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

December 1, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Dec-01 (PDF)

L077 - Wed 1 Dec 2010 / Mer 1er déc 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 December 2010 Mercredi 1 er décembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

NOTICES OF REASONED AMENDMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

TAXATION

ENERGY POLICIES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

WIND TURBINES

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

EDUCATION

GROWTH PLANNING

G20 SUMMIT

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORLD AIDS DAY

RAIL SERVICE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

ST. MATTHEW

CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL

TIGER JEET SINGH FOUNDATION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

ROMANIA

PROSTATE CANCER

ORDER OF BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHRISTOPHER’S AMENDMENT ACT

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE REPORT

DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HANUKKAH

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

IDENTITY THEFT

POWER PLANT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CEMETERIES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Bentley, moved third 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. Monique M. Smith: I’m delighted to rise today to introduce third reading of Bill 110, and I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Willowdale.

Mr. David Zimmer: It’s my pleasure to speak today on third reading of the Good Government Act, 2010. Let me just go over some of the points that we’ve been discussing in the debate in first and second reading.

The Good Government Act would strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations. It does respond to the changing needs of Ontario in the 21st century. It ensures that the province’s legislation is in keeping with modern times. This bill is a housekeeping measure, but a very important and necessary one.

As everyone here knows, the bill builds on our Open for Business initiative. Our government has demonstrated its commitment to working with businesses to address barriers to investment and growth. If passed, this bill will further our Open for Business goals. Those goals are to decrease the regulatory burden and to better respond to businesses. If passed, this act would benefit both business and the public by improving and streamlining government services. This bill includes approximately 70 amendments to legislation from seven different ministries, including several changes to the Ministry of the Attorney General statutes.

Let me first say a few words about the Justices of the Peace Act. Justices of the peace are an integral and important part of our justice system here in Ontario. In 2006, our government amended the Justices of the Peace Act to ensure continued public confidence by creating a more open and transparent appointment process, and establishing minimum qualification standards for justices of the peace. The reforms also established a new Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory Committee to make the appointment process more open and more transparent.

However, the challenge is that while people from all over the province are always invited to apply, in some areas there may not actually be an opening for a justice of the peace, or there may be a lot of openings in another area. Through our latest government bill, we are proposing changes that would further enhance the recruitment process for justices of the peace. The Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory Committee’s recruitment process would change from an annual, province-wide process to a more targeted process. Advertising could be done within the region where and when a vacancy occurs in fact.

If this bill is passed, the new recruitment model would be similar to the one that is used by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to recommend provincial judicial candidates to the Attorney General. What this does is it gives the committee more flexibility to tailor its search for candidates to the specific region and the specific needs of the vacant position, such as bilingual or aboriginal candidates. This amendment is very important. It would help to create a more effective, focused and efficient recruiting process based on vacancies when appointing justices of the peace.

Let me say a few words about some of the amendments relating to the Provincial Offences Act. The Good Government Act includes a proposed change to the Provincial Offences Act. Courthouses are very busy places. There are times when parties involved in a matter submit a notice of appeal and, for whatever reason, fail to move forward with that appeal. These are called abandoned appeals. The proposed amendment would expand the ability of the court clerk to seek dismissal of appeals that appear to be abandoned.

This proposal reflects and facilitates the recommendations of a municipal and provincial working group that was looking for ways to simplify court procedures and improve service to the public. This is yet another way we are making government more efficient and more effective.

Let me say a few words about the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Appeal Tribunal. This legislation includes proposed changes to several statutes that would transfer the adjudicative function, under several statutes, from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The Licence Appeal Tribunal provides an expert appeals process for compensation claims and licensing activities under 22 different statutes regulated by the government of Ontario.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal would take over the adjudicative matters from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario as directed under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, the Gaming Control Act, the Liquor Licence Act and the Vintners Quality Alliance Act. These amendments would allow the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to better focus on its governance and policy-making roles, including the regulation of the sale, service and consumption of alcohol in public places—and casinos, commercial lotteries and charitable gaming, including electronic gaming.

Let me say a few words about some of the amendments relating to the Business Corporations Act. The proposed amendments to the Business Corporations Act would, if passed, improve services to businesses. This would provide more flexibility and increase the government’s ability to respond to the needs of the business community when it comes to making changes to regulations and forms. A proposed change would clarify that a person who enters into an oral or written contract on behalf of a corporation prior to the corporation coming into existence may assign, amend or terminate that contract up to the time when the contract is formally adopted by the corporation.

Further proposed changes would also address situations where a shareholder holds shares without a shareholder certificate. The changes would allow for an exception to the requirement that shareholders who do not agree with the majority decision must surrender share certificates to that corporation. For example, if the majority of shareholders agree to sell off the majority of a corporation’s assets, the dissenting shareholder is entitled to have the corporation buy back his or her shares. Usually what happens is the dissenting shareholder must surrender the share certificates.

However, sometimes the shareholder holds the uncertified shares, so no such surrender can take place. What this proposed amendment provides is an exception to the surrender of share certificates where the dissenting shareholder holds the uncertified shares.

The proposed changes would also, if passed, deal with a takeover bid situation where the purchaser has bought at least 90% of the shares. In these cases, the purchaser is currently entitled to buy out the remaining 10% of the shares and certificates are normally surrendered to the purchaser. The amendment we are proposing would make a similar exception to the requirement to surrender share certificates.

Other proposed amendments to the Business Corporations Act would, if passed, transfer seven regulation-making powers from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Minister of Government Services. Similar amendments are proposed for the Business Names Act, the Corporations Information Act, the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act and the Limited Partnerships Act.

Let me say now a few words about some of the amendments relating to the Ontario Energy Board Act. A proposed amendment to the Ontario Energy Board Act would support our government’s Open for Business initiative by improving clarity for businesses. It would help the province move forward with its commitment to a green economy by removing some of the uncertainty in the act that may have discouraged local distribution companies from proceeding with clean, renewable energy projects.

Let me say a few words about the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and the amendments relating to it. There is a proposed amendment to replace “week” with the words “work week” under the Employment Standards Act. If passed, this would ensure consistent wording and

interpretation among the provisions in the act and its regulation. The amendment would make the language in the

section consistent with the Ministry of Labour’s long-standing

interpretation, which is that overtime pay entitlements under the act are determined with reference to the employee’s established workweek and not to any period of seven days.

Let me say a few words about the amendments relating to the Education Act. The Ministry of Education is proposing technical amendments that would, if passed, rescind the outdated Essex County French-language Secondary School Act, 1977—and I know that may be of particular interest to the Speaker—which is now redundant, since the province created the French-language school boards serving that area.

Let me say a few words about some of the amendments relating to the Evidence Act. The proposed changes to the Evidence Act would, if passed, help courts adjust to new technology in court reporting and transcribing services. As well, a proposed change to the Occupational Health and Safety Act would, if passed, repeal sections that refer to outdated technology such as telegrams. When is the last time anyone in this chamber, or indeed, in Ontario, dealt with the concept of telegrams?

A few words about the Occupational Health and Safety Act: There are several other amendments proposed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. These changes would, if passed, help to clarify the legislation and ensure consistent wording.

As a part of Ontario’s and Canada’s participation in a global program to systematically classify and label chemicals, proposed changes would, if passed, unify technology to bring Ontario in line with the global system.

In conclusion, we are proposing to update our laws to clarify them, make technical amendments, and strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations. It’s important that we keep the law in step with the needs of society and Ontario.

The ambition here in Ontario with our Open for Business Act is to make Ontario a jurisdiction where everyone wants to do business. One way that we do that is to, from time to time, comb through various statutes and clean out the inconsistencies. We bring some rationalizations; we update those statutes. We want to make our laws in Ontario at the leading edge of what works best for business, what works best for the citizens and what will truly make Ontario a leading economy in the global context.

I encourage all members of this Legislature to support this bill.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I was wondering which set of hearings the member was at, because he described a set of circumstances that were totally different than my recollection of the hearings. I’ll be speaking about this in a few minutes, and I’ll bring to the attention of the House and the listening audience the people who came into the hearings and talked about how they were being bullied, how they were being mistreated by the government, how they lived in fear in the province of Ontario and how this bill wasn’t going to change anything.

The substantive amendments that were put in place—that were moved and seconded and discussed and then voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee—that would have solved some of those problems for people who serve in the alcohol and gaming industry were just totally ignored by this government as they rammed this bill through committee and ignored the amendments that would have given some of the hardest-working and lowest-paid workers in Ontario some satisfaction that they wouldn’t be out of work next week for a period of one week or 45 days or 60 days.

This bill had the opportunity to move toward equity and fairness in that industry, and they totally ignored the myriad of individuals who came to the committee, asking that the committee move in this direction. They were totally ignored by this committee.

So I wonder which committee the member from Willowdale was at when he talks about the positive changes that this government brought in, because certainly in the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario’s area of responsibility, there are no positive changes.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I heard the presentation this morning from my colleague the member from Willowdale, who, of course, prior to his election here in 2003 had a very distinguished career as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, being a lawyer.

When I look at this, it harkens me back to the period of time when I was a municipal councillor. You have bylaws that sit on books. I know in our particular case there were bylaws that sat on books for almost 50 or 60 years, and there comes a time when those bylaws need to be culled; they need to be looked at. They need to have language that’s more relevant to the current day. The Good Government Act, 2010, does a lot to go through various parts and regulations of 70 pieces of legislation that provide a framework to how Ontario operates each and every day.

One of the things that I would find helpful, going through this process, of course, is using language that is readily understood. I think nothing frustrates people more than when they look at specific pieces of legislation and the language is either not clearly understood or perhaps it could have several meanings. So the opportunity to go through these various statutes, clean up the language and make it more straightforward will certainly assist us each and every day here in Ontario.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the chair.

Bill 110 was first introduced on October 5. It actually was in hearings on November 22 and 29, and today we’re at the final stage, I guess.

I’m waiting very patiently for the member from Halton, our critic on this file, who carries another bill—an omnibus bill, I might add—that strikes down a number of existing regulations and sections.

My

section specifically, which I’m not sure the member for Willowdale commented on, is under the Ministry of Government Services. There are actually five schedules where what they’re doing—suspiciously, I add—is transferring the decision-making ability. In one case here it says that the director or registrar, as the case may be, may now delegate their duties or powers to any public service employee under

part III of the Public Service Act of Ontario. I had a question this week which was about the control of licensing information and 93 cases of violations. I don’t want them to give up this authority; I want it done properly.

Under the Business Corporations Act, the regulatory power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council with respect to certificates, documents, forms and their manner of acceptance is transferred to the minister.

I’ve become suspicious, because over the last seven years under the current government I’ve noticed a number of cases, whether it’s eHealth or whether it’s the OLG or the WSIB—these are all code languages. But in each case, the Auditor General has to step in. Now, I’m waiting: Next week, the AG is going to report again. I’m wondering what he’ll find out, because in the last while it seems like the Premier has sort of lost his focus. This bill here is loosening up some of the controls, and that’s troublesome.

I’m sure our member from Halton will point out very specifically some examples of things that we should all be worried about.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The member from Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer, spoke about the Good Government Act. He said, “This is

an act that promotes good government and a government that’s open for business.” I would just like him to comment on what a good government does when food banks are growing.

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Mr. Zimmer? Mr. Zimmer, you’re not listening. You won’t be able to respond to this.

Food banks are growing and people are lining up on a daily basis. What is your good government doing about those things, and what is your good government bill going to do for public housing? You know, 140,000 people are lining up.

What is your good government doing for pensions? You understand, people are losing their pensions. The defined benefit plan—we don’t have it, and 75% of the people don’t have it; in fact, those who do are going to lose those pensions.

I wonder whether you could comment on those things, including the fact that wages are diminishing by the year, which means the middle class is going to become extinct in the next 10 years. You might want to comment on what your good government is doing about that, and the fact that you’re giving $5 billion away to the corporations and what that does for the middle class, in terms of how those corporate taxes are helping the middle class.

You might want to comment on the harmonized sales tax and how that’s whacking people beyond their ability to pay. You might want to comment on the hydro rates shooting through the roof as the middle class is shrinking and getting whacked by good Liberal policies.

Mr. Zimmer from Willowdale, if you could just comment on those things, it would make me feel a little better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Willowdale, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. David Zimmer: One of the themes in the debate on this bill over first, second and third reading—indeed, today—is that it’s essentially a housekeeping bill. It’s incumbent on all governments who form the government of the day to, from time to time at regular intervals, comb through the volumes of legislation on the books and to amend, to clean up, to disregard, to adjust those acts and the regulations made pursuant to those acts so that we don’t drown under a pile of legislation that perhaps no longer serves its purposes.

In my remarks, I went through a number of the acts and the amendments that we’re proposing, and you will see that in each case the proposed amendments are designed to modernize the application of the act, eliminate inconsistencies and make the legislation relevant to how the real world operates today in Ontario. Just by example, I made reference to something having to do with our adjusting and eliminating the use of telegrams in some procedures. I use that as an example of how we are trying to modernize our legislation.

When was the last time anyone dealt with a telegram in this age of email and BlackBerrys and so on? So—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I say to the member for Trinity–Spadina that I didn’t hear the member for Willowdale say anything about the whacking of—

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Would you like to get unanimous consent to have more time? I don’t think he wants it.

This bill, of course, has seven different schedules and speaks to—in an omnibus bill like this, quite often there are many sections that are very worthy. But the opportunity doesn’t come along every day to speak to every one of those schedules.

What I would like to do is go through some of the people who attended the committee—what they talked about, what they asked for and how they asked for it—and you can make up your mind as to whether or not it was a reasonable ask, and then you can make up your mind as to whether or not the government did the right thing when they didn’t pass a lot of amendments and brought this bill back for third reading in something less than pristine condition.

Every time I speak to a Liberal Good Government Act, it’s a bit of an irony and it leaves me a little bit amused. I wonder sometimes whether this government made it back from Woodstock. I’m not sure that some of the younger generation who might be listening understand that, but of course the time of Woodstock, 1968, was a wonderful time.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Were you there?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I might have been there. It wasn’t far from where I lived at that time. In actual fact, no, I was not there, although I was there in spirit. But it was a time of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. A small percentage of the people who were at—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Can you say that in here?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I believe that is parliamentary.

Some people who went to Woodstock just never really got home again. They got lost in the haze of the 1960s and just never quite made it home. I remember being in an establishment in the 1980s or so, and there was a chap sitting at the bar who had never quite made it home from Woodstock. He was quite amusing, but quite a sad situation as well.

I wonder, sometimes, when this government brings in a Good Government Act whether or not this government has a firm grasp on reality. That’s what we mean when we say this government never made it home from Woodstock. “Liberal” and “good government” just don’t go together all the same time, and that won’t change no matter how often the party opposite writes it on paper.

Bill 110, the Liberal Good Government Act, is a good example of this. The Liberal response to the concerns of businesses and employees from across Ontario who spoke to members of the committee considering this bill was an example of bad and unresponsive government, in my opinion. Deputants told the committee about their negative experiences and the implications for employees, and we even heard from employees themselves who rely on their jobs to put food on the table for their families or pay their rent, or indeed to pay their tuition.

Many of these people work in the service industry, such as Gyneya Dicks, an employee from Ottawa working in a restaurant, who told the committee, “As employees, we represent the most vulnerable group that has faced the consequences of the actions of the AGCO in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. That is why we urge you as our representatives to take our concerns seriously.”

She went on to say, “These closures”—and this is when a bar or a restaurant serves alcohol in a manner which is deemed to be inappropriate by the inspector, and the inspector then issues an order, which goes through a kangaroo-type court where you negotiate the penalty and you try to negotiate a closure of the bar for as short a period of time; that’s what she’s referring to. And, yes, the owner of the establishment is punished, but so too are the innocent employees. She says, “These closures result in innocent employees, such as us, facing the prospect of scrambling to pay bills and put food on the table.

This is the fear that we live with on a day-to-day basis, and the consequences of the actions of a government agency funded by us as hard-working taxpayers, many of whom make minimum wage and work long hours on weekends and late nights when the bureaucrats at the AGCO are enjoying the luxurious benefits afforded under the Ontario public service.”

I give you the sunshine list of those 100-odd employees at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario who make in excess of $100,000 a year, and I see that Jean Major, the chief executive officer, makes $243,899.93, with an additional $14,481.30 in bonuses. That’s well over $260,000 a year. Her decisions can put a waitress making minimum wage out of business for a week, two weeks, 45 days, whatever the suspension of that restaurant’s licence is, and this person is saying that that’s just not fair.

We go on and hear from Rina Angelstand, an employee from London. She told the committee: “I myself have been employed in the hospitality industry for 21 years, and I support my family this way. If I was to lose work due to a licence being pulled for an infraction that may not have occurred under my influence”—or under her watch or when she was on duty—“I would not be able to put food on the table. During the time I would be off of work, I would not be able to afford to secure a position for my children in daycare.

The way that daycare works in Ontario, generally, if you cannot secure a position, they do not save a space for you to return. If I was to be off work even as little as two weeks, this could affect my ability to return to work as I’d have to pull my child from the daycare, as I’m not making money and I can’t pay for daycare. Then when my position becomes available at work again, there’s nowhere for my daughter to go.” Now, she’s a welfare mom, receiving welfare, staying at home “totally against action of my own and against my will.”

Did the government listen to this person? No. Did they pass amendments that we put forward that would have influenced the position this woman finds herself in? No, they did not. And, yes, that amendment was put forward. Did it pass? No, it did not.

Adam Barnard, who is a student at Waterloo, told the committee: “Pretty much any amount of time off caused by suspension”—and “suspension” means the closure of the bar that he works in—“even if it was no cause of my own, would pretty much make it impossible for me to pay tuition for next term.” These are people who work hard. They work long for little pay, and they count on these jobs on a carefully budgeted lifestyle.

Again, did the government listen? I don’t believe they did. Were there amendments put forward that would correct this situation? Yes, there were. Our party, the PC Party, put those amendments forward, and did they pass? No, they did not.

Michael Lerner, a London-based lawyer, told the committee, “My clients strongly believe in enforcement and believe that the liquor laws in this province ought to be enforced. What we’re asking you is not to allow establishments that break the law to get away with it. We’re not asking you to weaken the laws as they presently exist. What I’m asking you to do is, as the group before us did, put another bullet in the chamber of the adjudicative tribunal so it can fine, as well as revoke and suspend licences.”

He went on to say, “The fact that it puts employees out of work, in my humble opinion, puts the people who can least afford it out of work. These are people who actually work for less than minimum wage because they factor in the fact that they are going to get tips and gratuities. You have students, as the student who sat in this very chair before me. You have single parents. You have people who have established a family business, who have no record.”

He also said, “If we’re going to punish, let’s punish the offender, not the innocent people who may not even be at work when the offence is committed.”

A compelling argument, a very compelling argument, and I ask you, did the government listen to this compelling argument? No, they did not. Was there an amendment?

Hon. John Gerretsen: How do you know? How do you know who listens to what?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m telling the member from Kingston. Did you listen?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: There was an amendment put forward that would have fixed this situation. Did you vote for that amendment? Did you pass that amendment? I say to the member for Kingston, he did not pass that amendment—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Halton and the minister: I feel left out of this conversation, so I’d like to be included in it.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Mr. Speaker, he did not fix that situation. He had an opportunity to fix that situation and that member from Kingston did not fix that situation.

Hon. John Gerretsen: It didn’t need fixing.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Fixing that situation was a no-brainer. Obviously this government is not the shiniest penny in the roll—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister. Come to order.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Did they listen? No, they did not. Was there an amendment presented? Yes, there was. Did it pass? With a Liberal majority on the committee, no, it did not, sadly.

The Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association: This association has been around for many, many years and is one that has great respect in the halls of this place. They also spoke to the committee, and on their behalf Tony Elenis said, “The transfer of hearings from the” Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario “to the Licence Appeal Tribunal is a positive step to address this conflict and bias. However, the government must not overestimate this measure as one that will resolve licensee concerns.”

Tony asked; were you listening? Were you listening? Will it solve the problem? Mr. Elenis says no, it will not solve the problem. Was there an amendment presented that would have solved this problem? Yes, there was an amendment presented, by the opposition, the PC government, the PC Party—

Hon. John Gerretsen: PC government?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m a little ahead of myself.

Was there an amendment presented? Yes, there was. And did it pass? No; no, it did not pass, because this government didn’t listen to Tony Elenis.

The Ontario Restaurant and Bar Association spoke to the committee, and on their behalf, John Couse said, “Specifically with regard to Bill 110, we are here to ask you three things”—now, this is very important. This was one of the best presenters, I thought; one of the most distinct presenters at the hearings.

He said, “We’re here to ask you three things: First, that the proposed separation of the adjudication function of the AGCO to the licensing tribunal be carried through; second, that the licensing tribunal be given the authority to levy fines in place of suspensions”—and I point out that suspensions, in this, means the suspension of the liquor licence, which basically closes the restaurant for some period of time. So he wants fines levied in place of suspensions—“and third, that the roles of the CEO and registrar be held by two people instead of the current one person.”

What happens here is that the judge and the policeman are indeed the same person; the CEO and the registrar are the police and the judge, and they’re the same person. You can have no fairness in a system where that exists. That’s the third thing that they’re asking: that those two positions be severed. Was that done? No, it wasn’t. Was there an amendment? Yes, there was an amendment. Did it pass? No. The Liberal domination on the committee failed to pass that amendment.

There was also an amendment that would have allowed the registrar to levy fines in place of suspensions. I ask you, did that pass? No, that amendment did not pass. You take all of these things in combination, and it seems to develop a position where this government was not listening to the deputants who came before the committee and gave their opinions on these very important matters.

On behalf of the service staff of restaurants, hotel restaurants, Alex Munro said: “The government has already recognized that there should be a separation of powers at the commissioner’s level, but because of the apprehension of bias and lack of effective governance, it should go further and eliminate the root cause of it. We ask how you can allow such a situation to prevail in Ontario when a separation of powers is fundamental to maintaining trust and integrity of the judicial or adjudicative system you oversee as legislators.” This is in reference to the CEO and the registrar.

There were amendments presented. Did the government listen? No. Were there amendments presented? Yes, there were amendments. Did they pass? No, they did not pass, because this government did not listen.

Mike Smith came before the committee and said: “Almost all of the operators that I talk to from across the province don’t feel this is being driven by the local inspectors or local offices. They feel it is coming from the top down. Most every licensee wants rules and regulations to protect good operators from the less honourable ones.” This is the basis of all law in Ontario and indeed in all civilized societies. We want law and order to protect the just from those who would cut a corner or two, and this is what Mike Smith wants as well.

They want rules and regulations to protect good operators from the less honourable ones. “We want to work with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to make our operations the best they can be. What we don’t want is to be afraid of them, and that is the way we feel right now.”

That was Mike Smith who said that. The government would be very wise to listen. There were amendments put forward, and those amendments didn’t pass, because this government isn’t listening to people like Mike Smith from across this province.

Mike Wilson also attended the committee hearings. Mike Wilson runs a bar and restaurant—a couple of them actually. He is from Brix Napa Valley Grille and Wine Bar Nava Restaurant and Bar. He said to the committee: “Well, we understand from the industry associations that what the government is trying to do with Bill 110 is fix some of the problems with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. Frankly, I believe this falls way short of fixing the problems that our employees and our businesses face.

There are no accountability provisions for oversight of the CEO and registrar, the actions of his agents, and no measure of independent verification of their actions. I stress the word ‘independent.’” These are his words; these are Mike Wilson’s words. “There is no independence. Essentially, you’re telling us, through Bill 110, that you know there are problems with the AGCO; indeed your own review has said that. But spending money on an appeal against well-paid government lawyers and hoping to win at the Licence Appeal Tribunal is futile.”

Of course, one of the examples he used in the committee was that the inspector was in his place and a woman was walking across the floor, going to the washroom, and she tripped. She had very high heels on and she tripped and stumbled. She caught herself on the way down. She did not fall, but caught herself on the way down. The inspector said, “You’re overserving. This woman is intoxicated; you’re overserving her,” and he wrote up a citation for the restaurant. When they checked, they found out that this woman was on her second drink. She had not had two drinks; she was simply on her second drink.

It’s very, very difficult under the current system to fight that charge. Once you’re written up by an inspector, it goes to what the industry calls the “kangaroo court,” where the judge and the police officer who arrested you are sitting in judgment on you and all you can do is negotiate a minimum suspension, if at all possible.

When you go to these tribunals, of course, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario is fast to tell you, “You’re coming in and you simply have to present your case. You have to tell what the situation was, as you saw it. You don’t need expensive lawyers to go before the tribunal. You can represent yourself.”

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, you’ve got to have a lawyer.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: No, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario says that you don’t need expensive lawyers; it doesn’t have to be expensive. If that is true, why does the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario bring three, four or five lawyers sometimes to these hearings?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Because they want to win.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Well, they’ve already got it rigged up pretty good, because they very seldom lose. The member for Kingston says they do that because they want to win. They want to abuse the people of Ontario, and for some reason the member from Kingston thinks that’s somewhat amusing. The way this government has treated business, across the whole spectrum of businesses, is anything but amusing to the people of Ontario, and they will soon have their time. We’ll soon find out how they feel about that.

Mike Wilson also said, “The problem is not solved at the hearing level. Currently, licensees refer to the AGCO ... as a ‘kangaroo court’ where the rules change from regular court and the chance of leaving with a positive result is virtually impossible. This makes it a complete waste of time and money.

“As a licensee, you avoid the hearing process altogether and just try to negotiate a deal to minimize the penalty. The penalty is usually a suspension where they close your business for one day, one week, 45 days, 60 days; or they just take your liquor licence away. That puts a lot of people out of work and can create an insurmountable financial strain on an already recession-weary business.”

He continued on to say, “It emanates from the bureaucratic level. There are no checks and balances on the AGCO, and even if you want to, you can’t because their own board appointees can’t question the CEO on operational matters.” They want to win, all right. They’ve got it set up so they can’t lose.

He goes on to say, “If the board can’t do it, imagine the situation we are in”—people who operate bars and restaurants. “We live it every day. It’s called fear, intimidation and bullying, and if you stand up against them, you’re punished with more visits by the AGCO, more harassment by AGCO personnel, more stress on your staff and management, loss of sales, and increased legal bills to the point where they just run you out of business.”

Did the government listen to Mike Wilson? No. Were there amendments presented that would have helped solve this problem? Yes, there were. Did they pass at the committee level? No, they did not; they were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee.

It is a surprise that the Liberal Party didn’t at least listen to Mike Wilson, who acknowledged: “At our establishments, we have had many events, including parties for Premier Dalton McGuinty; John Manley when he was the Minister of Industry” in the Liberal government in Ottawa; “our member of Parliament, Bryon Wilfert; Frank Scarpitti, mayor of Markham; Michael Joliffe when he was president of the Ontario Liberal Riding Association; and the Young Liberals of Canada.” This man has covered his bases. He’s had fundraisers for all the Liberals.

In return, all he got was hassled to the point where he’s had to close his restaurant on occasion, where his employees have been out of work through no fault of their own. The government wouldn’t listen.

I asked Mr. Wilson if he’d ever had a PC fundraiser at his establishments? He said no, he hadn’t, but he was certainly open to the possibility. He represents—

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: If the government was wise they’d be listening because he represents a tremendous number of Ontarians who are fed up with this government because of the way they’re being treated and because this government won’t listen.

Having heard these concerns, the PC Party responded by drafting motions amending Bill 110 that would ensure that public safety remains paramount while improving fairness for licensees and their hard-working employees. We heard and we accepted that this is the tip of the iceberg. We accept that a full review may be needed. But we listened and took the first steps.

I may very well be sharing my time this morning, probably with the member for Durham, if he were to step back in the Legislature for a moment. Hopefully he is listening from the—maybe somebody will go get him.

We heard and we accept that this is the tip of the iceberg. We accept that a full review may be needed. But we listened and we took the first step by putting amendments before the committee, and this government didn’t listen. It’s not only sad politically; it’s sad for the people of Ontario, those people who came with heart-rending stories, who said that they’ve been out of work through no fault of their own for two weeks, when they’re living hand to mouth, paycheque to paycheque.

It could have been solved, not by letting people off, not by letting owners who would cut corners get away with something, but simply by changing the penalty from a suspension of licence—a closing of the facility which punishes all of the employees—to fining them; to putting a fine in place that would be equally as hurtful. I’m sure there are formulas that could be worked out that would be equally as hurtful to the owners when they try to cut a corner. How did the Liberal government respond? They voted against our motions.

The PC Party has called for fairness, and fairness, in this respect, is very simply just good government, but it’s good government that this bill and this Liberal government don’t seem to be interested in. You had an opportunity to make a difference and you fell short; you fell far short.

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m afraid the member for Willowdale is making light of the situation. The member for Willowdale, it’s on your head that single mothers and students are out of work through no fault of their own, because you wouldn’t listen at committee, you wouldn’t put forward amendments and you wouldn’t pass those amendments.

That member, more than most, because he was vice-chair of the committee—he was the point man on the committee and he failed to listen. In a government that fails to listen, that member, from Willowdale, failed to listen more than most.

I’m afraid this summarizes why “Liberal” and “good government” never fit properly together. No matter how hard that party may try to make appearances and to deceive the people of Ontario, it just won’t work.

If you go by recent polls, they seem to be showing that the public does feel uncomfortable with this government. I would point out to this government that much of that discomfort, no matter what the issue is, whether it’s electricity, whether it’s the taxes, whether it’s this, that or the other thing—there’s a myriad of them that people are upset about. But the basis, the commonality, amongst all those things is that this government stopped listening to the people of Ontario.

I suppose this shows all of us that this is in fact not a good government, and that the Premier and his Liberal Party are perhaps not the shiniest pennies in the roll.

I would now ask the member for Durham to make some comments on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m so pleased that the member from Halton—he and I have been here, some would say too long, but certainly since 1995. And his enthusiasm in standing up for those vulnerable persons in our society, and families, is not surprising. It’s always been his consistent reference: “How does this affect my most vulnerable constituents?”

It’s in that vein that I think his remarks with respect to the testimony he presented, or listened to and presented here, on the single parent is commendable, and I thank him for that advocacy.

This bill, again, is under the suspicious shadow of being an omnibus bill. Furthermore, there seems to be a bit of a time sensitivity component to this as well. As has been said, there are 36 pages; it’s seven sections. It’s dealing with pretty well all the major ministries. I want to go through it, because it’s a good time to review where we are.

Schedule 1 is a broader area: It’s the Ministry of the Attorney General. It imposes monetary penalties under

section 14.1 of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, which he spoke about. The hearings of matters under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, all of which—he was giving some testimony about the conditions in the bar where the employees are assuming some of the responsibilities under that.

The Evidence Act as well is amended to shift regulation-making authority under the subsection from the Lieutenant Governor to the Attorney General specifically. That’s a bit troubling, because we’ve had—the member from Halton, being a critic in that area, has raised several times issues that have been thrown out of the courts or not addressed or saying that they haven’t had enough resources.

We all remember the assistant crown attorney who was pictured in the paper, rather arrogantly, if you will, tossing the scarf carefully over his shoulder, who was laughing and grinning and disrupting a trial about a mother who had a daughter who had died. The charge, I guess, was that she was—and I thought it was completely inflammatory, if not—some other accusation, I guess, could apply too. But the jury members seemed to be upset.

Now, he could have made some—in this

section here, I won’t get carried away. It shifts it to—perhaps that’s a good thing here.

The Justice of the Peace Act: This one here is another one. I raise this because I have raised it in caucus. “Subsection 2.1(12) of the act is amended to change the process for applying for justice of the peace positions and reviewing these applications. Subsection (12.1) is added to the

section to address transition. Obsolete transition provisions in the

section are repealed.”

Under that, I want to make it very clear: I think highly of those who serve in the role of justices of the peace. In fact, if I wasn’t so old, I would probably be seeking one of those myself. I would say that the person should meet certain criteria and qualifications and be reviewed by the judiciary panel, I guess. They don’t necessarily have to be lawyers. I know a lot of good people—I know some personally. In fact, I want to put it on the record here that my cousin Mike O’Toole from Peterborough—and Jeff Leal often refers to him; I’m sorry the member for Peterborough is not here—served for a good number of years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham knows that we don’t refer to a member’s presence or absence.

Mr. John O’Toole: Pardon me. In that respect, I won’t refer to Jeff Leal, because—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Or by name, for that matter.

Mr. John O’Toole: The member for Peterborough. Mr. Speaker, in deference to your future participation here, I respect your ruling and always do. My point being, though, that Mike served, I would say, very commendably, not because he’s a relative of mine. He probably would disown me.

But I say that in—I know several others, too, who have served and served, I believe, competently, because there’s a great deal of training that enters into that before they’re able to make decisions on a bail hearing or on Highway Traffic Act offences. It’s mostly provincial offences where they’re not at the Superior Court level. Often it’s pre-trial hearings and bail and release things that they’re dealing with.

The thing is, with the justice of the peace part, I still believe that the Premier and the Attorney General could appoint people who meet the smell test. If we disembark this privilege of appointing, some members who leave here—some are leaving. In fact, the Speaker will be leaving, and there’s others who have said they’re leaving. There’s about nine people who won’t run in the next election so far. There will probably be a lot more. I look over at the member for Northumberland–Quinte West. He might be—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, look, I’m only saying here, and I say it respectfully, that he has served as a mayor, and he’s served well. He’s here. His constituents respect him. I would say that he continues to serve. I think he would be easily and objectively appointed to sit as a justice of the peace.

Quite frankly, I’m being quite specific here: When we leave here, we do have a pension of a sort. A group RRSP is what it is, really. It’s a defined contribution plan. What I’m saying there is that this would not buy much of an annuity. There’s no pension as you know it. That’s all history, and as it is, it might have been a mistake that Mike Harris made. I would say it right here on the record. I say it here—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: They’re saying that we voted for it. Well, there are a few things they voted for where they’re going to sort of, I would say, rue the day. One of them might be Bill 135, that other bill that was time-allocated yesterday. They will rue the day.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Did you vote the wrong way?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, in that case I did. To the member from Kingston and the Islands: I did, in fact, out of respect for everyone here.

I don’t want to be distracted from the point I’m trying to make, and that easily happens, my point being the appointment of certain members who meet criteria. I know the member from Kingston and the Islands, the minister, was the mayor of Kingston. He’s a qualified lawyer, a member of the bar and the law society, I guess. But I would say that they could easily be—and should be—eligible for appointment. I say that publicly here and now, because they can serve the public. All politicians aren’t completely useless. I would say they can serve and continue to serve the public in a less obviously political way, and I say that respectfully.

Section 2 is another one; it’s a

section that does trouble me. Some of the stuff gets a bit technical. Even for myself, I have to read it, but I help the public by reading it in layman’s

interpretation here. Under this one here, the Business Corporation Act—I’m not going to spend much time on it—it says, “The definition of ‘auditor’ in subsection 1(1) of the act is amended to include not only a partnership of auditors but also an auditor that is incorporated.” There are different rules of liability when one is incorporated. That’s really what’s happening here.

“Several provisions are updated to reflect the fact that notice of a change of location of the registered office must now be filed under the Corporations Information Act rather than the Business Corporations Act.”

In small business, here’s the deal: When you’re dealing with these arcane rule changes, small businesses could find themselves in a problem. Now, how do they find this? All these regulations are gazetted. A lot of small businesses don’t read those things, so it sounds like a fair amount of red tape to me. I don’t disparage all red tape, but I think often they have to take the time and have the flexibility not to penalize very small businesses that are incorporated under the Business Corporations Act for not being aware of the law. Ignorance is no excuse of the law; I understand that.

But certainly there should be, within the authority of the Attorney General or the minister, the ability not to prosecute because of sincere ignorance of the law in these cases of whether or not they’re registered and have filed appropriately.

I’d say that under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act this thing here is a piece of housekeeping, really: “The Registrar no longer requires the approval of the director to require a motor vehicle dealer to file a financial statement under

section 24 of the act.” I think that’s good; it’s elimination of paperwork there.

The Payday Loans Act: “ ...

section 52 of the act which allows the director under that act to make freeze orders.” Well, I’m not big on the payday loan operations anyway—period. I have no time for them at all. I don’t care who set them up.

TICO, the Travel Industry Act: That’s another one. It’s a very important one here. A lot of people don’t even know that travel insurance, the travel industry, under TICO, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, can insure certain things if they’re registered members. Here’s what it says: “The

schedule clarifies that the other services mentioned in the definition of ‘travel services’ must be combined with transportation or sleeping accommodation for the use of a traveller, tourist or sightseer.” In fact, that is important. There are a lot of online businesses that are not members, so I guess the most important advice here is just to pay for it with your credit card; often your credit card will insure your trip.

Schedule 4, the Ministry of Energy: Now there’s a ministry that needs a bit of attention—a lot of attention. I would say that the Ontario Energy Board has been rendered kind of useless, actually. I shouldn’t say that, because I know people—competent, qualified people—on the energy board.

Here’s what it says here: “Clauses 71(3)(

a) to (

c) of the act are re-enacted to provide that an electricity distributor may own and operate a renewable energy generation facility, a generation facility that uses technology that produces power and thermal energy from a single source or an energy storage facility whether or not any criteria for the facility have been prescribed by regulations.”

Actually, energy distributors, as we would know, are Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, Veridian or several larger distributors. These are the ones that take the power from the big wires—the transmission system—to the distribution system, which is the smaller wires that deliver to homes and businesses. What the bill is saying is that Toronto Hydro can have—which it does—a wind turbine at the Exhibition grounds that generates energy, and it’s owned, I believe, as well as thermal energy, which would be the deep-shore water retrieval program in Lake Ontario. I’m not sure what it’s called; do you know what that’s called?

That’s the big core lines out in Lake Ontario. It’s heat transfer; they cool and heat buildings in downtown Toronto from Lake Ontario. I think that’s under this. It just allows these utilities—I think this is a respectable idea.

I honestly believe that the old system of the large generators, large transmission and now large distributors—the three components of electricity systems from generation to use—could be changed. I don’t know why we have great big generators up on the Bruce Peninsula sending all those electrons down that billion-dollar transmission system to Toronto. By the time it gets here, 20% of the energy has dissipated. It’s a waste, and you see that on your bill; you have the line loss charge. That line loss charge is because the generator gets paid for all the electrons it dispatches to your house.

But when you dispatch one kilowatt, by the time it gets to the house there’s only 0.8 kilowatts left. So you’re paying for that 20% loss because they have to get paid. They generated it, whether it’s through natural gas, hydro or whatever. So I probably agree with that

section too.

When you get these omnibus bills, there are sections that are right; generally, the bill has particularly optimal things. But they’ve slipped in a couple that I can’t support. That’s the problem: They stick the poison pill in there. They’ve done it with Bill 135, the other omnibus bill we’re dealing with. It’s become trouble for them, because they’ve have to time-allocate it; they’re ramming it through. We hear the hearings are going to be on Thursday, the amendments will be moved on Monday and it’ll all be done. This is a budget bill. This is a staggering bill.

One

section of that bill, a 10% reduction in your energy bill—that’s what is in Bill 135. Your bill at home that is $200 now will have a 10% reduction; it will be $180. How are they funding that? I often wonder, where is—they forecast revenue based on these things, and now they’re going to cut your bill by 10%. I kind of looked into it—this is worth knowing about Bill 135. The cost of that 10% reduction is $1.3 billion annually. They have an $18.3-billion deficit—I mean, they’re short. So where are they getting this $1.3 billion?

Do you know what they did? Teranet, the province of Ontario land registry system—it used to be called Polaris; it’s now Teranet. It’s a digital system that manages property records for different purposes—assessment. They’ve sold the rights to MPAC and Teranet—they sold the rights to use it for 50 years and they got $1.1 billion for that. That’s how these things happen. With respect, Speaker—I see you watch very carefully. You keep an eye on me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I’m keeping a really close eye on you.

Pursuant to standing order 8(a), this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Government Services on a point of order.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We would like to have unanimous consent to wear red ribbons.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize John Gignac, a retired firefighter from Brantford, and Pat Folliott; he’s from Toronto. They both work for the foundation to support the introduction of carbon monoxide detectors in all homes in Ontario. They will be holding a press conference at noon today. I want to thank John and Pat for being here; they’re in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s an honour for me to introduce Dr. Tom Phillips, who’s in the members’ east gallery today. Tom is a member of both the faculty at Fleming College and Trent University in Peterborough. A well-known national economist, he also recently was inducted into the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame in British Columbia. We welcome Tom with us today.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I would like to introduce to the House Erin Torsney, who is here for the day.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have two special guests to introduce to the House today. Albert Wong is the president of AKW Global Enterprises, with many close connections to Chinese entrepreneurs and investors here and abroad. Judy Yeung is an employee of Bell Canada and the volunteer vice-chair of membership for the Mississauga Board of Chinese Professionals and Businesses, the vice-president of the Association for Learning and Preserving the History of World War II in Asia and a volunteer with the Yee Hong foundation. Both Albert and Judy are the organizers of the annual Phoenix Ball in Mississauga. I’d like members to welcome them to the House.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome and introduce to the House Laverne Brennan, the mother of our page Drew Brennan.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I’m delighted to introduce a delegation of representatives from the government of Romania and, indeed, of Canadian Romanian organizations. The delegation is here, as all of us know, to raise the colours of the Romanian flag outside at 12 noon, and all the members are invited.

I’m delighted to introduce them to you: Dr. Valentin Naumescu, who is the consul general of Romania, and his wife, Mrs. Naumescu; Mr. George Oprea, who is the president of the Association of Romanian Engineers in Canada; Mrs. Maia Morgenstern, an actress at the Jewish State Theatre in Bucharest; Mr. Tudor Aaron Istodor, an actor; Mr. Dumitru Popescu, a director of the Romanian cultural journal Observatorul; Mr. Rares Pateanu, a professor at York University; Mrs. Roxana Pateanu; and Mr. Doru Liciu, who is the vice-consul. Thank you very much and congratulations on your special day today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not precisely an introduction, but more a recognition: On December 1, 1980, my colleague Garfield Dunlop was sworn in for the first time as a councillor in the village of Coldwater. Today marks 30 years for him in elected office and I think he should be congratulated.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Congratulations.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I rise in the House today to welcome the Denlow Public School choir from Don Valley West. They’ll be joining us and singing on the main staircase at 12:15 today. I encourage my colleagues to join them in the holiday season songs.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I’m delighted to say that the Legiskaters played hockey last night against Malahide. They won their first game in three years—5 to 3—and we’re glad to say that we have familiar faces in here: John O’Toole, Jerry Ouellette, Norm Miller, Steve Clark, Howard Hampton and Bob Delaney, and assistant coach Steve Peters. We won.

Mr. Dave Levac: In the gallery today we have the gentleman who has formed, founded and chairs the Hawkins-Gignac Foundation to raise money for CO detectors. He’s a member of the Friends of the Firefighters in Brantford, my friend and former firefighter John Gignac. John, welcome and thank you for being here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our coach last night, the honourable member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, but also to say thank you to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek for the even-handed, fair and impartial way he refereed the hockey game last night. The honourable member only warned the water boy twice during that hockey game.

I just want to recognize those players because it was a great win of 5-2 for the Legiskaters. I want to thank the following individuals from Legiskaters side: Bob Delaney, Rob Bongers, Paul Miller, Howard Hampton, Jerry Ouellette, Norm Miller, Steve Clark, John O’Toole, Steve Paikin, Geoff Turner, Miranda Hussey, Gerry Frenette, Paul Yeung, John Bongers, Scott Lovell, Adam Grachnik, James Berry, Marty Wall, Alex Webster and Matt Cable.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank those who were visiting from Malahide township in my riding: Coach John Wilson, Rob Johnson, Matt Wilson, Johnny Wilson, Brad Smale, Paul Groeneveld, John Hoover, Bill Sleegers, Craig Kalman, Matt Teeple, Mark Steele, Andrew Sleegers, Mike Phillimore, Lloyd Perrin, Tom Marks, Steve Carr and John Smith, who was the bus driver.

Thank you again to the honourable member.

Mr. Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Standing order 40(

b) concerning annual reports and other sessional papers states, “The minister concerned shall distribute copies of all reports to all members of the House and copies of any background material to the critics of the recognized opposition parties.”

However, yesterday Liberal staffers handed out pamphlets that said there was a 10% savings on hydro bills, when on page 11 of the fall economic statement we are told it’s a 46% increase. So I think it only fair to opposition members of this House that the finance minister provide background material that shows the math and explains how a 46% increase is a 10% cut.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member. It is not a point of order.

NOTICES OF REASONED AMENDMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 71(b), the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment for the motion for second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act. The order for second reading of Bill 141 may therefore not be called today.

I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 71(c), the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has filed notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2010, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts. The order for second reading of Bill 140 may therefore not be called today.

Mr. Jim Wilson: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I recall a Speaker’s ruling that to hand out material about a piece of legislation that isn’t passed—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ve already ruled on that point of order.

Interjections.

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

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: The first question is to the Premier. First, on behalf of the PC caucus, we want to thank the Environmental Commissioner for the thorough, helpful and objective report he tabled yesterday.

Premier, his report shows that your well-deserved reputation for making all kinds of promises, then breaking them one by one, once elected, continues. In his report, though, the Environmental Commissioner does note that Premier McGuinty actually hit one target, and that’s the installation of his smart meter tax machines.

The Premier missed targets for electronic recycling. You missed your promises on closure of coal plants. You missed your promises on energy conservation and job creation. So, Premier, why is it that the only target that you actually hit is the one that takes more money out of the pockets of Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s always good to hear from the man without a plan. I think my honourable colleague opposite in fact recognizes that the Environmental Commissioner fully supports smart meters. In addition to that, I would have thought that my honourable colleague would make reference to the health benefits associated with our coal closure.

I want to refer him to a statement made by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. They said, “When you burn fossil fuel, you produce toxic by-products.... The plants also release lead and mercury (brain poisons), dioxin (an endocrine disrupter), chromium and arsenic (carcinogens), and sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide (which cause acid rain).”

You would think that the member opposite would want to stand up and support our plan to do a number of things, including shutting down dirty coal in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, come on. You promised this back in 2007; the coal plants continue now deep into 2010.

Premier, you make all kinds of promises, and then you break them one by one by one once elected. The only plan the Premier has is to squeeze more money out of the pockets of Ontario middle class families, seniors and students.

Premier, let’s get back to your smart meter tax machines. You know you were warned by Hydro One and 20 other distributors that there were serious bugs in the system. Measurement Canada, the federal agency, said they had significant concerns. On August 4, the Ontario Energy Board acknowledged the problem. It is a bad plan, off the rails. It’s costing Ontario families more and more.

Premier I’ll ask you again, why is the only promise you seem to keep is one that will squeeze more money out of the pockets of families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It was my honourable colleague who raised the issue of the environment and I think that we should stick to that.

Let’s hear what some of his colleagues have said in the past on the matter of coal. This comes from the MPP for York–Simcoe: “Even if we closed all the coal plants, we would make little difference to air quality....” That’s the member for York–Simcoe.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk: “I ask that the present government not overlook the fact that coal is both affordable and abundant.... There are significant benefits.”

Then of course, there’s the member for Sarnia–Lambton, who said, “We need more coal.”

We bring a decidedly and proudly different approach. We think it’s time to move away from coal in Ontario. We think we can lead North America in this effort. We think we owe it to the future, and we owe it to our kids today.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I know this is embarrassing for you and your government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Peterborough, Minister of Education, please come to order. Member from Oxford.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know it’s embarrassing for your government that you’ve made so many promises and then broken them one after the other: electronic recycling promise made, promise broken; closure of coal plants promise made, promise broken; energy conservation promise made, promise broken; job creation promise made, promise broken; not to increase taxes on Ontario families—broken, torn, ripped up, absolutely shredded.

Premier, people simply don’t believe the McGuinty government any longer. Now with your smart meter tax machines, we know that Ontario families are paying more as a result. You’ve heard now from some nine different utilities that they don’t want to go ahead with your aggressive plan to take more money out of the pockets of Ontario families.

Premier, why do you believe it’s important for people to work for government instead of government working for the families who pay the bills?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Consumer Services. Minister of Labour.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it’s good to hear from the pro-coal party in Ontario. I gather that’s what “PC” stands for. Who would have known? I think one of the things that’s very important to our families, in addition to clean air and a reliable supply of electricity, of course, are good jobs. Let’s just go over our recent record in that regard: Two weeks ago, we announced 300 jobs at JNE Consulting in Hamilton; a few days ago, it was 150 jobs in Cambridge; yesterday, it was 126 jobs in Essex county; today, it’s 700 jobs in Windsor; tomorrow, it’s 900 jobs in Tillsonburg.

At the end of the day, we stand by our firm belief that families want clean air, reliable electricity and clean energy jobs, and that’s what we stand for.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier of broken promises: Premier, we have a very strong disagreement. You believe that Ontario families should be working harder to pay for more, bigger government; we believe that government should work for the families who actually pay the bills. There’s probably no better example than your expensive eco tax experiment. We now see that families are paying eco taxes as high as $2.75 for a $10 clock radio. This program has gone badly off the rails, where you’re collecting only 2% of recycled material—only 2% of the promise that Premier McGuinty made.

Now, Premier, you’re going to be heading into the Christmas season, charging this eco tax on iPods, on iPads, on flat-screen TVs and on DVD and Blu-ray players. Will you have some mercy as we head towards Christmas? Will you abolish this latest eco—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, if they’re not talking about holding us and holding Ontario firmly nailed down to the past, where we burn coal, now they’re firmly committed and determined to ensure—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier.

And no, the Speaker is not a grinch, by the way, as I heard over there.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If the party opposite, if the official opposition—not only are they committed to coal, a fuel of the past, but now they’re saying they’re adamantly opposed to any efforts made by Ontarians collectively to better and properly manage their toxic waste. They’re against that. That’s not where families stand. I think that families are looking for more plans and fewer pranks; they’re looking for action and not antics.

I’ll just tell you what we did yesterday on behalf of the people of Ontario. We announced 126 new jobs in Essex county as a result of our investments in green energy. We introduced legislation to prepare our health care system for the next pandemic. We also announced a review of social assistance to help get more Ontarians more jobs more quickly. Today, we’re announcing 700 new jobs in Windsor. That’s a result of our Green Energy Act and an agreement with Samsung.

That’s what leadership is all about. It’s about standing up for families. It’s about taking action. It’s about getting beyond antics and moving beyond pranks, and putting forward solid plans.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, leadership is about keeping your promises, keeping your word, creating jobs in the province of Ontario. Only a Premier as out of touch as Premier McGuinty would defend a $2.75 tax on a $10 clock radio. This simply shows a Premier who keeps hitting the snooze button over and over again when it comes to standing up for Ontario families.

Premier, you simply believe that seniors on fixed incomes need to work harder to pay for your bigger and bigger government. The Ontario PCs will stand up for those seniors who are saying, “Enough is enough is enough.”

Premier, even the Environmental Commissioner says that your eco tax scam is not diverting from landfills. You have hit 2% of your goal, and if you had report cards with grades, even that is a failure, Premier, by your standards. Will you give families a break as we head toward Christmas and scrap this program that has gone way off the rails?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, we won’t. We’re committed to assuming our responsibility together to ensure that we properly manage toxic waste. We think that’s the right thing to do. We’re not saying it’s an easy thing to do, but we’re committed to that on behalf of our families.

In terms of support for families, I want to remind my honourable colleague—it would be nice to have him stand in his place and applaud our efforts—that this month 220,000 students are receiving the $150 textbook and technology grant. This month, HST transition cheques: Some 6.5 million Ontario families and individuals will receive either $335 or $100. Starting in January of next year, there’s a 10% clean energy benefit reduction on all electricity bills for five years. There’s also our new children’s activity tax credit: $50 per child. Believe me, when it comes to helping families right inside the home, we’re there for them.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, it just shows a Premier so dramatically out of touch with the needs of middle-class families, seniors and students that he’s embracing his latest eco tax grab.

We’re going to keep the pressure up, and I want to put him on flip-flop alert, because I think this Premier is going to backtrack once again. The sacrifices you make seniors pay, the sacrifices you make families and students pay, Premier, mean that we have to stand up and continually defend the family budget.

Take, for example, your foreign scholarship giveaway. At a time when our sons and daughters are struggling to make ends meet, are struggling to pay the bills, you give away rich $40,000-per-year scholarships to foreign students. The best and the brightest Ontario students cannot apply. That’s wrong, Premier. That money, each and every penny, should go to Ontario students first.

Premier, when will you understand that it’s government that should work for the people who pay the bills, not the other way around?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s more jargon, more slogans, more empty rhetoric, more pranks, more antics. I think Ontario families deserve a lot better than just that. I think they deserve some unwavering commitment to some fundamental values.

For one thing—I’m glad that my honourable colleague has finally had the nerve to raise this—we embrace the global economy. We embrace all those people who have chosen to come to Ontario and help us build this society and our economy. We’re after the brain game in the province of Ontario. We’re committed to winning this competition. We want the best and the brightest from abroad to come and join the best and the brightest who are right here so that we have an unbeatable combination. It’s about pulling the best together so that we can do what we’ve always done: We’ll deliver the most competitive team that we can put on the ice in a global economy, and we’ll keep winning.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East should be in his seat. The Speaker doesn’t appreciate this. Notwithstanding what some people might think, this is not a zoo, and hearing some of the comments or noises that I just heard, perhaps you should go to Bowmanville.

Interjection: That’s a very good zoo.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It is a very good zoo.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. As well, during the answer from the Premier—I just remind the member from Nepean–Carleton that she should be respectful.

New question. The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. That comment that I just directed to the member from Nepean–Carleton is the same comment that I will direct to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Again, we need to endeavour to be respectful of one another.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful from the member from Halton as well.

New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Premier, homeowners are struggling to pay soaring hydro bills. They need help to reduce energy use and make their bills more affordable. Why is the McGuinty government making life even more difficult for homeowners by ending the home energy savings program, which provides homeowners with rebates on home energy audits and retrofits? Why?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m always pleased to hear from my colleague opposite. My colleague knows—they stood up for months on end and asked that we provide some support to ratepayers by eliminating the HST. In fact, we’ve gone further than that. We’ve put in place a clean energy benefit, which is going to help families and farms and small businesses by 10%; it’s 2% more than they originally asked for. We’re proud of that. We think it’s going to help families through this transition period, as we move to a cleaner electricity system.

My honourable colleague the Minister of Energy has indicated that we’re going to shut down this particular program. We’ve extended it for a certain period of time. We’re going to shut it down, but there’s going to be more news forthcoming in terms of more supports for our families when it comes to acting in a way that conserves electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario says that uncertainty about the future of the home energy savings program, which was not corrected by that answer, is undermining conservation capacity in Ontario and threatening the survival of companies that perform audits and retrofits, the very ones that will be needed to deliver any program. The commissioner urges the Minister of Finance to tell Ontarians as soon as possible about whether the government will continue the program.

When will the Premier put an end to the uncertainty and tell homeowners what support they’ll get to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, instead of waiting until he gets to make an election announcement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, the program has served its purpose and has reinforced the notion that all of us have a role to play when it comes to using less electricity, and taxpayers have funded a program which brought a lot of families on board.

The other program that is very important for us to continue to pursue is smart meters. It’d be great to have the NDP’s support in this regard as well. Progressive jurisdictions around the world have taken advantage of smart meters, to install those in homes and businesses and farms as well. It’s one thing that is completely supported by the Environmental Commissioner. So I’d love to hear my honourable colleague stand up right now and say that he’s in support of our plan to continue to install smart meters throughout the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Investing in conservation that delivers real results is far cheaper than investing in new supply. It’s less damaging to the environment. The government is committed to investing untold, unpredictable billions in new nuclear supply. That adds to an already unaffordable hydro rate. They won’t spend a fraction of that on home retrofit programs that could actually make life more affordable for homeowners.

Why does the government put expensive new nuclear supply ahead of cost-effective energy conservation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The NDP is held captive by an ideology that says that they’re adamantly opposed to the generation of electricity by means of nuclear reactors. We don’t enjoy that luxury. One half of our electricity in the province of Ontario is generated by nuclear reactors.

I want to say as well that our plan for conservation has one of the most aggressive targets in North America: 7,100 megawatts by 2030. That’s the equivalent of taking 2.4 million homes off the grid. The fact of the matter is, it is very, very aggressive. It’s going to be a challenge for us to meet that target, but I’m absolutely confident that with the support of the member opposite, including for smart meters as well, we’ll do everything that we need to do to achieve that target.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Published reports indicate Toronto’s new mayor will meet today with TTC management and slam the brakes on the much-needed light-rail public transit plan. Will the Premier please be clear and explicit to this Legislature and the people of Ontario: What is his government prepared to do to ensure Transit City gets built?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re going to sit down and meet and we’re going to talk. There is a new mayor; there is a new council. The fact of the matter is, they have being duly elected as part of a democratic exercise.

We’re going to sit down and find out what it is they would like to do, we’ll talk to them about what we would like to do, and we’re going to work as hard as we can to find some common ground. I believe both sides are interested in promoting public transit. Both sides want to invest in more public transit. We’ll talk about the details in terms of how we’ll get there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Allowing Transit City to be scuttled would be a very grave error on this government’s part.

After years and years of waiting, people saw a plan to make their daily commute a little easier. Then the province started backtracking on funding. And now the city wants to back out of the plan, a plan that will provide good jobs for hundreds of workers at Bombardier in Thunder Bay for years to come.

Given what’s at stake, why isn’t the McGuinty government taking a strong, clear position on saving Transit City?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If the new, duly elected council, led by their new mayor, comes to us with something different, a different representation on behalf of the people of Toronto who elected that council, is my friend honestly suggesting that we tell them to go away, that we’re not prepared to listen to anything they have to say, that they are entirely, exclusively and unremittingly bound to the work of the previous council? I don’t think so. I just don’t think that’s the way democracy works.

Again, we’ll sit down, we’ll meet, we’ll find common ground and we’ll find a way to continue to build public transit not only in Toronto but throughout the province.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: This former mayor and this present MPP thinks that Transit City contracts have already been signed. Work has started. Yet the McGuinty government appears ready to sit back and watch Transit City be stopped dead in its tracks at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of this province.

People in parts of Toronto harshly remember the Premier who killed the Eglinton subway. Does this Premier want to go down in history as the one who helped to kill the Eglinton LRT, or will he do the right thing and join with New Democrats to save Transit City?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If we follow this through to its logical conclusion, the NDP is effectively saying they do not accept the results of the recent municipal election in the city of Toronto. That’s what they’re saying. They’re saying that the new council does not have the legislative and political authority to make decisions regarding the future of public transit in the city.

I think he’s got it wrong and I think we’ve got it right. I think our responsibility is to sit down with the duly elected new council and the mayor to find that common ground.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation has made it perfectly clear that if there are changes to be proposed connected with the original plan, and there are costs associated with that, those will be visited upon the council and the people of Toronto. That will be an important factor for them to take into account.

But again, we’re going to bring a lot of goodwill to this discussion. We’re committed to more public transit.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in February of this year, you said your Green Energy Act will “make it perfectly clear that NIMBYism will no longer prevail when it comes to putting up wind turbines....”

In practice, the rule applies to everywhere in the province but the Minister of Energy’s riding in Scarborough. The setback for the rest of the province is 500 metres. This summer, cabinet made an exception in the minister’s hometown by creating a five-kilometre setback that appeased families who don’t want wind turbines obscuring their view of Lake Ontario.

Did the Minister of Energy declare his conflict of interest and recuse himself from the decision and discussions to keep windmills out of his backyard?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague knows the difference between the setback requirements for land-based wind turbines and those that are located offshore. There is a difference there. If we focus for a moment on those that are land-based, we have the most aggressive setback requirements in all of North America, and some of the most aggressive in the world. As well, while there can be challenges associated with wind turbines, they’re related to location. That’s what our setback requirements are designed to address.

But you cannot get beyond the challenges presented to the environment and our health when it comes to burning coal. It would be nice for the member opposite to stand up on behalf of his party and say, “We’re no longer going to burn coal in the province of Ontario. We’re going to do everything we can together to shut down all coal-fired generation by 2014.” Now, that would be a commitment to the environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’re no longer going to break promises in the province of Ontario.

When my colleague the member for Dufferin–Caledon asked the minister about conflict of interest, he just sloughed it off, but it is not up to him to pass judgment on his own conflict or appearance of conflict. In fact, if he brought the issue to cabinet or participated in the discussion to give special treatment to his riding, his judgment is in question and his response to my colleague cannot be trusted. So it falls upon you, Premier: Were you concerned enough about the appearance of conflict to ensure that the minister took no

part in any discussions to keep windmills out of his backyard?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is a standard, province-wide policy. My honourable colleague is aware of that.

We have one policy for land-based wind turbines. In fact, we have a proposal at this point in time for offshore turbines, and it’s one that will apply across the province. So I think it’s rather interesting and creative on the part of my colleague to allege what he is alleging, but the fact of the matter is, there are so many Ontarians who live near water throughout the province.

This is something that stands to benefit all of us, and we will be working hard to make sure we get it right offshore, as we have got it right on land.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Reports have emerged that the McGuinty government heard about financial improprieties at the Niagara Parks Commission as far back as 2005 and did nothing about it. When did the Premier himself first hear about possible financial improprieties at the Niagara Parks Commission?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question.

Our government has an important responsibility, and that is to ensure that our agencies are accountable to the public and to ensure that our agencies are transparent to the public. On this side of the House we are committed to moving Ontario forward and to working towards strengthening the Niagara Parks Commission. Niagara’s tourism industry depends on it, the Ontario tourism industry depends on it and our economy depends on it. We need this agency at its best as we take the necessary steps.

Chair Fay Booker has my full confidence to guide the commission in the right direction and to bring greater accountability and transparency. We are committed to the people of Niagara Falls and committed to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: This government’s handling of the Niagara Parks Commission scandal has been a complete botch-up, and down where I come from, in Niagara region, struggling families are disgusted with the stories of sole-source deals and executives treating the Niagara Parks Commission as their personal ATM. When will the Premier call in the Auditor General and maybe even the police to get to the bottom of these improprieties?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much again for the question.

To build a stronger tourism industry and to build a stronger economy we need a strong Niagara Parks Commission: one that is more accountable and one that is more transparent. We are moving forward to do just that.

We have a chair who is determined to move the commission in the right direction. In her short time at the Niagara Parks Commission, she has redefined the governance structure for board committees, she has developed a new code of conduct for the board and employees, and she is consulting with residents in Niagara region through public meetings.

Chair Booker has my full confidence to take all necessary action to bring greater accountability and transparency.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, in Guelph we have a poverty elimination task force composed of many community agencies, including my office. They expect this government to build upon its record of achievements in reducing poverty and supporting Ontario families. We must help people overcome barriers in the long term and provide them with the tools necessary in order to get ahead in life.

The social assistance system has been described by the Premier as one that stomps people into the ground. This system should work better for families, clients and taxpayers. As part of the poverty reduction strategy, it was announced that the social assistance system would be reviewed. What is the status of the social assistance review?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, let me say thank you to the member for Guelph for her support all through this exercise.

Ontario’s two social assistance programs need an update. Yesterday, I announced that we have appointed two very credible people to serve as commissioners of this extensive, 18-month social service review: the honourable Frances Lankin, former Minister of Health; and Dr. Munir Sheikh, an economist, an academic and the former chief statistician of Canada.

This review, the largest in 20 years, is the first step in developing a concrete action plan that will make social assistance more effective at getting people into jobs, easier to understand, work better with other income security programs and more accountable to taxpayers and fiscally sustainable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: There have been many concerns raised regarding the elimination of the special diet allowance announced in last year’s budget. Many individuals in my riding depend on this dietary allowance that is provided over and above their social assistance entitlement.

Although it is clear that the government must address misuse in this program, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the 1990s, when governments tarred and feathered Ontario’s most vulnerable. There are many Ontarians who need our help.

How will we respond to the concerns regarding misuse and the needs of those with serious medical conditions who require additional support for a special diet?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: We do not want to disadvantage people who truly need a special diet to manage their medical condition. We will keep the special diet allowance, and it will be part of the overall social assistance review. It is not the time to start tinkering with social assistance programs as a major review gets under way.

But the status quo is not an option. We must comply with the Human Rights Tribunal decision and also take specific steps to make it more accountable and fair to taxpayers. A new schedule, based on a medical expert panel’s recommendations, will come into force on April 1, 2011, and we will work closely with our partners and clients to ensure a smooth transition.

In closing, I want to thank the members of ISAC for their good recommendations and good advice and for being supportive of what we are doing.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The McGuinty Liberals’ belief that Ontario families should be working for them instead of government working for Ontario families is so hardwired that they’ve begun to miss the no-brainers.

The Ontario Real Estate Association confirms that the number of grow operations and drug labs has grown and increased dramatically on the Premier’s watch, and on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I put forward a bill that would tell Ontario families if the house that they want to buy was a drug lab or a grow op. Why are you standing in the way of government working for Ontario families who work hard and who play by the rules?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To the Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m aware of your private member’s bill. I had a meeting with the Ontario Real Estate Association last Friday, and as I indicated to them, we’ll certainly take a look at any bill that may come along to deal with that situation. That’s what we intend to do: Take a look at any good idea that comes along and see if we can work it into the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If he acknowledges that my idea is good and that the Ontario Real Estate Association is behind it, why doesn’t he just adopt it? They’ve got the votes on that side of the House to do something about it.

He knows as well as I do in the Ontario PC caucus that a home is the single biggest investment for most Ontario families. Houses that were grow ops or drug labs are often ineligible for insurance coverage, often leaving the families who purchased them helpless. They could be families in Caledon, where $1.2 million worth of marijuana was found and seized by police last night, or families in Liberal ridings like your own, in Kingston, Peterborough and London, where several times a month police are uncovering grow ops.

The McGuinty Liberals make Ontario families work for them with their civil asset forfeiture scheme. How about the McGuinty Liberals working for Ontario families by creating the grow op registry that will help protect homes across Ontario?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, let me be absolutely clear: We will take a look at any bill that comes along and review it. That’s number one. I did not say your bill was a good one at all. We’ll wait and see about that.

Secondly, smart meters will give us a pretty good idea as to whether or not there is a grow op or not. If you want to deal with your issue, then you’ve got to support us on smart meters, because they will probably be the best indicator as to whether or not a grow op is going on.

Let’s be absolutely clear: This government has absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to grow ops. We will deal with that situation collectively, through a number of different ministries. But I would suggest to you that if you really want to do something about the situation, then you’ve got to adhere and support us in the whole notion of smart meters, because they will give us a good idea as to what’s going on.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

People—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Honourable members, I’d like to give the member from Nickel Belt the opportunity to ask a question.

Please continue.

M me France Gélinas: People living with multiple sclerosis have been given some hope with CCSVI, better known as the liberation treatment. This treatment provides hope for people where very little hope existed before.

I acknowledge that the procedure needs to undergo basic research as well as clinical trials before being approved, and I have no intention of circumventing the need for evidence-informed decisions, but people living with MS want to know: Will this government commit to having the necessary funding in place should research support approving the treatment so there is no delay? People want to have a commitment from this minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I really do welcome the question from the member opposite. This liberation treatment, CCSVI, is obviously providing a glimmer of hope for people with MS, people who up till now haven’t had a lot of hope in the treatment of their disease. I have received, as you can imagine, many, many letters and stories that are heartbreaking—they’re nothing short of heartbreaking.

I think we owe it to the people with MS to follow this very, very closely. If, in fact, this glimmer of hope turns into something that will help people with MS, we’re going to be there for them. I want people with MS to understand we do have to follow the science. I’m very pleased that the member opposite does acknowledge the importance of following the science, following the research. If, in fact, this turns out to be what we all hope it is, then we will be there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: When the minister says that she will be there for them, does she mean she will do like New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and put money on the table to be ready once this treatment—if this treatment—proves effective? CCSVI treatment needs to be researched, and if the clinical trials warrant funding, then people with MS and their supporters want to have the assurance from this government that, in fact, the Minister of Health will be ready to move immediately to fund the procedure.

Will the minister do like her colleagues in other provinces and commit monies, both for the trials and to ensure that the system is in place so that people living with MS will not have to wait if this procedure is approved?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the member opposite understands that we rely very heavily on the evidence here. We do have experts who give us advice on what procedures to fund and what procedures need more research. We will rely on our experts.

What I can tell you is that if in fact this is something that provides relief for people with MS, of course we will fund it. Of course we will be there for the people.

There is now not a great deal of hope for people with MS. It is a progressive disease. If in fact there is help for them, of course we will be there.

EDUCATION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, I am hearing from constituents in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex about our education system here in Ontario. Parents and grandparents want to know that their children and grandchildren are being well equipped for tomorrow’s workforce. Parents want to be engaged in their children’s learning and want to work with teachers to achieve learning continuity both at school and at home.

All around the world, education is a top priority for all orders of government. They all recognize that investing in our future generations is the best way to move a society forward. Minister, this government can be proud of its investments in education, which focus on student achievement, but my constituents want to know how our educational system is stacking up against the rest of the world. Is our approach working?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy that the honourable member has brought this forward. What I am able to share with her—and what she can share with her constituents—is that we certainly are cognizant of the importance of education and all of their concerns.

You can tell them that just this week, there was a report released by McKinsey and Co. that cites Ontario’s education system as one of the best in the world. So we’re very proud, certainly, of our students and the work that goes on in our schools; of our excellent teachers and principals. We have representatives here today from the Ontario Principals’ Council.

We know that parents play a huge role in the success of our students. In fact, the McKinsey report did cite our efforts to engage parents through our Parents Reaching Out grant. It has been a particularly good investment.

The investments we’ve made overall in education are delivering results, so I encourage the honourable member to share this report with her constituents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Minister, my constituents will certainly be very pleased with this news. We can be proud of how well Ontario is doing on the world stage.

While we’re making considerable progress, Minister, I would also like to raise a concern with you that a constituent has brought to my attention. Considering how much we have achieved over our mandate, there is still some concern that we are going to begin to plateau and results will stagnate. What are we doing to ensure that our education system changes with the times to ensure continued student success for the future?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Studies have shown that by investing in our earliest learners, that is the best way to support student success and achievement. We have been doing that, and that is why our government has committed to full-day kindergarten. We believe that making those investments for children before they arrive in school will enable them to be successful when they get there and results will continue to improve.

We are absolutely committed to the implementation of full-day kindergarten. We know this is what parents want. We know the opposition call it a frill. They are not committed to it. They voted against it in this House. We are committed to full-day kindergarten because we know it will support improved student achievement in the province of Ontario.

GROWTH PLANNING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Minister, on November 18, you refused to extend the ridiculous deadline of January 31 for response to the amendments to the Simcoe growth plan. Last Tuesday, I called for a late show because clearly you didn’t understand the question and instead found ways to insult me because I was standing up for my municipalities. Then, for the late show, you sent the parliamentary assistant, who had no idea what he was talking about.

For an example, he said, “There were only seven new councillors elected in the whole county....” In fact, Minister, there was a changeover of 50%, with 70 new councillors being elected from across the county of Simcoe.

Now that I have given you the facts, will you extend the deadline dates so that newly elected councillors can be properly educated on a process that will impact their municipalities for the next 20 years?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. First of all, Simcoe county is part of the greater Golden Horseshoe planning area under the Places to Grow Act, and there are certain very significant principles that are involved in that.

First of all, it’s to prevent urban sprawl, to have organized growth, to identify employment areas, to identify where the growth will occur and to identify the green spaces for a particular community. That occurred in Simcoe county.

What happened was, an official plan was prepared by Simcoe county. The plan did not go far enough, so my ministry started a very significant consultation process where we received over 100 submissions over 18 months. The consultation was extremely significant. We are now having another three months of consultation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Again, you never answered the question. I asked for an extension.

Minister, I have received letters from the county of Simcoe, numerous municipalities, trade unions, the construction industry and chambers of commerce which basically call your process a sham. They all wonder why you are trying to move the amendment process through at lightning speed after sitting on it for 18 months. They also question why you are micromanaging the Simcoe growth program and not other municipalities under Places to Grow.

Minister, will you make a deputation, then, at the January meeting of Simcoe county council, explain your reasoning and answer questions to the 15 new mayors and deputy mayors, as other ministers have done in the past under Places to Grow? Or will we have to clean up this mess next fall, next October?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’re very proud of our growth plan in the greater Golden Horseshoe. Two years of extensive consultations on Simcoe’s strategy have taken place. We now have a three-month consultation period, which will give new municipal councillors time to review the draft amendment which has been put forward.

Many municipal councillors and officials attended three technical sessions we’ve already held to help everyone get up to speed on the draft amendment. Two more are scheduled. I also have an open door for any person, any stakeholder, from the county who wants to come to my office and speak about this issue. We’ve done it with many, and we’ll continue to do so.

The process is responsible. The process is responsive to the people in Simcoe. We intend to move forward with our three-month consultation process before we consider the final draft.

G20 SUMMIT

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: With more disturbing accounts of police brutality during the G20 summit, Chief Blair in denial and the peculiar instance of the SIU reopening their investigation into allegations of excessive force right here on the grounds of this Legislature, with so many troubling questions still unanswered and more arising each day, when will the Premier finally agree that the only way to clear the stench is through a full public inquiry into the events surrounding the G20?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It was interesting to note that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in fact, weighed in on this particular subject. What they said is, “What is needed is a comprehensive review that can examine the decisions and policies of all of the actors involved in the G20. The G20 was a federal summit, hosted by the federal government, policed by a federal security agency and paid for by federal funds. The federal government is therefore best suited to coordinate such an inquiry....”

It would be useful if the member were to speak to his federal colleague in the House of Commons to direct that particular question to the Prime Minister or to whatever minister in the federal government it would be most appropriate to direct it to, but that is the conclusion of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: We’re talking about police who are mandated by provincial legislation to perform their duties. We’re talking about a Public Inquiries Act that is provincial legislation. We’re talking about a situation that is entirely within the jurisdiction of this government, around which to call a public inquiry: excessive force, brutality, illegal arrests by Ontario police officers, blatant disregard of fundamental rights by Ontario police officers, damage done to local businesses.

People have serious questions about what happened during the G20 summit, and for that matter, what happened in Premier McGuinty’s cabinet when they passed their fake regulation, and these people aren’t getting any answers.

The hodgepodge of narrowly focused investigations won’t cut it. Why does the Premier continue to ignore the call for a public inquiry by this government in this province and in this city?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and their recommendation, but let me inform the member, as I think he knows, of what inquiries are going on at this time.

First of all, the Toronto Police Services Board announced that it is leading an independent review, with an eminent justice at the head of that review; the Office of the Independent Police Review Director announced that it is conducting a systematic review; the Ontario Ombudsman is conducting an investigation into the specifics of the G20 regulation; and Justice McMurtry will be reviewing the Public Works Protection Act, a World War II-era piece of legislation. Justice McMurtry’s review is moving forward in this exercise to determine the best use of this legislation in 2010.

There are several specific reviews of a provincial nature going on at the present time. The member may want to ask his federal—

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

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Four decades ago, Dr. James Till and Dr. Ernest McCulloch from the University of Toronto discovered the existence of stem cells. Stem cells can be powerful tools in repairing tissue and fighting illnesses and diseases. Since then, Ontario has been on the leading edge of continued research around stem cells, including the development of viable adult stem cell retrieval, which would be used to enhance the quality of life for Ontario families.

Dr. Janet Rossant, chief researcher at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, said, “Stem cells have a capacity to copy themselves and to make endless supplies of cells that ... could be used to repair many tissues in diseases like Parkinson’s”—which my brother Norm fights—“diabetes ... chronic conditions, and spinal cord injury.”

For my brother, for those in my constituency affected by these and other diseases and for all Ontarians, I ask the minister: How is your ministry advancing Ontario as a world leader in stem cell research?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for his question and assure him that Ontario will continue to lead in stem cell research. It’s one of our focal points of a $3.2-billion commitment to research and innovation.

As he noted, we have a long-standing history of stem cell research, and our discoveries have not only gone national but they’ve gone global in their impact, with breakthroughs in this important field.

The government is proud of relationships like the one with the Stem Cell Network, made up of over 80 experts drawn from universities and hospitals not just in Ontario but, indeed, across Canada.

In the 2009 budget, we committed $100 million for genomics and gene-related research focused on discovering new therapies and technologies that will help people live healthier lives. MRI has invested $32.9 million alone in projects related to stem cell research and regenerative medicine—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I know that my brother and my family are grateful for this kind of investment, and I know that all Ontarians with Parkinson’s and other debilitating diseases are thankful. Ontario families want to know, though, that investing their tax dollars is being done wisely. Creating benefits through research will make a real difference when it comes to improving the lives of them and their loved ones.

Instead of scaling back research, this government takes the position that research and innovation in the life sciences, clean technologies and digital communications will not only improve the overall quality of life that we have, but also opportunities for new jobs and economic growth, and for that I know Ontarians—all Ontarians—are grateful.

I’ve heard the minister many times say how this effort can create jobs and support companies that have been working on health technologies and life sciences innovations. This government created Canada’s only stand-alone ministry devoted to research and innovation. I want to know from the minister: What research, what actual results are we seeing by investing in science and health research?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Our Premier, in establishing this important ministry, took a very long view, and we’re starting to see early results. I’d like to just give you one example.

In 2010, Dr. Mick Bhatia, the scientific director at the McMaster Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute in the great city of Hamilton, partly funded by our government, published his team’s finding on the breakthrough discovery that enables scientists to transform human skin into blood. This is a revolutionary discovery bringing new hope to those suffering from blood-borne cancers: that skin from their own bodies can be used to cure them. This could eliminate the need for rare donor matches or the fear that their bodies may reject transplanted stem cells.

Ontarians are proud of their researchers and doctors, who are now solving problems thought to be impossible only years ago. This work that is being done by Ontario’s top researchers is invaluable in creating—

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

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission is planning to establish an advisory committee for the Chicken Farmers of Ontario marketing board. The goal of this new committee is purportedly to promote good relations in the industry and to advise the Chicken Farmers of Ontario marketing board on issues, yet your ministry is proposing to set up this advisory committee with no representatives from the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors.

Minister, why are you excluding smaller chicken processors from your new committee to advise on the chicken industry?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do want to thank the member for the question. I also want to say how proud I am of the industry for how well they have done and the working relationships that they have developed between the producers and the processors.

I can say to the member from across the way that they understood that in order to continue to attract consumers and have them engaged, the products that they produce need to be expanded. I want to say for the record how pleased I am about the work that is happening.

Obviously, when we look at the processing sector, there are many things that have to be taken into consideration. I have met with the producers and I have met with the processors, and they are working very diligently to ensure that the products are available to our consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: My riding contains one of the largest independent chicken processing firms in Ontario, employing almost 600 people in the town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury. In such a heavily regulated industry, independent processors need marketing boards and advisory committees that listen to their concerns and allow them a voice. You know as well as I do that once an advisory committee is set up, the board is unlikely to solicit advice from outside, from those independent operators.

Minister, taking away their voice is a bad idea. Will you change this misguided plan and let all chicken producers and processors be represented?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do want to thank the member for the question, and I do want to question the member on this fact: We’ve made significant investments in making local food available in Ontario, and the people of Ontario recognize that Ontario food is safe and affordable and high quality, but the member from across the way constantly votes against it; against $80 million in investment.

We understand that all processors need to have their considerations taken to the table. That’s what they’re working towards; it is an industry-driven initiative. Local food is a part of that: In order to ensure that we have the maximum retail shelf, that’s why we have made significant investments in our local food.

So I say to the member from across the way: Why will they not support our farmers? They recognize that that investment in local food has made a difference in their income, and it’s made a—

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

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

On Monday, the minister spoke to the Association of Ontario Health Centres assembled at Queen’s Park. The minister spoke glowingly of community health centres: “Community health centres reflect the very best in Ontario’s health system.” That’s