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

April 21, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-21 (PDF)

L019 - Wed 21 Apr 2010 / Mer 21 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 April 2010 Mercredi 21 avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L’APPRENTISSAGE

DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

WEARING OF RIBBONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHARMACISTS

PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FOREST INDUSTRY

DIABETES TREATMENT

CURRICULUM

LABOUR DISPUTE

VICTIMS OF CRIME

WIND TURBINES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

DOCTORS

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BOTTLE RECYCLING

EVENT IN CHATHAM–KENT–ESSEX

TAXATION

SAULT COLLEGE

THOUSAND ISLANDS ACCOMMODATION PARTNERS

LABOUR DISPUTE

JER’S VISION

GEORGE JEFFREY

CHILDREN’S CENTRE

JACK YEILDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEFIBRILLATOR ACCESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’ACCÈS

AUX DÉFIBRILLATEURS

VINCE KERRIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

EARTH DAY

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

EARTH DAY

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

CHRONIC PAIN CLINICS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

EPILEPSY

TAXATION

OPPOSITION DAY

PHARMACISTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L’APPRENTISSAGE

DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 20, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 242,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in relation to early childhood educators, junior kindergarten and kindergarten, extended day programs and certain other matters / Projet de loi 242, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation et d’autres lois en ce qui concerne les éducateurs de la petite enfance, la maternelle et le jardin d’enfants, les programmes de jour prolongé et d’autres questions.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I am pleased to continue the debate we embarked upon yesterday concerning Bill 242, the Full Day Early Learning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010. This bill, of course, was introduced—first reading took place—on February 17 this year, and we’ve had our social policy standing committee meetings and had input from stakeholders. But again, I do want to make the point that there were three days of hearings; however, it was not enough to accommodate all the people and groups throughout the province who obviously had concerns with the bill and wanted to make recommendations in order to strengthen the bill on behalf of families and children in the province of Ontario.

I also want to reiterate the fact that, despite the many organizations and individuals who did appear before us, the amendments that were introduced were not ones that were put forward by either of the two opposition parties. We tried to introduce amendments that reflected the input of those who did appear. Regrettably, none of our amendments were accepted, and the only changes that were made were changes that were made by the government. At the end of the day, much of the input that was received wasn’t taken into consideration, and, as a result, the bill is probably not the best it can be on behalf of children and families in the province of Ontario.

As you know, this bill amends the Education Act. It’s going to provide for the operation of junior kindergarten and kindergarten on a full-day basis. It’s also going to provide for the operation by boards of education of extended day programs for four- and five-year-olds outside the hours of junior kindergarten and kindergarten.

This was probably the most contentious issue, because unfortunately, once the transition period is finished, it’s going to eliminate the provision of those services by private, not-for-profit child care providers, one of whom has been doing this in Ontario for 150 years; so there is a great deal of concern about the livelihood of those providers—those small businesses—and the fact that they will no longer be in a position to provide services for four- and five-year-olds in the province of Ontario.

Of course, the third part of the bill allows for the appointment of early childhood educators to positions in junior kindergarten, kindergarten and extended day programs. That is certainly new.

Anyway, I’ve expressed my concerns about Bill 242. Many people who came said that the bill was a good idea. They did support it, and they liked the direction it was heading. This information came from the private, not-for-profit providers as well. In fact, I have a quote from the London Bridge Child Care Services Inc. They are a not-for-profit organization currently dedicated to the care of children aged zero to five years. They have 14 child care centres in London, Sarnia and Exeter—of course, that’s my hometown—they currently serve over 1,200 children and they have a staff of 286 educators.

They are very proud of the services they have been able to provide for infants, toddlers and children.

Their response is that they support the Ontario government’s vision for full-day early learning for four- and five-year-olds, as recommended in the Pascal report entitled With Our Best Future in Mind. However, they are concerned about the fact that they will no longer be in a position to provide services to four- and five-year-olds, and of course there’s a concern that the child care systems in the province that currently have been providing care for children zero to four in particular could break down with the elimination of their eligibility to continue to provide care for those four- and five-year-olds. Again, this is a concern.

They also point out that Pascal did recommend that community partnerships and collaboration were important. It appears that this government has chosen to ignore those components of the Pascal report, just as the government chose to ignore the part that talked about parental choice. My colleague Lisa MacLeod has pointed out that she received a message from the board in Ottawa indicating that if full-day kindergarten is offered at her daughter’s school and they don’t want it, they need to move to another school.

I think there is a lot of concern about the fact that there was a little bit of cherry-picking when it came to what the government decided to do as far as the Pascal report was concerned. The one component they have conveniently decided to abandon is the approach he recommended concerning community partnerships and collaboration. That, of course, is going to have an impact on the entire child care sector, and I am concerned that many of our children will not have providers, because some of these people did depend upon the fees that were paid by the four- and five-year-olds to subsidize the infants and toddlers.

It’s much more expensive, of course, to provide for care at a younger age, because your ratio of provider to child is smaller and you have to accommodate infants and toddlers; their needs are quite different than those of the four- and five-year-olds. There are people who have expressed concern about what the government is doing.

The other issue that has arisen is the whole issue of fees. The government has stated repeatedly that the issue surrounding the fees charged by boards—and this is for the care that’s offered to the four- and five-year-olds outside of the school day—is an issue that is yet to be determined, so we have no idea what the cost is going to be. The government says it is going to be determined by regulation. That is a big part of the problem with this legislation: It was introduced in haste.

We know that education basically comes to a halt at the end of June, so we have about two more months to go and, really, the implementation plan is non-existent.

There’s very little information available about what type of curriculum; how all of this will roll out; who’s going to be providing the extended daycare; who’s going to be providing the daycare for the four- and five-year-olds; and how long the private, not-for-profit people will be allowed to continue to offer these programs in the schools until such time as the boards of education assume responsibility for the four- and five-year-olds’ daycare outside of the school day.

That means that if the boards are now going to have to offer this daycare outside of the school day, there are going to be fees. The government says they aren’t going to introduce a standard province-wide fee for service. They’ve indicated instead that they’re going to leave these fees to the discretion of each individual school board. Of course, all this information that I’m putting on the public record isn’t information that I’ve decided is of concern; I’m standing here today trying to reflect the input of all of those who made a verbal presentation to the committee or gave us a written submission. Somebody indicated that this could result in a race “to the bottom.”

The other big issue—you know what? I’ve referred to it before. We have a government that has the highest deficit in the history of the province of Ontario—it’s over $21 billion—and no plan to balance the budget. They’ve indicated that it will probably happen over eight years, but without a plan, we don’t know if that, indeed, is even possible, because they’re not going to reduce their spending this year. In fact, they’re introducing a very expensive new program. There are concerns that this is going to impact on other educational programs—in particular, special education.

Having been a teacher myself, a school board chair and Minister of Education, I know full well that there are many, many children who have special education needs whose needs have not yet been addressed. Unfortunately, this can, again, take money away from those areas.

We have a program that’s going to cost at least $1.5 billion when it’s fully operational. However, we know that the majority of schools don’t have the physical capacity to accommodate the students. As a result, there’s going to be a lot of money that needs to be made available for either renovations to facilities to make them appropriate for the four- and five-year-olds in junior full-day kindergarten, or we’re going to have to add additions to schools. The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has estimated that the cost of the program will be beyond the $1.5 billion—which I suspect it will, too. They’re saying it will cost at least $1.8 billion annually.

Cost was a concern that was pointed out by many of the presenters, and of course if I go back to the fact that the schools in years one and two are going to be chosen based on the fact that they probably have the physical capacity for the program, then once you get into years three, four and five, those schools will obviously need considerable renovations and additions. So far, the government has only announced $250 million, but I do anticipate, and certainly people who made presentations indicated, that those costs are going to be much higher. It will be over $1 billion there, of course, as well.

One of the other things that we did hear from trustees and certainly from those who made representations was a lack of an implementation plan, and concern about that. Of course, Irene Atkinson, a long-serving trustee in the Toronto District School Board, said that she and other trustees thought this was “one of the most ill-conceived and badly thought-through programs the province has ever announced.”

Interjection.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I don’t think she is a Conservative.

Interjections.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: She might be, but I can assure you—I would say to you that Irene, who I know vaguely, is a person who has always expressed an interest—obviously, if you’re a trustee for that long, your primary interest is students in the classroom, and that is the comment that she made.

I can also quote from a Durham District School Board trustee, Michael Barrett. I don’t know Michael. He says, “The funding is not adequate to roll out the program as prescribed by the province.” In fact, there were trustees in the GTA who were quite concerned about the program and the lack of detail coming from the province. They got together, I believe, on April 12—it’s quoted in the Toronto Star: There was a meeting of trustees on Saturday from “Toronto, York region, Durham region and several other smaller boards.” He goes on to say, “There will be some very difficult choices to make. We will have to take out dollars from other” programs. I think that’s what I have just talked about.

Then we have trustee Howard Goodman, vice-president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, who says, “With an issue this complex, with all the nuances of the relationship between daycares and schools, it’s not humanly possible to get it right on the first cut, so we hope the legislation will be flexible.” He goes on to urge the province to put the nitty-gritty details of implementation into regulations that can be tweaked on short notice if needed.

Again, we have Catherine Fife, vice-president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, saying some school boards are “really struggling with the transition to the full-day model,” and the need to focus on that. Of course she raises the fact that school boards have never charged fees before—they don’t have a structure in place—and points out that many boards have groups like the Y and the Boys and Girls Clubs running child care centres in their schools, so there is an established relationship there. I can tell you, Mr. Bradley, that she’s not of the party.

I would say that trustees throughout the province of Ontario are raising concerns. I was a chair and a trustee, and do you know what? They have a responsibility to do that. It doesn’t mean that they disagree with the program, but it’s a major educational initiative—probably the most major reform I’ve seen for many, many years—and we need to get it right the first time. There is a lot of anxiety out there on the part of trustees, administrators, teachers, parents and, obviously, organizations whose livelihood could well disappear.

That’s important, and I need to get this on the record, because all these people have spent time making representations and we need to know that there are concerns out there.

I want to quote an editorial in my paper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, on April 3. It’s John Haddock, chief executive officer of the YMCA of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. Everybody knows that the YMCA has delivered high-quality programs for children up to age 12 in our schools in the province of Ontario. He says: “Now imagine Ontario’s 72 school boards spending time and money to establish and administer extended day programs. It would be duplication on a massive scale, needlessly using precious resources and resulting in increased costs for school boards, and ultimately, taxpayers. The fees that parents pay now for this care—to the YMCA or other providers—will almost certainly rise.”

I want to quote Jamie Gunn, superintendent of business, Grand Erie District School Board. This appeared in the Brantford Expositor on March 12: “The Grand Erie District School Board could be looking at a $500,000 shortfall in funding for the first year of full-day kindergarten.

“And, according to cost estimates released this week, the board would be forced to charge parents significantly more than current daycare providers for before- and after-school care to make the program break even.”

He also says, “‘The program leaves us with some concerns, and we’re not alone.’”

This is important. Then, a trustee on the Grand Erie board goes on to say: “‘We don’t know where we are going to get half a million dollars.... We are going to have to take money out of other programming to fund this. I don’t think that’s good for kids or good for the system.’”

There are other quotes like that, and I raise them because, despite the fact that people are not necessarily opposed to this initiative, certainly there are some legitimate concerns about the implementation process, the haste with which the program is being rolled out.

I think that one of the greatest concerns is probably going to focus on the four- and five-year-olds for whom, I guess if you have the program in your school, the daycare outside of the school day will need to be provided by the school. But what happens to all those other children who don’t have full-day care available? And what happens once full-day care is made available? What’s going to happen during the summer and on holidays? There are a lot of questions that are left. I would say that the responses we got in clause-by-clause were not very reassuring as to giving some certainty to parents and providers about what is going to happen.

Fees and partnerships are other issues. I think that parents are left wondering about funding, about fees, about access. Obviously, boards are left wondering how they’re going to be able to pay for this program and how they’re going to make sure that they roll it out in a way that really is responsive to the needs of the children in their community.

I would say to the government that, despite the fact that many people support the initiative, if you had given it an additional year before you rolled it out, people would probably have been a little bit happier. Maybe you should have tried to pilot the program. We used to do this quite often, I think, in the province of Ontario, if there were initiatives, in order to get it right, in order to identify some of the consequences, some of them quite unintended. If you have some pilot programs in boards throughout the province of Ontario, in different geographical locations, you can also identify some of the problems.

Cost is a big issue, but personally, having been in a leadership position in education, my personal biggest concern is that the program has been rolled out in haste. There hasn’t been a plan of implementation, and there are far too many questions that remain to be answered. Certainly we heard the government say in clause-by-clause, “That’s going to be in regulation.” Well, I would just point out to you again that the educational system shuts down after the end of June. We have two months to get the facts out to school boards and to parents in order that parents will have some certainty when September rolls around.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to congratulate the member for Kitchener–Waterloo for a number of things. She does raise many good questions that I will speak to in about eight minutes, questions that many parents have raised, and others in the child care field, that have not been adequately addressed by this government in spite of the assurances that they will. I have no security that they indeed will do that.

I congratulate her for listening to some of the deputations because she introduced some amendments that connected very clearly to what the deputants had to say, unlike the government that pretended they did, that says they did. They claim they made amendments after listening to the deputations, and have done absolutely nothing. But to her credit, she did introduce a couple of amendments that reflected what people were saying.

I was alarmed because I took the liberty of reviewing the comments of the minister and the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant said, “We listened” to what people had to say. It was “valuable input.” “Their feedback led our government to propose several amendments to Bill 242 to the standing committee which considered the legislation before referring it to today’s third reading.” She says as well, “The bill before us today is a stronger piece of legislation thanks to their input, and I’m pleased, of course, to be standing here today to speak in favour of Bill 242.”

Thanks to their input? I and the member for Kitchener–Waterloo were the only ones who introduced amendments because of the input. They introduced absolutely nothing, and the amendments they introduced were utterly inconsequential.

To the member, thank you for some of the amendments you introduced and for listening to the deputations.

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to thank the members from Kitchener–Waterloo and from Trinity–Spadina for their comments, especially the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I had the pleasure of working with her when she was the education minister several years ago.

Investing in early learning is good for the children in this province, it’s good for parents and it’s good for Ontario. By implementing it next year, up to 35,000 four- and five-year-olds in nearly 1,400 classes in almost 600 schools will benefit from the first phase of full-day learning in September. To delay would mean another year that our children are without full-day learning.

You talked about doing pilot programs and having it available for boards. In 2002, my former school board, Trillium Lakelands, introduced full-day learning in 18 of our schools. We called it the RACE program, Reading and Counting Every Day. We had the same type of discussion and push-back as we were moving to implement this program. What happened after a year was that the concerns were unfounded. In fact, daycare spaces were opened up within the community, people had more access to it and it was very successful. Unfortunately, at that time, we did not have the funding to continue this program to do it long-term.

Regarding special education, if there’s one thing that children in this province will benefit from, it’s early identification. This has been talked about in reports for years: that the earlier a child is identified with special needs, the better chance that child has with success. By having the children in these programs, we will be able to have teachers come in and assess children earlier, find out if they have special needs and address those special needs. Ultimately, that will be great for the children.

As for timing, we’re in a severe period of declining enrolment in the province. Many school boards in this province currently have the room to implement this.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to commend the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, who explained in her remarks her contribution to education from parent to teacher to board chair and, I think, educator of the year at one time, as well as Minister of Education. I think we should all listen and learn.

She raises a number of very important points, that there really are more questions than answers. In fact, she points out very importantly that the legislation does not follow the recommendations of Dr. Pascal. The early implementation is being questioned across the board, certainly in my area of Durham, as she did mention.

I can only say that the issue that I see is, basically, the school year, and the question of: What do parents do on those times in late June, July and August? What do they do on professional development days? What do they do during Christmas break and March break?

So it is inconsistent, but it actually dismantles the current regulated daycare system that does exist because the articles I’ve read is that this is one of the problems, where they’ve acquiesced to the powerful teachers’ unions and, primarily, without causing a conflict here, they didn’t even recognize the legitimacy of the early childhood educators who actually do the job today, who are regulated professionals, who are trained, competent and capable. There is a growing conflict, there’s no question there, about who’s in charge.

If you look at the

article that I’m going to refer to, it says here, “Grand Erie trustee Don Werden called the plan to have school boards provide before- and after-care a ‘disaster waiting to happen.’

“Jim Wibberley, Grand Erie’s education director, has complained that ‘we are not only going to be a board of education, but a board of child care.’

“Child care centre operators say the children in their programs”—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, as I always do. She speaks with some considerable knowledge. She always speaks in a very balanced tone, is not accusatory and is simply making very good sense.

She talks about the program for all-day learning, which New Democrats support. She talked about some of the concerns that have been raised by educators, by school trustees and by parents, and largely they’re financial. She is right to key in upon the financial aspect, because it’s one thing to pass laws in this Legislature and it’s quite another, when it comes to budget time, to properly fund them.

We have seen this over and over again with well-meaning legislation that has been passed in this place that goes for naught. I think the finest example of that, although she didn’t speak to it, is clearly when we talked about helping disabled adults and the Passport funding and the Passport dollars, and the whole program that was supposed to make families and adults independent. When we talked in the Legislature, it seemed like a good thing to do, but I remember standing, as she has today, in the Legislature and saying, “This program will not work unless it is properly funded.”

She is raising the same concern here around all-day learning. Will it work? Yes, it will, but only if it is properly funded and only if the program is set out to meet the expectations of the schools, the trustees, the parents and the children. They have to be the priority. I’m simply saying to the government, listen to what she has to say and make sure that in this budget and in the budget that follows, as this program rolls out, the money is there to do it properly, because unless you do, the program will fail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Kitchener–Waterloo, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I do appreciate the comments that have been made by the member from Trinity–Spadina, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, my colleague from Durham and the member from Beaches–East York.

Do you know what? I personally agree, and I’ve always been a firm believer that if we can identify problems early and if we can give our children the best start in life, it’s important. In fact, that’s one of the reasons, when I was Minister of Health, we introduced the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program—that was the Harris government—that government today does an evaluation of all children at birth to identify whether or not those children are at risk. It may be physical, mental, psychological, whatever it might be.

Then, of course, we try to support those children and those families, because you’ve got to work with the families if you’re going to make a difference in the lives of children.

We also set up a preschool speech and language program to identify early those children who might have challenges. I’m a big supporter of the KidsAbility type of programs as well. That is so, so important. But for all of these programs, you need to make sure that they are properly funded. You need to listen to the concerns of the people in the province of Ontario, particularly the families and those with knowledge of the issue.

I just want to go back to what my colleague Mr. Marchese said. I think, at the end of the day, it was disappointing to have so many deputants appear before us, either in person or through written submissions, and then to see the government not accept their recommendations.

We have a bill, and we hope that we’ll see more details soon.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have to tell you that it’s a real pleasure to speak to Bill 242.

I want to say that we had many deputations—two Mondays, one Tuesday; from 2 to 6 on the Monday, 2 to 6 on the other Monday and 4 to 6 on the Tuesday. We were able to fit in a lot of people because we knew it was going to be a big concern. Originally, the government thought two days might accommodate it, and we said that we should leave it open because we think there are going to be more people who want to speak to it. There were, and that’s why we had a third day.

We listened to a whole lot of people who came to us from the non-profit-sector child care, some private sector as well—not many, but some. We had a lot of YMCAs and a whole lot of folks who provide early childhood education who had a lot of concerns about what the bill would do or wouldn’t do.

I want to begin by saying that I think Petr Varmuza framed it in a way that I believe was rather poetic. He said three things: Is it the right thing to do? Are we doing it right? Are we giving the right resources to this program? I thought those three Rs were just perfect for the debate, and I want to speak to those three Rs.

Is it the right thing to do? New Democrats say yes, it is. We are going to always have cycles in our economy where we’re going to have ups and downs. We can’t use every downward cycle as an excuse to deprive our children of the programs they need.

Is there unanimity around this program? No, there is no—

Hon. James J. Bradley: The sky’s the limit to the NDP.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Darrell Dexter understands the limitations of public office.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I thought we were on the same team on the right thing to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I don’t want to feel left out here.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Through you, Speaker, let me go over the right thing to do, and then we can talk about where we find ourselves with some problems.

There is no unanimity with respect to this program. In fact, I did a Goldhawk program and we had call-ins. There were a number of people who just opposed the idea of having full-time JK and full-time kindergarten. They believe—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Everybody said New Democrats support it, right? Listen to me. You’ve got to listen.

Mr. Michael Prue: Listen to him.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes. Put down the papers and the other reading and listen to the debate.

There are a number of parents who actually believe—men and women who have children—they should be responsible for the care of their children, and they believe in that strongly. I don’t want to deprive them of the right, or indeed the privilege to do that, if that is what they choose. But I know there are men and women in this society who would love to take care of their children. I know many men who would love to stay at home and watch their children, and many women who would love to do that as well. What we know is that many of them cannot afford to do that; they can’t.

If you live in downtown Toronto, in my riding, or Beaches–East York, housing is inaccessible to ordinary human beings. There are people who come and spend indeed $700,000, $800,000, and yes, spend another $100,000 to renovate. God bless. I don’t know how they do it; God bless. I don’t know that they are human or at a different echelon; I think they are up there somewhere. But they’re not the norm. They can’t afford a home in Toronto. Those who do have the pecunia to do so—God bless. But even outside of Toronto, in the GTA and beyond, housing is becoming inaccessible.

They can’t afford to stay at home and watch the little children; they can’t. So you’ve got families, large families, working and living in the same home to pay this mortgage that is never going to be paid. It’s not like the old days, when my father was able to pay our house, in 1962, in three years, with my older brother. My father and older brother—

Mr. Mike Colle: And the house only cost $10,000.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But it was a whole lot of money then, Michael.

Mr. Mike Colle: How much was it?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It was $14,000, a whole lot of money. My father was very afraid to have bought that house. You say, “How much was it?” but in those times it was a lot. And he was afraid. But they worked hard and they invested all their earnings into that mortgage, and people are doing the same today, except mortgages are so high today, relative to the earnings, that I don’t know how they do it.

So you have men and women calling on that program saying, “We can’t afford it. We want to watch our own children. It’s not right that we institutionalize our children in these programs.” I don’t agree with them. And I believe that’s a minority of people; I really do. But I acknowledge that that’s what they feel and that’s what they want. But I also want to make the point that there are a whole lot of people who can’t afford to do that, and there are a whole lot of people who want their kids to have the socialization of involvement with other children, the interaction with other children.

From a social, psychological, intellectual point of view, it is a good thing. This is not to say that those who stay at home and are watched by grandmothers is a bad thing. But they do not get that intellectual stimulation, intelligent play, that they would have in a child care, or indeed this program, that we believe is a good thing to have—good for children, good for families, good for our economy, good for society.

We’re currently spending over $2 billion in special education and not meeting their needs. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo said we should be spending money there. Well, she’s right. We could and should be spending adequately on special education, because it’s a growing problem. Between mental illness and a whole lot of other physiological problems that we are unluckily given by birth, we have to be able to be given the resources to help. More and more children are coming into our educational system with problems. We’ve got to help. And we have to prevent problems from setting in that become unalterable, by way of our ability to change them.

So we say, should we be spending more on special ed? Yes. But it’s not either-or. This program, we believe, as New Democrats, can identify problems early and can change that problem early on, to the extent that their problems will be resolved by the time they’re in grade 1. And if we’ve done that, this is good for that child, good for their families, good for the educational system. It’s a saving for the school system and for those families if we’re able to identify and deal with problems with children at an early age. There will always be some excuse not to do this. In our view, it’s long overdue.

We should do it now, of course, but we have to do it right, and I’m going to get to that in a moment.

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick offer full-day programs for five-year-olds. British Columbia and PEI are about to offer full-day programs for five-year-olds. We currently have 200 full-day kindergarten classes in Ontario’s public system. Eight Catholic boards offer full-day kindergarten, and the French school boards have offered it for some time. So we are growing in our experience with these programs, and this will bring it to another level, absolutely.

The question for me, then, becomes: Are we doing it right? This is where I have had strong disagreement with the government, because I believe we’re not doing it right. The government claims in its language to be doing so. The government claims and says, “We want to do this right.” They say it, but they’re not doing it in deeds, in actions. That’s where I believe we’re going to see problems in the implementation of this program, starting this coming September. Some of those problems are resolvable.

It is a question of whether the government will commit to dealing with it, providing the adequate resources or not, or will simply use the government line that says, “We’re taking our time. There are going to be wrinkles, as you know. We will get it right. It may take some time. Indeed, it may take another election for us to get it right.” And if we elect the Liberals again, they will commit the resources to getting it right. That’s what you’re going to get.

I guarantee that come this September, when the government realizes all the many problems, they will start announcing, for their election of 2011, a greater commitment of resources in order to be able to do this right. They will say, “Elect us, and we will do it right.” Guaranteed it’s coming.

We don’t think they’re doing this well. By not doing it well, it feeds into those who do not want this program to succeed, and that, in my view, is unfortunate. We are literally arming the enemy against this program by the inadequate preparation of it, and I find that deplorable. I want to get to some of those questions.

The minister in her remarks yesterday said, “Our stakeholders, including members of the education sector”—no, no, that’s the parliamentary assistant. Let’s see what the minister had to say: “As a result of their input”—meaning deputations—“we have made amendments to clarify the role that third party providers may play going forward.

I want to make it clear: Third party providers currently operating programs on school premises can continue to provide care and offer programs for children in other age groups, such as children six to 12 years of age, and to operate programs in schools for children of all ages beyond the regular school year. In addition, we intend to allow supporting regulations that would allow, on a transitional basis, those school boards that currently have third party operators providing programs on school premises to continue to offer before- and after-school programs for four- and five-year-olds.”

I want to say briefly to this point: The providers may have been worried about not being able to provide programs beyond JK and SK, but we don’t believe that they were under threat. So the government and the minister present it as if somehow, “We’ve listened to them, and we’ve protected those particular program providers from some taking away of a program that they have been doing for some time.” It was never under threat, that I am aware of. So they moved an amendment saying yes, clarifying, “Don’t worry; you’ll be able to provide that.”

But to the amendment that the member for Kitchener–Waterloo moved that would allow those providers to continue to provide programs for the four- and five-year-olds—they rejected that. So did I. I have reasons for that, as soon as I get to those amendments. But the government rejected the only amendment that would have responded to a genuine concern that various deputants made. So she says, “We intend to allow supporting regulations that would allow, on a transitional basis, those school boards that currently have third party operators.” We made amendments that spoke to that, and they rejected our amendments.

So now we are led to the belief or the conclusion that they have listened to the opposition party and listened to the deputants, but it will not be done in legislation; it will be done in regulation. Well, why could they not have supported an amendment that allows for that and give us the assurance and the security that that indeed would happen? They rejected all of our amendments.

But if you listened to the minister and the parliamentary assistant, you would think that they were listening attentively to all of the deputants and what they had to say and that, indeed, because of their listening to these folks, they would support amendments offered by the opposition, were they themselves inclined to do so. In my view, they did not listen at all, and I have absolutely no faith that they will do so in regulation.

I was disappointed in my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga, who said the valuable input and feedback of those who came to depute—the education sector, child care sector folks—“led our government to propose several amendments to Bill 242 to the standing committee, which considered the legislation before referring it to today’s third reading.” I want to say to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, she was there. I debated it with her quite intensely, in fact. They made no amendments that had any value. They were inconsequential and administrative in nature. But if you read Hansard, for those specialists who read Hansard, you would think they did something. Indeed, they did not.

So I say to the good people of Ontario who are watching this program at 9:50 this morning—I’m sure that many of you are excited to watch this place so early in the morning, with your coffee in hand. Those of you who are watching, good citizens, these are the amendments, that I’m holding here. If you call us—you’ll find us on the Web: the critic for the NDP, Rosario Marchese—you’ll find the amendments. And you will see that the government had very little to say. In fact, if you’re interested we can send you the transcript of the dialogue I had with the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

You will be somewhat enlightened, or surprised, to see the kind of dialogue that she and I had. I can send you the copy of that exchange we had, and I’d love to send you a copy of the amendments so that you can see for yourselves what the government did by way of amendments. I repeat: They are irrelevant; inconsequential, if not useless. They didn’t listen.

What they’re saying is, “We listened to you, but we’re going to make changes in regulation.” As you know, regulations are up to the civil servants. We don’t know when that’s going to happen. We are about four and a half or five months away from September, and we don’t know what our civil servants are going to do to solve fundamental questions connected to this bill. It is my view that it’s not going to be dealt with very well. We have lots of questions with respect to, “Are we doing it right?”

We have waited a long time for this, and many families will wait another five years. That will put many children behind, assuming that it will be rolled out fully in five years. Charles Pascal said that we should do the rollout of full-time JK and SK in three years—not five, not 10, not 20, but three years. Charles Pascal is the author of the report from which these Liberals took—cherry-picked—some of those recommendations, and did not do the whole report as recommended by Charles Pascal.

So the Liberals say now, “We are not going to do full-time JK and SK, including preschool and after-school programs, in three years. It’ll be five.” Guaranteed, it’s not going to be done in five. It’s likely to take longer. I don’t think this is good.

Parents who have been waiting, parents and educators and early childhood educators and many others who wanted the full implementation of Charles Pascal are not getting that. They’re only getting a couple of those recommendations that he made, and Charles Pascal said, “Do not cherry-pick. Do it all,” because it was intended to deal with all of the programs, from birth to age 12. I think he had it right and I think his consultations led him to a very good conclusion.

So the many families who have been waiting are going to have to wait a whole five years, and for that time a whole lot of mothers and fathers are going to be without a program that they could have and could enjoy and could benefit from.

Will the funding for the initial rollout be distributed equitably across the province, or will it go where there is space? Will the first programs be needs-based or just space-based? An important question, because we believe that government is going to find an easy way out to provide these programs. They’re going to put them in schools where there is space, as opposed to where there is a need. That, to us, is an important distinction to make.

Space, available space, is not about providing a program where the needs are great, but the government wants to show that this is an incredible program, that there is an incredible take-up in the first year, and, “Lo and behold, look how many have taken advantage of this,” so they can say before an election that this program is working really, really well.

Mr. Michael Prue: Not in East York. There’s not one; not one space.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The member from Beaches–East York says there’s not going to be one program available in his riding. It remains to be seen where the programs are going to be, because we don’t have that data yet. But it is my view that they will be where there is space, not where there is a need, and we should be addressing the needs of those kids who deserve to have a better head start. Because of social and economic inequality, those kids who desperately need a head start may not be getting this program; indeed, they will not be getting this program.

And as soon as we get those numbers, I won’t have to prove it; you will see for yourselves that we are not dealing with this on the basis of need, but rather providing it where there’s space so you can look good in your first year.

We are concerned that the class size of 26 is an average, and we are concerned the class sizes may become too large, like many of our current grade 4 to grade 8 classes, where there is no cap. I will get to this as I get through my amendments.

It was a curious thing. The member from Kitchener–Conestoga and my good friend Rick Johnson from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock simply said, “No, we shouldn’t cap class sizes.” He argued that from his experience with capping the primary grades, they have learned that it creates problems. I said to him, “That’s a strange contradiction. Do you support capping in the early grades: Yes or no? And if you support capping in the early grades, is it not consistent to support capping for full-time JK and SK?” In my view, it would be. In their view, it wasn’t.

The member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—it’s a big riding—had a different argument, which I’m sure in his two minutes he will respond to. But if you want to cap and you believe philosophically, from a program point of view, that it’s important, then you should also cap the full-time JK and full-time SK classes. And if you need to make some adjustments, member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—it’s a big riding—then you make those adjustments. But why have two inconsistent philosophies around two programs in the primary grades? It makes no sense—

Mr. Rick Johnson: It’s 13 to one.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s 12 to one. Make your case. They say it’s 13 to one; I say it’s 12 to one. And I say to the member from this large riding that it’s an average of 26: an average, Rick from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I say to you that the average of 26—Michael is a former teacher. “Average” means it’s an average.

Mr. Mike Colle: Some are up; some are down.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes. Some are up; some are down. My suspicion, Michael, is it will be up most of the time. And you know why? You want to save some money. I know that and I understand that, but say that. Say, “I want to save some money because we’re broke as a government.” If you said that, I’d say, “Okay.” I could make a case against it, which I will and could, but say that. Don’t tell me, “But what would you do if you had one child over the capping? Then you’d have to have a separate class over the cap.” You dealt with that little problemo in the early primary grades.

Mr. Rick Johnson: Split grades.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay. If Rick Johnson from the large riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock is against split grades, he should say so, because half of our system is in split grades, and I agree with him. Half of our system—

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’m opposed to split grades.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Are you opposed to it?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I’m feeling left out again.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The dialogue gets longer, so it’s hard. We have to do it through the Speaker, you understand. It’s complicated.

So I don’t know. He has his own arguments, but I don’t agree with him, and this is why we love debates. I believe that we should cap those numbers because, I’ve got to tell you, an average of 26, which could go to 30, teacher from the north, which would go to 31, 32, 33—it could go to 33, because there’s no cap. You understand. If there is no cap, they could go to any number that the school system deems acceptable, because what are you going to do? If you’ve got 33, you’ve got 33. Think about it, Speaker, because you’re a father. You were a father to little kids at one point, four-year-olds. Michael, you too—indeed, so many of you. Think about it.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Are you still speaking?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Jim, you too. You were a teacher.

Four-year-olds in a classroom that was designed for 20 kids: Let’s say, maybe squeeze in 22. Okay; you want to push it a little more: Squeeze in 23. Classrooms that were designed for 20, 21, 22: We’re going to squeeze in 26, on average, and maybe 30 and more. Little kiddies, four-year-olds, who have to sleep, because you know that four-year-olds sleep from time to time—

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: They’re almost your height now.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And your height, too.

They get tired, because it’s a long day. They get dropped off at 7:30 a.m., when the parents can afford it—and I’ll get to that—and they get to go home at 6 o’clock in the evening—little four-year-olds. I think they have more energy than some of the MPPs; this is true. I understand that. But still, in spite of the energy that some of the four-year-olds might have, they get tired and they want to sleep. Where are we going to put these little kiddies to sleep in that little classroom?

By the way, they’ll want to eat at some point. Lunchtime—

Mr. Mike Colle: Snacks.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Snacks. Nutritious, Michael. I think you supported that the other day when you spoke about the terrible foods that kids are eating, right?

So you want to have nutritious foods. Where are we going to accommodate that? By the way, little kids need to go to the washroom. Some of those classrooms don’t have washrooms self-contained. They’ve got to go somewhere, and someone has to take them. There’s one teacher and one early childhood educator in the classroom. They have to sleep; they whine and cry for mama, usually, sometimes papa but less so; usually mama. They cry and they need attention, and you’ve got an average of 26, and it could be 30 or 33, four-year-olds. They say, “It’s okay not to have any caps. Just let ’er rip.

Bring them in.” Four-year-olds: 7:30 a.m. to 6 o’clock in the evening in a little classroom—inadequate space. I’ve got to tell you, I was a bit incensed.

By the way, did the government members support my amendment, which I will get to, perhaps, tomorrow? They didn’t. No. And every now and then I look for some Liberal to break ranks, because I did that in opposition many years ago. I’m still very careful about how we do that with opposition members because I think we should throw them a few crumbs every now and then, and just say, “Yeah, that’s a good amendment. We can do that.” Every now and then—think about it—throw a few crumbs to the opposition.

The member from Oakville has done that on a couple of bills that we have dealt with, and I think he made a serious effort. I think it’s due to him that we were able to get some changes. He couldn’t get them all, of course, because you’re up against ministers and others. So it’s hard; I understand that. But I think, where possible, members should accommodate the opposition because sometimes we have some good things to say—of course, not always, but sometimes. So don’t forget: Throw a little generosity across the table from time to time.

On the capping, there was no generosity bestowed upon me on this one, or indeed any other amendment I made.

Other questions: Charles Pascal called for an early-years division in the Ministry of Education to develop and implement a coordinated policy around child care—coordinated policy. We know that what the government has announced falls short of the complete integrated child care plan that Pascal put forward. Sadly, because we have not implemented his recommendations, we are going to find ourselves with many, many problemos in September; I guarantee it. Charles Pascal knew this. He knew it then; he knows it today.

I wish he had the freedom to come forward and talk about what he feels about what the government has done by way of cherry-picking. It would be nice if he were given the freedom to come and speak freely on this matter.

We are still awaiting the details of the actual form the typical class will take. We want to see the actual distribution of the workload between the teacher and the early childhood educator. We don’t know what that distribution is going to be. We’ve got one teacher, one early childhood educator. We’ve got a seamless day, presumably, from the preschool to the after-school programs, which Charles Pascal recommended. He said it has to be provided by the school board and it should be seamless. Pascal said those programs before school and after school should be provided by those who have the skill to do it.

Jim, how can one teacher—you’ve been there—and one early childhood educator provide this seamless day from 7:30 in the morning to 6 o’clock in the evening? It can’t be done, right? It can’t be done.

You have a teacher who’s obligated to be there 15 minutes earlier but is not in charge of the preschool programs. That is not her or his responsibility. He or she is not responsible for the after-school programs. Take the teacher out, and who is left? One early childhood educator. It stands to reason, Michael, that one person can’t do that program, right?

Mr. Michael Prue: That’s right.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: If one teacher can’t do it, how can one early childhood educator provide the preschool, during-school-day-hours and after-school programs? It can’t be done.

So what is the government going to do? They haven’t told us. What are boards going to do, the poor boards that have to take on the responsibility of resolving their problems? I’ll tell you what they’re going to do. They’re just going to hire any person who is available to come into the classroom: a grandmother, perhaps; a mother who is at home, who might have the time to be able to do that, possibly.

I do not think that it’s a bad thing to have a grandmother do this or some person who is available, male or female, to come and do this. I don’t think it’s a problem, except they will not have what Pascal recommended, and that is having an early childhood education background so that you provide an intelligent program that works for kids before and after school. You will not get that.

That’s what boards will do. They will hire cheap labour and anyone that they can find. Whether they are adequate or not will be irrelevant to them, because they will be obligated, as a board, to find someone.

The minister says, “You shall do that,” and boards will do it in the best way they can. They will not have the resources to do it, but they must do it by law, whether they like it or not. That’s the problem that we are faced with when a government introduces a program that is good in principle and will fail in practice because they’re not putting the thought to it and the resources to it.

Consideration must be given to the potential loss of revenue for daycares, which may put them at risk or drive up costs to parents whose children remain in daycares. When you pull out the four- and the five-year-olds from those child care centres, they will lose important revenue that allows them to maintain an adequate program that they provide for all those kids in all the different ages. You take the JK, the four- and the five-year-olds, out, and you immediately leave those child care centres without the adequate resources to do so. It means rates are likely to go up. Parents can’t afford the fee now. Imagine when rates shoot up through the roof. Some child care centres may close.

I offered an amendment that would offer transitional support, stabilization funds, that would have taken care of those concerns that Charles Pascal knew would happen if you don’t implement the whole of the implementation of the report that he gave to this government. He knew that. My amendment was defeated by the government. The minister says, “Don’t worry. We will do this in regulation.” Okay; I feel better already.

You see, I don’t trust the government, whether they be Liberals or somebody else—I don’t. Because if they wanted to do what the minister said that she would do—

Hon. James J. Bradley: O ye of little faith.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Exactly—and Jim was the same when he was in opposition.

If the minister claims that she wants to do it in regulation, then guarantee it in the bill. Then you make me feel better. It might not happen, but you’ll make me feel better, because it’s in the bill; it’s law.

So if she can say it—oh, my God, it’s 10:15 already. See how time passes? Speaker, I thank you. We’ll resume the debate another day.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome John Craven and his daughter Julie Craven, of Brantford, to the chamber today. Julie is our leader’s nominee as a 2010 recipient of the Victim Services Award of Distinction. We congratulate Julie and all the recipients. And I want all the members to have a look at her necklace. Mother’s Day is coming.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: In addition to Julie Craven, I want to introduce Gwendolyn Broadmore, Sylvie Huntley, Penny Fisher, the Family Violence Project of Waterloo Region, Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, and the Sexual Assault Centre for Quinte and District. Those individuals and organizations are represented here in the gallery, or will be, to observe the proceedings. They were all recipients of Victim Services Awards of Distinction.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I’m pleased to introduce to you my friend of over 50 years, Joan McGavin. Joan lives in Burlington now and has some interest in hearing question period live. Welcome, Joan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust the members will co-operate so that she can hear question period.

The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’d like to introduce Reverend Judy Shand of the United Church of Canada, visiting for the day.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to introduce two guests who are here with me today: John Ekins, who runs the “youth success through employment” program, and one of his students, Matt daSilva, who has been helping out at my office in the beautiful city of Lindsay.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s my pleasure today to welcome one of the bravest people I know, and that is seven-year-old Jack Yeilding. He’s the founder of Jack’s Lemonade Stand. It has raised more than $150,000 in the last year for the SickKids Foundation, and Jack is with us in the west members’ gallery.

Mr. Dave Levac: It’s going to be very difficult to top Jack. But, Jack, congratulations, my little buddy.

I would also like to introduce, or reintroduce, my constituents from the riding of Brant, tremendous advocates for victims’ services: Julie Craven and John Craven, who were instrumental in having Bill 89 passed. I appreciate their presence here today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It is my pleasure to introduce members of the family of Max Silverberg, who is one of the highly competent pages here today. They are Aaron Silverberg, father; Jeffery Joseph and Irene Joseph, grandparents; Jerry Silverberg and Iona Silverberg, grandparents; and David Silverberg, uncle. There’s a full delegation here today. If they’re in, we should get them to rise and we’ll all applaud.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: On behalf of Tudor Mititelu, a page from my riding of Ottawa South, I’m pleased to welcome his mother, Corina Mititelu, to Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’d like to introduce individually the folks who are here from Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, who are here today to receive an award: Sly Castaldi, who is the executive director; Anthea Milliken, who is on the board; and their nominator, Jennifer MacLeod from public health in Guelph.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Walking through those doors, I know about 50-some-odd people from the Probus Club of Port Hope are here to visit Queen’s Park. They’re going to buy me lunch.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I take this opportunity on behalf of the member from Welland and page Darcy Feagan to welcome her mother, Mary Anne Feagan, and her father, Mike Feagan, to the gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This week is Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. I would like to seek unanimous consent for members to wear a green ribbon to display our commitment to saving lives and raising awareness for organ and tissue donation.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHARMACISTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question to the Premier: Can Premier McGuinty guarantee that no pharmacies will close as a result of his proposed cuts to services at neighbourhood pharmacies across our province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, I can’t offer that kind of a guarantee, and I think my honourable colleague understands that. But what we can guarantee is that we will reduce the price of drugs for the people of Ontario. That’s a benefit not just to taxpayers who pay for drugs through the public plan, but for private plans as well, and for people who have families who are paying out of pocket.

What I can guarantee as well is that all the savings that we generate through lower-cost drugs we will reinvest into covering more drugs. We have covered 177 more so far. We’ll use savings to cover still more drugs. We’ll reinvest other parts into other parts of the health care system. It’s about ensuring that every precious health care dollar goes as far as we can possibly make it go.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier refuses to guarantee to Ontario seniors and Ontario families that pharmacies will not close as a result of his plans to reduce pharmacy front-line services across our province. It is no surprise that in their recent consultations in Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals are quoted as saying in a presentation on pharmacare that Ontario has “more pharmacies per capita than many other developed countries in the world.” That’s not even fine print from the fine-print Premier.

This is very clear: The McGuinty government thinks we have too many pharmacies in our province, probably too many pharmacists in our province, and has a plan to reduce the number of neighbourhood pharmacies in our province.

Premier, will you come clean? How many pharmacies is too many, how many are you going to close, and in what parts of the province will you be closing neighbourhood pharmacies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians should be disappointed that the leader of the official opposition is not prepared to stand up for lower drug costs for all Ontarians.

There’s a new part to the change that we’re proposing and we’d like to have adopted in Ontario. I think there’s some really good news in this for Ontario’s pharmacists. We think that they can play an ever-greater role in helping us to deliver ever-better health care to our families. We think that they can take on more professional responsibilities, quite apart from preparing medication and providing that to Ontarians. We want to pay them, for example, to refill prescriptions. We want to pay them, for the first time, to provide inoculations.

We want to pay them to take consultations with their patients—and there are other things, undoubtedly, that they can do on behalf of our families. We see an exciting new role that our pharmacists can expand upon here in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I’ll tell you where the Ontario PC caucus stands: It stands with Ontario families. It stands with Ontario seniors. It stands with Ontario’s worried moms and dads who are going to fight Dalton McGuinty’s plans to close down neighbourhood pharmacies in the province of Ontario each and every step of the way.

And, Premier, it’s not just us, and it’s not just Ontario families. In addition, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote to your health minister. Ontario’s director, Satinder Chera, said that your plans to cut health costs on the backs of pharmacists “will make it nearly impossible for an independent pharmacist to provide for their families, patients and the local community.”

Premier, will you finally come clean? How many pharmacies are you closing down and in what part of our province do you plan to close neighbourhood pharmacies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to say that we’re heartened to have the support of Ontario’s nurses when it comes to this initiative, heartened to have the support of the people at the Heart and Stroke Foundation and at the cancer foundation, where we’re happy to have that support as well. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons: We’re very pleased to have their support as well.

Fundamentally, this is all about ensuring that we can do more to make our health care dollar go further. The fact of the matter is, we’re paying too much for drugs in Ontario—25% to 75% more than they are in other parts of the world. I think my honourable colleague understands that we need to do something to come to grips with the rapid growth of costs of the health care system, and we think that a very good place for us to turn our attention is the fact that we’re paying too much for drugs.

PHARMACISTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Sadly, the Premier refuses to disclose any information he has on how many pharmacies in our province will close down and where they will be. But there is some information I know the Premier does have.

Premier, you have forced Ontario pharmacists into a gag order. They have brought forward proposals to lower drug costs and improve services to Ontario patients as part of negotiations. You forced them to sign a confidentiality agreement—a nondisclosure clause. So, Premier, since you won’t let the pharmacists tell their story, could you please tell us what the pharmacists put on the table and what you had against their ideas to improve—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Start the clock, stop the clock.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Excuse me, member from Renfrew. The clock management works both ways for all members in the House.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think the pharmacies are very capable of getting out their message and the information that they want to convey. We in government have a responsibility to get out our perspective on this as well.

I think it’s important to bring it down to something that we can all understand. Our most common blood pressure medication here in Ontario: Ontarians are paying 50 cents for a dose. In the US, they pay 10 cents for the same pill, one dose. In New Zealand, they pay two cents for that dose.

As a parent, I recall picking up amoxicillin many times over for my kids. The cost today in Ontario is $10.25. After the reform, it will be $5.13. For type II diabetes, there is a drug with a cost of $177 today; after the reforms, it will be $70.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here’s what Ontario families also understand: that they cannot access those drugs and those services when Dalton McGuinty is closing down neighbourhood pharmacies in the province of Ontario.

Premier, you have put a gag order on Ontario pharmacists, and instead of bringing forward into the public debate good ideas to help reduce drug costs and improve front-line services, you’ve gone on YouTube with a propaganda campaign attacking neighbourhood pharmacists in our province and disrupting services to Ontario patients.

Premier, I will ask: Will you rescind your gag order and let Ontario families decide for themselves whether to believe the pharmacists or to believe the Premier, well-known for saying one thing and doing the opposite?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, the pharmacists and the pharmacies are free to provide whatever information they think is appropriate to Ontarians as we engage in a very important public debate.

My colleague says that he’s concerned about access. To the best of my knowledge, in New Zealand, where that particular medication costs two cents per dose, New Zealanders are getting access to that medication. To the best of my knowledge, in the US, where they’re paying 10 cents for the same medication for which we’re paying 50 cents in Ontario, they’re getting access to that medication.

My concern is not ensuring that we have access. I’m absolutely confident that we will continue to have access to all the medication we need. My concern is the cost associated with the drugs we’re paying for in Ontario. It’s time we got those costs down. That’s what this initiative is all about.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: We know that the Dalton McGuinty government believes that there are too many pharmacies in the province of Ontario. We know you must believe, then, that there are too many pharmacists in the province of Ontario.

Premier, it sounds like you’re saying—and I hope you did say this—that you will rescind the gag order on Ontario pharmacists so Ontario patients can hear the full story. I hope we’ve accomplished that in question period today.

And let me ask you this, Premier: Will you set aside your plan to close down neighbourhood pharmacies in our great province? Will you set aside your plan to reduce front-line pharmacy services, and get back to the table today to come up with a good plan to reduce drug costs and improve front-line services to Ontario seniors and worried moms and dads?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s one thing we know with absolute certainty: that the status quo is a non-starter. When I was first elected 20 years ago, 32 cents of every program dollar went into health care; today it’s 46 cents. They tell us that in 12 years, if we allow things to keep on going the way we have been, we’ll be paying 70 cents of every program dollar on health care. That will crowd out the funding that we need for our schools, for our roads, for supports for our vulnerable and the like.

The last time we brought forward this kind of initiative, in 2006, the pharmacies claimed that it would compromise the viability of their stores. Since 2006 and those reforms, we now have 144 more pharmacies in the province of Ontario. By the way, we’ve expanded drug coverage to 177 more drugs with the savings that we have.

It’s about getting drug costs down. We think we owe that to the people of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: This question is to the Premier. The people of Ontario’s First Nations live under some of the lowest-income conditions in the province, and the Premier’s decision to implement the HST with respect to First Nations will make their lives even more difficult. A study released today shows that the HST will take at least $120 million a year out of First Nation communities.

My question: Why didn’t the Premier consult with First Nations before hitting them with this unfair new tax, the HST?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I want to take the opportunity to welcome some of the leaders of our First Nations communities, who I understand are visiting Queen’s Park today. I want to reassure them once again that we are on the same side on this particular issue.

We’ve had a standing practice in Ontario, since forever, I believe, which exempts our First Nation communities from the PST in certain circumstances. We think that exemption ought to be extended now and have full application under the HST. That’s our position. That’s why we are working with our First Nations communities in urging the federal government to adopt the practice, which we think is fair, and which we’d like to have maintained under the new regime.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier says that he’s doing all he can. When the McGuinty Liberals faced anti-HST backlash from the real estate industry, the Premier very quickly exempted homes that cost up to $400,000 from the HST. When Tim Hortons protested against the HST on the coffee and muffin lunch, the McGuinty Liberals very quickly exempted restaurant meals up to $4 in value from the HST.

If you care about the plight of First Nations, why will you not act just as quickly to exempt First Nations from the HST?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is comparing apples to oranges. In the example that he has raised, those are circumstances over which we had complete control. When it comes to this particular circumstance, it’s something over which the federal government ultimately has control. That’s why we are working with our First Nations communities to encourage the federal government to adopt the practice that we’ve had here in Ontario, which we think is very fair and is one that we’d like to see extended into the future.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again, the Premier tries to confuse the issue. The Premier didn’t have to consult with the federal government when the McGuinty Liberals decided to exempt homes under $400,000 from the HST, you didn’t have to consult with the federal government when you decided to exempt the Tim Hortons under-$4 lunch from the HST and you don’t have to consult with the federal government now. You have the capacity now to say that under the room that Ontario has for exemptions, you could exempt First Nations across Ontario from the HST. Why won’t you do it, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’ve already given this answer, and I’ll restate it to my honourable colleague: It is not a matter over which we have control. It’s something that the federal government has control over. It’s how they pay the tax.

We provided a point-of-sale exemption. What the federal government is insisting is that the First Nation communities in fact make that payment, and they’re talking about reimbursing it subsequently. What the First Nations communities are seeking is the same arrangement that we had with them, so they didn’t have to pay it in the first place. We think that’s simpler, we think it’s more cost-effective from a regulatory perspective, and that’s why we’d like to have it continued in the future.

Again, we will continue to work with the federal government to have them adopt a practice that we had in place.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The McGuinty government has broken another promise and ripped $4 billion out of Toronto’s Transit City over the next five years. We know whom these cuts will hurt: the million-plus modest-income families in Toronto who can’t afford to live near subway lines. Why is the government making them bear the burden of the deficit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I know that she gathered some folks last night to stir the pot on this issue once again.

The fact is that we have not cut the funding from these projects. We are going to be continuing these projects. What we did was that we delayed some of the cash flow. We are working with Metrolinx right now. When the plan comes out—and there is going to be a plan; we are going to be demonstrating the plan—my guess is that the members opposite will be opposed to the plan as well. But the reality is that we have had to put a delay in place. The cash will flow. It will stretch over a bit longer period of time, but those projects will go ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I would ask that the Minister of Transportation table the exact date that that money will be delivered to the city of Toronto.

The McGuinty government is the only Ontario government ever, other than Harris’s, that has refused to put one dime towards the Toronto transit budget this year. In fact, transit cuts made up three quarters of cuts to infrastructure spending in the recent budget—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I repeat: the only Ontario government other than Harris that has refused to put one dime towards the Toronto transit budget this year. In fact, transit cuts made up three quarters of the cuts to infrastructure spending in the recent budget. Why is the lack of affordable transit and increasing smog so absolutely unimportant to this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to read out some of the investments that we have made in the city of Toronto in previous years and in this year.

Since 2003, we’ve invested $172 million to revitalize Union Station, which last time I looked was in the city of Toronto. We committed $416 million towards the replacement of 204 TTC streetcars. We’re moving ahead on the Sheppard East LRT. We’re moving on our $874-million investment in expanding the Georgetown South corridor, which will serve thousands of Ontarians, which the member opposite has opposed at every single turn.

On top of that, $870 million in funding to support the extension of the Toronto-York-Spadina subway from Downsview to the Vaughan corporate centre—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Our information comes directly from the mayor’s office and the offices of the TTC, and we’re talking about this year. I would love to hear the transportation minister engage with the mayor.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, this year.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: That’s what I said.

Toronto transit riders will be packing Toronto city hall—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think one of the reasons some of you couldn’t hear her supplementary question was because of the noise coming from the government side.

Members will please come to order.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Sorry.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Toronto transit riders will be packing Toronto city hall tonight to say no to rising transit fares, no to delays to new light rail lines, no to aging buses prone to breakdowns and delay and no to broken transit promises from the McGuinty government.

Will the minister attend the meeting, listen to the concerns of transit riders first-hand and finally acknowledge the serious harm this government is doing by cutting Transit City funding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just comment on gas tax money, which is ongoing, permanent funding since 2004: $687.7 million has gone into the city of Toronto for gas tax, $164 million last year. That money is ongoing.

I think the point needs to be made, because the member opposite is talking about working with Toronto: What we need is the mayor of Toronto, councillors in Toronto and the city of Toronto to be working with us and to be working with Metrolinx. Unless we have that kind of collaborative process, we will not be able to make the best decisions for Toronto. We welcome that kind of co-operation. We look forward to that kind of co-operation as Metrolinx develops a plan to build the projects that I am absolutely confident the member opposite will absolutely support.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Because the McGuinty Liberals are bad planners, you took a billion dollars that could have gone to front-line health care and handed it to Liberal-friendly eHealth consultants who didn’t deliver.

Because of bad planning, you let local health integration networks take money from front-line care and hand it out to consultants after you said the practice was banned.

Because of bad planning, you’re now looking to find money through cuts to front-line care for seniors and people with chronic illnesses.

Premier, how do you plan to deal with pressures on emergency rooms that will see more seniors and people with chronic illnesses as a result of your cuts to front-line health care and pharmacare?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome this opportunity to talk about how important these changes are to our health care system. The changes that we are proposing, when it comes to drug prices, will lower the cost of drugs for people. That will improve our ability to fund more drugs for more people. It will also allow us to invest more in our health care system.

I think it’s important the member opposite understands that this practice of so-called professional allowances is something that we started looking at back in 2006, through Bill 102. Through Bill 102, we have the actual power to understand how the money that was given to pharmacists was being invested. Only 30% of the money being received by pharmacies in professional allowances has actually been spent on that kind of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: What the minister fails to mention when she talks about the so-called professional allowances is the fact that they were set up by this government in the first place.

Back to the question: If the McGuinty Liberals had been more interested in delivering eHealth than in delivering a series of contracts to their Liberal-friendly consultants, then ePrescribing would have been up and running, and if their priority was patients rather than wasteful bureaucracy to give them political cover for the Premier’s cuts to nurses and emergency rooms, they would scrap the LHINs, use the money and put it back into front-line health care, including pharmacy.

Because Premier McGuinty closed emergency rooms in Fort Erie and Port Colborne, seniors and patients with chronic illnesses can’t afford to lose the one-on-one counselling they get from pharmacists. Premier, why are you making seniors and patients with chronic illness suffer from your own failure to plan and deliver—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These reforms are all about getting better access to better care for the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario are paying far more for drugs than people in other parts of the world. When people start to understand how much more they’re paying, I think they would say that it’s up to their MPPs to actually bring those prices down, and that’s what we are doing.

I have many examples of what drug prices are today and what they will be after the reform. There’s a drug for diabetes—and I apologize for my difficulty with the pronunciation—called Pioglitazone. Currently, someone would pay $1,253 for that drug. Once our reforms are complete, they will pay $313, for a savings of $940. This—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. AbitibiBowater intends to sell its value-added Fort William division paper mill for scrap metal. Three hundred and fifty-three people lost good jobs when the mill shut down three years ago. Two years ago, the union worked with a prospective buyer and even hammered out a collective agreement, but the takeover fell through. I would argue that it’s in Ontario’s interest for the mill to be making value-added paper, not sold off for scrap metal. My question: Has the Premier actively sought buyers and operators for this value-added paper mill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question. Certainly I very much empathize with the workers and their families, who were obviously hoping that this operation would get back up and running. I think the actions that were taken by AbitibiBowater demonstrate the challenges that are faced by a company that’s in CCAA protection. This was a tough business decision.

The member made reference to some efforts that were made to have a value-added operation up and running. We made many efforts to work with them as well. Ultimately, that was not able to happen. But our government continues to work very closely with the forestry sector in terms of increasing competitiveness, in terms of providing those opportunities. We will continue to do that with all aspects of the forestry sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister says that the government is actively working. We released freedom-of-information details yesterday that show that most of the money you boast is available to help re-establish and reposition forest industry jobs is sitting in a Toronto bank account; it hasn’t been used. In fact, in this particular case, Abitibi is saying that they will sell the mill, but it can’t be used to produce paper.

I ask again: When half of the money that the government promised to help re-establish forest industry jobs is sitting in a bank account in Toronto, and when Abitibi is saying, “Oh, we’ll sell the mill, but it can’t be used to produce value-added paper,” has the government really done anything to help these workers in this community?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We very much have. We’ve provided significant support to a number of companies, including AbitibiBowater over the years, as you know, through the electricity rebate program, providing significant funds to all their operations in Ontario. I think it is important to remind the member that, indeed, our measures have flowed over $600 million through our incentives to the forestry sector—and over $870 million through our loan guarantee prosperity programs that has been leveraged as a result of our programs as well.

The fact is, we continue to support the industry in a significant way. That is why we are so keen to put Ontario’s wood to work. That’s why we put forward a competitive wood supply process. That’s why, indeed, we’re reviewing the forest tenure process in the province as well, because we recognize more companies need opportunities, new entrants to get back to work. That’s our goal. That’s what we’re working on. You can expect some good announcements soon.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know that too many Ontarians are being diagnosed with type 1 and type 2 diabetes every year. In your last response to a question from the member from Whitby–Oshawa, you had a chance just to begin expressing some of those concerns. Diabetes management has been one of the major areas of health spending for this government. I have constituents wondering how the new drug reform policy is going to affect their ability to pay for diabetes drugs. These important drugs allow them to continue living a lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

We know that this drug reform is a much-needed change that will help lower the cost of generic drugs throughout the province. However, my constituents wonder how this reform will affect their family members who have diabetes and already pay large sums of money for purchasing proper medication, as well as blood sugar strips, needles and other important tools that go along with monitoring diabetes.

Will the minister please explain to the House—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Diabetes is a disease that affects many Ontario families. It’s a disease that should be manageable with the right drugs. We want to make sure that those drugs are available at a fair price. That’s why our drug reform policy is the right thing to do. It’s the most important initiative our government has taken to bring down the cost of drugs in Ontario.

Today, a patient would pay an out-of-pocket price of $177 for metformin, a commonly used drug for diabetes patients. After our proposed reforms, the price would drop to $70. This would save diabetes patients, on this one drug alone, $107. This is a savings we can pass on to Ontarians. It’s absolutely the right thing to do for the people of Ontario, including people with diabetes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I appreciate the minister’s response, and I know that my constituents will be extremely supportive of the increased savings of the drug reform plan.

In my riding, constituents ask me about our plan for diabetes and what we’re doing as a government to help their family members who are living with this disease. I know our diabetes strategy has been extremely effective in improving the lives of Ontarians with diabetes. However, there’s always room for improvement.

Could the minister please tell this House and the people of Ontario what this government is doing to help Ontarians who are living with diabetes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re working very hard to make sure that Ontarians with diabetes get access to the best supports that will delay or prevent the onset of complications related to diabetes. We’ve nearly tripled funding for diabetes since we were elected in 2003. We’ve created 204 diabetes education teams across the province in family health teams, community health centres and hospitals, helping patients with diabetes to manage their disease effectively.

We became the first province to fully fund insulin pumps for children and youth with type 1 diabetes, and we’ve expanded the program to include adults with type 1 diabetes. We’re investing $741 million into a diabetes strategy that includes public education, expanded services, a diabetes registry, the expansion of bariatric surgery, expansion of the insulin pump—

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

CURRICULUM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty Liberals have been caught making changes to the elementary school curriculum that will see a new sex education curriculum introduced beginning in grade 1. When the Minister of Education was asked about this change, she said, “I am not a teacher, but we have worked very hard with experts to understand best what age-appropriate language and topics are.” It appears the only group you didn’t consult with were parents.

Why were parents not included in consultations and decision-making about these changes to the sexual education curriculum?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It’s very important that I’m able to state in this Legislature for the people of Ontario that in fact we have been consulting extensively since September 2007 in our process to review the curriculum. We have consulted with dozens of groups, including parent groups, faculties of education, universities and colleges. We have consulted with the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association, with the Ontario Healthy Schools Coalition—made up of parents, I might add—and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again, my question is to the Premier because I do believe this is a very important issue for parents in the province of Ontario.

It has now become abundantly clear to parents—and these are parents across the whole province; we are seeing emails coming in, once they have been alerted to the fact this is happening—that it looks like you tried to bury this when you publicize everything else. In fact, this past week the government announced the third annual ChangeTheWorld campaign, an anti-smoking campaign, the opening of an OPP detachment, the launch of the health minister’s YouTube; you made education announcements, the EcoSchools partnership and honouring youth role models.

If this is so important and necessary, why was there no huge public announcement telling parents what you were going to do in September?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy that the honourable member acknowledges all of the great work that’s being done by the government. That is one way that we get the information out.

With respect to the consultation, we have consulted with parents. As a result of our consultations we have received some 2,400 responses. I would also say to the honourable member, yes, there’s no question that it’s an issue that generates a great deal of discussion and debate. I think it’s important that parents continue to be aware and involved in what their children are learning. We encourage them to be engaged at the school with the teachers. If, for whatever reason, parents do not the feel comfortable with what is in the curriculum, they can say to their child’s teacher that they do not want them to be a part of that particular strand.

LABOUR DISPUTE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre du Développement du Nord, des Mines et des Forêts. People in Sudbury are all talking about the escalating conflict in the labour dispute between Vale Inco and USW since Vale has announced that it will resume full production in Sudbury using replacement workers.

This government has been completely hands-off during this nine-month-long labour dispute. But the minister sets the rule for mining; the province has a constitutional right to oversee mining. When is the minister going to take notice of what is happening in Sudbury? When is he going to get involved? Because right now, by his indifference, he is in fact saying that it is perfectly acceptable for multinational corporations to engage in this kind of economic blackmail.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: To the member’s question, the Ministry of Labour has been there all along assisting with the parties, focusing on resolving the differences. That’s where the focus has to stay: The focus has to stay with the parties so that they can understand each other, so that they can work towards common ground so that they can get a collective agreement done.

The collective agreement process is something that we highly respect. I can tell the member that our ministry will do all that we can to help the parties address those differences that they have so that the workers can get back to work and we can move on beyond this dispute.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: How is it going so far? It’s been nine months and one week.

People in Sudbury are saying that Vale Inco is using its economic powers to do economic violence to the people of Sudbury, and the McGuinty government is standing by, letting it happen.

When corporations like GM and Chrysler come to this government and say that they’re in trouble, they get front-row seats. The government listens to them, helps them out. They even hand out hundreds of millions of dollars. But when workers come to this government and say that they are in trouble, they are completely ignored.

Why does this government lend its ears to other groups, corporations, professional organizations, but when it comes to workers on strike in Sudbury, they continue to get ignored?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We do have a deep understanding of how this is affecting the community, affecting the workers, affecting that business. I’ve gotten that deep understanding from Rick Bartolucci, who has been a tremendous advocate for everyone, all sides in the community. My focus will continue to be to assist and work with the parties.

The member’s question speaks to not respecting the collective bargaining process. On this side of the House we do respect the collective bargaining process. As well, through the Ministry of Labour, our mediation and conciliation team, we are always there to assist the parties to overcome whatever differences they may have and help get those workers back onto the job site and working.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Attorney General. It’s important that victims of crime in Ontario receive the supports and services they need, when and where they need them most. We are particularly aware this week, which is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, during which we recognize the effort of thousands of professionals, volunteers and community organizations that offer victims of crime their time, assistance, guidance and advice.

Those who deliver these services must be given the tools they need to carry out this vital work. Can the Attorney General tell this House what the government is doing to ensure that victims of crime and their families receive the support they need and are treated with compassion as they overcome trauma and begin to rebuild their lives?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member for Guelph asks a very important question and asks us all to see that the services for victims are available in the way that victims require them. So, when the first horrific incident happens, the victims’ quick-response program will be there to provide immediate financial assistance, and the victims’ crisis assistance and referral service will be there for them, to refer them to the service they need in that very crucial, immediate aftermath of the horrific incident. Every year thousands benefit from that.

The victim witness assistance program helps take them through the court process, which can be very challenging even for some lawyers, but for those who aren’t experts in the law, very challenging.

I would like to specifically thank the police, the ministry staff, government staff and all those community agencies that support victims every single day of the year, for the great work that they do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to hear that our government is funding initiatives to provide the necessary support to victims of crime. It’s important that we support the dedicated individuals and community organizations that are working each day to provide this support. I know that this work is benefiting people throughout the province. I’m particularly proud of the work being done by Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, where vital support services are being delivered by truly admirable volunteers and professionals.

One of the keys to providing the right support at the right time is listening to the victims as well as community groups and individuals who deal directly with victims. They can give us the best advice and help us to provide the most meaningful services and supports. Can the Attorney General tell us what the government is doing to recognize the people who are making such a real difference on the front lines?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: This morning, my colleague from Guelph and I and a number of members of the Legislature stood with the recipients of the Victim Services Awards of Distinction, given out by the Attorney General on behalf of all members of the Legislature to say thank you, to recognize, for this day, in a special way, the extraordinary contributions that have been made through their courage, their perseverance, their drive, in ways that have changed for the better the lives of the system of justice, of different communities in coping with the needs of victims, and of the services available to victims throughout the province of Ontario.

I want to say thank you specifically on behalf of all to these recipients of distinction. If I could just take a second and thank again Julie Craven, Gwendolyn Broadmore, Sylvie Huntley, Penny Fisher, the Family Violence Project of Waterloo region, the Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, and the Sexual Assault Centre for Quinte and District.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. This government’s flawed and undemocratic Green Energy Act has ignited a surge of wind farm proposals, pitting neighbour against neighbour and tearing communities part. The government’s policy is uncoordinated and will lead to a massive increase in our hydro bills for years to come. There are legitimate concerns about the potential risk to human health, the economic cost and the denial of real opportunity for public input.

Today in the chamber we have residents of the Bellwood area in Centre Wellington township who want an answer to a simple question: Why won’t the government place a moratorium on wind farm approvals until they complete a comprehensive and credible epidemiological study on their health effects?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I thank the honourable member for his question. We took a long, hard look at the experience in other parts of the world—not only their experience in terms of how they sited and their setback requirements with respect to wind turbines, for example, but at any medical evidence or knowledge that might have been developed in connection with wind turbines. We have come to the conclusion that there is nothing that indicates that—given what we have done and the setback requirements we’ve put in place, which are the most aggressive in North America and some of the most aggressive in the world.

What we have done, out of a sense of responsibility, is we’re also funding ongoing research. We are funding a new research chair to take a look at these things so that we can begin to collect, on our own, data specific to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: When the Premier is doing all that deep studying perhaps he should be looking at where France and Germany are actually ramping back their wind turbine developments because they are finding that there are issues with it.

So far, 50 municipalities in Ontario have passed resolutions asking the provincial government to return the planning power for wind energy to them. Last week, I introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 29, that would do just that. The Minister of Energy and Infrastructure has already been quoted in the newspaper that he will not be supporting my bill. Premier, will you be instructing your Liberal caucus to vote against my bill or will you allow them to vote on behalf of their communities and return planning power for wind energy projects back to municipalities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s up to members to make up their own minds when it comes to private members’ issues. But what I can say is that while I’m very confident of the safety standards that we’re putting in place with respect to how and where we put up our wind turbines, I’m also—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There have been a number of personal attacks that aren’t directed at government policy but are directed at individual members, coming from this corner back here. I’d just ask members to be more conscious of not directing a personal attack at a member. It’s one thing to do it to a policy.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The other thing that is important to keep in mind here is that while we continue to have a growing demand and certainly over the longer term a growing demand for more energy in Ontario, we’ve got to come to grips with one of the best sources of that energy. We have made a decision as a government to eliminate coal-fired generation. There is no doubt whatsoever about the harm and dangers associated with coal-fired generation. On the other hand, harnessing the power of the wind and harnessing the power of the sun are important new initiatives and new opportunities that create jobs and help provide us with electricity that we are going to need in the future.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Lakeport Brewery was a local success story, providing good jobs for more than 140 Hamiltonians. Labatt purchased the brewery and is now shutting it down, killing these good jobs just to eliminate competition. Now they’re removing all equipment from the plant and are refusing to sell to brewers who would keep the plant running. Will the minister use the powers of her office to investigate Labatt’s attempts to establish a monopoly and kill off good jobs in Hamilton?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Do you really want to answer this? To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We do appreciate the question. The member from Hamilton Mountain has been relentless in support of the Hamilton community and this issue around Lakeport is not lost on the member from Hamilton Mountain.

Let’s just be clear about this. We understand what the role of government can be, and what it is today in Ontario is to make it one of the best and most competitive environments for businesses to flourish in. We understand that Labatt has made a change—they’ve actually made a purchase—and as an entity, an incorporation, they do have a right to choose their business. We know that. We know that we can’t run rampant over that right that they have.

What we do know is that in conversations with Hamilton for the last seven years, we have worked diligently for Hamilton to have the kind of infrastructure and skilled trades in its workforce to be a very attractive part of Ontario. We will continue to do that, whether it’s at Lakeport or whatever facility that may—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I don’t know why that minister is answering for the other minister, but anyway—

Labatt has tried to engage the city of Hamilton in their efforts to eliminate competition. They’ve offered the city $2 million on the condition that Lakeport not—I repeat, not—be sold to any other beer maker. There are 143 skilled people who make good beer and there are people out there who want to buy that beer, but that would cut into the profits of the Premier’s friends at Labatt. What is this minister or the other minister going to do to protect consumers from Labatt’s attempting to establish a monopoly and killing good jobs in Hamilton?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Just for the record, our Premier is a big fan of the microbreweries, especially those in Ontario—and they are very good.

Let me say this: The people in Hamilton must be concerned. They are part of Ontario, which has suffered greatly in this last world recession. We are doing everything we can to help Hamilton recover. When we have episodes like this with Labatt, which has a right to make a purchase of another business—and they did do that—we want to work with Hamilton. We believe that if that site can be useful to another manufacturer or another business opportunity in that facility, we want to play a role in helping to facilitate that. And just for the record, that is exactly the role that my ministry is playing.

That is exactly the role that we have played in the past, and we will do so again, with or without the help of the members in opposition, who so far have been completely unhelpful when it comes to—

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

DOCTORS

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Many of my constituents have worried about access to family physicians in Ontario. They want good-quality care for their loved ones, close to where they live and where they need it. I understand that the College of Physicians and Surgeons releases an annual report about its registration statistics each year. They track the total number of licences issued.

With the increase in chronic diseases over the years, it is important that these numbers go up so that Ontarians have an adequate supply of family doctors to treat their conditions. Could the minister please update this House on the results of the physicians’ report?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to talk about some of the highlights from the CPSO’s report. In 2009, the CPSO issued over 3,600 licences in Ontario. That includes medical students and doctors who are prepared to practise. This is the highest-ever total. In fact, it’s 1,000 more than in 2004 and 2,000 more than in 1997. For the independent practice category—those are the doctors who can go out and set up their own practice—1,200 licences were issued, the highest number since 1985.

This government is committed to improving access to health care. That’s why we’ve got 2,300 more doctors practising medicine today than in 2003. The numbers speak for themselves: 900,000 more Ontarians have access to primary care today—

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

Mr. Glen R. Murray: I think we have as many physicians in my constituency as we have pharmacies. This will reserve for them access to primary care as an important issue for our government.

Another area of importance to my constituents is international medical graduates. The constituents in my riding of Toronto Centre come from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. Several have medical degrees from other countries and are looking to start work as physicians in Ontario.

I understand that the post-graduate return of service program opens the door to international medical graduates who agree to practise for five years in any Ontario community except the Toronto and Ottawa areas, in exchange for post-graduate training opportunities.

My constituents want to know if any of the government’s initiatives are actually resulting in rising numbers of IMGs. Can the minister please tell this House about the number of IMGs in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are absolutely committed to giving international medical graduates the opportunity to put those valuable skills to work right here in Ontario.

According to the CPSO’s report, the number of IMGs who have received independent practice certificates has more than doubled, from 169 in 2003 to 345 in 2009. They come from all over the world—105 different countries. The top countries are India, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Kingdom, Iran, Ireland, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Romania and Russia.

These doctors, new to Ontario, are putting their skills to work. They’re creating a much richer environment for all Ontarians. We’re building on the success, and we’re committed to adding 100 more spots for medical students going forward. We’re going to continue working with physicians and communities to improve access to care in this province.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. We have recently learned about three London area group homes run by the London children’s aid society who will be forced to close their doors. This is following three other CAS group homes in London that have already closed their doors.

Minister, what is your plan to serve these children who are battling addictions, and who have special needs and mental health challenges?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to talk about all the work that’s being done across the province to better support kids and their families and to find a pathway to ensure that these services will be available in the long term.

With respect to the efforts made by children’s aid societies, we’ve been working very closely with children’s aid societies across the province to help them look at the services they are providing in their communities. In fact, I’ve had the opportunity on more than one occasion to speak to the board and the executive director of the London CAS, who I know is doing great work to really take a hard look at the services that are being provided to youth.

There are many innovations taking place across the province. We look to working with communities, taking up the leadership from those communities and taking their advice on how to deliver services in every community across the province, including in London.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: We all know that children’s aid societies across Ontario are doing great work, but what you are doing by forcing the London CAS to close the doors of their three group homes is putting their hands behind their backs.

A CAS official has said that these children have many needs and cannot be placed in foster home environments. CAS workers in London have already admitted that the children who were forced out of the last group home closures have struggled and have been bounced from foster home to foster home since those closures. Now, 18 more children will be forced into that same uncertainty.

Minister, how can you justify this group home closure to the families and children in London when the sunshine list in your ministry went up by 44%?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I can tell you that one other thing that went up is the budget of the London CAS. It went up by $1.1 million when we released additional funding to stabilize that children’s aid society. In fact, the budget of the London CAS has gone up 34.9% since 2003.

We continue to invest in children in CASs across the province. These children will continue to be served in their communities. The query, the innovation that is being examined in London, is what is the methodology? How will we serve these children, and who will be the deliverer of that service?

I’m proud of the work that the London CAS is doing. We continue to invest in that CAS. We look to stabilize it, and then we look toward the conversation that we’re having across the province with our commissioners to find a new pathway forward for the service of children in this province.

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

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé.

Yesterday, the Ontario Medical Association released a new study on the state of smoking in Ontario. The results were qualified as disappointing. There are more smokers today than there were 40 years ago. The cost to the health care system is $1.6 billion, the economic cost is $6.1 billion, and there are 13,000 deaths annually.

They made four valid recommendations. Does the minister support the Ontario Medical Association’s recommendations? Will her ministry be implementing this report?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I’m certainly pleased to be able to discuss this issue in the Legislature. It’s an important issue for me, the government of Ontario and for the people of the province.

We thank the OMA for their work on highlighting the dangers of smoking. We are currently reviewing the report, and we remain committed to the smoke-free Ontario strategy, which is one of the most comprehensive strategies to attack tobacco in North America.

Since 2003, our government has provided approximately $300 million toward the smoke-free Ontario strategy. In 2009-10, our funding for smoke-free Ontario is over 400% higher than in 2003.

We have invested $29 million in smoking cessation programs, training and research initiatives—

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

M me France Gélinas: One of the key recommendations is focused on contraband tobacco. The OMA is only one of many, many agencies that have come to you and said that the government has to show progress on contraband. There are serious solutions that have been put forward, put to your government, but the government keeps avoiding the issue of contraband tobacco.

How much longer is this government prepared to stand by as lives are taken away and health care dollars are sacrificed to an insufficient tobacco control strategy and a lack of action on contraband?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I’ll refer the supplementary to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I thank the member for the question.

We take the issue of contraband tobacco very seriously. A person who manufactures, sells or purchases contraband tobacco is stealing from their neighbours by not paying their taxes. It forces those of us who are law-abiding to pay more.

I can tell you that we take the issue seriously, and we are receiving results. I can tell you that convictions under the Tobacco Tax Act have more than tripled in the last year. I can tell you that seizures of illegal cigarettes have been increasing by more than 50% year over year as we work with our partners to prevent the scourge of contraband tobacco. I can also tell you that the penalties that people have been paying for breaking the law have now exceeded some $14.2 million.

But I say to the member that we take the recommendations from the Ontario Medical Association, and so many other people who have supported our vision of a smoke-free Ontario, very seriously. We’ll continue to work—

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

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on a motion for allocation of time on Bill 16.

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

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 4. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

DiNovo, Cheri

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 52; the nays are 28.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

M me France Gélinas: Il me fait extrêmement plaisir de vous dire que j’ai de la visite de Nickel Belt. Cela n’arrive pas souvent, mais ça me fait très plaisir.

Je commence avec M me Gisèle Chrétien, qui est récipiendaire de l’Ordre de la Pléiade. Elle est ici avec son mari, André, qui l’accompagne. J’ai également M. Denis Hubert-Dutrisac qui est ici, accompagné de sa femme, Francine.