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

November 22, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 22 November 2010 Lundi 22 novembre 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LAND REGISTRATION

TAXATION

SMART METERS

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS /

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

ENERGY POLICIES

SMART METERS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

OPTOMETRISTS

GERALD KEOUGH

CITY OF HAMILTON

PLEASANTVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL

GROWTH PLANNING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SAFETY CAMERAS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CAMÉRAS DE SÉCURITÉ)

LABOUR STABILITY

IN THE INDUSTRIES OF FILM,

TELEVISION, RADIO

AND NEW MEDIA ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA STABILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

DANS LES INDUSTRIES DU FILM,

DE LA TÉLÉVISION, DE LA RADIO

ET DES NOUVEAUX MÉDIAS

PETITIONS

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

EDUCATION FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CEMETERIES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PENSION PLANS

RECYCLING

PENSION PLANS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L'EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L'EAU

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D'IMPÃ"T DE L'ONTARIO

POUR LES COà›TS D'ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÃ"TS FONCIERS

à€ L'INTENTION DES PERSONNES à‚GÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It's a pleasure for me today to welcome to the Legislature a number of members of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance and to remind members that they have some lovely poinsettias and some great veggies, and that you should all check with your whip's office and pick up the card and see them in room 2 between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 pm to pick up your goodies.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I too want to welcome the members from TOGA, the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance, who are here today to update us on the state of the greenhouse industry and to share their holiday cheer.

It comes with a tag with the member's name on it to get those. I hope that all members will join TOGA for their lunch reception immediately following question period in committee room 2, and again, to come back down to the meeting and pick up their poinsettias from the greenhouse industry.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Today is Hamilton Day at Queen's Park, and I'd like to welcome all guests today who are from Hamilton, specifically the former MPP from Hamilton Judy Marsales, who is here with us today and who initiated Hamilton Day.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I'm pleased to welcome several guests to Queen's Park today: Mr. Barry Katsof of the paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, or PNH, association; Hillary Handley, who also suffers from PNH; and her husband, Mr. John Girard. They're here to support Lucas Maciesza, who is awaiting life-saving treatment for his PNH.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I'd like to welcome all those here to Queen's Park for National Housing Day. Thank you for the important work you do to lift people out of poverty through affordable housing.

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to welcome to the Legislature today page Sarah Charnock's guests: her mother, Christine Charnock; grandmother Nellie Thalmann; aunt and uncle Marlene and James Morrell; uncle Mike Speckert; cousin Aeden Morrell; and friend Bonnie Irwin. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I would like to invite all my colleagues to Lebanese Independence Day. We're going to have a reception in rooms 228 and 230. Everybody is welcome. We have a lot of Lebanese food and sweets.

Also, we have a special guest with us for whoever loves and supports and is a Maple Leafs fan: Nazem Kadri is coming here. He needs your support; he's playing tonight. Thank you. I would like to see every one of you here this afternoon.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'd like to introduce, in the members' gallery west, on behalf of page Drew Brennan, his father, Jay Brennan, who is a councillor in Smiths Falls—he was elected this fall—his stepmother, Jackie Kearney, and his grandmother Joyce Brennan. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: They're not yet here, but I want to take a minute to introduce the Mohawk College Jazz Band and members of the Hamilton Philharmonic, both of which will be entertaining us later during Hamilton Day.

Mr. Frank Klees: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Father Geoffrey Korz, parish priest of All Saints of North America Orthodox Church in Hamilton, his daughter, Miss Sophia Korz, and parishioners Ms. Danusia Husak, Mr. Lukian Husak and Mr. Zakhar Husak. Welcome to the Legislature.

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

I too would like to take the opportunity to welcome Judy Marsales, the former member from Hamilton West in the 35th Parliament, to the members' east gallery. Welcome back to the Legislature, Judy.

Seated in the Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome Reverend John Hartley, Barb Hartley, Joe Isgro, Tiz Isgro, Tony Sobczak, Diane Murphy, Grant Hall, my brother, Joe Peters, and my niece, former page Olivia Peters. Welcome to the Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Acting Premier: Acting Premier, your government is in full scramble mode. It's hard to keep track each day with the changing policies you have when it comes to energy or taxing.

Let me follow up here. Ontario families are paying a billion dollars a year in debt retirement charges on their hydro bills. For some reason that you have not explained, you've postponed the time that expires until 2015. Your so-called Ontario clean energy benefit announced in last Thursday's economic statement will cost the same: a billion dollars a year. So let me get this straight: You're making Ontario families pay a billion dollars a year more for the debt retirement charge so you can take credit for handing them a billion dollars a year for your OCEB.

Minister, are you trying to confuse Ontario families, or should the right name for your credit be the "only cooked up for the election boondoggle"?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just to try to bring a little bit of—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I've got today's Ottawa Citizen—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Nepean—Carleton.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the member opposite counts her chickens before the eggs have hatched.

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition was part of a government that brought in the debt retirement charge. So every time you pay that—and he brought it in because they wanted to saddle consumers with the hydro debt so they could sell the assets to the private sector. Ontarians don't want to go back to that.

Then, for the first four years they had that fee on, not only did they not use the money to pay down the hydro debt; they used the money to pay off their own hidden deficit on hydro. I believe strongly the people of Ontario don't want to go back to that—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister continues his campaign to try to confuse Ontario families by talking about an entirely different part of the debt. You know you've collected $7.8 billion that should have gone to retire the residual stranded debt. Instead of doing that, you've come up with your "only cooked up for the election boondoggle," your so-called 10% rebate, while you announced the next day that bills are going to go up by some 46% more.

Families are simply not buying that, I say to the Acting Premier. But that's exactly what the campaign to confuse Ontario families told you to do on page 2 of their strategy document that is circulating among a coalition of special interests who are dependent on massive subsidies for your green energy experiments. So you push back the retirement of the debt until 2015 so you can collect a billion dollars a year more just so you can hand it out and try to take credit for your OCEB. Do you really believe families think that's just a coincidence?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ontario families and ratepayers know that the McGuinty government has their best interests at heart. That overblown rhetoric that's designed to confuse people and the issues simply evades factual

interpretation. If the member had actually looked at the documents, he would see that we are continuing to pay down the stranded debt. The reason for that $7.8-billion number—I will refer him to Hansard for last week; I gave him the answer to that. What Ontario ratepayers know is that that member and his party left this province on its knees in 2003. They left it on its knees because they charged ratepayers for four years without using the money to pay off the hydro debt. We're doing that. We're giving rate relief to all Ontarians. It's about building a newer, cleaner, greener energy system for future—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, you're accelerating a hydro crisis. Your HST tax grab has brought Ontario families to their knees, and now you're picking their pockets while you're at it. You know what that Sussex document said, the coalition of special interests benefiting from massive subsidies to your green energy experiments. You know as well that for some reason you've pushed off the down payment on the residual stranded debt till 2015. You have enough money to pay that down in 2010.

Let's get this straight: You're adding five more years for debt retirement charges on the backs of Ontario families and then you're claiming this OCEB for five years, to try to confuse people and take some credit. The facts, Minister, are so obvious, even your campaign to confuse Ontario families simply won't work. What makes you think you can pull the wool over the eyes of Ontario families who are—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only thing Ontarians are confused about is what he's going to do about the electricity system; we haven't heard a word. I take it to mean then that the Conservatives will vote against the Ontario clean energy benefit. They've said it today: They'll vote against that. And that shouldn't surprise us, because instead of taking all that money from the debt retirement charge and paying it off, the debt went up in the first four years of that charge. People understand that. Every year it's come down a billion dollars on this government's watch. It will be defeased by 2016-18, which is ahead of the

schedule laid out by that government. Let's make sure we have all the facts on the table.

They'll also understand about what was left. They left a hidden debt. They buried it in the deficit. We eliminated that deficit, just like we're eliminating this one to create jobs and make a better province for our children and grandchildren.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: Your government is in full scramble mode. You seem to be throwing up all kinds of Hail Mary passes, hoping to get one to land, but Ontario families are seeing through this.

Let me see if I can understand exactly what their latest position is. On February 24, 2009, the then energy minister, George Smitherman, said that your expensive green energy experiment would only add 1% to hydro bills. Then, just two weeks ago, Premier McGuinty said they were adding 3% to hydro bills. But now your own words in the fall economic statement say they will be much, much more. I ask the minister, is this just incompetence? Is it an attempt to confuse Ontario families? How much exactly are you driving up costs to your expensive energy experiments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It is about a stronger electricity system for all Ontarians. It is about a clean energy system where we eliminate coal-fired generation. It is about investing in a much better transmission grid. It is about saving people money in the long term because we are confronting the challenges today.

This government remains committed to working with all Ontarians to rebuild the energy system, our electricity system; to make the kinds of investments that will ensure we never go back to the time that that government left us with where rates went up 30% in seven short months, where we had fears of brownouts and blackouts every summer, where the equivalent of Niagara Falls going dry came off the grid. Ontarians remember and they don't want to go back to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Halton, your own leader wanted to ask a question, and you're shouting him down.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, in your fall economic statement, you finally admitted that 56% of the increases Ontario families pay for hydro are to cover the cost of your expensive energy experiments. This is very important, because only two weeks ago Premier McGuinty said it was 3%. It is important for people to have faith that the Premier will give them the direct goods, that he will be straight, that believing the word of the Premier is something families can do, but sadly, it seems to be quite opposite when it comes to Premier McGuinty.

I ask the minister, why did the Premier say two weeks ago that it was 3%, and now you're saying it's 56%? Why are you trying to confuse Ontario families about exactly how much you're driving up rates in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What Ontarians aren't confused about is that we need cleaner power. What they're not confused about is that we need a safer, more reliable grid. With the changes we've made, we're going to achieve that, and Ontarians understand the importance of that. It's important to the creation of jobs in Hamilton, St. Catharines and Windsor. It's important to giving our industries in Waterloo the sense that their system is reliable and will continue to be on.

That member may try to confuse the numbers, take things out of context, mix it up, but what Ontarians won't be confused by is the appalling record that that party left, the condition not only of our electricity system but of our entire ability to deliver that electricity under that member's party. We're building a cleaner, greener energy system, and we're helping Ontarians move forward as we transition to that system. It's the right thing to do, and unlike you—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: What Ontario families desperately need from this government and this Premier is the truth. They need the facts. Your very own Premier two weeks ago said it would be a 3% increase, and now we've found out that it is much, much more.

But we understand why you're doing this. On page 2 in the strategy document from the coalition of special interests who are getting rich off the backs of massive subsidies from families' hydro bills, your goal is clear. You want to confuse families about the price we are paying for your expensive energy experiments. You've done this with the price of your Green Energy Act. You're doing it now with your debt retirement charge, postponing it until 2015 to stay on the bills. And you're doing it with your sudden backtracking when it comes to time-of-use smart meters.

Minister, why won't we actually get the straight facts? Why are you trying to confuse Ontario families each and every day when it comes to energy policy in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's all about clean energy for Ontario. It's all about a safer, more reliable grid. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he himself said on October 20 of this year. He said, "I think we paid a price for our energy policy in the previous government. Because we went and made a 180-degree turn." He's doing spins right now trying to make a coherent question.

The people of Ontario understand this: They will have a cleaner, more reliable energy system. They will have an energy system they can rely on. Their rates will go up, but we're helping them with that over the course of the next five years as we make the crucial investments that governments of all political stripes refused to make. It's the right policy. It's a clear policy. He can try to confuse it all he wants, but the people of Ontario are far too smart for that kind of game.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Last week, the McGuinty government announced a 46% increase in hydro bills over the next five years. They then introduced legislation to create a 10% hydro rebate over the same five years. But the devil is in the detail. Why does the legislation allow cabinet to kill or reduce the rebate at any time without any debate?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member opposite that in three short years the government she was part of raised hydro rates 40%. I think we need to have a full and candid discussion about all of these issues.

We have created the Ontario clean energy benefit to assist Ontarians as we move forward to rebuild an electricity system that was neglected for far too long. We've chosen this change to help those people as we make the investments in new transmission, transmission lines that will bring power to our bigger cities and new green energy opportunities on family farms and on the roofs of arenas throughout this province.

We've chosen to take this path because it's the right path. It will lead to a stronger, more reliable system and over time, to lower, more affordable energy prices for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government's bill states that the rebate will be available until 2015, but in

section 2 it says that the government reserves the right to end it early by regulation, without any debate. Why is the McGuinty government giving itself the power to kill the rebate at any time without any debate?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the interest of complete accuracy, that's a relatively standard process in any government program, and the member opposite knows it.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They laugh.

What's important is that we have to make the investments in our energy system. We're putting windmills on farms, we're building solar installations throughout Ontario—we've come back from the brink. The government, in the choices it's made, has decided that we need a cleaner, more reliable energy system, and we're going to help consumers manage the cost of that as we move forward because that is absolutely the right thing to do.

It's about being candid with people. The member opposite would have people believe that she can lower energy prices; she can't. She won't acknowledge that; she won't acknowledge her own record. We're going to speak candidly with the people of Ontario—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If a future government wants families to keep receiving this rebate, they have to introduce new legislation, but if they want to kill it they can do it around a cabinet table without any debate in a single afternoon. Why would this government give itself the power to kill the rebate early without any debate unless, of course, they plan to do exactly that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I take it to mean that that member and her party will now vote for the legislation because they support the clean energy benefit.

It's so typical of the NDP. They pretend that they're green one day and the next day they want to kill 50,000 green energy jobs. They speak against conservation. They're opposed to smart meters. They're opposed to closing coal plants. They offer no plan. They offer empty rhetoric. They exploit misunderstanding.

This government is about a clear and transparent debate about a better energy future with lower costs for Ontarians, so I'm glad to hear she supports the clean energy benefit. I know she will now vote for it because she knows, as we know, that it's the right thing to do as we rebuild our energy system in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to remind a number of honourable members of the importance of being able to hear both the question and the answer. The occasional interjection is often very good for this place, but constant interjections are not helpful to any member in the House, and I would ask each member to act accordingly.

New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. The proposed bill of which I was just speaking also gives cabinet the power to lower the rebate without any debate. Why would this government give itself the power to lower the rebate at any time without any debate unless this is another promise that they intend on breaking?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, I can see now that the NDP will be voting in favour of the benefit, and they acknowledge it. That's why we're moving forward with this, because I think the leader understands that this is, in fact, the right policy to pursue.

This is about building a clean, green energy system. It's about more conservation, it's about less emissions from coal and it's about helping Ontarians with the price of electricity as we move forward. These are the right choices to make.

I'm glad the leader of the third party supports the Ontario clean energy benefit. I will remind her that it goes beyond what she has asked us to do. We look forward to working with all Ontarians as we rebuild our energy sector and, at the same time, provide ratepayers with a bit of relief over the next five years to help them as we make those crucial investments in a brighter future for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families have heard promises of relief from this government before. In 2003, the Premier promised that hydro rates would be frozen for three years. Weeks after his election, he raised them. That same year, he promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Months later, he brought in a regressive health tax. Now the Premier is telling families that he has another plan to help out. Why should anybody believe him now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The honest debate that Ontarians need to engage in around electricity pricing has to happen. The member opposite may not want to say what she would do. She may not want to acknowledge the mess our electricity system has been left in by governments of all parties. She may not want to acknowledge that there was enormous support for taking the price cap off when we did because Ontarians understood that they were paying for it in their taxes—and it was hidden—to the tune of $1.5 billion over 18 months.

We need to have an honest, open and candid debate. I challenge that member to say what she would do to conserve energy, to clean the air up and to help consumers with their electricity bills as we move forward.

This is about a better future for our children. I'm glad to hear they're supporting this choice that we made. The clean energy benefit will help Ontarians over the next five years.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Struggling families facing hard times need real help, not a promise that only lasts until the votes are counted. The same government that promised no new taxes, frozen hydro rates and honest government has instead delivered unfair taxes, sky-high hydro rates and a string of broken promises. Now they're asking people to trust them again. Does the minister actually believe Ontarians will fall for this latest McGuinty government bait and switch?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Coming from a party that said that collective agreements were sacrosanct, then opened them and stripped them, it's just a little bit rich. Coming from a party that supported public auto insurance and then, when given the chance to do it, said that they couldn't do it; coming from a party that raised the sales tax, raised income taxes, it's just a little bit rich.

I challenge that member to move off the empty rhetoric and start telling Ontarians what they'll do to ensure that we have a cleaner environment, what they'll do to make sure that we have the wires—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: The only rhetoric is coming from you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, the rhetoric is coming from you, and a few others.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We've laid out a very clear plan that will get us clean energy, a safer and more reliable system and will help consumers with their bills over the next five years as we transition.

It's about more jobs, it's about a better economy, and it's about an open and honest debate, where all of us in this Legislature acknowledge once and for all that we have to be honest about the price of—

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Health. On Friday, I learned that Lucas Maciesza, a 26-year-old Wellington county resident, was dying in hospital for lack of a life-saving medication approved by Health Canada, but not yet covered by Ontario's drug benefit program. Lucas suffers from PNH, a rare blood disease that is life-threatening. His doctors tell us that a new drug called Soliris is the cure he needs.

Last night, Lucas's father asked me to read a statement in this House to inform MPPs of Lucas's situation. I'm going to ask a page to deliver the whole statement to the minister. Lucas's father writes, "We request that immediate action be taken by the government of Ontario and Soliris be approved for Lucas and all who are suffering with this disease." When will the minister take that step to save Lucas's life?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for raising this issue in this Legislature. This is an issue that cuts across party lines. I want to say thank you to the member from Perth-Wellington and thank you to the member from St. Paul's, who have made sure that I understand the issue around this drug.

What I can tell you is that we make decisions on what drugs are covered and what drugs are not covered based on evidence. It was our government that actually took these decisions out of the hands of politicians and put them where they belong: in the hands of the experts. I have asked the ministry to review as quickly as possible the evidence to ensure that people who could benefit from this drug do gain access.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? Member from Whitby—Oshawa.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: It is important to note that this drug has been approved by Health Canada for two years now. I think the minister understands that this is a life-and-death situation, quite literally, and I would urge her to get on with taking the proper steps to make this treatment available so that this young man can carry on.

You did promise that Ontario families would get health care where they need it, when they need it, and this is a clear example of some people being able to get treatments in hospitals where they live, while others are left out in the cold. Minister, can you please tell us what you specifically intend to do to deal with this situation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ontario's expert advisory panel, the Committee to Evaluate Drugs, has reviewed this drug on two separate occasions. At their most recent review, they recommended that Soliris not be funded under the Ontario public drug benefit program for the general treatment of PNH. However, the CED also advised that there may be a small subset of patients for whom Soliris may be effective. They are now reviewing that evidence.

It's very important to note that approval from Health Canada does not address the issue of efficacy of the drug; they look at the safety of the drug. There are many, many drugs that Health Canada approves that are not on the drug formulary here in Ontario and in other provinces.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Finance: Buried deep in the fine print of your economic outlook released last Thursday were a few scant details of a 50-year extension of the government's contract with Teranet. The last thing Ontario needs right now is a 407-type fire sale when it comes to this very important public asset. Will this government release the renegotiated Teranet contract with all the detailed schedules? Yes or no?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are happy to extend the agreement with Teranet that was created by the New Democratic Party. It proved to be a wise investment by the government of the day. The Conservatives indeed also extended that by taking this step. We're ensuring the quality service that has been offered. We'll continue to do that. It's paying us $1 billion up front.

We also, by the way, control the fees, and those will be held at one half of the consumer price index. We also will get royalty payments of $50 million a year, plus we've used the money to pay down Ontario's debt. That yields another $50 million.

I applaud the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, for creating this situation. I'm glad we're able to extend it in a way that benefits all Ontario taxpayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: As much as I always appreciate praise from the Minister of Finance, I actually had asked him a question. Will he release the detailed agreement, the schedules, so that the people of Ontario can see what's going on? Will he, in fact, let people have that information? Can you give us the answer, Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's all in the budget. The terms of the agreement are there—how prices are going to be managed over the next 50 years, how much we received in exchange, how much we're going to get in royalty payments and the approximate amount of interest that we'll get. That's approximate because, as the member well knows, interest rates vary over time.

This is the right deal. When the government of the day first made this move, it turned out to be a good investment. The previous Conservative government as well extended the lease and that turned out to be a good decision. This builds on those good decisions. I welcome the member's question and just refer him to the budget documents.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question to the Minister of Revenue is about helping families. Last week, the Minister of Finance delivered the government's fall economic update. There was a great deal of information in that update, including information about Ontario's tax plan for jobs and growth. It included information on the government's plan for economic recovery and for making Ontario stronger. But what it didn't include was any reference to removing the HST off of hydro, something I know the third party has been keen to see happen. Minister, let me ask you straight up, can you explain why the government has not taken the HST off of hydro bills?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'd like to thank the honourable member from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for this very important question. He's a great advocate for our community.

The HST is part of a full tax package for our province. Firstly, I would like to highlight that we as a government have done more than what the NDP has asked for. People in Ontario are asking for help during lean times. We've listened, and that's what we're providing. While we make needed and unavoidable investments in the province's electricity system, we have proposed to provide a benefit of 10%. Our 10% goes above and beyond what the NDP was asking for. The HST is an important part of our government's plan for economic recovery. Not only have we provided the benefit, but we have also introduced the most comprehensive tax—

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

Mr. Ted McMeekin: To add to my previous question, I'm hearing time and time again about how costs keep rising in my riding. Many constituents are attributing that to the HST, I think. Constituents have been contacting my office in Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and asking me why prices on services and costs keep going up. Some of my constituents have asked me why the government has increased taxes on every good and service that is sold in the province.

Today is Hamilton Day, and the good people of Hamilton would like the minister to explain exactly what the government is doing to help families in my riding and the greater community of Hamilton.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Again it's a very important question. Our province now has a tax package that works for families. There's so much information out there, and I would encourage all members of this Legislature to set the record straight when it comes to our reforms. Your constituents, Hamiltonians and all Ontarians, know that 83% of the things that they purchase have not changed under the HST. This includes things like children's clothing, children's footwear, prescription medication, child care, car seats, diapers, books, foods under $4 and newspapers, just to name some.

Recognizing that some things have changed, we have provided $12 billion in rebates, benefits and transitional support to Ontario families to help manage the transition and to make their life easier. It's also about creating 600,000 more jobs in the next 10 years. That's what our tax plan is all about.

SMART METERS

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Acting Premier. McGuinty Liberals are in full scramble mode when it comes to the energy file. The Premier thinks he is more intelligent and understanding than Ontario families, which is why he is forcing them to use the time-of-use meters. But now he's backtracking on time-of-use peak power, just in time for the election—too little, too late and too cynical. Ontario families will still have to pay for the expensive power this winter when the children are coming home from school and dinner is being prepared. Have you got any concern about that?

Acting Premier, why would Ontario families have confidence in you when you keep changing it and making it up as you go?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Energy will have more to say about a range of energy issues tomorrow. But we disagree completely with that member and his party. Time-of-use metering is absolutely a top-notch conservation tool that families can use to help save on their energy bills. We have seen right here in Ontario, in the city of Woodstock for many years, a pilot project in place that saved those ratepayers almost 25% per year.

Jurisdictions across North America and around the world are moving to smart meters. Not only do they give individual consumers the ability to manage their energy bills better; they also provide system savings overall.

I'd remind the member opposite that with the condition our wires are in, we lose 15% just in moving power across them. We're trying to correct that and make a better system that allows people to save on their bills and is a smarter grid for—

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The Ontario PCs and our leader, Tim Hudak, have been clear that Ontario families work hard but cannot keep up with skyrocketing hydro bills.

We've been clear, but the McGuinty Liberals have been scrambling. You've been backtracking on the impact of skyrocketing rates. You backtracked on the Oakville project that you said was absolutely necessary. You backtracked again on your time-of-use tax machines. With all of the backtracking, why would Ontario families trust anything you say on this or any file, especially just before an election?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On the question of smart meters, I don't ask them to take my word for it. Let's see what others have to say.

"It has been proposed to let people choose whether to pay a flat rate for their electricity or have time-of-use pricing. I believe this would be short-sighted," says Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner.

"With the new time-use-rate structure, all customers will pay closer to the actual cost for the power they use. On average, most farmers will pay ... less on time-of-use billing than they currently pay." That's from Don McCabe, of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Even Tom Adams, who I know was a big promoter of your market deregulation scheme, says: "Ultimately, it's going to be a minor win for the consumer. On balance, I think the smart meter is the right thing to do." That's Tom Adams, energy consultant.

We disagree with them. We're proceeding with smart meters. We're proceeding with the smart grid for a better future for our children.

SERVICES EN FRANà‡AIS /

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It's really important to me and to our government that people receive the very best health care that they possibly can, and that includes receiving health care in their language.

We've made significant investments to help health services be delivered in many languages. French, of course, is different because it is an official language of Canada, so we take special care to ensure that services are available in both official languages.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite raises an important issue. I do recall one of my very first moments as Minister of Health. I was approached by the minister of francophone affairs, urging me to move forward on the creation of les entités, the francophone entities, to ensure that French-language services are offered. We did, in fact, make that change, and we are committed to reporting by the end of the year.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, we speak a lot about the importance of newcomers in this House. We know that the 120,000 people who come to Ontario every year come to make a better life for themselves and their families. When newcomers arrive in Ontario, they want to get started on making that contribution right away through meaningful work that values their skills and experience. This is why many of them depend on job training and certification programs—so they can get to work doing what they are good at.

We know the important programs that exist, and are helping these people regularly to take advantage of them. As a result, we know these people are helping our communities grow and prosper.

Could the minister tell us how this government's plan has been helping these new Ontarians and what meaningful actions have been taken to ensure they have the necessary skills and qualifications to thrive in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I certainly thank the member for the question, and I want to say that this government understands that helping newcomers find work in their profession is the key to their success in Ontario.

We have a plan that's working, and we're getting results. We're breaking down the barriers for our newcomers so that they can find work in their professions. For example, in 2006, we led the way with the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act and, today, we continue to lead the way with our successful bridge training programs.

These training programs are making a difference. They are helping thousands of newcomers get the Ontario training and experience that they need to get licensed and certified to work in their field. For example, since 2003, we've invested more than $175 million to create over 200 different bridge training programs, and this has helped more than 40,000 newcomers find work in their profession. When our newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: But we know that there are newcomers working in jobs that do not match their education, experience and skills, because their preferred profession is one that requires precise credentials to ensure competency and public safety.

An example is that of foreign-trained pharmacists. There is no doubt that with the well-being and safety of families at stake, pharmacy is a profession for which we expect a high standard. These newcomer professionals almost certainly bring that knowledge, experience and expertise to the table, but often may find the difficulty lies in navigating the accreditation process more than any professional shortcomings. With pharmacists, a new entrant must first pass the Ontario College of Pharmacists' credentialing process in order to practise here.

The minister said in his previous answer that we are intent on removing barriers for newcomers to work in their chosen profession or trade. Could he share with the House, and our internationally trained pharmacists, what progress Ontario has made to help them get certified to practise in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I thank the member for the question. While there is still much more work for us to do, I can tell you that this government is making important progress. The McGuinty government's investments in bridge training for foreign-trained pharmacists is working. It's a program that I'm especially proud of. Because of this specific bridge training program, our foreign-trained pharmacists have improved their pharmacy licensing exam pass rates from only 20% to more than 90%. And of the 600 new pharmacists who are licensed each year, 400 of these 600 licences were issued to internationally trained pharmacists last year.

I'm also pleased to tell this House that the success of Ontario's pharmacist bridge training program has been recognized internationally. Ireland has recently created a pharmacist bridge training program modelled on Ontario's program. Because of these investments and our partnership with the Ontario College of Pharmacists, we're putting our newcomers to work—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, when will the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority brief the coalition of special interests you are working with to confuse Ontario families on the price they pay for Premier McGuinty's expensive energy experiments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The coalition of farmers who can now lease their land for windmills and still farm it—we work with them all the time. A coalition that includes environmentalists from all over Ontario praised the fact we've cut coal consumption as much as we have and that we're cleaning up our air. There is a range of people who support what we're doing, whether you talk about farmers, environmentalists or moms who have kids who use a puffer who want cleaner air.

We reject that party's approach to electricity. We are proceeding with clean, green, renewable power. We are shutting down coal. We are doing time-of-use meters because they give people the tools they need to save money on their electricity bills. Our coalition is consumers, farmers, environmentalists—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Bullet one of page 7 of the Sussex Strategy documents for the coalition to confuse Ontario families says that the coalition of special interests will coordinate with the Ministry of Energy and the OPA.

Anyone needing further proof that you were in on the campaign to confuse Ontario families need look no further than the confidential government information that was printed in the campaign documents, privileged information like when the long-term energy plan is going to be put before cabinet and how much more Ontario families will pay for hydro after the next election. You refused to release it to the media and you refused to release it to this assembly when asked for it, but the campaign to confuse Ontario families—it was released to them.

How did confidential information pass from your hands into the hands of a coalition of special interests who are behind the campaign to confuse Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only thing confusing is that member.

We're with farmers who want to have windmills and solar installations. We're with the towns of Tecumseh and LaSalle and Amherstburg that are putting solar installations on their roofs. We're with the farmers in Bruce county who want to sell power while they farm their fields. We're with the moms and dads who want cleaner air for their kids. We're with the 50,000 families who will have jobs as a result of our green energy policies.

We do have a coalition, and those special interests are moms and dads, farmers, environmentalists and Ontarians who want a job. That's our coalition. They'll vote for us. They'll reject going back to the old days of dirty coal, big energy companies and private Tory backroom deals—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yelling doesn't make it better.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I agree with the member from Durham, who just commented that yelling does not make it better. Order, please.

New question.

SMART METERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Why are smart meters being installed in Windsor homes that are about to be demolished?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I just got my smart meter, and I know a number of my neighbours are—and unlike the Leader of the Opposition—and let me preface this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They laugh about it, but smart meters save people money. Smart meters save people money, and in order—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I would like to hear the answer.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As the environment commissioner has said and as many other experts have said—

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They do. We're going to proceed with them.

I'll give the supplementary to my colleague so that she can put some real light on what is obviously a question that's really torqued.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If nobody lives there, nobody's saving the money. This really does make it seem like they're not-so-smart meters after all. They were installed at homes to be demolished to make room for the planned Windsor-Essex Parkway.

The local utility actually blames the province for this stupidity. Their spokesperson says, "We are obliged by law to provide that service and at the present time part of providing that service is to install smart meters according to the provincial mandate."

Why does the province require smart meter installation in homes that are slated for demolition? How does that make any sense at all?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It's very astute of the member opposite to realize that, actually, we don't need smart meters on houses that are going to be demolished. In fact, that's going to stop.

The reality is that there are about 400 homes that are going to be demolished as a result of building the Windsor-Essex Parkway, which is a huge infrastructure project. The homes that are going to be demolished need—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When a house is going to be demolished, the heat and the services need to be kept in place until a couple of weeks before that is done. But the smart meters should have never been installed on those homes. That was a mistake. EnWin has been directed not to continue that practice.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on Thursday, November 4, the Leader of the Opposition opened question period with a statement about Credit Valley Hospital that he knew to be inaccurate. Since then, the Leader of the Opposition has ordered other out-of-town Conservatives to repeat those remarks in this Legislature and in our local media.

Minister, you have clarified that patients are now and always have been treated with high-quality, hospital-clean, professional care in Mississauga's Credit Valley Hospital. The minister has been to Credit Valley Hospital, but the out-of-town Conservative critics have not.

Would the minister speak about the new hospital space plus the renovated space now under construction at Credit Valley Hospital? Will the minister give the people of Mississauga an update on the construction of A and H blocks?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks to the member from Mississauga—Streetsville for this question. I want to start by saying that our government will continue to stand behind our front-line health care workers, who provide excellent care in this province of Ontario, even though the opposition continues to make unfounded, irresponsible allegations without even talking to anybody there first.

However, our government was the first to recognize the special needs of hospitals in high-growth areas by providing specific growth funding above and beyond the base funding for these hospitals. We're also supporting the redevelopment and expansion of Credit Valley Hospital to support the region's growing population. This expansion will enhance the quality of life for families in Mississauga and the surrounding communities. We're putting in almost 80 new beds, more than 27,000 square feet of new space, 70,000 square feet of renovated space—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: The high-growth Mississauga neighbourhoods of Churchill Meadows, Lisgar, Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erin Mills and Clarkson, among many others, look forward to the opening of our new hospital wing next year, under budget and ahead of schedule.

Credit Valley and 17 other brand new hospitals built or under way since 2003 lie in stark contrast with the former Conservative government, which closed 28 hospitals during its term in office and left us a crumbling hospital infrastructure to clean up.

People in Mississauga are outraged at the baseless allegations made by out-of-town, out-of-touch and out-of-principles Conservatives about our hospital.

Would the minister update the House on the province's 10-year infrastructure plan to coordinate capital investments across Ontario? Will this plan recognize the importance of continuing to invest in health care infrastructure?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): If you want to raise a point of order at the end of question period, you're quite welcome to.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Improved hospital infrastructure is the legacy of ReNew Ontario, this province's first-ever comprehensive long-term infrastructure plan. We launched the five-year, $30-billion ReNew Ontario plan in 2005 and completed it a full year early in 2009. Next year, we launch a new unprecedented 10-year infrastructure plan. Planning helps us build and improve hospitals and other health care infrastructure where it is most needed and where it will most improve the quality of care.

Many health care sector representatives attended the series of seven infrastructure consultations we've held across the province over the past several months. They reiterated the importance of health care infrastructure sustainability. I can assure them, as well as the member and all Ontarians, that just as health care infrastructure was an important part of ReNew Ontario, it will—

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

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Community Safety: During debate on the resolution calling for a review of the powers and authority of the OSPCA, the Legislature was presented with submissions from current and former OSPCA employees, inspection and enforcement officers, and current SPCA board members. Those submissions confirm that the OSPCA lacks the proper training, supervision and resources to carry out its mandated shelter services as well as its Criminal Code enforcement responsibilities, yet the government's direction to Liberal backbenchers was to ignore that evidence and to vote against that resolution.

How can this government justify blindly supporting the existing structure of the OSPCA—and knowing that it is incapable of carrying out its mandated responsibilities?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I would say it's exactly the same as it used to be when the Conservative government was in power, except that there is a strengthening of the laws that affect animal welfare in the province. You know that today the prospective agents, for instance, under the new training, would obtain a recent police clearance, provide a recent driver's licence abstract, pass a resumé screening process to ensure they meet the entry requirements, successfully complete a 40-hour online training course and pass a written exam prior to acceptance into the program.

Once accepted into the program, all new agents are placed into the orientation phase of training, and all agents are subject to 15 days of classroom and hands-on training and a six-month on-the-job mentoring program where they are paired with senior—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister knows full well that by the evidence presented to this Legislature by existing and former officers charged with the responsibilities mandated by this legislation, that training is not being carried out; it is inadequate. The result is that the crown attorney, after reviewing all 43 charges laid by the OSPCA against the Toronto Humane Society, was forced to recommend to withdraw every single one of those charges, claiming that the investigation was botched. Why? Because the training is inadequate.

Liberal members of this House defeated the resolution that was to review the powers of the OSPCA to ensure that it could be properly resourced, properly trained to carry out those responsibilities.

I want to know from the minister, how long will this government ignore the clear evidence that the current structure of the OSPCA is inadequate to carry out its mandated responsibilities?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Day after day, members of your party get up and say that we shouldn't be increasing the public service, that we should not be putting more bureaucratic red tape in front of the people of the province of Ontario. What you are recommending, in fact, would involve the government of Ontario hiring new staff, the government of Ontario having more power to exercise, and a return to political decision-making as opposed to those who are non-political in the decision that they're making.

I want to indicate that there are even more things that have to happen now than when your government was in power. To move up, they have to, for instance, have four years of experience as a full-time agent, ensure all mandate requirements and re-certifications are complete and up to date, successfully—

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

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last Thursday, the people of Sudbury supported a sold-out fundraiser at the Caruso Club to raise money for a PET scanner for the Sudbury Regional Hospital. I thank the many volunteers for their hard work. It was a beautiful gala.

The people of northeastern Ontario have spoken: through 25,000 petitions, through support from our municipalities and from First Nations, and now through paying for the PET scanner from their own pockets. We want equitable access to this technology—that's all.

Why is the minister ignoring the needs of people in northeastern Ontario by refusing to support a PET scanner at Sudbury Regional Hospital?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I certainly know that access to PET scanning is an important issue for all Ontarians. That's why we've made PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cardiac and cancer patients, where they've been proven to be clinically effective.

We will continue to evaluate, we will continue to fund this technology. Again, we turn to medical experts, people like Dr. Bill Evans and Terry Sullivan. We do have an Ontario PET steering committee.

More than 5,000 Ontario patients have received an Ontario-funded PET scan through the clinical trials process. We have the largest PET infrastructure in Canada. We have 10 PET scanners. It is important to note that there is no wait time for PET scanning.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: There are 10 PET scanners. Some are in the northwest. All of the south is covered. The only region that doesn't have equitable access is the northeast. The minister is paying for PET scans presently being done in every region of Ontario, but not in the northeast.

There are naysayers out there who believe your government will continue to deny the people of northeastern Ontario access to PET scans even after we've purchased a PET scanner with our own money. They believe that the McGuinty government is so oblivious to the health care needs of the people of the northeast that we will be denied what every other hospital with a PET scanner is getting. What does the minister have to say to those naysayers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have demonstrated our support for expanding our health infrastructure and health service in the north, including the northeast: a new medical school, a brand new hospital, family health teams and nurse practitioner-led clinics. We have the new NRRR program to encourage physicians to locate there.

But when it comes to PET scans, let me quote from André Marin, our Ombudsman. What André Marin says is, "I am gratified that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has taken my concerns about patient access to PET scanning in 2009 seriously and acted."

Dr. Christopher O'Brien, the president of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine, says, "Today's announcement is a step in the right direction and will benefit cancer and cardiac patients who meet the clinically proven indications for PET scans."

This is a service that is provided to all Ontarians. As I said in my initial reply, there is no wait time now for PET scans.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Nickel Belt has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care concerning health services in Peel and Halton. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 135,

An Act respecting financial and Budget measures and other matters. The order for second reading of Bill 135 may therefore not be called today.

This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1300.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have a message from the Honourable David Onley, the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2011, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Dated November 18, 2010.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: I have the pleasure of welcoming guests from Pleasantville Public School in Richmond HIll. It's my pleasure to welcome Diane Giangrande, Maria Lansing, Helen Bambrough, Dr. Lisa Walsh, Sacha Lund and Ethan Koloditzky. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I'm pleased to rise today to recognize the Royal Ontario Museum for their creation of two accessible exhibits. Thanks to an anonymous donor, two accessible programs at the ROM have recently been unveiled. They are tactile tours, which can be touched for people who are blind, and guided American Sign Language tours for individuals who are deaf.

During the tactile tour, trained museum staff will guide individuals and encourage them to touch their way through a selection of objects from the world cultures and natural history galleries. These tours are offered the third Thursday of every month. Print material is provided in Braille to enhance the experience for individuals who are blind.

Sign-language-interpreted tours are offered the first Thursday of every month. They are led by students from the sign language interpreter program at George Brown College's School of Deaf and Deafblind Studies. The ROM is even offering sign language podcasts and descriptive audio guides. This is a great step in the right direction to ensure that deaf-blind individuals have access to cultural activities offered by the ROM, and the best

part is, there's no additional cost to these tours, as they are part of the general admission for the museum.

I'd like to thank the Royal Ontario Museum for enhancing our museum experience so that more visitors can take

part in ROM programs.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm delighted, honoured and privileged to welcome with us here in the east gallery members of the Ontario optometrists' association. They are coming here today to witness the democratic process take place on a regular basis in the House and also to ask everyone to attend their event. Their annual event is going to be held here at Queen's Park, in rooms 228 and 230. Everybody is welcome.

They come on a yearly basis to create awareness about how important it is for us to protect our eyes and to create some kind of prevention mechanism. They are here in big numbers today to educate us and also to lobby us to protect our eyes because, as you know, our eyes are important to all of us. Without our eyes, we cannot see. We cannot enter the life around us. We cannot sense the life around us.

I'm delighted in this House to know many of them on a yearly basis when they come here and come to my office and many other offices to educate us on a regular basis about the importance of the prevention they make and they do on a yearly basis, whether by attending this place or coming to our offices to make sure all Ontarians live a healthy life and a protected life.

Again, I wish them all the luck and success. I would invite all my colleagues to attend the reception in 228 and 230 later on this afternoon.

GERALD KEOUGH

Mr. John Yakabuski: I rise today to pay respects to the late Gerald Keough, a resident of the town of Renfrew since 1951. Gerald held the distinction of being Canada's oldest active pilot, at 94 years of age, until he passed away this summer.

Gerald was born on August 18, 1916, the seventh of eight children, to proud Irish parents in Montreal. He was married in 1944 to Mary Lillian Wickham. Together they built a tightly knit family of 11 children, 17 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Mary predeceased him in 2003.

Professionally, Gerald worked for 40 years as an insurance agent in Renfrew. He was known as Honest Gerry to his clients, who trusted his wise guidance in making important life decisions.

His lifelong passion was born when he took his first flight in an airplane at age 11. He obtained his private pilot's licence in 1959 and became a charter member of the Champlain Flying Club. He incorporated flying into everything he did, even flying to his clients' homes to collect their premiums. He loved his plane, a small red-and-white Citabria with his initials, GPK, scrawled on the tail. After he retired, he used his plane to make social visits, never driving when he could fly.

The longevity of his love of flying was confirmed when he turned 80 and was inducted into the United Flying Octogenarians, aka the UFOs, an international flying club that requires its members to be at least that age and still flying solo.

A few years ago, I went to visit him at his home. It didn't take long to realize what a special person Gerald Keough was. The love and compassion he had for others and the kindness that emanated from him could not be denied. I will always remember the warmth of his personality.

Gerald was a committed Roman Catholic, calling his faith his "guide to right living" and his "key to heaven."

To the family and friends of Gerald Keough: He will be missed.

To Gerald: While your plane has been grounded, I am absolutely certain that you are now flying higher than you ever have before.

CITY OF HAMILTON

Mr. Paul Miller: Hamilton Day: Declaring that Hamilton is not a steel city anymore fails to respect and recognize our steel economic foundation, which should be protected and nurtured.

The Hamilton Day blitz five-point plan dismisses our once proud, viable steel economic engine. Mention of Stelco/US Steel and ArcellorMittal Dofasco ignores that there are enough steel orders for ArcellorMittal Dofasco to start up an old blast furnace and pick up lost orders from US Steel. Our steel plants can't even fill the domestic demand for steel. The only reason US Steel shut down was to break the backs of unions and get concessions from workers under the guise of a world recession.

Do we need better-educated workers? Obviously. But industries like steel need workers with job knowledge, skills and abilities that can only be gained through actually working in a plant. Combining on-the-job apprenticing with coursework will make it better for employers and the employee, who will have a diploma and the confidence to better their career. Many already have the trade papers that are equal at least to a college diploma.

Hamilton is a transportation hub, perfect for an NHL franchise—a health care city. We have the infrastructure; we have the workers; we have the transportation grid.

Funding from this government—an increasing unemployment rate is likely a result of job losses, something which should have a significant part of any Hamilton Day lobbying effort.

PLEASANTVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr. Reza Moridi: Today I am pleased to tell the members of this House about the 50th anniversary of Pleasantville Public School in my riding of Richmond Hill.

This is quite an accomplishment. On October 19, 1960, Pleasantville Public School opened its doors for the first time. Since that day, thousands of students have passed through its doors.

The school's motto, or touchstone, reads in part as follows: "We look beyond the ordinary to achieve the extraordinary." I can say, from personal experience, that this school, with its dedicated teachers, volunteers, parents and students has continually gone beyond the extraordinary in educating our young students.

Dr. Lisa Walsh, school principal, and Diane Giangrande, York Region District School Board trustee, are here with us today. Accompanying them are Helen Bambrough and Maria Lansing, both school council co-chairs. As well, two grade 5 students, Sacha Lund and Ethan Koloditzky, are here in the gallery.

I wish Pleasantville Public School another 50 years of great success in educating our young students. I offer my best wishes to Pleasantville Public School on this important anniversary.

GROWTH PLANNING

Mr. John O'Toole: The residents of my riding are struggling to get back on their feet and find jobs, and they are finding the biggest obstacle in their marketplace is the McGuinty government. This government, the McGuinty government, has put the kibosh on job growth not just in Durham but directly in Clarington. In order to comply with the provincial growth plan, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing eliminated 155 hectares of developable employment lands from the Durham region's official plan. Mayor-elect Adrian Foster describes it in this way: "It looks like the province has decided Clarington is a bedroom community." We don't see it that way.

The devil is in the details here. The McGuinty government is not only standing in the way of job growth but is doing so in such a way so that Clarington has no way of appealing this decision. The final decision on this job growth area was released on October 27, just two days after the municipal election; how treacherous. The appeal period is only 20 days, which means the newly elected council and Mayor-elect Adrian Foster will not meet until the deadline has passed. They will have no chance to appeal to the McGuinty government's unilateral elimination of these employment lands, a very important initiative.

I call on this government to give the new Clarington council an extension and the necessary time to assess and appeal the decision arbitrarily made by the McGuinty government.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: The McGuinty government has shown that it has both the leadership and the courage to make the difficult decisions that are needed to ensure that Ontario moves smartly into the future. We have modernized our tax system and made major investments to ensure Ontarians have a clean, modern and reliable electricity system that includes renewables and creates good jobs right here in our province. Examples include: Canadian Solar, 500 high-tech jobs in Guelph; Siemens, 900 jobs; WindTronics, 174 jobs in Windsor; and Lower Mattagami, 800 jobs in the Timmins-James Bay area.

The McGuinty government has listened to the concerns of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who are worried about increasing electricity costs that are a result of much-needed investments in the electricity system. The new Ontario clean energy benefit is one of the many initiatives that we have already taken to respond to the needs of Ontarians and provide families with much-needed financial relief. The Ontario clean energy benefit will provide a 10% benefit to help consumers manage rising electricity prices for the next five years, which is the time that it will take for price increases to moderate.

This relief will help more than four million residential consumers and over 400,000 small businesses, farms and other consumers who are feeling the pinch of rising costs.

Savings like the clean energy benefit are helping save—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Ottawa Centre.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: During the 2009 recession, Ontario's manufacturing and services sectors were among the hardest hit in Canada. It hasn't been easy for many families and for this province to struggle out of these difficult economic straits, which makes it all the more impressive, and makes me all the more happy, to see that Ontario, with the strong leadership of the McGuinty government, is now leading the pack on the road to recovery. We have regained 75% of the jobs that were lost.

We are not prepared to declare victory, as it is clear much more needs to be done, but we can and should be proud of the strength of Ontario's recovery, which is due to the hard work of Ontario families. As families regain confidence to go out and spend again and more people are finding good jobs, we are beginning to see the positive impact on our finances.

Most recently, in last week's fall economic statement, we learned that our deficit this year will be $1 billion less than in the budget projection and almost 25% less than was estimated and reported a year ago. This is a sign of our province's economic recovery but it will also help that recovery along. It is allowing this government to ease the burden of paying for hydro on Ontario families, and it is lessening the burden of repaying our province's debt in the long term.

I'm proud to be part of a government that makes the right investments to bring our province out of recession today and lay the groundwork for Ontario's continued growth in years to come.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Charles Sousa: Thursday's fall economic statement reinforced that our government continues to provide important initiatives that make life a bit easier and more affordable for Ontario families and seniors. The McGuinty government is introducing the Ontario clean energy benefit, which will reduce the cost of electricity by 10%.

This initiative is just the latest of many designed to help make life more affordable. We cut income taxes for nine out of 10 taxpayers. We enhanced sales and property tax credits for low- to middle-income families and individuals. We introduced the northern energy tax credit and the seniors' property tax and energy credit. And, as the Leader of the Opposition frequently calls for, we are saving Ontarians money so that they have more cash to spend on their priorities.

But the Leader of the Opposition has voted against our tax cut for families, leaving everyday Ontarians questioning his commitment to helping the family budget.

Ontario has recovered 75% of the jobs lost during the recession, as opposed to 10% in the United States. The opposition don't want to admit that Ontario is leading Canada when it comes to economic recovery. Our government gets it and we will continue to provide strong leadership for Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SAFETY CAMERAS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CAMÉRAS DE SÉCURITÉ)

Mr. Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to safety cameras / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les caméras de sécurité.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. David Caplan: The bill authorizes the Minister of Transportation and municipal councils to require the use of safety cameras in construction zones and community safety zones.

Section 25.14.1 is added to the act to create an exemption from the demerit point system for persons who are convicted of an offence based upon safety camera evidence.

The bill amends subsections 214.1(1) and (2) of the act to provide that a highway or part of a highway may be designated as a community safety zone if the highway adjoins or is adjacent to land on which a school, schoolyard, daycare, seniors' residence, community centre or playground is located.

The bill changes all references to photo radar systems in the act to safety cameras.

I hope it receives the support of all members of this Legislature.

LABOUR STABILITY

IN THE INDUSTRIES OF FILM,

TELEVISION, RADIO

AND NEW MEDIA ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA STABILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

DANS LES INDUSTRIES DU FILM,

DE LA TÉLÉVISION, DE LA RADIO

ET DES NOUVEAUX MÉDIAS

Mr. Tabuns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to regulate labour relations in the industries of film, television, radio and new media / Projet de loi 137, Loi réglementant les relations de travail dans les industries du film, de la télévision, de la radio et des nouveaux médias.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The act is meant to take the existing labour agreements in the film and television industry that exist outside the Labour Relations Act and bring them into the act so they can make use of the mechanisms there for resolution of disputes. It is a labour stability bill.

PETITIONS

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

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

"Whereas there are up to 40,000 Ontarians living with Parkinson's disease, many of whom require speech-language therapy to retain essential verbal communications skills and life-saving swallowing skills; and

"Whereas speech-language therapy can make the difference between someone with Parkinson's retaining their ability to speak or not, and their ability to swallow or not, yet most Ontarians with Parkinson's are unable to access these services in a timely fashion, many remaining on waiting lists for years while their speaking and swallowing capacity diminishes; and

"Whereas Ontarians with Parkinson's who lose their ability to communicate experience unnecessary social isolation and economic loss due to their inability to participate as full members of their communities and society; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of the community care access centres to assign speech-language pathologists to provide therapy to people on the wait-list, yet people are regularly advised to pay for private therapy if they want timely treatment, but many people living with Parkinson's are already experiencing economic hardship and cannot afford the cost of these expensive private therapies;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to call on Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Deborah Matthews to intervene immediately to ensure that CCACs across Ontario develop a plan to ensure that all Ontarians living with Parkinson's who need speech-language therapy and swallowing therapy receive the necessary treatment" where and when they need it immediately.

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents and present it to one of the pages, Kyle.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I clearly agree with this. I'm going to sign it and give it to Kira to be delivered to the table.

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: A petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas there are up to 40,000 Ontarians living with Parkinson's disease, many of whom require speech-language therapy to retain essential verbal communications skills and life-saving swallowing skills; and

"Whereas speech-language therapy can make the difference between someone with Parkinson's retaining their ability to speak or not, and their ability to swallow or not, yet most Ontarians with Parkinson's are unable to access these services in a timely fashion, many remaining on waiting lists for years while their speaking and swallowing capacity diminishes; and

"Whereas Ontarians with Parkinson's who lose their ability to communicate experience unnecessary social isolation and economic loss due to their inability to participate as full members of their communities; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of the community care access centres to assign speech-language pathologists to provide therapy to people on the wait-lists, yet people are regularly advised to pay for private therapy if they want timely treatment, but many people living with Parkinson's are already experiencing economic hardship and cannot afford the cost of private therapy;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to call on Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to intervene immediately to ensure that CCACs across Ontario develop a plan to ensure that all Ontarians living with Parkinson's who need speech-language therapy and swallowing therapy receive the necessary treatment."

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are the parents, educators and friends of students in the Peel region public school system; and

"Whereas Peel students have historically received less funding per pupil per annum when compared to their peers in other district school boards and, in particular, have inadequate" special needs resources; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario are entitled to equal opportunities in education;

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

"To recognize and provide for the $18-million learning opportunities grant retroactively owed to Peel students;

"Implement measures to ensure ongoing funding is based on current census data and other key demographic indicators of student needs to ensure that Peel students receive a fair share of provincial education funding."

I support this petition and am pleased to affix my name to it and give it to page Emily.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Val Thérèse , Val Caron and Chelmsford, three communities in Nickel Belt.

"Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: on average, 97% of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

"Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those two provinces have never repealed those laws; and

"Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

"Whereas the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community in the short and the long term as well as the well-being of its residents;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout."

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Jake to bring it to the Clerk.

CEMETERIES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Historical Society, founded in 1888, is a not-for-profit corporation, incorporated by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario April 1, 1899, with a mandate to identify, protect, preserve and promote Ontario's history; and

"Whereas protecting and preserving Ontario's cemeteries is a shared responsibility and the foundation of a civilized society; and

"Whereas the Legislature failed to enact Bill 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, which would have prohibited the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Cooley-Hatt Cemetery (circa 1786) is located in the Niagara Escarpment plan within Ontario's greenbelt plan in Ancaster, city of Hamilton; and

"Whereas this is one of the earliest surviving pioneer cemeteries in Ontario, with approximately 99 burials, including at least one veteran of the War of 1812;

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

"The government of Ontario must take whatever action is necessary to prevent the desecration of any part of this sacred burial ground for real estate development."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Frank Klees: This is a final submission of petitions delivered here by people from across the province who came to observe the debate on the OSPCA resolution this past Thursday. I will read this into the record, but the government has already ignored the thousands of petitions just like this by voting against that resolution.

The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately implement the resolution tabled at Queen's Park ... June 1, 2010, which reads as follows:

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

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this final submission. It's disappointing that the government, the Liberal members, chose to vote against—

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

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition, affix my signature and give it to Breana to be delivered to the table.

RECYCLING

Mr. Bob Delaney: This is a petition I haven't read in a little while from the grade 7H students at Lisgar Middle School addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the grade 7H students of Lisgar Middle School believe that the current method of recycling used dry cell batteries and other household hazardous waste materials is not successful. We have attempted to create the easiest and most comprehensive method of recycling batteries and other household hazardous materials.... This initiative fits directly into the same frame of reference as the blue box recycling and composting programs, which have encouraged individuals and households to recycle as much as they already do ... ;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: ... to support, enthusiastically, the Recycling Raptors of grade 7H at Lisgar Middle School, in their proposal of a household red box recycling program, and ... to pass into law such a program, as described ... outlining the red box recycling initiative."

It's a very interesting initiative. I and the member for Oakville have had a chance to visit the grade 7H students on two occasions, and I'm pleased to sign it and ask page William to carry it for me.

PENSION PLANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition, and I affix my name to it.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Nickel Belt.

"Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning, a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients ...

"Whereas since October 2009, insured PET scans have been performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

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

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

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Sarah to bring it to the clerks' table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L'EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L'EAU

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 18, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 72,

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

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: As I was about to say just before we adjourned, today I will be talking about the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act.

I want to talk briefly about what the bill claims to do. I want to talk about the context within which this bill has been presented, the context within which Ontario is grappling with questions of water, and the performance of this government when it comes to environmental issues. Then I want to talk about the specific weaknesses and strengths of the bill and what I believe is needed to make it truly useful to the people of this province.

But before I get into that detail, I want to address comments made by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, before we adjourned roughly 10 days ago. I appreciated her comments on the opening statements made by a variety of members. She was quite correct when she said that I approach these matters with a great deal of ambition.

I want to take—borrow—an analogy used by my colleague the member from Welland, Mr. Kormos, who talked about the difference between throwing a 50-foot line to someone who is 100 feet from shore and throwing a 100-foot line to someone who is 100 feet from shore. Both activities show some goodwill, but only one act will save that person from drowning. So I say to the Liberal government that, to the extent that you are only throwing a 50-foot line, you are not resolving the problems that have to be addressed.

There are times when one seeks balance in legislation—in fact, one seeks balance a great deal of the time—but there are also situations where one has an on/off switch: Something works or doesn't work. One has to understand when one encounters those situations, and one has to act appropriately.

I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that I thank her for the work she did prior to debate in committee, because there was great concern on the part of the NDP and there was great concern on the part of trade unions and environmental organizations about the potential for this bill to be used to privatize delivery of—provision of—public water services. The parliamentary assistant took time on weekends and in evenings to sort through that question, and she came forward with a wording that is incorporated in the bill: "For greater certainty, the purposes of this act do not include the privatization of publicly owned water, waste water and stormwater services."

She and I had the opportunity outside this House to discuss that wording, and I initially thought that it was narrower than I wanted. But in fact, having gone through the dictionary and having asked the opinion of a lawyer who's done a fair amount of work in this area, the word "services" refers both to activities and to hard infrastructure. So, in fact, it is a fairly broad coverage of the issue.

The government, in adopting this particular clause, has made it very clear that this bill is not to be used for privatization.

Any government, at any level, that attempts to use this bill for privatization of water, waste water or stormwater services will find that, legally, a judge would be able to see very clearly the intent of the government in this clause, and any judge who did not pick it up immediately I'm sure would be reminded by counsel that when they go through the text of the presentations by the government in committee, those here in the chamber, and commentary by the NDP, in fact publicly delivered and owned waste water, stormwater and drinking water systems are not to be privatized.

That is a key point and one that can't be overemphasized, because, frankly, the privatization of water systems is not to the advantage of the environment or the economy of this province. I'm very pleased that that clause was inserted at the beginning of the bill and was written in a language that is extremely broad and catches a wide variety of ownership and operation situations.

Having said all that, this bill claims to stimulate Ontario-based clean water industries by creating municipal demand for clean water technology and by supporting clean water technology development, which, frankly, is not a bad idea. We need a market for clean water technology. We face growing and substantial challenges when it comes to providing ourselves—our society—with clean, potable water.

The bill aims to reduce water use in Ontario. It sets what are called aspirational targets for water conservation—or it doesn't set them: It gives the minister authority to do that, and that, I will touch upon at greater length as we go through this bill. It enables the minister to require municipalities and public agencies to develop water sustainability plans and prescribe changes to plans if targets are not met. It revises the building code to include water conservation. It enables prescription of water efficiency standards for appliances and products. Those are all the stated goals of the bill before us.

These are the claims that are made for what this bill will do for society. I use the word "claims" when I talk about this government's bill and when I talk about this government's efforts because, in fact, this Liberal government has underdelivered consistently on environmental bills and initiatives; underdelivered in a way that the people of Ontario should not have to deal with; underdelivers in areas where the people of Ontario deserve fair, energetic treatment.

I'll take a moment to read some excerpts from the testimony of the Canadian Environmental Law Association when it appeared before the committee to hear about this bill. Mr. Joseph Castrilli appeared on behalf of CELA, and in his comments to our standing committee he noted that "the authority to tie water-taking permits to water conservation plans for both the public and private sectors was already contained in 2007 amendments that created

section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act." In 2007, a few years ago, I was younger and the world was a newer place. In 2007, there were steps taken to make sure that we had these standards. "However," says Mr. Castrilli, "as members of the committee are aware,

section 34.1 is still not in force." It is 2010. We went through that debate. We went through that review of legislation in 2007. "Bill 72"—the one we're debating today—"would authorize the province to require municipalities, by regulation, to prepare water conservation plans as part of their water sustainability plans, the latter also required by this bill. The province, in my respectful submission"—and he was quite respectful—"needs to explain how and when it will integrate the requirements of

section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act with Bill 72 proposals and bring them both into force."

The Canadian Environmental Law Association has done us a great service. They pointed out that strides have been taken in the past. Claims have been put forth on the public record. Voters have been told, "We are standing up for the environment and for water." But in 2010, a number of years later, those initiatives that were so boldly proclaimed such a long time ago are not enforced. One has to ask: What is the fate of this bill? Will it be passed and then be allowed to clutter up some deputy minister's office?

Will it fill up a hard drive somewhere, requiring people to delete other files so they can make room for yet another range of promises? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that if, in fact, action was taken—if legislation was put forward in 2007 and not brought into service and not brought into effect even by now, then one has to assume that we're not going at rocket speed to deal with our water conservation problems.

Mr. Castrilli had a few other comments. I won't read them all, although, frankly, I thought he made a very good submission.

He focused briefly on the question of intra-basin transfers. What that means is that if you have a municipality somewhere between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, you can take water out of Lake Huron and discharge the waste water into Lake Huron. It's an intra-basin transfer; it's within the Great Lakes basin. The problem with that is that the more water you move out of an area, the less is available to provide the environmental support that is needed for the other parts of the Great Lakes. When you do that, you say to a municipality, "You don't really need to conserve a lot. What you need is a very big pipe and some very powerful pumps."

That failure to act is of great consequence to this bill. Will we in fact move ahead substantially and change the amount of water we consume, or will we have a very small act, a very small initiative, that will result in a few toilets being manufactured and a few faucets produced but not the reduction in water consumption that we actually need to engage in?

In the fact sheets that were provided in the briefing book that we were given—the MPPs who went to debate this bill in committee—there are a number of fact sheets about water consumption. In the UK and in Germany, the average use of water per person per day is half of what it is in Ontario. I've had the great good fortune to go to both of those places. People seem to be well washed. They drink tap water regularly. They are able to clean their homes. Yet they have in place a goal that we would aspire to have, and that's cutting water consumption per person per day in half.

One of the things that surprises me about this bill, or rather, this larger initiative within which the bill should be simply a piece, is that we in fact don't have a target, a goal. When you want to do something—let's say you want to cut the money that is given to children and youth services—you set a target, right? Then you cut. That is not a good thing, but that is a standard measurement practice.

When you want to do something good, it shouldn't simply be a statement of an expression. One should have a larger plan within which this bill nestles as a tool, something that allows one to achieve that larger plan. That's missing, and that's of great concern to me and should be of great concern to anyone who wants to ensure that we in Ontario have good, clean drinking water available on demand when we need it. That's a significant piece and a concern that I have with the way this whole project is being approached.

I want to note other elements—the government's failure to deliver what the people of Ontario need environmentally—so that everyone who observes the passage of this bill, who observes the debate on this bill, understands the track record of this government of actually delivering or not delivering on the things that are vital to the long-term viability of this society and this economy.

According to the Environmental Commissioner's report last December, the current actions of this government fall 30% short of achieving the greenhouse gas reductions that were promised for 2014 and 45% short of the greenhouse gas reductions promised by 2020.

Speaker, you get to sit in on a lot of debates, and you have, obviously, a great deal of patience and fortitude. You may well have heard me speak about this before—I don't know—but you're very discreet, and I appreciate that.

I had the opportunity in 2007 to attend the press conference given by the Premier on this matter, when he talked, in not quite Biblical terms but pretty substantial terms, about the need to move on this issue and to make sure that we protected the future for our children and our grandchildren. He used language that was emotionally powerful, he set out the scale of the problem in a way that no one could misunderstand and he made a commitment to move this province forward so that we would deal with this vital problem.

What do we find? That the government's own plan admits it won't meet the weak targets that were set, and yet very little is done to actually move us to where we need to be.

I say to those who are watching this debate, I say to those who are listening to this debate, if you can't move forward on something that you think is so fundamentally important to the future of this province, what hope is there for a little water bill that you pass in the run-up to an election? What hope is there?

In this province, climate change is going to substantially affect the quality and quantity of water available to the people of Ontario. It will cause drought, and there will be farming areas where that drought will be of consequence in terms of crops produced. It will be of consequence in terms of the livelihood that people can make for themselves. It will be of consequence to our economic future, and yet this government does not even act to meet its own goals. If in fact at the much higher level we aren't making sure that our water supply in the natural world is protected, what hope is there for this bill?

When the Environmental Commissioner talked about the failures of the McGuinty government to meet its climate change targets, he made it very clear that action was needed to reduce emissions from transportation. He understood the consequences of not acting, the consequences in terms of infrastructure in our daily lives and the impact on the price of food.

Now, anyone in this chamber who works in the agricultural sector, who represents a riding with an agricultural sector, knows that it's critical to have the right amount of water at the right time. Too much—if you're talking about plowing and seeding, you can't do it. Too little, and it doesn't matter what you grow, you're not going to have a crop.

The Environmental Commissioner noted that one of the areas where in fact action wasn't taking place, where this government was falling down was in dealing with transportation. The government's response to not actually delivering the goods on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation was to cut $4 billion from the Transit City project, to truncate that project. That will lead to delay and cancellation of long-awaited transit lines in the GTA. Truncating of a project that is badly needed to reduce congestion, smog, greenhouse gas emissions—this city and this province are poorer because of that decision.

This government is failing to stem urban sprawl. When I arrived in this chamber in 2006, we were debating the greater Golden Horseshoe smart growth plan. The plan that initially had been introduced was very extensive and had the aim of increasing the density in urban areas, reducing sprawl and reducing the spillover of urban development into greenfields.

The simple reality was that that bill, step by step, page by page, clause by clause, was pruned back until when it was finally introduced for third reading—commentators like the Pembina Institute and the Neptis Foundation, who had provided background information on the original bill, said simply that it was not clear that this bill would do any different than business-as-usual growth, business-as-usual sprawl, business-as-usual emissions and congestion. This government did not take the advice of those who understood what had to be done to deal with sprawl.

Instead, it continues with highway expansion plans, continues with measures to get around the whole Places to Grow Act, and I cite the ministerial zoning order for Bradford-West Gwillimbury. This government, understanding the consequences of inaction, having studied the issue to the point where it was able to present detailed legislation, still was not willing to act and do what was necessary.

When a problem as severe and as obvious as the sprawl in the GTA stares you in the face, when a problem as obvious as people sitting locked in traffic on the Don Valley, the QEW, the 401—take your pick. When a problem that obvious is not addressed by a government, what hope is there for this bill to conserve water? When it is that obvious, such that there is an anger in suburban GTA about the impasse that people face, what hope is there for this bill to deliver what has to be delivered?

You, Speaker, are well aware of the need to deal with transit, train service, and the need to have clean train service—electric trains—on the service that goes through a number of ridings in the west end and the northwest end of this region. But this government is not acting on what many people say is critical, and that is taking the very critical first big step to make sure that those trains are electric trains, not diesel trains.

This government is continuing to allow sprawl to dominate southern Ontario, and it is committed to diesel trains when those diesel trains will lock us into a technology for the next 40 or 50 years that we need to get out of. What hope, when things are so clear, is there for substantial reduction in water consumption in Ontario?

Let's not forget that this government in the past has trumpeted its ability to take on the recycling issue, the waste management issue. This past summer it became clear that the government's waste reduction programs, the imposition of the new eco fees on the public, were not achieving the aims that were originally set out and, in fact, didn't do what people expected would happen: Industry responsible for creating hazardous waste would assume the cost and responsibility for dealing with those things. That's what needed to happen. Industry that was making a fortune from selling toxic products needed in fact to be held responsible for paying for disposal of those products.

What happened, and I'm sure you are well aware, is that the government allowed industry to pass those costs on to the public, creating a huge outcry. That is not atypical of this government's behaviour. We will have an opportunity to get into that when we talk about the next bill that is scheduled for this afternoon.

I'll note that the Toronto Star reported, "Ontario's high-profile electronic waste disposal program is failing to recycle millions of computers and televisions it promised to keep out of landfills." That's pretty instructive. You make a commitment to a big program and, in fact, even though you collect funds, it doesn't divert the waste that needs to be diverted. That's a high-profile program. We deal with millions of electronic objects in this society. Cellphones, iPods, computers, televisions—it goes on and on and on.

It is of consequence to us that we are able to acquire them after they've been worn out, to concentrate them, recycle them and make sure that we don't have toxic metals and toxic chemicals going into our landfill and water tables.

The Toronto Star reported, "In its first year, the Ontario Electronic Stewardship—a private agency created by provincial regulation—gathered only a third of the 42,000 tonnes of toxin-laced equipment it was originally supposed to collect, according to reports obtained by the Star."

Then-Environment Minister John Gerretsen wanted to know why.

"'I have been disappointed that OES'—the Ontario Electronic Stewardship—'haven't been able to meet the targets,' Gerretsen said in an interview.

"'I don't know what has gone wrong.'"

This was a mystery to the minister. It was beyond his knowledge, perhaps beyond the knowledge of most mortals; certainly beyond the knowledge of that mortal.

I want to say to you that the fine details of what happened may not be known to the minister or myself or to you, but we shouldn't find it that mystifying that when private industry is allowed to regulate itself, then things are not going to go according to the rosy plan that was set out by the McGuinty government. Those industries will look after their own interests first and secondarily deal with public policy issues.

No surprise; no mystery. One only has to look at the fundamental dynamics to understand where we will be taken.

The spokesperson for Ontario Electronic Stewardship, the Ontario electronic recycling group, was quoted as blaming the problems on growing pains of a new program. They said, in terms of how it's supposed to work, according to the Star, "Companies or non-profits are designated as 'collectors' to pick up used electronics homeowners toss out by the millions. OES pays collectors up to $235 a tonne out of 'eco fees' contained in the cost of each new electronic gadget sold (from $2 to $26 each). The OES then divides the haul from the collectors among eight approved recyclers, which extract usable components and safely dispose of toxic materials, like mercury or beryllium."

I'm addressing this whole question of failure in recycling because, in the end, the credibility of this water bill is based on whether or not this government has a track record of delivering the goods. In this area of recycling, of meeting its greenhouse gas emission targets, of dealing with transportation, it is not meeting its targets.

Now, that may be why there are no targets in the project before us. The bill allows the minister to set aspirational targets. I have to say that I could set an aspirational target today, and the minister, without benefit of a bill, could stand up and announce an aspirational target anyway. He doesn't need a bill to do that. What we do need is a larger plan within which we can see how one would realistically get to those targets and a bill that would facilitate that. I don't see those targets. I don't see that larger plan. I do see a bill that can be an announceable when the next election is upon us.

The Toronto Star went on talking about this particular problem with electronic recycling. According to the Star, "Canada bans the export of e-waste to developing countries, but Canadian companies are allowed to ship materials to brokers in the U.S.," and the United States "has no rules against transporting materials offshore."

If you saw the film Manufactured Landscapes and saw the incredible amount of electronic waste sitting in heaps in China, people working without protection and dealing with lead, cadmium, a variety of toxic metals and materials, that probably gave you pause. It certainly gave me pause, because we now have a much clearer picture of what happens with this industry-driven program. We know where those materials, or many of them, wind up.

That's why my hope for this bill to accomplish what has to be accomplished is so small: because I've followed the history, I've seen the pictures, and they don't give me hope.

In fact, again according to the Star, "'The current electronic recycling program in Ontario is a failure,'" said one of the people familiar with this industry. "'It doesn't meet its targets for diversion and environmentally sound recycling. And it provides no incentive for investment into green technology and jobs in the province.'" A pretty substantial statement.

"The problems came to a head in January when Waste Diversion Ontario filed a rare 'failure to comply' notice against the OES, whose board includes Sony, Hewlett Packard and Best Buy executives. It told OES it had to do a better job of collecting the material and selling consumers on the program."

Critics and others who are concerned about the environment in this province say that the Ontario electronics system "must be more accountable because the public is supporting the program financially." People put in tens of millions of dollars a year to make this program work, and yet, as I've said, the program failed miserably when it did not meet its targets.

The head of the organization said, "It is just our first year." But when you look at other jurisdictions, you find that they do somewhat better. Saskatchewan, in its first year, collected 1.7 kilograms of e-waste per capita, compared to an estimated 1.3 kilograms in Ontario, the largest consumer of electronics in the country.

We have a pretty sophisticated industrial base here in Ontario. We've got people who manufacture; we've got people who process; we have administrators and managers capable of doing an awful lot. Yet our record when dealing with e-waste is substantially weaker than that of Saskatchewan. One has to ask why. Why should we have hope in this bill when we can't, in fact, see the government delivering on the recycling of e-waste?

I don't buy that this is a first-year problem. This is a government that announces grand programs and doesn't follow through on delivery. It happens more frequently than not. It is of consequence to the people of this province, and it certainly is of consequence when it comes to our discussing this bill and whether in fact it will deliver water conservation, whether in fact it will deliver economic development and whether in fact it will address the changing challenges that we face environmentally and economically in Ontario.

Just to finish up on electronic waste: When it got rolling a year ago, the Ontario Electronic Stewardship system had a target of 42,000 tonnes of material to collect. Only 17,000 tonnes have been collected. That's quite a failure: only slightly more than a third. The target was downgraded to 33,000 tonnes partway through last year, but they still fell short. That is of consequence.

In the end, this is a government that naively trusts industry to run programs in the public interest rather than for their own benefit. That is not a reasonable assumption for a society that has gone through a global banking meltdown, for a society that has seen self-regulation by industry fail in the propane industry. One has to ask whether this government fully understands what goes on in the outside world, outside these four walls, and is willing to act in a way that takes account of that real knowledge.

The consequences are, too frequently, very clear and negative. When we look at the energy issue, this is a government that is ramping up hydro rates for ratepayers, with little to show in terms of reduced usage or emissions. It has no current energy plan, although I understand an electricity plan is forthcoming in the next 48 hours. It's astounding to me, though, that we've gone for the last few years without an electricity plan. We've been making investments—we've been making billion-dollar commitments to facilities—without a plan that has been reviewed, for either environmental consequences or consequences of rates, through the Ontario Energy Board. That's the way this government operates.

When I first came here, in 2006, the electricity supply plan was introduced, and if you will remember, Speaker, it was rushed through. There were no environmental hearings. Things had to happen fast. Ultimately, under the next energy minister, Mr. Smitherman, it was found to be inadequate. It was found to be wanting. It was set aside. That was a few years ago. We were told at the time that a new plan would come forward, dealing with conservation targets and efficiency targets. That didn't happen, although it may well happen within the next 48 hours. We shall see.

This government makes commitments of billions of dollars, commitments that will be of consequence for the remaining lifetime of most of the people who sit in this chamber as legislators and for the big bulk of the lifetime of the pages who are serving here today, decisions that will have consequences for us, our children and our grandchildren, done without an environmental review, done without an economic review, done on an ad hoc basis.

This government makes commitments in the billions of dollars without a coherent plan for dealing with electricity use, electricity production or electricity transmission for decades to come. That's the record of this government when it deals with large-scale infrastructure and environmental issues.

If you can't quite get it right when you're talking about the nervous system of a whole society, when you ad hoc it on multi-billion-dollar commitments, what hope is there for a little water bill that can actually generate employment, if it was properly delivered, and deal with fundamental problems of supply of water? One has to ask, given this record, what hope?

Two y