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

March 7, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-07 (PDF)

L090 - Mon 7 Mar 2011 / Lun 7 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 7 March 2011 Lundi 7 mars 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

SMART METERS

SMART METERS

CLIMATE CHANGE

NORTHERN ONTARIO

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

CURRICULUM

LONG-TERM CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

SMART METERS

LONG-TERM CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

DEFERRED VOTES

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

OTTAWA BEAR HUG

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

COMMUNITY AWARDS

LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY

VICTIM SERVICES TORONTO

BUSINESS AWARDS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

PETITIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

TAXATION

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

TAXATION

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN 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, inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: My page Tyler Millson is the page captain today. I’m very pleased to introduce his mom and dad, Bart and Maureen Millson, and as well, two of his brothers: Quinn and seven-month-old Kane Millson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m very pleased to introduce two Kingstonians here today. One is Bill Dobson, who’s the board president of a local, non-profit, Kingston-based housing organization. He’s here with his wife, Nancy Churchman. Please give them a good welcome here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to introduce Lucas Maciesza and his father, Rick Maciesza, who are here at Queen’s Park today for the PNH press conference. Welcome.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to introduce Mr. Barry Katsof and Hilary Handley, who are also here for the PNH press conference. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like all members to join me in welcoming my brother Joe Peters to the Legislature today. Welcome. I think maybe you just need to grow a goatee and we can switch jobs for a day.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just before we begin question period today, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk once again about the imprint we make on this institution in the way we behave.

I certainly appreciate that we are only months away from an election in this province, but the fact is, the writ has yet to be dropped and when it is, the pursuit will occur where it should: in the communities and the constituencies that we serve. Bringing the seamier elements of an election campaign into this chamber badly erodes its dignity, and I am at a loss to understand what purpose the members think it serves when they engage in personal and often spiteful attacks on one another across the floor.

Recent question periods have been overshadowed by insulting, provocative and bullying language that has reached vitriolic at times; that is, when members can be heard over the cacophony of heckles.

Let me suggest that members consider certain principles as we go forward:

Time is scarce; use it intelligently. As your Speaker, I do not like having to interrupt the flow of question period as often as I’ve been doing. The time wasted when I have to do that could allow for more questions to be asked and answered.

Secondly, the public are watching, in some significant numbers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members should be listening. While question period is not ever going to be a wholly tranquil affair, it nevertheless behooves us to remember that our constituents do see us, and to behave in a manner that respects them.

Thirdly: Finally, while I have tried to allow the greatest freedom possible in asking questions, it would be helpful if members could remember that the purpose of question period is to hold the government to account for its policies. This is done by asking questions and seeking information about those government policies. That purpose is not well served when question period becomes simply a forum for thinly veiled personal or partisan attacks. This last point, in particular, needs to be understood by both sides of the House.

Question period is, and will continue to be, a rather spontaneous and very animated proceeding, and I am the first to admit to enjoying its cut and thrust. But I do believe that it is possible to maintain an acceptable level of civil discourse and that doing so need not impede any ability to aggressively press for information or ardently defend policies. Surely we can maintain a level of respect for one another and for this extraordinary institution without resorting to the kind of behaviour that we have witnessed of late.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: On February 22, the Ontario Energy Board ruled that hydro utilities could pass on $18 million in legal costs to Ontario families. Premier, these are legal costs to the hydro utilities who were caught charging criminal rates of interest to people who had not paid their bills.

The next day we asked Minister Duguid what he was going to do to oppose this and save Ontario families from being hit with this bill, particularly families who actually paid their bills on time. The minister stood in the House and said that he directed Hydro One to not pass on these costs to ratepayers.

Premier, could you inform the House how much of the $18 million will be saved from going on the backs of hard-pressed ratepayers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to revisit this issue again a couple of weeks later. Nothing has really changed other than the fact that I’ve written a letter to all local distribution companies letting them know that we’re of the view that they should follow our lead with Hydro One. Hydro One will not be passing on these costs to their energy consumers. We recommend to local distribution companies that they take a look at the leadership we’re showing on this and do the best they can to emulate the approach that we’re taking.

But I think it’s important for everybody listening to the debate today to know that these practices really began under the Davis government. They were done long before we took office, and we are, I think, dealing with this in a very responsible and reasonable way with regard to Hydro One.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, with all due respect, something important has changed. Today, the Ontario PC caucus has released a letter from the Electricity Distributors Association, the EDA. The letter says the following: “Contrary to what is suggested in the minister’s letter ... the reason that Hydro One is not collecting these amounts is not because of the minister’s intervention, but because it was not a defendant in the lawsuit and was therefore not part of the settlement.”

Minister, again today you’ve made a big show, saying that you’ve told Hydro One not to pass on this fee to the ratepayers, but the Electricity Distributors Association says that that’s not in keeping with the facts. In fact Hydro One was not a defendant, and in short, Minister, families are still stuck with the full $18-million bill.

Minister, why did you just tell the House that you gave people some relief when in reality you did no such thing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I said, this is a lawsuit that started in 1998 in the Ontario courts. It’s applying to a practice that began in 1981 under the Davis government. Indeed, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made a ruling that local distribution companies should go to the Ontario Energy Board, an independent regulator, for direction on the recovery of these settlement costs. I’ve given direction to Hydro One. We’ve had discussions.

It wasn’t an official direction; it was a discussion with Hydro One that, as they’re to implement this, they’re to consider the implication of this on their consumers, and they are. Their response back to me is, indeed, that they will not be passing on any such costs to their consumers.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, here is the problem, and I mean it with all due respect: It increasingly looks like you’re in over your head. This is a very serious matter. This is not the first consequential mistake that you’ve made, and it means, at the end of the day, that Ontario families are getting stuck with the bill for your incompetence.

Your statements are very clear. In fact, in your letter to the hydro utilities, you said, “I would strongly urge you to make the same good faith gesture to your customers”—referring to your bravado, that you ordered Hydro One not to pass these costs along. But, Minister, you’ve been caught out. Hydro One was not part of the lawsuit; therefore, there are no costs assigned to Hydro One.

You said something that was not in keeping with the facts to this Legislature. You said something that was not in keeping with the facts to the people of Ontario. Minister, is this sheer incompetence, or did you deliberately tell them something that was not in keeping with the facts?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, I repeat: In my discussions with Hydro One, I advised them not to pass on these costs to their consumers. They’ve agreed not to pass on these costs to their consumers. Indeed, I’ve written to local distribution companies across this province, suggesting that they follow that lead and not pass on these costs to consumers.

I guess my question to the Leader of the Opposition is, have you contacted local distribution companies in your area to suggest that they follow our lead on this? What is your position? Should local distribution companies pass these costs—costs incurred under your previous government—on to consumers or should they not?

We’ve made it clear where we stand. We’ve suggested to those local distribution companies that they should not pass those costs on. Where do you stand?

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think, under the circumstances, a question back to the Premier of the province: Premier, your Minister of Energy has been caught out in saying a number of things that were not in keeping with the facts. The minister stated in the House last week on this issue, “I stated very unequivocally that we’ve given Hydro One direction not to pass on these increases to their consumers.” Today, he says it wasn’t direction; it was a conversation. We’ve heard from the Electricity Distributors Association that Hydro One was not part of the suit. This is false bravado from the minister, Mr. Premier, and something not in keeping with the facts.

This is not the first time that your minister has made a significant error in the facts. This is an important portfolio, and bills are going through the roof.

Premier, do you still have faith in your Minister of Energy, given this latest screw-up?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I have tremendous faith in my Minister of Energy, I have tremendous confidence in the work that he is doing and I’m proud of the results that he is achieving for the people of Ontario.

On this particular matter, the Minister of Energy is driving hard in a positive, forward direction. We are building more generation than ever before. We are shutting down our coal-fired plants. We are creating thousands of new jobs, which are desperately needed by Ontario families. We are going to secure our supply of electricity for the next 20, 40 and 60 years. This is hard work. He’s doing it very well.

I again put to my honourable colleague opposite that he has no plan for electricity. He says that if he were to do all this work, it would not raise our bills a single penny. I don’t think anybody believes that.

We’re doing the hard work. We’re getting it done. We’re cleaning up our air. We’re creating new jobs. We’re ensuring we have a reliable supply of electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I’ve expressed my concern that you have fallen increasingly out of touch with what’s happening in Ontario homes today. I’ll remind you that hydro bills for average families and seniors are going through the roof. I have seniors coming up to me with their hydro bill with their hand shaking, saying, “I can’t pay this.”

People who have paid their bills their entire life and played by the rules are in jeopardy of not making their hydro bills because of your expensive policies. They would expect, at the very least, that the Minister of Energy would be on top of his file and that, when he makes public statements, they would be in keeping with the facts.

The minister made a big show saying that he had ordered Hydro One not to pass on these costs. We find out today that that is a false promise and false bravado, because it’s not in keeping with the facts.

Premier, why are Ontario families stuck with the bills of your minister’s obvious incompetence?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague says he’s championing the interests of seniors, so why wouldn’t he support our clean energy benefit, which is reducing their bills by 10%? Why did he stand opposed to our efforts to reduce the cost of generic drugs by 50%, which would benefit seniors? Why does he oppose our Ontario energy and property tax credit of $1,025 for seniors? Why does he oppose our Ontario property tax credit of $625 for seniors? Why does he stand against our aging at home strategy, a $1-billion investment to ensure seniors get more care at home where they live?

In each and every instance where we’ve put forward specific initiatives and benefits for seniors, why has he stood in the way of those?

I’ll tell you why: because he doesn’t support more investment in health care, education or supporting seniors. Ultimately, he’s going to put forward reckless tax cuts, and what will flow from that, as surely as night follows day, will be dramatic cuts to public services, including those that benefit Ontario seniors.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s no surprise that the Premier talks about everything except what I asked him here today.

Premier, you know that this is very basic. Your Minister of Energy doesn’t know what he’s doing, and Ontario families are being stuck with the bill. Last week, we had the embarrassing scenario where he said one thing about the hydro wires going through Caledonia—that they weren’t needed, when his own ministry’s website said that in fact they were needed—and now a very serious error in judgment, Premier, or else an attempt not to get all the facts out on the story.

The Electricity Distributors Association takes issue. They say the reason that Hydro One is not collecting these amounts is not because of the minister’s intervention, but because it was not a defendant in the lawsuit and was, therefore, not part of the settlement.

Premier, isn’t your minister in over his head?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague raised the issue of seniors, so I’m going to stick with the issue of seniors for a moment.

One of the things I’ve learned from talking to seniors, many of whom are grandparents, is that if you ask them what is most important to them, they’ll say it’s the equality of opportunities made available to their grandchildren. One of the things they’re concerned about is that my honourable colleague and his party plan to shut down full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario. We plan to implement that fully by 2014. It’s going to benefit 247,000 four- and five-year-olds. It’s going to secure a bright future for them and for our economy.

My honourable colleague needs to know: When he’s out there talking to seniors, he might want to remind them that he is not prepared to stand up for their grandchildren by standing up for full-day kindergarten in Ontario.

SMART METERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Does the Minister of Energy have any studies on the impact the government’s so-called smart meters are having on consumers?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Smart meters have just been installed in most households across the province—about 4.5 million smart meters installed on budget and on time, which was confirmed last week; something we’re very pleased with.

Yes, as the implementation of time-of-use is coming into place, local distribution companies are monitoring how that’s going. In fact, we’re working very closely with local distribution companies like Toronto Hydro, who were pretty much first out of the gate, and they are doing studies as we go. We don’t have a full year of experience yet, but we have some preliminary data that Hydro One has shared with us that does show, indeed, on average there’s a modest savings to consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I don’t know what study this minister’s talking about. On Friday he was quoted saying that families, on average, are saving, but the Toronto Hydro data that he cites shows, in fact, that 80% of families are actually paying more. So I’d like to see the numbers he’s talking about.

Would he be surprised to learn, actually, that other utilities are reporting similar kinds of results?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think it’s time for the NDP to catch up with the rest of the modernized world when it comes to electricity. President Obama said this about smart meters: “It’s a debate between looking backward and looking forward, between those who are ready to seize the future and those who are afraid of the future.”

I can tell you: We’re not afraid of the future; we welcome the future. We are making the investments needed in our electricity system to ensure that future generations have an energy system that is modern, that is up to date, that is reliable and that is clean. I can’t understand why the NDP would be so against that. There was a time when they used to support those initiatives. Those times must be gone. We need to modernize our energy system with or without the support of the NDP. We need to move forward, not backwards.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can’t understand why this minister claims that on average people are saving with smart meters when studies say the exact opposite. Hydro One conducted a study of 3,100 customers last year. Over a six-month period they found that 57% of their customers were paying more with smart meters than they would have before. Why wasn’t the minister aware of this study? If he was, why isn’t he telling anybody about it?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Actually, I’m fully aware of that study; indeed, that’s the study I was using that indicates that, on average, energy consumers are saving. Now, the saving is modest, to be sure—the NDP have trouble adding; we know that—but we’re determined to modernize our energy system. I guess the NDP would have had us replace those outdated old meters with outdated old meters.

No, we’re modernizing our energy system. We’re replacing the old meters with modern smart meters. We’re moving toward time-of-use so that we can help Ontario consumers manage their energy costs and understand that there are different costs to energy—to the system—depending on when you use energy. It’s very important, as we move forward to a modern society and a modern energy system, that consumers are fully aware of the costs of energy, on-peak and off-peak.

SMART METERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Energy. By now, the government has spent over a billion dollars on the so-called smart meters. Households will be paying that debt for decades to come. When we take into account the cost, 76% of households in the study indicate that they’re paying more. The government says smart meters were going to actually save families some money. What happened?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I certainly responded to that question in the beginning. Indeed, overall, on average, consumers are saving. The program is new. We’re watching it very, very carefully as it’s being implemented. We want to make sure that it works for all different sectors of consumers as best as possible. But we’re determined to modernize our energy system. We’re not going to go backward to the old system. We’re not going to go backward to the old meters. We need to move forward. We need to modernize our energy system.

We need smart meters, indeed, to build a smart grid. You would think the leader of the opposition would know how important smart meters are as the first step toward building that smart grid, modernizing our energy system. If we’re ever going to bring electric cars into this province—and most would say they’re going to start coming online over the next 10 or 20 years—Ontario has to be ready. Our energy system has to be ready, and the leader should know that smart meters are an important part of modernizing our system, so we have—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families are struggling every day to deal with bills that just keep climbing higher and higher. They want a government to make their lives more affordable. Study after study shows very clearly that the $1 billion spent on smart meters is driving bills up. Can the minister produce any evidence—any clear evidence—before us in this House that this is not the case?

Hon. Brad Duguid: When we initially set out with this program, an analysis was done. What the analysis showed is that there is indeed a $1-billion investment. Over 15 years, that $1 billion will accrue $1.6 billion in savings. You have to invest in modernizing our energy system if you’re going to get access to those savings. There was a time when the NDP used to believe in conservation. There was a time when the NDP used to understand the need to help people shift from peak use to non-peak use. Smart meters are an important part of that.

One thing I would do is thank the leader of the opposition, because she was quoting a report that came out last week that indicated that the implementation of smart meters has indeed come on in this province on time and on budget. We’re on track to save $1.6 billion over the next 15 years. It’s not always easy like the NDP makes it out to be, but—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For families getting hit with higher costs every time they drive their car, buy their groceries or heat their homes, spending $1 billion on a scheme to make life even more expensive is cruel and unusual punishment. It’s not saving energy; it’s not saving money. The government can try to obfuscate these facts, but the people know what they see on their bills every single month.

Why can’t this minister produce any evidence whatsoever to back his claim that people are saving money?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the third party wants to make Ontarians believe that somehow or another we can clean up our energy system, we can build the power supply that we need to provide a reliable source of energy for families and businesses across this province, we can have an efficient system across Ontario, and we can do it for free. I think Ontario families are going to see right through that leader. They’re going to recognize that you can’t build a clean, modern, reliable energy system without making investments. You can’t do it for free.

We’re making the investments that we need to make to build a clean, reliable, modern energy system to get us out of coal, to build a cleaner environment, to build a healthier future for our kids and grandkids. There was a time the NDP used to believe in that. They don’t any longer.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Today the Toronto Sun revealed your “dirty ways.” Over a three-year period you rang up big bills and an even bigger carbon footprint as an “environmental pooh-bah.”

So I ask you, as Minister of Research and Innovation, are you researching and advising the Premier at the cabinet table on ways to stick Ontario families with a carbon tax and the bill for your—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the honourable member to tie his question into the minister’s portfolio, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s research and innovation and it’s the minister’s behaviour—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I believe that the Minister of the Environment can answer this question because both of us have the same position on this.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I can tell the House that it is very important for all of us to recognize that we keep on loading our atmosphere with all of this carbon dioxide and the planet now has a fever and we have to do something about it. On this side of the House, we are convinced that we can use cap and trade as a mechanism to get down carbon dioxide emissions. We say no to a carbon tax and we’ve been very clear about that.

Just like the former Progressive Conservative government under Brian Mulroney used cap and trade to get sulphur dioxide emissions down to protect our lakes and to get rid of acid rain, we believe that is the methodology that we can use and other progressive governments around the world can use to get carbon dioxide capped and lowered. We need to do that for our children. The planet has a fever and we need to do something about it. Though there may be others who disagree with us, we believe that the marketplace using cap and trade is the right way to get that down. We say no to a carbon tax and we say no to a methodology that was used to successfully protect—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Minister of Research and Innovation, who spends a great deal of time talking about a carbon tax. It’s interesting that the government didn’t talk about the HST but we got that tax. They didn’t talk about the health tax; we got that tax. They’re spending a great deal of time talking about a carbon tax and Ontario families simply can’t trust that after the next election you won’t bring in a carbon tax as your next favourite tax.

Minister, over three years you spent $110,000 jetting around the globe. You stayed at swanky hotels like the St. Paul luxury hotel in Montreal and the Château Frontenac in Quebec City. Your 126 flights—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Your question was about the carbon tax. You are not dealing with the carbon tax. I’d ask you to get to your point, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, he’s spewing carbon at 36,000 kilograms over a three-year period, which is an awful lot of carbon to clean up with a carbon tax, so I ask the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Next question, the leader of the third party.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Families in northern Ontario were expecting that after four years the McGuinty Liberals’ growth plan would take action on the real challenges facing northerners, like the loss of value-added jobs, the soaring cost of electricity rates and the higher cost of living. But instead of action, northern Ontario gets yet another promise of even more discussion. Why did the McGuinty Liberals let the north down yet again?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s very unfortunate that the leader of the third party is not supporting northern Ontario’s own vision for growth and the future of the next 25 years. The fact is that northerners are extraordinarily enthusiastic about this plan. It exhibited—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I can give you some quotes that will impress you.

“The growth plan for northern Ontario is a major step forward for this region and for the province as a whole. It recognizes the north’s many unique qualities and lays out a long-term road map for success on a global scale,” said Keith Hobbs, the mayor of the city of Thunder Bay.

I can read you more quotes, and maybe I will in the second part of this.

But what’s disappointing—northerners themselves have put together a plan over a three-year period in which we had a remarkable and unprecedented consultation period. They’ve laid out a vision for the future, a vision that, indeed, we look forward to implementing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s unprecedented in its length and remarkable in its lack of any action. Not only has this government stood on the sidelines while families in northern Ontario lost good jobs; they’ve made things worse by driving up the cost of living and letting electricity prices soar.

Instead of confronting those challenges, we get a government talking about more talk. As one northern newspaper put it, it’s “a plan to create a plan.” After eight long years, is this the best the Premier can come up with?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is a vision that was developed by northerners for northerners. They are very keen to move forward on this. Quite frankly, I’m not going to let the cynicism and the lack of support from the third party stop us from moving forward on implementing this plan.

We have a number of marquee initiatives in place. We’re looking at putting together a northern policy institute and a multi-modal transportation strategy.

The important thing here is that northerners do indeed support this. If I have more time for some quotes, let me give some here.

“The Métis Nation of Ontario is encouraged to see that the growth plan ... clearly recognizes that Métis communities need to be key partners in implementation. We look forward to working together in order to build a strong, vibrant and prosperous future for the Métis Nation....”

We have a positive quote here from Tom Laughren, the mayor of the city of Timmins. “This plan marks a major step forward for northern Ontario to take its place in the global economy.”

The fact is, this plan speaks to northerners’ aspirations. It speaks to our plan to develop a vision over the short term, over the—

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

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I’m concerned about intervener services funding for those who are either deaf, deafened, hard-of-hearing or deaf-blind.

As you know, intervener funding to community-based agencies is used to enhance communication between individuals who are deaf-blind and their community. For many, it is the only way they can communicate. Some have said that funding for intervener services will be cut by 45%. To the minister, is this true?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the MPP for Ottawa Centre for his great advocacy on this matter.

I want to be clear: We are not cutting funding to deaf-blind services. In fact, since we came to office, funding for deaf-blind services has more than doubled. We are investing more than $20 million this year.

I rejected—I repeat, I rejected—the proposed funding model for intervener services in the fall of 2010. This decision was also communicated last fall to the stakeholders.

While this proposed funding model will not be implemented, we do need some type of funding model in order to allocate resources in a fair, transparent and sustainable manner. The system that our government has inherited was unfair: Funding was allocated by chance rather than by need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I know that people who receive these services will be relieved to hear that no cuts are being made and that, in fact, the funding has increased.

Quite frankly, those who are intentionally misleading people into thinking that there are cuts must stop. When someone’s ability to communicate is dependent on these services, the last thing they should be is fearful of losing that service for someone else’s political gain.

Moving forward, it is important that our government work with the deaf-blind community for any future consultations. To the minister: How are you working with people who are deaf-blind and the organizations that provide these valuable services?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Several years ago, my ministry established the intervenor stakeholder advisory group. Some of these organizations include DeafBlind Ontario Services, the CNIB, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind.

This advisory group has contributed to the development of our developmental services transformation plans, the assessment tool and, of course, the funding model. I have regular meetings with these agencies, individuals and families in the deaf-blind community. In fact, I will be visiting one of these agencies later this week.

As we move forward and work towards finalizing the funding model, we remain committed to continuing our consultations with individuals, families and agencies that support people who are deaf-blind. I hope that this miscommunication will cease right now. I feel for the parents who are so upset about this false communication—

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

CURRICULUM

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, last week, you said you were still consulting on sex ed curriculum, but the Minister of Research and Innovation says it is done and Premier McGuinty is moving ahead with controversial sex ed for kids as young as six after all.

Minister Murray is quoted as saying the reason the classes were pulled in the first place is that “some rural MPPs from less progressive ridings had difficulty selling the original curriculum to their conservative constituents.”

Minister, are you going to show respect for Ontario families and come clean with your plans for sex ed or are you going to wait until after the next election?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I have indicated in this assembly that we have a process where we review all curriculum, following the process, and we followed that process with the physical and health education curriculum. However, parents and members of our communities made it very clear that they wanted a different type of consultation. So what our government decided to do is we have delivered the physical and health education part of the curriculum. We have kept the new sex education curriculum back. There is a sex education curriculum in our schools. There has been for many years.

We are now working at my ministry to understand how we can improve upon the process that has been in place, the process that is used for every other curriculum document that we have in our schools. We are considering ways to improve that—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: The Minister of Research also showed that he learned nothing from his inflammatory posts on Twitter and has no respect for Ontario families. Despite the Premier saying publicly that the reason for his backtrack on sex ed was that he hadn’t consulted properly with parents, the Minister of Research says the real reason is: “Right-wing reactionary homophobes just love these issues.”

Last time, the Minister of Research called the Prime Minister, our leader and Mayor Ford bigots. Days later he was finally forced to apologize. This time he’s calling Ontario families who are worried about sex ed being taught to their six-year-olds homophobes.

Does the Minister of Education agree with her cabinet colleague that these worried Ontario families are homophobes?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Parents and families across Ontario know that we do have sex education curriculum in our schools. In fact, it was the curriculum that was brought in by the previous government. That is in place.

I would also offer that parents are very involved and engaged to understand what is being taught to their children in schools, and they’re also very supportive of full-day kindergarten.

I share their concern when they hear the party opposite’s position that they’re going to cut education, that they’re going to cut funding for full-day kindergarten. They are going to create have and have-not schools. That is what I am hearing from parents right across Ontario. They’re very, very concerned that, like the crisis that was created when they were in government before, they are planning to create another crisis in education.

Our students are improving. We have more graduates. They want to create a crisis. We want to continue to invest in students—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. In the 2008 budget the McGuinty government promised to address staff shortages at long-term-care homes. They promised 2,500 new personal support workers and 2,000 new nurses. Yet in 2011, the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors reports that only 56% of the PSW positions and 31% of the nursing positions have been allocated. Adequate staffing levels are the backbone of a healthy long-term-care system, so why has the Premier failed to deliver on this important promise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. What I can tell you is that this government is completely committed to improving long-term care in this province. Some of us will remember that when we took office, the quality of care in long-term-care homes was simply unacceptable to family members and to the people in care. We have significantly enhanced funding; in fact, we’ve increased funding in long-term care by 68%. We’re spending $1 billion more now on long-term care than when we took office.

Part of that expenditure is on new staff, and we are absolutely committed to continue improving the quality of care. That includes adding staff in our long-term-care homes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: We all know that adequate staffing levels translate into good care. Inadequate staffing levels translate into less care for Ontario’s most vulnerable, the seniors who live in our long-term-care homes. On July 1 last year, new regulations were put into place meant to improve nutritional management and food services, and this is a good thing. But the province has only allocated 43% of the funding necessary for the long-term-care homes to meet those new requirements. Like PSW and nurses, dietician, nutrition and foodservices personnel are desperately needed. Why are long-term-care homes across Ontario being forced to cope with broken promises while our seniors go without?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely reject the premise that our seniors are going without. In fact, the quality improvements in our long-term care are nothing short of astonishing. We are learning every day about improvements in our long-term-care sector. Fewer people are falling; fewer people are suffering with pressure ulcers; fewer people are suffering from depression as a result of the changes we are making in our long-term-care homes.

The contrast with the NDP is rather stunning. The last time they were in office they actually hiked the fees for almost 50,000 seniors by $330 per month. In their final budget they actually decreased funding to long-term care. I think the contrast between what they did when they had the chance and what we are doing is stark and I’m proud of it.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. David Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. I’d like to say to the minister that one of the biggest challenges I’m having, and my municipalities in the north and my riding, is how do we manage all the growth that is coming as a result of all the mining exploration in the industry? In Matachewan, Kirkland Lake and Cochrane we are having to build subdivisions and handle the accommodation needs of all these mines. We’re fortunate this is a result of all the exploration work that has happened over the years. I’d like to ask the minister how we’re going to be able to continue that exploration activity in northern Ontario.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That is just a great question, and I thank the member for the question. He is so right. The opportunities for exploration are enormous. We are very proud of Ontario’s mining sector and we’re committed to ensuring it continues to grow to benefit all Ontarians, but particularly those in northern Ontario. That’s why I’m so excited to officially open the Ontario Pavilion at the prospectors and developers association convention today, where I’ll be meeting with stakeholders all across the globe to promote investment in Ontario’s mining sector and officially announce some new regulations under the act.

The member is quite right: Spending on exploration in Ontario continues to grow every year. In 2010 it was over $800 million. This year, it’s forecasted to grow to over $950 million; again, I think real evidence of what an attractive destination Ontario is for investment in the mining sector.

This is a very exciting time. Our challenges are sometimes based on the need to take advantage of those opportunities, and certainly in the mining sector in northern Ontario—

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

Mr. David Ramsay: As a northern member, I understand the importance of the PDAC conference as being the world’s foremost mining conference. We’re glad that it’s always hosted here in Toronto. I would look forward, during the week, to hearing results from that, and I would also like to ask the minister what else we’re doing to ensure that Ontario has the best investment climate for the mining industry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, thank you to the member for the question. PDAC is an extraordinary event. There are over 100 countries that are represented and well over 20,000 delegates from the mining sector present at PDAC. Certainly, we want to try to strengthen our own relationships and build some new relationships with industry and with the global mining partners, showing them that Ontario’s mineral industry remains one of the most competitive in the world.

Last night, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and I held a reception to welcome Chile, an extraordinary event. I had some meetings with China as well. I met with the governor of Armenia this morning. The fact is that Ontario’s mining sector is of great interest all across the globe, and we want to continue to take advantage of that.

The fact is that we are producing well over $8 billion in terms of mineral production in the province of Ontario. We’re going to continue to work very hard to secure our position of prominence in the world of sustainable mineral development.

SMART METERS

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’ll direct my question to the Minister of Energy and we’ll get his advice on something. He seems to not understand the distinction, I suppose.

In the last decade, thousands of new subdivisions have been built across Ontario in communities like Mississauga, Vaughan, Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo. These houses received brand new hydro meters with a lifespan of over 25 years. Minister, what happened to those brand new hydro meters when you had them ripped off those houses in order to install your smart meter tax machines? What happened to those meters, Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to go back somewhere else for advice. He’s asking me for advice; I want to go somewhere else for advice, because it wasn’t long ago that the member opposite had this to say: “Ontario needs an energy plan and the leadership to see it through. Not having a ... plan is just wasting precious time.”

That was said by the member opposite, and I have to agree with that. I think he and his leader are wasting the precious time of Ontario energy consumers, of Ontario families, because, for some reason, they’re afraid to share their plan with Ontario families. Maybe it’s because they don’t support our clean energy benefit that’s taking 10% off their bills. Maybe it’s because they don’t support our plan to get off of dirty coal, clean up our air and provide a healthier future for their kids. Maybe it’s the thousands of jobs we’re creating. But for some reason, that member and his leader are afraid to share their plan—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Maybe he doesn’t want to answer the question.

The Minister of Energy keeps talking about his plan, yet he continues to tear pages out on a daily basis as he backtracks on significant portions of that plan. They don’t have a plan beyond the next election.

Last week, the Ontario PC caucus revealed that the bill to install your smart meter tax machines had reached $1 billion as of September 10, 2010. When asked, you tried to justify this billion-dollar expense by claiming that it was time to replace many meters anyway—except that’s not actually the case. In brand new subdivisions across Ontario, you are ripping brand new hydro meters off of new homes and replacing them with your smart meter tax machines, only to then send the billion-dollar bill to Ontario families.

Why did you say that it was time to replace those meters when, clearly, it wasn’t? Minister, why don’t you just try answering a question for a change?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Again, if the member doesn’t want to take our advice or doesn’t agree with our plan to modernize our energy system, maybe he should take the advice of the Environmental Commissioner, because this is what he said about smart meters: “They are necessary, absolutely necessary”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Oxford will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is what the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario said about smart meters: “They are necessary, absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and future functioning of the distribution system for electricity.”

This is what he said about the little piece of their plan that they put out on smart meters: “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.” He’s talking about your idea. Going back to the same old same old that did not work before is not the answer.

I agree with the Environmental Commissioner. I think the people of Ontario are going to take his word over yours any day of the week.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members on both sides, please come to order. I want to be able to hear the questions.

New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Before the last election, the McGuinty Liberals promised to redevelop the former Grace hospital site into a long-term-care home, but it still sits vacant, abandoned and rotting, and that broken promise is frustrating families and health care professionals. It has led to a crisis at local emergency rooms and cancelled surgeries. When will Windsor families see shovels in the ground at the former Grace site?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question. This is an issue that we are very much focused on. We are very anxious to get this building built and people into this long-term-care home as quickly as possible.

Windsor does now have additional long-term capacity. The 192-bed Village of Aspen Lake opened on January 3. Residents are moving in, as we speak, into that home. Sixty interim beds will be opened at Leamington Court retirement residence in the coming weeks, which is very, very good news for the people of the Windsor area. And 22 new complex continuing care beds are to open at the Malden Park continuing care site.

So we are working hard to expand capacity in the Windsor area, and I think we should all agree that we’ve made some great progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Almost a month ago, the Minister of Health promised that she would review the final plans for the Grace redevelopment within 20 days. After years of delays, she promised to “accelerate” the process. But work is still not under way.

After years of broken promises, how much longer will Windsor families have to wait to see work started on the Grace hospital site?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In fact, I’m very pleased to report that the developer has submitted the working drawings. We have reviewed them. I did undertake that we would do it as quickly as we could, and that work is now done. So we are moving as quickly as possible, as quickly as is responsible, to get this home completed for the people in the Windsor area.

I think it’s very important to note that health care is a whole lot better in Windsor now than it was when we took office. We have, as I said in the initial question, significantly more long-term-care capacity. We’ve got significant reduction in wait times.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Don’t forget angioplasty.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My seatmate here has reminded me of improvements in angioplasty.

We’ve been able to bring down wait times substantially, we’ve got far more access to primary health care in Windsor and we look forward to this project continuing.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I thought one thing we all agreed on in this House was making sure that our kids had clean air to breathe. The opposition’s call for a moratorium on renewable energy shows that’s not the case. We know they didn’t believe in it eight years ago, when they increased coal emissions 124%.

My constituents in Richmond Hill know that developing renewable energy is the right thing to do for cleaner air and more local jobs. But they want to know if it is true that once a company announces a new project, the municipality and the public have no say.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say to my friend, the Green Energy Act says that the Ministry of the Environment has the final say, but my ministry will say no unless the municipality and the public have their say. It is enshrined in the act: mandatory consultation with municipalities and the public.

Our new approvals process allows for a more transparent, open and predictable process for companies, for municipalities and all Ontarians. We view municipal and public consultation as essential to the entire process. That’s why we built it into the process. There are no limits to the amount of concerns that can be raised by municipalities or the public, and the proponent, the company that wants to put up the wind turbines, has to address the issues that are raised. If municipalities do not participate in this process, my ministry will follow up with them and ask why.

We’re serious about developing green energy in a way that protects human health and the natural environment, and has—

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: Minister, I know that my constituents will be pleased to hear you correct the misconception. I’m glad to hear you confirm that there are clear setbacks and a clear process for municipal consultation, and that the municipal consultation is embedded right in the approval process of any renewable project.

Some residents are also concerned, however, that our stringent 40-decibel limit for windmills might be exceeded and that there’s nothing they can do about it. Minister, why are you unwilling or unable to follow up on these calls from local residents?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Nothing could be farther from the truth. I can tell you that recently, my ministry did a sweep of the 15 largest wind turbine parks in the province of Ontario in regard to compliance. We are very serious, because we say to people, “We all have a right to clean air to breathe, but we all deserve a good night’s sleep.” That’s why we have determined a noise limit of some 40 decibels, as recommended by the World Health Organization: because that is the upper limit of noise that is acceptable so that people can get a good night’s sleep.

I tell the good people of Ontario: If you have a concern, my ministry is open 24/7, 365 days a year. They can call 1-800-268-6060 at any time. And I can tell the people who do call that we review every one of their complaints and that there are a number of actions we can take. My inspectors go out into the field. We meet with the wind turbine companies. We expect them to abide by the laws of Ontario, and if they do not we will place orders about them because they cannot be too noisy. People have—

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

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. On Friday of last week you sent a press release to the Cambridge media declaring that Witmer and Martiniuk will scrap the all-day kindergarten program. As you know, this is factually incorrect. You know full well that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would remind the honourable member that she needs to ask a question that speaks directly to the minister’s portfolio.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: You know full well that the PC caucus has promised many times to maintain full-day kindergarten for families and fix the implementation issues we have heard—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The members will please come to order.

Please continue.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I seem to have hit a raw nerve. I ask you: Why did you deliberately mislead the people of Cambridge?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member to withdraw the comment she just made, please.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I will, but the Minister of Culture said the same thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Unequivocal withdrawal, please.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think the people of Ontario are very, very interested to understand what the party opposite does intend to do. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was in Peterborough last week, and he made it very clear that if, after the next election, he would be in a position to make a decision, there would be no moving forward. So I think it’s time that the opposition comes clean.

We are committed to making sure we have full-day kindergarten in every school by 2014, and I would challenge the Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place and make the same kind of commitment to the children of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I would go again to the Minister of Infrastructure. You know full well that we have promised to maintain the program, but we’re also going to fix the implementation issues. So the reality is, your comments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please. Come to order.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These comments, which are factually not correct, are an indication of desperation on the part of this government. Minister, will you apologize to the House and to the people of Cambridge for deliberately not telling them the truth?

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I will withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would remind the honourable member of what she said on Focus Ontario, February 20. The honourable member—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. The minister is to my right and I’m having difficulty hearing her.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The honourable member said on Focus Ontario, February 20, with respect to full-day kindergarten, “… there are many, many competing programs and we can’t do everything.”

The Leader of the Opposition said in Peterborough Friday that they were going to have to look at the books before they would make any commitment with respect to full-day kindergarten beyond what’s going to be in schools this fall.

Our government is committed to full-day kindergarten by 2014. The people on the other side have a history. Their idea of supporting education is to create a crisis. Families in Ontario have had enough of that. Our government invests in students. We invest in student achievement—

Interjections.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Tell the truth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo will please withdraw the comment she just made.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Withdraw.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just quoting from you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance, it’s not helpful.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Their plan is to create have and have-not schools and we are not doing that on this side. We are committed to full-day kindergarten for all children by 2014. That’s what parents have told us they wanted. That’s what we’re committed to. Can the Leader of the Opposition stand in his place and tell us that he’s prepared to do the same thing?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The government is revising the special diet allowance so that eligible conditions will be based on medical need, but it seems to have a lot more to do with the cost and cutting costs. Last week, I raised the diabetes association’s concerns that pre-diabetes is being cut from the special diet allowance.

This week, the Ontario Lung Association wrote, concerned about another group of Ontarians being excluded: sufferers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. If the new

schedule is based on medical need, why is the government ignoring the advice of key health organizations about who should be receiving the allowance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The members of the opposition always raise the question, and when I verify who will continue to receive the special diet allowance with the continuation of the program, they either were not receiving it before or they will continue to receive it.

We do not want to disadvantage people who truly need a special diet to manage their medical condition. That’s why we are changing the program so that it’s accountable and fair to taxpayers and to those who need a special diet. We will be taking a different approach than what we announced in the last budget. This government is proceeding with the first major social assistance review in 20 years and this is part of the social assistance review.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: This minister just doesn’t get it. About 750,000 Ontarians suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. They struggle with everyday activities like walking up stairs. Canadian guidelines say that sufferers of COPD who lose weight need a special diet. Otherwise, their condition will likely get worse and they will need more intensive and expensive medical care.

Why won’t the minister listen to the Ontario Lung Association and include COPD in the special diet allowance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, who is included and what medical conditions are included in the special diet is the decision of experts.

It’s not a decision that we take lightly. We do recognize that, for certain conditions, the experts are telling us that a special diet is appropriate for that condition and we are listening to them. The review of social assistance, the two experts—it’s part of their mandate to advise us on what we should do.

We cannot ignore the recommendations from the Auditor General. When the Auditor General is saying that there is abuse in the system, we have to look into it. We know that this program went from—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, better public transit means a better quality of life for Ontario families. Part of that goal is to make transit available to as many Ontarians as possible. My constituents understand that an increase in the use of public transit has the added benefit of improving our air quality by cutting down on harmful emissions and relieving the $6 billion in congestion problems we are faced with in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

This past Friday, I had the opportunity to do the official opening of a new and improved GO station in Pickering. It makes it easier and more convenient for my constituents in Pickering to access public transit. This is the first of the new LEED-certified stations including geothermal heating and air conditioning. The improvements include an expanded kiss-and-ride section, and a new covered walkway is being prepared now to cross over to the Pickering Town Centre.

Speaker, through you, would the minister inform the House what the McGuinty government has done to improve public transit throughout Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for his question and for his advocacy on public transit.

Since we came to office, we have made enormous investments in public transit because we really believe that it is the answer to dealing with congestion on our roads—and we are playing catch-up on this file, because the previous government made very little to no investments in public transit in the eight years that they were in office.

GO Transit now typically, on a workday, takes 90,000 cars off the road. It eases congestion. Since 2003, we have invested more than $10.8 billion in public transit, including $4.7 billion in GO. We’ve opened seven new GO train stations. We’ve increased access to public transit in places like Barrie, Georgetown and Stouffville; we’ve opened three new bus terminals in Mississauga, Guelph and Hamilton; and by the end of 2011, we will have delivered GO train service to Kitchener–Waterloo.

These investments are making a huge difference to the people of Ontario.

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

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise on a point of order with respect to questions directed by the Leader of the Opposition today to first the Premier and then the Minister of Energy, but all questions were answered by the Minister of Energy—or, at least, addressed.

The minister used today the term “advised” Hydro One. I have the Hansard from February 23, and on no less than six occasions, the minister—and I will quote: “We have directed,” or “We’ve directed,” or “Hydro One has been directed.”

I would offer the Minister of Energy the opportunity to correct his record in saying today that he “advised” Hydro One when, in fact, in the Hansard from that day—and I will send you a copy of the Hansard, Mr. Speaker—on no less than six occasions, he used the term “We’ve directed Hydro One” not to pass on these costs with respect to the court case. I would ask the minister to correct his—

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

The honourable member is aware that any question that is directed to the Premier, the Premier, in his capacity, can direct to the appropriate minister, which the Premier did. It is not for the Speaker to judge the use of words of a minister that he or she would choose to use in the House. I’ll leave that that there’s a difference of opinion between the honourable member and the minister.

DEFERRED VOTES

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 110,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 110, Loi visant à promouvoir une saine gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

In December 2010, Ms. Smith moved third reading of Bill 110.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Savoline, Joyce

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 50; the nays are 18.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1148 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I want to introduce a very special lady, Aneesha Joshi. She’s here with her father, Mr. Rakesh Joshi, and her uncle Mr. Amanpreet Singh.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to deliver a message to this government from the people of Tillsonburg regarding hydro increases: Enough is enough.

Recently, the council of the town of Tillsonburg passed a resolution calling for hydro relief, which says: “The impact of harmonized sales tax on residential utility bills is placing an untenable burden with Ontario households.” Mayor John Lessif said: “We’re not happy with the decision to tax energy usage.” Deputy Mayor Mark Renaud said: “Enough is enough.”

According to the Tillsonburg News, Renaud also cited increasing costs on utility bills, including those of green energy initiatives and debt retirement, and suggested that money from the debt retirement is “being sourced for other uses.”

I want to commend the Tillsonburg council for standing up for their constituents and acknowledging the challenges that these hydro increases are causing for Oxford families. I’ve heard concerns about spiralling hydro bills at events and in coffee shops across my riding and from the people in neighbouring communities like St. Thomas and Stratford.

This government doesn’t seem to understand the effect that their misguided policies like green energy, HST and smart meters are having on Ontario’s families. Clearly they are out of touch with the reality Ontario’s families are facing. I’ve heard from constituents who are already doing everything that this government has recommended in order to keep their energy bills low but still their hydro bills keep increasing.

On behalf of the people of Oxford, I want to deliver the message that the hydro increases need to stop. Enough is enough.

OTTAWA BEAR HUG

Mr. Phil McNeely: Last spring, some 10,557 students from across Ottawa locked their arms around each other’s waists to form a human chain around the Rideau Canal. The event was organized by staff and students at St. Matthew high school in Orléans to try to win back the title of world’s largest bear hug, which they had originally set in 2004.

The logistics needed to pull off such a task were awe-inspiring. More than 270 buses were needed to transport more than 10,000 students to the Rideau Canal. Once everyone was in place, a horn sounded and students had to hold their position without breaking the chain for a minimum of 10 seconds. A helicopter circled overhead with the Guinness adjudicator inside, along with a small team of volunteers who took several photos and video which could be used to authenticate the attempt.

Tomorrow night, a representative from Guinness World Records will present a certificate to the Ottawa Catholic School Board recognizing Ottawa Bear Hug III as a new official world record.

I’m sure you’ll join me in congratulating the organizers and participants of the event which, besides setting a new world record, raised over $500,000 for a number of charities, including Roger’s House, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation and the Ottawa Hospital.

The very first bear hug was organized at St. Matthew high school in 2004. The event was inspired by grade 8 student Erin Gannon, who passed away shortly afterwards, following a year-long battle with cancer.

It is these types of selfless philanthropic efforts that go a long way to develop well-rounded future members of our society and this great province.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Ted Arnott: For years now, working with successive councils of the township of Puslinch, I have repeatedly called upon the Minister of Transportation to place the Highway 6 Morriston bypass on the ministry’s five-year plan. The question is this: Will this government ever recognize the need to build this vital new road to relieve the worst traffic congestion in our part of Ontario?

We’ve talked about this project for some 30 years. We’ve made our case time and time again. The environmental assessment has been completed. The consultations have concluded. The route is planned. Property acquisition should commence, but we need to know when construction will begin.

In February and April of last year, I invited the Minister of Transportation to Puslinch township to meet with council to hear their views on this matter. When she finally did get around to visiting Wellington–Halton Hills on December 3 to try to raise money for the local provincial Liberal riding association, she initiated meetings with at least two of our local municipal councils. But even though she was taking the better part of the day to come to my riding, she didn’t even give Puslinch township the time of day. If they had wanted to meet her, they would have had to write a cheque to pay for the privilege.

But there is still time this year for this government to finally do the right thing when it comes to the Morriston bypass. In the next budget, the McGuinty Liberals will have their last chance to finally acknowledge the people of the township of Puslinch and the community of Morriston. They have waited long enough for this new highway that they deserve. Clearly, that time has come.

COMMUNITY AWARDS

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: On March 3, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization, also known as OCISO, hosted its annual awards gala. This was OCISO’s third annual Community Awards of Excellence, which recognize and honour the outstanding contributions of individuals and organizations that have positively impacted the lives of refugees and immigrants in our community.

Ayda Khan, a high school student and talented singer who performs in six languages, and donates some of her honorarium to her school’s breakfast club, was given the award for youth leadership.

Charanjit Wadehra, a retired teacher and busy volunteer who has contributed countless hours to a variety of causes, including the Kanata Seniors’ Centre, where he is on the board of directors, was awarded the “Heroes Among Us” award.

L’École secondaire publique Omer-Deslauriers was presented with the organizational leadership award for its assistance to newcomer families.

Juniper Networks was honoured for its sponsorship support and employee participation in mentoring skilled immigrants.

The event was a great success. I want to give a big thank you and congratulations to Nishith Göel, who is the president and CEO of Cistel Technology Inc. and who was the chair of the gala; Tyler Meredith, the president of OCISO’s board; and Hamdi Mohamed, the executive director, for all their good work in our community and making the lives of immigrants and refugees in Ottawa a more positive experience. Thank you very much.

LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Today, I’m very proud to be helping to sponsor Lakehead University’s first annual lobby day here at Queen’s Park. With us today, seated in the members’ gallery, are Dr. Brian Stevenson, president and vice-chancellor of Lakehead; Lee Gould, vice-president of external relations; Richard Longtin, the manager of government relations; Mary Silk, my executive assistant from my office in Orillia; and, of course, Gaggan Gill, who everyone knows down here.

The intent today is to promote the fact that Lakehead University, with over 8,000 students in Ontario, now has a southern Ontario presence, and it’s located in Orillia. We like to call it central Ontario’s university because it’s been an exciting institution to welcome to our part of the province. We have excellent professors there, the community has received it with open arms, and there’s just an excitement and vibrancy around this beautiful new facility that we have in the beautiful riding of Simcoe North.

Today, I’d like to say to everyone—I know I have a number of appointments today and tomorrow, but I’d like to welcome everybody here to the reception in the legislative dining room tonight between 5 and 7, yourself included, Mr. Speaker; we’d love to see you there—to welcome these people to Queen’s Park and to see just how wonderful Lakehead University is in Ontario.

VICTIM SERVICES TORONTO

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I rise today to draw attention to the plight of Victim Services Toronto, which provides support to victims throughout this city. Established in 1990, it has been available 24 hours, seven days a week, for two decades. It’s the first-response agency and the only agency in Toronto providing immediate assistance to victims of crime and sudden tragedies.

This service, which has provided critical and irreplaceable support to the people of the city, has not had a core funding increase in the last two decades, except for 2007. They face profound problems in delivering the services that have to be delivered. I rise today to call on the government to examine the funding of this agency, this critical service, and to act to ensure that they are viable, properly funded and able to help those in this city who are victims of crime.

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today and tell you that the 16th annual Oakville business awards took place last Wednesday evening. These awards, called the Oakville Awards for Business Excellence, are hosted by the Rotary Club of Oakville West, along with the Oakville Chamber of Commerce. The companies are judged not only on business performance but on the contribution they make to the community.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the Legislature today to congratulate the six winners. They are: Blazing Design for entrepreneur of the year; Geoff Shore at the Cross Avenue Tim Hortons, who took home the environmental leadership business of the year award; Shred-it, for large business of the year; Philthy McNasty’s, which won the restaurant of the year award; the small business of the year award went to Speers Road Broadloom and Florence Meat Supplies; and Kicks for Kids won for professional service provider of the year.

I’d like to recognize the generous contributions from the sponsors who continue to support the Rotary Club of Oakville West. To date, the awards gala has raised more than $500,000, and that supports Oakville’s youth through a variety of programs.

Once again, I rise in the House to congratulate all those who were nominated and those who won last Wednesday evening, and the sponsors for their contribution to our great community.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. David Ramsay: On Friday of last week, it was a great pleasure to go to the New Liskeard Public School to launch the second-year expansion of full-day kindergarten for four-year-olds and five-year-olds. It was a real pleasure for me. I wore my get-down-on-my-knees pants that day to get down with the kids. They allowed me to share in their activities. It was a very fun experience, and it was just gratifying to see the children of my constituents having this opportunity.

The obvious investment here is for the children, and it’s one of the best things we can do to invest this early in their learning years, but it’s also a wonderful economic advantage to many of my constituents who would find it challenging to find daycare for four-year-olds and be able to pay for that. They’re getting good early learning from this, which we’re very pleased about.

It was a great experience. This, now, would mean that about 720 students would be taking advantage of this by September this year, with about a 50% rollout of that. I, and the rest of my parents, look forward to the rest of that rollout so that their children will have a great opportunity to learn in the future.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Dave Levac: Earlier this week, all of us in this place welcomed the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, or ROMA, and the Ontario Good Roads Association to Toronto for their annual conference. It was indeed a great success this year. It got me thinking about how much the position of Ontario’s municipalities has improved under the McGuinty government.

Before 2003, our communities suffered from eight years of cuts, neglect and downloading. The previous Conservative government downloaded public services, cut all funding for transit and let developers pave over huge areas of green space while cancelling 17,000 units of public housing. They got out of the game. They dumped maintenance costs for roads and bridges on our cities, along with public health, social assistance, social housing and ambulance services. These decisions increased the pressure on municipal budgets and the property tax burden of Ontario families.

The McGuinty government, on the other hand, has worked closely with municipalities to fairly share the cost of governing. We’ve uploaded the cost of public health to 75%, the cost of land ambulance to 50% and added $1.5 billion in social assistance benefits. We’ve invested $2.5 billion in affordable housing, $30 billion in rebuilding public infrastructure in our cities, and $28 billion, along with the federal government, to improve infrastructure and create jobs.

We helped families and municipalities impacted by the recent recession. Unlike the previous government, which let city governments fend for themselves—

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

PETITIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the Oak Ridges moraine; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the Oak Ridges moraine; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier government to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permit process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask that the Minister of the Environment initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the Oak Ridges moraine until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to prevent contamination of the Oak Ridges moraine” from affecting our water aquifer.

I’m pleased to present this to Brittany, one of the pages.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: I have a petition, a very short one, that reads as follows.

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

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty immediately exempt electricity from the harmonized sales tax.”

Signed by hundreds of people in the Windsor area.

PARAMEDICS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in servicing Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

Of course, I’m signing this one.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: A petition to the Ontario Legislature:

“The province’s plan to terminate phase-one construction of Highway 407 at Simcoe Street, Oshawa, is a mistake. It is a plan that does not make economic sense, will create end-of-line gridlock, will be detrimental to our rural community and have a significant negative effect on commuters, businesses, tourism, public transit, the historic hamlet of Columbus and all citizens of Durham region.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend the Highway 407 extension eastward and not terminate it at Simcoe Street.”

I’m pleased to sign this and send it to the table with page Benjamin.

TAXATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have a petition here keenly signed by people, both on the front and the back, which I’ve not seen in a long time. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty take the unfair HST off hydro and home heating bills.”

It’s signed by many people, and I will send it down with Braden.

PARAMEDICS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows.

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in serving Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

I agree with this petition, affix my signature to it and give it to page Hailey.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

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

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the provincial government’s announcement regarding the eastward extension of Highway 407 indicates construction will end at Oshawa;

“Whereas ending the highway at Oshawa will mean undue traffic on smaller roads leading to Highway 407, while delaying the benefits of a completed Highway 407 for commuters, businesses, tourism, public transit and all stakeholders;

“Whereas the environmental assessment has not considered impacts of a partial completion of the highway; and

“Whereas the completion of the eastern extension of Highway 407 to Highway 35/115 is supported by citizens, businesses, communities and elected representatives.

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the eastward extension of Highway 407 to Highway 35/115 in a single stage, as promised by the Dalton McGuinty government in previous infrastructure announcements. We request that Premier McGuinty respond with a commitment for the completion of Highway 407 by a specific date,” before the election in 2011.

I’m pleased to present this to page Ira.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from IBEW local 115, from Kingston. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: 97% of collective agreements are settled without a strike or lockout; 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 Oliver to bring it to the Clerk.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“The province’s plan to terminate phase-one construction of Highway 407 at Simcoe Street, Oshawa, is a mistake. It is a plan that does not make economic sense, will create end-of-line gridlock, will be detrimental to our rural community and have a significant negative effect on commuters, businesses, tourism, public transit, the historic hamlet of Columbus and all citizens of Durham region.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend the Highway 407 extension eastward and not terminate it at Simcoe Street.”

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

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Michael Prue: I have a much longer petition this time, which reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, in May 2009, a petition was presented to the Legislature and read by MPP O’Toole, where approximately 1,000 residents of Vaughan begged the Minister of Municipal Affairs to appoint an auditor to audit the finances of Vaughan. The Minister of Municipal Affairs responded, ‘Vaughan is a well-run city,’ and refused to intervene;

“Whereas the 2009 petition brought several matters to the attention of the minister, including taxpayers charged approximately $750,000 in legal costs where 200 charges were filed against three then sitting members of council and where these charges are now thrown out of court because the charges were filed too late; a regional councillor gave a $30,000 contract to family with no competitive bids and subsequently millions found to be awarded without tender to her son; council continues to spend millions to pay legal fees for lawsuits;

“Whereas, since the 2010 election, the situation has grown significantly worse with continuing tax increases and continuing abuse of tax dollars and where this abuse now proves the early intervention by the minister would have prevented the continuing abuse of taxpayer money, and saved at least $15 million of wasted money;

“Whereas, in a recent meeting of council, it was now admitted by the senior staff that Vaughan city hall is more than $15 million over budget, and where the same staff reported immediately before the election that city hall was on budget;

“Whereas another lawsuit has revealed documents that show previous council approved $50,000 in expenses for one of the election audits in the absence of a court order and in a closed meeting of council, when on the face of the invoices the outstanding amount was less than half the amount and

whereas on the face of the invoices, the money was used by the same external lawyer to attempt to get Mayor Jackson removed from office using a conflict of interest application;

“Whereas the old council voted to use $80 million of taxpayer money to purchase land for a hospital and placed the control in the hands of a private not-for-profit corporation, the Vaughan Health Campus of Care, and subsequently the VHCC has sued several residents for public deputations of concern and where the province has appointed York Central Hospital as the entity to build the hospital and the VHCC agreement needs to be nullified and all donations given to the YCH;

“We, the taxpayers and ratepayers of the city of Vaughan, exercise our right and again petition the minister to appoint an auditor to complete a forensic municipal audit of the city of Vaughan’s financial affairs from 2003 to present and publicly report to the residents of Vaughan.”

I am in agreement and would sign my name thereto.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. John O’Toole: I seem to be the custodian of all petitions here today. This one is from the riding of Durham.

“This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Ontario families are struggling to help put their kids through university;

“Whereas students in Ontario graduate with an average $26,000 in debt and have the highest tuition and largest class sizes in the country; and

“Whereas Ontario tax dollars should be kept in Ontario to help Ontario students, not sent overseas;

“We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the McGuinty government to cancel its plan to give foreign students scholarships of $40,000 a year and reinvest these funds in scholarships for Ontario students.”

I’m pleased to sign and present this to Benjamin, one of the pages here.

M me France Gélinas: J’ai une pétition qui me vient de l’unité 61 du Moyen-Nord de l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens et de son président, M. Conrad Mazerolle :

J’appuie cette pétition. Je vais signer mon nom et demander à Nicolas de l’amener au greffier.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John O’Toole: Again, it’s a real privilege to be reading here today. This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government-appointed local health integration network (LHIN) has approved a budget proposal by the Northumberland Hills Hospital (NHH) that includes plans to close 26 hospital beds, outpatient rehabilitation and the diabetes education clinic; and

“Whereas these cuts will leave no outpatient rehabilitation (including physio- and occupational therapy) available for patients in Northumberland county; and

“Whereas this cut leaves all patients with insulin-dependent diabetes without education and support that is vital to prevent serious health decline; and

“Whereas these cuts will result in for-profit privatization of hospital beds and services and new user fees for patients; and

“Whereas private, for-profit, unaccredited retirement homes are not safe or appropriate to house patients who need professional nursing and health care; and

“Whereas the NHH is considered a very efficient hospital in comparison with peer hospitals and the people of west Northumberland have already made a huge sacrifice regarding hospital services;

“Therefore

be it resolved:

“That the McGuinty government act immediately to protect patients in Northumberland Hills, fund the hospital to maintain the current services, and stop the hospital bed and service cuts.”

I am pleased to sign and support this, and I hope Lou Rinaldi will sign it as well.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from Mr. Barry Fajcz, president of CUPW Local 598. It reads as follows:

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: 97% of collective agreements are settled without a strike or lockout; 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;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.”

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission / Projet de loi 150, Loi prévoyant le règlement des conflits de travail à la Commission de transport de Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, March 3, 2011, I am now required to put the question.

On February 24, 2011, Mr. Sousa moved second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I have received a request that the vote on Bill 150, the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, be deferred. This vote will be deferred until Tuesday, March 8, following question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

Mr. Gravelle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, 2011 and to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2011 sur la modernisation du régime de tenure forestière en Ontario et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I am honoured to lead off debate on Bill 151, the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, legislation that would enable us to change the forest tenure system, allowing for greater use of competitive markets in the allocation and the pricing of crown timber.

No one here questions the value of the contribution that our province’s forest industry makes to the lives of all Ontarians, whether directly through employment or indirectly through the vast array of Ontario wood products that contribute to our province’s high standard of living.

The fact is that Ontario has approximately 85 billion trees, and our forests represent 2% of the world’s total. Eighty per cent of the 71 million hectares of forested land in Ontario is publicly owned. The government of Ontario oversees the management of these crown forests, including commercial logging on more than 26 million hectares.

Ontario’s forest sector is a key and important component of the province’s economy. In total it supports almost 200,000 direct and indirect jobs in more than 260 Ontario communities. Of these communities, 40 are categorized as highly dependent on employment in the forest sector to survive, and an additional 63 are identified as being moderately dependent.

In 2008, the value of Ontario’s forestry sector products was $14 billion, the majority of which was pulp and paper products—that’s about $8 billion; saw-mill engineered wood and other wood product manufacturing was valued at $3.9 billion; and furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing represented about $2.1 billion. The importance of our forests to the province’s economic future is absolutely clear.

Having said that, the difficulties that the sector has endured in recent years are also well-known. Despite the serious setbacks for the industry in recent years, the underlying advantages of Ontario’s forest sector remain intact. We have a large sustainable supply of quality fibre and we have excellent infrastructure. We have a solid primary sector with reasonable proximity to markets. May I say, the forest industry is working very hard to use these advantages to create and develop new business opportunities.

Our government is equally committed to working with all interested parties to restore the forest sector’s competitiveness. We want to create the best environment possible for Ontario’s forest product businesses to succeed, while balancing this with sustainable practices. One of the ways that we are proposing to do this is by modernizing the forest tenure and the timber pricing system. We believe that modernizing the system by which forest resources are made available to industry is one of the keys to transforming the sector.

In the challenges that the industry has faced in recent years, businesses have certainly looked to government for support to help them continue to operate, and we have indeed responded.

Since 2005, we have made available more than $1.1 billion to support the forestry sector through programs like the forest sector prosperity fund and the loan guarantee program, the northern pulp and paper electricity transition program and its successor, of course, the northern industrial energy rate program. We must also not forget about the very helpful provincial roads funding program. However, if we expect the forest sector to adapt to change and thrive in the face of the challenges that they have, the current tenure system, which describes essentially how companies get and pay for wood in this province, we believe also needs to change.

Let me explain briefly for all the members—some are certainly more familiar than others—how the current forest tenure and timber pricing system operates. The area of crown forest where harvesting is allowed is generally managed under sustainable forest licences issued in accordance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. These licences, or SFLs, as they are commonly called, are issued to companies which are generally mills to manage a defined forest management unit. Licence holders are required to complete a government-approved forest management plan.

They’re required to build roads and renew the forest after they’ve harvested it. Licensees are authorized to harvest and use timber from their defined management unit.

The current forest tenure system was designed many years ago. It was designed to give mills the responsibility to manage Ontario’s forests in exchange for a long-term wood supply. As a consequence, access to the crown forest resource is essentially largely controlled by industry. I would say that this certainly may have worked in good times, when mills were profitable. However, in tougher times, when many of the mills were idle or were closed, it meant that frequently the wood was not being used, it was not being harvested, with limited opportunities for new entrants, those who were seeking access to that wood.

I want to be respectful here, but frankly, the current tenure system, as it is in place, in essence made it easy for some of these mills to hoard the wood that they cannot use. In essence, and very much at the base of the principle for this legislation, is that our government wants to put Ontario’s wood and its people back to work. A major step we are taking towards this goal is to modernize the forest tenure and pricing system.

There’s no question that this is a complex task. I’m going to hear from our critics on this and they are going to confirm that. It’s a complex task. It requires significant changes affecting the allocating, the licensing and the pricing of crown forest resources. We fully appreciate our responsibility to continue to act with prudence and respect for the business entities that drive this key industry, especially those, may I say, who are using all the wood that is licensed to them.

We have taken a considerable time up front to consult with those who are most knowledgeable about and would be most affected by these proposed changes. When we embarked on this major review, we developed a discussion paper for public consultation. We asked for comments, over the fall of 2009, in a number of community and individual meetings and in consultation sessions with the public and a large number of aboriginal communities. We certainly heard that the current system had its strengths, such as the forest renewal and forestry futures trust, that absolutely should be continued.

But we also, I think it’s only fair to say, heard a strong consensus that some change was needed. There certainly was an interest expressed in embracing market forces to better allocate and price our wood. People said they wanted a system that was more flexible and dynamic, a system that could respond and adapt to our rapidly changing times. Certainly, they wanted fairness and transparency to be a foundation of any new system, and they wanted our valuable forest resource to continue to be managed sustainably.

Based on the first round of public consultations, we prepared a proposed framework. We set up further consultations in seven locations across the province, and it was a very interesting second round of consultations. During that second round, we provided opportunities to meet with aboriginal people and communities to inform them and to refine the proposal that we’re bringing forward today. There’s no question that these meetings generated a tremendous amount of discussion. During the spring of last year, I think we had something like 660 people individually taking

part in those meetings, 260-plus sent written submissions and there were well over 100 who also responded online to our website.

We did continue to hear that change was needed. But to be absolutely fair and honest, we also heard that some of our proposed changes might create too much uncertainty in a struggling sector. I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that we listened extremely carefully to the feedback, we did revise our proposal to address that uncertainty and today we are presenting a modified approach to tenure reform.

May I say that in those discussions that took place with major players in industry plus smaller players in industry—those who wanted to be new entrants—they were very helpful in helping us understand what was the best way to move forward, and that’s what we are presenting to the Legislature today for debate and discussion.

Bill 151 would move us toward a forest tenure and pricing system that includes a greater use of competitive market mechanisms in the pricing and allocation of crown timber. It will include sustainable and self-financing forest management business entities with clear roles, responsibilities and accountability. Very importantly, it will have greater aboriginal and local regional involvement in the sector. Again—and something we think is very important, which was a challenge in the past—it will include opportunities for new entrants who had difficulty accessing fibre in the past.

First of all, Bill 151 would create a new act that, if passed, would enable the creation of local forest management corporations, or LFMCs. LFMCs would be established through subsequent regulation as crown agencies accountable to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. These local forest management corporations would retain the revenue from selling crown timber and use it to achieve their legislated corporate objectives. These include investing revenue back into the forests.

LFMCs would certainly have to sell some of their timber through open market sales. The Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry would use the data collected from that process, along with other data, to support the move to a more market-based pricing system, as opposed to the administrative pricing system we have today.

The goal here, again, is that their decisions would take into consideration local economic development—we heard a lot about that—and would provide real economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples and communities. In that regard, the local forest management corporation’s board of directors would include representatives of aboriginal peoples and local communities.

It’s important to point out that initially what we are looking at is the establishment of two local forest management corporations. Our goal, in essence, is to test the principles of our model through the local forest management corporations and learn from these initial LFMCs before we consider implementing the model more broadly. We’re grateful to have support for these two models, these two LFMCs, to be put in place by industry themselves.

The second governance model is an important one as well, and it’s a very interesting one. What we’re looking to do is develop and implement a governance model that we’re calling the enhanced shareholder sustainable forest licence. With our colleagues at the Ministry of Natural Resources, we would be working very closely with the forest industry, other stakeholders and aboriginal peoples on the transition from the current SFL model to these enhanced shareholder SFLs, sustainable forest licences.

Working together, we would establish criteria that would be used, certainly, to evaluate the performance of the local forest management corporations we hope to put in place and the enhanced shareholder SFLs over a period of time.

We would want to evaluate how each model of governance performs, both models of governance, in relation to our objectives for modernizing the forest tenure and timber pricing system. Collectively, we would use the evaluations to help us make improvements to the models along the way. That really is why we feel this is a responsible piece of legislation that does indeed put us in a position to change the way we look at our tenure and pricing system, but also does it in a measured and prudent way. In essence, we have listened to many of the concerns.

Again, I want to emphasize that we do have some goals in mind. Both governance models include the need for increased local and aboriginal community involvement in the forest industry. That was certainly a message that we heard consistently from our consultations.

Also, let me just remind everybody in the House and everybody who’s listening that the SFL holders, including the local forest management corporations, the two models we hope to put in place, would still be required to comply with all forest management requirements under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act—for example, by paying into the forestry futures and forest renewal trust funds.

Under this governance model, the enhanced shareholder model, a professional forest management company would still be retained by the businesses that have a wood supply commitment on the licence area—that’s the LFMCs. The forest management corporation would work on their collective behalf and not on behalf of any one mill owner. In other words, with the enhanced model, we are going to be looking at the collective as being something that would actually make a real difference.

Certainly, I think it’s fair to say that we want to see more separation between mill owners and those who manage our public forests. We believe that this will allow mills to focus on their core business of manufacturing forest products. It would also allow for greater opportunities for new businesses to purchase unused wood. Again, our goal, in the most precise way, is to put Ontario’s wood to work.

Bill 151 also includes some amendments to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to help modernize the forest tenure and pricing system. The proposed amendments would give us the tools that we believe we need to achieve our goals. These very much include discouraging hoarding of wood and also getting new entrants easier and better access into the sector. The proposed amendments include new authorities, like the authority to cancel licences and commitments in circumstances where a company is not making optimal use of the wood.

It’s very important for me to say that these are not actions that would be taken in anything other than a serious manner. They would only be made upon the recommendation of the minister and certainly would need to be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. But again, it’s important to state that this is about our very strong goal of wanting to see our Ontario crown resources being used, being harvested and not being hoarded. We want to be able to see the wood actually being put to work.

May I say, too, that the current tenure system under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act as it stands now already provides the crown with certain powers related to the oversight of the management of the public forests.

I want to make it very, very clear that our consultation process has been extensive. We’ve had two levels of consultation. Obviously, we had prior consultation before we released our proposed model; then we looked at the proposed model and made some adjustments to that in order to be sure that we were listening to our primary forest producers, as well as some of the smaller entrants. But this initiative is certainly going to need some time. It would be implemented over a period of time.

We would expect, if we are successful in passage of this legislation, to see a shift from the current SFL model to the enhanced shareholder sustainable forest licence. Perhaps after five to seven years, we would expect most of the crown forest to be managed by either local forest management corporations and/or enhanced shareholder SFLs, with, I think it’s fair to say, the majority of the forest area managed under the enhanced shareholder SFL model, and a smaller portion under the LFMCs.

But I will say that one of our goals here—and I’ll be interested to hear a response from other members of the Legislature—is to potentially phase out the single-entity SFL whenever possible. Certainly if we are able to see successful passage of this legislation and we are able to move forward with our two new governance models and put in place the local forest management corporations—the two that we would like to see put forward to test the principles of our model, to see the enhanced shareholder SFLs move forward—we would see less wood hoarding, more wood sold on the open market and more opportunities for new businesses. Those are indeed our goals.

The legislation that we’re beginning debate on today takes a truly measured and balanced approach. I was pleased to hear that from some of the leaders in the industry. The Ontario Forest Industry Association was able to be at an event where we spoke about this. They viewed it as a measured, balanced approach. We worked closely with them, as we did with much of industry.

The event in January was a really positive—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, they don’t. They’re mad at you. Jamie Lim—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Order.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We were very pleased that they worked with us so closely, and we listened to their concerns.

Passage of this legislation would allow to us proceed with the modernization, and I think every member in the House knows we need to move in that direction. That’s exactly what I would expect to see, that indeed the members on all sides of this House will recognize.

It has been incredibly carefully crafted after extensive public consultation, and may I say, we would continue to consult on the details and the implementation as we move forward. We know how important this is. We would certainly be evaluating elements of the framework, and we would make necessary modifications in specific areas. We’ll have the opportunity to do that if we’re able to move forward.

Let me again just emphasize, as I wrap up, the overarching principle as we proceed with forest tenure and pricing modernization is the government’s commitment to the broader public interest. The tenure modernization framework that we are proposing is consistent with the government’s ownership of and responsibility to manage our valuable crown forest resource in a way that helps the local economies of forest-based communities across the province and on behalf of all Ontarians.

By getting forest tenure and pricing modernization right, we can ensure that forestry remains a vital component of the province’s economy. With our proposed legislation, we have the opportunity to strengthen Ontario’s position as a leading global forest jurisdiction. Let’s put our wood to work.

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the minister’s remarks regarding Bill 151. There are a number of things, and hopefully I’ll get a chance to get into the debate later on on this very topic. There are a lot of concerns.

You talk about the forest management corporations. We’ve seen the FMAs, SFLs and all the other aspects, and it’s never really been able to pan out. Some of the key concerns are: How does this differ from Westwind and what’s taking place in that particular area now? Is that not a working example of the forest corporations you’re talking about that could be utilized as a model throughout the province of Ontario? It’s an example of something that’s already working and seems to work fairly well.

Some of the other concerns are the players and how this will play. The perspective is that it will benefit a lot of the big, key players, much like the mining industry. You’ve got the Ontario Mining Association, which is basically run by a small number of players in the province of Ontario. The juniors in the province don’t get an opportunity to participate in the same fashion that this may assist the major forestry corporations and eat up all the small players that are around there.

The minister mentioned the fact they would have the ability to remove the licence. I’m not sure why that wasn’t so much allowed before, where if there was a problem for underutilized fibre—and what about non-target fibre species that are in the province of Ontario? There’s so many other fibres that are out there on an SFL where individuals want to use such things as larch or tamarack or cedars, and those areas—it could be utilized for other areas that aren’t being included.

Not only that, what happens when individuals don’t utilize the fibre? That is an ongoing thing on their cut plans, where all of a sudden there’s a downturn in the economy, and they have an allocation of so many cubic units of fibre out there that they’re expected to harvest. What’s going to happen with that fibre when it’s not harvested? Is it going to be made available or is it going to be retained in that licence until the economy turns around, in the eyes of the ministry? That’s one of the key things.

You have to watch the bureaucracy on this; that in the advice that comes forward, individuals within the bureaucracy will dictate how business will or will not be successful, and that should be done by the private sector.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m going to get a chance to speak to this more fully a little bit later, but my God, let’s give our heads a shake. The minister is trying now to say that the reason this act has to be done is because he doesn’t have the authority to use underutilized wood. Nothing could be so far away from reality. The current act, as drafted by Howard Hampton when he was the minister and has been the law even when Jerry Ouellette was the minister—and I can talk later about a story he and I dealt with—has the authority for the minister to take wood that’s not being used.

The difference is, you don’t—under the current law that was created, you can’t just cancel a licence at a whim. You’re giving yourself the authority inside this bill—and I’m going to read it in a second—the minister could go up to a company and say, “Even though you’re meeting the conditions of your licence, I can take your wood away and I can cancel your licence.” How is any forest company going to finance itself when it comes to getting money to do renovation in their mill or an expansion to their mill if they can’t show they have secure access to fibre?

Let me read what the act says, Minister. You say, under

section 41, “On the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order cancel any of the following....” I won’t read them all, because I’ve only got 48 seconds, but number 2 is, “A forest resource licence.”

Then it sets out the conditions, and there’s some nice conditions that supposedly would protect forest operators, except (

c) says, “The order is necessary or desirable for such other reasons, whether or not the reasons are related to the reasons set out in clause (

a) or (b), as are prescribed by the regulations.” That essentially gives the minister the ability to go up to Tembec or whoever it might be and say, “I don’t like you. You’ve been oppositional to this government. I don’t like you because now I’ve got a new friend,” and actually cancel their licence. Why in God’s name would we ever do that in the legislation? This is going to throw the financing for expansion and for the building of new mills in northern Ontario to the degree that we’ve never seen before.

I will speak to this fully when I get a chance later, but this is really dangerous stuff.

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

Mr. David Ramsay: I’m very pleased to be able to comment on this, and thank the minister for having the courage, quite frankly, to address the challenges that the forest industry has and the economy of northern Ontario has. What the minister is doing is basically bringing forward into the modern day a system that’s quite archaic, a system that