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

May 5, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-05 (PDF)

L116 - Thu 5 May 2011 / Jeu 5 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 5 May 2011 Jeudi 5 mai 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

TAXATION

SMART METERS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HEALTH CARE

FINANCEMENT DES COLLÈGES /

COLLEGE FUNDING

MIDWIFERY

WIND TURBINES

HEALTH CARE

WATER QUALITY

WIND TURBINES

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

DEFERRED VOTES

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ACCESSIBLE MEDIA INC.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

MIDWIFERY

MATTHEWS HOUSE HOSPICE

DON VALLEY ART CLUB

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

HASAN SAVEHILAGHI

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ANATOLIAN HERITAGE DAY

ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE ANATOLIEN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POVERTY /

PAUVRETÉ

PETITIONS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

HOME CARE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CEMETERIES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

IDENTITY THEFT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE

RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE DROIT

DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL

DES GRANDS LACS

NOVICE DRIVER “P” PLATE ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 EXIGEANT UNE PLAQUE «P»

POUR LES CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS

OMBUDSMAN STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (DESIGNATED

PUBLIC BODIES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L’OMBUDSMAN

(ORGANISMES PUBLICS DÉSIGNÉ

S) GREAT LAKES SHORELINE

RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE DROIT

DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL

DES GRANDS LACS

NOVICE DRIVER “P” PLATE ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 EXIGEANT UNE PLAQUE «P»

POUR LES CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS

OMBUDSMAN STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (DESIGNATED

PUBLIC BODIES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L’OMBUDSMAN

(ORGANISMES PUBLICS DÉSIGNÉ

S) The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 4, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 179,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption and the provision of care and maintenance / Projet de loi 179, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l’enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne l’adoption et les soins et l’entretien.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It’s a real pleasure for me to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate this morning on Bill 179, the Building Families and Supporting Youth to be Successful Act.

I’d like to begin by commending the member for Dufferin–Caledon on her outstanding work on this issue. She is a strong advocate and a passionate advocate for the children in this province. I share her passion.

I am extremely happy and pleased that this bill will, at long last, provide those young children and older children, the teens, who are crown wards, with the opportunity to see the legal barriers removed in order that they can be adopted. There are thousands of children waiting for adoption. On the other side, we have thousands of families who are wanting to adopt these children, but they cannot.

The approximate number of children adopted each year in Ontario through the three provincial adoption services is 1,600. The approximate number of crown wards is about 9,000. Clearly, we have a problem.

Children’s aid societies in this province have been looking for change now for almost eight years. They have been pleading with the government to take action on the issue of crown wards and adopted children between the ages of 16 and 18. Also, if we go back a couple of years, the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption, headed by Dr. David Johnston, the former president of the University of Waterloo and now the Governor General, also recommended that changes be made.

We have in the province, then, about 9,000 crown wards who are waiting for adoption, but last year only 993 were adopted. So we have seen very little change in recent years. Part of the reason is because the children’s aid societies in Ontario do not have the means to review access orders in a timely manner, and part of the problem, of course, is that these children cannot be adopted at the present time.

Let’s take a look at the current situation. Currently in Ontario, when a child becomes a ward of the crown, an access order is usually put in place by a judge with the best interests of the child in mind. This access order allows the child’s parents, siblings and other relatives or close friends to have access to the child while they are under the care of a CAS organization. However, many of these access orders go unused and serve to create additional difficulties for the courts, the CAS and any person or family wanting to adopt the child.

As soon as an access order is put in place at the present time, a crown ward can no longer be adopted. This legislation, which proposes to abolish the access orders, will finally make it easier for a crown ward to find an adoptive home.

Under this legislation, when a child is placed for adoption, all access orders attached to that child will be terminated, thereby streamlining the system and making it much easier for the CAS to find homes for crown wards. The CAS will then be responsible for notifying the holder of the access order that it is being terminated and that the child has been identified as a candidate for adoption. In the event that the access order was deemed to be beneficial for the child, a judge may issue an openness order allowing a continued relationship with the person who is beneficial or meaningful for the child. Prospective families will be notified of such a decision.

The second part of this bill concerns children aged 16 to 18 who want to return to the care of a CAS if they have left for any reason, as does happen. Presently, any child who enters care before the age of 16 is eligible to be in care until their 18th birthday. If a child aged 16 to 18 leaves care now, they are not able to return, as the age of care in Ontario is 16. The legislative changes that this bill is proposing will allow any child aged 16 to 18 who has previously been in care to return to the care of the CAS—a good change.

The changes that we have before us are positive changes. They are reforms that are necessary; however, they are reforms that are long overdue. And there are other changes that we had hoped to see within this legislation that have not yet been brought forward by the government. For example, this bill fails to resolve the home study issue. We know that there is currently a list of about 1,500 families waiting to have a home study completed. As you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, this is a massive backlog, and obviously, action must be taken.

In fact, as the member for Dufferin–Caledon pointed out, this number is actually much lower than the real figure due to the fact, which she indicated, that many CASs are telling willing families who want to adopt a child not to put their name forward for the waiting list because of the immense and unacceptable backlog. The ministry—the government—has not attempted to address this issue, other than to say that some temporary funding will be provided. There is no concrete long-term plan of action and guarantee that this issue will be addressed.

The second problem that we have with the bill is that this is going to force even more responsibility and work on the already overstressed and underfunded children’s aid societies. This expands their mandate, as it does expand their workload. However, the government has not indicated that there will be any additional funding provided for the expansion of their mandate and their expanded role. We have been hearing increasingly in recent months and years from the CASs throughout Ontario that they are being forced to lay off staff and that they face severe budgetary constraints.

Obviously, this government needs to address the issue and provide a funding model that corresponds to their mandate and their expanded role. We simply know that it is impossible for the CASs to continue to provide their essential services to our children at a high level without the financial means and the staff to do so.

Briefly, I’d also like to touch on the need to have more resources devoted to special-needs adoptions. Unfortunately, although we do see the adoption of children within the province of Ontario, those children with special needs have an extremely difficult time of finding an adoptive home, if they do at all, because these children with special needs require additional resources above and beyond what the average child requires.

Once a family adopts a child with special needs, under the current terms, they are now solely responsible for ensuring that the child has access to the resources and the personnel that are required. Many families, as you can understand, find this financially difficult. They want to provide a loving home for this child, but they simply cannot afford to do so. Somehow, we need to provide incentives and support to these families who can provide those caring homes to those children with special needs.

I am encouraged with the legislation before us. I am pleased that it is going to remove the legal barriers currently preventing children who are crown wards from being adopted. As I said, there are about 9,000 of these children, and the majority of them who are older children today live in foster care group homes. Regrettably, these children have not been in a position where they have been able to be adopted.

In my own community, in the region of Waterloo, I know that there are about 254 crown wards, of whom about 143 have court-issued access orders. In the past two years, 65 children were adopted locally. This is a little higher because our Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region has been a leader in finding permanent homes for these children, and for this I want to applaud the staff.

We’re moving forward with the bill to remove the legal barrier to the adoption, as was recommended by the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption, and this is a good thing. I think we also have to recognize that by doing this, we are intervening earlier in the lives of our children, as we should. We know that those children who are never adopted are also less likely to complete high school. They are more likely to have children at an early age. They usually have more mental health issues or a need for social assistance, experience poverty and are in trouble with the law.

Again, I think we need to remember, just as our government introduced the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program in order to identify those children at birth in this province who were going be in need of additional support, whether it would be from nurses or from other agencies in the province of Ontario or from those who would visit families in order to make sure that families were able to relate and support those babies—by moving forward and making sure that all the children in this province who are in a position to be adopted can be adopted and put into homes where they will be loved and cared for; where they will find stability and develop the self-worth that is so important to their later life.

So I encourage everyone in this House to support this bill. I hope that we can move this bill forward very quickly, and let’s do so for the children who are waiting to be adopted and for the thousands of families that are waiting for these children.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the comments made by the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

I, for one, continue to remind people that legislation is always fluid, so we take from where we have been. Some legislation has been sitting on the books for decades and decades with no changes, and this is part of that continuation and the flow of the kind of legislation that we see now. The member rightfully points out that these impediments that are there stopped an awful lot of people from doing the things they wanted to do. She’s acknowledged support for the vote, and I appreciate that.

When you take those impediments away, you provide for an opportunity for the adoptions to take place, which is exactly what the legislation is designed to do. The downside to this is taking a look at it and saying, “What else can you do? What else have you done? What haven’t you done?” As I said, in terms of the fluid nature of legislation, this is not being held out as the be-all and end-all of this issue. Quite frankly, we’ll continue to see modifications and changes as we go along in society and its concepts and ideas change as well.

I appreciate the fact that the member is in support of the legislation. She also dutifully points out some of the areas which we should continue to take a look at and improve. I agree with her. That’s the idea of opposition: to be able to stand up and say, “Here are some of the shortfalls, here are some of the shortcomings of the legislation and here are some different ideas that you may want to consider in the future.”

But I want to come back to the point of making sure that people understand that there are many, many champions in this place who want to see the best for our children. To point anyone out in particular I think doesn’t do justice to those who have fought long and hard to keep care of our children. To ensure that the parents have an opportunity to do that adoption is important, but more importantly, without disrespect, it is about the kids, and I appreciate the member’s comments about that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I also want to echo my impressions and my thankfulness to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. Her long experience here and her obvious care and compassionate approach to challenges are highly regarded. Her recognition of the work done by the member for Dufferin–Caledon is indeed very appropriate, as it would be for the member from Whitby–Oshawa and the work they’ve done on children’s mental health.

I also say that there is unanimous agreement here, on both sides of the House, that this should move forward. There has been time to address some of the issues: Without making this a little bit edgy, the expert panel was released in 2009; it’s 2011 now. We have had a wholesome discussion on this and there is unanimous support for the bill to go to committee to sort out a few of the issues.

The issues have been brought up in the context—the member from Welland has spoken a number of times on this and commented on the situation today, as we have all worked with the CASs in our areas: the lack of resources that are in the community. I don’t blame anyone specifically, but the evidence is there for us to examine.

There are some barriers that even the expert panel—I’m sure they’re pleased that we’re moving forward and that the committee will deal with some of the issues.

Now, the barriers here represent real savings for families and real opportunities for families. A child in custody in a CAS today is about $32,000 a year, perhaps more in some cases—difficult to serve. They’re under a lot of stress to have transition funding to families that want to take these children into their families, and that’s really the focus of everything. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo has stressed that children are at the centre of this, and we have to act responsibly and quickly to make sure that they’re no longer vulnerable and that they have the joy of being in a family.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I agree with what my colleague just said, that we want as many children in Ontario to live within loving families.

There are many examples of kids who are under the responsibility of the crown in some of the First Nations in my riding, and those kids often have special needs. The CAS would have worked with them to finally have a support system built around the child. This support system costs money. Although we have many, many families who would love to take those children and adopt them and make them fully part of their family, they are poor families that could never be able to afford the cost of the support that this child needs to be able to become all that he or she could be.

The bill, the way it is now—we see all support, all monetary support for that child, disappear the minute the family takes it in and adopts it. For me and for the families that I deal with, this is a huge barrier. Their heart is open; their heart is big enough to take those children in, and they want to, but it is their income that isn’t big enough to meet the needs of those children. The minute they adopt them, all support ceases immediately. So the work that has been done to support and to build a circle of support around the child would automatically disappear. This is the real barrier to adopting all of those crown ward children.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m encouraged that we’re discussing this legislation, and I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo for her insight into this issue.

I want to state for the record that I do believe that there is another dimension that must be addressed in this province when it comes to the issue of adoption. I have had a number of constituents speak with me about their experience as parents who want to adopt and who are, in fact, in the process of going through that exercise with the children’s aid society. Their concern is the level of professionalism around the interview process that they are experiencing.

I believe that the children’s aid societies have a responsibility to ensure that the social workers who have the responsibility of interviewing potential adoptive parents are qualified to do so and that there are the appropriate accountability measures in place to ensure that that process is, in fact, a professional and sensitive process.

I’ll have more to say about this as the debate goes on, but I just want to raise the issue that I believe that part of our problem is, in fact, the underfunding of our children’s aid societies throughout this province, and that has to be addressed by this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Kitchener–Waterloo has two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I want to thank the members for Brant, Durham, Nickel Belt and Newmarket–Aurora.

Let me just repeat again: I welcome this change to the adoption law. As my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora has said, he has been in contact with families. I would say to you that much of what I’ve said today is based on conversations that I have had with families in my own community, people who have come to my office. There are many families out here who are looking to adopt children. Many of them, because they have been prevented from doing so within our own province, have obviously looked for international adoptions.

But I can tell you that the process, whether it’s the home study or going through a lot of red tape and huge amounts of money—I know one family who would have preferred to have adopted a child here but weren’t able to do so—because we do know that we have so many crown wards who haven’t been eligible for adoption—and I know they have spent $50,000.

This change to the legislation today is a welcome change. It is going to unite children who are looking to be part of a loving family with those families who currently have no children and want to provide to those children a loving, stable environment. It is a very good step forward. However, we need to keep in mind that there is a need for additional resources for the children’s aid societies and there is a need to facilitate the home studies. Obviously, we need to take a look at what else we can do to make sure that all children in this province are given the best start in life possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Ms. Smith moved second reading of Bill 179. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I hear some noes.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We’ll defer the vote until deferred votes after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

Ms. Aggelonitis moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Debate? The Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I would like to share my time with the member from Scarborough–Guildwood.

Today I rise in the House to speak to the Supporting Smoke-Free Ontario by Reducing Contraband Tobacco Act. As I stated on April 21, when introducing this legislation, Bill 186 is part of our government’s commitment to create a smoke-free Ontario. In developing such an important piece of legislation, we considered the ideas and proposals of our many partners and stakeholders, who share our concern and our commitment to addressing this complex problem.

I’d like to share with the House some of what experts are saying. For example, Dr. Lynne Thurling, president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says that her governing organization “warmly welcomes the government’s enhanced commitment to smoking cessation in Ontario and to reducing the supply of illegal tobacco across the province. We are committed to supporting initiatives that seek to improve the health of Ontarians and our health care system. We congratulate the government on this important initiative.”

Dr. Mark MacLeod, president of the Ontario Medical Association, states that the legislation “is another important step in the ongoing fight against tobacco. Keeping illegal cigarettes out of our children’s hands is a good thing.”

If passed, Bill 186 would help to protect our youth from the dangers of cheap, illegal tobacco. I cannot emphasize enough our important job as parents and leaders: We must do everything possible to prevent our youth from starting to smoke, and provide support to those who want to quit.

Smoking kills thousands of people each and every year in the province of Ontario. This is an alarming number and cause for significant concern. As little as a few dollars can buy a young person a pack of illegal cigarettes. The low cost and easy availability of illegal tobacco represents an unfortunate incentive for them to take up smoking or to start again if they have already quit. These startling facts are a call to action for this government to remain focused on reducing the supply of illegal tobacco in Ontario.

Before I provide highlights of Bill 186, I’d like to remind members of the House of our government’s important progress when it comes to illegal tobacco in Ontario. In the last six of eight years, our government has brought forward measures to reduce the availability of illegal tobacco. Starting with the 2004 budget, several enhancements to the regulatory and enforcement provisions of the Tobacco Tax Act were introduced. Some of these included: (1) expanding provisions for seizing and disposing of unmarked cigarettes; and (2) increasing offences and penalties for individuals distributing tobacco without authorization, including increased sanctions for repeat offenders.

Further amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act were announced in 2006. The 2006 amendments strengthened Ontario’s tobacco-related enforcement activities by allowing increased information-sharing on tobacco-related matters among provincial, municipal and federal governments.

In the 2007 Ontario budget, several additional measures were taken to enforce tobacco tax compliance and protect tobacco tax revenue. For example, we assigned additional resources to increase enforcement activities relating to tobacco distribution and the retail sector; we also increased sanctions and enforcement measures associated with distributing and possessing illegal tobacco; and we added a provision to temporarily suspend a retailer’s ability to sell tobacco products where the retailer had been found to be repeatedly in violation of the Tobacco Tax Act.

In the 2008 budget, we continued to build on many proposals enacted in the previous years. They included requiring persons who possess or import cigarette-making machines to be registered as manufacturers under the Tobacco Tax Act; also, we added more legislative provisions that would allow the seizure of tobacco products from persons found to be violating the legislation; and added fixed penalties to existing tax-based penalties that could be assessed against persons contravening the act.

In the 2009 Ontario budget, we further strengthened the enforcement elements of the Tobacco Tax Act. These measures included enforcement provisions aimed at individuals when there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe they have contravened the legislation; provisions that prohibit the possession of any quantity of unmarked cigarettes unless otherwise permitted; authority for the ministry to apply for a court order to permit retaining items seized that may lead to a Tobacco Tax Act contravention; and provisions that aligned certain penalties imposed on persons convicted of offences under the Tobacco Tax Act.

As a result of tougher enforcement measures introduced by this government since 2004—I’d like to also share some of those: The Ministry of Revenue’s inspectors and investigators have seized 150 million illegal cigarettes, 978,000 untaxed cigars and 47 million grams of fine-cut tobacco between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2011. Penalties assessed against those violating the Tobacco Tax Act total more than $18.7 million since March 2006.

With Bill 186 introduced, I’m proud to say that this is the sixth out of eight years that this government has taken steps to strengthen enforcement against the illegal manufacture, distribution, sale and purchase of tobacco products. If Bill 186 is passed, our legislation would do five key things: First, it would transfer the responsibility for licensing raw leaf tobacco from the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board to the Ministry of Revenue. It would also license raw leaf tobacco importers to ensure that there is a level playing field for all raw leaf tobacco suppliers.

Secondly, the bill proposes to set a revised fine structure to reflect possession of small amounts of contraband tobacco. Thirdly, for the first time, we would require fine-cut tobacco to be marked for better enforcement. Fourth, this bill would authorize police to seize illegal tobacco in plain view. Lastly, it would strengthen our relationship with First Nations leaders.

First, let’s talk about the raw leaf. This bill would reduce the risk of Ontario raw leaf tobacco being used to manufacture illegal tobacco products by expanding regulation to include all types of raw leaf tobacco grown in, and imported into, Ontario. This would include fully and partially processed flue-cured burley and black or dark raw leaf tobacco.

Currently, flue-cured raw leaf tobacco cannot be grown or sold in Ontario unless legitimate sales contracts are in place with buyers who are licensed as required under federal and Ontario laws. However, raw leaf tobacco can end up in the possession of Ontario manufacturers who produce illegal tobacco products if: an Ontario producer sells it illegally; secondly, a legitimately licensed buyer exports raw leaf tobacco and it re-enters Ontario as an illegal import; thirdly, a licensed buyer or manufacturer uses some of its raw leaf tobacco to produce illegal products; or lastly, raw leaf tobacco grown outside Ontario is imported for use by illegal manufacturers.

We would work with our partner ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the agricultural community to ensure that there is a smooth transition that recognizes business operating requirements. New registrants who are not part of the current system would be identified and consulted. Lead time would also be needed to develop an electronic registry system to make the registration process more efficient for those involved in the tobacco-growing sector.

I’d now like to talk a little bit about the revised fine structure. The amendments propose, in Bill 186, a new fine structure for persons convicted of possessing small amounts of illegal tobacco products. The proposed fine structure for illegal cigarettes is: $100 plus three times the tax for possession of up to 200 illegal cigarettes, for a maximum fine of $174.10; $250 plus three times the tax for possession of between 201 and 1,000 illegal cigarettes, for a maximum fine of $620.50; and $500 plus three times the tax for possession of between 1,001 and 10,000 illegal cigarettes, for a maximum fine of $4,205.

The current fine structure would continue to apply to individuals convicted of possessing more than 10,000 illegal cigarettes and for those with any amount for the purpose of sale.

Michael Perley, of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, said that the proposed fines are a step forward in deterring individuals who want to buy illegal cigarettes. The Canadian Press recently quoted him as saying, “By buying a $15 bag of cigarettes, you wind up paying $175 for it. That’s a lesson that somebody won’t soon forget.”

Next, the legislation further proposes to have fine-cut tobacco marked in a similar fashion as to how legal cigarettes are marked. This would make it easier for enforcement officers to identify legal versus illegal fine-cut tobacco. When this provision does take place—hopefully takes place—police officers would be further authorized to seize illegal, unmarked, fine-cut tobacco in plain view. Another proposal contained in the legislation would authorize police officers to seize without delay—and that is key: without delay—unmarked cigarettes in plain view. Currently, they have to contact the Ministry of Revenue to seek authorization to make the seizure.

If passed, we will work with our police partners to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions.

Our government is pleased that the steps we’ve taken to strengthen tobacco enforcement over many years have not gone unnoticed. For example, and I wish to share this with the members of the House, on April 23, a Toronto Star editorial stated, “Since 2004, Ontario’s Liberal government has taken many important steps to reduce tobacco use and discourage young people from picking up the addictive and deadly habit....

“The government’s new bill tackling contraband tobacco offers ... new measures to make people think twice about buying contraband cigarettes” and makes it “easier for police to crack down on the trade”—all well worthwhile.

Because illegal tobacco is a complex matter, this government remains committed to working with our partners to strengthen the enforcement of tobacco laws. We work closely with our federal colleagues, various police services and other partners on a regular basis to investigate and seize illegal tobacco products. In fact, the Cornwall Regional Task Force is an excellent example of how the Ontario government works with the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP, along with the OPP and local police services, to address illegal tobacco.

In 2010, the task force, of which the Ministry of Revenue is a member, successfully confiscated the following items involved in smuggling illegal tobacco: more than $6 million in illegal tobacco products, more than $660,000 in currency, 181 vehicles, 17 vessels and 22 trailers, with a combined value of more than $2 million.

As the federal government has jurisdiction over borders and border enforcement, the Ministry of Revenue and the Ontario Provincial Police participate in the RCMP-led integrated border enforcement teams. They target cross-border criminal activity at Cornwall, Kingston, Niagara Falls, Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie. In addition, Ontario is in discussions with the Canada Revenue Agency, Public Safety Canada and Revenu Québec to advance co-operation on matters of common concern.

An integral part of the Bill 186 legislation is to strengthen our very important relationships with First Nations. If enacted, the Minister of Revenue would be permitted, in certain circumstances, to share Tobacco Tax Act information with First Nations’ elected councils and make arrangements and agreements with these councils for administering and enforcing the Tobacco Tax Act on reserves.

Currently, the Ministry of Revenue is engaged with several First Nations leaders to hear ideas and concerns they have about tobacco on reserves. To further the government’s understanding of tobacco issues on reserves, the ministry will be further engaging First Nations leaders and listening to their views on tobacco issues and their ideas for solutions. These ongoing and expanded discussions are important steps the government is taking to ensure that the interests of First Nations are part of the government’s effort to address the complex issues related to illegal tobacco.

With Bill 186, we are taking the next steps to help protect young people from the dangers of tobacco. Proposals contained in the Supporting Smoke-Free Ontario by Reducing Contraband Tobacco Act provide positive, realistic and balanced measures that would move us forward in our drive to reduce smoking across Ontario. We expect that this legislation would result in a meaningful, positive impact on controlling the supply and reducing the use of illegal tobacco in Ontario. This legislation is an important next step in reducing youth smoking rates, yet we must continue to be vigilant.

I believe that the measures contained in Bill 186 are the right ones, at the right time, that would make a real difference. I look forward to working with my colleagues in every party to make this bill law. Our kids are counting on all of us to pass this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I’m certainly pleased to rise and speak to the second reading of our government’s proposed Bill 186, the Supporting Smoke-Free Ontario by Reducing Contraband Tobacco Act, 2011. I want to thank my colleague Minister Aggelonitis for her work in this regard.

It is essential to recognize that Bill 186 is part of our whole-of-government approach to renewing and building on the significant foundation of the smoke-free Ontario strategy. Without a doubt, since 2005, the smoke-free Ontario strategy has embodied one of North America’s most comprehensive anti-smoking initiatives.

Although today we focus on how far we have come and where we are going, I certainly feel compelled to remind this Legislature that many members opposite, including the leader of the official opposition, voted against our powerful tool to fight tobacco, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Nevertheless, I am pleased to advise this Legislature that despite the party opposite’s lack of vision and support of this important, multi-faceted strategy, it has successfully discouraged young people from starting to smoke.

Our strategy has supported cessation efforts for smokers who want to quit; educated and raised awareness of the dangers of smoking cigarettes; prevented and discouraged Ontarians from starting to smoke; and it has made smoke-free environments the law in our province.

The party opposite is so out of touch that their member for Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant stated, “The jury is out on second-hand smoke.” The member was speaking about the effects of second-hand smoke on individuals. The member obviously has not heard of Heather Crowe, who died in 2006 from years of exposure to second-hand smoke and who was a fearless supporter of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. We will continue to protect Ontarians from the dangers of second-hand smoke, and certainly we honour the memory of Heather Crowe.

Today, 99% of bars, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces in the province are smoke-free, thanks to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. When the Hudak PCs voted against that legislation in 2005, they rejected smoke-free environments. In fact, they rejected better health.

Interjection: No.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Yes.

Our government has made sure that cigarettes can no longer be openly displayed at convenience stores, removing a temptation that might draw in would-be smokers. I would like to thank the MPP for Ottawa–Orléans for his tireless efforts on this particular initiative.

Our government has paid special attention to protecting our most precious resource, our children—indeed, our future—from the dangers of cigarette smoking, and that is precisely the reason why we banned smoking in motor vehicles when children 16 years of age and under are present. And again, like the 80% of Ontarians who supported our direction in this regard, I was astounded that opposition members railed against this move right up until the moment they voted for it. The current PC leader said at the time, “ I don’t think” it “will make that much of a difference.” His colleague the member for Thornhill actually called our initiative “moron legislation.”

Indeed, our children are also the reason our government passed legislation prohibiting the selling and distribution of flavoured cigarillos in Ontario. We are protecting our children from products designed to lure young people into smoking.

Interjections.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: And you guys can make jokes about it, but the young people are the future of our province.

We are committed to taking appropriate and effective action if we find that the tobacco industry is introducing new cigarillo products aimed at tempting children or adolescents. I found it rather bizarre that four PC members voted against this move as well—unbelievable—and, judging from the action across the way here today, it obviously looks to me like they don’t care about Ontario’s children.

I think it would be—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order: I would ask that the minister, if she wants “honourable” in front of her name, withdraw the statement she just made. As a mother, I’m sitting on this side of House with a grandfather, I’m sitting with another father and another father with grandchildren. That was despicable. I understand partisanship, but she should—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. There is nothing out of order in the minister’s comments.

Minister of Health Promotion, you have the floor.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: As I said—

Mr. Frank Klees: Point of order: I’m asking the minister to apologize for the comment that she has made. If she does not, I will ensure that she does not continue this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): There’s nothing out of order. It’s up to the minister to make whatever comments she would like, as long as they’re parliamentary.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On a point of order: As a grandfather, I am really insulted by the minister across the aisle. I believe that if she is an honourable minister—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Okay. Please have your seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. Member for Oxford.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Member for Halton, come to order. The minister has the floor.

Minister?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I would remind the members opposite that I am entitled to be in the Legislature just as much as they are. And—

Mr. Frank Klees: Point of order: What she doesn’t have to right to do is insult and impugn motives in this place, and if she does not have the character, as a minister, to stand in her place and apologize for a comment that she knows is wrong—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order again. I don’t find anything that the minister said out of order. She’s entitled to her opinion. I’m here to facilitate free speech. We may disagree from time to time, but please let the Minister of Health Promotion have the floor and have her say.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I must say, it’s unbelievable, the conduct of the members opposite. They obviously don’t care about—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is this a new point of order?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is a new point of order: She’s just impugning motive, and again she’s insulted the official opposition benches. I assume she’s also insulted the third party—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. I’ve ruled on this point of order and I don’t see a new point of order. The minister is entitled to her opinion and she does have the floor.

Minister.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Actions truly speak louder than words, and their failure to support protective legislation relating to cigarettes speaks clearly about how they care about Ontario’s children. In the words of the young people, I would say, “Not”—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Are you just purposely interrupting the minister or do you have a new point of order?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She continues to try to insult the official opposition. It’s clearly unparliamentary language, and it goes against the spirit of the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I’m going to rule that you may not like what the minister is saying, but I don’t find anything that she’s saying unparliamentary, and I don’t believe she’s using unparliamentary language, so I cannot rule in favour of your point of order.

Minister—and please, I’m not going to hear any more points of order on this. I’m not going to recognize you—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): And you’re not going to argue with the Chair, or I’m going to throw you out of this place.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, she doesn’t have a right to say that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member for Oxford will come to order. The minister has the floor. Please allow her her right to free speech.

Minister.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our children are the reason we have taken the many steps we have. That said, let me assure you that our government is continuing our work in protecting the health of Ontario’s children. If passed, Bill 186 will further shield our young people from this harmful habit and provide important means to save the lives of more Ontarians.

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death and disease in Ontario.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Come to order. Order.

The House will take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 0956 to 1001.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): If I may just make a comment, I would ask all members to be respectful of each other. While I did not hear anything unparliamentary in what the minister said, I would ask us all to try to be kind to each other and respectful.

The minister does have the floor. The Minister of Health Promotion and Sport.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: We are working across government to support additional action that builds on the smoke-free Ontario strategy. Our government is committed to working with our partners and stakeholders—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. Order. Members of the official opposition will please come to order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. If the honourable members won’t come to order, I will have no choice but to name the honourable members.

Thank you. The Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: We will continue to address the recommendations provided in the October 2010 report of the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Again, I will have to name the honourable members, and you will not be able to participate for the rest of the day.

Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The passage of Bill 186 would be an important building block in the work of the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport to help prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco and on our work to date on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Under this government, the smoke-free Ontario strategy has earned international recognition as a pioneer in the battle against tobacco use. The additional steps that I have outlined will build on this legacy by fostering a healthier province, and save more lives. If passed, Bill 186 will further shield our young people from this harmful habit and provide important means to save the lives of more Ontarians.

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death and disease in Ontario. Every year, it claims the lives of 13,000 people in this province. Smoking accounts for three times the combined deaths caused by alcohol, drugs, suicide, murder and car crashes. Smoking costs every single Ontarian. Smoking is, in fact, killing our families, our neighbours, our friends, our co-workers and our loved ones.

Tobacco-related disease costs the province’s economy $7.73 billion every year—$1.93 billion in direct health care costs and $5.8 billion in productivity losses. This is an incredible drain on Ontario’s health care resources.

Suffice it to say that the human and financial costs of smoking and tobacco-related disease are staggering. That is why, over the past six years, our government has focused on supporting Ontarians to make informed choices, to protect and to improve their health and to save their own lives.

Programs and initiatives that discourage people from starting to smoke, and support for smokers in quitting, have always co-existed with legislative prohibitions within the smoke-free Ontario strategy.

Similarly, the introduction of Bill 186 has coincided with the government announcing steps to further protect children and youth, including: resources to increase prevention efforts focused on protecting our young people; engaging youth to develop youth-led tobacco prevention initiatives; undertaking critical research to determine what works in reference to deterring young people from using tobacco products; and using this information to design and implement innovative, sustained and effective efforts to prevent youth from becoming addicted.

By providing more youth-focused resources and new innovative approaches to reach and involve the young people in our ongoing efforts, we will prevent even more young people from starting to use tobacco products in the first place. The outreach programs will include connecting with teenagers through youth engagement coordinators, working in each of the 36 public health units in the province, to support young people around tobacco control activities in their communities. The province’s enhanced efforts to reduce tobacco use provide opportunities to encourage smokers in general to quit, through a series of new or expanding supports.

Let me clearly state that smoking is not—and I repeat: not—a lifestyle choice. Smoking is an addiction. The addiction to nicotine has been compared to addictions to heroin and cocaine. In fact, it is one of the toughest addictions to break, and we see that smokers rarely succeed in quitting on their first try. Effective cessation programs are crucial to supporting smokers on this difficult journey.

In fact, our government-supported initiatives have already assisted more than 1.25 million people to quit smoking since 2005, including: the Driven to Quit Challenge, the Leave the Pack Behind program, the Smokers’ Helpline and Smokers’ Helpline online STOP program, collaboration and support for the grassroots work of local public health units, and our recent collaboration with family health teams. These are just a few of the cessation initiatives that Ontario, in cross-sectoral partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, has made available to help smokers.

In 2010-11, the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport invested over $6 million in smoking cessation programs and $2.67 million in cessation marketing campaigns, social marketing campaigns such as the Canadian Cancer Society’s Driven to Quit Challenge, the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s Persistence campaign, and the Ontario Lung Association’s Quit and Get Fit.

The Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group, established by the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport, as well as the scientific advisory committee organized by the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, called for a comprehensive cessation system.

Mr. Michael Perley of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco has written to us, saying that he is “very pleased by your recent announcement that the province will strengthen the Tobacco Tax Act,” and to “express our appreciation for your personal support of this critically important initiative.”

Our government is also expanding and improving supports to provide smokers with many more doors of access to get the help they need to kick the nasty habit.

Our approach includes smoking cessation counselling in health care settings, including family health teams and other health professionals; collaborating with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to deliver cessation services and cessation drugs; providing targeted help for smokers with chronic diseases who are in hospitals; expanding access to nicotine replacement therapies through primary care providers; and working with trade associations, employers and unions to provide workplace information and supports to employees who wish to quit smoking, more particularly in workplaces where smoking represents an increased risk.

The Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport is currently investing a total of $42.8 million in tobacco cessation, prevention and protection programs. The province has announced that it is investing an additional $5 million, an increase of more than 11%, to strengthen our ongoing efforts to prevent youth from starting to smoke and to support smokers in quitting. We are confident this new investment will focus on the priorities that will have the greatest impact on reducing smoking prevalence rates. These tips, coupled with the crackdown on illegal tobacco as proposed by Bill 186, will collectively reinvigorate the excellent work which has—

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today, the Minister of Health Promotion made comments in this House that, quite frankly, I believe, were not only inappropriate but certainly unparliamentary—

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: And highly offensive.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —and highly offensive to every member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, those who have children or grandchildren being specifically cited.

The tradition in this House, and it has been repeated by the Speaker on many occasions, is that when comments are made by a member of this House that result in grave disorder, they are generally deemed inappropriate and unparliamentary. By the very nature that they caused the disorder, it clearly indicates that there is something wrong and something offensive about those comments.

The comments by the Minister of Health Promotion—I will paraphrase, because I was not here present for the remarks, but I’m quite aware of the grave disorder that resulted from those remarks—were to the effect that members of the Progressive Conservative caucus do not care about their children or their grandchildren.

Speaker, there’s not a person in this province who, if someone implied to them that they didn’t care about their children or their grandchildren—if they had grandchildren—would not take personal offence to it and would not stand up and defend themselves and ask that person who made those comments, as a lady or a gentleman, to please retract them. Anyone, for the purpose of common decency, would, as that kind of person, retract them.

This is not a place to personally insult other members. This is a place to debate legislation. Each and every one of us comes here with that belief: that legislation that is debated in this House, if properly tabled, properly amended—that at the end of the day, we have something that benefits people in the province of Ontario. This is not a place to personally insult members of this House who have children or grandchildren, and I think that member, that minister, should apologize to this House and should apologize to the people of Ontario for taking debate to that level. It is beneath her. It is beneath this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): On the same point of order, the honourable member from Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Speaker, surely a member in this House, in a debate around an issue so non-partisan as this issue, who is seeking support of the whole House, when this sort of event occurs, be it advertently or inadvertently, especially a member of the executive, would simply stand up, say, “I withdraw,” and apologize and then move on. Then it no longer becomes an issue and it no longer stands as an issue. It seems to me that that is what an experienced and honourable member of the chamber would do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. I did rule at the time on the comments of the minister. However, I do agree that disorder did occur and I would give the honourable minister an opportunity to withdraw those comments.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, you know, I’m surprised at the ruling on this, considering—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I’m making a ruling. My ruling was that I didn’t find anything unparliamentary or out of order, but I am giving the honourable minister an opportunity to withdraw those comments.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know from you if you would like me to withdraw just the comment relating to the children.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Yes. I believe that was the comment that members took offence to.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment relating to the children.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m delighted today to welcome to the House one of the Ordre de la Pléiade recipients yesterday, a great representative of the francophone community in my region, Marguerite Martel. Madame Martel is here today with her two daughters, Doris Storie and Gisele Martel. Her other daughter, Carol Melanson, is not with us today but watching on TV, so good morning to Carol.

We welcome them here today and we congratulate her again on the Ordre de la Pléiade.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m delighted to introduce my constituent Katie Neu and her friend Andrew Dean. They’re here today to observe the debate on Bill 183.

Katie is very famous in this country. She is one of the co-sponsors of Blue Day, an effort to prevent bullying of our children anywhere, but particularly in schools. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really pleased today to have a number of guests from my riding of Niagara Falls and from Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake. I’d like to start by introducing two guests from Niagara-on-the-Lake—they’re in the members’ gallery—Paolo Miele, and with him is Phil Lebodac. They’re both from Niagara-on-the-Lake. Enjoy your time up here, and you’ll see how wonderful, how passionate and how we care about each other up here.

As well, I’d like to recognize—and you can’t miss them—good friends of mine from Fort Erie. They have their special yellow shirts on. It’s getting close to summer and it’s sunshine weather, so they’re here to brighten up Parliament.

I want to also recognize another good friend of mine, Wayne Gates. Wayne Gates is the president of CAW 199. He’s also a member of Niagara Falls city council, newly elected. To all of my guests, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very, very pleased to welcome to the Legislature today representatives from the Association of Ontario Midwives. I want to issue a very special welcome to Allyson Booth. She is the treasurer of the association but, more importantly, she is the midwife who caught my grandson Paxon as he was born just four weeks ago.

Mr. Greg Sorbara: Following up on the comments of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my daughter Carla Sorbara, who is in the public gallery, and who is not only one of Ontario’s outstanding midwives but the mother of three very outstanding grandchildren whom I have the honour of being a part of.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Staff and students from G.L. Roberts are about to join us in the gallery. I’d ask all members to join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome two longtime friends of mine, Helen and Glynn Cole—welcome to Queen’s Park—seated in the Speaker’s gallery. Enjoy question period today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Acting Premier. Records from the labour board reveal that Premier McGuinty cut a deal with leaders of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to top up their salaries. The secret deal kicks in after the next election. The labour board records also show that the Premier sent government lawyers to fight to keep the deal with OPSEU secret from the public.

Now that Premier McGuinty got caught and the deal is exposed, will you tell the people of Ontario how much they are paying for the secret deal with OPSEU?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government of Ontario routinely negotiates collective agreements with a variety of bargaining agents. The agreements are subject to a mandate that is set by the treasury board. It is then negotiated by senior officials on behalf of the government, and an agreement is reached eventually, hopefully without labour disruption and other tactics that are used in order to facilitate collective bargaining.

In this case, the deal was executed, shared with union leaders across the province and shared now at the labour board. This constitutes a fair deal over four years in which the government stood up for the taxpayers’ interests.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: Your own lawyers called the Premier’s deal with OPSEU “a secret deal.” That was in the arguments they presented.

Based on the spending figures from public accounts, Ontario families are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars to pay for Premier McGuinty’s secret deal.

Everything about this secret deal to hand out a secret pay increase shows that Premier McGuinty will do anything to stay in power. He sent you to do the dog-and-pony show and pretend wage restraints were coming, but he knew all along there was a secret deal to top up the salaries of 38,000 OPSEU employees by an extra 1% that kicks in after the election. How many other secret deals did Premier McGuinty cut on behalf of—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, there was no secret deal. Side letters are quite common in these circumstances. The overall settlements are down across the public and broader public sectors. This government, through its negotiating process, routinely does what it needs to do to protect taxpayer interests. At the end of the day, agreements are reached and arrived at. There are oftentimes side accords.

We will continue to negotiate with our bargaining partners across the public and broader public sectors as we protect the interests of taxpayers across the province.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Minister, Ontario families want relief, but Premier McGuinty wants to spend their money on secret deals. Behind closed doors, he cuts a secret deal to increase wages, and when others learn about it, they dispatch lawyers to bury the secret even deeper. I ask you once again to show some respect for the taxpayers.

Here’s an example: You did a phony PR scheme to say you would freeze public sector wages, but the money—back in health care—or cutting secret deals that kick in after the election, or fighting tooth and nail to keep secret deals covered up. Why don’t you come clean with the people of—

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I withdraw that.

Why don’t you come clean with the people of Ontario? Tell them how much they’re paying for this secret deal.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What the member hasn’t reported is the following: As part of this agreement, we cut costs by 1.25%. You know what we got in this deal? Here are the facts. The union agreed—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Oxford. The member from Halton.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The union agreed to eliminate termination pay. The union eliminated the ability to bank things like overtime. We changed automatic access—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton. The member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I didn’t say anything.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Oxford, you just did. The member from Halton.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You don’t have to worry about termination pay; you don’t fire anyone—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Renfrew.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The savings exceeded the 1% and represent a good deal for Ontario taxpayers, and we will continue to negotiate in a proper manner to not compromise the taxpayers’ interests.

Their story is half-cocked, half wrong and incomplete. We will put the record forward and defend what saves taxpayers money and will continue to negotiate deals like that to lower the cost of the public sector as we transform government right across the province.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Acting Premier: The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario, AMAPCEO, says that it used the public part of the OPSEU deal as a benchmark for its own contract, but they would have held out for more money if they had known about Premier McGuinty’s secret deal with OPSEU. I’ll bet other unions and arbitrators feel the same way. It’s only a matter of time before they say that settled deals should be reopened to reflect the OPSEU secret deal.

How did Premier McGuinty pick which public sector unions will get these secret pay increases and which ones he wouldn’t buy off? If the deal is so sweet—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It was the member opposite who pointed out that this complaint arose from a union that doesn’t think it got a big enough raise in their last agreement. My hope is, now that AMAPCEO—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We cut more than 1% in costs, including the elimination of termination pay. That was not reported. We eliminated the ability to bank things like overtime. That was not reported. And we changed the automatic access to factor 80. So if AMAPCEO wants to give us those concessions, we’ll gladly accept them.

Instead of defending AMAPCEO, why don’t you defend taxpayers and acknowledge a deal that is fair to the union, fair to management and builds on our track record of good labour relations in tough times?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Somewhere along the way the minister lost truth, but I just must—

Interjections.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: That’s twice, Lisa. Apologize.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I don’t need assistance from the government side.

The member will withdraw the comment she has just made.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. But it shows how out of touch that Acting Premier and Premier McGuinty are: that they actually sent out a government official to say that keeping the deal a secret cost taxpayers less money. They actually think they’ve saved money because other unions settled for less as a result of the secret deal. It’s only a matter of time before other unions are going to line up with AMAPCEO and fight to get their deals reopened.

How much more money will Ontario families—taxpayers all of them—have to pay because Dalton McGuinty decided that this secret deal—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member about the use of names; she should be using titles.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, the government she was part of did very similar agreements. Let me give you two examples. They gave a union a me-too clause for factor 80, which means they would have the ability to retire early with a pension, after a similar deal was negotiated with another union. That’s one. I’ll take her through some of the other examples further on in question period.

If these other unions are prepared to eliminate termination pay, if they are prepared to eliminate the ability to bank things like overtime, if they are prepared to change automatic access to factor 80 if staff are surplus, then yes, we would welcome that.

This deal in fact saved taxpayers 1.25% versus the 1% wage increase, which was a fair exchange and builds on our track record of lowering the overall cost of public wage settlements in Ontario.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is a government that wouldn’t know how to lower the costs of government ever. They’ve never, ever done it. Teachers, nurses and other broader public sector unions still have to negotiate their collective agreements. At least publicly, Premier McGuinty will say that he expects teachers and nurses to freeze their wages, but who knows how they’ll feel now that Premier McGuinty’s secret deal to top up the wages with other public sector unions is public? Or maybe he whispers something more reassuring in their ears when they get behind closed doors.

You strike secret deals, and it’s Ontario families who ultimately pay. How many more secret deals will Ontario families have to pay for Premier McGuinty’s quid pro quo with public sector unions?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Part of this very public deal is the elimination of termination pay, the elimination of the ability to bank things like overtime, and changing automatic access to factor 80 of staff for surplus. I’ll remind the members opposite that we had reduced the number of positions by 1,500 by 2010.

The final point I would make is that the last agreement that the party opposite reached with OPSEU, signed in January—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The last agreement reached by the previous government in January 2002: 11.45% over three years. This deal represented 9% over four years. We are bringing down the average rate of settlement; we’re doing it without strikes; we’re working with our partners. They want to go back to the bad old days of strikes and fights. We’re negotiating good deals that are good deals for the taxpayers. In this case, we saved the taxpayers a lot more money than the 1% that was put on the table.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, in British Columbia, a government-appointed independent panel revealed that the BC government had oversold the impact of the HST by making inflated claims about job creation and suggesting that families would be no worse off.

Since the Ontario government has made the very same claims, would the Acting Premier finally agree that he and his government have oversold the impact of the HST here in Ontario as well?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The British Columbia deal for taxpayers was much different than the HST in Ontario. The government of British Columbia did not take the money given to them by the federal Conservative government and give it back to taxpayers. The British Columbia government did not cut personal taxes. They did not cut the small business tax rate, and they did not cut the corporate taxes that are helping our forestry and auto sectors get back on their feet. It was a much different deal.

We’re seeing the results: 93% of jobs lost during the downturn are back. The deal is the right deal for taxpayers. It is about growing the economy, and it’s about a brighter future for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is actually a way to resolve this. In BC, the government appointed an independent panel to determine the impact of the HST. So here’s a challenge for the Acting Premier: If he truly believes what he says about his unfair HST, will he create an independent panel to review the tax and report back to Ontario families before October 6? Will the Acting Premier do that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. We’ve already had a variety of studies done by a variety of economists from both sides of the spectrum. We have the support of a number of organizations. I’ll remind you, the work done by Professor Mintz was peer-reviewed by a number of his colleagues—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just say to the member from Renfrew and the member from Oxford: During the rotation these are NDP questions. The NDP would like to hear the answers, and your interjections are making it extremely difficult for the leader of the third party to hear.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A variety of other reports; people like Hugh Mackenzie and others have come out with it. It’s the right policy for Ontario. The tax cuts for low-income Ontarians are quite appropriate in the circumstances. The sales tax credits are appropriate. This is the right public policy to build a stronger and better economy for Ontario’s future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was actually referring to an independent panel. I guess the Acting Premier didn’t hear that.

But let’s be clear. Just like the BC Liberal government, the McGuinty Liberals claimed that the HST would create jobs. Just like the BC Liberal government, the McGuinty Liberals claimed that the HST wouldn’t cost families more. Both of these claims have been proven to be false in BC, and they are well on their way to being proven false here in Ontario. So why won’t the Acting Premier, then, do exactly what was done in BC and create that independent panel to review the HST? What is he afraid of?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There have been 10 published reports on the HST that are independent. I can assure you that people like Professor Mintz at the University of Calgary are quite independent from this government. Hugh Mackenzie of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is quite independent from this government. They have concluded the following: that this is the right tax package; that this, in fact, puts money in people’s pockets, particularly low-income Ontarians.

What everybody’s waiting to know: Instead of tiptoeing around it, will the leader of the NDP say she’s going to cancel the HST, or will she do what the NDP did in Nova Scotia and raise it by two points? That’s the only question that’s outstanding. Ten independent reports, studied to death: right policy, more jobs, better future.

SMART METERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. With each passing day, it becomes clearer that the Premier’s smart meter program is in chaos. The Ontario Energy Board has just approved EnWin Utilities’ request to delay implementation of time-of-use pricing until December 1, 2012. That’s a full 18 months after the mandatory deadline of June 30, 2011.

Can the Acting Premier tell us how many other local utilities are going to miss the mandatory deadline?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member doesn’t really know what she’s referring to here. We have implemented 4.6 million smart meters across this country. The fact is, that is the best implementation program in the entire world.

No jurisdiction has modernized their energy system as effectively, efficiently, on time and on budget as we have here in this province. Two million customers across this province are now on time-of-use. By the end of June, three million will be on. Likely by the end of the year, there will be a majority of Ontario families on. By any reasonable standard, that’s an extraordinary implementation and modernization of an energy system, and there’s not a jurisdiction in the world that rivals that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government’s smart meter program is also running badly over budget. As of last September, an audit revealed that the billion dollars budgeted for the entire program had already been spent, yet not even one half of the planned smart meters had been hooked up to time-of-use billing.

With companies like EnWin in Windsor requiring an additional 18 months past the deadline to complete the transition to time-of-use billing, what is this Acting Premier’s best estimate of how much over budget the disastrous smart meter program is going to eventually be? Will it be 20% over budget? Will it be 30% over budget? Will it be 50% over budget?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the leader of the third party has an obligation to be straightforward with Ontarians. The fact of the matter is—

Interjections.

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

I appreciate the assistance from both sides of the House in trying to deal with issues as they arise in the chamber. I would remind members on both sides that comments do get made in here that cause disorder in the House, and disorder is not helpful.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s not helpful for anyone in the chamber. I’m going to ask the minister to withdraw the comment that he just made, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, an unequivocal withdrawal.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m happy to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

The leader of the opposition continues to use information that’s not correct. I think it is very important that Ontario families have correct information. The time-of-use program, the smart meter program, is being implemented on time; it’s on budget. It’s good news for Ontarians because it is improving our system.

That leader has been leader for 778 days. What Ontario families deserve to know is: Do you support our efforts to modernize our energy system or do you not? Do you support our efforts to get out of dirty coal and replace it with clean sources of energy? Yes or no?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On top of all this, Ontario families aren’t benefiting from the government’s smart meter program. Early reports suggest that most people are unable to shift their hydro use and are not getting a break on price.

Here’s the big picture: Implementation is running badly behind schedule, the program is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and the vast majority of Ontarians are getting no benefit whatsoever from the program. When will this government finally admit that its smart meter program has been a disaster and simply doesn’t work?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This leader of the third party continues to put forward information that is factually incorrect. She can do that if she wants to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. You can find different ways to be critical of the member. Language like that isn’t helpful. I just ask you to withdraw that, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I’ll withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): An unequivocal withdrawal.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thought that was, but I withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure how I can disagree with the member here in this Legislature, but I’ll do my very best. The member—

Interjection.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Withdraw.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think what Ontario families need to know is, after 778 days as leader of the third party, what do that member and her party want to do to modernize our energy system? We need to modernize our energy system if we want to meet the needs of Ontario families into the future. And yet, you have fought us every step of the way and offered no alternative in place of what we’re doing. Modernizing our energy system is an important part of building a strong, reliable, modern energy system, and an important part of getting out of dirty coal and replacing it with cleaner sources of power. Why does the NDP stand in opposition to—

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also to the Acting Premier. On page 1 of the application to keep the public from seeing the secret side deal you cut with OPSEU, you argue how transparent you are. That’s as absurd as saying that hydro bills are going down. Honestly, I can’t make this stuff up. On page 3 of the application you call the side deal with OPSEU “the secret deal”; and I quote again, “the secret increase.”

You used to at least try to dodge and deflect and stonewall. Now you’re too out of gas to even do that. How soon until you start calling eHealth and LHINs “boondoggles” and your HST a “greedy tax grab”?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The deal that eliminated termination pay, eliminated the ability to bank things like overtime and changed automatic access to factor 80 if staff are surplus in fact saved taxpayers money. These types of arrangements through side letters to collective agreements are relatively common. This particular agreement was shared across the province with all locals and with management. It’s important to understand the give-and-take that goes on in collective bargaining. This deal represented a savings for Ontario taxpayers.

It gave the government the ability to negotiate, which is important for the government in order that we can protect the taxpayer interest. If other unions want a similar concession package, we’ll be happy to talk to them about it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Premier McGuinty is out of gas and out of touch with Ontario families, who cannot afford his sweetheart deals that even government lawyers are calling “secret.” They can’t afford the money you waste trying to keep the Premier’s secret deal a permanent secret. Even if you won’t save the money you spend on secret deals to top up wages, you could have at least saved all of that money you wasted on pesky lawyers who end up admitting that it is a secret deal for a secret pay increase after all. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper, Acting Premier, and more subtle, just to stand outside of polling stations and hand out cash?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Thornhill will withdraw that last comment that he made.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There’s certainly a lot of gas on the other side of the House.

This deal saved taxpayers. We have eliminated termination pay for the affected bargaining unit. We’ve eliminated the ability to bank things like overtime—something that you folks have called for, by the way. We’ve changed automatic access to factor 80. We saved taxpayers 1.25%; the deal was 1% in cash. Instead, it’s the right deal; it represents how bargaining should work. The employer needs to have the ability to negotiate the way we negotiated because we stood up for taxpayers.

If he wants to reopen deals and give unions more, that’s his business. We want to bargain collectively and get a good deal for taxpayers and a good deal for the fine people who work in our public service right across Ontario.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Acting Premier. This afternoon, we will be debating my Ombudsman bill, Bill 183. The bill would give the Ombudsman the power to oversee the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, universities, hospitals, long-term-care homes, school boards, children’s aid societies and retirement homes.

We know that there are problems with these institutions because the Ombudsman received 4,000 complaints about them in 2010. We also know this because people call us every week from across the province to voice their horror stories. In fact, many of them are here, many of them came to the press conference this morning, they’re here for this question period and they’re going to be here for the debate this afternoon. That’s how painful the stories are. They’re parents, children, patients and the elderly, and they have nowhere to turn when the system fails them.

When will the government finally acknowledge that there are serious problems with our public—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I understand that it’s a private member’s bill. The House will have the opportunity to vote on that this afternoon as, during private members’ hours, members have the ability to vote as they see fit.

I’ll ask some of my colleagues to address the specifics of this as we move forward into the supplementary, but our government is very proud of its record on access to—for instance, we extended freedom of information across a variety of institutions that weren’t there before. We created a greater power for the auditor. He’s now looking, for instance, at our last budget to look at the projections into the future.

I’ll look forward to hearing the verdict of the House on this private bill and look forward to the ability of all members to cast their ballots either for or against this particular legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The people who are here and those who could not come are looking to you, the Premier and your government to validate their pain, to say, “We hear you,” to give them a voice because many of them are voiceless. And you say, “Wait for the debate this afternoon and see what the verdict is.” They’re waiting for you to take action. You don’t even need to hear my bill; you can do it today.

Last April, I asked the Minister of Children and Youth Services why she was adamantly against Ombudsman oversight over children’s aid societies. The minister’s response was that the Child and Family Services Review Board has oversight powers over children’s aid societies. It seems that the minister was not aware at the time that that’s no longer the case. In 2010, the Superior Court of Justice made a decision stating that the CFSRB does not have the power to hear certain CAS complaints. When will you—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I look forward to debate today and I look forward to the views of members of the House.

I do want to remind the member opposite of some of the things that we have done in terms of accountability. First of all, we’ve expanded the sunshine list to include OPG and Hydro One. We gave the Auditor General an expanded role for value-for-money audits of the broader public sector, hospitals, universities and schools. We tightened the rules for travel and meals and made the Integrity Commissioner review the expenses of our 22 largest agencies. We provide a variety of supports and a variety of review mechanisms to people who access these services. I look forward to the response of the Legislature today to the member’s bill—

Hon. Gerry Phillips: That’s appropriate.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —which is appropriate, as my colleague says. I congratulate the member for his passion in bringing this forward, and I look forward to the views of all of our colleagues on this legislation.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Kuldip Kular: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, public transit is one of the most important issues to the people in my riding, Bramalea–Gore–Malton. Many of my constituents commute daily to downtown Toronto for work and school. Often, this involves travelling on several transit systems: their local regional transit; GO Transit; and, more often than not, the Toronto transit system.

Minister, I understand that our government has been working to make it easier for my constituents—indeed, all Ontario residents—to travel within the greater Toronto area using a smart card. We are finally catching up to other world-class cities with the use of an electronic fare payment in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. I understand that Presto has been rolling out in various greater Toronto and Hamilton municipalities. Can the minister update the House on the progress made to date?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to thank the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton for the question. Presto is the first-ever regional fare card for public transit users in Ontario. As the member noted, there are electronic cards already in use in other jurisdictions. London, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Seattle and Holland all have smart cards, and commuters are able to use them to great success.

Mr. Presto—Mr. Speaker.

Laughter.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I like Presto. I like to think of the Presto card as a mechanism for regionalism in the greater Toronto area. It’s allowing people to move around the system seamlessly, without having to carry a number of different cards and tokens, and people are very keen on using it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Kuldip Kular: Thank you, Minister. This is great news for transit riders in those municipalities, and hopefully, the Presto card will encourage more people to leave their cars at home and take public transit to work or school.

It sounds like good progress has been made in getting GO Transit and local transit providers to use Presto in the places you have mentioned. I believe the agreement with the city of Toronto will help encourage the surrounding municipalities to move forward and integrate into the province’s regional transit strategy.

However, the community of Brampton is still waiting to jump onto Presto. Can the minister tell my constituents in Bramalea–Gore–Malton when they can expect Presto to be in their communities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Already, 39,000 cards have been issued to transit riders and those cards have been used 3.5 million times, so people really want this. I’m happy to say that the city of Toronto is also working with us to implement Presto.

I’m very pleased to say to the member that Presto is going to be implemented in Brampton Transit in the coming weeks. It’s coming to Brampton. It’s already—today—being implemented, as I speak, at the Richmond Hill GO station and the Agincourt GO station.

As I said, this is a mechanism for regionalism. It’s part of the culture shift in which we’re involved, where we’re getting people out of cars and onto public transit. We’re making the biggest investments in transit in a generation, and the Presto card, the smart fare card, is part of that transition. People want it and we’re delivering it across the GTA today, and it’s coming to Brampton.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. We’ve now learned that Premier McGuinty’s priorities are very different than the ones of Ontario families. He is wasting public money on making secret deals and then hiring lawyers to keep Ontario families from knowing about them.

I can tell you, Ontario families want their hard-earned dollars spent on front-line health care. One priority is the reopening of the emergency room at Fort Erie Douglas Memorial Hospital, which our leader has promised to do.

I ask you: If Fort Erie families vote for the Liberals this fall, will you reopen the emergency room, or is the only way that it will be reopened is for those people to elect a Tim Hudak government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member for this rather interesting question. What I can tell you is that we are working very, very hard to improve care in the Niagara area. The new hospital in St. Catharines is on schedule. It will bring cancer treatment to the people of Niagara so they no longer will have to travel to Hamilton to get the care when they are fighting cancer.

There are many initiatives in the Niagara area that we are working on. I am delighted that the Yellow Shirt Brigade is with us here again today. I was very pleased to meet with some of the municipal leaders recently to discuss health care in the Niagara region.

I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Minister of Health: Yes, the members of the Yellow Shirt Brigade are here today. They, along with their families, their friends and the municipal leaders from across Niagara, are calling on this government for an independent investigation into the Niagara Health System. To date, they feel that no one has listened, and the health care cuts across Niagara are continuing.

Today will you show respect for these families who are calling for an independent investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have nothing but the greatest of respect for the members of the Yellow Shirt Brigade and the other members in Niagara—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The minister and the member from the opposition seem to be having a disagreement. Debate is always healthy in this chamber, but we have a question and answer taking place, and this additional debate is interfering in that process. I would encourage those members, if they want to have that discussion, to take that discussion outside of the chamber, please.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that I find this question a bit mystifying, because it comes from a party that shut hospitals, that fired nurses when they had the chance when they were in government. This is also the party that has committed to cutting taxes. You cannot cut taxes without cutting health care. It is as easy as can be.

I can tell you that our government is committed to continuing to improve health care, to expand our family health teams and our nurse practitioner-led clinics, to drive wait times down and to improve the quality of care in this province.

They can’t have it both ways. They can’t say, “We’re going to cut taxes and improve care.” It cannot happen.

FINANCEMENT DES COLLÈGES /

COLLEGE FUNDING

L’hon. John Milloy: D’abord, j’aimerais dire qu’on continue de travailler avec le Collège Boréal pour s’adresser à la situation.

As the honourable member knows, we have a great commitment to francophone education throughout Ontario. Collège Boréal offers services in northern Ontario and in the south of Ontario. As I said, we continue to work with them to make sure that they can offer the best services to francophone students here in the south.

We have made it a priority to make sure that we reach out to students—aboriginal students, students with disabilities, francophone students—who wish to study in French, students who, in fact, have been under-represented in this system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Ça fait neuf ans. Le Collège Boréal a une proposition solide qui donnerait aux apprenants et apprenantes la chance de vivre une expérience collégiale comme dans tous les collèges anglophones. Pourquoi est-ce qu’au campus de Toronto, on n’a pas de cafétéria? On n’a pas de bibliothèque, on n’a pas d’espace de rassemblement; ils sont éparpillés un peu partout au travers de la ville de Toronto.

Hon. John Milloy: We have invested billions of dollars in post-secondary education throughout this province, including funding to support francophone students in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and the south of Ontario.

I am proud of the tremendous investments that we have made in Collège Boréal, partly through the support of my colleague the member from Sudbury, who is a great advocate for the support for Boréal. We continue to support Boréal’s operations in the south of Ontario. We continue to work with Collège Boréal and all community colleges and universities throughout this province to make sure that they are providing outstanding education.

I find it passing strange that a member from a party that cut funding to our colleges and universities, that cut funding for student support, would stand up and be critical of the literally billions of dollars that we have invested in post-secondary education in this province, y compris l’éducation pour les francophones.

MIDWIFERY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, today is International Day of the Midwife, and, as you indicated earlier, the Association of Ontario Midwives is currently in attendance here at question period and will be holding a reception later this afternoon, which I hope all members will attend.

Midwifery has long played a role in the prenatal care and birthing of babies around the world. As a matter of fact, my own husband was not only delivered but he was also named by the midwife who assisted his mother. I firmly believe in the skill and the integrity of midwives and I am proud to be part of a government that supports them so strongly.

Minister, could you tell the Legislature about how the Ontario government is supporting the great work of midwives across this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex for the question. I know how strongly she feels about this issue.

I would like to welcome the midwives to the Legislature this morning. I also want to thank them for the work they do every day to support families and to promote midwifery in Ontario. I genuinely respect the skills and the values and professionalism that midwives bring to our health care system in Ontario.

More and more parents are choosing the care of midwives. In fact, Ontario’s 529 midwives delivered care to 16,000 women and their babies last year. That’s over 10% of the births. Just over a month ago I saw first-hand the skill of midwives when my grandson Paxson was born to my daughter Christie and her husband Mark. I was there. I saw the work they do and I am eternally grateful.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Thank you, Minister. I know that our highly qualified midwives are an important health care option available to Ontario families. As a matter of fact, this care is covered by OHIP both in hospitals and at home.

I know that midwifery services are in great demand across Ontario. Parents and grandparents understand and appreciate the value of the personal care provided by midwives. What is this government doing in order to meet the demand for midwifery services across this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to say that we are working toward ensuring that every woman who wants the care of a midwife is actually able to access the care of a midwife. We have come a long way. Since we were elected in 2003, we’ve more than tripled funding for midwife services, and we’re committed to doing more. That’s why we’ve expanded enrolment at three midwifery programs in Ontario. When the first expanded class graduates next year, 65 new midwives will be ready to practise. I met with some of those midwifery students at McMaster University just a few weeks ago. This is great news for Ontario families.

We’ve also worked with the College of Midwives of Ontario to expand the scope of practice for midwives so they can provide more services.

We are looking forward to the ongoing collaboration with midwives to further improve care in this province.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Your ministry has received 750 complaints about wind turbines in just two years. That’s more than one complaint a day. This should come as no surprise. Every member in this House has received complaints about the siting of wind turbines. You claim to have rules regulating the placement of wind turbines, but by your own admission you’re doing absolutely nothing about non-compliance. Companies are in the business of making a profit. If your ministry issues no fines and issues no orders to comply, you are giving them your tacit approval to ignore the rules.

Why have you abandoned your responsibility as a government to set the rules and to also make sure that they are followed?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. The principal reason we have a Minister of the Environment is to protect human health, particularly for our children, many of whom are visiting us today in the Legislature. They expect to have clean air to breathe. The number one reason our children go to emergency rooms is because of asthma due to poor air quality. On this side of the House, we are committed to cleaning up our air.

I say to the member that when we came into power, we had some 10 wind turbines in the province of Ontario. Today there are well over 800. During the period in question, over two years, we received some 750-odd complaints from 50 families. The vast majority of those complaints came from 20. We take all of those complaints very seriously because it’s important for us to make sure that we’re protecting human health. That is exactly what we do. That’s why, in every case, we review the complaint and we make sure that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Let’s compare the records, Minister. Your government brought in heavy-handed legislation that completely stripped municipalities of their voice in the placement of industrial wind farms. For over two years, you have brushed off reasonable requests from the public seeking assurances that development is being done responsibly. By contrast, over a year ago the Ontario PC Party introduced an opposition day motion that called for the study of health and environmental impacts of wind farms, and to restore the planning authority governing them to municipalities and local boards.

Your caucus was whipped and voted against it. How does your party justify showing such little respect for the people you claim to represent?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Let’s be very clear: When it comes to this issue, the facts are obvious. For over 800 wind turbines, we have received complaints on less than 1 in 20, and the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is to shut them all down. You ask for a moratorium on wind. What do we get from wind? We get renewable energy. Do we get air pollution? No. Do we get negative effects for our children? Absolutely not. Your position is, because there’s 1 in 20—and in every case, we investigate and we take those complaints very seriously. I say to the member, we’ll put our record on this side of the House protecting—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew, you just asked a question. I would appreciate it if you would listen to the minister.

Minister.

Hon. John Wilkinson: All we know is, the party of the moratoria over there doesn’t want to have renewable energy, so we can go back to burning dirty coal, which affects everyone in this House and all of our children. On this side of the House, we are for renewable energy. You are for the burning of dirty coal.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As already has been mentioned, we are joined at Queen’s Park today by members of the Yellow Shirt Brigade. These community members have fought tirelessly to protect and restore health care in Niagara. As emergency rooms, medical beds and operating rooms close in Port Colborne and Fort Erie, as Niagara regional council and eight municipalities have passed resolutions requesting an independent investigation into the Niagara Health System, as over 13,000 signatures have been collected, the yellow shirts have fought endlessly to bring attention to the problems in Niagara. After ignoring Niagara’s elected officials, will she do the same to the region’s community activists?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that I really object to the tenor of that question. We are working very hard to improve health care in the Niagara area. We do understand that there are issues that we need to address, and we are working hard to find those solutions.

Earlier this week, the member opposite raised an issue that was a complete—let me just offer clarification about long-term-care beds, because there was some misinformation in this House on that issue. There was speculation that there were beds being closed. That is completely untrue, and the question was based on unfounded information.

What I think is important to do is that all of us together have a responsibility to the people we serve as well as to our political parties. I would ask the member opposite to think about what she’s doing to health care in Niagara.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The pain and suffering caused by problems in Niagara’s health care system are staggering. Patricia Anzovino, the grandmother of Reilly Anzovino, is with us here today. Reilly tragically died as her ambulance approached the Welland Hospital because the nearby Fort Erie emergency room was closed. Every resident in Niagara is left wondering whether the health care services they need are going to be there for them when they’re required the most.

Today, will the Minister of Health finally stop denying the situation in Niagara, which she continues to do right up until this very minute, and explain to the yellow shirts and all of their fellow citizens in the Niagara region how her government plans to address the problems that truly do exist in their region?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to begin by offering my condolences to the grandmother who is represented here today. I think all of us can only imagine what you are dealing with. I very much look forward to the coroner’s report. I know that the coroner is investigating this tragedy.

What I can tell you is that the focus on improving care in Niagara is strong; it is showing results. The urgent care centres in Fort Erie and Port Colborne are seeing higher volumes and they are seeing shorter wait times. We’re seeing dramatically shorter wait times for procedures like hip replacements—

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

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, Ontario families know that a sustainable water source is vital to our well-being and our way of life. Much of the world’s fresh water is found right in our own backyard in the Great Lakes. A key plank of the Open Ontario act is to ensure that Ontario become a centre of excellence in developing clean water technology. Ontario has already been identified as a leader in the emerging market of clean water—a key driver of economic prosperity.

Minister, protecting the environment by creating good green jobs is a priority for the McGuinty government, but will Ontario really be able to become a leader in clean water technology?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question. For some context on this planet—the water planet: If you took all of the water on this planet and you said it was 100 litres, 97 of those litres would be salt water, which means we can’t drink it. Two of those litres are frozen in our polar ice caps. Only one litre of that 100 litres is actually fresh drinking water. Fortunately, here in Ontario, we are the great stewards of one of the greatest reservoirs of fresh water in the world: the Great Lakes system. So we take great responsibility about how we need to steward that water.

But in an increasingly thirsty world, what we need to do is export our expertise and our technology, not our water. That’s why, in the Water Opportunities Act, we were very clear that we will not export our water, but we will export our technology to help an increasingly thirsty world.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: The world relies on these Ontario companies to provide the technology to keep them safe. I know that the good people of Ottawa–Orléans will be pleased to know that Ontario is creating green jobs, exporting our technologies around the world. Ontario’s fresh water supply is a limited resource, one that must be cherished and protected for future generations.

Some residents in my riding want to make sure that any economic development does not come at the expense of this valuable resource. Minister, can you tell this House how the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act will actually improve water conservation in Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: That’s exactly why it is called the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act. I, for the life of me, cannot really understand why the opposition would vote against that; I don’t know if it was the “opportunity” or the “conservation” part or the “water” part. But what I can tell you is that the global market is some $400 billion a year. It’s growing at 15%. There are already 22,000 people in the province of Ontario in that clean water sector; good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that we want for our children.

I want to assure the member that, working with municipalities, we are helping them understand that if they can conserve water, they can lower the cost for people who use water, and in the same way, also make sure that we’re preserving this precious, very valuable resource. I want to say to the member that we believe that water and the legacy of water that we have inherited is something that is so important that we steward. I want to thank him for his advocacy on this matter.

WIND TURBINES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Based on your comments in the media today, you seem to believe that every problem resulting in the siting of industrial turbines will be solved by the companies who own them. That certainly explains why you’ve been ignoring the Whitworth and Kidd families in my riding since 2006. They have been forced out of their homes at the recommendation of their doctor, who used to be a medical officer of health, because of the constant noise and electrical pollution produced by the substation. Minister, after five years, isn’t it time for you to act?

Hon. John Wilkinson: First of all, I want to thank the member for her question and for the advocacy on behalf of her constituents.

The reason the Ministry of the Environment is open 365 days a year, 24/7, is that people, if they feel that there is some detriment to their health due to an environmental issue, can call us. That’s exactly why people call us. I want to say to the member that all the wind turbines that are up in the province are based on the old rules, and all of them are expected and required by law to comply. So when people complain, we take that very seriously and we investigate.

One of the powers that we have at the Ministry of the Environment is the fact that they cannot operate without our approval. So when we call a company and say that we have a concern, they take action. We expect them to take action. We take the complaints seriously; we investigate them.

I’m more than happy to discuss with the member concerns about her own particular constituents, but—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, they’ve been calling for five years. The point is, you have done nothing.

The substation is located 390 metres from the Kidd home and 490 metres from the Whitworth home, even though your own regulation states that substations must be, at minimum, 500 metres away from dwellings. You were also told in a meeting with the Amaranth councillors that there was no approval given for this substation, even though your ministry regulations demand it.

Minister, when are you going to stand up for the Kidds and the Whitworths in Dufferin–Caledon?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The question is, why did the member vote against the Green Energy Act, which was designed to ensure that we have, at the provincial level, the tools we require to ensure that companies are protecting human health? It is exactly why we uploaded responsibility for these issues to the provincial government: because it’s our level of government that has the ability to deal with these companies and ensure that they are in full compliance with provincial laws.

As I said to the member, I have reviewed the correspondence between my ministry and your constituents, and I’d be more than happy to have a discussion with you and your constituents about this matter. Again, it is very important to understand that in all of these particular cases, our job is to protect human health, and at the Ministry of the Environment, we take that job very, very seriously. As a result, we will continue to do what is required to protect human health—

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

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Culture. On a few occasions in question period, I’ve raised the issue of the reburial of War of 1812 British, aboriginal and American soldiers’ remains. The minister has sent me notes and has spoken to me to say that he’s looking into the request for $200,000 in funding specific to this project, but from where I sit, I can’t see any action being taken.

Will the minister finally commit today, publicly and positively, to the city of Hamilton’s request for $200,000 for this reburial project?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. Yes, I did exchange notes, and even talked to the honourable member. Quite recently, I said to him that I’m still waiting for the mayor of Hamilton to respond to my letter.

But having said that, the War of 1812 bicentennial offers Ontario a unique opportunity to celebrate our rich heritage while promoting tourism and generating economic activity. This is why our government has invested a total of $27 million to enhance the War of 1812 heritage site. We’ve also invested over $1 million to assist seven regional umbrella groups in planning local 1812 activities. This includes $50,000 to the western corridor bicentennial alliance, which includes the city of Hamilton.

I appreciate the significance of the battle of Stoney Creek and the Smith’s Knoll site to the city of Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: With all due respect to the minister, he has received a letter from Mayor Eisenberger, from Councillor Clark, from me and from veterans, so that answer is not good enough.

We have a few months remaining until the bicentennial of the beginning of the War of 1812. We have just over two years until the commemoration of the June 5, 1813, Battle of Stoney Creek, Canada’s sovereignty battle. Now is the right time. It’s the right weather. It’s a good time to start an archaeological dig.

Will this minister commit these funds now so that work can get started, or is he waiting to make this announcement in the fall? I hope not, because this is non-political. This is for the respect for the veterans of the War of 1812, and I would hope that this government would step up to the plate and honour our heroes.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. The War of 1812 is a very significant event in our history. It was said that it even gave Canada its identity.

Let me repeat: I contacted the new mayor of Hamilton to encourage the city to work with the alliance, as its role is to identify local and regional bicentennial projects and priorities.

Our government commends and appreciates the collective efforts across Ontario to plan and develop the 1812 bicentennial activities. Come 2012, there will be celebrations of 1812 across Ontario.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Over the years, I’ve seen a need for an increase in services for kids struggling with mental health challenges. As a principal and former educator, I’ve heard from parents—and I’ve worked with parents—that children have different needs than adults. They need supports that will help them address their problems quickly—identify them early and intervene early—to remain in school and grow to be productive citizens. Research is now showing that increased support for students with mental health issues lowers the dropout rate.

I also have with me the largest territory in Canada, the Six Nations—and I wanted to know whether or not the minister can help us with this and explain the support for children with mental health issues across the board, including the Six Nations territory on the Grand River.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member from Brant for his advocacy with respect to children’s mental health, his advocacy with respect to the aboriginal communities that he represents in his community, and for bringing this issue to the floor of the Legislature once again.

I, too, have heard from many families, providers and experts about the importance of early identification, early intervention, meeting the special needs that children have in a non-stigmatizing way, meeting those needs in communities. Whether it’s the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, our ministry and our government, we all agree that an integrated mental health system must address the needs of children and youth in a specific way. That’s why we’re committing to investing in a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy, starting with children and youth.

Some of those children who will be at the very forefront, whom we need to pay special attention to—are the unique challenges faced by aboriginal communities, their children, and making sure that we are able to give those kids right across the province, on- and off-reserve, the services and supports they need to be everything that we aspire for them.

DEFERRED VOTES

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 179,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption and the provision of care and maintenance.

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

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On April 19, 2011, Ms. Smith moved second reading of Bill 179. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Savoline, Joyce

Sergio, Mario

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 64; the nays are 0.

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I am absolutely delighted to introduce to the Legislature two very important guests: Mr. Mehmet Budak, who is the executive director of the Turkish Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Fatih Yegul, who is the executive director of the Anatolian Heritage Federation. They’re here today to follow the proceedings because we’re going to be introducing the Anatolian Heritage Day Act today.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Ted Arnott: There’s only one thing spinning faster than the McGuinty Liberals’ wind farms, and that is the rhetoric of the Minister of the Environment. It’s really no surprise, given the complaints streaming in about wind farms, some 750 in the last two years alone. But instead of addressing the complaints and ensuring full compliance with the law, the Liberals are content just to brush off citizens with legitimate concerns. In fact, I’m receiving emails from people in Perth–Wellington, the environment minister’s own riding. They are justifiably upset that their MPP isn’t listening. They’re angry that he keeps changing his story—and his story is inconsistent with the facts.

Yesterday, in a staged question, the minister said his ministry received some 45 wind farm applications, 24 of which were rejected for insufficient consultation. There’s just one problem: No one believes him anymore. I certainly don’t buy it. That’s w