, which is the local distribution company. They're the middleman between the Ontario system and the consumer. They try to insert themselves in there and make money off people who may not know how the system works. They take advantage of them.

On the gas marketing side, you've got your local Enbridge or Union Gas gas distribution company. These companies, these retailers may buy gas in Alberta; they may not. I don't know. I just know that people, in their experience, are getting bills that they don't like and can't seem to get out of.

I had an experience with a local retailer close to my constituency office, whose bookkeeper in error threw out the last notice from one of the energy marketing companies, and the notice was, "If you don't respond to this, we're renewing your contract." That local retailer, I think, had very sharp words with his bookkeeper—a bookkeeper he's worked with for a long time—but the bookkeeper assumed that the energy marketer was like a normal business when in fact, no, this was a company whose function was to make money off people by trying to shepherd away a group that didn't fully understand what was going on with energy markets.

I don't see any utility in this province of having an industry based on taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of energy so they can make a buck; I don't see the utility. I see the usefulness in having gas companies and electricity companies delivering energy to people's homes, having them regulated and preferably owned by the public, but I don't see where these brokers, who are a layer on top of legitimate energy businesses, have any real function.

The one exception I can see is companies like Bullfrog, which take contracts with people and pay a premium to get renewable power invested in this province. I can see the logic of that. They sell over the Internet. They don't have door-to-door, as far as I know; they don't have telemarketing. I don't see a problem with that. People who are fairly sophisticated about energy can go in, pay the premium and get the investment they want. But most people don't want to pay a premium; they want to get a bargain. They can't get a bargain. What they get is a sales job.

I think this bill should go substantially further in terms of moving us away from this deregulation of energy sales, this whole idea of retail-level sales of gas and electricity futures, and actually go back to a system that's stable where people know what they're dealing with.

If you pass this legislation, you need to make sure that customers are protected from hidden contract costs, excessive cancellation fees, negative-option contract renewals and other unfair industry practices. There may well be an argument that this bill does that, although my understanding is that there's a lot of stuff still to be answered in the regulations. Those of us voting on this may well not have the answers that we need printed on the paper in front of us. There needs to be greater fairness and transparency for consumers through rate comparisons, plain-language contract disclosure, enhanced rights to cancel contracts, and a new licensing and training regime.

I have to ask, though: I don't know why these firms would continue to exist on that basis. Who's going to buy if they know what they're getting? Maybe somebody. Maybe they'll find another way around it. But if you get rid of all the flim-flammery that is a major part of this operation, I have no idea why these firms would continue other than the idea that perhaps in the regulations there will be benefits provided that will make life much easier for them than the words that are set out in the act itself.

When it comes to these energy marketers, it will make a lot of sense for this government to make it as tough as possible for any of them to operate—if they're not willing to just get rid of them outright—and make it difficult enough that they cannot make money through any dishonest practice. "Dishonesty" is a word that can be applied very broadly. It doesn't necessarily mean criminal dishonesty. There are people who can weave a cloud of words around your head that distract you, that move you to think that what you're getting is very different from what's really on the table.

I would say that if the government is not willing to move forward to get rid of this particularly wasteful and useless practice, it should make it as tough as possible for it to actually happen, so that those companies and those practices will wither away.

I want to talk last about security-deposit waivers for low-income consumers. The people who advocate for low-income households have been advocating for mandatory exemptions for low-income households from consumer security deposit requirements, which can adversely impact or even exclude those households from accessing and maintaining gas or electricity service. The OEB, in the past, proposed code amendments that would have prohibited electricity distributors from requesting a security deposit from certain eligible low-income customers and would have allowed other eligible low-income customers to pay a security deposit in more affordable instalment payments over a period of at least 12 months.

Under Bill 235, the bill before us today, there's regulation-making authority to set security deposit criteria for gas and electricity distributors for prescribed consumers or a member of a prescribed class of consumers. We'd recommend that priority be given to issuing a regulation that provides for mandatory exemptions from gas and electricity security deposit requirements for low-income consumers. Currently, electricity distributors have the discretionary authority to waive security deposit requirements for a customer or future customer. To date, the OEB has not codified security deposit rules for gas distributors, who also have the discretion to waive security deposit requirements.

It's also suggested that there be a winter disconnect moratorium for low-income consumers. Unaffordable home energy bills leading to disconnection of utility services pose serious public health and safety risks for low-income households. In the Ontario Energy Board stakeholder consultation on low-income energy consumer issues, it was recommended to the board that it should protect against weather-induced illness and death by establishing mandatory disconnection moratoria for the heating and cooling seasons.

Disconnection of utility service is particularly devastating—no surprise—for infants, the elderly and those who are ill or disabled. The OEB didn't include a winter disconnection moratorium in its comments on these issues. Many have been advised that the board had said it lacked legal authority to do so, since the Electricity Act, 1998, says that electricity distributors have the statutory right to disconnect for overdue payment.

Under Bill 235 there are provisions for regulations that would prohibit electricity and gas service shutoffs to a consumer or a member of a class of consumers. It's recommended that priority be given to issuing a regulation which would ban the disconnection of electricity or gas service to low-income households and households where infants, persons over 65 years of age or those seriously ill, medically fragile, reside during the period of November 1 to May 1.

This winter or heating season disconnection moratorium should also cover the use of a load limiter or other device that limits or interrupts electricity service in any way. The government should be looking at disconnections in the cooling season as well.

It's not a bad idea to look again at the delivery of electricity services in this province and the way that it's done, but the way this bill approaches it is very limited. It relies on a process of putting the burden on consumers and on tenants instead of making the changes at a province-wide level to get rid of the unnecessary marketing of gas and electricity. It puts the burden on tenants for dealing with the energy efficiency of apartment buildings, when in fact they don't have the money or the authority to do what has to be done to be effective. So my hope is that in the course of committee hearings and debate, this bill will be substantially amended.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: It's nice to be back here in this new year, 2010.

I must say that the presentation by the member from Toronto—Danforth was very comprehensive and I just don't know, in two minutes, where to respond. But I think I will go to the area that a lot of the issues were brought around: consultation. This will be going to committee and there will be consultations. I think that's extremely important because something so new and so different certainly involves that.

Energy conservation became a big part of it with tenants, and their inability to do very much about the energy efficiency of their units, because that is not within their control. This is recognized by the government, it's recognized in the bill, and it's going to be recognized very much in the regulations. If tenants are going to be paying their own energy bills, then they have to have access to the best appliances, and the building form, which they can't control, has to be changed, has to be upgraded energy-wise by the landlords. So these issues will be front and foremost on this.

This government is very much concerned with energy conservation. I presented on behalf of the minister a few months ago on conservation, showing that the growth in the next 20 years for energy in this province would be from energy conservation. A great deal of dollars have been invested, something like $150 million, in this province alone in home energy retrofits—so I think these will be addressed.

I'm very pleased to hear all the issues that were brought forward this morning.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I also would like to speak to the bill and commend the member for his remarks.

This is a big issue in my riding. My office is continually presented with a number of people, not only seniors, who are talking about the door-to-door marketing and how they're being taken advantage of. It has taken an inordinate amount of time in my office, and I'm sure a number of other members have the same issue.

I certainly look forward to further debate on this when it goes to committee. Anything we can do to advance this cause and to take the onus off the individuals, seniors and low-income people who are being taken advantage of by these door-to-door marketers, I applaud. I look forward to further debate and commend the member.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for delineating not only where this bill falls far short of what is needed, but also for describing in detail some of the challenges that need to be met and are obviously not going to be met by this bill.

The fact of the matter is, there is widespread fraud, deceit, manipulation, if not just outright lying, taking place by energy retailers and their marketing squads across this province. In many cases the deceit, the manipulation, the fraud and the lying is aimed at some of the most vulnerable people in our society: outright acts of intimidation with respect to seniors. I think it behooves every one of us in this Legislature to ensure that this kind of conduct absolutely does not continue in the future. I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for pointing out just how serious the problem is.

Most of what is offered in this bill is, "Well, maybe something might happen in the regulations." That's clearly not good enough.

On the issue of tenants: Let's face it, we have literally millions of people who live in apartment buildings and have no control over whether the apartment building is appropriately insulated, whether the windows are energy-efficient, whether any of the appliances are energy-efficient, yet there is no strategy to deal with this other than forcing up the electricity rate of those tenants.

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also want to take an opportunity to speak on Bill 235, the Energy Consumer Protection Act. I was listening to the conversation and the debate that has come forward so far. I hear very much about what's happening in constituency offices, and it certainly happens in mine as well.

Before I was an MPP, I worked for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. This is a long-standing problem, and it was brought to my attention by farmers, who, in an effort to save during some financially difficult times, were probably easily enticed by promises of savings and would sign on to these contracts.

There were very similar types of strategies as have already been described. People would show up at the door and purport to be there on behalf of Ontario Hydro, which is the supplier for most of rural Ontario, and then demand—not ask, but demand—to see hydro bills, and then sometimes there was forgery. People weren't given an opportunity to take the information and go through it carefully; they were told they had to sign now or it wasn't going to happen.

They ended up signing and had the 24 hours to think about it and read the contract after the individual was gone, and found that they had signed on for something—they really caught them in a contract they weren't ready to deal with. Then they would come to the federation of agriculture and ask for our help. Very often, we had a difficult time getting these companies to go back and cancel those contracts. It was an extremely difficult thing to do.

But I also have to say—I heard the member talk about eliminating all these retailers—that I do know that for some people there truly are savings.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Toronto—Danforth, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to thank all those who spoke: the members from Ottawa—Orléans, Sarnia—Lambton, Kenora—Rainy River and Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Two points: In terms of the energy-efficiency requirements for buildings in which individual metering is going to take place, if one is going to put those requirements in place, I would say that those buildings have to be brought up to a very high standard before the landlord could apply for metering. Even there I have deep concerns, because this government does not enforce its building code with regard to energy efficiency.

When we heard testimony about the Green Energy Act, we had credible presentations on the lack of enforcement, and the simple reality, even when you look around this city, is seeing buildings that are designed such that there's no way they are actually going to have substantial reductions in heat loss. So right off the top, I have questions about this government's commitment to credibility on energy-efficiency issues.

Then there's the question of whether landlords should actually be allowed to go to sub-metering before they've actually made all the investments. Frankly, if they've made all those energy-efficiency investments, I'm not sure whether installation of a meter could justify itself either environmentally or economically; you're just not talking about that much energy that's left to meter.

When it comes to energy retailers, I would be very interested in seeing whether anyone has actually saved any money. My experience—and this is talking to a wide variety of constituents who have taken a bath on it—is that they simply get a bad deal thrust upon them.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the discussion of Bill 235, the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010. I want to start by acknowledging the previous member's leadoff for the NDP. The member from Toronto—Danforth has come with a few ideas that I felt were worthy of presentation.

As I have done in the past, I have carriage of this bill as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. I want to tell him that staff are here to take notes, and the presentations inside this House, those of consultations and those that will be taking place in committee, as well as the consultation later on in the year for the regulatory stream that will be designed, will all be taken into consideration. Input will be evaluated and analyzed, as we've done in the past, to try to make the bill the best it can be.

I also remind members of this House that I have yet to see, over the 10 or 12 years I've been here, a perfect piece of legislation being written; that we haven't gone back in the past and pulled bills out. In some cases I recall seeing a bill that hadn't been touched since 1960 that we've gone back to review and analyze.

So to create a picture that absolutely this piece of legislation will be the be-all and end-all of energy efficiency and consumer protection is not correct, except to say that the input he gave us—I took some notes and he made some good points about apartment retrofitting, the efficiency there. He also made some interesting points that, in a regulatory review, I will be taking to heart and seeing if there's something we can do about the security deposit waiver points that he made in the regulatory stream, and also the winter disconnect.

I know that landlords can't do winter disconnect, but the utility can. That is what, I believe, he's making reference to. I believe that in those recommendations that came from consultation, it can be addressed in the regulatory stream. So he made some good points that I believe are worthy of consideration, discussion and further debate. There are probably other sides to the story. Some people forget to say that there are some logical reasons why other things don't get removed and we'll try to find all of those things and bring them to the front.

Now, as for the bill itself, let me review the seven points that I believe on the consumer protection side we should be taking into some deep consideration. Regarding the retailers, I want to bring those points out as to what those problems are that have been acutely defined, not only by each member in this place when they have to deal with this at a constituency level, but also for the government, the ministry, landlords, tenants and homeowners themselves.

The salesperson practices I'll use as bullet number one. When I say that, I'm sure everyone can conjure up a concept of what those practices are that some of those salespersons have perpetrated on the consumer at the door. In this legislation, we are now going to encase in law, if this bill is passed, the immediate verbal disclosure and ID badges, salesperson training and other standards. So this person who is going to be coming to your door must verbally identify themselves as to who they are and must carry an ID badge that is approved.

They must go through salesperson training and other standards that have to be met before they're allowed to come to the door. That's number one. That starts on eliminating some of those who have used ID badges that imply they're with somebody else. They have even used the Ontario logo on their little badges, implying that they're from the government of Ontario. Of course, as has been pointed out by other speakers here and other people who have experienced this, that's fraud. We're going to put an end to that.

Verbal contracts: sometimes and usually over the phone, contracts not with an account holder. We've heard stories where somebody answers the phone and says "yes" to a bunch of stuff, and they are not even the contract holder in the household. They simply, by phone, are able to get this contract renewed. There are text-based contracts and signatures required now. Only the utility account holder or others specified by regulation, which we will discuss in the future, can sign energy retailer contracts for a household.

So there's another bullet clearly delineating that there was a problem, and here's the solution to that problem. Or the consumer feels pressured into signing a contract—high-pressure sales.

We are going to use three possible cancellation processes. One we already have in place, but we're going to put these in as an emphasis to ensure that high-pressure sales are not going to be able to be used to get that contract. Those cancellation alternatives are, presently, the 10-day cooling-off period, so if you sign that contract at the door, you've got 10 days to decide, "I don't want it." You institute that within 10 days, and the contract is null and void.

Upon third party verification within 10 to 60 days of signing the contract: That means that this contract, once signed at the door, will be sent to a third party for verification. The people who are responsible for that third party verification will contact the home within 10 to 60 days and say, "Did you sign this contract? Is it what you want to do? Have you had an opportunity to review what it is that you're signing?" "Yes, I have. I don't want it." "Thank you very much. Within 10 to 60 days, the contract will be cancelled according to our regulatory stream."

Finally, we have a 30-day cancellation after receipt of the first bill. Between the 10 days of the initial contract cooling-off period, the 10 to 60 days of the third party verification that the contract was signed and then even after that, when you get your first bill, you have 30 days to cancel.

That is probably the most important part of this for anyone who believes that they have been duped into signing a bill under pressure. We've relieved that pressure valve for the consumer to ensure that they've got that much time and those three options to apply to ensure that that contract at the door is null and void.

The fifth bullet is unfair cancellation policies and fees and automatic renewals for gas contracts. That's the other end of this. If I finally find out that—you know what?—I want to slip out of this, and I want to end it, we're going to end the unfair policies, practices and fees and the automatic renewal game that gets played.

I'll give an example, and I'm sure the member from Toronto—Danforth witnessed this one in his riding. Somebody gets a cheque for $50. If you cash this cheque, it's automatically renewed. They're giving you a $50 cheque, and I'm sure he understands that for some people, $50 is a lot of money.

If they get this cheque, and it's legitimate, they look at it, they go to the bank, and they say, "Is this real?" The teller says, "Yes, it's real." "Oh, I want the $50." The fine print says, "If you cash this cheque, your contract is renewed." Here's what we're going to do: We're going to prevent these cancellation fees and, in some instances, any fees, such as when people move or accidentally sign a second contract eliminating the negative option renewals.

Quite frankly, what we've decided to do is say, "That's not acceptable. You're playing on people's need for that $50. You're playing on people's inability to put the moving piece together." I go to move, and then all of a sudden, I've got an automatic renewal on this. It's not going to happen. We're going to get rid of that particular practice.

The sixth bullet, the electricity retailer, the gas marketer accountability: Additional licensing conditions for retailers, including individual salesperson training and background checks, will be instituted in the legislation and an assurance fund to assist in covering potential losses for consumers. OEB will randomly audit retailers, and we're going to improve officer and director accountability.

Here's the second wave that took place. They hired these people on the side. They weren't actually employees; they were contract employees. They were young students, in a lot of cases. They were saying, "By contract, you get paid." Do I understand that for the consumer, this was a bad practice? Absolutely. Do I understand it was a bad practice for the student trying to make money? No, it's their own moral compass that had to be taking place, because that's where some of them were using some of those really nasty tactics, where they would say, "Can I see your gas bill? I've got this badge.

I need to see your gas bill." Then they'd take the number down, and they'd simply write the contract out, fake a signature and send it in. But we're now going to make the owners responsible for the practices of those salespeople. That is one of the doors we're going to shut as well.

It's important for us to understand that these bullets that I'm going through are identifying the problems that were taking place and, on the other side of it, going over what the legislation is going to change to ensure that that practice stops.

Finally, fixed contracts don't clearly disclose all the costs or offer products promoting conservation. What happens is, they're putting these contracts together and they're implying through their actions that the contract is not as expensive as it appears. So you've got this fairly cheap-looking contract and then, all of a sudden, you peel the onion back, layer by layer, to see that you get a fee for this or a charge for that and, quite frankly, it turns out to be even more than what they're presently paying for.

The energy retailers will be required to clearly show all charges and time-of-use products that can be required. So again, another door closed with this piece of legislation.

I think what's happening here is that we're taking the steps that every one of us has experienced, I'm betting. I would even bet on this one: that every single one of us has had that complaint about a contract that has been foisted upon them at the door. And the horror stories just got worse and worse and worse. Quite frankly, it's one of those things where—I've got one for you. Here's another thing they did. The one that got me the most was that $50 cheque. I've got to tell you that whoever figured that scam out played that one to the hilt, knowing darn well that any of us don't mind 50 bucks.

To have that $50 thrown at us, "and by the way, the fine print says that if you take this $50 and cash it, your contract is renewed"—that one was a beauty. We can all tell stories about others.

I wanted to make sure that I went through in as much detail as possible those solutions that are going to be found in the legislation to assure people that, yes, we've figured this out.

This didn't take place yesterday. This was happening as soon as the deregulation took place and the legislation was passed, I think back in—I'm looking at the member across to see if he can confirm this—1998, when the first regulatory stream came through.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: That sounds right.

Mr. Dave Levac: I think it was in 1998 or 1999, one of those years, when this deregulation took place and the legislation was written so that this could happen. So we've had a long time to get this fixed. I want to assure the members that the intent of this legislation is to ensure that we take the bullets that we've described today of what was going on and show you what those proposed changes are going to be and offer the opportunity to get it right.

I look forward to committee. I hope that all of those who are interested in finding out if this is enough and that this is covered off in terms of door-to-door sales—I'm looking forward to other recommendations and suggestions.

The member from Toronto—Danforth said, "Just ban the practice altogether." That's a legitimate option. There are other options we should consider, and if we're going to look at these and think this is the way to go, I think we should be looking at any other doors we could close to ensure that this doesn't happen. I think we should enter into a really honest debate about trying to figure out the best we could do.

I wanted to make sure that those options were covered off and explained, and I believe that's there.

The other part of this is that there was some concern raised about regulations. The regulations will not simply just be hoisted upon this piece of legislation. The commitment that the minister and the government made was that we will be consulting on the regulatory stream. We will make it an open consultation, with input from the stakeholders and the consumers on how those regulations will be defined and written.

The member from Toronto—Danforth brought up the two areas that I indicated to him immediately—and I will reinforce that. I believe that those two pieces that he brought up within the regulation stream will get discussed. I will take this—not only from your discussion—to the minister myself regarding the winter-disconnect concern that he raised and the security deposit waiver piece that has been discussed, and it has been produced by other organizations, particularly those that are looking at low-income people living in poverty. I believe he has brought points to the table that are deserving of discussion, and I will commit to him that I will do so.

Suite metering—I've only got a few minutes left, Speaker, but I'll bow to your preference. I believe there's about three minutes left, and I'll try to do that as quickly—

Interjection.

Mr. Dave Levac: I see the digit telling me exactly what I've got, so I will stop there and indicate to him that I will be participating in the bill, the committee and the consultation on the structuring of our regulation stream.

I want to thank the minister for this opportunity to carry the bill. I want to thank the members for their input and commit to them that I will pay good attention to all the debate that's going on in the House.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise today to welcome to Queen's Park Edith Heleniak, mother of page Rachael Heleniak, from the township of Norwich in the great riding of Oxford. I truly hope Rachael has an enjoyable and educational time with us, and I'm looking forward to seeing her at Queen's Park in the future.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of legislative page Matthew Kostuch from Dr. Roberta Bondar Public School in our Ajax—Pickering riding, particularly Ajax, to welcome his mother, Christine Kostuch, and the lovely young lady with her, Wendy Kelly. They are both joining us in the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen's Park, ladies.

Mr. Mario Sergio: I am delighted to introduce, in the east members' gallery, Brian Warren. He's a two-time Grey Cup champion, all-star honour player, the Argos' voice on TSN and other channels, and founder of KidsFest and Pathways, bringing relief to some 40,000 kids in Canada and in my riding. I'd like to welcome Brian Warren to our House.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to introduce a young lady from the University of Ottawa. Her name is Ashley Pereira. She's an outstanding student and was the valedictorian in her high school.

Hon. Michael Chan: I'd like to welcome to Queen's Park our friends from the entertainment and creative cluster: actor Karl Pruner; Brian Topp from ACTRA; Dan McLellan from Deluxe Postproduction; Kirk Cheney from the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; Kevin Shea from the OMDC; and Karen Thorne-Stone from the OMDC.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of the member from Mississauga—Brampton South and page Arusa Mithani to welcome her mother, Nadia Mithani, to the gallery today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg the indulgence of the members to allow the pages for a formal introduction.

Daria Bajus, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek; Amy Beaven, Timmins—James Bay; Ava D'Souza, Don Valley East; Rachael Heleniak, Oxford; Sarah Hoyos, Oshawa; Colin Jansen, Huron—Bruce; Matthew Kostuch, Ajax—Pickering; Julia Louis, Scarborough Centre; Quinton Lowe, Cambridge; Anthony Meola, Mississauga South; Arusa Mithani, Mississauga—Brampton South; Max Musing, Beaches—East York; Brady Parcels, Prince Edward—Hastings; Christopher Parker, Barrie; Jordan Pind, Peterborough; Laura Stilwell, Parry Sound—Muskoka; Haleigh Ryan, Dufferin—Caledon; Nevan Whiteside, Kitchener—Waterloo; and Jullian Yapeter, Oak Ridges—Markham. Welcome to our pages. Enjoy the session.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. We learned yesterday that the same Liberal-friendly consultants who got fat and rich off sweetheart deals during your eHealth boondoggle have now come back for second helpings through your LHINs, the regional health bureaucracies.

Premier, just like at eHealth, there has been enormous growth in executive salaries and benefits at your LHINs. Could you inform the Legislature exactly what has been the increase in LHIN bureaucrats earning more than $100,000 per year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Every day I'm coming to believe more and more that my honourable colleague has a bright future in creative fiction. He spins a wonderful tale and it's always interesting to engage in that kind of fantasy. But as I like to say, the facts are not entirely irrelevant in this place. I'm going to give my colleague the Minister of Health an opportunity to speak to this in the subsequent questions.

I can say at the outset that we're very proud of all those people who dedicate themselves to working through our local health integration networks and to delivering better health care on the ground.

The idea and the ideal that informed this new policy was to ensure that instead of having all the decisions with respect to local health care made here at Queen's Park or in downtown Toronto, we could delegate some of those responsibilities to people on the ground, who live in the communities, who understand the needs of their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, let me give you more of the facts from your very own sunshine list. In 2006, when you created your regional health bureaucracies, the so-called LHINs, there were 40 bureaucrats making $100,000 or more per year. In just three short years, the list of LHIN bureaucrats making 100 grand or more is up 150% to a total of 95. At the same time, executive salaries are up 213%.

Now, Premier, facts are stubborn things and the facts speak for themselves. Why are you diverting money meant for patient care to line the pockets of more health bureaucrats?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it's an appropriate thing to take a few moments and talk about LHINs. Local health integration networks were established, I believe, only three years ago. Their job is critically important in the creation of a sustainable health care future for Ontario. What they are charged with, the responsibility they have, is to integrate health services at a local level. They are doing, I would say, a very, very fine job.

One of the best examples of the work they are doing is the integration of community supports for people who otherwise would be in the hospital. Those are the alternate-levels-of-care patients, patients who are in hospital but could be in the community. The LHINs have embraced this challenge and I'm very pleased with the work that they are doing.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, let me wake up the Premier from his reverie. Let me take him out of his fantasy world and tell him what's really happening on the ground in health care in the province of Ontario.

Premier, your government has closed down ERs in communities like Fort Erie and Port Colborne, and at the same time the number of health bureaucrats at your LHINs making $100,000 or more is up 150%. There are now 15 senior executives at these regional health bureaucracies making $200,000 a year or more. It is outrageous to see money meant for front-line patient care being diverted to more fat-cat bureaucrats, and it's outrageous that you created this bureaucracy in the first place instead of putting money into front-line patient care services. What makes you think you can get away with this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The work that the LHINs are doing is really on-the-ground front-line work. We have established a new diabetes strategy; the LHINS are helping us implement that. The work they are doing, that local planning work where they are bringing in all of the health care providers—the CCACs, the long-term-care homes and those organizations that actually provide service through volunteers such as Meals on Wheels and driver services for people—is the kind of work that has to be done at the local level.

If the Leader of the Opposition believes we can provide that local integration out of Queen's Park, I beg to differ. I think that is work that needs to be done at the local level, and the LHINs deserve the support that we give them because they are integral to the sustainability of our health care system.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Your Minister of Health just claimed the services are going to front-line care. The evidence and the facts are quite the opposite. The only thing happening on the ground is a longer wait time for more health bureaucrats to help themselves to the trough in your regional health bureaucracies.

Let me give you, Premier, another fact from your very own records. Barry Monaghan was CEO of the Toronto Central LHIN until he resigned on November 9, 2007. Premier, if Mr. Monaghan resigned in 2007, then why did the Toronto Central LHIN pay him $351,000 in 2008?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite, I think, needs a bit of an education on some of the progress that we've made when it comes to improving wait times. When we took office in 2003, people were waiting unconscionable lengths of time for essential surgeries. In fact, the wait times were so long that people were actually getting worse as they were waiting, and they could never fully recover from, for example, a new hip, because they had waited so long. The wait times were not just extremely painful for patients; they were really damaging the health of the people who were waiting.

So we attacked wait times. We actually, for the first time ever, started to measure how long we're waiting. We publicly report; you can go online. At the website, you can see, for every single hospital, a number of different procedures, and you can actually track for yourself how we've been able to bring down those wait times—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, the real world and your friend Barry Monaghan: The Ontario PC caucus has freedom-of-information information which reveals that at the same time as Mr. Monaghan collected $351,000 in salary from the Toronto Central LHIN, Mr. Monaghan also received an untendered consulting contract worth $104,000 from the Mississauga Halton LHIN. Add it up: $455,000 meant for Ontario patients ended up in your friend Mr. Monaghan's pockets. Premier, why was half a million dollars meant for patient care sole-sourced to one of your friends in your regional health bureaucracies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Leader of the Opposition maybe forgot a kind of important piece of information. That is that we have changed the rules around sole-sourced contracting. We listened to what the Auditor General had to say, we made the changes and we are moving forward because this government believes that absolutely every dime we spend on health care simply must go to improving health care for people. That is at the core of our health care approach.

The rules that were in place when the party opposite was in power are not okay; they're not good enough. So we acted last summer and fall to implement those rule changes. We moved forward with those tough new rules. As we said yesterday, I have written to all the LHIN board chairs and I have asked them to seek reimbursement for inappropriate past expenses.

In the supplementary I will—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: It's no surprise that the Premier has dodged four consecutive questions on the runaway spending at his regional health bureaucracies in the LHINs.

Let's put this into perspective. During Dalton McGuinty's eHealth boondoggle, his highly paid and hand-picked senior executive helped to funnel untendered contracts to Liberal-friendly consultants like John Ronson, Karli Farrow, the Premier's former health adviser, and Michael Guerriere of Courtyard. Now, with your LHINs, these regional health bureaucracies, you have 14 highly paid executives and millions in untendered contracts handed out to Liberal-friendly consultants or former CEOs like Barry Monaghan. We are seeing a pattern where Dalton McGuinty's scandals are having sequels, like the OLG.

Premier, when you see these abuses at the LHINs, doesn't it look like this is the son of eHealth at your regional health bureaucracies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat, because it's clear that the Leader of the Opposition didn't hear what I said: All of the contracts that he's referred to were from before we made the rule changes. We have made the rule changes. We have fixed the problem. This was an important initiative that this government has undertaken.

Let me read from a letter that I wrote to the LHIN board chairs: "Public confidence and trust is crucial to continuing this progress. As health care leaders, we need to spend tax dollars wisely and we need to be accountable for our decisions. I can't"—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will please come to order.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'll continue quoting from this: "I can't overemphasize how important it is to ensure that every single dime we spend within our health care system is spent in a way that would be acceptable to a thoughtful taxpayer.

"Last summer and fall" we "brought in ... new rules to increase accountability ... and I expect them to be followed."

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontario families are beginning to get a taste of what their Premier's priorities mean for them: hospitals under the operating knife while Bay Street basks in the Premier's $4.5-billion giveaway. The Minister of Health says that no hospitals should make cuts, particularly if they affect patient care. If that's the case, why won't the Premier explain why hospitals across the province are in fact cutting front-line services to this day?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question. I've had the opportunity to make reference to this before, but I think it bears repetition. Since 2003, when we first earned the privilege of serving Ontarians in government, we have increased hospital funding by 42%. I think that contrasts with cost of living increases of 11%. That represents a dramatic infusion of new dollars into our health care system, because they were absolutely needed.

I want to assure all the people who work inside and dedicate themselves to patients, in our hospitals and through their various services, that we will, through this budget, notwithstanding our difficult challenges, find a way to increase funding yet again. That's the truth. We've always increased funding for our hospitals. We will find a way to do that again.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ottawa's Queensway Carleton is looking at cutting 17 beds in April. In Hamilton, St. Joseph's Healthcare is cutting 12 staff. Pain and cardiac rehab clinics have closed in Toronto's west end. London resident and cancer patient Marita Devries has turned to Facebook to protest 26 nursing layoffs at an outpatient cancer care clinic.

How is it that the Premier has $4.5 billion for corporate tax cuts but can't spare cash for cancer patients like Marita?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague wants, at some point in time, to make a reference to the personal income tax cuts that kicked in on the first of January of this year. I think that's important. It gives a fuller picture of our package of tax reforms.

Also, I want to draw my friend's attention, once again, to the study of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I don't think that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaks for Mike Harris, although my honourable colleague may think so. They said that, in particular—they put out a study, and I'm just going to reference the name of this study: Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. I would strongly recommend this study, again, to my colleague, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier's priorities are clear: Faced with a steep deficit, he put aside scarce resources for a corporate tax cut, and he ignored cancer patients like Marita Devries in London and he ignored families in Port Colborne, in Fort Erie, who have lost their emergency rooms.

We need responsible planning and smart investments to ensure our health system is there for the people who need it. Why is the Premier allowing reckless, short-sighted cuts instead?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just a few facts: Almost 10,000 new nursing positions have been created in Ontario since 2003. I mentioned before that hospital funding has gone up by 42%; that's $4.6 billion.

Again, referencing this report that my honourable colleague refuses to acknowledge— Not a Tax Grab After All—it says, in part, "The central question of this paper ... was what effect the new tax package would have on the poor. More precisely, given that a political decision was made to move to a HST system did the Ontario government design this properly to protect the interests of the poor?" Answer: "In general, our answer would be in the affirmative.

"The interests of the poor are relatively well protected in this set of measures." Again, I reference this study to my colleague.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This question is to the Premier as well. When the previous government was running a $5-billion deficit, the Premier labelled their corporate tax giveaway "irresponsible," "ideological" and "inappropriate."

I'll ask the Premier the very same question that he once posed when he was on this side of the House: "How is it that you have" billions "for additional corporate tax cuts, but you don't have enough money, apparently, for the Ministry of Health to ensure that we meet the needs of our families when they've got to go to Ontario hospitals?"

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What we've done is, we've introduced a comprehensive package of tax reforms. Not only are there, I think, about—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have, I think it's about $4.5 billion for business tax cuts, but we have over $10 billion for personal tax cuts.

Again, I would reference my colleagues who believe that Mike Harris is somehow, today, working for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives—that he's in fact not doing that, and that there's a lot of support, notwithstanding the fact that my friends resent this, for our package of tax reforms from the left, from economists who are generally seen to be on the left, from food banks and from poverty organizations who understand that, fundamentally, this about improving the lot in life of our least fortunate in the province of Ontario.

It's a balanced, thoughtful, moderate, progressive package of tax reforms to help people and to help our economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'd say it's a resurrection from the past. That's what I'd say it is.

We can preserve our health care system, though, if we plan responsibly and make smart investments today, but that's not what this government is doing. They've left hospitals and clinics across the province making random cuts to front-line services while money we cannot spare is being given away to corporate tax cuts. Why does this Premier think that it is a responsible choice today when he rejected that very same choice in the past?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure how many times I can say it or in how many different ways I might say it, but my friends stand against the plan that we have in place. They have yet to put forward an alternative of their own. It would be nice to see something at some point in time.

Let me tell you a bit more about our plan and why we are so proud of our plan and so sure that it's the right plan for our time. It's about ensuring that Ontario is competitive, not just for purposes of meeting our immediate needs today but for purposes of securing a bright future for our children tomorrow. We want to have in place the economic strength to ensure that we can continue to fund their schools, their health care, their environmental protections and their jobs. That's what this package of tax reforms is all about.

It represents about $4.5 billion in cuts for businesses and $10 billion in cuts for people. It's about ensuring that we take all the necessary steps today to strengthen our families, to strengthen our economy, to make sure that we have up to 600,000 more jobs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What this government has decided is that a tax package worth $2 billion in revenue shortfall is the right way to go. On this side of the House, we disagree.

Families across the province are seeing cuts to front-line services; that is a fact. Nursing positions, beds and pain clinics are shutting down daily; that is a fact. They aren't being replaced by other local services either, so don't try to say that they are. They are just vanishing from communities across the province. It's not an accident; it is a choice that this government is making and this Premier is making.

My question is simple: Shouldn't health care for families come before corporate tax giveaways?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, hospital funding has gone up every single year on our watch. It will go up again this year. It will not go up as dramatically as it has in the past because we're running close to a $25-billion deficit. My friend opposite believes that that's not particularly relevant; we think that's important.

My friends opposite also know that this is a function of governments everywhere acting in concert to stimulate our economy. We're borrowing money to stimulate our economy, in keeping with the very best advice. They're doing that in the federal government. We're doing it in Ontario. They're doing it in virtually every province and every part of the world. That's an important dimension that we have to take into account as we plan for this year's budget.

Health care funding will go up, hospital budget funding will go up, but it will not go up as dramatically as it has in the past, given our circumstances.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. What qualifications do you look for in people you appoint to LHINs, Premier, other than donations to the Ontario Liberal Party?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Withdrawn.

What qualifies your appointees, Premier, to sit on boards of LHINs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As we discussed earlier today, the LHINs play a critically important role in our health care system. Their job is to integrate health care services at the local level. As a result, we expect that we have a very high standard of quality of people who are sitting on the LHINs. They go through a rigorous process. We have moved, actually, to a skills-based matrix so that we have in each LHIN the right skill set so that the LHIN represents the community but it also represents a degree of expertise in many different areas.

It's a very important responsibility they have. We take it seriously. They do go through the public appointments system, and members opposite have a chance to invite them to participate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Perhaps we could take a look at the background of some of these appointees. Anju Kumar has a background in IT, not health. She donated over $1,000 to the McGuinty Liberals and was appointed to the Toronto Central LHIN. Glenna Heggie is a retired teacher who donated $6,358, and she's on the Waterloo—Wellington LHIN.

These hand-picked appointees don't even hold themselves out as having any special expertise in health. Juanita Gledhill lists working with Steve Mahoney at the WSIB as experience. She's also a donor. You appointed her chair of the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN, which shut down the Fort Erie and Port Colborne emergency rooms.

How much does someone have to give to have the pleasure of doing your bidding?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that I think this is beneath the member opposite. The LHINs have a very important responsibility. They are selected very carefully. We have a very careful process where we get the best possible mix of skills on the LHIN. If the member opposite doesn't think that IT experience might come in handy when it comes to health, I think that's living in a past age.

The quality of the people on our LHINs is very high. As we move to implement the skills-based matrix, I do actually believe that we'll be able to increase the quality and the mix of people in the LHINs.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, the minister announced his support for Ontario Power Generation's plan to refurbish the Darlington nuclear plant.

Applause.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate support for my statement.

He said the refurbishment is cost-effective, but refused to tell Ontarians how much the rebuild will cost.

Why won't the minister share the expected cost of the refurbishment of the Darlington plant and the alternatives that were considered so that Ontarians can be sure that this decision is not yet another example of the McGuinty government's blind faith in costly and risky nuclear plants?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'm pleased to share with the member and Ontarians the best possible preliminary cost estimates that are available. In fact, the member was standing within three or four feet of me yesterday when I was speaking to the media on this.

I indicated to the media—perhaps he didn't hear; perhaps he wasn't listening—that the cost would be about eight cents per kilowatt hour over the lifespan of this particular investment. That's the way they measure these types of costs within the nuclear business. But I can extrapolate on that even further: That would put it into probably the $6-billion to $10-billion range in terms of expenditures.

Let's be clear: That's a big investment, but it's an investment in the future stability of our nuclear system. It's a sustainable, emissions-free source of energy that we need to invest in.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to let you know that, in fact, I was standing beside the reporters when they were asking the question yesterday and trying to get a cost out of this minister. The best they could get was this guesstimate about the cost per kilowatt hour.

If you know what it costs—and you just told me $6 billion to $10 billion—you're making a decision with a range of almost 100% on the cost, $6 billion to $10 billion, in a world where those costs tend to soar. You know that. You know what's going on in the United States.

Are you going to give us the cost? Are you going to make sure there's a commitment to this House that we have a fixed price so that we don't get stuck with the overruns? Tell us.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Unlike previous governments who thought short-term and planned for their energy needs and the energy needs of this province not much further beyond their term, as the NDP did and as we know the Tories did, the McGuinty government is probably the first government in Ontario to effectively plan past our term to not only our generation, but future generations. That's what this refurbishment represents.

We're looking at planning the sustainability of nuclear in this province for 30 or maybe 40 years going forward. Previous governments did not do that. We recognize that we do have to make strong, important decisions today to ensure that future generations have the ability to turn their lights on when it comes time and that businesses in the future have energy that's affordable, sustainable and reliable.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: Film, television, music, books and magazines all make Ontario's cultural scene vibrant. The entertainment and creative cluster—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Who's the question to?

Mr. Reza Moridi: This is to Minister Chan.

The entertainment and creative cluster provides positive economic, social and cultural benefits to communities all across Ontario. This cluster is often used as a medium to provoke thought, express ideas and enhance our creativity and imagination. This cluster is the cornerstone for any democracy; it's also the cornerstone for a strong and vibrant economy. We all benefit from the investments and jobs this sector brings to Ontario.

To the Minister of Tourism and Culture, what steps will you take to ensure that this sector—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. The entertainment and creative cluster partners play an important role in the economic and social well-being of this province. Our industry partners contribute and support us in building stronger communities across Ontario.

Since 2003, our government has contributed more than $2 billion to the cultural industry. As well, we went further last year by introducing a total of six tax credits that are worth $280 million annually for our partners in the film and television, sound recording, book publishing and digital media sectors.

We are committed to supporting our cultural industry and we are also committed to building on the valuable progress we are making together.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Ontario is a leading jurisdiction for film and television production. We are well recognized internationally. Ontario is renowned for the diversity of its locations, its cultural mosaic, high-tech infrastructure and experienced workers. Ontario is a destination of choice in the film industry and we need it to remain that way. We need to ensure that this sector and individuals within the sector receive the type of support that will enable them to continue to succeed internationally. There are a lot of resources and talent in Ontario that make us very competitive. We need a sustainable plan that will help the sector compete with other jurisdictions.

What is the government doing to ensure that Ontario continues to be a leader in this industry?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Richmond Hill again. Ontario is a leader in film and television production. Ontario's film and television production is up more than 40% from 2008. This industry contributed close to $1 billion to Ontario's economy in 2009. It's a clear indication that we have the talent and the right vision in the film and television industries. The expansion of the Ontario production services tax credit from 25% of eligible labour to include the purchase or rental of such things as equipment and studios plays a vital role in this important achievement.

Along with our partners, we are moving forward together to build a stronger, more vibrant cultural industry.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. First, some members of the Liberal caucus had to gang-tackle George Smitherman to get your attention and have their say about your multibillion-dollar giveaway to Samsung. Next, some said they couldn't get past your staff to tell you that the HST talking points your office handed out were not working. The member for York West had to complain to the media to get a message past political staff who control access to Dalton McGuinty. Our FOIs show that unelected staff make all your decisions.

Is the lack of respect just for your caucus, or does it extend to the constituents they represent as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me tell you just a little bit about the people I'm privileged to work with. Everyone in our caucus is here for all the right reasons. They are absolutely committed to public service, they speak forcefully on behalf of their constituents. They help us lend shape to the best possible progressive policy in keeping with the values of the people we are privileged to represent. I'm not sure if any Premier at any time has ever been more blessed by such a strong caucus than I, and I'm very grateful for that every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Well, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Notwithstanding the applause, Dalton McGuinty's record is so bad that he's had to go out of province to find people who will run for him.

Michael Bryant, George Smitherman and Jim Watson jumped ship to save their careers from your record. Three more ministers were shuffled out of cabinet because they didn't plan to run again. Liberals are distancing themselves from your greedy HST, sweetheart Samsung deal, increased energy costs, higher fees, embarrassing job creation record and treatment of public dollars as a slush fund for Liberal-friendly consultants at Courtyard, Bensimon Byrne and Narrative Advocacy.

Who do you expect will go public, Premier, when you appoint the member from Winnipeg to cabinet ahead of them?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I didn't hear any aspect of that question that referred to a particular government policy. I'm going to move to the third party.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As the honourable member knows, we have a respected rule in this place that we deal with points of order following question period.

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you're looking at selling some of the province's most valuable assets: OPG, Hydro One, LCBO and OLG. In guiding the way, you hired a bank so brilliant that it helped to tank the global economy. Will this Premier table the contract with Goldman Sachs, specifically the penalty clauses, should this Wall Street bank do to our assets what its outrageous dealing helped to do to the world economy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to an important issue. Obviously we're going to retain some expertise with respect to what it is that we might do with our assets, if anything. I certainly indicated that we think the responsible thing to do at this point in time is to review our assets to take a look at whether the money to be found within those assets is best deployed within those assets or somehow outside that in a way that gives expression to Ontarians' priorities today, like their health care, like their education.

We're going to continue to look at that. We want to do that in a thoughtful and responsible way. Of course, we think that includes seeking the guidance, advice and expertise, knowing that ultimately the decision rests with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: There's a reason that people don't trust these Wall Street banks, particularly Goldman Sachs. It's time that this government showed that it approaches these questions very seriously and inserts tough penalties if Goldman Sachs is up to its usual. Where is the contract so we can see if our interests are protected?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to assure my colleague that the work that this particular firm is doing came about as a result of a competitive process. The only other thing I can say beyond that is that we will listen carefully to any advice we receive, whether it's from my honourable colleague, his party or the other party, any Ontarians. But, ultimately, we accept the decision lies with us, and we'll do that in a way that is in keeping with Ontarians' values and their priorities that they have today.

The question we continue to ask ourselves is whether we may not find ways to better deploy existing resources tied up in assets in the priorities of Ontarians today, whether that's something like health care or education.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. First, let me congratulate the minister on her appointment to cabinet. I'm sure her family is very proud of her, along with the great city of Hamilton.

After a house, a vehicle is often the largest purchase made by Ontarians. The vehicle represents freedom, takes people to medical appointments and children to soccer practice and delivers the goods, services and products that make our economy function properly. As it is such an important and large investment, it is vital that consumers are informed when making these purchasing decisions.

In my riding, the vast majority of motor vehicle dealers are very strong, upstanding members of our community and the business community. To hear consumer concerns, though, we have to, from time to time, understand that there are some problems about vehicle transactions.

Minister, how does your ministry protect those consumers when they are purchasing that second-highest investment?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you to the member for Brant for the question. The member is right: For the vast majority of Ontarians, the purchase of a vehicle is one of the most expensive decisions a person can make. That is why it is so important that consumers know their rights. Since 1997, the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, OMVIC, has been administering the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, and it is working well. OMVIC is a self-managed, not-for-profit corporation. They oversee 8,300 dealers and 23,000 salespersons registered under the act. My ministry works with the council to ensure that best practices are followed and that Ontarians are protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: No late show so far.

The Motor Vehicle Dealers Act has been in place since 1997, and while I appreciate the minister's position that the consumer protection system with regard to purchasing a vehicle is working well, I wonder what else can be done to further strengthen existing laws with regard to consumer protection on this issue. A lot of people want to make sure that that second-highest investment is protected for consumers.

Can the minister tell us in this House what the government of Ontario has done to strengthen consumer protection for people in this province beyond the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I am very, very proud to say that our government has modernized consumer protection laws. As of January 1, 2010, our government has modernized consumer protection when it comes to motor vehicle sales. Some of the increased consumer protection laws include an increase in mandatory disclosures about vehicle sales to customers from dealers, a code of ethics for registered dealers, an increase in the claim coverage under the motor vehicle compensation fund from $15,000 to $45,000, as well as the ability now to cancel a contract within 90 days if certain items are not disclosed.

We have been working in consultation with the industry to ensure that all motor vehicle dealers are on a level playing field. I look forward to continuing to strengthen consumer protection in the province of Ontario.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, in 2006 your government was encouraging Ontario companies like Laker Energy in Burlington to expand in the nuclear energy industry. Minister, that's exactly what Laker did. They added manufacturing to their business, and they increased their floor and employee base. However, nothing has happened since 2006. Minister, Laker wants to expand in Ontario. They want to quadruple their workforce, but your government's stalling is preventing that from happening.

Did your sweetheart deal with a foreign company cut the knees out from under a homegrown Ontario company like Laker Energy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I had trouble hearing the last part of the question, but I think I got the gist of what the member was talking about. We're talking about a government that's investing today in building—and I think it was the nuclear industry she was talking about—and a refurbishment that's going to go forward for the next 30 or 40 years in terms of providing energy supply. In the refurbishment, there are four years now for the definition portion and then eight years of rebuild going on in Darlington. That is significant.

We're engaged right now, as well, and we've been very clear that we fully intend to move forward with the building of two new nuclear reactors in the Darlington area. Right now, and the member knows and maybe she can help us with her federal cousins, we're in discussions with the federal government, AECL. They put a little wrinkle in that when they decided to put AECL up for sale in the middle of our discussions—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, you like to talk about these things but there's no action. Yesterday's refurbishment announcement is not a credible plan to ensure a consistent power supply. Your government has left the nuclear industry hanging. Your $7-billion untendered deal with the foreign-based Samsung and the exorbitant energy costs paid by your government for wind- and solar-produced electricity will affect Ontario companies like Laker Energy.

Will you make some long-awaited decisions that will allow Ontario companies like Laker to move forward from their four-year wait for action so that they can create the jobs here in Ontario so lights can stay on for Ontarians?

Hon. Brad Duguid: That is almost laughable. When we came into office almost seven years ago, we inherited an energy supply that was very much in peril, and we have spent the last six years making the tough decisions that need to be made today to ensure that our generation, the next generation and the next generation after that will have a sustainable, reliable and affordable source of energy.

The Samsung initiative is something that is going to really contribute to that. Not only will it provide 25 megawatts of energy over the length of time that that will go forward; it will also provide this province 16,000 jobs and create a $7-billion investment in the green economy. How can the Conservatives expect to be taken seriously if they are opposing a $7-billion investment in our economy?

PENSION REFORM

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. For months this government did everything it could do to ignore the plight of Nortel pensioners, even after the province next door showed real leadership and stepped in to find a solution to the Nortel pension crisis.

In the midst of a by-election, this Liberal government is suddenly scrambling to look as though they actually care, but their plan leaves many pensioners wondering whether in fact they are going to have enough money to live on. Is this the extent of the government's actions for Nortel pensioners?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my honourable colleague knows the answer to that question. We intend to do more. Our first choice would be to do that in concert with the federal government and all the other provinces. The challenge that our pensioners and our retirees are facing today in terms of inadequate income levels is a challenge being faced by many seniors and retirees right across the country. It is a national challenge. We believe that it requires a national response. That's why we prefer to do it in concert with our colleagues right across the country.

I know my colleague has put forward a proposal, and that is something we are giving careful attention to, but my first choice is to do something in concert with my colleagues from across the country.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Quebec didn't have to wait for the feds to do something to help those pensioners, and it's been 14 months since the Arthurs commission delivered its recommendations on pension reform to this Premier and his treasurer. One of the recommendations in that report is an Ontario pension agency, and it would pretty much solve the problems that Nortel pensioners face right now. Nortel, AbitibiBowater, Canwest Global Communications—all of these pensioners could benefit from the Ontario pension agency.

Why, when you tabled your disappointing pension package last December, was an Ontario pension agency not included?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can't speak to the specific details of that, but I can say that we have done something. We'll be doing more in the not-too-distant future with respect to introducing more legislation that will affect pensions in Ontario.

One thing I want to draw my colleague's attention to, and I know that she's mindful of this, is that nothing that we do with respect to pensions doesn't involve additional cost. I think we need to be honest with ourselves. Generally, it involves more cost to both the employee and the employer; it requires that we take money that would normally go into the economy immediately and set it aside for purposes of future security. I just think it's important to understand that.

So there are no simple answers here. Again, we will continue to move forward and we'll try to do that, if at all possible, in concert with Canadians.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Over the last several years, approximately half of the new immigrants to Canada each year have settled in Ontario. Since 2003 our government, in its efforts to provide opportunities to all, has worked to break down the barriers faced by newcomers to Ontario. Ontario is the first province to create legislation to make the process of getting licensed in a regulated profession transparent, objective, impartial, fair and timely. That's a major step forward.

Our government has been constantly working to change the system and invested in successful programs so that Ontario's newcomers can put their skills to work, but having read yet another

article about highly skilled newcomers who are unable to find work because they have no Canadian experience reminds me that there's much more to be done. We all know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds. Minister, how will you tackle this issue—

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

Applause.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: All right. Now you're making me nervous.

I would like to thank the member from Scarborough—Rouge River for his question. First of all, let me say that I am both proud and humbled to be given this responsibility of serving the people of Ontario as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

This government understands the challenges that newcomers face in getting a job. That's why our government funds services and programs to help newcomers find work as quickly as possible after they arrive in Ontario. We've moved the yardstick and are seeing the results. Since 2003, our government has invested more than $700 million in programs and services to help newcomers settle, get job-ready and be licensed to work; funded almost 200 bridge training programs in more than 100 professions and trades, helping thousands get licensed and get work in their field of expertise; and helped more than 120,000 newcomers each year.

Clearly there is more work to be done. I will continue the good work started by my colleagues.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister. I'm pleased to hear that our government understands the need to diversify our approaches in order to address this issue.

Newcomers know that at times they have to upgrade or learn new skills, skills that may not have been used in the country where they were previously employed. However, it is also important for Ontarian employers to realize the value of newcomers to Ontario's economy and its future prosperity. As pointed out by Ratna Omidvar from the Maytree Foundation in a recent article, companies that don't embrace diversity are missing out on market share in Canada as well as markets beyond the borders of Canada. Minister, how will you promote the value of Ontario's diversity to Ontario businesses?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Ontario's economic competitiveness and its ability to attract professional and skilled immigrants is critical. In a world where we compete on a global scale and where economies advance based on knowledge and innovation, highly skilled newcomers provide a competitive advantage for Ontario's businesses. Our government is committed to making our province a place where all Ontarians are able to contribute, and that is why we support programs such as the DiverseCity project. This is a project aimed at bringing such potential to the front line in business, the non-profit sector and government.

Together with the work of the Maytree Foundation and the Toronto City Summit Alliance, we are making significant progress.

Ontario's labour market is dependent on successful integration of highly skilled immigrants. I commend employers like Steam Whistle Brewing for their wise decision to hire new Canadians and would encourage other businesses to follow their example. As we all know, when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, last year you introduced the enhanced driver's licence to deal with the border issue. It is my understanding that to date you have issued 20,000 enhanced licences since last May. Could you please confirm for the House exactly how many licences have been issued, and are they in fact working?

Hon. Harinder Takhar: This question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much for the question. As you know, the enhanced driver's licence is in place to allow people to cross into the United States who don't have a passport, who need this easier way of identifying themselves. It's voluntary. No driver is required to apply for the enhanced driver's licence. We've actually made a $6.5-million investment to make this enhanced driver's licence available to people.

I think the member opposite is referring to the reality that the demand has not been as high as we had anticipated. The reality is, it's available to people. That's the important thing: Those who need it will have access to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: That deflection of the answer is expected.

In the case of the expenditure of $6.5 million—and my question is, is the system working? Your government is currently losing $250 for each and every licence issued. You also should know, Minister, that you're spending, currently, $2.8 million each and every hour more than you receive in revenue.

Minister, you're spending another $6.5 million. I'm asking now, directly, if you would table a value-for-money audit to explain to Ontarians whether the use of the enhanced driver's licence is contributing to the services that they're paying for.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, it's interesting: If the uptake on this enhanced driver's licence had been beyond our capacity to fulfill, the member opposite would have been standing up and saying, "What's the matter with you? Why haven't you provided enough opportunity for people?"

What we have done is we made projections and we provided opportunities for people who needed this enhanced driver's licence. That is the responsible thing to do.

It's far more important to me, as a member of the government, that someone who needs this driver's licence is able to get it. We will continue to make this product available to people who need it. I would expect that the member opposite would be very interested that everyone who needs it would have the opportunity to get it.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Energy.

On July 20, 2008, an explosion and fire at 2 Secord Avenue, in my riding, resulted in the evacuation of about 900 tenants from 293 apartment units and 22 townhouses.

The last thing these tenants needed was another major disruption in their lives in the form of the so-called smart meters. They went before the Ontario Energy Board to reverse the landlord's forced imposition of those meters. They won.

When I asked your predecessor, Minister Smitherman, about this last September 30, he said he would consult with the tenants of 2 Secord before proceeding with legislation. It never happened.

Minister, why, despite promises to the contrary, were there never any smart meter consultations with the tenants at 2 Secord?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question. I'm not aware of the discussions with regard to 2 Secord in general.

I can tell you that we're pleased to be moving forward with improving metering across this province. It's a very important part of moving toward our conservation goals. We're doing it in a very responsible way.

When it comes to tenants and metering, we know that for a very long time that has been a very sensitive issue for tenants. The member will know that there's legislation before this House right now that I think works out a very balanced approach that is supported, as far as I can tell, by tenants and certainly by our government, and may well be supported by him by the time we get through. It provides a balanced approach to ensure that as meters go forward into units, tenants are well aware that sitting tenants have the ability to accept or—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The point, Mr. Minister, is that last year the Ontario Energy Board issued a strong indictment of this government's implementation of its smart meter program in multi-unit buildings. I would have thought that with such a clear indictment of the plan, the government would have taken every opportunity to consult with the tenants affected. Instead, this government refused to consult. The result is a toothless piece of legislation that is being strongly condemned by tenant and anti-poverty groups across this entire province.

My question: Why did the government refuse to consult with the residents of 2 Secord even though they promised to do so? Why did it bring in such toothless legislation in response to the OEB indictment of its misguided plan?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the member bringing forward the concerns and suggestions of the residents of 2 Secord, and we're happy to receive their advice as we are of advice from tenants right across the province.

I know that when the regulations go forward as well, there's going to be further consultation, and a lot of these matters will certainly be resolved within the regulations. We'll be moving forward on consultations with regard to the regulations later this year.

But the big picture is that we're moving forward with metering and sub-metering, and we're moving forward on time-of-use initiatives because we believe in the importance of providing consumers with a greater ability to conserve. That's in the interest of the overall power supply system. It's something we know the NDP did not support when they were in power because we know they cut back on conservation programs.

We're building on our conservation programs. We've done a lot to date. There's still more to do, and we'll continue to consult as we move forward on these initiatives.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, workplace health and safety is a top concern for workers in the riding of Mississauga South. I know that a lot of good work has been done in this regard, but until workplace fatalities and injuries in this province are eliminated, there's always more that can be done. That's why I was interested to hear that you have announced a review of workplace health and safety in Ontario. Many of my constituents are pleased to hear this news because it means that our government takes their safety at work seriously.

Would the minister tell us what this review will involve and what it will accomplish?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for his advocacy on health and safety in the workplace.

If I've said it once, it bears repeating: Whenever there is a death or serious injury in the workplace, that is one death or serious injury too many. That's why I've asked an expert advisory panel to do a comprehensive review of our occupational health and safety enforcement and prevention systems in Ontario. Now, it's a fact that Ontario has a world-class system. We are a leader in workplace safety, but we can always do better.

This panel will be led by a respected individual, a champion of health and safety, Tony Dean, former secretary of cabinet and a former deputy minister. He will work with a group made up of labour stakeholders, academic professionals in health and safety, as well as employers to look at our health and safety system—the structure, the operations and the policies that we have—to make it better.

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

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Speaker: Earlier in the day, the member for Thornhill had a question, and on his supplementary it was ruled out of order. I would like to have the opportunity to request some clarification on that.

Based on standing order 37—and I have the question before me—you said that it didn't apply. The matter is of public importance. It's very, very significant in that order, and it's highlighted.

I also want to refer to Marleau, who says in his book here, "Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles," and also that they "ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual minister addressed."

The Premier, of course, is the head of the government. If you look at the body of the question, it was specifically asking questions as to why the Liberal members are distancing themselves from policies of this government: the HST, the sweetheart Samsung deal, increased energy costs and higher fees.

I would ask—the question was very much in order, based on the standing orders of this legislative body, and it should not have been ruled out of order based on simply requesting clarification on the Premier's composition of his cabinet. Those are also questions that the public is asking, not questioning the prerogative of the Premier in choosing a cabinet, but the standards by which he chooses that cabinet—the standards he has when choosing members of his cabinet. Those are questions that are being asked in the media and in the public domain as well. So I think that it is pertinent to question period, and it should have been ruled in order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On the same point of order, Speaker: Very, very briefly, first, I want to indicate that the New Democrats join with the official opposition on this point of order; two, we're very mindful of standing order 38. We don't in any way intend or attempt to violate standing order 38.

It's a very sensitive thing. Look, the Speaker is in a very difficult role. He has to make instant decisions. He isn't given notice of these questions beforehand, as it should be and as tradition dictates. But it's our respectful submission to you, sir, that the overriding principle is one already referred to, and Marleau states it along with any other number of texts: "Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles."

The Speaker, as I recall it, made reference to the fact that that was not within the scope or ambit, if I recall correctly, of the Premier. With respect, sir, the standards that this Premier creates for who's in or out of cabinet are very much within the scope or ambit of the function of this Premier. It's my respectful submission that the question put to you related to that standard.

I hear the Speaker when he makes these rulings. We, however, need some assistance. That one hour of question period is the only time that opposition members have to hold the government to account, and we are as responsible for holding this government to account around its standards for its cabinet ministers as we are any other governmental policy.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: Just very briefly, the member for Welland referred to standing order number 38 but did not in fact read it. It reads, "The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal." To that end, we support you in your decision and feel that your

interpretation of standing order 37, where "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance," is relevant in this particular circumstance.

As well, I would refer you to 37(d), that "In putting an oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same...." I would argue that in this case it was simply a question of stating their opinions, and there was no substantial question involved. So we support you in your decision, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable members from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Welland and the government House leader for their comments on this. I too would just remind all members of standing order 38(a), which does read, "The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal," and 37(a), that "the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance."

Both the honourable members have referred to Marleau and Montpetit, and I remind the members that we are now into volume two, which is now O'Brien and Bosc. In O'Brien and Bosc, they say that questions should not "concern internal party matters...." Many of the issues that the honourable member from Thornhill raised, in my opinion, concerned matters that related to internal issues of the party and of the Premier.

As well, I would just remind members that there have been numerous rulings that held that questions must relate to particular ministry or administrative responsibilities of a minister. I can go back to 2001 and 2002. Reverting back to Marleau and Montpetit, it does say, "the greatest possible" latitude "that is consistent with the other principles." If you continue that quote, one of those other principles is that questions should not concern internal party matters.

I thank the honourable members for their comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member. I have the utmost respect for Marleau and Montpetit and the important role that it plays in guiding Speakers in decision-making. I would remind the honourable member that in both Marleau and Montpetit and O'Brien and Bosc, the quotation is used.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Mario Sergio: It is my privilege to welcome to the House today a live history-maker: Brian Warren, executive director o