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

October 19, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-19 (PDF)

L056 - Tue 19 Oct 2010 / Mar 19 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 October 2010 Mardi 19 octobre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

HEALTH CARE

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LOBBYISTS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

FIRE SAFETY

ELDER ABUSE

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

HYDRO RATES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

DEFERRED VOTES

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VAUGHAN HOSPITAL

WASTE DIVERSION

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

JAKU KONBIT

DANA’S GOLDSMITHING

ATIKOKAN GENERATING STATION

MEMBERS’ COMMENTS

SMALL BUSINESS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

G20 PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CONCERNANT

LA TENUE D’UNE ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE

SUR LE SOMMET DU G20

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PENSION REFORM

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

PENSION REFORM

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

PENSION REFORM

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

KIDNEY DISEASE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 7, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les organisations sans but lucratif.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’ve just got a few minutes left. This is a time-allocated debate—the guillotine motion. The government didn’t want to hear from the Parliament of Ontario around this bill.

I just want to recount what I had to say, because it was some time ago that I had a chance to commence my comments on this bill. I remember that I did congratulate and commend the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, one Rick Johnson, for assuming the ad hoc role of parliamentary assistant during the course of this bill through the committee. It was a pleasure to work with him.

I recall how the government House leader was in a snit at the time, which is why this bill got forced into time allocation. As a result of the snit that the government House leader was in—don’t forget, she was in a little bit of hot water because of inappropriate comments that she made around the reappointment of Ombudsman André Marin.

As it ends up at the end of the day, the government House leader embraced André Marin with both arms. She was overwhelmed, I must say. I’m sure she was overwhelmed at his reappointment—I recall that very clearly—as were most of the government backbenchers. But she was in a snit around the reappointment of André Marin and her having gotten into some hot water because of comments she had made in the press about the selection process, even though she was totally unaware of what happened in the committee around the selection process. So it was inaccurate information that she conveyed to the public through the media.

Of course, there were the countless numbers of unidentified government sources, unidentified Liberal sources, that were badmouthing André Marin, slandering him, libelling him in the media.

Just as a brief aside, it’s remarkable how the negative commentary on Mr. Marin ended immediately after he was reappointed. That’s most interesting. Isn’t that interesting? It allows one to infer, rather logically, that there was a concerted, concentrated and specific campaign to derail Mr. Marin by Liberals. Of course, the Liberals have just finished their weekend confab during which the keynote speech was on the art of mudslinging. I do notice—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Did you write that?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, I read the book just Friday night, after I read that in the paper. But I do notice that there was some material distributed during that weekend confab. I have copies here. There were leadership campaign brochures:

“Chris Bentley for leader: Why wait until October 7th 2011?”

“Kathleen Wynne for leader: She’s taken out one leader already!”—which is a reasonably good theme. I trust that she’ll continue to use that in her leadership campaign.

“Glen Murray for leader: the right Manitoban for the job!” Of course, why not?

“Sandra Pupatello for leader: ready to move up to the better junkets.”

I don’t make this up. This is material that was handed out, I’m told, at the weekend confab by the Liberals where they were being spoken to by the American king of mudslinging, Warren Kinsella, for whom I have a great deal of admiration and who is, of course, an expert at mudslinging. I only wish he was one of ours, rather than Liberals’. I like Warren Kinsella.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: A comment on the subject matter would be appreciated, I think.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I remind the member that it is Bill 65 that we are debating.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But the bill is rather boring and tedious, and the leadership aspirations of various—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to stay within the topic of the bill being discussed and to not use a prop.

Mr. Peter Kormos: As I pointed out, Bill 65 is rather tedious.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Does that mean you’re going to support it?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Of course, we’ve already supported it. Ms. Wynne, who has already taken out one leader and who’s prepared to take out another, to wit, her own—internecine, I suppose, is the word that’s appropriate.

But I really should speak to the bill, and I only have eight minutes left. For me to speak to the bill means that I can’t mock Officer Bubbles once again, as I did yesterday afternoon, that wimpy Toronto cop, Constable Adam Josephs, who is suing people—the cop who said, “Oh, a bubble hit me.” A bubble in the groin, perhaps. This wimpy Constable Adam Josephs, Officer Bubbles, who’s suing for defamation, is now the subject matter of more mockery and abuse by his own colleagues, I’m sure, than he is by anybody out there in the community. So I can’t talk about him, as I did yesterday afternoon during the government’s good government bill, which is an oxymoron. Josephs alleges that the—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I just remind the member to stay with the bill.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Josephs alleges that—perhaps a non-profit corporation could assist him. He may find himself utilizing Bill 65 once it becomes law, as it undoubtedly will, after third reading vote this morning. But Officer Josephs alleges that this pictorial display has brought him “ridicule, scandal and contempt both personally and as a member of the (Toronto Police Service).” By Constable Adam Josephs’ behaviour—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I remind the member to stay with the debate on the bill.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you. Bill 65. Constable Adam Josephs’ behaviour during the G20 has brought him “ridicule, scandal and contempt both personally and as a member of the (Toronto Police Service).”

You will recall that I also mocked the funeral industry last time we spoke to Bill 65. I tore a strip off the Catholic Cemeteries planning board because they, of course, were the subject matter of the committee. You recall that, don’t you, Speaker? They were the subject matter of one of the submissions before the committee on Bill 65. So I tore a strip off of them and, amongst other things, the glossy brochures they had, which noted, “At the end of life, the church makes one last act of love by providing holy ground for us to rest and await the resurrection.” I suppose if that’s what it takes to get money from people, so be it.

New Democrats have supported this bill. New Democrats were surprised at how sloppy the bill was, and we discovered that once it came to committee, in terms of what it failed to address. New Democrats were amazed at the fact that the original author or sponsor of the bill, who is the member for Hamilton Mountain, because I can’t refer to Ms. Aggelonitis by name, the Minister of Revenue—how she was the original author of the bill but how quickly she had her name deleted from the bill and had it replaced with the name of the current Minister of Consumer Services, the member from the Kingston area.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Can we move on to another speaker?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I should note that the member for Essex is antsy this morning. I don’t know whether he is colicky or—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It is not in order to discuss another member here. Just stay with the bill.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Welland is simply trying to impugn some sort of motive of mine. All I want, Speaker, is—in this case, he is going at great lengths to intimidate, I think, the Speaker because he won’t stay on the subject, and I just think we should move on to another speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to confine his comments to the bill.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I will, and I have, if people will listen carefully.

Now, I find—the member from Essex, of course, is at the kiddie table, as his cabinet minister—

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If there’s anybody in this place I don’t appreciate being attacked personally by, it’s the member for Welland, and I wish that you would interfere in his comments and see that he does not do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to refrain, as he knows, and continue.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I apologize profusely. I just apologize from the heart and the gut. But in this morning’s Star the Minister of Economic Development and Trade indicated clearly that if you’re not in cabinet, you’re at the kiddies’ table. It’s in her quote in the Star. So the members from the kiddies’ table who want to raise—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask you to continue speaking only on the bill.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Just move on.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Of course, with reference to Bill 65, the member from Essex appears to have a problem this morning. I don’t know whether it’s a function of—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’ve already reminded you. I’d ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I withdraw that comment. The member from Essex is whiny this morning, and I apologize to him too. If there’s anything I’ve done—

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the member for Welland, although he’s doing it poorly, is trying to attack me. I don’t know why. I quite enjoy the job I do in this Legislature as Deputy Speaker, albeit a much more important job than he has. I just wish that he would refrain and that perhaps you could move on to somebody who has something substantive—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It is not a point of order.

I ask the member to contain his remarks to Bill 65.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. Of course, you know that I always appreciate your direction and your counsel, and I appreciate you having had the member for Essex sit down. So I thank you, Speaker, and I value your leadership in this institution.

We know we’re going to be supporting Bill 65—everybody in the Legislature is—which is why it just struck me as odd that the government would time-allocate it, and it struck me as odd that the government would order it to have hearings in Kitchener and Sudbury and Kingston and one other city—I can’t remember—but that not a single soul in any of those cities wanted to speak to it. This government was prepared to blow tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on the committee travelling to visit those communities when not a single soul from those communities wanted to speak to it, but for two who were accommodated by television and telephone communication.

So here’s a government—it’s clear that it’s on the ropes. We see the polling. We know what we hear in the markets when we go home on Saturday morning. Here’s a government that is pathetically desperate, that is prepared to use mudslinging, and indicated that clearly at their weekend confab over at the Sheraton Centre here in the city of Toronto. Here is a government that thinks it can somehow lure some popular support with Bill 65, but in fact most of the concern about it was, “Oh, well, it’s relatively benign.” But it failed to incorporate some of the most fundamental things that non-profit corporations sought, including asset protection.

It’s just incredible that the government missed the boat on this one again. First, it’s not-so-smart stupid meters that are increasing people’s electricity rates, then it’s Internet gambling so kids can blow mommy’s or daddy’s credit card in the privacy of their bedroom on their computer, and now it’s a somewhat benign Bill 65—eight seconds left—that New Democrats, of course, will be supporting, but also acknowledging that this government is an absolute failure.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Stormont, Dundas and North Glengarry.

Mr. Jim Brownell: South Glengarry.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Close.

Mr. Jim Brownell: Yes, it is close.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to support the Minister of Consumer Services on the proposed Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. As parliamentary assistant to the minister and MPP for the riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, I know first-hand of the importance of not-for-profit corporations and the reform that is necessary to help our partners in this sector operate effectively.

If passed, this legislation would provide a modern legal framework to better address the needs of Ontario’s approximately 46,000 not-for-profit corporations. It would make it easier for them to operate in today’s world, as well as strengthen the overall sector.

Reform is long overdue. Let me explain with a bit of history. As the Minister of Consumer Services said in his introductory remarks to this third reading for Bill 65, Ontario’s not-for-profit sector is currently guided by the provisions of the existing Corporations Act. This legislation was enacted in 1907. It was set up to apply to all types of corporations, including not-for-profit, business, insurance and mining. It has not been substantially revised since 1953. Since then, there have been only small amendments.

Through the 1970s, the province introduced separate statutes to govern business corporations. However, the act was not updated to reflect this fundamental change or the many other changes over the decades in this sector. The result: For decades, large parts of the Corporations Act have been outdated. Not-for-profit organizations have told the Ministry of Consumer Services that they have been forced to piece together provisions of the act that apply to them. As you can imagine, this makes it difficult to use. Even lawyers have told the ministry that they, on occasion, find it difficult to locate the applicable law.

There are also significant gaps. For instance, the current act lacks provisions that set out the duty and standard of care of directors and officers. There are no statutory defences for them against personal liability. It lacks a complete set of rules to address director and member meetings. Further, it is not consistent with the newer legislation in place in other Canadian jurisdictions. Basically, it is outdated legislation.

Our government wants to modernize the outdated legislation. Ontario’s not-for-profits deserve fair, comprehensive and up-to-date laws that enable them to operate well in a modern world. The proposed not-for-profit corporations act would meet the need. If passed, this legislation would offer clarity and completeness. It would follow a logical order. It would address a range of issues, from incorporation to corporate governance, to member rights and protections, to defences for directors and officers and to dissolution. It would be a welcome improvement for the sector.

Some might wonder what constitutes a not-for-profit corporation in Ontario under the current legislation, the Corporations Act. There are three key elements:

(1) It is an organization that carries on its activities without the purpose of gain for its members.

(2) It is incorporated as a corporation that does not issue shares.

(3) It must have not-for-profit purposes and use any profits that it makes to promote these purposes.

These are the facts, but as we all know, not-for-profits are so much more than the sum of their parts. From daycare centres to food banks, from social clubs to service clubs, from professional groups to neighbourhood associations, these organizations are the heart and soul of our communities.

Last night, if I could just digress for a moment, I was in my riding as the guest speaker for a not-for-profit group, the Lost Villages Historical Society, doing great work in the community, preserving and protecting our history.

They make remarkable contributions to our society, our people and our economy, and they are vital to the strength and success of our province.

I would like to clarify which organizations would and would not be affected by our proposed reform. All not-for-profit organizations that are incorporated in Ontario under the Corporations Act would be affected. There are some types of not-for-profits operating in Ontario that would not be impacted. These include not-for-profit co-operative corporations, not-for-profits that are incorporated federally and unincorporated not-for-profit organizations. Additionally, some not-for-profits are incorporated through other special private or public acts.

These corporations would not be affected by our proposed reform if either type of act expressly states that the proposed new act does not apply. For example, the Corporations Act does not apply to municipal corporations. Therefore, municipalities would not be affected by our proposed reform.

With respect to charities, our proposed legislation would govern their incorporation, governance and dissolution, but not their regulation. It would also facilitate the activities of not-for-profit social enterprise corporations in Ontario. Not-for-profit social enterprise corporations, which are organizations with specific social or environmental goals, would be permitted to engage, with no restrictions, in commercial activities to advance or support their not-for-profit purposes.

I’d like to share some of the key reforms of the proposed new act and illustrate how they differ from the current Corporations Act and the positive impact they would have on not-for-profit organizations should the proposed new act be implemented. The first thing I’d like to point out is that the structure of our proposed new act would be quite different from the current act. You have heard that the current act is difficult to navigate and many of its provisions are difficult to find. Let me give you an example. About 25 sections in

part II of the current legislation that relate to share capital corporations are made applicable in

part III to non-profit corporations by cross-reference to

section numbers. As a result, even many lawyers find it hard to find the applicable law.

In addition, many provisions, such as the rules relating to conflicts of interest by directors, indemnification of directors and rotating boards, are out of date.

The proposed act would be much clearer. It would follow a logical order: incorporation, governance and dissolution. The proposed act would have no set of provisions governing different types of not-for-profit corporations. This would keep the proposed statute simple to follow and make it easier for a not-for-profit organization and corporation to know which provisions apply to it.

It would also provide clearer rules, such as setting out a duty of care for directors, which does not exist in the current act. Bill 65 clearly sets out that directors and officers have a duty to act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interest of the corporation. They must exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

Good corporate governance is essential to running any organization, and not-for-profits are no exception. We have heard requests for improvements to the current act’s corporate governance provisions.

For example, there is no provision setting out directors’ and officers’ fiduciary duties. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about accountability, the need to reduce unnecessary burdens and ensuring the flexibility required to deal with today’s world. The lack of corporate governance provisions creates an element of uncertainty for the not-for-profit sector, which we intend to address in the proposed new act.

The proposed new act would provide more flexible and up-to-date rules for dealing with the relationship between the corporation and its directors, officers and members. The amendments would enable not-for-profit corporations to govern themselves more efficiently and enhance decision-making structures.

Proposed new provisions would be added to address gaps in the current legislation and clarify rules. A duty of care for directors would be set out in the statute similar to that found in the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the corporate governance provision in three specific areas, which our proposed new act would address.

First, the maximum number of outside directors: The current act does not contain a provision that permits outside directors, because all directors must be members of the corporation. The new act proposes to allow outside directors and would not place a limit on the number of non-members that can be directors.

We have heard, too, about the need for appropriate oversight in the case of corporations that receive significant outside funds. The proposed legal framework ensures there is appropriate oversight in the case of corporations that receive significant outside funds.

The new act would continue the requirement that not-for-profit corporations have a minimum of three directors. A public benefit corporation is required to have no more than one third of the directors who are employees of the corporation.

Lastly, meetings: The current act does not contain a provision to permit a resolution in lieu of a director’s meeting. Stakeholders have identified this as an unnecessary burden in conducting the affairs of their business.

The new act proposes that a unanimous resolution is permitted in lieu of a director’s meeting. This would provide an important degree of flexibility and allows corporations to avoid the cost and expense of holding meetings, while still ensuring participation in decision-making.

Another key area where our proposed act makes significant improvements over the current act is with regard to member remedies. We propose members should have increased remedies to ensure directors are acting in the corporation’s best interest. The current act contains limited remedies that can only be used in limited circumstances by certain complainants. This increases the need for costly and time-consuming remedies such as litigation.

Under our proposed legislation, member democracy would be enhanced. For example, the proposed act would increase accountability by ensuring a corporation and its directors and officers act according to the articles and bylaws of the corporation and in the corporation’s best interests. This reduces the need for costly and time-consuming remedies and provides appropriate deterrence for improper practices.

These are just a few of the significant changes our proposed new act would bring to the governance and day-to-day operations of not-for-profit organizations.

I would like to take a moment to put Bill 65 into the larger context. As you may have heard, the federal government enacted the new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act last year. Our proposed act would, if passed, become consistent with the federal act. Both would provide, for example, a clear and easy structure to follow, a simplified incorporation process and enhanced member remedies. Our provisions would also be broadly consistent with those of other Canadian provinces that have introduced modern legislation to govern not-for-profits, such as the province of Saskatchewan.

As you know, our government has been committed to a business modernization initiative. We have enacted the Securities Transfer Act, we have updated the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Personal Property Security Act and made amendments to various other related statutes. Now we propose to modernize the law of not-for-profit corporations. The combined effect of these changes would establish Ontario as a leading jurisdiction in business law.

The proposed Not-for-Profit Corporations Act would also support our government’s Open for Business initiative by streamlining operational and administrative requirements and processing applications more efficiently.

It would also align with Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy. There are thousands of not-for-profit organizations across this province that are dedicated to improving the lives of vulnerable children and families who live in poverty. This proposed act would make it easier for them and for all of Ontario’s unique and diverse not-for-profit organizations to operate and conduct business in today’s marketplace.

If passed, Bill 65 would provide these vital organizations with many new and important benefits. It would provide more flexible and up-to-date rules for directors, officers and members of not-for-profit corporations; provide improved corporate governance and accountability; provide efficient means for incorporation and operation of not-for-profit corporations; address gaps in the current legislation, such as providing specific protection for liability for directors; harmonize the law with other Canadian jurisdictions; and provide clear and more comprehensive rules: for example, it would set out a duty of care for directors.

Ontario’s not-for-profit sector contributes greatly to our society, our communities and our province. The sector is crucial to those who depend upon the diverse services that its organizations provide. It is vital to our economy, generating about $50 billion in annual revenues and employing almost one million Ontarians. Our government is committed to strengthening this sector that offers so much to so many. We urge all members of the House to support the proposed new, modern Not-for-Profit Corporations Act by approving this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a real pleasure here to, first of all, speak on Bill 65, which, at this point in the debate process, is being time-allocated, meaning they’re actually shutting debate down.

A couple of speakers this morning: One read from a very carefully prepared script and the other improvised rather spontaneously, shall we say. My attempt would be to mix both approaches.

I have looked in the past at what the comments have been, and we should be on the record as saying that in a general way we’re supportive of this rather omnibus type of bill. It seems these bills that come forward nowadays are kind of sliding under the disguise of being large and complex, so many members don’t spend a lot of time thumbing through them. I lost my original copy; I think it’s probably in my office somewhere. But I did take time, because there were a couple of issues that I had some questions about. They were very technical, I’ll say that. Most members have commented that this is a technical area.

I made reference to a couple of the remarks made by our side on this and have found them to be quite informative, and I encourage them to the reading of others.

This bill was first introduced in May 2010, with second reading in June. At that time, it was time-allocated.

It’s important to put in perspective what the bill is trying to do. I think it’s trying to modernize, as they say, and make some efficiencies in the current legislation that governs not-for-profit organizations.

When I looked at the remarks, I thought there were two—one is our member from York–Simcoe, who is now in the chair, by the way.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Who is that, by the way?

Mr. John O’Toole: We’re not supposed to use names here, but it is Ms. Munro. She has been here for some time.

She has actually done quite a bit of work in this area, because in 1995, when Mike Harris was Premier, he assigned Ms. Munro to a very, very powerful mandate to investigate the whole volunteer sector. She did commission a select committee. She did commission a group of advisers who work in the not-for-profit industry and, from that, developed a pretty strategic plan for recognizing and, indeed, celebrating the work of volunteers in our society.

We all know that Ontario and Canada are well recognized for the work of the volunteer sector, both inside our own province, in the country and around the world. I know members here, in their own communities, in almost every case, on every side of the House, will at some time in their journey to this place, and after, have spent time in those sections.

The most important thing to look at is the role of youth. One of the changes that was made, and quite controversially at the time, was the mandated hours of community service. The intent, when you strip away the ideology and the politics of it all, is that we all should contribute to the community, that community being our family, our town, our province or our country, depending on the sets of skills and things that we bring to those activities. Initially, I had many, many complaints about those community volunteer hours, and I can only say this: Those hours, I think, have benefited almost every child who has participated in them.

Learning and mentoring is the role of some of the adults in those supervisory roles, making sure it is a meaningful activity. A good example would be the pages who are here today and who do come to this place from various grade 7 and 8 programs. The experience they get here, although they don’t get paid, cannot be measured in dollars. It has to be measured in experience.

That’s really what volunteers do. They should all be thanked. The debate rages on about whether or not they should be rewarded in some way, financially or materially. I don’t have a problem in many cases with that.

When you look at this bill, it talks about the structures. The two types of structures under those are those with share capital, with voting shares, and those with non-share capital. For the most part, this deals with the volunteer, non-share capital corporation organizations. I think that’s important, because in one of the questions I have, some of them do accumulate property. This bill allows them to borrow money; this allows them to do certain functions. There’s not quite as much accountability, I think, as there could be. That’s one of the things I have a concern about.

I want to go back to the fundamentals here of the background that I have. The bill should provide for accountability mechanisms and review. I think we all agree with that. To determine if this bill could reduce costs and red tape, we should have some benchmark or method of saying, “Have we achieved the verbal objectives, or the stated objectives, of Bill 65?”

Also, you want to make sure that there’s accountability within the organization itself and the board of directors—how they’re appointed, how they’re removed—and that’s covered in one of the sections here. As I said, there are 15 different sections. In the few minutes I have left, I might go over some of them.

There are an estimated 161,000 not-for-profit charities in Canada. Half of these—54%—are run entirely by volunteers.

Imagine, when you look at volunteers, how much they contribute to the welfare of our common society. I think it’s incredible. Yesterday we had the MS Society. I’m involved in my riding of Durham with the MS Society. They put on a seminar here yesterday to educate members about a disease or affliction that’s really disabling for individuals and their families and those around them. Now there’s hope on the horizon with Dr. Zamboni’s liberation therapy.

I’ve seen firsthand how much the volunteers work at the MS Society or the Cancer Society, how much money they raise and how much they make us come together as a community. It’s inspirational, without a lot of money being spent on organizational structures. Often, if you send government in to do a job, you’ve got 5,000 bureaucrats, each making $100,000 a year, running the thing. We’re dealing with it now in the hospital sector; there’s an issue here about the use of consultants. I think we need to make sure that we keep it as simple as possible, yet with accountability and transparency.

This bill is quite cumbersome if you look at it. We deal with lots of bills here. As I said before, I just looked through a few sections and the ones I had trouble with were primarily—this could be a troubling area. I’m bringing up something more controversial than necessary in the time allocation motion, what we call a guillotine motion. Why are they trying to eliminate debate? In fact, it’s my understanding they’re not going to proclaim this into law until way after the next election. What’s the problem here? We’re all in harmony. I think all sides agree with it.

We need public hearings. The bill has been amended and I think there needs to be more consultation with the stakeholders themselves, to see if it achieves the goal and the objectives outlined in the

preamble or the government’s ministerial statement. Does it achieve that? Is it measurable? How and when do we measure it? Is there a report here on these not-for-profit companies or organizations?

When I look at the one section—part XII, on liquidation and dissolution—it’s quite an interesting section. Let’s take, for instance, the cemeteries. Those are interesting groups and I know I see people smiling. I’ve had contact with the Mount Pleasant group. I know Mr. Smitherman, the mayoral candidate in Toronto, had made promises to resolve that issue prior to the election and then virtually refused to meet with them to resolve the issue. I think that deserves the light of day. I’m not qualified to make an assessment in any way of whether or not either party has abided by the laws, but if you look at that

section here—part XII, “Liquidation and Dissolution”—it says, “Voluntary winding up”; there’s a

section on that; “Inspectors”; “Vacancy in office of liquidator”; “Removal of liquidator”; “Commencement of winding up”; “Corporation to cease activities.”

What do they do with the property? This is the issue here which somebody slowly, by their own bylaws—whether those bylaws constitute laws in themselves, I would question. They have not been approved by government. In fact, these corporations are approved by government. Their filing and fundamental records, their corporate finance, all of it—this whole idea of membership and accountability—is set up by a government structure under the act itself.

Incorporation is in

part II and these organizations must have a certificate of incorporation and, as such, are accountable to Premier McGuinty. If there’s anybody who’s not abiding by the law—certainly, in the case of the Mount Pleasant group, if these accusations are true that they’re trying to slowly take over this corporation and its assets, which are all the land holdings that they have by some right of legislation, then that should be brought to the forefront as well.

But let’s move back to the general principle of our society, a society that I think is very well celebrated as we speak by the work that is done by Ms. Munro, as I said before, for setting up the practical level of giving experience to young people.

I like the remarks by the new Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron, who tomorrow, Wednesday, is probably going to make the most profound shift in the British entitlement society—that’s going to be shocking—because they have a huge deficit. In terms of their deficit versus Ontario’s, they are the Titanic; they are headed for the iceberg for sure. In the monetary crisis they were very much extended and their six major banks were all in trouble, but somehow the debt they’ve accumulated, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is about 10 times higher than the one in Ontario, in Canada, and it’s a serious problem.

David Cameron has come out with—his proposal during the election was called the Big Society proposal. The Big Society ultimately speaks to what I think are Conservative values. The values of this are personal responsibility and respect. I think those are very simple and understandable terms of personal responsibility. I’m responsible for what I do, to myself and to you—and respect for one another. An organization, a society in its greatest form, the family unit, today could be said to be under some siege.

I think that, if we look at our activity in society, whether it’s under this bill, the statute that we’re talking about, if we had personal responsibility and respect, especially for volunteers who make our society a better place to live, we’d all be better off collectively.

If this bill sets out to achieve this elimination of red tape and streamlining and modernizing it, and we can measure that, then I’d be supportive of the bill. That being said, I think we should clarify the issues with the stakeholders. If there are unresolved issues in the transformation of our new not-for-profit sector, then they should get on with fixing and reviewing those problems in a public forum. Anything we can do to streamline and harmonize and make it easier for volunteers to make our society a better place, I would want to be on record as being in favour of that.

Because this is a time allocation motion, I probably will not be given any more time to speak on this bill, but I look forward to public hearings.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 1, 2010, I am now required to put the question. Mr. Gerretsen has moved third reading of Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 0949 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure to welcome page Jonathan Antony’s parents in the public gallery: Ms. Viji Antony and Mr. Joseph Antony. Please welcome them to the House.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome Bill Laidlaw, the executive director of the Canadian Assistive Devices Association, along with members of the association to the House.

Mr. Steve Clark: I know they were introduced yesterday by the Minister of the Environment, but I’m glad to be here today and introduce Tom and Marilyn Campbell from the town of Prescott, located in my riding. I know their daughter Dawn Waltenbury is over on the government side, and they’re here because of the new page, their grandson and son, Nicholas Waltenbury from North Bay.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would like to introduce the mother and family friend of page Jayden Rae from the great riding of Whitby–Oshawa: Page Rae and Rhonda Saunderson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce, in the public gallery, the chair of the Renfrew County District School Board, Roy Reiche; the mayor of the town of Petawawa, His Worship Bob Sweet; Lisa Kuehl, the superintendent of business for Renfrew county school board; and Roger Clarke, the director of education for the Renfrew county school board, who are here to meet with officials from the Ministry of Education.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Pickering–Scarborough East and page Sanjay Pavone, to welcome his mother, Dr. Rosemarie Lall; his father, Leo Pavone; his sister Damiana Pavone; and his grandmother Francesca Pavone. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

On behalf of the member from Ajax–Pickering and page Olivia Kelly, we’d like to welcome her mother, Wendy Kelly; her father, Craig Kelly; her sister Lauren Kelly; and her grandfather George Kelly to Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg the indulgence of the House to allow the pages to assemble for introduction.

I’d like to ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 39th Parliament.

Jonathan Antony, Richmond Hill; Emmett Bisbee, York–Simcoe; Harnameh Dhawan, Brampton West; Elle Doherty, Huron–Bruce; Carina Hochgeschurz, Carleton–Mississippi Mills; Bridget Heeman, from the great riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London; Ffion Hughes, Welland; Priscile Itoua-Mamic, Scarborough–Guildwood; Olivia Kelly, Ajax–Pickering; Haadiyah Khan, Scarborough–Rouge River; Kieran Lawlor, Toronto–Danforth; Calder Morton-Ferguson, Guelph; Eric O’Brien, Oxford; Sanjay Pavone, Pickering–Scarborough East; Jayden Rae, Whitby–Oshawa; Kimberly Ren, Mississauga South; Soumiya Suresh, Markham–Unionville; Anika Szabo, Willowdale; Marie-Josée Vercouteren, Chatham–Kent–Essex; Nicholas Waltenbury, Nipissing.

Welcome to all of our pages.

VISITORS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Today, the assistive devices folks are with us at Queen’s Park to let us know about what they do and the issues that folks who are disabled have challenges with on a daily basis.

I would like to tell you about the generosity of Joe Millage from Shoppers Home Health. He has donated the wheelchair that I am going to be using for the rest of the day to a worthy organization in Burlington, so I would like to thank him for that publicly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. Premier, in March, you told Ontario families that your plan to restore Ontario to fiscal health was premised on getting the public sector to agree to a wage freeze. But public sector union leaders did not take you seriously, and they’ve walked away from the table. In the meantime, you’ve lost three arbitrations in a row. Premier, given that your plan has gone off the rails, what is your new plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we wrapped up our first round of consultations with our partners in the public and broader public sectors. We have engaged what I would call a very fruitful dialogue on issues that are important to Ontarians: the provision of health care, the provision of education. We will continue this process as we have, and I will be reporting later in the fall with respect to the overall fiscal situation in Ontario.

But we have had what I would term a very robust consultation with our partners in the public and broader public sectors, speaking with them in an open and honest fashion. We look forward to continuing that as we move forward to preserve and, indeed, enhance Ontario’s public service.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I do want to say, Premier, that I’m disappointed you didn’t answer my question. It appears that your only plan seems to be to run from the issue. Maybe that’s the sound we hear of your footsteps backtracking yet again.

Back to the Premier, with all due respect to the finance minister: Premier, you said that you expected your transfer partners to bargain responsibly “so that, together, we can ... protect schools and hospitals,” but arbitrators have gone the other way. You’ve lost three arbitrations in a row, one of which awarded a 4.5% wage increase, leaving administrators to say they’re going to have to cut front-line services in return. Basically, the premise is that your transfers were based on a wage freeze across the public sector that you have failed to deliver.

So I ask you, Premier: What front-line health care services do you plan to cut now that your wage restraint plan has gone badly off the rails?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The way to make progress in building our public health and education systems is with respect and working together. If we learned anything over the course of the last period of time, it is that working together, Ontarians—whether labour or management, whether white collar or blue collar—will pull together to guarantee and help build those services that all Ontarians rely on.

We think that is the right approach. We’re pleased with the progress we’re making. We’ve had a very fruitful round of consultations and we look forward to continuing to build partnerships, to help ensure that we never go back to a time when we lost 26 million school days in our education system and that we can work together to build better public services for all Ontarians.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier again, as opposed to the finance minister: Premier, you need to show leadership on this issue. You have made some very clear commitments of a wage freeze in order to protect front-line services. You have failed to do so.

Seven months have passed since you made that promise. You’ve lost three arbitrations in a row. As a result, we’re seeing cutbacks in hospitals; we’re seeing senior citizens not getting the service they require in our long-term-care homes; arbitrators continue to give out wage increases, up to 4.5%; and hard-working Ontario families are forced to once again pay the bills for your mismanagement and lack of leadership on this issue.

Premier, are you planning to backtrack yet again, or what exactly is your plan now that the original one is off the rails?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Premier McGuinty has shown the leadership that has the best labour relations record in the history of Ontario.

You want to pick a fight, don’t you? That’s what you’re all about. That member and his party want to pick a fight. When he’s not expensing his McNuggets, he wants to pick a fight with teachers, with firefighters and with communities. We reject that. We reject going back to an era when school kids lost 26 million days.

We pledge to continue to work with all of our partners in the public and broader public sectors as we return to balance and, at the same time, enhance and build the vital public services that all Ontarians count on and that all of the partners in our sector work hard to deliver. Let’s stand up for partnership and for working together.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again for the Premier: I’m disappointed you didn’t answer the question. It is also disappointing that on a very serious issue, the finance minister simply chooses to fill the airtime with bluster. Sadly, it means he has no answers. That’s not good enough for Ontario families. The Ontario PCs will deliver for Ontario families, who pay the bills.

Premier, we suspect that the auditor’s report tomorrow on hospitals will show that you have failed to keep another promise and that Liberal-friendly consultants will be back at the trough. We also see today that you are cutting vitamin D testing and sacrificing front-line care to seniors and Ontario families because your plan to control spending has gone off the rails.

So Premier, I will ask you now for the fourth time: What’s next? What services are you going to cut because you have no plan to keep your promise for a wage freeze?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to assure the people of Ontario that we will not join the leader of the official opposition and his party in their solemn commitment to cut $3 billion out of health care. I think—

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we have a different approach—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew, I just asked you to withdraw. I just sat down and you started to comment again.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Kick him out.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need any help from the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a different approach when it comes to health care, and my honourable colleagues opposite know that. More importantly, Ontario families are experiencing that.

We’re the first government in Ontario to track wait times, and they’re coming down. People don’t have to wait as long to get their cancer treatment, hip and knee surgeries, MRIs and CT scans. Nearly one million more Ontarians now have a family doctor. There are over 10,000 more nurses and 2,300 more doctors. We’re building 18 new hospitals in Ontario, and we’ve worked very hard to cut the price of generic drugs in half. Those are positive, progressive steps that we’ve taken on behalf of Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think that says a lot about what has happened to Premier McGuinty after seven years in office. He dodges my first three questions, and then the first words out of his mouth are—how do I say it in parliamentary language?—words that are not even in passing acquaintance with the facts. We will invest in front-line services to help the families who pay the bills.

Premier, look at your priorities. Since you took office, the number of assistant deputy ministers in the Ministry of Health has increased from five to 10, a 100% increase. Your LHINs have sucked some $250 million out of health care, and they don’t do a single surgery or a single MRI. Families in Hamilton and Niagara, which I represent, are now having their home care cut while you give a bureaucrat in your bloated ministry the money that should be going to patients through the CCAC.

Premier, what happened to you after seven years in office? Why did your priority become bloated—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are a few other numbers I think Ontarians might be interested in, including 10,000 more nurses, 2,300 more doctors and 18 new hospitals.

My honourable colleague says that he is concerned about ensuring that we use every health care dollar efficiently, but when we stood up in this Legislature and introduced a new law to cut the price of generic drugs in half, saving money for families, government, taxpayers and businesses alike, they voted against that. So it’s hard to tell from one day to the next whose side he’s really on.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The sad reality under the McGuinty government is that Ontario families are struggling to make ends meet. They’re working harder and longer and paying more in taxes but seeing less in return. The Ontario PCs want to make sure that every dollar goes into front-line health care services, not the bloated bureaucracies that Dalton McGuinty has created. We suspect—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member on the use of names.

Mr. Tim Hudak: We suspect, Premier, that tomorrow’s report will show that the Liberal-friendly consultants are back at the trough at the LHINs and at the hospitals.

But here’s what speaks to the McGuinty government’s approach. Look at the $250,000 sole-source contract you gave to McKinsey and Co. It was for a so-called lean project that was supposed to be a plan for reducing waste in the Ministry of Health by 20%, but your so-called lean plan went 100% over budget, into the pocket of consultants. Premier—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re looking forward to introducing a new law tomorrow, a new bill, which will deal more specifically with lobbyists. We think it’s inappropriate for a lobbyist to be paid with public dollars to try to solicit more public dollars from the government.

I can tell you what we’re also proud to do on behalf of Ontarians. We have, so far, reduced government-wide use of consultants in contrast to the previous government; we have reduced government-wide use of consultants by more than 54%. Overall, travel expenses are down by 23%, and government advertising is down by 20%. I am proud to report that, overall, government spending by the Ontario government, on a per capita basis, is now 30% below the average of the other provincial governments.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This winter will be the first winter that millions of Ontarians will be paying time-of-use hydro rates, and families who use electrical heating are worried sick about rates that are going to hit them hard when they can least afford it, when they have to heat their homes. Independent experts are saying that switching to time-of-use pricing will drive hydro rates higher. My question is a simple one: What is the Premier’s plan for relief for Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a very important matter of public policy once again.

The fact of the matter is that at the time we formed the government back in 2003, our electricity system was in a terrible state of disrepair. It had gone wanting for a long time in terms of new investment and new generation and new transmission. The first thing we set out to do was to put in place a reliable electricity system, so that no matter who you are, whether you’re working in an office, at the hospital, at a school or at home, when you flicked that switch, the lights came on. We have achieved that.

The second thing we’re working on is cleaning up our electricity sources. That’s why we are shutting down coal-fired generation. We just shut down four more plants. That’s like taking two million cars off the road.

The third thing we are doing, of course, is building a new and exciting and vibrant sector of the economy. It’s a new industry. It is green energy, and we’re talking about 16,000 new jobs so far.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families who rely on electricity to heat their homes simply cannot shift their usage. They’ll just end up paying much, much more.

Sandi Mugford writes this: “My husband is severely disabled and at home. Do I turn down the heat in the day to save money and risk him getting pneumonia? Do I tell his support workers and my caregiver relief, ‘You cannot do household chores or dry clothes during peak hours; please come back after 10 p.m. and do the work’?”

What does the Premier think Ms. Mugford should do?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Time of use is a very important part of our modernization plan for our energy system. It’s something that’s going to give families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Some of these comments that members are making, that they think they’re making under their breath, are being picked up by the Speaker.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Time of use is a very important part of our plan to modernize our energy system.

I would think the NDP would be onside for our efforts to bring modernization to our aging energy system and replace those decades-old meters with new, modern smart meters. Apparently, they’re not. Apparently, they want to take us back. Apparently, they don’t believe Ontario families deserve the opportunity to engage in efforts to shift their use off of peak.

As we go through these new programs, we understand that Ontario families need some assistance, and that’s why the Premier brought forward, very recently, our Ontario energy and property tax credit. Two thirds of Ontario seniors are going to benefit from that; 2.8 million low- and middle-income Ontarians are going to—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Apparently, this minister and the Premier don’t believe that families in Ontario are struggling and can’t pay their hydro bills. Each and every day, my office hears from more and more of these Ontarians, and they’re worried, like Susan Jones, who writes this: “The cost of electricity is one whole paycheque for me, as it runs between $550 to $600 every two months.... I work in the health care profession and I work every other weekend and have days off during the week.... When smart meters came into effect, I couldn’t do my wash on my days off because I would be charged more.”

Taking the HST off hydro would give Ms. Jones the very break that she needs. Why won’t the Premier simply do that?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We fully understand that Ontario families have been through some tough times. We’ve been through a global recession, and Ontario families are still struggling; some are trying to work their way out of that.

We recognize that we are in a time of rising energy costs, and that’s why our Premier brought forward the Ontario energy and property tax credit. Two thirds of Ontario seniors are going to benefit from that; 2.8 million Ontario families are going to see relief as a result of this. This is a good thing.

I guess my question to the Leader of the Opposition is, why does she not support our efforts to modernize our energy infrastructure? She stands up in this House day after day opposing our efforts to build a stronger energy system, opposing our efforts to make the important investments to improve our system for 8,000 new megawatts of power, opposing our efforts to invest in our energy system to make it more reliable—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Energy consultant Bruce Sharp of Aegent Energy Advisors says, “Simply switching householders ... to time-of-use pricing drives bills higher.” He adds, “Since nearly everyone in the province now has a smart meter that enables time-of-use pricing, the switch to time-of-use pricing is in itself a subtle rate increase.”

The government’s not-so-smart-meter scheme is not helping people save. It’s forcing them to pay more. To help offset the not-so-smart meter whammy, why will this government not do the right thing and take the HST off hydro?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know a lot of folks are weighing in on this, and understandably; it’s an important issue of public policy, and families are concerned about what’s happening to electricity prices. But I think we can continue to have a tremendous amount of faith in the wisdom of our Environmental Commissioner. He said this: “There’s a lot of exaggerated claims that ‘prices are going through the roof.’ And I am worried this is going”—

Laughter.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They may want to laugh at the Environmental Commissioner, but I think we should pay heed to his advice here.

“And I am worried this is going to trump environmental concerns, and sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term political and financial gains.... 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.”

I think the Environmental Commissioner offers some very sound and prudent advice, and I think we should also pay close attention to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s time the Premier started listening to the people of Ontario. That’s what his job is. Time-of-use rates were supposed to encourage consumers to use more power in off-peak periods, but since they were introduced in 2006, off-peak rates have increased by 46%. That is a fact. No matter how hard they try, families are stuck paying more because of this Premier’s not-so-smart energy decisions.

He can actually take the sting out of hydro rates for people. He actually has the ability to do that by taking the HST off hydro. My question is, why will he simply not do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Clearly what the leader of the third party wants to do is bring us back to where we were seven years ago and go back to that old-fashioned and unmodernized system that we inherited at that time.

Let me quote the Environmental Commissioner again. This isn’t us saying this; this is Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, somebody who has a great deal of respect across this province. In referring to smart meters, he says, “They are necessary, absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and future functioning of the distribution system for electricity.”

We’re doing everything we need to do to move our energy system forward. We inherited a mess seven years ago. The NDP clearly have changed their position. They want to take this back. Ontarians don’t go backwards. We’re going forward to a modernized energy system that’s going to be more competitive and provide Ontario ratepayers with the efficiencies they deserve.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are hurting, and it’s time for the Premier to realize exactly how much they’re hurting.

John Akermanis writes this: “It was bad enough that the smart meter doubled our hydro bill ... despite the fact we consumed less than previous periods.”

People aren’t saving money; they’re not saving energy either. The Premier can provide people with real and immediate relief by removing the HST from the hydro bills. I just need to know: What the heck is he waiting for?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve talked about this before, and I’m pleased to share with the leader of the third party again—I would suggest that maybe it should be in her next householder so she can ensure that her constituents indeed are being provided with the knowledge they should have on these issues—that the Ontario energy and property tax credit will benefit two thirds of Ontario seniors. It will provide 2.8 million low- and middle-income Ontarians with relief on rising energy costs. It’s something that indicates that we really do understand that those families are going through challenging times, and we’re responding to those families.

At the same time, the leader of the third party owes those families the right to know where she stands, because we know what she opposes. She opposes our investing in an aging energy system. She opposes our efforts to create jobs and bring on more economic recovery. She opposes our efforts to clean up our energy system and make it more—

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

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. Tomorrow the auditor will release his report on consulting contracts at hospitals and local health integration networks, which will shed new light on the pattern of waste at eHealth and the LHINs. The Ontario PC priority is putting money back into front-line health care, but the Premier’s priority is to make Ontario patients pay $10,000 for Kathy Durst, the chair of the Waterloo Wellington LHIN, to take management courses at McMaster. Premier, why are Ontario families paying for your hand-picked Liberal appointee to take courses at university when the money should be spent on front-line health care?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. There are a number of ministers who are commenting while somebody is asking a question, and it’s important for the Speaker to be able to hear that question. I’d just like to remind those ministers to be respectful of the questioner.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It seems that the opposition continues to attack the LHINs. They continue to attack community members having a voice in the planning of their health care system.

I can tell you that we are committed to strengthening the LHINs. The LHINs are playing a very important function in our health care planning. They are, for the first time ever, responsible for the integration of health care. We are seeing tremendous results from the work that the LHINs are doing, especially when it comes to reducing, for example, alternate level of care patients—ALC patients—who are in hospital, who actually would be better served at home or outside of the hospital. The LHINs are doing that work.

I know the opposition thinks there should be no planning whatsoever for the over $20 billion that is administered by the LHINs. I simply disagree with that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier. I know that the Premier will be visiting Waterloo later this afternoon, and media and families in that community are looking for an explanation from the Premier of Ontario. During the period that Kathy Durst attended accountability and change sessions, Durst also billed the Ontario taxpayer and patients for her $350 per diem. Ontario PC caucus researchers also uncovered information that revealed that the same chair of the Waterloo Wellington LHIN billed Ontario patients $81,000 in per diems, even though the job was posted as part-time to the Ontario public.

She doesn’t see a single patient, nor does she provide any front-line care, so why has the Premier put his bloated health bureaucracy ahead of Ontario families and Ontario patients?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say, when it comes to health care the opposition simply does not get it. What they need to understand is that the sustainability of our health care system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark, the member from Oxford, the member from Renfrew—and the honourable member from Nepean, who just asked the question. I would trust that she would listen to the answer. She certainly understands the standing orders, and if you’re not satisfied, you can file a late show. But I would hope you would be respectful and listen to the minister’s answer.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I was saying, the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark, I just sat down and you just opened up. I would just ask that you be a little more respectful of the Chair and respectful of the need for this House to do what it is supposed to do during this one hour allocated for question period.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister for Community Safety, the same message that I just delivered to the member from Lanark I’m delivering to you. It goes both ways in this place. Quite honestly, if we don’t want to have question period, I’m quite happy to stand here and let the clock run, but I don’t think that’s fair to the people who are here watching or fair to any member of this House.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The party opposite has a $3-billion problem. You see, they are committed to cutting $3 billion out of health care. They are on the record as eliminating taxes that add up to $3 billion so far, and they’re just getting started. What they need to do is be honest with the people of Ontario and explain where the cuts are that are going to correspond—you cannot cut taxes and not cut services.

Their attack on the credibility of the people providing excellent care in this province is all about them trying to justify an unjustifiable cut to health care in this province.

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

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. In April 2009, I asked about access to physiotherapy following cuts at St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, Joseph Brant Memorial and West Lincoln. The health minister assured me, “Patients will get the care they need.” But Chris Heinrich, a physiotherapist in Hamilton, tells a different story of patients who need care: “They are desperate. They have nowhere else to go. They have no one to turn to. They have no private insurance. They have nothing.”

Can the minister advise Mr. Heinrich what he should tell these Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are working very, very hard to continue to strengthen health care in this province. We have measurable improvements. I think all members of this Legislature understand—if they talk to their constituency office staff—that we’re not getting the calls we used to about needing access to a doctor or a nurse practitioner. Access to primary care is significantly better than it was when I was elected in 2003.

We’ve brought down wait times so that now people are waiting far less—over a year less than they were when we were elected in 2003. We’ve focused on reducing wait times. We’ve focused on improving access to primary care. We are turning our attention to quality. I am very encouraged by the progress we’re going to make when it comes to improving the quality of care. It is only through those initiatives that we will be able to provide health care—

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

M me France Gélinas: My question was very specific about access to physiotherapy, a service that has been delisted and a service that most hospitals are cutting in trying to balance their books. It looks to me like the McGuinty government has tried to find some cost savings on the backs of the most disadvantaged Ontarians so that precious health care dollars can be poured into lobbyists, consultants or maybe even executive salaries.

But delisting and cutting physiotherapy is heartless. It makes no financial sense. When Ontarians can’t access preventive care, they end up in the most expensive part of our health care system, emergency departments, costing the health care system way more.

Is the minister satisfied that she has finally eliminated access to physiotherapy for the most needy Ontarians in the Niagara region?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think all of us would agree that there are always going to be things we want to do more of when it comes to health care. There are always significant demands for more spending. When it comes to physiotherapy, we have improved access to physiotherapy for seniors. We’re expanding physiotherapy services in our long-term-care homes. We’re now providing OHIP-funded physiotherapy to approximately 138,000 seniors every year in this province. That’s important service, important care, that they are receiving.

At the same time, we are focusing on our highest-priority areas: bringing down wait times. In the Hamilton Health Sciences centre, we’ve been able to reduce the length of time people wait for hip replacement surgery by 277 days—that is a remarkable achievement; knee surgery is down 267 days; angioplasty—

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

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Last week, the member from Whitby–Oshawa introduced a motion on the use of lobbyists, even when our government announced we’re moving forward with legislation, a much stronger measure than a motion, to increase accountability and transparency. What I don’t understand is how the member from Whitby–Oshawa could introduce a motion when her own leadership campaign manager, Andrew Boddington, took health care dollars for lobbying—and I hope she did tell him to stop. Her campaign manager’s father, George Boddington, also a Conservative insider, lobbied on behalf of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust—stop the clock.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, the member from Wellington–Halton Hills knows the rules.

I trust that the honourable member is going to bring this around to a question that has something to do with the portfolio, because, as I’m hearing right now, it’s not leading that way.

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate your counsel, Speaker, and I’ll get to it right now.

You can’t only talk about accountability; action is necessary and needed. The status quo cannot continue, regardless of what party we’re talking about. Minister, I want to know what our government is doing to protect public money, to increase accountability, to improve transparency and to change the status quo that we’re presently in.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Brant for asking the question. As the member has indicated, the Minister of Health will be introducing legislation to ensure that the front-line dollars actually go for front-line services.

We have made it very clear in the Legislature that using public money to lobby for extra dollars is not acceptable. I want to tell you that when the Conservatives were in power, there were about 14 hospitals that were using lobbyists. This practice, to us, is not acceptable, and we’re going to put an end to this practice.

Last year, we introduced the Public Sector Expenses Review Act, and I’m very pleased to tell you that the expenses for consultants have gone down more than 54% since 2001 and 2002. We will continue to make sure that the taxpayers’ dollars are used for the best purposes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the answer, and it talks to us about changing the status quo. We need to improve that, for all of this House’s sake.

When it comes to keeping an eye on our precious taxpayer’s dollar, we have examples from the opposition, who set the tone: anywhere, any time, any place. The status quo must change. So we’re on the hook for a fishing licence; we’re on the hook for a trip to Brazil; we’re on the hook for McDonald’s McNuggets. The practice continues—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to remind the member again: Get to the point of the urgency of the question, please.

Mr. Dave Levac: Thank you again for that guidance, Speaker. Again, I’ll get to the point.

After all that has been spoken of, including any other trip that has been taken that we’re now finding out has been happening inside of this place over the years, I want to know if the minister can tell us why the public did not know about these expenses and what he is going to be doing to stop the status quo and move us forward—

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

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member again for his very insightful question.

As you are aware, last February I asked both the leaders—the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition—to post their expenses—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Simcoe North.

Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Economic Development. The member from Simcoe North. The member from Barrie. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, last year, you are aware that I asked the leaders of both the opposition and the NDP to post their expenses. This was supposed to strengthen the transparency and the accountability for taxpayers. Even the Leader of the Opposition has indicated—they both actually indicated their willingness to post these expenses. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that those expenses have been posted, but we actually haven’t seen where these expenses have been posted.

So I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to tell us exactly where the expenses have been posted so that the public can actually see where those expenses are and what any of those expenses are.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier, and I’d like to thank the member from Brant for his great segue. Tomorrow, the auditor is set to release his report on consulting contracts in hospitals. Freedom-of-information records received by the PC caucus reveal that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: —Chatham-Kent Health Alliance handed out a sole-source contract after the Premier said these sweetheart deals were banned.

Premier, why did you backtrack on your sole-source contract ban?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This government is a government that has committed itself to increasing transparency—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): How could I anticipate that that was coming? The member from Durham will withdraw the comment.

Mr. John O’Toole: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’ve committed ourselves to increasing transparency and improving accountability, and our record speaks for itself. We inherited a system where there frankly was not sufficient oversight in a number of areas and we have taken many steps, step-by-step, to improve that. And as you know, tomorrow I will be introducing legislation that will take the next step forward.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Lanark, I’ll ask that you withdraw the comment. Comments like that just are not useful to try and keep—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. It’s also not helpful when the Speaker is about to ask a member to withdraw a comment to have interjections coming from the minister’s side. Please withdraw the comment.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The contract was for $30,000 to defend the plan to close the Wallaceburg emergency department. The deal was handed to Laurie Lashbrook. Lashbrook is a big donor to the McGuinty Liberals and to the health minister herself. She’s also married to the former president of the federal Liberal Party and former head of the Attorney General’s riding association.

Premier, how can you tell Ontario families that your priority is front-line health care when you’re getting the Liberal family to help you close emergency rooms?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, this is now just going to the absurd when it comes to opposition attacks on our health care system.

Let me talk to you about some of the results from the actions we have taken. We have cut consulting expenditures in half, from $656 million to $304 million. We’ve saved $67 million by converting over 1,500 consultant positions to regular full-time employees since 2003. We’ve brought in tough new procurement rules that all agencies and all ministries must follow. We’ve brought the following agencies under freedom of information: Cancer Care Ontario, universities, Hydro One, OPG and local public utilities. We’ve expanded the role of the Auditor General so that the Auditor General now can go into hospitals, colleges, universities, school boards—

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

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety. We have witnessed several tragic fires in retirement homes over the past few years. Seniors have been seriously injured, suffered brain damage, and several have lost their lives. What advice has this minister and the past Minister of Community Safety received from the Ontario fire marshal about automatic sprinklers in all Ontario care occupancies?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We need to give the honourable member the opportunity to answer his phone. I’d just remind the members again that telephones should not be—

Interjections.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: There are a number of people in the province of Ontario and a number of members of the Legislature who are interested in fire safety in this province.

What I was able to do when I assumed the office of new minister, just as my predecessor did, was engage in some significant consultation with all of those who have a viewpoint. There are a number of recommendations that would come forward from all those individuals. We have those who are professional in terms of their firefighting service; there are others who are advisers; there are those who would talk about the building code and how it can be adjusted—and you know there have already been some adjustments there. But I found these consultations to be very valuable.

One of the other things I found, I must say to the member, is that nobody said there was one single thing that could be done that was best, but a variety of activities that might—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: When a fire safety plan is inadequate to ensure that residents can be evacuated and their lives protected, there are a few options, such as increasing the number of trained staff on duty, reducing the number of beds and residents, and installing automatic sprinkler systems.

On the record, did the fire marshal give advice to the minister—yes or no—that sprinklers would save lives? Did the fire marshal recommend that the government introduce legislation to require the retroactive installation of sprinklers in all care facilities?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I received a variety of recommendations from those people—including the individual to whom you’ve made reference—and from people right across the province on how things could be strengthened. I’m glad the member mentioned some of these components.

One of them, for instance, was having an adequate fire plan. A good example I want to give to him—and I think he would agree with me on this—is that in Niagara Falls, the fire service there has been very proactive in their inspections and in their working with those who have seniors’ homes in Niagara Falls. And there are a number of others as well.

There are many recommendations coming forward. I’m very interested in those recommendations. I know the member himself has a bill before the House on Thursday. I think it would be very valuable once again that we discuss these issues, and I hope that we can find a total package that will work well in bringing about fire safety—

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

ELDER ABUSE

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. Today is Elder Abuse Awareness Day in Ontario. I first raised this issue in this chamber back in 2004. The intention was to promote awareness about the importance of protecting seniors in Ontario from elder abuse. This chamber, in its collective wisdom, made October 19 Elder Abuse Awareness Day in Ontario. It’s a day for all of us who love and respect the seniors in our lives, whether they are parents, grandparents, friends, neighbours or just fellow citizens, to reflect on what we can do as individuals to help combat elder abuse.

Unfortunately, elder abuse remains an issue in our communities. Minister, what actions is this government taking to combat elder abuse in Ontario?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’d like to thank the member from Willowdale for the question, and I congratulate him for all the great work he does in his community when it comes to seniors.

The safety and well-being of Ontario’s seniors is a top priority for our government, and that is why we are the first government in the province’s history to regulate retirement homes.

Since 2003, Ontario has invested $4.2 million in elder abuse prevention, and that includes $900,000 in annual funding to the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. There’s also $415,000 from the Trillium Foundation for a hotline to assist seniors at risk of abuse.

The network is working to implement Ontario’s strategy to combat elder abuse.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Thank you, Minister, for outlining some of these actions that our government is taking to protect seniors from elder abuse. But it’s also very, very important that this information is available directly to those affected in the first instance by this issue: the seniors themselves. Minister, how is the government raising awareness of elder abuse day, and how is our government helping seniors inform themselves so that they know what their rights and expectations should be?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: The member is correct: Raising awareness on this issue is extremely important. We are supporting initiatives that educate seniors on how to protect themselves from abuse and fraud. In fact, in June of this past year, along with the Bank of Canada, we hosted a successful conference for seniors on financial abuse and fraud awareness.

We are also continuing to work with our federal, provincial and territorial governments to raise awareness of these issues. A great resource for our seniors is the new Guide to Programs and Services for Seniors in Ontario. We’ll be sending copies of that guide to all members of the House today. It includes information on preventing elder abuse and has updated information and contact phone numbers. I encourage members of the House to use this guide and to make it available to our seniors. It is also available online at ontario.ca/seniors.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, will you release the list of children’s aid societies that, last week, were asked to amalgamate?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m so pleased to have an opportunity in this House to speak about the transformational work that’s under way in this sector to make sure that we have sustainable children’s aid societies in the future. It is this government that has taken steps to ensure that we’ve increased funding to the highest levels ever—to $1.4 billion. Last year, we put an additional $26.9 million into the sector to stabilize high-risk CASs.

My commitment has always been that our focus should be on the kids and that we should ensure that our CASs are there to make sure that Ontario’s children, the children that we have responsibility for, have a CAS that answers the phone and that opens the door when they need that help.

The work that the commission is doing right across the province is work that is going to ensure that we have sustainable CASs on a sure footing into the future to do that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The list, Minister: We’re looking for the list.

Where is the transparency in this process? Letters were sent out last week to 53 children’s aid societies, telling them they either had to consolidate services with a neighbouring agency or that it was business as usual. But there has been no announcement, no ministerial statement, no press release, no press conference. There hasn’t even been a tweet.

Minister, why are you trying to hide these consultations from Ontario families?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: It’s very rich coming from that side of the House to lecture us on transparency, on consultation, on how to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean. The member from Oxford. The member from Halton, who’s not in his seat.

Minister?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: We established a commission in late 2009 to do historic work that has not been done in this province. The work of the commission is done at arm’s-length from the government so that they can travel across the province. In the last year, they’ve had more than 2,000 meetings.

They’ve issued some recommendations that we’ll be taking a look at on how we can reduce some of the administrative burdens that exist on our CASs. They have also recommended that some CASs need to look at their operation.

It is incumbent upon all of us to find a new way of doing business. We’ve asked three experts to travel the province and work in co-operation with CASs. If the member opposite had listened to the comments that I’ve publicly indicated, we’re looking to work co-operatively with CASs. We’ve asked the commission to do that. We do that because—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Ottawa families are finding it harder and harder to pay their hydro bills. Stephany Ward-Smith and her husband have two young children. She writes, “The cost of everything our family purchases has increased. The biggest hit was hydro, our hydro bill was $743.03 for 62 days.... This has put us in a financial situation. We can no longer sustain status quo.” Why won’t the Premier take the HST off of hydro and give Ottawa-area families like the Ward-Smiths a break?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, as we’ve said previously today and as we’ve said for some time now, we understand that Ontario families have been through a tough time. We understand that the global recession had hit Ontario particularly hard and we understand that as we recover from that global recession, some Ontario families are still struggling. So we get it—and our energy rates are going up—that Ontario families have challenges. That’s why we brought forward the Ontario energy and property tax credit, so that two thirds of Ontario seniors could receive relief; so that 2.8 million Ontarians, middle- and lower-income Ontarians, would receive relief.

This is over $1 billion of relief that’s being provided to those families. We care about those families. We’re going to continue to work with those families. What we’re not going to do is go back to where we were seven years ago, like the NDP wants us to do, and pull back on the important investments that those—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Ward-Smiths aren’t the only Ottawa residents struggling to make ends meet. Kathryn Barber writes, “The latest shocker came in the form of my hydro bill—$161 for two months in a three-and-a-half bedroom apartment! I have never paid more than $90 a month, so this was quite a jump and a hit on the budget. I’m feeling the pinch!”

When will the Premier finally start listening to people like Ms. Barber and Ms. Ward-Smith and agree to take the HST off of the hydro bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: My question to the leader of the third party is when will the leader of the third party let all Ontarians know where she stands when it comes to making investments in our energy sector? She clearly doesn’t support our investments to build 8,000 new megawatts of power into our system. She clearly stands opposed to investments to get out of dirty coal. We closed four more coal units just a few weeks ago, cleaning our air and providing better health outcomes for ourselves and our children. When she stands up here, day after day, opposing the important investments that are getting us there, she is standing dead set against our policies to get out of coal by the year 2014.

The NDP has clearly lost their direction. The NDP clearly has to take another look at where they’re going here. The NDP is clearly—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. My riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry recently welcomed 32 new affordable housing units into the community. I think it’s an understatement to suggest that this $2.2-million investment on the part of our province and the federal government will go a long way in ensuring that those who require affordable housing have access to it when they need it, but there is always more to be done with respect to affordable housing.

I receive many inquiries from constituents as to what programs and services are available to them, specifically when it comes to the renovation of older affordable housing units. Could the minister please outline what provincial programs are available for rehabilitation and renovation of older affordable housing units?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. This member truly understands the need for affordable housing in the province and in his riding.

Our government is truly committed to helping those living on low and fixed incomes, which is why after years of neglect by the previous governments, we are investing heavily into affordable housing programs. We have provided more than $2.5 billion since 2003. These investments are helping us build and repair more than 200,000 units across our province. Part of that investment is our social housing renovation and retrofit program, a $704-million commitment which has been allocated to renovate and repair units across Ontario.

Unlike previous governments, we have a plan, a plan that we are going to implement, a plan that is meaningful to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Brownell: The constituents in my riding will certainly be pleased to know that there are programs available for the renovation of units currently occupied.

Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: There has been much talk on all sides of the House regarding our government’s long-term affordable housing strategy and what it means for Ontarians. In fact, today there are groups staging protests across Canada, calling on the federal government to make do with a national housing strategy.

Minister, in your earlier response you indicated a strong commitment on the part of our government to create and renovate affordable housing units across the province of Ontario. Through you, Speaker, could the minister tell us what Ontario’s new strategy will mean and how it will complement what is already being done on the part of the province?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I am very proud that very shortly, we will be introducing a long-term affordable housing strategy. We are the first government to introduce such a strategy. The Harris-Hudak regime’s strategy was to—

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

I just want to remind the honourable member of a previous ruling I made regarding the use of names in the House. In that ruling I made reference to previous references that had been made in this House to the Harris government or the Eves government or the McGuinty government or the Rae government. The Leader of the Opposition has not been a leader of a government and I would just ask that that phrase not be used.

Please continue.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Well, the previous Tory government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw that comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Unequivocally.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I will withdraw the comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The previous Tory government’s strategy was to declare war on the homeless. This government’s strategy is to declare war on homelessness. We are very proud that we’re putting forth a long-term affordable strategy. Yes, there are protests across Canada today calling on the federal government—the federal government should have a long-term affordable housing strategy in place—

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

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Premier. Because of the McGuinty government’s disastrous policy of raising taxes, hiking electricity rates and spending our province into its largest debt in history, seniors and families will struggle to pay their electricity bill this winter. The Premier has no plan and has created an energy crisis in Ontario. Prices are going up while they ignore the issue of baseload capacity.

Premier, nuclear energy produces 50% of Ontario’s power supply, but you have ignored it. The Darlington new build is part of the solution for reliable energy, but you have cancelled it. Your costly energy experiments are taxing seniors and families out of their homes.

I ask the Premier, what is your plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Acting Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll refer it to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m very pleased to respond to this because last week, the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear what his disastrous nuclear policy would be. What he indicated to us last week is that he is a buy-at-any-price, impulse shopper when it comes to nuclear. That irresponsible approach would cost us billions and billions of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ dollars if we were to take it.

This government believes in investing in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Oxford. Member from Nepean.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If we listened to the advice of the leader opposite, today we would have been purchasing units—billions of dollars more than we would need to have paid. Nuclear energy is not something you buy on an impulse; nuclear energy is something that you have to make sure that you’re taking every—

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

Mr. John O’Toole: The fact is that smart meters, HST and other profit incentives, including a failed Green Energy Act, have made energy less affordable in Ontario. The Darlington new-build program offers solutions: clean, reliable energy for the future. Durham region and the board of trade—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Agriculture will please come to order.

Mr. John O’Toole: A little bit of ethanol over there.

But Durham region and Clarington board of trade—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful, and I think maybe one of the—I’m not even going to say it. I just remind the Minister of Economic Development to please come to order. Comments that the member from Durham made as well, directed to a minister, are not helpful. It’s important that we all maintain as much respect and decorum as we possibly can in this House.

The time for question period has now ended.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to call your attention to the question today from the member from Brant directed to the Minister of Government Services. I would like to cite standing order 37(

a) with respect to the urgent importance of the question, for starters, which you wondered about aloud yourself, and then I would also like to reference standing orders 23(

h) and (

i) with respect to making allegations against another member and/or impugning the motives of another member. I believe that this question was nothing more or less than a personal attack on another member of this House and should have been ruled out of order, and I would ask for you to make a ruling on that, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Welland on the same point of order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: May I join that briefly? One, I repeat my lament, oft stated to you, for a more strict enforcement or application of standing order 37(

a) as to what constitutes a proper question to be put during question period, regardless of whether it’s from opposition members or from government members. That’s number one.

Number two: With all due respect, sir—and you have done yeoman service in terms of trying to create some order here in a very disorderly place, and I have the highest regard for that and I think I speak for all members. But it’s increasingly apparent that there is a persistent flouting of your authority on a regular basis. Let me explain that.

That is to say that you will, for instance, caution members who say something inappropriate or who act in a way that’s inappropriate, and all that serves is to have their name in Hansard in a way that it wouldn’t be—it identifies that they were here that day—because otherwise, there would be no record whatsoever of them being in the House or the chamber on that particular day.

I encourage you, sir, at some point, to use your full authority. I suspect it would only have to happen two or three times before there was a more consistent acknowledgement of your authority rather than a snickering flouting of it on a regular basis. I urge you to consider using that authority and being firmer as a means of creating a mood here, an environment here, that truly reflects your goal and what this place should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Brant on the same point of order.

Mr. Dave Levac: Yes, Speaker, it is on the same point of order. I believe I was within the standing orders. In terms of your decision on this point of order, should you rule, I will respond to that appropriately.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The acting government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Just to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have complete confidence in you. I would hope that you will review the proceedings as you always do, and if you have direction for the House that can be helpful to the decorum of the House, we’d certainly welcome that. I would say that I think your rulings to date have been fair and measured. As I say, we look forward to your comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the member from Welland, the member from Brant and the acting government House leader for their comments.

First, specifically to deal with the point that was raised by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke regarding the question, I will remind the honourable member that yesterday I called one of his own members to order in a very similar vein within the line of questioning.

I take this to remind all members that we are here to deal with issues that are of great importance to the people of Ontario. But at any time, whether it is a question coming from the opposition or a question that comes from a backbench member of the government, when we start to attack the integrity of another member, that degrades the whole of this House. I would again urge you—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Halton, it’s not helpful. I would prefer that you listen, please.

It degrades the dignity of this whole House. I would ask each of you, whether it is you or your staff who are writing those questions, whether you are in opposition or in government, to please not take it down to the personal level; to be cognizant of the fact that there is a job to do, that the opposition has a role to play to keep the government accountable, that the government has a role to play to try and talk of its various initiatives, and not lob these little grenades back and forth at each other. As you can see, what it does is it just brings down the whole tone and tenor of this House.

To the honourable member from Welland, I struggle with that standing order. As I have said before, I have read numerous questions from when your party was in government, when the opposition was in government and since this party has been in government. That tone of those questions has not changed. I can tell you, and I’ve said it before, that every Speaker struggles with that. As I’ve pointed out before, one member’s pothole is another member’s crater.

I will remind the honourable member that I did jump in yesterday during question period because I was very concerned over the direction of a government question and the way that it flowed.

My comment to the ministers is, having sat in that chair and having realized the role that a minister plays in developing those questions, to ensure that when those questions are written, they are of urgent public importance and that they are questions that are not being done to advertise a new government initiative.

This is a plea that I put out to the backbenchers: You’ve got enough issues in your own ridings that you need to deal with that, my goodness, you should be able to ensure that you come forward with an issue that is of utmost importance to your constituents.

I put this over to all the whips: Remember who you are here to represent.

I thank the honourable members. I too share the frustration.

I need to close with this: I have endeavoured to stay on top of the tone of this House. I think one of the things that honourable members should do sometimes is take some time out of their seat and go sit in one of these galleries. Sit down, and look down, and listen to what is going on in here. You don’t catch it on television, I can assure you, but when you are sitting here you do.

I just beg the indulgence of all members to please do everything that they can. I certainly recognize we’re in for a challenging year; I’m more than prepared, in my role as Speaker, to deal with that, and I will push back if needed.

I can tell you what makes the Speaker’s job a heck of a lot easier, and that’s the co-operation of all members. If you don’t like the way things are, be part of the solution. And if you’re concerned about the way members within your own caucus are dealing with things in this House, I would urge you to go to those honourable members as well.

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: At the end of question period today, I had posed the initial question, and I had begun asking a supplementary question before I was interrupted by the Minister of Agriculture, when you stopped the proceedings and I did not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): When there are issues of loudness within this House, one of the challenges is trying to ensure that when an honourable member is expected to answer a question, that an honourable member can hear the question that was asked. I found it extremely difficult, and I do apologize. It was a question of timing. It was right at the end of question period. There was disorder that was taking place on both sides of the House. I tried to calm the House. Unfortunately, you were a casualty of the clock running out of time.

DEFERRED VOTES

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les organisations sans but lucratif.

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

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1157.

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

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Naqvi, Yasir

O’Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Opposed?

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 78; the nays are 0.

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 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1500.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VAUGHAN HOSPITAL

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Thornhill.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Shurman: He was just telling me that it was the Shurmanator to start.

A few weeks ago, the NDP included the Vaughan Health Campus of Care in its list of hospitals using public dollars to hire lobbyists. But the NDP got it wrong, and its leader needs to stand up in this House and retract that. The truth is, Vaughan Health Campus of Care is not a hospital. They and we would like one, but as of now, that’s just a wish.

Created in 2003, the Vaughan Health Campus of Care is a not-for-profit organization funded through private dollars. The specific goal is to bring a hospital to the city of Vaughan. Last week, at its annual gala, VHCC raised almost $800,000, bringing its seven-year fundraising total to over $6 million.

It’s now seven years later, and how appalling that this Liberal government still has not committed to building this hospital—the same Liberal government that shortchanges the 905 region on health care by some $200 per capita.

The 2005 needs assessment study stated the obvious: Vaughan needs a local hospital. The land for the site at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 400 has been purchased and is ready to go. All that’s needed now is a date for the shovels to go into the ground, yet the health minister has not even met with this group.

Vaughan has done its part. It’s time for the McGuinty Liberals to step up and do theirs.

WASTE DIVERSION

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Our government is committed to preserving the environment in Ontario, and we’ve made a great deal of progress through our waste reduction initiatives.

Through our tires program, over 91,000 tonnes of tires have been diverted from disposal. We are meeting our targets on used tire diversion. In just eight months, we recycled and reused over 85,000 tires. This means that those used tires did not end up in our ditches, waterways and landfills.

Residentially, we are diverting more and more each year. Last year alone, almost five million households in Ontario participated in the blue box recycling program, diverting 870,000 tonnes of waste from landfills.

Through our expansion of the blue box program over the past seven years, we are approaching a 70% diversion rate in this area. We refuse to sit back and watch our environment decay and erode. We will not shirk our responsibility, leaving our children and grandchildren to clean up the mess. Instead, we are taking action to preserve this beautiful province for generations to come. Our waste diversion initiatives support Ontario’s transition to a more sustainable, green economy. They help protect the environment and lead to a better future for Ontario.

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: As the winter approaches and the temperatures drop across the province, families will be turning on the heat. Devices such as gas furnaces, kerosene space heaters and fireplaces are all necessary during the cold months in Ontario but can pose a danger due to carbon monoxide.

That’s why I want to remind all Ontarians to make sure that they have a working carbon monoxide detector in their homes. Carbon monoxide is a tasteless, colourless and odourless gas. It is often called the silent killer because it gives no warning to its victims. Carbon monoxide is the number one cause of accidental poisoning deaths in North America, and an estimated 414 Canadians died of carbon monoxide poisoning between 2000 and 2007.

Almost two years ago, a young family—Richard, Laurie, Cassandra and Jordan Hawkins—tragically lost their lives due to carbon monoxide poisoning in their Oxford home.

In order to prevent future tragedies, I introduced the Hawkins Gignac Act, which would make it mandatory for all homes to have a working carbon monoxide detector. A recent study by New York City’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that the number of severe carbon monoxide poisoning cases significantly declined after the city brought in a law making detectors mandatory.

As you prepare for the winter, I encourage everyone to test their carbon monoxide detector and make sure it’s working. If it isn’t or if you don’t have one in your home, I encourage you to get one today. Detectors are widely available, inexpensive, and they save lives.

JAKU KONBIT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The 10th anniversary for the Jaku Konbit Academy based out of Ottawa Centre is in 2010. Jaku Konbit is a non-profit organization promoting African cultural identity, self-reliance, family and community development, and fostering relationships. In the Ga language of West Africa, Jaku means Africans, and in Haitian “Kreyòl” Konbit means working together and helping each other. Thus, Jaku Konbit literally means Africans helping Africans.

The organization runs three very good programs: the Jaku Konbit Academy, a summer camp and the Black Star Tutoring program. The academy is an educational and cultural program that provides stimulating and enjoyable African-centred education for children and youth of African and Caribbean descent. Their program is designed to build self-esteem, promote cultural awareness, and encourage and foster youth leadership and developmental skills as well as academic excellence and social responsibility.

Their summer camp for children and youth was launched in 2006 with a grant from the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The camp was a huge success, and now I’m proud that Jaku Konbit’s Greatness is Within You summer program continues with the ongoing support of the government of Ontario.

Jaku Konbit’s Black Star Tutoring is a new initiative to provide tutoring services to children and youth of African and Caribbean descent who are experiencing difficulties.

On this very special anniversary, I would like to congratulate all the board of directors and especially Ken Campbell, who is the president of the program, for all the excellent work he is doing through the Jaku Konbit Academy.

DANA’S GOLDSMITHING

Mr. John O’Toole: As we all know in this House, this is Small Business Week. The resilience and ingenuity of our homegrown entrepreneurs in this province should be respected and celebrated every day. Whether it’s a small home-based business or from Main Street or agri-business, we should support and recognize their achievements.

It’s my honour to recognize Dana Smith of Dana’s Goldsmithing, a local jeweller located in Port Perry in my riding of Durham. They have been chosen to become one of the few selected authorized retailers to carry Ontario’s new Victor diamonds. The Victor mine, as we all know, is Ontario’s first diamond mine, which came into operation in 2008.

Thanks to the hard work of Ms. Smith and others in our diamond industry, for the first time, a customer can purchase a local diamond whose pedigree can be detailed to the square kilometre of its birth. In an age when diamonds have increasingly become the currency of oppression and civil war, Ontarians can now purchase a diamond with the knowledge that it was mined, cut and polished right here in Ontario. Rather than funding conflict, Ontario diamonds are helping to create jobs and grow our economy.

I’d like to congratulate Dana and her staff and wish her continued success in her small business during Small Business Week. All of us should take this opportunity: Whether it’s our local farm operation that’s diversifying or small business on the main street, let’s celebrate small business in Ontario.

ATIKOKAN GENERATING STATION

Mr. Bill Mauro: In August this year, I had an opportunity to make an announcement in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan that was truly one of the most satisfying for me in my seven-plus years in provincial office. Atikokan is a community of just over 3,000 people two hours west of Thunder Bay. It was a gratifying moment to be at the Legion in Atikokan, with around 150 people, to formally announce that the Atikokan generating station will remain open and be converted to biomass.

This plant employs roughly 90 to 100 people and represents approximately 40% of the total municipal tax base. Closure would have had a highly negative effect on the homeowners and businesses of the community. Property taxes would have increased significantly and many businesses would likely have failed. Not only have we avoided that, but as a result of the conversion, we will retain jobs at the generating station, create 200 to 300 construction jobs, and quite likely the conversion will lead to the creation of a new forest-based industry in northwestern Ontario: biomass pellet production.

Subject to the power purchase agreement being negotiated between the OPA and OPG, this project should move forward shortly. I want to thank the mayor of Atikokan, Dennis Brown; the community of Atikokan; the Atikokan Economic Development Committee and all who supported this effort over the last six years.

With this decision now in place and intensive mining exploration activity occurring, significant employment has occurred, and there is now renewed hope and optimism in Atikokan and the surrounding area.

MEMBERS’ COMMENTS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Speaker, as you know, my first years in community politics involved the founding of the Ontario farm women’s movement of the 1970s, with women like Diane Harkin and Dorothy Middleton of eastern Ontario.

Yesterday was Persons Day. Persons Day marks a very significant milestone that honours the struggle and celebrates the achievement of all Canadian women in developing true democracy. It is because of the struggles of those strong women that I stand in this chamber today. So when two members of the opposition rose in this chamber to hurl petty insults and disrespectful quips at one of our female colleagues on Persons Day, of all days, my heart sank. We are supposed to be leaders here, but it seems that some still don’t get it.

I was embarrassed for the women in the PC caucus, who I know have struggled, just as every women in this chamber, to gain their rightful seat based on their own aptitude and strengths. Then I was angry: angry that there are still two parliamentarians who would so effortlessly try to take back all the progress that the women’s movement has won over the past 81 years.

I fully expect that the members of this House—in fact, the women of Ontario—are waiting for the L