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

October 18, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-18 (PDF)

L055 - Mon 18 Oct 2010 / Lun 18 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 18 October 2010 Lundi 18 octobre 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANT

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

POWER PLANT

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

TAXATION

NUCLEAR WASTE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PHOTO CARDS

HYDRO RATES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SKILLS TRAINING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

NATIONAL FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EVENTS IN OTTAWA CENTRE

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

MCKELLAR PLACE

SMART METERS

JEAN LUMB

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY /

MOIS DE L’HISTOIRE DES FEMMES

ET JOURNÉE DE L’AFFAIRE

« PERSONNE »

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DE LA SÉCURITÉ SCOLAIRE

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

MOBILE HOMES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

VETERANS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: It’s my pleasure to introduce Colleen Hochgeschurz, the mother of Carina, who is a new page here today. Carina comes from the county of Lanark in the municipality of Mississippi Mills. I’m sure she’s going to have a great time here. Her mom is staying with her for the three weeks’ duration.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m pleased to introduce some family that are here. We have a new page from North Bay, Nicholas Waltenbury. I know his member isn’t here this morning, so I want to welcome Nicholas, but particularly his mom, Dawn Waltenbury, my cousin, and Nicholas’s grandma and grandpa, Tom and Marilyn Campbell from Prescott. Welcome to the House.

M me France Gélinas: Moi aussi, j’ai de la visite aujourd’hui, des gens de Chelmsford qui sont ici parce que leur petite-fille sera page avec nous. Il s’agit de M me Louise Tessier et M. Guy Tessier. Bienvenue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m pleased to introduce my uncle Tony Connor and my aunt Helen Connor, visiting from the UK, and my mother, Sally Tabuns, visiting from faraway Hamilton.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: In the gallery today are members of the Burlington community who are here with the MS Society. I would like to introduce to you Carole Ward—wave, Carole—and Ross Bell and Joan Gallagher-Bell. Hi, guys.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome the members from the MS Society, but more specifically Mike Roche, from my riding of Durham, and I believe John Daley is here as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Your presence here today is important.

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to introduce some guests in our gallery today. They are here with our new page Marie-Josée Vercouteren. Her dad, Peter Vercouteren, is here; grandmother Mary Ellen Vercouteren; grandfather Ted Vercouteren; grandmother Louise Tessier; and grandfather Guy Tessier. Would you welcome them all, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome as a guest from the MS Society in the Speaker’s gallery Cathy Topping; her assistant, who is with her today, Stephenie Inglis; and Cathy’s cousin Fred Cass, who is a former Speaker of the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANT

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question, in the absence of the Premier, is to the energy minister. Minister, how much exactly will Ontario families—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that we do not make references to attendance.

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, how much will Ontario families now have to pay for Premier McGuinty’s sudden decision to backtrack on the Oakville power plant?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We have heard a number of uninformed figures being thrown about by the opposition on this particular issue, and let me say this: Those figures are nothing but typical opposition fearmongering.

I guess my question to the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We didn’t even get one minute into question period and I’m finding it difficult to hear. Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: A few weeks ago, Tory members were standing up in this very Legislature, saying that they didn’t want to see us put this gas plant in Oakville. Today, after we’ve made this important decision, a decision that only became possible because of the important investments this government has made, investments that those guys opposed every step of the way—every one of those 8,000 megawatts that we’ve created made this decision possible. Those guys opposed every one of those megawatts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, with due respect, this is a very serious question that families and ratepayers across the province are concerned about. We would like a serious answer.

Clearly, you must have presented to cabinet the plan to backtrack on the Oakville gas plant. You have had advice from your advisers or the Ontario Power Authority on exactly what the costs would be to backtrack and to effectively rip up that contract. Minister, I know you might not be able to pinpoint the exact value but perhaps you can tell us the range of costs on your decision to backtrack on Oakville. Minister, just inform the House: What did you tell cabinet would be the cost of making this decision?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question from the member opposite and I’m pleased to respond. I can tell him that indeed we know the costs, if there are any at all, would not even be close to the fearmongering numbers that he and his colleagues have been putting out over the last week.

I can tell you this: We are in positive discussions with TransCanada. They’ve played an important role in our energy system; they’ve been an important part of our energy system in the past; they will indeed be in the future.

I can tell you this: Because of the investments that we’ve made—the 8,000 new megawatts, the 1,700 megawatts we’ve saved in conservation because of diminishing demand—we are in a position not to have to build a gas plant that indeed our long-term planning indicated was not going to be necessary. This is a responsible decision, both from a fiscal perspective and from an energy perspective. We’re very proud of the role that our local MPP, Kevin Flynn—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister’s and the Premier’s answers get increasingly puzzling about their decision to backtrack on the Oakville plant. The minister now seems to imply that maybe there are no costs, if I heard him correctly, for ripping up the contract that you had signed some time ago.

I don’t think people believe that there is no cost, quite frankly, Minister, to ripping up a signed contract for what was a $1.2-billion power plant. Steven Paget, an analyst with FirstEnergy Capital, indicates that families may be on the hook for a substantial amount. There are media reports that cite a legal opinion saying that the company may be entitled to up to $1 billion.

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister just said I’m wrong again. Clearly, Minister, if you are getting paid by the taxpayer, you must have brought in the costs to cabinet. Why don’t you just tell the public how much we’re on the hook to pay for a power plant that will produce no power whatsoever?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Here we go again. The opposition is throwing out figures that are uninformed and nothing short of opposition fearmongering.

Let’s be very, very clear—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s be very, very clear. We made a decision based on the fact that we made very important investments that put us in a position to use a transmission solution rather than build a 950-megawatt plant in Oakville. Had we listened to the member opposite, had we listened to the leader of the NDP on this when they opposed us every step of the way as we were building this new 8,000 megawatts of power, we would not have been able to make that decision and indeed, had we adhered to the policies of his party and the NDP, there would have been a plant going into Oakville.

Because of the important decisions we’ve made, we’re able to ensure that we can do this through a transmission solution that will ensure that these—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now to the Minister of the Environment: Minister, your Premier has set a world record for backtracks in the past six months. He backtracked on the sex ed curriculum to start with grade 1. It’s basically sex classes for six-year-olds. He backtracked on the microFIT rates for solar power. He backtracked on Super Corp. He backtracked on mixed martial arts and he backtracked on his plan to ban chocolate milk in schools—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Infrastructure will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: But honest to goodness, even Dalton McGuinty outdid himself when he flip-flopped—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty outdid himself when he flip-flopped on the Oakville gas plant and on eco taxes within five days. He backtracked so fast he gave everybody whiplash.

Let me ask you: When it comes to the eco taxes, is this a full backtrack, is it a half-backtrack or is it something that the Premier plans to bring in if he gets re-elected?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the leader for the question. We listened to consumers. Consumers told us that on July 1—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the member from Renfrew: I would like to hear the answer; I was able to hear the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please don’t be challenging the Chair.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: On July 1, Stewardship Ontario rolled out a program in this province. They didn’t tell consumers that it was coming. They did not come up with the least expensive solution, and they did not come up with the most practical solution. So we listened to consumers, and they were very loud and they were very clear. They want to do their part to keep hazardous materials out of our landfills, but they expect a program that, first, they can understand; second, that it is the most practical solution; and third, that it is the solution that costs the least amount of money.

Listening to that, I made a determination that the program that was rolled out on July 1 met none of those criteria. That’s why we permanently cancelled that program, listening to the consumers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, you were there at the cabinet table when Premier McGuinty brought this plan forward. You weren’t environment minister but you were there at the cabinet table, as I recall, when Premier McGuinty allegedly said that when it comes to the eco tax grab, “We can’t do this fast enough.” That’s the exact quote reported in the media from one of your fellow colleagues at cabinet.

I’m proud that the Ontario PC Party stood with hard-working families, fought this tax grab, caught you in the cookie jar and forced you to do a U-turn. But now we worry that these guys will just bring it back.

Minister, on August 12 in the Flamborough Review, you said that when it came to the eco tax program, it was “the right way to go.” Then on October 12, you did a backtrack.

Minister, which Minister Wilkinson do we believe: the one of August 12 or the one of October 12? Ontario families can’t tell.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would say that I have been very, very consistent that the good people of Ontario want to keep hazardous materials out of the landfills. When you were in government, those very materials were getting into landfills. We’ve done something about that. We have a number of programs to ensure that hazardous material stays out of our landfills. That’s why last year alone, some 91,000 tonnes of used tires were redirected from our landfills and are creating new products, which result in new jobs. It’s why there are tens of thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste electronics which today are being recycled and diverted in the province of Ontario.

We are keeping those programs. But when it comes to the program that was rolled out on July 1, which was neither practical nor understandable nor communicated—

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: —nor the least expensive program, we decided that that needed to be permanently cancelled. That’s why we’ve done that.

We’re going to keep the things that are working. We made sure that the program that the good people of Ontario did not understand and did not feel was appropriate, where it was applied to items where it just didn’t make any sense—we cancelled that permanently.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, I don’t think anybody buys this babe-in-the-woods routine. You were there at cabinet that authorized this program when Premier McGuinty sold it to you. You were there on July 1, when he tried to sneak it in under the shadow of the HST. Minister Wilkinson himself said on August 12 that it was the right thing to do. Then on October 12, we saw a different Minister Wilkinson.

We also saw that the previous minister had a plan to bring them in on automobiles, snowmobiles and ATVs. Now this minister has tossed the previous minister to the wind and says he had nothing to do with that plan.

I don’t think people buy it. Honest to God, he takes so many positions, it’s like Premier McGuinty’s top adviser is a Magic 8 Ball.

Minister, just come clean. What is the actual plan here? How can we have any faith whatsoever in a Premier who says one thing one day and then backtracks and says the opposite the next?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Exactly which Progressive Conservative caucus is speaking today? I have a quote from your colleague Bob Bailey, who is the member for Sarnia–Lambton, who said on October 13, “I applaud the government for this”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. He used the riding name and the name.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To clarify the ruling, you should be using the riding name alone.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Everyone in this House knows that the MPP for Sarnia–Lambton is in that member’s caucus, and he applauded us on October 13.

What I find interesting is that we have a clear contrast in the province of Ontario: a party opposite that wants the greenbelt gone, that wants the coal plants to stay open and that did not even vote for the Clean Water Act; on this side of the House, we’re listening to consumers, but more importantly, we are keeping hazardous waste out of our landfills. That’s why we’re working with our municipal partners. That’s why we’re ensuring that the programs that are working are staying. We are committed to making sure that they are—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Later today, the Ontario Energy Board is going to tell Ontario families just how much more they’re going to be paying for electricity. The announcement won’t be bringing any relief to Ontario families who need a break on their hydro bills.

As we head into winter, why won’t the McGuinty government give families some relief and simply take the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I too am looking forward to seeing the Ontario Energy Board releasing today their regulated price plan. This is another indication of the way that this government has reformed our energy sector. As the Ontario Energy Board takes a good look at projecting what our costs for energy are going to be every six months, we’re able to bring some certainty to consumers and to businesses so that they know what the next six to 12 months will bring in terms of increasing or decreasing rates, whatever that may be. I’m looking forward to the work that the OEB has done.

I think we’ll see later on today exactly where that’s going. I’m looking forward to being able to provide some certainty to consumers in the coming six to 12 months.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families are looking for relief, and this government simply looks the other way.

Suzette Desroches, a single mom, writes this: “I live in a two-bedroom apartment and am paying about $200 a month and this is without even turning my heat on ... God help us when winter arrives.”

I ask again: Why won’t this government take the HST off of hydro and give people like Ms. Desroches a much-needed break?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We certainly recognize the challenges that Ontario families have been going through in this province, whether it be adjusting to the changes that the global recession has brought to Ontario families or whether it be the fact that, yes, energy rates are increasing.

But this leader, time and time again, during the course of this session, has stood on her feet to oppose these important investments. The NDP have shifted from the principles that they once had—principles that would have said that we need to build a strong energy system, that we need to make investments in generation, that we need to make investments in reliability and that we need to get out of dirty coal.

We’re not going to be able to get out of dirty coal if we go the NDP route and not make those investments. The NDP want to take us back to where the Tories had us seven years ago. I think if I were an NDP member today, listening to the rhetoric coming from the side opposite, I would say, “Where did you lose your”—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last month, the Premier promised a lower off-peak electricity rate, but people don’t want more tinkering on their hydro bills; what they want is a real break.

Debrah Habinski writes, “Since the smart meter and the HST, my hydro bill has doubled.”

Why won’t this government give Ms. Habinski and her family a break by simply taking the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It was only weeks ago—and I guess the leader of the opposition has forgotten that—that this government came forward, through the leadership of our Premier, with the energy and property tax credit. Two thirds of seniors across this province are going to get relief from that tax credit. It’s going to go to lower- and middle-income people and assist them in adjusting to the increasing rates.

If we were to listen to the party opposite, we would be going back to where we were seven years ago. We need to make these important investments. I would think the NDP, of all parties, would recognize how important it is to invest in generating the power we’re going to need to provide to Ontario families going forward into the future, to invest in a reliable system and to invest in moving away from dirty coal so we can clean our air and provide better health outcomes for our kids and grandkids. That’s what it’s all about and it’s time the NDP recognize that they should be standing—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew.

New question?

POWER PLANT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. Last week, the McGuinty government cancelled its agreement with TransCanada on the Oakville gas plant. New Democrats actually have thought for a long time that that plant should never have been built and we’ve said so. But the Liberals only agreed when their jobs were on the line. How much more will this politically calculated decision cost Ontario families?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Here we go: the NDP riding the fence again.

I guess the question we have for the NDP on this is, do you support our efforts to ensure that we can provide a better alternative to the people in the southwest GTA or do you not? If you’re going to support that, then you need to support the important investments we’re making in energy generation that are allowing that flexibility to occur in the system. It’s because of the investments we’ve made, which you continually have been opposing here day after day and, indeed, in your previous question you indicated opposition to—you can’t have it both ways.

Either you’re going to support the important investments we’re making to build a stronger energy system that allows us to ensure that we can move forward in the southwest GTA without building this plant, or you don’t.

In my view, if they’re not going to support those investments, then any future under the NDP would ensure that that plant would go back into Oakville.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are used to paying private companies for energy they don’t use. After all, they paid Bruce nuclear $60 million not to produce any electricity at all.

Suzanne Spence writes this: “We are having such a hard time” keeping “our hydro bill down ... it started when I got hurt and was unable to work for three months and got behind.”

Will the government tell families like Ms. Spence’s how much more they’re going to pay as a result of this TransCanada deal?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ve been very clear and will continue to be. I guess the NDP want us to build a $1-billion gas plant in Oakville that we don’t need any longer because of the important investments we’ve made. That would be fiscally irresponsible to do.

We’re in discussions with TransCanada right now. Those discussions are going positively. This is a company that indeed has made a great contribution to Ontario’s energy sector and will continue to.

The fact of the matter is, the NDP wants to oppose everything. They absolutely stand for nothing. They oppose investing in our aging infrastructure. They oppose the measures we’re taking to create jobs and build a clean-energy economy. They oppose the clean, reliable, emission-free nuclear power that we’re investing in our system. They oppose the support we’re bringing to northern Ontario and they oppose the Samsung agreement that’s creating jobs right across this province.

It’s easy to oppose everything. I think it’s incumbent on—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families deserve a straight answer on this question. They deserve a straight answer from their government. There needs to be full disclosure on this TransCanada deal—period. Why won’t the government tell already-hard-hit Ontarians how much more they’re going to have to pay—to cough up—to get out of this TransCanada deal?

Hon. Brad Duguid: During our deliberations on the long-term plan—and fortunately for all of us, because of the huge investments we’ve made in building a stronger energy system—we identified the fact that this 950-megawatt gas plant would no longer be required—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s one of the reasons why I say to speak through the Chair, because when you’re speaking through the Chair, you’re looking at me and then you’ll know that I’m standing up.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, please come to order.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s one of the reasons that we’ve been able to make this decision. It’s a responsible decision. We’re no longer going to need that 950-megawatt gas plant in Oakville; we can resolve those challenges through a transmission solution. That’s a fiscally responsible thing to do.

We’re in discussions with TransCanada now. The member opposite is just going to have to allow those discussions to take place. We’ll be happy to share with her the results of those discussions when they’re done. But those discussions are positive and we’re confident they’ll result in a good solution for everyone.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Acting Premier. During the Toronto Centre by-election, Ontario families paid $15 million that the McGuinty Liberals handed out to the Grace Hospital. During the Ottawa West–Nepean by-election, Ontario families paid $500 million that the McGuinty Liberals used to boost the pension benefits fund. Now, in what will be a hotly contested seat in Oakville, Ontario families are on the hook to pay up to $1 billion so the Premier can backtrack on the power plant that he wanted to build there. So I ask the Acting Premier: Why does the price of seats keep going up?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Thank you—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’m just going to give you 10 seconds to rephrase that question so that one isn’t impugning motive.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, that’s a challenge, Mr. Speaker.

What will the next by-election or election seat cost in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted, actually, to take this question because I think it really does point to what the true intentions of the Conservative Party are. This party opposite is prepared to oppose all of those health investments that we have made since 2003. I will be available to remind the public of Ontario—in fact, this particular member opposite was the Minister of Health when those cuts in health care began, and they have already identified for the campaign ahead that they will be taking $3 billion, at a minimum, out of the health care system.

So I would ask the member opposite: Will you be revoking those extremely good decisions we made about health care investments in this province? Will you be revoking the decisions we made for those investments? That, to me, is the question for the House today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Through the Chair: She’s cuckoo. Honest to God.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member will withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I withdraw.

Shortly after Ontario families paid $15 million in Toronto, the Premier appointed the former mayor of Winnipeg to cabinet over dozens of long-serving and loyal Liberals. After Ontario families paid $500 million, the Premier appointed the former mayor of Ottawa to cabinet over dozens of long-serving and loyal Liberals. So I ask: Now that Ontario families could pay up to $1 billion for the Premier’s backtracking in Oakville, will the member for Oakville become the new Minister of Energy?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: It’s pretty instructive to understand the road we’re going down with the comments from an experienced member like this in the Legislature. And quite frankly, I think, even for you, it’s a little bit over the top.

Let me just say this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m standing; you should be sitting.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Stop the clock.

I just remind members that it’s very easy to not speak through the Chair, but it is much easier when you are speaking through me, because it does start to take away some of the personal pointing across at each other. As well, let’s not bring things down to a level where—this is three times today I’ve asked members to withdraw comments that are truly of a personal nature. Let’s keep things at the political level, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please don’t argue with the Speaker.

If the members desire that the Speaker start to crack down 100% on everything, I’m very happy to do that, and we’ll just start turfing people left and right. We’re over halfway into a question period right now and it’s just dragging and dragging. I think the public who are here and the people watching at home want to see, as I’ve described before, that cut and thrust of question period. I ask for the support of all members to do that.

New question.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre par intérim. This Wednesday, as a result of an NDP motion passed at committee, the Auditor General will produce a report on consultants’ contracts in the health care system.

Ontarians have watched front-line care disappear from their communities: millions of hours of nursing hours cut, emergency rooms shut down, and home care and physiotherapy vanishing. Instead of protecting the interests of Ontarians, this government has allowed these precious dollars to go to lobbyists, consultants or to salary schemes.

Can the Acting Premier explain why her government has supported this culture of entitlement?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to have this question from the member opposite. The reality is that we have had more investment in health care. It has absolutely been a historic level of investment in health care since 2003.

What that has meant is that we have taken a very careful look at how we spend the money so that it results in the hiring of 10,000 nurses, not the firing in the previous years from both the NDP and Conservative governments of the past.

We realize that as we continue to invest in health care—we, as the majority of the members on that very committee that she mentioned, moved to have the Auditor General review these kinds of expenses. If we see that there is something that needs to be fixed, this, in fact, is the government that steps forward to fix it, not ignore it. That has been the history of the Ontario Liberal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, hospitals use lobbyists and they use consultants because your government is forcing them to work in that way.

The Auditor General will give us a small glimpse into health care consultant use, and let me tell you, you wouldn’t believe the number of hoops I had to go through to get this investigation to get that small glimpse. Why is this government refusing to allow the use of accountability and transparency measures that already exist, such as access to freedom of information and Ombudsman oversight of health care agencies?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think that all members of the House will be happy to note that our Minister of Health will be bringing forward items, probably by this Wednesday, to address the things that the Liberal members of this House are concerned about.

I think it’s instructive to have a little review of what all members of the House would perhaps see as inappropriate, which would probably include that their own member for Toronto–Danforth was a lobbyist, even after two months of having been elected to this House—a lobbyist in fact on behalf of the Ontario Nurses’ Association—or that even in this day, after the member for Hamilton became the leader of the NDP, when she was at city council in Hamilton, she was part of decisions to hire lobbyists to lobby the government.

These are members of the NDP who today stand in the House and suddenly have had some kind of an epiphany. The reality is that the Ontario—

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

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Accountability in government agencies is something that we all take very seriously, and I know many other members of this House do so as well. Agencies like Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation are large entities with extensive operations that function day to day largely under their own management. As with all large organizations, outside expertise is sometimes needed to add value to a project or to the operation as a whole.

I think Ontarians want to know that those sorts of practices which exist at these large public corporations are ethical, that they are accountable and that there is openness and transparency. Can the minister confirm that this is the case?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question. I made it very clear to all of our energy agencies that our expectation is and always will be that they strive to ensure that our taxpayers and our ratepayers in Ontario are receiving full value for money.

At a time of rising costs, we’ve directed our energy agencies to freeze management salaries and lower their expectations on potential rate increases, and we’ve opened them up to freedom of information.

That stands in stark contrast to the Tories, who removed Hydro One from being subject to freedom of information. One can only think that was to hide that healthy retirement fund they were creating for prominent Tory hacks like Mike Harris’s campaign chair, Tom Long, who got $2.3 million to provide insight and leadership techniques. When Tom Long was a partner at Egon Zehnder, they got $635,000 in contracts. That included an $83,000 search fee to find a job for Deb Hutton, another Conservative—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: This is quite a list. Back to the Minister of Energy: I recall those headlines seven to 10 years ago highlighting the abuses going on at Hydro One with regard to contracts being given out in questionable circumstances. We know another one of the hangovers from the Tories’ mismanagement of the energy system is something that Ontarians see in their hydro bills every month called the debt retirement charge.

There are some in this House who dish out a lot of criticism about investments this government has made to move away from dirty coal to cleaner sources of power. My constituents in Peterborough can appreciate these investments, but something they didn’t expect to see in their bills and don’t fully understand is the debt retirement charge. Can the minister explain this debt retirement charge in more detail?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is a totally different question. The supplementary had nothing to do with the question.

New question.

TAXATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is for the environment minister. How much did Ontario families pay for Premier McGuinty’s greedy eco tax grab in the 20 days before he backtracked on it?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The member opposite will remember that the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, was passed by your government, and under the structure of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, organizations are created which are completely run by and completely funded by industry. That is the status quo today. So when it comes to programs and any fees associated with that, it was set up by the previous government to ensure that that money was controlled by industry, spent by industry, and that the fees charged were from industry.

We’ve been very clear that the program that started on July 1 was not practical, it was not understood by the consumers because they did not take the time to explain it to them in advance, nor was it the most cost-effective solution. That’s why we’re proud, on this side of the House, to cancel that program. And to be very clear, there will be no new eco fees going forward either.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: People want their money back. The program cost $5 million and Ontario families paid something like $1 million until you were caught. Retailers say they handed the money to Stewardship Ontario. Stewardship Ontario says it has no involvement with eco taxes, doesn’t govern eco taxes, wants nothing to do with them. Your office says you’re not the best person to talk about this.

Even Hansel and Gretel had a plan before they backtracked. Why does refunding the money to Ontario families who overpaid for your eco taxes not matter to you?

Hon. John Wilkinson: As I was saying, there they go again, talking about things which they know, because they created the act, are not true.

Stewardship Ontario and other industry-funded organizations are industry-funded. We’ve been very clear to retailers: If you have charged your customers fees and you weren’t supposed to, you had better refund that money to your customers. We have been extremely clear with our retailers. In most cases, retailers do not pay Stewardship Ontario. It is the stewards. It is the importer or the producers of those materials who pay. So, we’re going to be very clear with our retailers: If they have charged consumers improperly, the best thing they can do is to refund.

I want to say that there are large retailers, for example Canadian Tire and Home Depot, who are doing the right thing and are refunding fees that they charged improperly. We want to thank them for doing—

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

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question for the Minister of the Environment: Does the proposed shipment of radioactive nuclear steam generators to Sweden across Ontario’s Great Lakes exceed safe levels set by the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m surprised that a member who came to this place known as an environmentalist would ask that question. He knows that the question, when it comes to the transportation of radioactive material in this province, is the sole purview of the federal government. Perhaps he’s had some amnesia since he got to this House, but when it comes to this place we know exactly what our responsibilities are.

I would say to the member that you may want to talk to Mr. Layton who, on your behalf, may be able to raise that question in the federal House, because that’s exactly where that question belongs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, some ministers think that they have responsibility for their portfolios, like the environment, and apparently some don’t.

In late September, a spokesperson for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission stated that the proposed shipment of plutonium and other nuclear waste in those generators exceeds by six times the overall radioactivity limits allowed on a single ship. There is no need to ship this waste thousands of miles. This minister is responsible for protecting the Great Lakes and belongs to the government that is, indeed, the owner of the Bruce nuclear facility. Why is he refusing to stand up to protect the Great Lakes?

Hon. John Wilkinson: This government has a record that we’re extremely proud of when it comes to preserving our Great Lakes.

Did the member not just refer to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission? Did he not refer to that? Why? Because, in Canada, when it comes to the regulation of radioactive material, that is a federal responsibility.

We’re very clear on this side of the House—we’re very clear—that the Great Lakes are a wonderful legacy for our province. We are working every day to make sure that our lakes are as safe as possible. We have, of course, an interest in those things that deal with the federal government. We express our concerns to the federal government, but we do not want to allow the federal government to believe that somehow they can shirk their responsibility for the environment. We will not be apologists for the federal government in this House, and that’s exactly why we’ll ensure that their responsibilities are theirs. We look forward to—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of Transportation. Public transit is one of the most important issues to people in my riding of Oakville. Many of my constituents commute daily into downtown Toronto for work and school. This often involves travelling on three different transit systems: Oakville Transit to get to the GO station, the GO train to Union and then the TTC to other parts of Toronto.

Last November, 500 Oakville transit riders were part of a pilot project with the Presto card. My constituents enjoyed the convenience of using one card for Oakville Transit, the GO and the TTC. I’m sure people in the other parts of the GTA would enjoy the convenience of Presto as well. Can the minister provide the House with an update on the progress of the Presto card?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very happy to do that, and I thank the member for the question.

One of the goals of my ministry, being the Minister of Transportation, is to encourage as many people as possible to get out of their cars and get on public transit. I think the Presto card is a very important incentive to help people do that.

In fact, with the Presto card, transit riders can ride seamlessly around the GTA, and I think that’s how people see this region: as a place where they should be able to travel without changing the method of paying a fare.

Fourteen thousand riders have signed on to the Presto card since it came out. Over the summer it was rolled out on the Lakeshore West GO line, Oakville Transit, Burlington Transit and at nine TTC stations. This fall it’s going to go live on the Milton and Georgetown GO lines. By March 2011, it will be fully rolled out on all seven GO Transit lines, including buses, and eight municipal transit systems in the GTA.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you for the response, Minister. I know that many of my constituents are pleased to see these steps taken to integrate different transit systems in the entire GTA, and it makes their daily commute easier.

I understand, however, that there’s been some discussion as to whether the Presto system uses the most advanced technology. Over the summer, I and others in my community read stories in the newspaper that places like New York City, for example, are testing technology that allows riders to tap on to public transit using their own credit cards.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can you tell us if and when transit riders in the GTA can expect to have the same convenience?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m happy to talk about the evolving technology, because that’s what it is. Technology is developing very quickly. The Presto system is the first step in bringing that seamless ridership, that seamless convenience of smart cards, to the GTA—the GTHA, in fact. We’re developing a complex system of linking these regions together. As I said, 14,000 riders have already signed on to Presto.

We’ve also begun to develop the next generation of Presto technology, and that’s what the member from Oakville is talking about. What will happen is, Presto will be able to accept different types of payments, such as contactless credit cards, debit cards and cellphones.

We know that jurisdictions in other parts of the world are also looking at how to bring open payment to their systems, but it’s important to note that those systems are also not yet developed. We’ll be working with Presto to go to that next generation of technology.

PHOTO CARDS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: The Photo Card Act, as you know, was passed in November 2008. One of its objectives was to give Ontarians who don’t drive access to a government-issued photo card. People with disabilities were especially welcoming of that initiative.

My question to the minister: Two years after that legislation was passed, that card is still not available. Can the minister tell us why?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very pleased that the member opposite has asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about what we are going to be doing, going forward. I recognize that the legislation has been passed. One of the first meetings that I took as the Minister of Transportation was from some folks from the CNIB who brought this issue to me. I want the member opposite to know that we are working.

It’s very important to note that there are a number of options possible. There are some very complex smart cards that would have more than just basic ID available on the card. Then there’s the option that’s available in other jurisdictions, where it’s simply a driver’s licence for non-drivers that has that basic ID on it.

We’re looking at how we might move forward. I know it’s very, very important to people with disabilities. It’s also important to the senior population. When people stop driving, they need that ID card. I hope we’ll be able to bring an announcement forward soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Perhaps the minister could infuse some urgency into this matter; it’s been two years.

Here’s what my constituent Kathryn wrote: “When I phoned the Ontario government information line, they had no information about the card at all and had not heard that it was going to be available, so this doesn’t leave me feeling very hopeful.”

What can the minister tell us that will give Kathryn some hope that this card will in fact be made available? Or is this another Liberal, McGuinty backtrack?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, I have been meeting with the folks from the CNIB in particular. There’s a coalition of groups who are interested in this card, and they are advising us. We want to do it right. If we were to rush into something and create a card that didn’t work, that had privacy concerns, that cost more than it should have, then we would be open to attacks from the opposite side.

What we want to do is make sure that we provide an option for people who are not eligible to get a driver’s licence. We are working on that, and I look forward to giving the member opposite and, more importantly, the people of Ontario news on that in the near future.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. I’ve heard from thousands of Ontarians worried about making ends meet. One of the saddest stories comes from Windsor, where Don Lefaive writes this: “The HST added to my hydro bill and the upcoming smart meter will force me to make decisions that I never would have dreamed I would have to make in my 78 years ... I am a retired auto worker and suffer with chronic breathing difficulties which forces me to run my electric oxygen pump 24/7 ... We COPD patients cannot regulate our times of breathing and will be forced to pay the high (smart meter) rates due to our conditions. Where will we find the money?”

Mr. Lefaive asks a good question. Can the minister tell him where he will find the money?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me just say I appreciate hearing from someone in Windsor who might be concerned about hydro bills and bills in general because we are very concerned about our seniors. This is exactly why the Minister of Finance attended, in Windsor, the launch of both the electricity and the property tax credit. This is exactly the kind of initiative that is meant to help our seniors make ends meet.

We recognize that over time prices do go up. We also recognize what we’ve had to do with the electricity sector in building new energy, something that, frankly, had been avoided for over two decades in Ontario. But we have made a number of initiatives available for families who need help.

Let me remind both the residents in Windsor, my own hometown, and people across Ontario to watch the record very closely in terms of what the other parties have done with every initiative that we have brought forward to help Ontario families. They—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Mr. Lefaive isn’t alone. Many other Windsorites are hurting. Bozena Wojnarowicz writes this: “I lost my job. I am 54 years old ... So far, no prospects in Windsor. The HST is one more hole in my wallet. Now we’re reduced to one step closer to thrift shops, food banks or soup kitchens.”

John Marcotte adds: “It seems every time we do something to reduce our hydro consumption ... the hydro rate doubles ... Rate increases, the HST, guaranteed profits for utilities, time-of-use rates will make our bill go up so high that we will probably end up losing our home.”

Will this minister continue to ignore people like Mr. Lefaive, Ms. Wojnarowicz and Mr. Marcotte, or will she support giving them a real break by taking the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I want to be certain that every member of the House understands the number of initiatives that this government has brought forth to help Ontario families with their everyday costs. The reality has been that the opposition parties, including the NDP, have opposed every one of these initiatives.

In my hometown was one of the greatest take-ups for the Second Career program for exactly an individual that you might mention in this House, who, at mid-career, needs to change careers because jobs were disappearing during the height of the crisis. That Second Career program was so successful, especially for hard-hit cities like Windsor. The NDP opposed these very initiatives meant to help people.

At the same breath, when we wanted to help families at low income, when we introduced the family child tax credit, the NDP opposed these initiatives that today are giving those families $1,100 of assistance every month. Let’s be clear: We are here to help Ontario families—

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, one of the biggest consumer complaints I get at my office has to do with energy retailers, particularly the sometimes shady practices applied by their salespeople to peddle expensive energy contracts to consumers that can be next to impossible to get out of. Common complaints include excessive consultation fees, not being made fully aware of the whole cost and terms of the contract, and not clearly knowing what they can really expect to pay compared to choosing service from their local distribution company.

Minister, can you tell me, my constituents and the people of Ontario what you are doing to protect the vulnerable customers who are paying a big price for those retailers?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is one member who has constantly stood up for the vulnerable in his community and, indeed, for vulnerable consumers. I want to thank him for his advocacy on this.

Yes, indeed, assistance is on the way, but we’ve got to think back: When the market originally opened to energy retailers in 2002, the Tory government failed to put in place measures to protect the public from potential abuse from some members of the retailer industry. This past spring, the Legislature passed the Energy Consumer Protection Act, and just last week regulations were announced that are going to address many of the concerns the Ontario Energy Board hears from consumers when it comes to this industry.

Beginning January 1, energy retailers will be required to disclose exactly how the contract price they’re offering compares to the price offered by the local utility. Consumers will be able to cancel their contracts without financial penalty in many circumstances, and in other circumstances cancellation fees will be capped and lowered.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: There is no question that these regulations will have a positive impact on the way energy is being delivered across our province.

My supplementary is also for the Minister of Energy. Minister, since our government announced its intention to put in place regulations to better protect Ontario families from unscrupulous energy retailers, I have heard many positive comments from constituents in my riding. That said, I have also heard from several constituents on a matter pertaining to one of the new regulations. As of January 1, 2011, suite meters will be mandatory in all newly constructed units in the province of Ontario.

With all the fearmongering going on in this House, many people are confused about how this smart meter will impact their lives and the cost of energy. Can the minister tell me how we can protect our consumers and our customers?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I’m going to give you 10 seconds to bring that into how it related to the first question, and—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We are talking about consumer protections, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, when the retailers come and sell to people about many different costs, those smart meters will help protect the consumer. That’s why I’m asking the Minister of Energy to tell us what’s going on—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m referring this to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question and thank the member for his incredible dedication to promoting a greener Ontario. This is what our government is all about: It’s about committing to building a stronger, greener economy; protecting the environment; protecting the consumer. Suite meters are one tool towards doing that.

It is important to note that while suite meters will be mandatory in all newly constructed units, in existing units landlords will have the option of installing them and existing tenants will always have the option of saying either yes or no. Resident tenants who decide to take

part in the suite metering program will see reductions in their monthly rents.

All this aside, suite meters are an important tool, and I encourage tenants and landlords to work together to help Ontario reduce its energy use.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Acting Premier. This provincial government’s Second Career program is rife with problems. Recently in this House, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities lauded the program’s success based on the number of people using it. I noticed that the minister didn’t comment on how many people actually get a job out of it.

My constituent Mike Seeley, a father of four, remains in exactly the same financial situation as he was when he qualified for the Second Career program. Will the Acting Premier explain to him why upon entering the second year of his paralegal program, his living allowance is cut off?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We appreciate the question about one of the most historic programs that a government has ever brought in in response to a serious world recession, which affected Ontario, frankly, more than any province in Canada. In particular, in areas in Ontario where manufacturing jobs were lost, those really were—people working in these sectors were particularly hard hit. That $355 million is a historic amount to pour into a brand new program called Second Career.

To this particular case, we’re happy to look at this particular individual. We wouldn’t have that kind of data here to respond to that. But overall, these are individuals who have to make a hard choice mid-career, in their 40s or 50 years old, where they’ve already gone to school, they already have 20 years in one particular location with an employer. It is a monumental decision and our government stepped forward to help these folks with the kinds of expenses that ordinarily, younger students wouldn’t have to incur. It was an important program—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: With that response, I can understand why there was reference made to her diminished intellect earlier.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Whether it’s HST, microFIT or eco taxes, this government fails time after time to consider the real people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Please continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Whether it’s HST, microFIT or eco taxes, this government fails time after time to consider the real people they affect with their decisions. My office has received numerous complaints from people in this program. They say that your ministry qualified them for financial assistance at the start of the program only to have that assistance yanked out from underneath them partway through their studies.

Perhaps the Acting Premier can answer a general question: Why are you promising down-and-out workers a second chance and then stealing their financial assistance from them?

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We’re just getting a real sense about how this next campaign is going to go, and if you think that’s going to put us off, you’ve got another thing coming, because we’ll be ready. We will be ready for you, my friend.

The reality is, I’ll be heading down to that particular member’s riding and I will say, “Here’s an individual who opposed the program to give these folks a second chance at a career.” They opposed the opportunity to retrain workers who knew they wouldn’t be able to get a job back in that same sector; that they needed to develop new skills—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m a little disappointed as to the tone within the Legislature today. Yes, I too, like everyone else, recognize that there is an election taking place in a year. But at the same time, this is a place where one can ask questions and answer questions. It is a place for debating. The debate is healthy and it’s a part of our democratic process.

Bringing things down to a personal level—personal attacks on one another—is not helpful for any of us and, quite honestly, brings down the level of all of the good things that this chamber is supposed to do.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need the member from Durham commenting to me. I can read the newspaper clippings every day. I would appreciate it, though, when the Speaker is speaking, if you would listen to what the Speaker has to say.

New question.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. Hamilton’s community care access centre is facing $12 million in cuts. These cuts will effectively grind the home care and long-term-care systems to a halt and force our hospitals into a tailspin. These cuts mean that seniors will be forced to take up hospital beds, to go without adequate bathing services or stay indefinitely on home care waiting lists. Vulnerable seniors and their families are begging—begging—you to address the funding shortfall before a disaster occurs.

Does this government have a thought, let alone a plan, for preventing this catastrophe?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I hate to return to the old theme, but the reality is that every step we have taken to reinvest in health care—and especially health care in Hamilton, which is a beacon, frankly, for health care in the world, with terrific facilities there; let’s say that first—all of these measures of significant investment were opposed by the members of the NDP.

That’s pretty hard to believe, considering that Hamilton, a significant part of Ontario, like the rest of Ontario, when we began in 2003, was suffering the same ills of hospital cutbacks, nurses being fired, CCAC services and home care not being provided. When we poured hundreds of millions of dollars into these sectors, every one of those measures was opposed by the NDP.

When it comes time, we will be back to the people of Hamilton, as the good representatives from Hamilton are today, to tell them that those great institutions offering services to their community can do so because of the infusion of funding—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Once again, we’re on the spin cycle, I see.

The minister-announced funding is less than half of what is needed now and less than a quarter of the projected funds needed. The fact is it’s not keeping pace with our seniors’ needs in Hamilton. Ensuring a robust system is essential to the well-being of our seniors and the entire health system, yet the government is prepared to stand back as the CCAC services in Hamilton are gutted.

Will this government stop the shell game and actually address the root problem and funding shortfalls in Hamilton now?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important to note that since 2003 there has been a huge increase, not just in money but in services being delivered in the Hamilton area and through home care services through CCACs. Since 2003, over 182,000 more clients are being served in this area. It’s important to note that 600,000 of them today are receiving services. This is a phenomenal number, far more than was ever the case.

It’s true that we have to continually improve to respond to the needs in that community. That is why, since 2003, there has been a 73% increase in funding for that CCAC—again, something the NDP have opposed.

It’s hard to receive a question about an issue when it’s the very party that opposed—

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

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

Hon. Gerry Phillips: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is a point of order I think all members might agree on, and that’s to congratulate our fellow colleague John Milloy and his wife, Sara, on the birth of a son over the weekend. That’s a happy occasion.

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

The House recessed from 1143 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to rise to recognize and celebrate with the MS Society, who are here at Queen’s Park today. It’s my privilege to welcome—and I did, earlier today—Mike Roche, who’s from the Durham region group for MS; John Daley, who’s a member at large; Jim Marsh, who was unable to attend, but is a volunteer who works very hard; and William Krueger, who’s the coordinator for the Bowmanville MS Walk.

Every day, three or more people are diagnosed with MS in Canada, but thanks to the work of the MS Society, we will find a cure. But finding a cure costs money. I encourage all members to support their local MS chapter.

I’d like to congratulate Katharine Mcmurdo, who raised $5,200 in the Bowmanville walk, as well as Ben Schell, who raised over $4,500 from the walk in Uxbridge. Katharine and Ben were two of the top 100 fundraisers in Ontario this year.

Congratulations to all who have shown outstanding community spirit as individuals, families and businesses work together to support MS research.

Remember: Every step taken and every dollar raised brings us closer to a cure.

On a personal note, on Sunday I attended the Blackstock Recreational Centre, where I was very impressed. There was hardly room to breathe in the room, it was so closely packed. The event was to raise funds for Margo Larmer and her husband, Craig, to make a trip to Costa Rica. This family, the Larmer family, is a highly respected agricultural family. Their father, Glen, and Margo’s father, Gary MacGregor, came all the way from Sarnia to help mark this very special occasion. I wish them well on their trip to Costa Rica.

The hope is that the liberation therapy from Dr. Zamboni will find part of a cure for MS. I’m sure everyone in this House will join with me in celebrating the work that the MS Society has done to make us aware of a disease that affects individuals and all those people around them.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Phil McNeely: Our government believes in preserving our environment while making positive choices for Ontario’s economy, and so we are making investments that will benefit Ontarians for generations to come. Our commitment to exploring and investing in green energy is creating 50,000 jobs in this province that will help Ontario families.

We are working hard to attract new investment in renewable energy to create well-paying green jobs, to make Ontario a world leader in clean energy, and all the while creating a culture of conservation in this province. Our feed-in tariff program will not only provide 20,000 jobs and create 2,500 megawatts of power, but it also creates a stable investment climate by providing guaranteed incentives to wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas developers.

Our plan is producing tangible results in Ontario communities. In Guelph, 500 jobs will come from the Canadian Solar manufacturing facility; 900 direct and indirect jobs will come from Siemens turbine blade manufacturing plant; in Oakville, we’ll see 200 jobs at the new Solar Semiconductor manufacturing facility; 800 jobs are coming from the Lower Mattagami hydroelectric project; and in Niagara region, the Niagara tunnel hydroelectric project is providing 230 jobs.

It is disappointing that the opposition have taken a position against investments that will create jobs and bring many new manufacturing facilities to Ontario. By investing in clean energy—

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

NATIONAL FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Ms. Sylvia Jones: On behalf of Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative caucus, I rise to recognize this week as National Foster Family Week. I’d like to acknowledge the tremendous commitment that foster families make to vulnerable children in Ontario.

Children’s aid societies have done an excellent job in acknowledging the important and sometimes difficult job that foster families have. Just this past week, the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society recognized Linda Barkey as foster parent of the year. Throughout Linda’s 11 years as a foster parent, she has taken many children into her home and made their health and development a priority.

The children’s aid society of Algoma, Algoma Family Services, Community Living Algoma and Nog-da-win-da-min Family and Community Services recognized foster family week by hosting an art exhibit. This exhibit featured the artistic talent of local foster children with the theme: “Why my foster family is important to me.” These are just a couple of examples of how foster families are being acknowledged across the province.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Foster Parents Society of Ontario, who provide training and support for over 8,000 foster families.

We must remember that foster families dedicate their lives to allow vulnerable children in Ontario to live in a safe, healthy and caring home. Our communities have been strengthened because of these remarkable citizens. I thank and applaud them for their efforts.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have in my hand a memo dated October 4, 2010, from the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant community care access centre to patient care vice-presidents at the hospitals within that huge LHIN jurisdiction, advising them that as of October 18, 2010—today—“it will be necessary to wait-list new CCAC clients with care plans requiring a high level of service. These are individuals who are eligible for discharge from hospital and require greater than 60 hours of personal support services per month.” It’s the estimate of this CCAC that will amount to 150 clients a month.

You understand what this means is that people who are treated, recovering, eligible to go home, who require not 60 hours a week but 60 hours a month—less than 15 hours a week; approximately two hours a day of support—are going to be kept in hospital rooms at an expense far beyond what it will take to assist these people to the tune of around two hours a day in their own home. This is nuts. It’s nuts and it’s cruel, because these people in the hospital are going to become re-infected. They’re going to become demoralized.

They’re going to fail as the hospitals are understaffed and don’t have people to assist them with mobility, in moving about and about and around, with bathing and other fundamental daily needs that add to dignity.

This government, the Liberal McGuintys, is forcing sick people to stay in expensive hospitals rather than returning to their own homes at the cost of a mere two hours a day of CCAC care—

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

EVENTS IN OTTAWA CENTRE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to take this opportunity to celebrate the beautiful new architecture and public art that has been displayed in my riding of Ottawa Centre as of last week.

Last week, we had the great opportunity of unveiling the Chinatown gateway on Somerset Street in the great riding of Ottawa Centre. This is a beautiful royal arch which has been built, perhaps for the last time, outside China. We had collaboration from the federal government, from the provincial government, from the local municipality of Ottawa and from the Chinese government for this beautiful arch.

I want to thank the Chinatown gateway project committee—Peter Yeung, Larry Lee and many other members like Katie Ng—for making this project happen, and also the Somerset Street Chinatown BIA—Grace Xin was a huge proponent—and the Dalhousie Community Association. I want to mention Eric Darwin for his contribution.

Also what we have seen in Ottawa Centre is beautiful public art being displayed on Preston Street. These are called Postcards from the Piazzas. It’s by local artist c.j. fleury and it’s installed along Preston Street. Big congratulations to Lori Mellor, who’s the executive director of the Preston Street BIA, for that contribution.

Also, the Wellington Marbles have been installed on Wellington Street West in Ottawa Centre by artists Marcus Kucey-Jones and Ryan Lotecki. Again, congratulations to Pat O’Brien of the Hintonburg Community Association, Jason Thomson of the Wellington Village Community Association and the Wellington West BIA as well, through Annie Hillis.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mrs. Julia Munro: On behalf of Tim Hudak and the PC caucus, I’m pleased to recognize this week as Small Business Week across Canada. It is a time when we honour small businesses and their vital contributions to the economy of Canada and Ontario.

The CFIB reports that small businesses with less than 50 staff represent almost 98% of businesses and employ 31% of all workers in Canada. Small businesses also represent more than 30% of Canada’s exports—of prime importance to a trading nation such as ours.

Small business owners work long hours to ensure their companies succeed, yet they receive little in the way of support from the Ontario government. The priorities of this government when it comes to business are to tax and to regulate. Ontario businesses are drowning in red tape, and the Ontario government has made minimal efforts to cut red tape. Contrast this with the Liberal government of British Columbia, which has eliminated more than 40% of regulations in its time in office.

So let’s honour our small businesses and their contributions this week, but understand that Ontario’s government has to start seeing itself as a friend and helper of small business. Business leaders can succeed; they just need the government to stop putting roadblocks in their way.

MCKELLAR PLACE

Mr. Bill Mauro: Last week, I was part of another terrific announcement in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. Our government provided $1.8 million of financial assistance towards a $10-million construction project that will renovate the old McKellar hospital building.

The hospital building, owned by Habib Enterprises, has been converted into the new McKellar Place: 100 units for seniors’ retirement living as well as 35,000 square feet of office space. When fully occupied, this building will create 35 new full-time jobs, and that’s in addition to the construction jobs that were associated with the project.

It’s always exciting when we see the private sector investing in Thunder Bay. We’re very pleased to partner with Mr. Habib, owner and president of Habib Enterprises, who stepped up and made this project happen. With the revitalization of this site and the soon-to-begin new consolidated courthouse, the downtown south core is receiving a significant shot in the arm.

As I mentioned, once occupied, this project will create 35 new full-time jobs. That’s in addition to the 340 men and women who recently were called back to the Terrace Bay mill, the 200 or so back to work at the Lac des Iles mine and another 200 to 400 soon to be hired at the local Bombardier plant, in addition to the hundreds already brought back. The list goes on.

The world is slowly emerging from the greatest recession since the Great Depression. There’s more work to be done, but we are seeing important signs of progress. I want to thank Mr. Habib for his faith in Thunder Bay and its economic future, for helping to preserve part of our architectural heritage and for partnering with our government on this project.

SMART METERS

Mr. Rick Johnson: Our government is working hard to protect our environment by upgrading our energy system and introducing initiatives for producing clean energy while fostering a culture of conservation. The opposition, on the other hand, were content to let the old, broken energy system fall into disrepair because they did not want to make the investments that would have helped bring our system up to date.

While we are committed to bringing the energy system into the 21st century, the proposals put forward by the opposition leader would drag our province backwards. Forcing local distribution companies to provide two parallel infrastructures—one, time-of-use, and the second, optional traditional meter—would result in substantial cost increases. The Leader of the Opposition says he wants our energy system to be more like Florida’s. Well, it turns out the flat price per kilowatt hour in Florida is 12.6 cents, while Ontario’s highest time-of-use rate is 9.9 cents. That’s almost one third higher. Our lowest rate is 5.3 cents between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

According to a recent Toronto Star article, the spokesman for the Florida distribution company said that most of the customers who choose time-of-use over the flat rate save 10% to 15% annually and are saving energy 87% of the time.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests that Ontario cannot afford the investment that we’ve been making to update and renew our energy system. However, it is clear that what is unaffordable for Ontarians is the energy system proposed by the opposition.

JEAN LUMB

Mr. Reza Moridi: It was my honour to have been invited to attend the annual Jean Lumb Foundation Awards.

I was truly amazed to learn about Jean Bessie Lumb, who was a pioneer in so many ways: as the first Chinese-Canadian woman restaurateur, chair of the Save Chinatown Campaign, board member of Mount Sinai Hospital and recipient of the Order of Canada. Over her many years of dedication and service to the Chinese-Canadian community, Jean Lumb received many awards, far too many to list here today. That’s quite an accomplishment.

Her impact on her community continues today with the establishment of the Jean Lumb Foundation. This not-for-profit organization was established to advance education by providing scholarships to high school students of Chinese heritage. Over the past 13 years, many accomplished students have received scholarships from her foundation. In order to receive a Jean Lumb Foundation scholarship, a student must have excelled in four areas: academics, athletics, the arts and community services.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board of directors of the Jean Lumb Foundation, Arlene Chan, Stephen Wong and Greg K. W. Wong, for their dedication to continuing the legacy of Jean Lumb.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY /

MOIS DE L’HISTOIRE DES FEMMES

ET JOURNÉE DE L’AFFAIRE

« PERSONNE »

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I rise to acknowledge October as Women’s History Month in Ontario.

Je prends la parole pour souligner qu’octobre est le Mois de l’histoire des femmes en Ontario. Nous célébrons, ce mois-ci, les contributions exceptionnelles des femmes dans tous les domaines de leur vie au sein de la société. Et nous célébrons aujourd’hui, le 18 octobre, la Journée de l’affaire « personne », qui représente un tournant d’une importance fondamentale dans l’histoire canadienne pour toutes les femmes du Canada.

This month, we celebrate the extraordinary contributions of women in all areas of their life and society, and on this day, October 18, we celebrate Persons Day, which represents a critically important milestone in Canadian history for all women in Canada.

Thanks to the determination and courage of five women—Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung—on October 18, 1929, women in Canada were declared persons under the law. This resounding victory for equality allowed women to participate fully in politics and affairs of state.

This year also marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark report The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. This report laid the groundwork for fundamental changes in women’s rights, including maternity leave options and the abolishment of gender-based minimum wage. It promoted “equality in practice as well as in principle.” And it set out a vision for being a woman in Canada, stating, “Girls and women must be encouraged to seek self-fulfillment as human beings rather than merely as females. Each female should be encouraged to discover her own particular gifts, talents, drives, and to cultivate them for self-expression and for contribution to society.”

Clearly, women have made progress since 1929, but we still have a long way to go. Recent media attention to these issues highlights the challenge before us. According to a recent report in the Globe and Mail, within Canada’s top 500 private and public sector companies, only 17% of corporate officers and 13% of corporate directors are women. Further, women represent only 37% of mid-level managers, yet women represent nearly half of the workforce.

According to the 2006 census, women working full-time, year-round in Ontario earned 71% of what men employed full-time, year-round earned that year.

Le Mois de l’histoire des femmes nous rappelle qu’il faut continuer de défier le statu quo, pour que nous puissions préparer le terrain pour les femmes aujourd’hui et pour les femmes de demain. Nous devons continuer à battre le rappel pour l’égalité et nous devons continuer à bâtir un avenir meilleur pour les femmes dans notre province.

During Women’s History Month, we are reminded that we must continue to challenge the status quo so that we can clear the path for women today and the women of tomorrow. We must continue to lead the march toward equality. We must continue to build a better future for women in our province.

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DE LA SÉCURITÉ SCOLAIRE

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I rise in the House today to mark the beginning of National School Safety Week. There are nearly two million students in Ontario’s 4,900 publicly funded schools, and each of them deserves a safe and positive learning environment. In fact, such an environment is essential to their success.

À vrai dire, un tel environnement est essentiel à leur réussite. Peu de choses sont plus importantes que la santé, la sécurité et le bien-être de nos jeunes.

Students must feel safe and welcome at school so they can focus on learning. School staff must also feel safe and welcome so they can focus on supporting student achievement. In fact, everyone—staff, students, parents and the community—should feel safe, welcome and respected in Ontario’s schools.

National School Safety Week is an opportunity to raise awareness about cyberbullying, harassment and other school safety issues. We must work together to keep schools positive and safe places to learn.

That is why we encourage students, teachers, parents and principals to use this week as a forum for having a serious discussion about safety in our schools. An open and honest dialogue is the first step toward prevention and awareness.

Since 2004, we have invested over $230 million into safe schools initiatives that support a positive school climate. We created a safe schools action team and responded to their recommendations. From this year, all boards are expected to have a policy on equity and inclusiveness and a guideline on religious accommodation to ensure all members of the school community are welcomed and respected.

Working with our partners at the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, we developed software that teaches safe Internet practices and distributed that information to our schools.

We established strong partnerships with organizations such as the Kids’ Internet Safety Alliance, Kids Help Phone, and Egale Canada.

The Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act, which came into effect on February 1 of this year, requires all board employees to report serious student incidents to the principal, and it requires principals to contact parents of all victims. It also requires school staff who are directly involved with students to respond to inappropriate and disrespectful student behaviour.

Our safe schools strategy includes strong consequences for students who act inappropriately, but also programs for those students to earn their way back into the classroom and complete their education. Also, in November we will recognize Bullying Awareness Week. But investments, partnerships, policies and legislation do not have the power of an honest conversation. Whether it is a parent with their child, students speaking with other students, a student with their teacher, or a teacher with their principal, I strongly encourage all members of the education community to use National School Safety Week as a platform for an honest exchange about anything that affects safety in our schools.

National School Safety Week may only last seven days, but promoting a safe and supportive learning environment should continue throughout the year. National School Safety Week provides us with an important opportunity to promote safe schools as an essential element to student success.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the education community for their very hard work and their dedication to making our schools safe places to be.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Hon. John Wilkinson: Today is the start of Waste Reduction week. Around the world, and here in Ontario, we create a lot of waste. Each of us in this province is responsible for about a tonne of waste each and every year.

Now we all know about the three Rs—reduce, reuse and recycle—but how often do we stop and think about what that really means, particularly when it comes to the first and most important principle: reducing the amount of waste we generate in the first place?

Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, we need to ask ourselves: How do we build a more sustainable way of life in this province? How do we reduce the impact we are having on this earth and make sure we don’t leave a mess for our kids and grandkids to deal with?

We have to stop thinking that we can easily dispose of things we no longer need or want without considering the consequences, without thinking about how our actions will ultimately affect our environment—the water we drink, the air we breathe and the land we grow our food upon. Instead, we need to focus on what we can do to reduce our waste, reuse what we can and recycle what is left over. That means truly embracing the concept of sustainability. It means supporting a way of life that is restorative and healthy.

When we look at how to build sustainability into our actions, we can ensure the demands placed upon our environment can be met without reducing the capacity of our planet to provide for future generations. That is just fair. We know people in Ontario want to do the right thing. They want to do the fair thing. So we are helping people to do their part; for example, through the blue box program. This program plan surpassed its 60% overall diversion target in 2006, two years ahead of the required date. Almost one million tonnes of waste is diverted through the blue box program each and every year.

We’re also committed to increasing waste diversion by introducing more programs for household hazardous waste like paints and solvents. Ontarians can now divert 44 different electronic items like MP3 players, cameras, phones, computers and radios. We also introduced a program to divert and recycle the nine million used tires we generate each year in this province. Last year we recycled some 91,000 tonnes of tires, creating new products and, in the process, creating green jobs, all reducing the carbon footprint upon our Mother Earth.

We want to provide Ontarians with better information on how to reduce waste. Some of these actions are simple things such as composting as much as we can, buying products we will use up entirely, packing waste-free lunches and carrying our own refillable water bottles and coffee mugs.

I just have come back from St. Michael Catholic School, on The Esplanade, an elementary school here in downtown Toronto. They are celebrating Waste Reduction Week by taking the littlest lunch challenge, where the children are learning how to bring a lunch where there is no waste. And I found quite interesting—I’m sure the other members would—that if children throw out leftover food and materials that could have been recycled, that actually adds up to 66 pounds—30 kilograms. So every year our children, if they don’t learn this new lesson, are throwing out the equivalent of the weight of a grade 2.

It didn’t take too long for the grade 5s I met with today at the home of the Angels to understand there is a part that they can play to make sure we are reducing the waste that we generate.

We can also use our power as consumers to let producers and manufacturers know that we want fewer hazardous toxic materials, less packaging and more recyclable materials.

We’re all committed to waste diversion and reduction here in this province. So, here at the beginning of Waste Reduction Week, let’s all take the time to do more at home, at work, at school and at our businesses, including this very place where we work. Working together, we can all make a difference and make our province cleaner and healthier for our kids and our grandkids to enjoy.

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m very pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership, accomplishments and contributions of women past and present who have made a difference in our communities. We congratulate and thank these women who opened doors for all those who followed and who serve as role models for women and girls throughout this province and country.

The theme of this year’s Women’s History Month is Canadian Women in Business. As women continue to make up a growing majority of university graduates, they are staking out a place for themselves in the world of business; 37% of mid-level managers in Canada’s top 500 private and public sector companies are now women.

There is, however, still room for women to make even further progress in business and to achieve greater representation at the senior levels of power. Today, only 17% of corporate officers and 13% of directors at Canada’s top 500 companies are women. The laudable successes of women such as Annette Verschuren, president of Home Depot Canada, or Sheelagh Whittaker, director at Imperial Oil and Standard Life, seem to be the exception rather than the rule. This must change.

This month, I encourage Ontarians to reflect on the important contributions of women and to consider the progress that still needs to be made.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mr. Toby Barrett: Welcome again to Waste Reduction Week or, as it’s known on this side of the House, Failed Expectations Week. Nowhere has there been so much boasted, so much promised and so little achieved.

Here’s the report card: Mr. McGuinty promised 60% waste diversion by 2008—failure. You divert only 22%, and that’s two years after your original target date.

Taxpayers paid for Ontario Electronic Stewardship to collect 42,000 tonnes of toxin-laced equipment. You failed again. Taxpayers paid the full fare while the program recycled only a third of its promise.

Government promised a new waste diversion act by the end of the spring session—nothing.

The government’s eco fee boondoggle has done irreparable damage to words like “eco” and “sustainability.” It’s really unfortunate for those who consider ourselves conservationists and environmentalists.

Ontario needs action, not words. We need action on waste reduction, and this government, regrettably, has failed to deliver.

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The Canada Safety Council has designated the week of October 17-23 as National School Safety Week. The focus of this year’s week is bullying. We must, in our schools, work to deter and prevent it.

Unfortunately, our students do not all feel safe in our schools today. Bullying has long been an issue of great concern to me and our caucus. Last February, I introduced a motion in the House which was unanimously passed to officially and permanently establish the third week of November as Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week. My motion did state that cyberbullying is never acceptable.

Cyberbullying allows students, many of whom may not be inclined to bully in person, the ability to do so behind the veil of a computer and even anonymity.

This is an extremely serious issue. We know that there are situations now where students actually end up committing suicide because they cannot escape from the Internet, so cyberbullying is driving them to those desperate measures.

It is extremely important that we in the province of Ontario equip our teachers and educate our parents and our students in order that they can respond and deal with cyberbullying.

There is much more that we need to do. National School Safety Week is a time for us to reflect on the status of the measures that have been introduced and to do even more to eliminate and deter bullying. We can and we must protect our children and make our schools safer.

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND PERSONS DAY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m responding regarding Women’s History Month and Persons Day.

I always start out, speaking to women’s groups, by telling them that I’m the first woman in my family to be considered a human person under law. My mother wasn’t. My grandmother wasn’t. Then they ask, “Where was your mother born and where was your grandmother born?” and I say, “Right here in Canada.” That’s a sad legacy that was luckily overturned by the work of some incredible women in our past, but we can’t stop there.

Certainly, we need to do more in this House. I have before the House a motion for an all-women’s committee, non-partisan, that will look at issues of things like the fact that women make 71 cents on every dollar that men make; the fact we have no daycare in this province; that only one in 10 children have a space and that it costs over $1,000 a month,

whereas our neighbours, Manitoba and Quebec, on either side have accessible and affordable daycare.

We need to look, all parties together, as an all-women’s all-party committee, at issues like violence against women—one in four women will be attacked in their lifetime—and yet, the absolute partisan myopia of the McGuinty government prevents that even from happening. Can you imagine? They will not even allow an all-party, all-women committee to look at issues that have to do with women. Now, how progressive is that?

Sadly, women are the worse for it. Sadly, women will suffer: yet another generation without adequate daycare, without making the same money as men and being violated, unless this government does something rather than just talk about it.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I rise to address the matter of Waste Reduction Week, waste diversion week and the bungling of this government with regard to eco fees.

I’ll tell you that the performance of the government in putting forward a program that they had not properly analyzed, that they should have understood would simply put the cost of waste on the backs of consumers instead of putting it on the backs of the producers, damaged the whole concept of waste diversion and extended producer responsibility. Today, the minister said he was proud to have cancelled the program. He didn’t mention that, in fact, it was his government, Premier McGuinty, who brought that program in in the first place.

The electronic waste reduction program is not doing what people in this province need to have done. According to Jo-Anne St. Godard, executive director of the Recycling Council of Ontario, Ontario has a high concentration of businesses and large institutions but its recycling efforts are aimed at the residential sector. Ms. St. Godard says that huge volumes of toxic e-waste that isn’t collected through government-set-up systems end up in local landfills.

The minister was correct in saying that we have to think about our children and future generations. I say to the Premier that he has to start doing that today.

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK

Mr. Rosario Marchese: “National School Safety Week provides us with an important opportunity to promote safe schools as an essential element to student success.” New Democrats agree with that. The goal of our schools is to provide places of learning and growth, to provide environments that nurture creativity and critical thinking and to teach skills and knowledge that equip these young people for future possibilities.

And while the government introduced Bill 157, which is somewhat good because it establishes a protocol for reporting incidents—while that is good, to report the incident is not enough, because it doesn’t prevent the problems in the first place and it doesn’t help the victim of bullying or any other form of intimidation.

We’ve got to be able to move quickly on the recommendations that have been made by Mr. Falconer many years ago. Mr. Falconer proposes many things that teachers and boards and principals need. They “should hire 20 ... full-time social workers,” he argues, and I agree.

“The panel recommends that the 20 new full-time social workers dedicated to high-priority schools should not be assigned to more than two schools each,” and I agree with that.

The panel recommends that the 20 additional youth counsellors dedicated to high-priority schools should not be—I already said that, and we agree.

We also believe that the government should follow its own recommendations, where they say that every school authority must have contact lists of community agencies and organizations that have professional expertise and knowledge in the areas of gender-based violence, homophobia and sexual harassment. Teachers need that support and that expertise that comes from those organizations.

If only we listened to the report and if only we listened to Mr. Falconer, we would go a long way to solving some of these problems.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition, one of hundreds I’ve received from my constituents in Durham. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I’m pleased to sign and support this and present it to one of the new pages, Bridget.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

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

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn’t agree more and will affix my signature hereto and give this to Anika to be delivered.

MOBILE HOMES

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I present this petition on behalf of 240 of my constituents in the St. Clair Community Estates mobile home park in Chatham.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas

section 165 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, permits a landlord to increase the monthly rent fee for a site in a mobile home park by $50 per month each time a mobile home unit is sold and the mobile home purchaser enters into a tenancy agreement with the landlord;

“We, the undersigned, as concerned citizens of Ontario and owners of mobile homes in an Ontario mobile home park, urge the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to amend

section 165 of RTA 2006 as follows, by adding,

“‘Further, where following the sale of a mobile home unit in a mobile home park, the subsequent tenancy agreement with the landlord, inclusive of the application of

section 165 of RTA 2006 for the purchaser’s mobile home unit monthly site rent, any resulting monthly site rent increase shall be capped at an amount that does not exceed the average monthly site rent of all mobile home units in that mobile home park.’”

I agree with this petition and I sign my name to it as well.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

“Whereas the Premier and community safety minister ... refused to act, claiming the provincial government has no jurisdiction over the OSPCA;

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

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

I affix my name in support.

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

M me France Gélinas: This petition was given to me by Mrs. Rona Ramsey, the most energetic woman in my riding. Her daughter, Laurel Ireland, is in the west members’ gallery right now. It reads as follows:

“Funding and Approval for CCSVI Diagnosis and Treatment

“Whereas, even though health care institutions in Ontario have the equipment and expertise, those MS patients who have been diagnosed with blocked veins in their neck ... cannot receive the necessary treatment in Ontario;

“Whereas many of the MS patients with CCSVI, at great personal expense, have had to seek treatment in other countries such as India, Poland, Bulgaria, Italy and”—most recently—“the US, the provincial government still has not authorized the procedure, which is angioplasty, an already approved procedure since the early 1980s;

“Whereas not all people diagnosed with MS” have been found to have CCSVI, “and not all people who have CCSVI will have been diagnosed with MS, CCSVI treatment should be authorized and treated on its own merits, regardless of any MS issues;

“Whereas, [despite] numerous testimonials of exceptional post-treatment improvements in the quality of life for patients, accompanied by detailed presentations by vascular surgeons to the Ontario government, the Ontario province still has not ... approved CCSVI treatment;

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

“That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Health, must immediately approve and fund all diagnosing and treatment of CCSVI by qualified Ontario health institutions.”

I support this petition, will affix my signature to it and send it to the clerks with page Jayden.

VETERANS

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce a number of petitions—there are over 1,400, in fact—given to me by Mrs. Wilma McNeill, a tireless advocate from Sarnia–Lambton for veterans’ rights.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“It has often been said: ‘If we don’t remember the past, we are doomed to repeat it.’ With turmoil and fighting around the globe, what better time to remember the price our veterans paid for freedom than the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II?

“We must not forget our Canadian men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice in Afghanistan.

“I urge the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare November 11, Remembrance Day, a statutory holiday in Ontario; lest we forget.”

I agree and submit my name as well and send them down with Kieran.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Norm Miller: I am pleased to present a number of petitions from around the province. The petitions are in support of Bill 100: paved shoulders on provincial highways.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas paved shoulders on highways enhance public safety for all highway users, expand tourism opportunities and support good health; and

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

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

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

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

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

“Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients under” certain conditions; and

“Whereas since October 2009, insured PET scans are performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

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

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

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it to the Clerk with page Carina.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have a petition in support of Bill 100, the paved shoulders on provincial highways.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas paved shoulders on highways enhance public safety for all highway users, expand tourism opportunities and support good health; and

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition, and I’m going to pass it to Nicholas to take to the table.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

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

“Whereas a company’s resumption of production with replacement workers during a legal strike puts undue tensions and divisions on a community; and

“Whereas anti-replacement legislation in other provinces has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes;

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

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it to the Clerk with page Emmett.

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

Mr. John O’Toole: I present a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I’m pleased to sign and support this and present it to one of the new pages, Jayden.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send to the clerks with page Nicholas.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question concerning community care access centres given by the Acting Premier. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

Mr. Bentley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d indicate that I’ll be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Willowdale. If I could, if you’ll just allow me a two-second indulgence to thank the member from Willowdale, my parliamentary assistant, for the very hard work that he has been doing on this and so many other files.

The interesting point about the role of a parliamentary assistant is that they do so much of the important supportive work that enables a minister such as myself to stand up and address the second reading of a piece of legislation. They are able to coordinate stakeholder input. They are able to discern policy direction that should be taken. They’re able to identify issues that arise before they actually become crystallized in legislation.

And then, of course, once a bill is actually introduced, they’re really charged with the carriage of the legislation during the debate, during the hearings process, whether that’s a public hearings process in Toronto or across the province, and the continued debate under third reading. It’s an extremely important role, and I just want to thank my parliamentary assistant for his work and all parliamentary assistants for the work that they do.

Applause.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Absolutely.

We’re here to debate the good government bill. It is not unusual that governments have good government bills. We are not the first one and this won’t be the last one ever introduced, but almost every year there is a good government bill.

The purpose of a good government bill, among other things, is to bring together those legislative or enabling initiatives that by themselves are not substantive enough to form a piece of legislation—that’s first; second, that are necessary and important for the better functioning of either other acts or society in general; and third, that tend to be—today’s debate may prove the exception—less controversial than some pieces of legislation. So they tend to be that way. As I say, you never know and today may be one of the exceptions that proves the rule.

The members of this House will recall that last fall we brought forward a very hefty good government bill and there was much comment on its heft, its content. The fact of the matter is that those initiatives, whether multi-sectioned or just very specific, come forward from recommendations made by many. I know some of my colleagues will speak to this in a little while.

That piece of legislation last year garnered lots of discussion and lots of debate, but now it’s out in force and it is being implemented and it is enabling, as I said, the better functioning and working of legislation that benefits all of the people of the province of Ontario.

What we had in the spring, of course, was the Open for Business legislation, which contained many of the sections that might otherwise have gone into a good government bill, because it really is important that Ontario, as a trading province, a trading jurisdiction, where so much of our wealth is generated through interaction with trading partners not just throughout Canada but throughout the world—it is essential that we have an economic foundation that supports job activity, job creation, wealth creation in the province of Ontario.

That Open for Business legislation contained many different provisions, initiatives and directions supporting the work that we’ve done over a number of years to make sure that the legislation we had in place functioned as well as possible and, maybe even more substantially, that the economic activity of the province was able to proceed in these terribly difficult and challenging times as effectively as possible.

Directing my mind, then, to the specifics of this piece of good government legislation, there are a lot of different changes. There are about 70 amendments to legislation. I’m only going to touch on a few of them, and I suspect that my parliamentary assistant will be touching on a few others.

Interjection.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As my friend opposite indicated, yes, he will bat cleanup, it being the baseball season for playoffs, although I can tell you that my Leafs are doing extremely well. I’ve actually suggested that maybe we should hold the parade now just in case, with the great record that they’ve got so far.

There are 70 amendments to pieces of legislation, and, as I say, most of these won’t be controversial. Most of them would never have come to the attention of members of the Legislature but for the detailed reading of the provisions of the good government piece of legislation that I know every member is conducting right now. They are necessary to enhance, enable or promote the good working of government, the good working of pieces of legislation.

Let me address the Justices of the Peace Act and the approach that we have taken to the appointment of justices of the peace. Now, as all members will know, justices of the peace, as judicial officials, are enormously important participants in our system of justice.

They not only are involved in the criminal justice process, dealing, for example, with bail hearings, determinations of whether accused will be released from custody or not—and in that sense they make very important decisions determining the freedom or not, and under what conditions, of people who have been arrested and detained; they are also involved in the very important function of the case and its movement through the justice system: whether it is going to be set down for trial, whether it’s going to be set down for a preliminary hearing, taking the election as to the mode of trial.

But beyond the criminal justice system, they are involved in the trial of matters under various provincial statutes, some of which contain relatively modest penalties, some of which contain very, very significant and serious penalties—potentially huge fines or imprisonment.

So a justice of the peace performs an extremely important role, and I want to thank, on behalf of the people of Ontario and this House, the justices of the peace for the very important work that they do—the not always easy work, not always popular work, but very important work that they do every single day.

Several years ago, my predecessor in this post, now Michael Bryant, then the member for St. Paul’s—

Applause.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: —yes, absolutely—moved certain reforms to the approach that we take for appointing justices of the peace. It was not a standard approach up to that point in time, and it was not an approach which reflected the approach that this Legislature and the governments of Ontario, of all parties, have taken toward the appointment of judges. This House will recall that then-Attorney General Ian Scott fundamentally changed the approach to the appointment of judges—judicial officials—in this province by setting up an arm’s-length process. That arm’s-length process has continued.

It continued through the then Liberal government of David Peterson, the New Democratic government which followed and the Progressive Conservative government which followed after that, and it continues to this day.

The reforms that my predecessor, Michael Bryant, brought into the justice of the peace appointment process very much standardized the approach and very much created significant, high standards for the appointment and very much created a process which was arm’s length from the government. They were important reforms.

They were far-reaching reforms, important because the appointments process for judicial officials should be seen, should be a transparent one and should be, as much as possible, an impartial one and an arm’s-length one and a non-partisan one, and it is important that those who are appointed to such high office do have at least a certain standard of qualification that will give all confidence in the process.

Elevating the confidence of the people of the province of Ontario in our system of justice, which is the strongest in the world, notwithstanding its challenges, notwithstanding the issues that arise from day to day—we know that our system of justice is the strongest possible system of justice in the world and we know it for many reasons, but we know it for one reason: that people from all