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

October 1, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 October 2009 Jeudi 1 er octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TRADE AGREEMENT

GO TRANSIT

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

SKILLS TRAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CANCER TREATMENT

HOSPITAL SPENDING

ADULT LITERACY

CORONER'S OFFICE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

TAXATION

DEFERRED VOTES

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

TECHALLIANCE

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

CHANGA HOUSE

HEATHER SIFTON

PREMIER'S AWARDS FOR

TEACHING EXCELLENCE

ROAD SAFETY

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

PETITIONS

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

TAXATION

PARENTING EDUCATION

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRONIC

SEXUAL MATERIAL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ÉDUCATION

(DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL)

SMALL BUSINESS

TAXATION

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRONIC

SEXUAL MATERIAL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ÉDUCATION

(DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL)

SMALL BUSINESS

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 28, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector / Projet de loi 201, Loi prévoyant l'examen des dépenses dans le secteur public.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 30, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

On September 17, 2009, Mr. Takhar moved second reading of Bill 201. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote is deferred to following question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

Mr. Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 203,

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 203, Loi visant à permettre une meilleure coopération avec les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada en ce qui concerne les services policiers transfrontaliers et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur les services policiers.

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Last week, I introduced Bill 203, the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this proposed legislation again on second reading.

Bill 203 is about enabling police officers from provinces and territories outside Ontario to pursue investigations into criminals and their illegal activities within the borders of the province of Ontario. If passed, the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, would create a system by which police from other Canadian provinces or territories would be allowed to come into Ontario, be recognized as police officers with full policing powers and be held accountable for their actions. It would be a major step forward towards cross-border policing co-operation with other provinces and territories and a major blow to criminals who apply their trade across our borders.

We know that criminal activity does not recognize borders, so we must provide out-of-province police services with the means to investigate and stop it wherever it happens, to track criminals and their activities, even if it means crossing into Ontario to do so.

We, as a government, must evolve so that we can ensure police have the tools needed to effectively and efficiently do their jobs. Police tell us that they need to cross provincial boundaries to carry on their investigations. Police services in Ontario and other provinces have called for legislation to enable provincially appointed police officers to retain their police officer powers when they travel to another Canadian jurisdiction on police business. Specifically, the Ottawa Police Service has suggested that both Ontario and Quebec implement a model extra-provincial policing statute to allow for seamless policing across provincial borders.

Our police partners, such as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Provincial Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario, support provincial legislation for extra-provincial policing. They note that Ontario police officers are increasingly involved in major investigations that straddle provincial boundaries: bank robberies, guns and gangs, and organized crime, for example. The Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, proposes to establish a system to allow police officers from other Canadian provinces and territories to be granted police powers in Ontario.

If adopted into law, the bill would give the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services the authority to designate officials who would receive and decide on applications from police commanders from other provinces and territories to have their officers designated as extra-provincial police officers with full policing powers in Ontario.

In order to appreciate the effect of this change, I'm going to have to explain very briefly what the current situation is. Currently, Ontario cannot confer legal status or authority on a police officer while he or she is working in another province. For example, Ontario police officers working in Quebec lose the powers and protections afforded to them as police officers in Ontario as soon as they cross provincial boundaries for police business.

Currently, when it is necessary for a police officer from another Canadian province or territory to conduct an investigation in Ontario, that police officer must be appointed temporarily as a special constable. That process requires an application through a municipal police services board or to the OPP commissioner, the approval of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and then the administration of an oath.

Under present provincial legislation, special constables are given only those policing powers specifically spelled out in their application. They do not have all the powers of an Ontario police officer. They are not subject to oversight by Ontario's special investigations unit, which investigates incidents involving police and civilians that have resulted in a serious injury or death, nor are they subject to a formal process of public complaints. As well, special constable appointments are sometimes delayed by administrative procedures.

So we move forward to this bill. If passed, Bill 203 seeks to rectify these issues. Under the proposed legislation, out-of-province police officers would receive all the powers of an Ontario police officer. Specific police powers would not need to be spelled out. By the same token, the proposed legislation would, if adopted, provide for increased accountability. An out-of-province police officer would be subject to investigation by the SIU and would be required to co-operate with such an investigation.

The new legislation would also allow the public to lodge complaints against out-of-province police officers, and for investigations of those complaints to take place in Ontario. Disciplinary proceedings, if warranted, would remain the responsibility of the out-of-province police officer's home province.

This legislation, if passed, would bring Ontario in line with several other Canadian provinces on the matter of cross-border policing. Where did this all happen? For the next minute or so, I would like to talk a little bit about the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

In 1998, in response to a Manitoba proposal, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada established a working group to develop model uniform legislation that would address extra-provincial policing issues. That working group had representation from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Justice Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The working group consulted various police groups, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, to ensure that the draft legislation was responsive to police needs.

In 2003, a model statute, entitled the Uniform Act, was presented to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and was approved by its members. The Uniform Act establishes a mechanism whereby a police service can obtain police officer status for one of its members to carry out duties in another province, and also addresses oversight and indemnification issues. Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have since enacted cross-border policing legislation using the Uniform Act as a legislative base.

For Ontario to benefit from cross-border policing legislation, another province must have legislation that extends the same powers to Ontario police officers. And so, it is noteworthy that as of July 2009, there were approximately 400 Quebec police officers appointed as special constables in Ontario. There were, at the same time, more than 400 OPP officers appointed as special constables in Quebec. These numbers demonstrate the reality of cross-border policing today and the need to adopt legislation that gives police the necessary authority to do their work while protecting the public by holding them accountable.

Ontario has been in discussions with Quebec for some time concerning the implementation of cross-border policing legislation in both provinces. We have determined that Ontario's proposals on the cross-border policing issue are generally in line with those of Quebec. These proposals are also based on the model statute developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and adopted by the other provinces I mentioned earlier.

Our discussions with Quebec culminated in the signing of a declaration last month that commits our two governments to introducing this type of legislation creating a basis of reciprocal arrangements for cross-border policing for Ontario police officers in Quebec and for Quebec police officers in Ontario.

For about the next two and a half minutes, I'd like to highlight some of the key proposals found within the act. The Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, would, if adopted, establish a process whereby an Ontario official designated by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services could grant a police officer from another Canadian province or territory permission to enter Ontario to perform police duties.

Under the terms of the proposed legislation, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services would designate one or more persons in Ontario as appointing officials with the power to appoint an extra-provincial police officer as a police officer in Ontario. An extra-provincial, or out-of-province, police service that wishes to obtain police officer status for one or more of its police officers would be required to make a written application to an appointing official in Ontario.

An appointing official may appoint an extra-provincial police officer as a police officer in Ontario for a period of not more than three years, subject to any conditions imposed by that appointment. The appointing official would be required to make a decision within seven days after receiving the request.

Bill 203 would also allow municipal police chiefs and OPP detachment commanders to extend police powers for short periods of time in urgent circumstances. Once approved, the appointment would be effective on the date indicated on the appointment form. Similar legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories would grant the reciprocal authority to Ontario police officers working outside Ontario.

I'd like to conclude very simply: This legislation, if adopted, would support Ontario's commitment to public safety, including the guns-and-gangs strategy, by: one, allowing an extra-provincial police officer to apply for and obtain extra-provincial police status in a timely manner, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays to operations or investigations; and secondly, enhancing the enforcement ability of extra-provincial police officers conducting investigations or operations in Ontario.

Finally, as extra-provincial police officers, they will be able to continue their investigations and/or operations when they enter Ontario. This may help to reduce the number of criminals on the streets, while also working to enhance public safety.

It would subject extra-provincial police officers to the oversight of Ontario's SIU and allow public complaints to be lodged and examined. Moreover, it would create a legislative system of reciprocity whereby Ontario police officers could apply for and receive police officer status in other provinces and territories that have similar legislation enabling them to pursue Ontario's criminals outside our borders.

I submit that for all these reasons, the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, deserves the support of all members in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was listening to the honourable member, the minister of the crown, speaking about the importance of creating mobility between the provinces and sharing information between the Ontario police system and other provinces for the safety of the people of Ontario.

I think it's a very important step toward trying to get all the information together. I'm the member from London–Fanshawe, and as you know, we sit between two big cities, Toronto and the United States, and many people—criminals—cross the border through the 401, and sometimes they stop in London. Sometimes they cross the border from the United States to Canada, or they come from Quebec or other provinces.

I think it's very important to create some kind of a mechanism to share information and try to create safety for the people of Ontario. Therefore, I hope all the members of this House stand up for Ontario and support the initiative being put forward by the minister in order to create a safety mechanism for people who want to live safely in this beautiful province.

Therefore, I am willing to support the bill. Hopefully, the debate will take place, and I know through the process, when people debate the issues, a lot of ideas will develop and give us more sense and direction in order to engage people in this province and create better understanding and a better system for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the introduction of the bill on the part of the minister. Our critic, the member for Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, is unable to speak to the bill at this time because we didn't have a whole lot of notice as to when it was going to be brought for second reading.

I did hear some interesting stuff from the minister. We're always looking for ways that we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing, here and across the country. We're going to be taking a good look at this bill to see if that is in fact what it accomplishes. I certainly want to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, because the premise behind the bill is certainly one that we can all support; because we all have recognized and have seen instances in the past where the inability of police to pursue across borders or whatever has inhibited them with respect to apprehending criminals.

We are going to be taking a look at the nuances and the minutiae of this bill in order to make proper comment on it, but we do appreciate the fact that the government has at least recognized that there is a situation that needs to be addressed here in Canada. We hope that this bill in fact does that. When we have more opportunity to examine it in its totality, we'll be in a better position to comment further.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I guess I would agree with the comments that have just been made by my colleague the member from Renfrew, and that is that we certainly were not aware that the bill was going to be called today. We haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly examine the content of the bill, but obviously our party has always been a strong supporter of increased enforcement and of cross-border policing. We certainly support all efforts that would support better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories. So we look forward to having the opportunity.

Unfortunately, our critic had another commitment in committee today. As I say, we weren't aware the bill was going to be called. We hope to give this bill the due diligence that it requires, but certainly anything we can do to enhance co-operation, to better provide enforcement in order that the public is protected, we would be very supportive of.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments? Minister, two minutes to respond.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the members from London—Fanshawe, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and Kitchener—Waterloo for their comments.

Just as a point of clarification—and not one that we should be debating—all three parties were aware that this bill was coming forward today. I understand and appreciate that sometimes critics can't be available and so the critics' times have been deferred. I look forward to a very good debate with regard to this. My staff has given both opposition parties a technical briefing, a full briefing, so that both the opposition parties will be well aware of not only the intent but the direction of the bill.

Listen, there isn't anybody in this House who doesn't want public safety to be enhanced as much as it can be. We are all members of good intention. So I look forward to a very good debate.

I look forward to the advice and the criticisms—constructive criticisms—by others who will be a part of the dialogue around this bill, because at the end of the day what we want is an effective tool for police services from other jurisdictions in Canada as well as within Ontario, to be able to do their jobs to the fullest; so that at the end of the day, your loved ones, your neighbours, your family, your friends, your fellow citizens of Ontario will know, without a doubt, that Ontario's streets are safer because of this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, I hope that the House will pass this.

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

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I think both opposition parties are in agreement with this: In order to allow them to prepare for the debate, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading debate adjourned.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Orders of the day?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: There is no further business until question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m. this morning.

The House recessed from 0925 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Durham and page Ava Doner, to welcome her mother, Anita, and a family friend, Lori, sitting in the east gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

On behalf of the member from Mississauga—Erindale, we'd like to take this opportunity to welcome his wife, Balwinder Takhar, to the Legislature today, along with Colonel Tejinder Singh Khangura, brother of Mrs. Takhar, and Adarsh Khangura, sister-in-law of Mr. and Mrs. Takhar. Welcome to Queen's Park, Colonel.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I am very pleased to introduce three visitors sitting in the east gallery. They are all from the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, NECL: Adam Schafer, the executive director; the Honourable Dennis Ozment, Minnesota state representative; and the Honourable Jane Krentz, former Minnesota state senator, known for her work on the environment and on conservation.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to welcome members of the Ontario Literacy Coalition, who are visiting the Legislature today. In the gallery, we have Lesley Brown, executive director of the Ontario Literacy Coalition; Jody Lundrigan, manager of communications and marketing with the Ontario Literacy Coalition; Michael Shaughnessy, board director and student with the Ontario Literacy Coalition; Deb Hotchkiss, board director of the Ontario Literacy Coalition's Partners in Employment; and Maria Moriarty, board director and vice-president, the Ontario Literacy Coalition from the AlphaPlus Centre. We welcome them all to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Do you have full confidence in the expenses claimed by Steve Mahoney, the chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member raises a point here about one of the chairs of one of our largest agencies. What I can say to the member is that there is an expectation by this government, by this Premier and by the public that all our government agencies are responsible and prudent with all their expenses. That's why I can tell the member that at the WSIB—and with all our Ministry of Labour agencies, boards and commissions—they have received the message. They have received the message that there is a new policy in place. There are new rules. They must adhere to those new rules. I have been given assurances by the chair that all senior staff in the WSIB are aware of these changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, apparently that message has not been received. Mr. Mahoney is listed as the part-time chair of the WSIB. He may be part-time, but Mr. Mahoney billed over $140,000 last year. He collected a per diem for more than there are working days in the year while also collecting three pensions, including one for when he was an Ontario Liberal MPP.

Despite all that public money in his pocket, Mr. Mahoney expensed thousands of dollars for limos until they finally gave him a car; meals where he had no meetings; and travel to China, Australia, Hong Kong and elsewhere. He travelled so much he got lost in Myrtle Beach, where he billed four days for one day of meetings and then expensed a GPS system.

Minister, how was Mr. Mahoney held accountable for his overbilling and expenses?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say again to the member that the WSIB, as well as all our Ministry of Labour agencies, boards and commissions, understands that the new rule changes must be adhered to. I know they are working very hard to ensure that those changes are in place. What the member speaks to, I can say that it was reviewed, and the WSIB chair did stay within policy at the WSIB when it came to their expense policy. That policy has changed today.

Furthermore, our government has taken more steps, as the Premier has said, to increase accountability, to further protect the taxpayers' dollar. Now all OPS employees, as well as employees at our largest agencies, must—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I don't think that message has been clearly received, and perhaps there is a reason for it. Steve Mahoney was once a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus and a federal Liberal cabinet minister in the era when they said they were entitled to their entitlements. While one can see how the expense scandal at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. occurred in a culture of all that income coming in, the WSIB that Mr. Mahoney helms is teetering on the brink of total financial collapse.

When the Premier attended a hastily arranged press conference to announce he was dumping the accountability-for-expenses scandals on the Integrity Commissioner, he said, "You must lead by example." Minister Fonseca's example is to look the other way. Isn't this just another example of the rot in the McGuinty Liberal government?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As I've informed the member, there is total recognition by the WSIB and by our government agencies that there are new policies in place. The changes, as I was saying to the member in the supplementary: Again, all OPS employees are mandated now to receive mandatory online expense training, and expenses for OPS senior management, cabinet ministers, political staff and senior executives at Ontario's largest agencies will be posted online—more transparency, more accountability. We're increasing the number of random audits to ensure that the rules are being followed, and we're moving forward on all expenses that will be reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner.

The WSIB recognizes that the environment has changed. I could say with assurance—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Randy Hillier: I have a further question for the Minister of Labour. It's not like Steve Mahoney has been getting things done at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has raised the alarm, alerting the McGuinty Liberals to the "gross mismanagement" of the WSIB. The WSIB's unfunded liability has tripled to over $11 billion in four years, even though the McGuinty government said it would eliminate the unfunded liability by 2014. The McGuinty Liberals simply have no credibility when it comes to economic management.

Why did you promise to fix the problem, Minister, and then make things worse?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member would be well aware that the WSIB, as well as other large organizations with large capital pools, has been hit by the downturn in the economy. We've had some great years and great prosperity. For 10 or 15 years the WSIB was making great progress with its fund as the economy grew. The downturn in the unfunded liability is completely attributed to the downturn in the markets. We have looked at other compensation boards across the country, and their liabilities and assets have also been hit by the recession.

I've spoken to the chair and to the board of the WSIB, and they've advised me that the current financial position has weakened, and the global—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again for the minister: A pattern is developing where the McGuinty Liberals will say anything to avoid fixing the problem. Even before the global recession, the WSIB's plan for a 9% return on investment was irresponsible. Were they planning on banking with Bernie Madoff? Now, with the global recession, we can't know if they've learned their lesson. Why? Because the WSIB hasn't filed an annual report for 2008 and 2009. But what we do know is that the McGuinty Liberals—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the Minister of Finance—I'm having difficulty hearing the question, and he's sitting just to my left.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We do know that the McGuinty Liberals' new plan to stop the bleeding at the WSIB is for premium hikes and making small businesses pay for secretaries and office staff who will never collect benefits. It's a Ponzi scheme, only the people being added to the pyramid go in knowing that they are being cheated. Why did the McGuinty Liberals create a scheme where everyone pays for something that doesn't work?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is completely wrong. When it comes to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just say to the government side: You have your own member who is up speaking—stop the clock, please—your own member who is trying to answer a question and you're shouting him down. It's making it extremely difficult for me to hear the minister speak.

Minister.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, the member is completely wrong. When we look at premium rates at the WSIB, premium rates have not changed in the last number of years. We have held the line on premium rates again this year. We understand that there is a balance between how we set premium rates for employers and the impact to employers, as well as the good work that those premium rates do to help our injured workers. That's what the WSIB is meant to do: be an insurance for those injured workers, a no-fault insurance that provides the ability for employers to do their business in Ontario.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I think the pattern is clear: It's called rot. With eHealth, the Premier has senior ministers deciding who to hand untendered contracts to, and they end up spending billions of dollars while we're no closer to having electronic health records. At OLG, the Premier and his ministers are so preoccupied with PR around these expenses that the McGuinty Liberals have no credible plan to prevent insider wins. With Mahoney, the Premier and his minister are so busy looking after their Liberal friend, they look the other way when he expenses his entitlements, and they have no credible plan to deal with the unfunded liability at the WSIB.

Why doesn't the McGuinty government understand that it's not just the money they're wasting; it's that Premier McGuinty and his ministers just aren't doing their jobs?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member maybe doesn't realize that what the WSIB is there for is to ensure that our workers, if they get injured, are cared for. That's what those premium rates go to.

The member and some of the other Conservative Party members bring in the question of expenses and other things that are happening at the WSIB. I know the member had the opportunity to have a lunch or an outing with the chair of the WSIB. My understanding is that there was some alcohol expensed. The member had some alcohol with the chair, and that alcohol was expensed. So I don't know what the member is saying. The member should look at his own actions when he comes to this House and starts—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Acting Premier sits on Management Board of Cabinet. Can he confirm media reports that Management Board authorized an untendered contract worth $30 million to IBM?

Hon. George Smitherman: As has been the practice for a good, long time in the history of the province of Ontario, through all parties that are represented in this Legislature, mechanisms for single-source contract were possible. We've stopped that.

In the case of the IBM contract that the honourable member refers to, I don't know whether I was at a treasury board meeting. I'm privileged to sit on that committee. What I can tell the—

Interjection.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm happy to find out, but I don't know the answer. I will tell the honourable member that in the case of the product that was being delivered, IBM had created the original system that this was supposed to connect into. Accordingly, I think it was very, very prudent in the circumstances to look for that such opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Health fired the eHealth CEO for irresponsibly doling out millions in untendered contracts. Now we learn that the Minister of Health pushed through a $30-million untendered contract himself that the Acting Premier approved. Can the Acting Premier explain this double standard?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, the honourable member misspeaks—I don't think deliberately, but perhaps misunderstands the way the treasury board functions. A number of individuals are representative there.

But I do think what's important to recognize here is that the practice in the government of Ontario, over all parties and over decades, was that there were mechanisms that allowed for single-source contracts. There were. You had them. We've had them. But the one difference is that they're gone. The one difference is that we've stopped those.

In the case of the product that was being contracted, IBM had created the original system. Accordingly, they had specialized technical skills which made them a very, very likely provider for such a service. But nevertheless, this practice, long-standing in the province of Ontario, has ended, and ended on the watch of our government. It didn't end there, and it didn't end there.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps the Acting Premier has more important things on his mind: pay raises to consultants without approval, contracts to people without signing authority, high-priced consultants hiring other high-priced consultants, favouritism, and the people are left without an electronic health system in the province.

They fired Sarah Kramer for this kind of behaviour. Did the McGuinty Liberals set the bar too high for their own ministers?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member is right that our government, in addition to dealing with these matters of administration, which are important, has many other things on our mind.

We have on our mind to make the largest investments in the history of infrastructure. We have on our mind to bring in new policies that will create incredible opportunities for employment in the area of renewable energy. We have in mind to expand policies which will enhance the capacity for our four- and five-year-olds to enjoy all-day learning. We have in mind many obligations on the part of the people of the province of Ontario, and we're working diligently to fulfill those.

We recognize that in the area of these contracts, there is substantial room for improvement. We look forward to the further offerings that will come from the auditor in a report, and we will, as a government, on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario, do our utmost to live out the recommendations and quality of advice that comes on offer from the auditor.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance.

Since confusion seems to rule the day when it comes to the McGuinty government's HST, my question is a simple one. Can the Minister of Finance clarify for us what his government is and is not going to exempt from his unfair HST scheme?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We showed in the budget what we're exempting. That remains the policy of the government of Ontario. We do continue to meet with a range of groups—groups, by the way, that support the HST, that have some issues around transitional rules and so on. But we did specify in the budget those exemptions which we are providing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Just yesterday, the Premier declared that mutual fund fees might be exempted from his unfair tax grab. He said there were "conversations" happening. My concern is for the thousands of Ontarians worried about the tax whack that they're going to receive on home heating, on hydro, on gas for the car, even on the coffee and Danish. We've received hundreds of letters from people like them in the last day alone. They can't afford a lobbyist or a $1,000 ticket to a Liberal fundraiser. What do they have to do and who do they have to know to have their concerns about this unfair tax grab heard?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government was very careful to put together a package of tax cuts: tax cuts for senior citizens, tax cuts for low-income Ontarians, tax cuts, sir, that are going to help other Ontarians and the transition to the new HST. Our project was a balanced project. It's designed to make the tax system more competitive.

I should also tell the member that any rules around the HST with respect to transition rules and exemptions have to be agreed to by the federal government. In the case of the mutual fund industry, they've had a long-standing dispute with the federal government around GST collection. Now British Columbia and Ontario are working with the federal government in the context of transition rules in order to facilitate those tax cuts that we're providing for low-income Ontarians. Those tax cuts have been saluted by people—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The finance minister might not have heard, but I'm talking about the tax grab that they're foisting on the regular people of this province, not the smokescreen of a tax cut that he likes to talk about.

The Premier is supposed to govern for everyone in this province, but it seems the only people who he hears are the people who can buy their way to the front, those who can pay for access. My real concern is for the people across this province who can't afford to buy their own lobbyist. When will this government start listening to them and scrap this unfair tax grab?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has acted on the HST and a series of tax cuts to make our economy more competitive and to improve job creation potential in order to ensure that Ontario can compete with other jurisdictions around the world.

The leader of the third party only tells part of the story, as is their case. She forgets to talk about the endorsements we had from people such as Hugh Mackenzie, a well-known supporter of her party. I know that he has advised you and your caucus colleagues that you ought to rethink your position because of the progressive nature of the reforms in this system, which will, in fact, benefit people of modest income more than others.

She forgets to talk about the two property tax credits for senior citizens, which she and her party voted against—

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

TAXATION

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is also for the Minister of Labour. Back in March, the Premier said his jobs budget would create 150,000 new full-time jobs, but Ontario lost 74,000 full-time jobs since he said that. The McGuinty Liberals said the unfunded liability of the WSIB would be retired by 2014, but it's growing each year. It's now $11 billion. They're just not credible.

Why is hitting the average small construction business with $11,000 in new taxes a good idea in this economy?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: At the Ministry of Labour and the WSIB, our top priority is the health and safety of Ontario workers. The mandatory coverage for construction workers will level the playing field, will provide more health and safety measures and will allow us to address the underground economic activity that we know happens in that sector.

When it comes to the unfunded liability, as I have said, the WSIB takes this matter very seriously. They have a stewardship role over that insurance fund. That insurance fund is what pays out to all those injured workers—155,000 injured workers here in this province. Those premiums are invested prudently. Because of the downturn, as we know, in the economy, the fund, as well as all funds—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: Under the McGuinty Liberals, Ontario families are working harder than ever to keep up. Actually, it's worse than that: Minister Fonseca's WSIB legislation forces office workers, from clerical staff to managers, to give up more of their paycheques through higher payroll taxes. The CFIB, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Home Builders' Association all oppose the McGuinty Liberals expanding this tax. They say it will kill new business and job creation and hurt the businesses and jobs we have right now. This just piles on top of the massive red-tape burden that penalizes employers and employees even further.

Why is the minister actively trying to undermine job creation within the private sector?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I don't understand what the member is against. Is the member against health and safety? Today in this province we celebrate 30 years of the Occupational Health and Safety Act protecting workers. This government has a track record where we have seen a reduction in the amount of lost-time injuries in the workplace of 25%. What that means is 50,000 to 60,000 less injuries, less suffering; and it also means that those precious dollars can be spent in our health care system, in our education system, in protecting the environment. These dollars that are paid in premiums—

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

TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Acting Premier. Media reports suggest that a US-Canada trade deal is about to be signed that would effectively forbid provincial and municipal governments from using local tax dollars to create good-paying local jobs. New Democrats see real problems with a trade deal that would tie the hands of provinces and municipalities and prevent them from creating good jobs in transit and good jobs in green energy. Will the minister commit this government to opposing any trade deal that would prevent local governments from using local tax dollars to create good-paying local jobs?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that many of us took note that an issue that has been on the tip of many people's tongues and under discussion for many months seems to be gaining some resonance in the chambers of power in Washington, DC. At the heart of it is the desire to ensure that Ontario, which is one of the most trade-oriented jurisdictions from the standpoint of our economic activity to be found anywhere, has the opportunity for products to be able to be freely offered in support of projects that might be taking place in other spots.

The government is paying close attention, working with other governments across the country to try and ensure that there is openness to markets, and I think that this issue continues to percolate on that basis.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The question was very specific; I didn't hear an answer. You can't promote a made-in-Ontario, buy-in-Ontario, green energy strategy, and it's very difficult to promote a made-in-Ontario, jobs-in-Ontario transit strategy, if you support one of these agreements. Domestic content rules are a crucial tool in ensuring that local tax dollars can be used to support the creation of good local jobs. So I ask the question again: Will the McGuinty government commit to opposing any trade deal that would prevent provincial and municipal governments from using local tax dollars to create good local jobs?

Hon. George Smitherman: First, I think the honourable member fails to address the extent to which many of our businesses, which are operating in local areas and local municipalities, are involved in export. We look to the mayor of Halton Hills, who, as an example, has exposed circumstances where companies in that area have been prevented from exporting even to customers they have had long-standing and historic relationships with. We think it's important to continue to have dialogue on these matters.

We have found here in the government of Ontario, in our policies related to green energy, an opportunity to encourage more of a domestic industry and capability to emerge. Accordingly, we will be continuing to take strong interest in this. But at the heart of it, Ontario is a jurisdiction that's intensely reliant upon our capacity to export our innovative products, which are designed and built by some of the best-trained workers anywhere in the world, and we think it is important to remain very vigilant in such discussions.

GO TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. After Metrolinx submitted their environmental project report for the GO Transit Georgetown South expansion and air-rail link project, the public had one month to review the report and send any comments to Metrolinx and to the Minister of the Environment. I understand the report is now under review, along with observations and objections submitted by the public.

Minister, I would like to ask when we can expect to receive the Minister of the Environment's response to the environmental project report. I'm also hoping that the Minister of Transportation can assure this House that, moving forward, Metrolinx will continue to take into consideration the concerns of the community, especially those relative to any possible street closures associated with the project and any possible health effects on the communities living in the area.

Hon. James J. Bradley: After extensive public consultation, the notice of completion of the environmental project report is now with the Minister of the Environment for review and decision on how to proceed. I understand that the review period ends October 5, which means we should hear back shortly on this matter. We will look forward to the minister's response.

Metrolinx, of course, understands the importance of keeping the community involved every step of the way. That is why they continue to reach out to the public through publications, information on their website and a customer care line where the community can obtain answers to any questions. Public consultation has been, and will continue to be, a key part of this process.

Since January 2009, Metrolinx has hosted an extensive public engagement process, including 18 open houses, over 20 community meetings and a 24/7 virtual open house accessible throughout the entire—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to address another question to the Minister of Transportation on the same topic. In previous questions to the minister, this House has heard about the public consultations held by Metrolinx throughout this process. It is very important that the community continue to be consulted and informed about the next stages and throughout the decision-making process. The people living along the Georgetown corridor will be the most affected by these decisions.

One of the main concerns brought forth by the people living in York South—Weston relates to the use of diesel energy for the expansion project. I am hoping that the Minister of Transportation can address this concern. Can the minister assure us that, moving forward, the benefits of electrification will be taken into consideration?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The best thing we know, and I think all members of the House would agree, for cleaner air and a healthy environment is to get people out of their single-occupant vehicles and on to public transit.

The GO trains in the Georgetown South corridor are currently operating at capacity. That is why Metrolinx is moving forward with expansion now. Only the newest and latest technologies that meet the most stringent new emission standards will be used for the passenger trains in this corridor.

Taking it one step further, Metrolinx is moving forward with its electrification study, which is expected to be completed in the winter of 2010. Electrification is a critically important issue, and when making what will be a multi-billion-dollar decision, we want to get it right. That's why we're pleased that Metrolinx established a community advisory committee, which includes former Environmental Commissioner Eva Ligeti, Bob Oliver of Pollution Probe, and Dr. Linn Holness—

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the finance minister. The McGuinty Liberals spent $430 million and climbing for a Windsor casino expansion project that wasn't supposed to cost more than $400 million. You spent $80 million more on building the Windsor Energy Centre, which wasn't supposed to be built at all. Now the public accounts show us that "to fund current operations and the continuing negative cash flow at Caesars," you have Ontario taxpayers on the hook for at least another $212 million. Here I thought the house wasn't supposed to lose. What are the profits the Windsor casino has generated since you attended its $2.3-million opening spectacle in June 2008?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The construction of a convention facility and a hotel to encourage tourism that benefits all of Ontario was in fact the appropriate decision to make. It is continuing to yield benefits to the local community and others. The member is right: The public accounts, contrary to what he said last week, do reveal that there are two separate projects and also very clearly reveal, with respect to the casino project itself, the cost of that and then the separate project on the energy centre and what happened there.

We continue to generate, through OLG, about $1.4 billion a year in proceeds in the province of Ontario, and that continues to be an important funder of money for our government to provide health care, to provide education and a variety of other important public services—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'd say that's quite a mess you have on your hands: a sinkhole of a casino that's so deep it needs stimulus funds to stay afloat—at least until the McGuinty Liberals and their friends at eHealth and other boards show up for the Ontario Liberal Party annual general meeting at your casino at the end of this month. You still won't explain why the energy centre even exists. Yesterday, you said it was unacceptable that a budget item goes from $40 million to $80 million. Minister, do the math. The loss to taxpayers is approaching a half-billion dollars.

Aside from Windsor—Tecumseh, is there anywhere else in the province of Ontario where you, Minister, would actually consider building a money-losing casino and a matching energy centre?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member that in fact that casino was authorized by the NDP and built by the Conservatives. Now, we did add a convention facility, we did add a hotel, and I'm glad to hear the Conservatives finally acknowledge that they would close it down and put 2,000 people out of work. I think that's irresponsible. I think it betrays the city with the highest unemployment rate in the country, and what do the Conservatives say?

Are you proposing that for Niagara Falls as well? Are you proposing that for Rama? I think you should be ashamed of yourself. I think the member ought to recognize that this important business, like the casino business around the world, has experienced tough times but it will come back. In fact, the investment of that—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training. All over the province, qualified applicants for the Second Career program are being denied by your ministry. Conestoga College President John Tibbits said that 30 to 60 students were accepted into courses at the college, only to be unexpectedly denied funding under the retraining program. In addition to devastating students, he said the college is affected because it hired teachers and bought equipment needed to train them. Mr. Tibbits says that government officials have to do something about this. They can't just leave it the way it is. Minister, are you going to just leave it the way it is?

Hon. John Milloy: I had a chance to speak about this earlier in the week, and I'd like to place the program in some context. Fifteen months ago, we announced the Second Career program, a program to help 20,000 laid-off workers over the course of three years. After 15 months, I'm pleased to inform the House that we have surpassed the 20,000 already and are moving up to close to 21,000. In September alone, this program approved the application of close to 10,000 people to move forward.

We realize that there are people who are interested in coming forward on that program. As I indicated to the House a number of days ago, we are in the process of reviewing the program. We are working with the colleges, and we hope to have a plan forward very soon to continue to address that backlog. We want to continue to welcome more workers into that program, but we have to move forward in a sustainable way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, unemployed workers need your help today. The ministry must develop a needs-based response instead of a numbers-based response to retraining. Many of these workers are struggling and running out of money, and you assured them the Second Career program would bring them hope.

You closed the door on many unemployed workers in September, and many fear you're going to close the door on them in October as well. To calm the fears of unemployed workers, Minister, will you guarantee that all qualified applicants who have submitted the appropriate documents and applied to approved Second Career programs will be able to start in October?

Hon. John Milloy: I know the honourable member would never want to leave the impression in this Legislature that anyone who was approved for Second Career has not entered the program of their choice and is moving forward. We have worked with all the colleges to make sure that all individuals who have been approved for the program have moved forward with their training.

We are working to address the backlog, I acknowledge the backlog, but I find it passing strange that the member from that party, who voted against this program and spent the last year standing up in this House and calling it a flop, criticizing it and saying it was a joke, would stand up today and not congratulate the government for having helped over 20,000, close to 21,000, workers in the course of 15 months.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Earlier today you made mention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the fact that today is the 30th anniversary. As we all know, the legislation is the foundation for efforts to ensure health and safety in workplaces across the province. This is an important piece of legislation, as it affects my constituents and workers across the province. I know your ministry and many others are working hard to ensure that it accomplishes the purposes for which it was created. Everyone has a responsibility to ensure healthy and safe work environments.

Would the minister tell us a little bit about the Occupational Health and Safety Act and what impact this act has had on the health and safety of Ontario's workers and their families over the past three decades?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for the question. Indeed, today is an historic day. As the member has said, this is the 30th anniversary of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Before this act came into force, Ontario was governed by a mix of legislation that had many gaps in place and many overlaps, but on October 1, 1979, those disparate laws were replaced by one comprehensive law. This act transformed how workplaces manage health and safety. It extended workers three key rights: the right to know about workplace hazards; the right to participate in matters affecting health and safety; and the right to refuse unsafe work.

Today, 30 years later, we can all look back and be proud of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and what it's done for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: This anniversary obviously represents an important milestone for workers in Ontario. Our government continues to lead the effort to ensure that workers in the province of Ontario make it home safe after a hard day's work. We know workers and employers are becoming more aware of their rights and responsibilities under this act, but more needs to be done. My constituents have asked me what our government is doing to ensure safe and healthy workplaces.

Would the minister please tell us about some of the ways that the Occupational Health and Safety Act has evolved to respond to the challenges being faced in today's workplaces?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Times have changed, and workplace dynamics change year over year. My ministry strives to ensure that our health and safety legislation keeps pace with the changing times. We have a program called Safe at Work Ontario. It's our compliance strategy for occupational health and safety. Our inspectors work with employers, labour representatives and industry to ensure that our workplace cultures are healthy and safe. They also want to get in there and provide the types of resources that employers need. We have our health and safety associations that provide those best practices, that make sure that the internal responsibility system is in place.

The most important thing that we have done is that this legislation helps us save lives—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, colon cancer patients using Avastin, whose treatments have been showing positive results, have repeatedly asked you to remove the cap so that they may continue their treatments. Your lack of response prompted me to get the Ombudsman to take a look into the matter. The Ombudsman said in his report yesterday, "Remove the cap." Will you agree today, Mr. Minister, to remove that cap for Avastin patients?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question. First and foremost, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to Ontarians who are suffering from advanced colorectal—or any cancer, for that matter. I understand the difficulties that families and individuals face, that physicians face, in battling this serious disease.

The member mentions the Ombudsman. In doing his review, the Ombudsman chose anecdotal and emotional evidence over clinical and medical evidence and advice to make his recommendation.

We announced back in July 2008 to provide more than $30 million in funding for Avastin. The funding was based on several clinical studies, three in particular, that were used to determine the best treatment for first-line defence against colorectal cancer. The trials were focused on outcomes and benefits, and experts came up with an effective, safe and cost-efficient plan. It is based upon medical evidence that these decisions are made—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: That answer is shameful and repugnant to people suffering from colorectal cancer in Ontario today. What is so offensive to these patients is that, and I'm going to quote from the Ombudsman's report, "this investigation proved to be the exception, with senior ministry and Cancer Care Ontario officials refusing to have their interviews recorded."

Is this yet another example of your ministry's unwillingness to be transparent? Why did your ministry officials refuse to be recorded? What have you got to hide?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the clinical evidence is online, available for anybody who wants to review it. There are 20 experts who serve on the committee to evaluate drugs and make this particular advice to government about what should be funded and how that will work.

Decisions regarding critical-care medical treatments have to be based on clinical evidence, I say to the member opposite. That's to ensure safety for patients, effectiveness of treatment and cost-efficiencies in context of the overall drug program and the needs of all Ontarians.

This government invested $30 million to be able to support Avastin treatment. Without clinical evidence to support his recommendations to extend Avastin treatment, I can't find reason to fund this treatment beyond the 16 cycles that are currently funded. Should additional evidence be provided, of course it would be evaluated and it would be an important input into other decisions that could be made.

HOSPITAL SPENDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Diane Beattie is the vice-president and chief information officer at London Health Sciences Centre. She broke the rules and awarded more than $3 million worth of untendered electronic health contracts to a single consulting company, a company run by a former colleague of hers. Beattie is losing her job, but is being given a $451,000 golden handshake.

As London families struggle to find long-term-care beds and to cope with cuts to important health care services, is this minister going to look the other way, or will he step in and stop this scandalous abuse of health care dollars by saying no to this golden handshake?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the member has her facts quite wrong. Funding for London health care has only increased under this government, as opposed to what we have seen under previous governments.

Ontarians expect that government agencies and institutions use public funding prudently, and so do I. In this case, the rules were broken. They were caught by an internal audit, and the hospital did the appropriate thing and cancelled the contract.

Our government is all about openness and transparency. That's why we have made a number of changes in this House. It was our government that expanded the role of the Auditor General. The members opposite opposed these steps. We've opened up our hospitals, our schools, our colleges and universities and crown corporations to value-for-money audits. Expenses, in addition, for Ontario public service senior management, cabinet ministers, political staff and senior executives at Ontario's—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister needs to just say, "Enough is enough." When someone so blatantly breaks the rules, they shouldn't be able to walk away with almost half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money, of their precious health care dollars. Why won't this minister just do the right thing? Why won't he stand up for health care in London and demand that the London Health Sciences Centre board cancel Ms. Beattie's golden handshake?

Hon. David Caplan: The member now says that hospital boards should receive direction. They are independent corporations governed by independent boards. In this particular case, the board and senior management have made decisions that are within their purview. In fact, I think that whether it is through the internal auditing process or whether it is through the cancellation of the contract, I would say that the senior management have taken the very important steps that people in London and indeed the people of Ontario would expect that they would do.

I do note, in fact, that this member has changed her mind on several occasions in these matters. In some cases she believes it should be treated one way and sometimes she believes it ought to be treated a different way. Looking for consistency from my friend opposite is not a light at the end of the tunnel. Speaker—

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

ADULT LITERACY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We know that right here in Ontario and in fact across Canada, there are people who lack the necessary literacy skills to fully participate in today's workforce. Without strong reading, writing and numeracy skills, individuals have fewer possibilities of sustainable employment and cannot further access education or training that leads to better work opportunities.

As we move to a knowledge-based economy, the need for Ontarians to acquire these skills is becoming more and more necessary. We know that by 2020, 70% of jobs will require some form of post-secondary educational training. Investing in literacy and essential skills is not only good for people; it is good for our economy. Literacy training plays an important role in strengthening Ontario's workforce, which will in fact strengthen our economy.

Minister, how are you helping the many Ontarians who need these crucial skills?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for the question. I think all members in the House recognize the important role that literacy training plays in what I like to call the continuum of education that exists for adults here in the province of Ontario. Indeed, statistics bear out the need for substantial literacy support out there.

I'm very pleased to say that our government, on an annual basis, usually invests about $80 million. In the 2009 budget, we announced a further sum: some $90 million over two years to support literacy programs here in Ontario. This will help to provide support, for example, for the literacy programs that are offered at almost 300 sites across this province, including colleges, school boards and community-based organizations, to make sure that Ontarians have access to the services that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I've had the opportunity to meet with literacy and basic skill service providers in my community, and I can tell you that the York Region District School Board is doing an outstanding job at reaching out to those who need help and getting them the assistance they need to upgrade their skills for success. Literacy Council York South has also demonstrated a commitment to provide opportunities for members of my rapidly growing community to build critical foundation skills and participate in today's workforce.

But they cannot do it alone. I've heard from local literacy organizations that more and more people are accessing their services and demand is great. Minister, how are you helping these important organizations at a time when their services and support are so needed?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm pleased to report to the House that in July of this year, I visited the Hamilton Literacy Council, where I was pleased to announce our government's investment of $25 million in colleges, school boards and community literacy organizations in the Employment Ontario network to help laid-off workers and other adult learners train for highly skilled jobs.

I had a chance during that announcement and during subsequent visits as minister to visit many of these centres and see the outstanding work that's going on. I want to credit everyone who's part of this network for the service they provide to Ontarians looking to upgrade their literacy skills, one that is a valuable part of—

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

CORONER'S OFFICE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. This House has been following the saga of the Farlow family, Tim and Barb Farlow, for the last year or so at least. I spoke a couple of times on Bill 115, and again in response to you the other day. Also, Mr. Farlow has responded and had a deputation at the Bill 115 hearings.

They are here with family and friends seeking assurance that their baby Annie's death was natural and inevitable. After the chief coroner refused to answer questions, the family turned to you, Minister. In multiple letters to the family, the minister has repeatedly assured them that the coroner's report was sound and that a report existed that revealed that all of the narcotics used on the baby were accounted for.

The Farlows have asked you to provide written assurance that their question regarding the lethal narcotics given to their daughter will be answered. Minister, will you provide the family with that assurance?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Obviously, whenever there is tragedy within a family, everyone shares in that sympathy and everyone wants to ensure that as many answers as possible are given to the family. That's why we rely on our experts. That's why we rely on the chief coroner to provide the expertise in the determination of whatever final decision will be made. Obviously, our sympathy goes out, but I will defer always to those experts who can provide the best possible answers to those families who are grieving.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Recently, the hospital admitted that they were not certain where the deadly narcotic used on their daughter had gone to. Clearly, the narcotics were not accounted for, and despite this, the minister refused to order a disinterment. The Farlows are correct in their belief that the coroner's report was seriously flawed. Serious questions are raised regarding whether the report that the coroner's office says it's relying on even exists today.

Minister, can you explain why you defended a coroner's document that has been proven not to account for the missing narcotics, as the coroner's report stated?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Again, in a very, very sensitive manner, I can only provide the best possible answer, given the facts. The facts in this instance are that the chief coroner—the coroner—is the best person, the most qualified person, the person who will look at all the evidence with professional eyes. I have to say that at the end of the day, he or she—that coroner, the chief coroner—is the one who is best positioned to give the answer, although it may not be the answer that an individual is looking for. It is the best possible answer that can be given, based on professional ethics.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Minister of Children and Youth Services: The Family and Children's Services of the District of Rainy River has had a balanced budget for the last three years, despite receiving a blended funding rate of only $39 per child in care, while the provincial blended funding rate is $79 per child in care. However, this agency has now been put in a very difficult financial situation because your ministry, mid-year, cut their budget by $400,000, on a full-year budget of only $3 million. This means they will not have the money to provide services for children in need over the last three months.

My question is this: Why is the McGuinty government undermining this family and children's services organization's capacity to protect children in need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me begin by telling you that nothing is more important to me than kids in the care of our children's aid societies—nothing is more important. On this particular case we're working very closely with Family and Children's Services of the District of Rainy River to find a solution to this particular situation. But let me assure you: There is no impending shutdown. We are looking to actually improve services to kids.

Across this system, we've increased funding for child protection by $385 million since we were elected in 2003-04. In fact, this year's budget contains $30 million more for child protection than last year's budget. It's also important to note that our transformation is working: 41% fewer kids, fewer cases—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: That's the minister's story. The minister should read a letter from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies to the Premier, a letter of just a couple of days ago. Let me quote:

"Currently ... the government's ... funding strategy for children's aid societies ... threatens to undermine their capacity to protect children and to meet even the minimum standards of the Child and Family Services Act. The negative impact of this funding strategy"—cutting back money mid-year—"on all CASs has been enormous ... it is estimated that one fifth of the 53 CASs in Ontario will be insolvent by the end of this fiscal year. Operations at some may not be sustainable within the next few weeks....

"The government's recent actions represent a significant and far-reaching funding strategy change...."

I ask again: Why are you undermining the capacity of CASs, like the Rainy River CAS, to protect vulnerable children?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I was saying, we actually have increased funding, budget to budget, for CASs this year. The difference is, we are not—and we've been clear with the CASs—going back for year-end funding to fund those deficits. Those days are behind us.

Mr. Howard Hampton: You should read the letter.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have read the letter.

Over the last decade, funding to the child protection system has increased by almost a billion dollars, from about $500 million to $1.4 billion. It's clear we need to take a good hard look at where that money is being spent, and that's why we are establishing a commission to promote sustainability in the child protection sector.

As I said, there is nothing more important, no responsibility greater, than kids in our care. We need to make sure that that money is getting to where it can do the most good.

TAXATION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This past spring there were inaccurate reports in the media with regard to the implementation of the proposed single sales tax and its impact for farmers. It was reported that farmers will have to pay 8% more for farmland under the proposed single sales tax and that at $10,000 an acre, this will add an $80,000 cost to a 100-acre farm.

On behalf of the farmers of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I ask the minister for clarification to correct the record and to explain how farmland sales will be impacted by the new proposed single sales tax.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I have really three points of clarification, because the information that has been put out there is not accurate. Where the purchase of farmland is to be used in farming business, any taxes that would be paid would be totally reimbursed—point number one. Point number two, where farmland is sold by a farmer as part of a sale of a farming business, by completing the necessary paperwork, both parties may elect not to pay the single sales tax at all. That's the second option. The third important point is that when an individual who is related is purchasing farmland, there is no tax paid with that farmland transfer at all.

Those are the facts. If anyone on the other side of the House is not—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, is it a point of order to recognize Rod Elliot on his last day assisting us in the duties of this House?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, it's not a point of order, but we wish Rod well.

DEFERRED VOTES

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector / Projet de loi 201, Loi prévoyant l'examen des dépenses dans le secteur public.

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

The division bells rang from 1135 to 1140.

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

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 55; the nays are 14.

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the September 30, 2009, order of the House, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I was alarmed to learn this summer that a review of the underserviced area program could mean communities in Dufferin—Caledon will lose financial incentives to recruit and retain much-needed doctors.

Many families in my constituency cannot find a doctor because my area is so underserviced. Six years ago, Premier McGuinty promised to recruit and train more doctors. He also promised that no person would go without regular medical attention. Six years later, nearly 20,000 residents in Dufferin—Caledon are still without a family physician.

The town of Caledon has experienced significant population growth, and the Central West LHIN is projected to be the fastest-growing region in the province over the next 10 years. Based on the current physician-to-patient ratio of one doctor for every 1,380 people, the recommended number of physicians is 41. By this formula, Caledon alone is underserviced by 18 physicians. The government's own report, prepared by the Central West LHIN, clearly indicates that Caledon is underserviced for primary health physicians.

All health studies indicate that access to a family doctor is essential for early detection and management of chronic diseases. It is also the only way a family can access the services of family health teams. The government needs to be doing everything it can to ensure that Ontario has enough family doctors.

Caledon needs access to the underserviced area program to have the tools to recruit and retain family doctors for our community, and I trust that the underserviced area—

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

TECHALLIANCE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I rise today to tell the House some good news about a project that is unique to London. Last Friday, Minister Matthews, Minister Bentley and I participated in the BiOlympics. A non-profit organization called TechAlliance is an initiative that brings elementary and high school students together with businesses and government leaders for high-spirited science competitions.

London has a tough time retaining its science grads, and TechAlliance took the initiative to establish bridges between students and local employers. The project is to create long-term growth and stability in London's bio-tech sector by engaging youth in fun and challenging activities.

Along with event leaders, we guided teams of very intelligent students through games like extracting DNA from a banana and genetic decoding. The entire event was exciting and the students were exemplary team players.

I would like to thank TechAlliance and their partners in their grassroots efforts that will give London the competitive edge over other cities across North America. I am proud to have such entrepreneurship in my city. I would like to commend Allison Fischer, her team and the students who participated in this very important event. I participated in it and enjoyed it, and hopefully every city across the province of Ontario experienced that enjoyment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this statement.

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: This Sunday, October 4, the Ontario Fire Fighters Memorial Foundation will be holding its annual memorial service, on the northwest corner of Queen's Park Circle and College Street, to honour firefighters whose names have been inscribed on the monument. This dedication will begin around 1 p.m.

In March 2003, the Ontario Fire Fighters Memorial Foundation was incorporated. The mission is to establish and maintain a lasting memorial dedicated to the firefighters who have sacrificed their lives to the service of the people of Ontario.

I want to read into the record a firefighters' prayer which is inscribed on the memorial. It goes as follows:

"When I am called to duty, God,

"Whenever flames may rage,

"Give me the strength to save some life

"Whatever be its age.

"Help me embrace a little child,

"Before it is too late,

"Or save an older person from

"The horror of that fate.

"Enable me to be alert,

"And hear the weakest shout,

"And quickly and efficiently

"To put the fire out.

"I want to give my calling and

"To give the best in me,

"To guard my every neighbour and

"Protect his property.

"And if according to Your will,

"I am to lose my life,

"Please bless with your protecting hand

"My children and my spouse."

I would welcome everyone in this House, if they have an opportunity, to try to get out this Sunday to the firefighters' memorial here at Queen's Park.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Peter Kormos: There's a crisis in the greenbelt down in Niagara. It's happening right now. This government is turning its back on grape growers who still have 8,000 metric tonnes of grape rotting on the vine because they can't sell it. Grape growers have been very modest in their request of this government. They're asking that the government increase the Ontario grape content in cellared-in-Canada wines to a mere 50%.

I argue that it should be much higher, but the plonk producers—the ones who import shipped tankerfuls of Chilean plonk, which ferments on its way up the west coast of South America and across the Panama Canal—insist that they want to control it at 30%. What this does is leave grape to rot, and it puts those very valuable and scarce vineyard/wine-producing, grape-growing lands at risk. All the greenbelt legislation in the world isn't going to save that land if farmers working it can't make even a modest living producing high-quality harvest.

This government has got to move quickly to increase the requirement for Ontario grape in cellared-in-Canada wine products. This province has to move quickly to ensure that those grape growers who are left with those 8,000 metric tonnes aren't bankrupted by the market.

CHANGA HOUSE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise today to talk about an exciting project in my riding. The project is known as Changa House. This is part of a vision that has become reality through someone by the name of Dr. Roz Roach. Dr. Roz Roach runs a healing place which is used for empowerment and healing for women and children who exist in environments of violence. The same concept now is being moved to young people.

The idea behind Changa House, which is being built and is going to be started in the next little while, is to bring about a place for young people and teenagers to get past the violence and get involved in programs and other things that are positive and move them away from the negative environments that they may be in.

I stand today to commend and congratulate Dr. Roz Roach. She runs a successful centre already, as I said, for women who suffer from violence, and she's doing the same thing now with young teenagers and other young people who require help.

The word "Changa" has its roots in African, and it means "strength", "strong as iron" and "good." It's my wish and desire, and hopefully that of all members of this House, that when Changa House finally opens its doors, it will be a place of strength and of good for all the young people who come in there.

Even though we require police and we require enforcement and other mechanisms to ensure that our society is safe, I think the very best route is what this person, Dr. Roz Roach, is trying to take. I commend her and I look forward to its opening.

HEATHER SIFTON

Mr. Frank Klees: It's my privilege to bring to the attention of the Legislature that Ms. Heather Sifton will be honoured as the first recipient of the Elsie MacGill Northern Lights Award. This award was established by the first Canadian

chapter of the Ninety-Nines Organization of Women Pilots, and is named after the first female aircraft designer in the world. The award recognizes women who have made a significant contribution to aviation in Canada.

Heather Sifton is a worthy recipient of this award. She is an accomplished pilot and a long-time supporter of general aviation and women in aviation. Among many other contributions to aviation, Heather and her family have operated the Buttonville airport in York region continuously since 1963.

Heather Sifton is also well-known in York region and throughout Ontario for her charitable community work. She has been a stalwart supporter of many charitable causes, including Polo for Heart and the McMichael and Varley art galleries.

Throughout her entire life, Heather Sifton has always reached for the sky in her personal, community and professional undertakings. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I congratulate Heather Sifton on achieving this well-deserved recognition of her lifelong contribution to aviation in Canada.

PREMIER'S AWARDS FOR

TEACHING EXCELLENCE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to let members know that nominations are now being accepted for the Premier's Awards for Teaching Excellence.

Each school day, parents hand over their most precious gift—their children—to teachers. The McGuinty government commends the work that teachers and school board staff do on a daily basis to help our students reach their full potential.

The Premier's awards are a great way to acknowledge those individuals who choose to make a difference in our children's education. Starting today, parents, students, educators and community members can nominate an outstanding educator or support staff worker for an award. The deadline for nominations is February 1, 2010. The Ministry of Education has just launched the fourth year of this highly successful program, which has seen more than 3,000 nominations received and 50 educators and support staff recognized for this prestigious award.

These awards signify the McGuinty government's commitment to our education system and understanding that our teachers are its backbone. I encourage all members of the House and all Ontarians to recognize the efforts of Ontario's teachers not just until February 1 but all through the year.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: It gives me pleasure to rise and talk about the latest initiative in the McGuinty government's ongoing commitment to improving driver safety across Ontario. The McGuinty Liberals have made tremendous progress in improving road safety through repairs to aging infrastructure, tough new street racing legislation and the aerial enforcement of the 400-series highways. This government also recognizes that a leading cause of collisions is distracted drivers, and I am pleased that our bill to ban the use of electronic communication devices while driving will take effect October 26, 2009.

We also realize that education surrounding this legislation is essential, and tickets will be issued beginning February 1, following a three-month driver education campaign. Our legislation will extend to the multitude of electronic communication devices currently on the market, including BlackBerrys, PDAs and hand-held GPS devices, making this legislation truly groundbreaking. Ontario joins more than 50 countries worldwide, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia, in understanding that attentive drivers are the first step in reducing traffic accidents and fatalities.

This legislation is another example of the bold moves taken by the McGuinty Liberals to increase driver safety on Ontario roads. We'll continue to work hard so that people arrive home safely to their loved ones—

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

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: On this day 60 years ago exactly, October 1, 1949, a great event took place in the history of mankind: the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Today, as you know, Mr. Speaker—you were present—we raised the flag of the People's Republic. As the flag was raised, we were reminded of a number of items of history.

This flag today speaks to us. It speaks to us about the great revolution and the great drive for independence. It speaks to us for the determination of the Chinese people to ensure that they structure their own future and determine their own destiny, because we remember what happened in the past when China was divided: China was dominated and China was divided up between the great powers.

So today, as we raise this flag, we are reminded of this history of pain and this history of suffering, but we were also reminded of a chance to think about liberty and freedom: freedom for the Chinese people to look into the future and to ensure that the relationship between Canada and China is being maintained and, in fact, expanded.

But what is most important when you raise this flag is that we are reminded of the Chinese Canadian people who have maintained and ensured that our own country is being built, that our own country is being changed, and we look towards the future.

I want to ensure that we recognize the people who have come today not only to help us to celebrate but to maintain and cement the friendship between Canada and China. There is the consul general of the People's Republic of China, Madam Zhu. Next to her is her husband, Mr. Huo. Next to her husband is the vice-governor of Henan province, Mr. Mancang. Next to her is Mr. Lu, who is the vice-consul of China.

Congratulations, and we wish you very well as we think about the future of the relationship between Canada and China.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We welcome our guests, and to my friend the consul general, Madam Zhu, welcome to Queen's Park.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business such that Mr. O'Toole assumes ballot item number 42 and Mr. Runciman assumes ballot item number 43.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent for each member to wear a purple bracelet—

Interjection: The ribbon.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: —and the ribbon in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month, and for a member from each party to speak for up to five minutes regarding Child Abuse Prevention Month.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I rise today to recognize that October is Child Abuse Prevention Month. I thank the members of the House who are joining me in bringing awareness to this important cause by wearing a purple ribbon, pin or bracelet. The purple ribbon campaign reminds Ontarians everywhere about the signs of abuse and neglect, and their obligation to report suspected cases.

Abuse takes many forms. It can be physical, emotional or sexual. Abuse can also take the form of neglect. Neglect is when a caregiver fails to provide basic needs to a child, such as food, shelter and safety.

Too often after a tragic event occurs, neighbours, colleagues or friends are heard remarking that something didn't seem right. Well, if something doesn't seem right, there's a chance that it's not right, and expressing that concern after the event is simply too late.

Children are least able to protect themselves. They count on the adults around them to defend them. That's why all of us have both a moral and a legal responsibility to report suspicions to our authorities.

You will not be alone if you report your concerns; last year, thousands of people did. Children's aid societies across the province investigated more than 77,000 reports of alleged abuse.

The legal duty to report suspected abuse and neglect extends to all Ontarians. Our government is committed to the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society. We're committed to protecting children and youth and supporting a strengthened child well-being and protection system.

I want to take this opportunity to salute our CASs across the province and the dedicated professionals and service providers who are making the difference each and every day for those most at risk.

It is enormously challenging work. I am reminded of the great difference that caring individuals and a caring community can make.

As you know, a few years ago our government made changes to the Child and Family Services Act. We brought in reforms that make it easier for relatives to provide permanent homes for children and youth. And it has made a difference: There are fewer kids coming into care and more moving into permanent placements.

But with almost 10,000 crown wards in Ontario's system, we have much work to do. We're all committed to helping crown wards succeed.

A big step forward is occurring through the child welfare outcomes expert reference group. Our government established this group, which includes members of children's aid societies, child welfare researchers and youth in care, so we can better help kids reach their full potential. Through their work, the ministry and CASs will identify a set of key outcomes for all children and youth receiving and/or transitioning from child welfare services in Ontario. We're focused on helping kids in care gain a higher degree of resiliency, improve their educational achievement and make smoother transitions to emerging adulthood.

This is entirely consistent with the direction our government is taking, but government programs alone cannot reduce or stop abuse. This is a collective responsibility. I urge all members of the House and all Ontarians to use their voice and report known or suspected child abuse and neglect to their local CAS.

Everyone has a role to play today and every day to speak out on behalf of abused children. Each and every one of us has the power to protect the safety and well-being of a child. It's up to us to speak up for those who aren't able to speak up for themselves.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I'm pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus on the beginning of Child Abuse Prevention Month here in Ontario.

We are wearing our purple ribbons today to remind us that, as citizens, we have the moral and legal obligation to report any suspected cases of child abuse or neglect that may be happening in our communities. As legislators, we have the responsibility to ensure that these children are well taken care of outside of their abusive or neglectful situations and that the legal system does not fail them.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I would first like to express our thanks to those who are working every day to help people overcome their experiences with child abuse. I urge all members of this Legislature to work towards raising awareness not just during the month of October but every month.

Children need to know that we as legislators and as Ontarians stand behind them. It is important that we provide the front-line child abuse care providers with the tools they need to provide the best possible care for our children. Protecting the children of Ontario is important to everyone. Unfortunately, we wake up daily to newspaper reports of children being abused, neglected, exploited and, in the worst cases, dying.

We all remember the case of seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson. Her young life came to an abrupt end on August 2, 2008, when she was found dead in the apartment of her caregiver and legal guardian. Katelynn's legal guardian and her boyfriend were charged with second-degree murder.

We have a responsibility to ensure that children in Ontario are safe, secure and have a bright future to look forward to. Although we know cases like this do happen, it is unacceptable that children in this province are still being abused, with no regard for their safety or their lives. By acknowledging that children need to be protected within their homes, schools and communities, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that children are safe.

That is why my colleague Lisa MacLeod, the member for Nepean—Carleton, tried last spring with her private member's bill, the Children's Safety and Protection Rights Act. This bill would have been a step in the right direction to ensuring the safety of our province's children. This bill would have expanded Christopher's Law to include child abuse. It would have strengthened the Provincial Offences Act so that child abusers may be detained and unable to contact their victims. It also would have expanded the role of the Ombudsman and the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

Unfortunately, Liberal members chose to vote it down. It's unfortunate that we cared more about partisanship than we did about passing a law that would protect Ontario's children.

My colleague received much support for her bill, with endorsements coming from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, Boost Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention, and the Ontario Ombudsman, to name a few.

During debate this afternoon, another one of my colleagues, Gerry Martiniuk, the member for Cambridge, will debate his private member's bill. This bill will ensure that libraries and schools in Ontario install software that will block pornographic websites. As today marks the beginning of Child Abuse Prevention Month, we hope that the Liberal members will see how passionate my colleague is about protecting children and that they will support him by passing Bill 202.

I think that we can all agree that we all want young people across the province of Ontario to have the means and support to reach their full potential, especially children in the most vulnerable situations.

As citizens, parents and legislators, we have the duty to ensure that our children are protected and that they have the opportunity to reach their full potential. It is our job to make sure that children have the tools necessary to help them build a brighter and better Ontario.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I rise today really in honour of the memory of Katelynn Sampson. Katelynn was a constituent of mine, as is her mother, Bernice Sampson. Bernice is someone I see and pass on the streets at least once a month. Bernice is a woman who has struggled with addiction issues all her life, and I can't help but think, on this eve of Child Abuse Prevention Month, how we—and I'm not going to be partisan about this—failed that family. We failed her as legislators; we failed her as educators; we failed her as a law enforcement and justice system; we failed her on all counts. The hope is that this year, this time, we'll do something differently.

Here is what we should be doing differently. Number one, we need to have enough money in our school system that there are enough adults whose eyes are on our children. That is to say, when a little girl goes missing from school for three months, it can't stop with a phone call home to see if she's okay, where an adult voice at the end of the line says, "Yes, she is." It can't stop there. There has to be follow-up. Quite frankly, it wasn't the fault of the public school; they just didn't have the money to send somebody out to check out that this little girl had been sent back to her reserve, which was what the line was on the other end. So we failed her there.

Had Bernice, her mother, had access to good child care, that little girl would have been in child care, but she couldn't afford good child care. She didn't have the social worker to send her child to good child care. So instead, she felt it was in the interest of the child to give her over to a couple she thought would look after her.

Then what happened? That's where the justice system failed her. Then the judge who presided over that case signed off on Katelynn Sampson without checking the criminal record of the foster caregivers. We wouldn't do that for a dog, but we did it for a child.

We know what happened at the end. But this little girl still, her spirit, I think, cries out really for redemption and for some kind of action, real action.

Today we heard the member from Kenora—Rainy River, who asked a question on behalf of over 30 children's aid societies across Ontario, all of which are chronically underfunded. They cannot provide the care to the high-risk children in their care. Surely, that's the first thing we should be doing: providing enough funding for all the CASs to do the work that they should do. So that's something else we can do.

What else can we do, an action that we could take? Certainly, the member from Dufferin—Caledon talked about a couple. I'd like to add my own.

We, on behalf of Maria Jones, another constituent, and Holly Jones—not a victim of abuse per se, a victim of violence, but Maria has decided to have something happen in Holly's memory, and that something is the Boost program in every elementary school. We have been working with the Boost providers and we have been talking to the Minister of Education. July 10 is when Boost applied to have their program made accessible to all the elementary teachers across this province. They're still waiting.

So I would ask—I see the Minister of Education here—that that program be made available to all the elementary teachers who want it, because it will assist them with identifying those in their classrooms who may be being abused, and it will give them the tools to deal with those in their classrooms who may be abused. That should be across the system. Maria Jones specifically has asked for this because she recognizes that although nothing might have saved her little girl, something very well might have been done to save other little girls, other little girls like Katelynn—and other little boys as well.

So, am I pleased to rise? On the advent of Child Abuse Prevention Month, I think of that great biblical saying, "Better that a millstone be hung around their necks and they be thrown into the deepest sea than that they hurt a hair on the head of one of these."

Now it's our turn, as all parties, to do everything within our means to prevent abuse from happening tomorrow, tonight, this afternoon, while we speak, because it is happening while we speak. Again, I just dedicate these comments in honour of the memory of Katelynn Sampson.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have a petition sent to me by Preston Travel Centre Limited and Cambridge Insurance, which reads:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election, but in 2004 he brought in the health tax, the biggest tax hike in Ontario's history, but he still wants to cut health care services and nurses;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty will increase taxes again on Canada Day 2010 with his new 13% combined GST, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new 13% combined GST will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as: coffee, gas at the pumps, home heating oil, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, veterinary care, arena ice, Internet fees, theatre admissions, funerals, courier fees, fast food sold for more than $4, bus fares, golf green fees, gym fees, snowplowing, bicycles, taxi fares, train fares, domestic air travel, accountant services and real estate commissions;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes, once and for all, on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

As I agree with the petition, I affix my name thereto.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Joe Dickson: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas current changes to ServiceOntario will expand and improve access to licensing, registration, health card renewal and other services; it will also close effective and service-oriented local businesses and cost us local jobs, such as the licence office that the Donald family has owned and operated in Whitby and Durham region for over 50 years; and

"Whereas we recognize the quality of service provided by the Donald family to be rated above the 100% efficiency level, including extended hours;

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

"That the Donald family be maintained as a licence bureau of the highest quality in the region of Durham."

I will submit the balance of about 1,500 names that have been delegated to this forum in the last week.

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition signed by hundreds, thousands, if not more, residents of Oxford county. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas residents of Oxford do not want Dalton McGuinty's new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to home sales over $500,000; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families, farmers and low-income Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario families."

Thank you very much, Speaker, for allowing me to present this petition. I will sign it, as I agree with it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly that has been very kindly sent to me by the brothers and sisters at the ISNA mosque in Mississauga. I especially want to thank Dr. Mohammed Ashraf, Zubair Malik and Muhammad Haroon for having collected the signatures on this. It reads as follows:

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA area served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the ongoing capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be performed in an off-site facility. An ambulatory surgery centre would greatly increase the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, reduce wait times for patients and free up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2009-10 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

I'm pleased to sign and to support this petition and to ask Connor to carry it for me.

TAXATION

Mr. Frank Klees: I have petitions here relating to the HST, which is strongly opposed by many thousands in my constituency. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election, but in 2004 he brought in the health tax, the biggest tax hike in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty will increase taxes yet again with his new 13% combined sales tax, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new 13% sales tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as coffee, newspapers and magazines, gas at the pumps, home heating oil and electricity, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, some health care services such as athletic therapy, acupuncture and massage therapy, veterinary care, and arena ice and soccer field rentals;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes, once and for all, on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

I'm pleased to affix my signature in support of this petition.

TAXATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have petitions presented to me by Alison Tone and Lois Cybalski from Cambridge, which read:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election, but in 2004 he brought in the health tax, the largest tax hike in Ontario's history, but he still cuts health care services and nurses;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty will increase taxes yet again on Canada Day 2010, with his new 13% combined GST, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new 13% combined GST will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as coffee ... gas at the pumps, home heating oil and electricity, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, veterinary care, arena ice and soccer field rentals, Internet fees, theatre admissions, funerals, courier fees, fast food sold for" more than "$4, bus fares, golf green fees, gym fees, snowplowing, bicycles, taxi fares, train fares, domestic air travel, accountant services and real estate commissions;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes, once and for all, on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

As I agree with the petition, I affix my name thereto.

PARENTING EDUCATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that I would like to read on behalf of my seatmate, the hard-working member for Niagara Falls. It reads as follows:

"Whereas effective parenting practices do not come instinctively, and parenting is our most crucial social role, parenting and human development courses need to be taught to all secondary school students. Parenting education will reduce teen pregnancies; reduce the rate of costly fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and increase the number of healthy pregnancies; reduce the number of costly social problems related to ineffective parenting practices; and improve the 'social fabric' of Ontario to create a more civil society.

Parenting education for students is considered to be socially valuable by a majority of adults of voting age and should be included as a mandatory credit course within the Ontario curriculum;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the requirements for the Ontario secondary school diploma to include one senior level (grade 11 or 12) credit course in parenting education (students to select one of: living and working with children [HPW3C]; parenting [HPC30]; issues in human growth and development [HHG4M]; parenting and human development [HPD4E]) as a compulsory credit."

On behalf of the member for Niagara Falls, I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition and to ask page Ava to carry it for me.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition on the McGuinty sales tax. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is planning to merge the 8% provincial sales tax and the 5% federal sales tax; and

"Whereas the new 13% sales tax will be applied to products and services not previously subject to provincial sales tax, such as gasoline, home heating fuels, home renovations, haircuts, hamburgers, television service, Internet service, telephone and cell services, taxi fees, bus, train and airplane tickets, and dry cleaning services;

"Whereas rural and northern Ontarians will be particularly hard hit by Mr. McGuinty's new sales tax, as will seniors and families;

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

"That the McGuinty government should eliminate the new sales tax."

I'll give this to Nicole.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jeff Leal: I just got a petition from a Cathy Walker who lives in Mississauga, Ontario.

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA area served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the vigorous capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be performed in an off-site facility, thus greatly increasing the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, alleviating wait times for patients and freeing up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2008-09 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

I agree with this petition and will give it to Alyssa.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRONIC

SEXUAL MATERIAL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ÉDUCATION

(DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL)

Mr. Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 202,

An Act to protect our children from pornography / Projet de loi 202, Loi visant à protéger nos enfants contre la pornographie.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 98, the member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: The title of this bill is

An Act to protect our children from pornography, and it aims to do one thing and one thing only: protect children from viewing pornography and other sexually explicit material on the Internet, in our schools and libraries. It does not affect Internet content outside of our schools and libraries.

In the event you are not familiar with hard-core porn on the Internet, it goes far beyond the familiar Playboy. We are talking about degrading sexual violence to women and young children.

I personally was not aware that libraries and schools weren't required to use Internet filtering software until one of my constituents, Rob Nickel, witnessed a man downloading porn at the Cambridge library. There were two young children sitting next to this man. Coincidentally, Nickel is a retired police officer who worked online undercover in the OPP child pornography unit.

Industry sources estimate that only 30% to 35% of the children in Ontario are protected in our schools and libraries by Internet filtering. That's right: 65% to 70% of our children are presently unprotected.

Currently, Rob Nickel operates Cyber Safety and tours North America, educating parents, teachers and other groups about the importance of keeping our children safe online, so you can appreciate his deep concern when he witnessed graphic images on a computer at a public library in my area. Cambridge is the only library system in Waterloo region that does not use filters to block offensive material. We are fortunate that all the schools in our region do protect children by Internet filtering.

Recently, I received a copy of a letter that a London, Ontario, woman wrote to several politicians and library administrators. The letter explains that she witnessed a male patron of the London library viewing very graphic and degrading images of women. In the letter she wrote: "I didn't have to peer over his shoulder because it was on full display to anyone who walked or sat nearby. I moved and complained to the librarian that there were children in the area. I was given a complaint slip and told there was nothing they could do. I received the same response when I spoke to the library management the next day. 'Porn is not illegal,' I was told."

Ironically, this incident at the London, Ontario, library occurred two days after a 71-year-old man from the same city was charged after a complaint was received that he was viewing and printing child pornography at the central branch of the London Public Library. A search warrant executed at his residence resulted in a charge of accessing child pornography, possessing child pornography and printing child pornography.

We cannot permit such activity to occur in public places frequented by our children. If one child is exposed to pornography, it is one child too many, and as I have said, 65% to 70% of our children are presently without protection.

Premier McGuinty has stated that it is not up to the government but the parents to protect their children from pornography. Well, the province's top cop disagrees. In a Cambridge Times

article published September 25, 2009, OPP officer Julian Fantino agreed that filters are a must and government legislation should not be required for something that just makes sense.

"'These are things that are just common sense,' he told the Times.... 'It's just the right thing to do.'

"Fantino's talk" to the Kiwanis Club of Cambridge "emphasized a greater need to protect children from Internet predators who use" their computers to lure children for sex....

"'We are all responsible for the well-being of our children,' he said. 'Besides, it makes no sense. These are places where the learning is supposed to be happening.'"

Internet filtering software is so advanced that fears of useful information being blocked are unfounded. There is no doubt that the software in its infancy, some 15 to 20 years ago, had numerous bugs and faults, but today the software on the market is much more sophisticated. Internet filtering software has advanced well beyond the simple search for words. With this simplistic methodology, the example of "breast cancer" would run the risk of being blocked. Now with the advanced programs, these problems have been solved.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, schools and libraries use Internet filtering software. Those countries are way ahead of us and point the way to the future. Libraries in the United States started using Internet filtering in the late 1990s due to community pressure and the Children's Internet Protection Act. CIPA is a federal law that requires all computers in public libraries to be filtered if that library accepts any federal funds for computers that access the Internet or costs associated with connection to the Internet.

One industry expert who endorsed my bill through a letter to the Premier says that on average, kids begin to use computers and the Internet at the age of three. As you can imagine, young children learning to use a mouse have a tendency to click all over the screen. More than 26 children's sites, such as Pokémon and My Little Pony, have the potential to lead to pornographic sites.

Raheema Rehmtulla, from PurePages, a company that specializes in clean, safe Internet usage, writes: "On the Internet we are not just dealing with people from our own community; we are dealing with people all around the world, strangers to children: people that can teach them many things about parts of the world, and people that can also lure them into the world of child pornography. This is not a problem just in Ontario or Canada but a global problem. That is why the United States is working on it, and Australian, Chinese, Sri Lankan and Japanese governments are already enforcing different laws about Internet safety. We need to act now to help save our communities and children."

Accordin