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

December 8, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Dec-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 December 2009 Mardi 8 décembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TAXATION

TAXATION

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TAXATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SCHOOL BOARDS

CHILD PROTECTION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

MINING INDUSTRY

REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

TIME ALLOCATION

BARRIE-INNISFIL BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA MODIFICATION

DES LIMITES TERRITORIALES

ENTRE BARRIE ET INNISFIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR

POLICE BRAVERY

KRAFT HOCKEYVILLE 2010

EGG FARMERS

MINING INDUSTRY

DIANA SWAIN

TAXATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

BERNIE STEWART

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(EXEMPTIONS FOR ARTISTS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(EXEMPTIONS D'IMPÔT

ACCORDÉES AUX ARTISTES)

TRADES QUALIFICATION

AND APPRENTICESHIP

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA QUALIFICATION PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

DES GENS DE MÉTIER

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(HERITAGE PROPERTY

TAX CREDIT), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT

POUR BIEN PATRIMONIAL)

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELECTORAL REFORM /

RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE

ELECTORAL REFORM

CONSUMER PROTECTION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELECTORAL REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Bartolucci, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 203,

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

Loi sur les services policiers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise this morning and speak for a while on Bill 203. As I think we've mentioned earlier, and a number of times, our caucus will be supporting this piece of legislation. We think that Bill 203 helps police officers across our province and our country perform their duties at a higher level, and would be somewhat of an additional tool they could use to perform their duties in communities. Obviously, we would want to support that.

I myself met with Chief Dan Parkinson of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, and he has mentioned that his particular organization had absolutely no problem with it. I met as well with the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, who had some very small issues with the bill; however, that would be corrected in regulation. It's very seldom we can stand in this House and support each other on a piece of legislation, but this one seems to be something that we are content to have.

I want to put a couple of quotes on the record. To quote Chief Dan Parkinson, the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police: "The proposed legislation would assist Ontario police services to work closely with our policing partners in Quebec to keep our communities safer. Law enforcement organizations in Ontario already work across jurisdictional lines to fight crime. We need to also work across provincial borders to be as effective as possible in preventing and addressing crimes."

As I said, that's by the Chief Dan Parkinson, president of OACP. He has told me that they do support the bill and look forward to its implementation and to any benefits to the policing community and to public safety in general.

My understanding is that the legislation is based on the Uniform Law Conference of Canada model for cross-border policing. The model serves as an example for Canadian jurisdictions to follow when drafting cross-border policing legislation. I also understand that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have already enacted similar legislation; that should not be a problem. I think that as we move forward, our party would want to see any problems that might possibly arise from this, but I don't think it will be too detrimental at this time.

While I've got the floor—we were talking about the policing community and the province of Quebec—I had an interesting evening on Saturday night. We had a memorial service on December 6 at the Penetanguishene Centennial Museum, in memory of the 14 young university engineering students who lost their lives 20 years ago at L'École Polytechnique in Montreal; it was the 20th anniversary. At that particular memorial service, a number of community leaders—the mayors, the provincial member—myself—the police chief of Midland and a representative from the OPP—all spoke about what we can all do to bring an end to violence against women.

I think that tragedy in Montreal set the bar for all types of conversations and potential legislation. It is interesting that because it happened in Montreal, we have these agreements; they are cross-border. However, with violence against women in domestic disputes there's really no border and we all have to do better than that. It was interesting that the police chief of Midland spoke in favour, as did OPP Constable Robin Chiasson, who spoke on behalf of the OPP. As I mentioned earlier, Chief Mike Osborne, from the town of Midland, spoke as well. Both said that we had to do better, and we all made commitments to do a better job.

I thank La Maison Rosewood Shelter for hosting this event; it will be a yearly event in Midland—Penetanguishene. It's an area of policing and an area of community service that I think we have to do better in.

As we move forward with this legislation—I understand this Legislature is coming to a close in a few days—obviously, there are a lot of things that our party is very upset about. We are not happy at all that some of the legislation has been rammed through. However, this bill is one that we can support, although we won't be supporting most of the other pieces of legislation that the Liberal government has brought forward.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words today in third reading debate on Bill 203. I hope that in the end this turns out to be a very positive bill for the policing community and for public safety in Ontario. I look forward to comments from other members as we finish third reading debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is what you call "just-in-time debate." There are a couple of things that New Democrats continue to have concerns with in terms of this bill. They were raised at committee by people who took the time out of their busy lives to come and comment on the bill, and they were raised by people who actually took the time to do some research on their own; people who looked at the legislation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, people who looked at the situation in the Maritimes, who looked at the current course of events.

On third reading, I want to raise again the issues that were raised by those individuals, because our concern should always be to ensure that we pass good legislation; and where we don't pass necessarily good legislation, that the public has an opportunity to say why they think there are some problems.

There are essentially two remaining problems with this bill. The first problem concerns an issue of accountability and reporting. All we need to do is read the front pages of any newspaper over the last six or seven months. The situation which happened at the Vancouver airport—there are many issues which flow from the unfortunate death of an individual at the Vancouver airport. One of the issues that flows from that is the issue of who police services report to, what the line of responsibility is, in terms of holding people to account, but also in terms of instructing police officers on given procedures in a given location or in a given region.

I believe there is still an area in this bill where it is not clear what the alignment of responsibility and accountability will be. So let me give a hypothetical example: Let's say that for whatever reasons, members of a police service in Manitoba come to Ontario. They come to Ontario, let's say, at the request of police services in Ontario. Let's just assume that they are asked to come and they are asked to participate in a project or in an ongoing investigation of some kind in the greater Toronto area.

I think anyone would recognize that providing police services in the greater Toronto area is a complicated issue, becoming more complicated all the time. Let's be clear: The city of Toronto is not one homogenous blob; the city of Toronto, for example—and I think the same goes for the GTA—is a series of communities, sometimes defined by income, sometimes defined by ethnic origin, sometimes defined by language, sometimes defined by the kinds of economic or social activities that prevail in the given neighbourhood. So providing police services or working with police services in the GTA, or indeed the city of Toronto, would not be an uncomplicated thing.

I believe if you read the legislation, it is not clear who, in terms of local police services, should be held accountable and responsible in terms of detailing for those police services that come from outside the province exactly what their responsibilities will be and exactly how the reporting should happen. I know we received some assurances—I think they were vague assurances—from the civil service staff who were present that this would be looked after; it may. But it is not clear in the legislation how accountability, how responsibility between the local police service and the police service that comes from outside the province is going to happen.

Now, if I were a member of a police service coming from outside the province and it was not clear to me the lines of responsibility, the lines of accountability, who I was to report to etc. and what the expectations were on me, I might feel a bit uncomfortable about that. And I think someone coming into Ontario from outside the province, reading the legislation, would feel somewhat uncomfortable.

I think it's a reality of human experience that as long as things are going well, everybody is fine. As soon as something does not go well, everyone is looking for someone to blame or someone to hold responsible. I think the legislation should be clear in terms of lines of accountability, lines of responsibility, both for police services from coming outside the province and with respect to individual citizens in the province of Ontario.

Now, there's another issue that I think remains somewhat fuzzy when you read the legislation. I wish that in terms of police services everything always worked A-okay, but knowing what human frailties are and recognizing the historical condition of societies, things are not always A-okay. So the issue of police discipline is raised. I believe, if you read the legislation, there is still an uncertainty and vagueness about how an individual citizen who perhaps feels that they have a grievance with a police officer who comes to Ontario from another jurisdiction, how they pursue that issue of police accountability and discipline.

I don't think this is good for individual citizens; I don't think this is good for individual police officers. And if it's not good for individual citizens and it's not good for individual police officers because there's uncertainty or vagueness, I don't think it's good for policing as a whole.

New Democrats wish these issues had been addressed. We wish these issues had been addressed in a more thoughtful fashion so that not only citizens but police services would know exactly where the lines of responsibility, accountability and reportability rest.

Now, I think part of the reason that this has happened is, once again, this is a time allocation. The government is more interested in simply ramming through the legislation than it is interested in dotting the i's, crossing the t's and thoughtfully addressing the issues that have been raised. This is how we end up with legislation that, two or three years later, someone looks at and says, "Gee, you know, that should have been addressed at the time," or, "That should have been more thoughtfully addressed at the time."

Yes, this will facilitate some interprovincial policing services, it will lessen the complication of interprovincial policing services, and for that reason New Democrats can support the bill. But we want to be very clear: There are really important issues in this bill and in this sphere of policing that have not been addressed by the legislation, and if they have been addressed, they've been addressed in such an uncertain and vague way that we believe it will lead to complications and troubles down the road.

For that reason—I will say it again—this government should have taken more time, they should have allowed more public discussion, they should have asked for more public discussion outside the environs of the greater Toronto area. We should have taken more time to look at the experience of legislation like this which has already been passed in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We should have ensured that Quebec is in fact going to introduce and proceed with legislation.

I ask this of the parliamentary assistant: Has Quebec in fact introduced their legislation? What stage is their legislation at, and how does their legislation correspond with Ontario's legislation?

These are all things that should have been addressed.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Dave Levac: Thank you for this opportunity to address the third reading of Bill 203.

First, let me start by thanking the members from Simcoe North and Kenora—Rainy River as respective critics that are dealing with this. I understand that the member from Kenora—Rainy River was kind of checked into duty as a result of our friend Peter Kormos's, the member from Welland, inability to deal with the bill. Having spoken to him previously, I want to thank all those members for their input, their desire to see that this legislation gets passed, their support and the questions that have been raised.

First, let me deal with the member for Simcoe North's concern about the police services board. Indeed, he is correct that there was an understanding—and staff have already started to deal with this—that the concerns that were raised by the police services board would be dealt with in regulation. We felt that a regulatory stream in this particular case with their requests could be dealt with a lot easier, and better, in a regulation format. We believe that the police services board's organization has agreed that this is the way to go and has accepted that responsibility that the government has made the commitment on.

On the member from Kenora—Rainy River's comments, just to make a couple of points: I don't know that I subscribe to his characterization of it being too vague. What I do agree with is that when he did bring a couple of points to the floor, we did recess to address some of the concerns that he raised; we in fact did deal with the one issue, First Nations, that he'd brought as a concern to the floor. We did change, by amendment, a couple of issues in the legislation to address that specifically, and I'll address that in a more formal way in a moment.

On the regulation format with regard to indemnity, liability, responsibility and discipline in the bill, there are also regulations that are going to be dealt with that specifically talk to him. I committed to him then and I can report back that staff have taken those concerns under advisement and will try to bring a little bit more certainty to—I don't know if it would satisfy him, to be honest with you. But it would bring more satisfaction to him, I believe, about the concerns regarding the discipline and who.

What I did discover, with questioning, is that it would still be the responsibility of the out-of-province service to deal with that, but there's going to be a built-in co-operative nature: The regulation would imply that the information that would be necessary for that disciplinary panel would be shared between provinces. I hope that that would deal somewhat with the concerns that he has laid out.

In terms of Quebec, my understanding is that as of a month or so ago, there was a framework for the legislation; and just recently, within the last couple of weeks, my understanding is that the legislation has been presented, and yes, it's very much a mirror of what Ontario's legislation was about. I can assure him that Quebec is pursuing this with as much vigour as we have in ensuring that we have the legislation in place to take care of the issues that we talk about in terms of special constables.

Let me make sure that the three foundations we're talking about are laid out. First, there's fresh pursuit. That is the area that does not get affected by this piece of legislation. Fresh pursuit is something that requires no legislation, because it's already in an agreement that if somebody is following somebody from Ontario to Quebec, under the possibility of a Criminal Code charge, that continues. That is not being affected by this piece of legislation. That's an important point.

The other two pillars are the ongoing investigation component of this particular special constable allocation, and that's the piece that is actually going to be very beneficial for us; and the second one is special events, such as the G8, the Olympics, royal visits, which we've talked about in this House before and at committee, where we need to have co-operation between provinces all the way through. We're hoping that applies to this piece of legislation, because under that circumstance—I'll explain a little bit later as to how that can have an impact and an effect on our capacity for special constables.

So I hope I've dealt with a couple of those issues that the two members have brought up.

I would also say that police services in Ontario and other provinces have asked for this type of legislation to allow police officers to retain their powers when they travel to another Canadian jurisdiction on police matters.

One of the things that's interesting is that there have been two or three people that I've spoken to about this issue off the cuff, and they were surprised that we don't have that authority already. They assumed that the fresh pursuit piece was the one that was allowed right across the board and that it applied to investigations and special events. They were not aware that we didn't have this kind of agreement in place. Although we have other provinces that have moved toward this over the last few years, Ontario does not have that yet, and that's why we're seeing this particular piece of legislation.

The other comment that came up a couple of times in the House—and I hope we've brought the temperature down on that one—was, "What about the RCMP?" Well, they already have that authority. It's a built-in federal service that has authority to be—we've got something like 1,500 RCMP officers in Ontario already working and acting on behalf of safety and security, so they have that authority already.

Without this legislation, when it's necessary for a police officer from another Canadian province or territory to work in Ontario, the police officer must be appointed temporarily as a special constable by a police services board or the OPP commissioner, with the approval of the ministry.

This special constable system was not designed to address provincial cross-border policing, and it's ineffective for those types of appointments that we're talking about, which are on the two pillars of special events and ongoing investigation. The system does not automatically allow for an out-of-province police officer to have the powers of an Ontario police officer and does not address the oversight, the discipline and the civil liability pieces that we're talking about and that were brought up by the member from the NDP. Conversely, Ontario police officers do not automatically retain their authority when they cross provincial boundaries.

Because of these important points, our police partners such as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, and the Police Association of Ontario support the legislation for extra-provincial policing. They think that it's the best way to go.

I know I'm already being positively heckled by the members of the opposition who are telling me they don't need the details that are found inside of this because they really are onside and they want us to pursue this legislation vigorously, but we have to take our time to make sure that we get it right.

As far as that goes, I want to come back to the member from Kenora—Rainy River, who asked me about the public hearings and such. When we had that opportunity to present, three people signed up and two actually showed up to present. I don't know whether or not that's an indication of whether people were aware of the bill or what the rights were. One deputation did bring up a concern for civil liberties, and inside of that, one of the things I didn't agree with was the assumption that it was giving extreme powers to the police. That is not the case with this legislation.

I confidently say to that deputant that the concern was laid on the table and the questions were asked as to whether or not it was giving extra power to the police officers. It does not give any extra power to the police officer. I want to make that point clear. You have the same powers within the province that you are attending to—no special powers, no extra powers, no powers over and above what's already in existence in those provinces.

Quite frankly, it was a smart thing to ask that question, because it made sure that we are not providing police officers with any extraordinary powers that would allow them to do anything less to a civilian.

The problem here is that we have to make sure we stay focused on exactly why we're introducing this bill: It's to make sure that the bad guys are not getting away with things that—because of the type of legislation we presently have, we're not empowering the police to do what they should be doing, and can be doing already, in each of the provinces that we're talking about. With an increased incidence of interprovincial crime, it's vital to coordinate our efforts, and that's precisely why we're doing what we're doing.

I believe the streamlined opportunities we have here are a step forward in the puzzle that I said was in existence before; that this piece of that puzzle ensures we have an opportunity to go after the bad guys.

If adopted into law, the bill would give the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services the authority to designate officials who would receive and decide on applications from police commanders from other provinces and territories to have their officers designated as extra-provincial police officers with full policing powers in Ontario. Under the terms of the proposed legislation, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services would designate one or more persons in Ontario as officials with the power to appoint an extra-provincial police officer as a police officer in Ontario.

An extra-provincial or out-of-province police service that wishes to obtain police officer status for one or more of its police officers would be required to make a written application to an appointing official in Ontario.

An appointing official may appoint an extra-provincial police officer as a police officer in Ontario for a period of no more than three years, subject to any conditions imposed by that appointment—therefore the accountability concern that has been raised. The appointing official would be required to make the decision within seven days after receiving the request. There's one option in there for a 72-hour turnaround in the special circumstance of an extremely time-sensitive investigation of a crime that could be committed.

Bill 203 would allow municipal police chiefs and territorial police chiefs—referring to the amendment that was made to include First Nations—and OPP detachment commanders to extend police powers for short periods of time in urgent circumstances within the 72-hour turnaround that I referred to. Once approved, the appointment would be effective on the date indicated on the appointment form. Similar legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories would grant reciprocal authority to Ontario police officers working outside Ontario.

Let me move to the SIU. This will provide increased accountability. An out-of-province police officer would be subject to an investigation by the SIU and required to co-operate with such investigations under the agreement. The new legislation would allow the public to lodge complaints against an out-of-province police officer and for investigations of those complaints to take place in Ontario, hence the accountability. Disciplinary proceedings, if warranted, would remain the responsibility of the out-of-province police officer's home province.

But as you can see, with that SIU investigation, the accumulated information would be shared with the other province, which kind of plugs the hole that was considered to be in the legislation.

Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have already adopted province-wide cross-border policing legislation that establishes a process for granting authority to out-of-province police officers. All provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, have used the Uniform Law Conference of Canada model as a legislative base, so they're quite in harmony with each other, and it provides us with an opportunity to be assured that this piece of legislation is not being used for anything other than to ensure that we're going after the bad guy.

This model was developed by a working group with representatives from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Justice Canada, the Solicitor General for Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The working group consulted various police groups, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, to ensure that the draft legislation was responsive to police needs in each of the provinces.

Ontario has been in discussion with Quebec for some time concerning implementation, and signed an agreement at the previous first ministers' meetings. Ontario's proposed cross-border policing issues are generally in line with those of Quebec. This is very important, not only give the geographic proximity, but also for the frequent co-operation between Ontario and Quebec police forces. We're pleased that just last month, the Quebec government introduced and passed in principle legislation on cross-border policing that we were working on with Quebec.

I honestly believe that the legislation supports Ontario's commitment to public safety by allowing all extra-provincial police officers to apply for and obtain extra-provincial police status in a timely manner.

This type of legislation avoids the unnecessary delays in operations or investigations and, secondly, enhances the enforcement ability of extra-provincial police officers conducting investigations and operations in Ontario, thereby doing what I said at the very beginning, which is an important part of this discussion all the way through: This is not about us versus them; this is about going after the bad guys. So Quebec, Ontario and subsequently all the other provinces have found a common bond: for us to chase after those bad guys. They have the capacity and the ability to modernize themselves as criminals.

We have to do the same thing here.

I'll end by saying that I want to thank the staff that have worked so hard in providing me with the opportunity to engage in the discussion. I want to thank the minister for his trust and his support. I want to thank the opposition members for being thoughtful in their deputations about the bill. I also think that criminals will get the message loud and clear that if you think you're going to use politics to take us apart on the issue, you're sadly mistaken, and we're coming after you bad guys.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 1, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 203,

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 0936 to 0941.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): All those opposed?

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Government order G175.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The bill is still in committee.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: No further business, then, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 0945 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to Queen's Park a class from George Harvey high school, from the riding of York South—Weston. They will be in the gallery shortly.

Mr. Michael Prue: I have two guests I would like to introduce. The first is Shanthini Mylvaganam, who is the mother of page Saeyon, who is here today. She's from Beaches—East York, and we welcome her to the gallery to watch us and especially to watch her son. The second guest is Mr. Trent Reschny, who is also a guest from Beaches—East York, who is in the members' west gallery.

Hon. Jim Watson: I don't believe he's here yet, but I'd like to welcome Dave Arbuckle, who works for the region of Peel, and he has visited Ottawa before.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I would like to introduce my constituent Mark Douglas of Georgetown. Welcome, Mark.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I don't believe he's here yet, but I want to welcome him in case he does show up: George Smitherman.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke knows we do not make reference to attendance of members.

Leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don't know if they've arrived yet, but I want to welcome Rick Pybus, chair of the OPSEU CAS sector; Tracy Rehel, president of Local 304, the York children's aid society; Aubrey Gonsalves, president of Toronto CAS; and Nancy Simone, from the Toronto CCAS.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Seated in the Speaker's gallery, I'd like to welcome, from my constituency office, Anita Ratkovic-Baric, Craig Bradford, Kim Davis, her grandson Kristian Young, Veronika Sonier and her grandson Cole Sonier. Welcome to Queen's Park, all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The auditor's 2009 annual report found that Canada's worst government didn't learn a thing from the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. In fact, on the first page of his report, the auditor says that a culture has developed where Dalton McGuinty does not see getting maximum value for taxpayer dollars as any kind of priority.

After every scathing revelation of waste, Dalton McGuinty's eyes well up with crocodile tears and he promises that he will try to do better. Minister, why can't you understand the public doesn't want more promises? They want change that starts at the top.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, we do want to thank the Auditor General and his staff for the very good work they do, for the recommendations they bring forward on how we can, in fact, improve the delivery of the vital public services that Ontarians expect.

As he does every year, the auditor pointed out some areas where it appears that we have some work to do, and we are committed to doing that, to act on the auditor's recommendations. It's very important to follow up on those recommendations.

Interjection: As we have in the past.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have in the past, as my colleague says. It's important that we take into account his recommendations and the recommendations of other stakeholders as we move forward. And it is important to the respond to the auditor. I know my ministerial colleagues and I and the Premier look forward to responding to the auditor's recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister says that they have some work to do. I would say that is the understatement of the year. Minister, we've heard your phony promises time and time again. What the auditor has demonstrated is that a culture of entitlement has set in deep across the Dalton McGuinty government, and the Premier himself is to blame. It's not just me saying that; take the auditor's word, who urged the government to "spend the taxpayers' money like it is their own." But we're seeing the opposite from the McGuinty government.

One example: For a monitor that would cost $250 at Future Shop, the government paid some $1,300 in taxpayers' funds. It begs the question: Were the computer vendors represented by Jason Grier or the Courtyard Group?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We do believe in looking at what the auditor recommends and we do believe we need to shine light on these areas; that we need to have a higher standard. That's why we have expanded the powers of the Auditor General. That's why we opened up hospitals, schools, colleges, universities and crown corporations to value-for-money audits. We even opened Hydro One and OPG to the auditor for his scrutiny. What we've done is set a higher standard for everyone for more transparency, more scrutiny, more responsibility and more accountability.

I stress again that we take the auditor's recommendations seriously. We have an obligation to respond to those recommendations, and we will respond. Many of them, we have already taken steps on.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: In his report on the eHealth $1-billion boondoggle, the auditor found consultants who were then allowed to hire other consultants, sometimes from their own firm. In his annual report, the auditor found that the procurement consultants at Ontario Buys similarly went and hired their own consultants. It's no doubt very ironic that consultants who were supposed to help improve procurement rules were they themselves breaking those very same rules.

I ask the Acting Premier: You know who got rich off these deals because it was your government that made them. Will you table the full list of consultants at Ontario Buys who got rich at taxpayer expense?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one point that I would note is that, in fact, those contracts were let by our broader public sector partners in most cases.

Let's review what Auditor Generals have said in the past, because the member talked about accountability and following the recommendations of the auditor. Here's what he said in his 2003 report: "It was apparent to us this year that there were far too many areas where prior-year concerns—often going back four, five, six or even 10 years—had not been satisfactorily addressed ... there is no excuse for a lack of effective action." In 2002, the Conservatives had only implemented 15% of the recommendations.

What did the Auditor General say yesterday? That this government had implemented more than 90% of his recommendations from 2007. We take him seriously. We take this Legislature seriously. We take committees—

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The auditor's latest report reveals a new billion-dollar boondoggle happening under your watch, in your ministry. With eHealth and now this, two thirds of your HST tax grab is being committed to McGuinty Liberal scandals. Minister, the auditor found that you're doing a poor job of assessing who should be getting welfare, and the result: You've made over $1 billion in overpayments to welfare and the Ontario disability support program. I ask the minister: Will the people who scammed the welfare system also receive your $1,000 HST bribe cheques?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw his last comment, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I think that it's a good question, but I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the overpayments started with the two parties who were in government before us. I would like to remind the leader of the third party that the $1.1 billion was there in 2003, when we came into power. Any overpayment is not acceptable, and this government is determined to make sure that the overpayments cease. We have created—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member from Nepean to withdraw her comment, please.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Under this government, we have created the overpayment recovery unit and we will recover the money that is due to the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: This is another billion-dollar boondoggle on top of the eHealth scandal: a billion dollars of welfare abuse, fraud and overpayments detailed in the auditor's report. Let me give you one example, Minister. You received five complaints from five different people about one family that was driving new SUVs while receiving social benefits. The auditor is quoted as saying, "We had a number of audits that made our heads shake." Well, join the club. The auditor went on to say that this recipient is repaying that overpayment with $60-a-month reductions in current income support. I ask the minister, why don't you just make them sell the SUVs?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: An excellent question by the leader of the opposite party. My notes indicated to me, about the family driving new SUVs, that the first complaint was in 1996. Who was in power in 1996? And why didn't the Tory government investigate the complaint? Second complaint: 1999. Who was in power at the time? What's the answer? Complaints against this were ignored. Investigated again in 2001: no complaint, no investigation. So we did it. We finished the investigation and we have established a repayment plan.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: So the minister's response is to simply sit on her hands. She won't ask them to sell the SUVs; she'll simply do a slap on the wrist.

In fact, another example was someone who received $78,000 in overpayments. His current benefits were reduced by $10 a month to pay it back. The auditor said that at that rate it would take 650 years to recover what you should not have paid out in the first place. Dalton McGuinty refuses to make any of his friends pay back Ontario taxpayers for the eHealth scandal. Does this minister have any intention of recovering the $1.2 billion wasted under her watch?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to say that, yes, we will recover all of the $1.3 billion in overpayments. Unfortunately, there is overpayment that dated to when this government was in power and they did nothing. We put together the overpayment recovery unit and we have a plan for everyone to repay overpayments, because this government does not accept that people receive taxpayers' money when they do not qualify for it. So we will continue to recover. But to say that we will be able to recover from those who have left the country or those who are not in this world anymore, no, but—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The McGuinty Liberals have spent the last few weeks doing their very, very best to ram the harmonized sales tax through this Legislature. They stifled debate, they refused province-wide hearings and last evening they walked out of a committee meeting, forcing the proceedings to stop. How can the McGuinty Liberals be so arrogant that they're not willing to listen to concerned Ontario families, or even have a reasonable debate on the harmonized sales tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: For the past nine months, we have engaged in a number of debates across the province—more than 40 hours of debate here in the Legislature. My caucus colleagues and I have done more than 160 public sessions. There has been, in our view, ample and prolonged debate. This debate will no doubt continue for a long time to come. We understand that. We respect that.

We look forward to having the vote again in this House. We look forward to having the vote on this important bill, which will lower taxes for Ontarians, which will help the most vulnerable in our society and which will help build a better and more prosperous future with more jobs, higher incomes and more capital investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government is in full damage control mode. Backbench Liberal MPPs are scrambling to defend their unfair tax on gas and home heating. Instead, they should be listening to Ontarians—Ontarians like John Newbigging of Hamilton, like Laura Feeney of Courtice and like Amanda-Lyn Smith of Orleans.

The McGuinty Liberals are walking out of committee hearings, limiting debate and doing everything they can to ram through the HST. How can they be anything but arrogant?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We, in fact, have been debating this now for nine months. We've had more than 40 hours of debate here in the Legislature. We, in fact, watched the opposition walk out of question periods, refusing to use their time to question the government on that. We saw a very sorry spectacle last week where members of the opposition refused to listen to the Speaker.

We support this bill. People in Ontario know that. It is the right plan for Ontario. The nine months of debate we've had on it, the more than 160 public sessions, and the public committee hearings we've had, have given us the opportunity to hear from people. We've made a number of changes to the legislation since its introduction. We are committed to building jobs and a more prosperous future for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, not listening? Refusing to listen? Walking out on meetings? It's like the pot calling the kettle black around here. What kind of a response is that?

You know, it's not just Joseph Morin of Peterborough, and Anita Linneki from Elgin county who will not have a chance to be heard. The McGuinty Liberals are so desperate to ram this bill through that they've even prevented their own message from getting out.

On Thursday, the Liberals used their majority to prevent the opposition from questioning their economic mercenary, Jack Mintz. They even shut him down. What does that say about the arrogance of this McGuinty Liberal government?

Interjection: We wanted Hugh Mackenzie to come. They said no.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes. In fact, Mr. Mintz was the Conservatives' expert witness last year. He supports the government's policy.

There has been a lot of debate. We look forward to the opportunity to pass this bill, to pass one of the largest tax cuts in Ontario history and to create some 600,000 jobs for those people in Ontario who are looking for work to build better incomes and a better future for our children and their children. The times call for difficult choices. This government is prepared to lead; this government is prepared to build a better future for all Ontarians.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again, to the acting Premier: the McGuinty Liberals might ram the HST legislation through, but the fight is far from over—at least for New Democrats, it's far from over. Yesterday, I was in Ottawa with Jack Layton and Carole James, urging Liberal and Conservative MPs who are opposed to this tax to stand up for their constituents and vote no to the HST. The tax still needs to pass several parliamentary hurdles, as everyone in this chamber knows, including a vote on the $4.3-billion bribe to Ontario.

What will the McGuinty government—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

Including the vote on the $4.3 billion dollars of sweetening-of-the-pot money that the federal government is giving to the Acting Premier.

My question is this: What will the McGuinty government do if Parliament actually refuses to pass on that sweetener?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have put together, working with the federal government, a package of tax reforms for all Ontarians that will lower taxes for 93% of us and will create some 600,000 jobs. My understanding is that the HST legislation passed the federal House last week. There are some votes to follow from that. But this government remains committed to lowering taxes for Ontario's most vulnerable, to doing what organizations like the Daily Bread Food Bank and individuals like Hugh Mackenzie said, which was to proceed with this. It will create jobs; it will lower taxes for the most vulnerable.

As the Ottawa Citizen said in its editorial today in response to the leader's press conference yesterday, this is a substantive public policy. We choose that over stunts every time. It's the right thing. It's about a brighter future—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Too bad for the people of Ontario that this government doesn't choose to listen to what they have to say, never mind stunts or anything else. The New Democrats, however, are standing up for the people of Ontario and for their families by taking this fight to Ottawa. Despite the best efforts of the McGuinty Liberals to close off debate and ram the HST through this House, it is far from a done deal. The Liberal benches in Ottawa were startlingly empty for the first HST vote. Conservative MPs vocally critical of the HST were missing too. Will the McGuinty government reconsider this unfair tax if Parliament says no to the $4.3-billion sweetener?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A week or so ago, the member said that the first vote would be lost, and it wasn't. I think it passed 130 to 29.

I don't think the member opposite has much credibility on this particular issue. I would suggest that she and her party not vote against doubling the senior property tax credit. I would suggest that she and her party not vote against making Ontario's tax rate for the lowest incomes the lowest in Canada. I would suggest that she follow the advice of people like Hugh Mackenzie and others who understand and see through the rhetoric and see through the stunts, that we need difficult choices to create jobs to provide a better future for our children and their children. Let's work together. This is difficult.

We've had nine months of public debate. It's time to get on with it. It's time to lower taxes and give more Ontarians hope for a better and brighter future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Harper Conservatives are taking pages out of the McGuinty HST playbook. They refused public hearings and shut down debate. But MPs will have to vote on the $4.3-billion sweetener to Ontario. They may very well reject that vote; they very well may, the way things are turning out these days.

My question is a simple one: Why won't this Acting Premier even talk about the possibility of the sweetener not flowing to this government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There was one recorded vote in the House of Commons: It was 132 to 29.

What I want to talk about is how to create 600,000 jobs. What I want to talk about is doubling the property tax credit for seniors. What I want to talk about is lowering consumer prices overall. What I want to talk about is making a brighter future for all Ontarians.

There's no doubt that this is a complicated tax package. We welcome the support of federal Conservatives in this. We welcome the support of the federal government with $4.3 billion that will allow Ontarians to transition into this new tax system. After nine months of debate, 40 hours in this House, public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration, it's time to vote. I welcome the opportunity to vote and stand up for a brighter and better future for all Ontarians.

AGENCY SPENDING

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This fall we learned about the extravagant expenses of Liberal friend Steve Mahoney, chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Mahoney isn't the only former MPP who's a Liberal who's billing taxpayers for outrageous expenses. Records obtained through the freedom of information reveal that Frank Miclash was given an additional allowance of $2,300 a month to rent an apartment in Toronto when he was appointed acting chair of the Social Benefits Tribunal in May 2008. Why did you approve this expense, Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is an excellent question. The reason why we've approved that is that the interim chair was coming to Toronto on an interim basis. Instead of living in hotels at $250 a night, it was cheaper for him to have an apartment here in town. That's the reason why we have approved those expenses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I stay in a hotel in Toronto; it's $150 for me, so I don't know where you're sleeping. The shelter allowance for a single mother on disability support is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. The member from Cambridge is not being helpful.

Please continue.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The shelter allowance for a single mother on disability support is $714 a month. You gave your Liberal friend Frank Miclash over three times that for an apartment he expenses and uses as little as four times a month. The auditor's annual report found that ODSP, which Miclash reviews, wasted $663 million. When the auditor said that the program failed to ensure that only eligible persons received funds, was he talking about your Liberal friend, Frank Miclash?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'm very surprised to have a question like this from a member whose party cut social assistance by 22%. Again, I'm going to repeat to them that when we came into power in 2003, the overpayment was $1.1 billion under their watch, and they did nothing. Our government has a plan with those who have an overpayment to repay according to their capacity to pay. We have also established the overpayment recovery unit, and with that we have people who are dedicated to the recovery. They may think it's funny, but we are serious about collecting these overpayments.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Because the McGuinty Liberals limited public debates and hearings into the unfair HST, people like Trent Reschny didn't get a chance to be heard. Trent is a full-time musician. He wanted to tell the committee about the impact that the HST—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): When we bring guests, and I am referring specifically to the gentleman in the chamber, please remain seated. Thank you.

Mr. Michael Prue: He wanted to tell the committee about the impact that the HST will have on his small business. He's in the Legislature, as we've just heard. How could the McGuinty government be so arrogant that they're unwilling to even listen to small business people and small business owners like Trent?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We welcome the gentleman to the House, and we appreciate the challenges of a small business in Ontario, particularly in this economy. That's why we're cutting the small business tax rate by 18%. You're voting against that. That's why we are cutting personal taxes for modest-income Ontarians and doubling the sales tax credit. I doubt very much that my colleague took time to do that. I'm also given to understand that there were opposition time slots yesterday that weren't used because they didn't have people lined up.

So we are moving forward after more than 40 hours of debate. We welcome the public's participation in a variety of forums. I have met with the musicians' union myself. I've met with a variety of other stakeholders.

It's time to vote on this, it's time to create 600,000 jobs and it's time to work for a better and brighter future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I trust that Trent and everyone else in the province just heard a non-answer. Trent is here with a specific question for the Minister of Finance. He's a hard-working musician whose income is just high enough to require him to charge GST, soon to be HST, but many of his gigs are weddings, where he's unable to claim input tax credits. With no savings to pass on to clients, he will have to charge the full 13% HST.

How can Trent operate a competitive business when he has to charge the HST and those below the line do not? While other similarly qualified musicians just below the income threshold do not charge it, he will be put at a great tax disadvantage, and you know it.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I obviously can't comment on specific tax cases. What I can say is, the tax package has been designed to accommodate people of modest incomes. We are cutting the first tax bracket for people of modest incomes. We are lowering the business tax rate for small businesses by some 17%. This tax package will result in some 93% of Ontarians paying less in overall taxes. This is the most important package of tax reforms we can bring forward to create jobs to build a better future for people like Trent and others.

As difficult as the package is, I disagree with the NDP. I disagree with their approach. We're going to pass this bill. We are going to build a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. My riding of Peterborough has a strong tradition of manufacturing innovation. Researchers at Trent University are involved in studies of global significance, helping to solve complex problems around the world. Recently, General Electric, one of the most innovative companies in the world, announced they are making a $100-million investment in their Peterborough facility. This investment will create 33 new high-skill jobs and retain an additional 75 jobs, putting a higher focus on research and development for their large motors division.

GE Canada president and CEO Elyse Allan said, "It really was a recognition of how competitive Ontario has become on a global stage and our ability as a global company to invest here in Ontario, to grow here in Ontario and to have the ability to export around the world new technology and exciting products."

This is an example of what our—

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for Peterborough for the question. There are two things that I would add. I believe that GE Canada, one of the largest, one of the most successful and one of the most innovative companies in the world, has made a wise decision by making a $100-million investment in our province, and we are proud of that. Both GE Canada and this government are concerned about the jobs of the future for our children and our grandchildren. That future is brighter today in Peterborough because of that investment.

I want to thank GE for recognizing the fact that by substantially improving the competitive position of Ontario businesses, they can make further investments in our province. They have a wonderful history, but we need a future based on new jobs. So we want to thank GE for making that investment.

I want remind the good people of Peterborough that there are two parties in this House that will stand in their place and say that we should not make changes to ensure that we have a brighter future for our children. That vote will be recorded, and we're looking forward to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Investments such as those by General Electric are welcome news to the people of Peterborough who are looking for work. People rely on their jobs to provide for their families. The most important thing government can do is encourage investment for job creation.

Recently, University of Calgary economist Jack Mintz stated that an estimated 591,000 additional new jobs will be created. He also says it will increase overall annual worker incomes by up to 8.8%, or $29.4 billion. The TD Bank estimates the HST will reduce the cost of doing business in Ontario by roughly $5.3 billion, and that the majority of these savings will be passed on to customers within the first year.

My constituents in Peterborough want the straight goods. Tell us what the HST will mean for families in Peterborough looking for work.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Our package is designed to ensure that families have the dignity of a job, so that a mom and dad can put their kids to bed at night and say that they have a brighter future because they went to work today.

I remember in this place when the members of the official opposition were for cutting taxes and were for creating jobs. They're voting against that. I remember when the third party believed that we should have a more progressive tax system, but—

Hon. John Wilkinson: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I remember when the third party was for a progressive tax system that would see an increase of tax grants to those people of the least means. That's exactly what our package is doing; that's exactly what they're going to vote against. It is so important in the 21st century that we give to our people the hope and the dignity of a job, and that's exactly what inspires our tax package.

I'm so proud that GE Canada, one of the leading companies in the world, has decided to make this investment in the member's riding. It is so important for the future of Peterborough and for Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Finance. A few minutes ago I introduced Mark Douglas of Georgetown, Mark the painter. In a letter to Mr. Douglas, which was dated February 21, 2008, the finance minister said he wouldn't agree to harmonizing taxes with the GST if it increased taxes, "particularly with respect to basic essentials such as home heating." I have the letter in my hands. Why did the minister say he was opposed to HST on home heating when evidently he was not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite knows full well that we have a package of tax changes. I was delighted when the federal Conservative government offered $4.3 billion, which allows us to implement a range of tax cuts. This will, overall, lower taxes for 93% of Ontarians. The support of Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Harper and the Conservative government has been very important, and your Conservative colleague from your riding. It has been very important to doing this.

This tax package is the right package of tax changes. It will lower taxes for 93% of Ontarians. I know the member doesn't want to acknowledge that this is supported by the federal Conservatives. It is, and they know that this is the right package of tax changes that will lower taxes for people like your constituents overall.

We're moving forward. It's about jobs. It's about a brighter future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Evidently the minister thinks this is about the HST, but really it's a matter of whether you can trust the minister's words. He said in clear, unqualified terms that he wouldn't allow an HST to tax home heating, but his HST applies to home heating. The Premier said he believed in public hearings, but he does not. He also said that untendered contracts would stop, but they have not. Why do the McGuinty Liberals keep saying things that they do not mean?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And here is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said on March 11 of this year: "They must follow the advice they sought from Roger Martin." And do you know what his advice was? To harmonize the HST.

Do you know what Mr. Klees said? He said, "No one can argue with wanting a more simplified tax process. I think we all support that."

And what did your leader say? Here's what your leader said: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and collect two separate groups of sales taxes." That was in April of this year.

I would say to your constituent that this party has a clear, consistent position; that is, to implement this tax reform package to create jobs for all Ontarians and to make a better future for everyone. That party and its leader have been all over the map. They used to support it and now they don't. They're—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday the Auditor General issued a damning report on the state of Ontario's social housing: 137,000 Ontario families are languishing on waiting lists, in some cases for up to 21 years. The government has withheld $330 million of federal housing funds. The government lacks up-to-date information on the condition of existing social housing units.

My question is: Does the minister agree with the Auditor General's report, that the government must do much better in delivering social housing?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member. I also thank the Auditor General for his observations and the work—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member from Cambridge to please withdraw his comment.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I withdraw.

Hon. Jim Watson: I had an opportunity to meet with the Auditor General. We had a very good discussion on the work that our ministry has been doing in implementing the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program.

I'm very pleased to report to the House that in 2003, when the McGuinty government had the honour of forming government in this great province, $8 million was being spent on capital for affordable housing; in 2009-10, $664.8 million is being spent on affordable housing programs.

Every single time we bring forward a new initiative, whether it's the affordable housing program, rent supplements or the rent bank, who votes against it? The NDP. So I would tell the honourable member that when money comes forward in next year's budget for the second half of the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program, I would hope she would vote for—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: One hundred and thirty-seven thousand families are waiting up to 21 years. The auditor said it all. He also reports that rents for the government's affordable housing program are not affordable for the majority of people waiting for housing. Housing advocates, including the Daily Bread Food Bank, have been calling for a $100-a-month housing benefit to help address this lack of affordability.

Given the catastrophe, will the minister commit today, right now, to implementing this housing benefit?

Hon. Jim Watson: We're very proud of the fact that we have the most amount of money in a two-year period of any government in Ontario's history: $1.2 billion that is going to be spent this year and next year.

When we brought forward the $1.2 billion, what did the honourable member call it? She called it "crumbs." When we brought forward $100 million in social housing and repair, what did she call it? She called it "meagre." Where I come from, $100 million and $1.2 billion is not crumbs, it's not meagre; it's an historical investment in helping some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

We're in the process of putting together a long-term affordable housing strategy. We had 13 public consultations—not one appearance by the honourable member, who's the critic for the NDP. She didn't show up once to explain what her position was. When we put forward $36 million to help the people of Toronto in housing repairs, her party was promising $30 million, and she still called it crumbs—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well.

Minister, I do a lot of work in my riding of Ottawa Centre on affordable housing, and as you know, there's a continual need for more access to affordable housing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Hamilton East turning your back to me, I can still hear you.

Please continue.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: There's a continual need for more access to affordable housing across Ontario. Not only do we need to build more, but much of our current social housing is in need of repair. As a representative of a riding with the largest urban aboriginal population, it is evident in my city that some of those most in need are members of our aboriginal communities. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and they need our help. There is a clear need for action in Ottawa Centre and across this province.

Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that members of our aboriginal communities have access to more and better affordable housing in Ottawa?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member. I had the pleasure of being in his riding just a week ago, when we announced two very exciting local aboriginal housing projects that are part of a $60-million investment we are making for aboriginal housing throughout Ontario. I'm pleased to report that 40 aboriginal households in Ottawa—40 aboriginal families in Ottawa—will benefit from this new affordable housing.

Across Ontario, we have recently announced that an investment of $20.4 million will mean 144 more new homes to be created for aboriginal households. To quote Don McBain, executive director of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services, "This" housing "announcement provides great opportunity for ... experienced urban aboriginal housing providers to reduce" waiting times "while stimulating the economy ... through new construction and building rehabilitation."

We're proud of the partnership that we've made with the aboriginal housing community. They're making the decisions, they're implementing the program, and they will be building the homes for these families.

Interjections.

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

If there are issues—I have talked before, and I heard the member for Hamilton East earlier, about "What about someone else?" I would just say that if members are out of their seats and they're causing some disruption with other members—I just want to ensure that the House flows smoothly. It may be best that the member for Don Valley East be in his seat.

Please continue, member from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. I'm glad to see that some progress is being made, but I'm keenly aware that our community members are eager to see results come to bear in Ottawa and across Ontario, as I heard extensively during my public consultation on affordable housing held in my riding on August 19. Minister, my constituents expect action, and I hope that we can see this work begin as soon as possible.

I've observed that since becoming Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, you have often advocated the need for a national strategy for affordable housing. Public consultations on developing a long-term strategy for Ontario, which were led by your ministry, have now concluded, but the need for affordable housing is not Ontario's alone. What progress has been made in urging the federal government to begin developing their own strategy, and when can we expect there to be action towards an coordinated affordable housing approach across Canada?

Hon. Jim Watson: Last week I was in Gatineau, Quebec, with provincial and territorial housing ministers as well as the federal minister, the Honourable Diane Finley. We met in our first formal FPT meeting in close to four and a half years, and I raised, along with others, the need for a national housing strategy.

You know, when all three levels of government are working together in co-operation, great things can happen. Just yesterday, I was in the Banff-Ledbury community in Ottawa South to announce that 117 families in that community have seen major improvements, thanks to the funding from the social housing repair fund. One woman said it best: "It's beautiful. I have a new home. The heat is fixed. New windows. New screen doors. I feel like a dream come true."

I was joined by Jo-Anne Poirier, the president of Ottawa Community Housing; Councillor Maria McRae; and MP David McGuinty. We're proud of the work that we're doing in Banff-Ledbury and throughout the province of Ontario. We know that more work has to be done; that is why we've committed to $1.2 billion—

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

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. The Auditor General was very critical of the spending practices of the literacy and numeracy secretariat, and also the use of certain school boards as banker boards to distribute $288 million to other boards and third parties. Minister, why did you approve these banker board arrangements, and why was this money allowed to flow without any memorandum of understanding between the secretariat and the banker boards as to accountability and reporting requirements?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to acknowledge the recommendations of the Auditor General and to say that there is always more that can be done, but to also note that he notes that substantial progress has been made over the last five years. The number of children achieving level 3 on Education Quality and Accountability Office testing has increased, on average, from 56% in 2003-04 to 65% in 2007-08. He used those numbers because he didn't have the 2008-09 numbers. So at the core of his investigation, he found that there has been progress made and there has been value for money in the investments that we have made in the sector.

We are absolutely committed to attending to the Auditor General's recommendations. I think it's important to note that there's always more we can do in terms of accountability and the processes that are put in place to make sure that our school boards follow the best accountability practices possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Minister of Education: I am very disappointed that the minister did not respond to the question that I asked regarding the use of banker boards and the lack of accountability, because not only do we see this transfer from banker boards to other school boards and third parties occurring without any transparency, without any accountability, and what someone suggested to me was akin to money laundering, but we have a secretariat who is paying these banker boards excessive administration fees.

I ask the minister again: What steps will you take to stop these inappropriate spending practices and make sure that all of the money is directed to the boards with the students most in need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite is very aware, having been a Minister of Education herself, of the variation of sizes of boards and capacities across the province, and she's very aware that sometimes larger boards perform services for smaller boards in order to assure that there's a critical mass of capacity at a particular board. I think the member opposite understands that very well.

I've already said that we're paying very close attention to what the Auditor General has said. We will absolutely work to put those accountability measures in place. But at the core of the Auditor General's investigation was a question of whether children were improving in terms of their ability to perform tasks and in terms of their academic ability. What the Auditor General found was that there was improvement. So the dollars are being invested very wisely, but absolutely, we take the point that there's more that can be done to make sure there's—

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

CHILD PROTECTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The Auditor General reports that the McGuinty government is squandering billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they're starving Ontario's child welfare and protection system. Agencies are on life support, knowing that their budgets simply are not enough to provide for a growing number of children who are coming into their care.

My question is a very serious one: What will happen to the highest-risk and most vulnerable children in this province while the minister fumbles around for a solution to this funding crisis?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to have an opportunity once again to remind the leader of the third party of the steps that this government is taking to find a pathway to sustainability for children's aid societies. It's our commitment to the kids of this province that drives us to find the right people, to bring them to the table, to find those solutions, to make sure that we can have better outcomes for kids. I am so pleased to have a chance to talk about the calibre and quality of people who have come to the table, who are serving on the commission to find a pathway to sustainability for child welfare.

I look forward, and I would encourage the leader of the third party to look at the calibre of the individuals who have stepped forward to help us in this initiative. We're absolutely committed to making sure that our children's aid societies are there for children, both in the short term and the long term. We will find a pathway to do that and we're absolutely committed to taking the necessary steps to protect Ontario's kids.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This isn't about congratulating appointees to a commission, who I'm sure are all wonderful people. This is about the needs of the most vulnerable children in this province and the capacity of this government to deliver the services they need through agencies like children's aid societies. Forty-nine children's aid societies, some of whom are with us today, have told the minister that they are in a $67-million deficit position—$67 million. The McGuinty government made a reckless $23-million budget cut to CASs and First Nations agencies last June.

Now the ministry is advancing them next month's funding allocations to pay for last month's bills. Those advances are going to run out at the end of February and children will suffer as a result.

The McGuinty government must resolve the funding crisis that they've created. When will the minister fund the provincial child welfare and protection system up to the level that it needs to be funded to protect our children?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let's remember the facts here and let's recall that this government has increased investment year over year to the child welfare sector. What we have done this year is we have said we cannot be on a pathway where each and every year child welfare agencies live beyond their means, that we must look at the specific issues that are challenging in their budgets. That is exactly what the commission will be doing.

I am absolutely committed to look at processes within my ministry, the paperwork and the requirements that are expected of child welfare agencies, and determine whether or not that paperwork needs to be filed in exactly the same way. We must innovate. We must find new pathways to deliver this critically important service.

That's why I attended the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies' meetings last week, took questions from the floor, spoke to individuals and the leadership, and committed to them once again to work in partnership and to find this critical—

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

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Eric Hoskins: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as you know, my riding of St. Paul's is home to many young families who send their children to publicly funded schools. I've heard from constituents in my riding who are concerned about the potential closure of some of our community schools. The parents of St. Paul's and I have seen several newspaper articles and reports over the past few months related to declining enrolment and school closures across Ontario, difficult situations for any community to face.

It has been suggested that declining enrolment and school closures are due in part to a dated funding model. Minister, can you tell the House what changes this government has made to the funding formula and of the investments made to education?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to thank the member for St. Paul's for his question and for his concern about this issue, because it is one. Declining enrolment and school closures are of concern to people in St. Paul's and across the province.

We're facing a problem that the previous government didn't actually face. There are 106,000 fewer students in our schools today than in 2003, and in the face of that, we've actually completed or are completing the building of 400 new schools since we came into office in 2003, because we've targeted those schools where the growth is and we've replaced schools that were out of date. We have made the funding formula less dependent on per-pupil enrolment.

We've moved at least a third of that funding out of the per-pupil package into block funding, so that it recognizes the needs of boards despite the fewer students in the schools. That's a significant change. On top of that, we have invested more than $5 billion in—

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

Mr. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. As I mentioned, constituents in my riding are concerned about possible school closures in St. Paul's. There are four schools in St. Paul's that are currently subject to an accommodation review committee, or ARC, process. My constituents rightly have a strong attachment to these schools and are anxious about the impact of potential closures on their children's education and on the broader community. They are worried that their views will not be heard in this decision-making process.

As parents and community members, these individuals have the right to have their voices heard and can bring important perspectives on the situation. We must ensure that communities are involved in this important process. How can the Ontario government ensure that the Toronto District School Board's decisions are made with the full involvement of an informed local community in a legitimate and transparent process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It's a very good question. One of the things we have done since we've been in office is we have brought in guidelines to require that school boards include community members, parents, members of the school community in that very important discussion about what the delivery of programs should be, because at the core of this discussion is what is the best program delivery for students. It's not really a question of bricks and mortar alone; it's about how we get the best program for kids. So the area review committee guidelines require that there be a discussion at the local level.

We've listened to communities since we put those guidelines in place. They've been refined in terms of the timelines, and the Toronto District School Board has had some input into that. So it's very important to us that we have a local process that is valid and that allows all of those voices to be heard. At the end of the day, those decisions have to be made by the board, with input from the local school community

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Acting Premier: Twelve days ago, I asked about the blockade of the Niagara-to-Caledonia power project, which ends at the Caledonia transformer station. Your Attorney General danced around the issue, didn't answer, and I doubt took any answer.

Last Friday night, December 4, I'm told that a truck drove directly at the Caledonia transformer station and rammed the security vehicle. I'm sure this was all caught on tape. My question: Has anything been done after I raised this issue 12 days ago and has anything been done to pick up the attacker?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: There are a lot of issues, long term and short term, that have to do with the Douglas Creek lands. Our government is committed to working with all our partners, whether it be Hydro or whether it be the Ontario Realty Corp., who manage the properties, to ensure that, number one, the most important priority is public safety. Number two, our utmost important priority as a government is working with all of the parties together, Six Nations leaders and the local community, to build relationships so that we can move forward and try to build economic development opportunities in this region.

That's our priority. We'll continue to stick to that priority, and we'll certainly not be sidetracked by attempts to rabble-rouse in that area or attempts to do other things—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: We're suffering—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. If the Minister of Finance and the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke want to have a discussion, which it appears is where they're going, I would much prefer that that discussion not take place within the chamber.

Please continue.

Mr. Toby Barrett: We're suffering three and a half years of provocation and intimidation in Caledonia, and it's clear that this McGuinty government condones and encourages this criminal behaviour.

Three and a half years ago at the same location, the Caledonia transformer station was torched. The security vehicle was set on fire after that. As you know, the road to the south and the land to the west and the north is an OPP no-go zone.

Acting Premier, or whichever minister wishes to answer: Has anything been done in the last three and a half years to protect vulnerable security personnel from these attacks? Secondly, is anything being done to prevent another million-dollar torching of the Caledonia transformer station?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Rather than trying to reopen these old wounds, I invite the member opposite to start working with us and taking the example of members like Dave Levac, a neighbour of his, or taking the example of some local members who are doing what they can to try to heal the wounds of the past.

My question to the member is this: When was the last time he talked to his federal counterpart, Diane Finley? When was the last time he recognized that this entire issue comes as a result of a 200-year-old land claim?

The progress that needs to be made is not being made at the bargaining table at this time. We need to continue to put pressure on the federal government. He should be putting pressure on his federal member, whom I do not see showing leadership in this area, and trying to ensure that the federal government is doing everything they can at the bargaining table. Currently, we don't believe they—

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

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Acting Premier. You will know that the city of Timmins and region yesterday were dealt quite a blow. Xstrata decided that they want to rationalize their Canadian metallurgical operations into the province of Quebec from Ontario. This means that after the concentrator, nothing will operate in regard to either the smelter or the refinery and all of those plants in between. This means 670 direct jobs at Xstrata and it means 1,000 jobs-plus when it comes to suppliers and others.

Your government has an ability to put a stop to this. You can do what the government of Newfoundland did and say that natural resources that come from the province of Ontario will be transformed and will be added value in the province of Ontario. You have that authority under

section 91 of the Mining Act. Will you stand up for the people of Ontario and Timmins and prevent this from going off to the province of Quebec?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There's no question that this is very devastating news for the several hundred employees, as the member mentioned, who will be laid off. Certainly our hearts go out to them; I think I speak on behalf of all the members of the Legislature when I say that.

Certainly we are encouraged about the fact that Xstrata remains committed to the long-term success of the Timmins area and will continue to produce and develop from the Kidd Creek mine. But I also recognize that that does very little to ease the anxiety and the extraordinary concerns being faced by these families.

I can tell you that, indeed, that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has reached out immediately. We'll be working with them. We will do whatever we can. I had the opportunity to speak to Timmins mayor Tom Laughren yesterday afternoon, and I know that he is determined to continue to work to see a positive future for the area. I certainly plan to be in the Timmins area myself soon. I'm looking forward to working with them as well.

It's a terrible blow to the community, and we're going to do whatever we can to bring future prosperity into the community.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On November 10, I was at a Parkdale housing consultation; on November 26 at—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That's not a point of order. I thank the honourable member.

REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table an annual greenhouse gas progress report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Halton has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question yesterday, given by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, concerning the expansion of the Milton hospital. This matter will be debated on Wednesday at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Parkdale—High Park has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question, given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, concerning public consultations. This matter will be debated on Wednesday at 6 p.m.

DEFERRED VOTES

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 204,

An Act to protect animal health and to amend and repeal other Acts / Projet de loi 204, Loi protégeant la santé animale et modifiant et abrogeant d'autres lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Dombrowsky has moved third reading of Bill 204. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 63; the nays are 21.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion 170 on time allocation of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters.

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

The division bells rang from 1145 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion 170. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 28.

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

Motion agreed to.

BARRIE-INNISFIL BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA MODIFICATION

DES LIMITES TERRITORIALES

ENTRE BARRIE ET INNISFIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 196,

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil / Projet de loi 196, Loi concernant la modification des limites territoriales entre la cité de Barrie et la ville d'Innisfil.

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

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1159.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 196. All those in favour will please rise and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 27.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass, and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Consumer Services, Ted McMeekin, on his birthday today. Happy birthday, Ted.

There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's my pleasure to introduce today Arden Ryshpan from Canadian Actors' Equity; Lynn McQueen, also from Canadian Actors' Equity; Dan Broome from the American Federation of Musicians. And from ACTRA: Chris Faulkner; Don Lamoreux; Norm MacAskill; Janesse Leung; Heather Allin, president; Joanna Bennett; Yannick Bisson; Wendy Crewson; Ferne Downey, national president of ACTRA; Dom Fiore; David Gale; Chris Gauthier; Lyn Mason Green; Art Hindle; Tabby Johnson; Wayne Robson; Austin Shatz; Theresa Tova; Karl Pruner, past president; and Norm MacAskill.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome three guests of mine in the Speaker's gallery: Wendy Farmer, Scott Anderson and Don Kilpatrick. Welcome to Queen's Park. I was hoping my mother would be here.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR

POLICE BRAVERY

Mr. Frank Klees: The Ontario Medal for Police Bravery is awarded annually to courageous police officers to honour acts of outstanding heroism in the line of duty.

On November 27 of this year, I had the privilege to attend the Lieutenant Governor's presentation of medals for police bravery. Among the recipients were six York regional constables: Sean Boyes, Gregory Douglas Whyte, Sean Doran, Gilbert Farquhar, Wade McGhee and James Ward.

These officers distinguished themselves on Halloween night of 2008 in Richmond Hill when they came on the scene of a tragic two-car collision where one car had burst into flames with three people trapped inside. The officers reacted immediately to try to save the occupants by reaching through the flames for the passengers, of whom only the driver survived. All six police officers were transferred to hospital for treatment for smoke inhalation and burns. Without their heroic actions there would not have been any survivors.

I know that all members of the Legislature will join with me in paying special tribute to these six courageous York region police officers who so heroically put their own lives at risk to protect the members of their community. I want to pay tribute today to all police officers who daily place themselves in harm's way on our behalf.

KRAFT HOCKEYVILLE 2010

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Dundas is a great community to be named Kraft Hockeyville 2010.

The J.L. Grightmire arena has seen many hockey greats since its opening in 1950. No other arena in the surrounding area features minor hockey, junior hockey, senior triple A hockey and women's hockey.

The triple-A Real McCoys are a powerhouse of hockey. They've won the Robertson Cup as Ontario champions four times in their 10-year history and they've competed for the Allan Cup three times.

Then there's the Dundas Blues. They've celebrated their 50-year anniversary developing great partners who continue to give back to their community.

Many players who got their start in the Grightmire arena have gone on to college or junior careers or even to the NHL, like Krys Barch who plays for the Dallas Stars.

The Hamilton Bulldogs and the Bulldogs Foundation will support Dundas in its bid to be named Hockeyville 2010 by holding a community practice at Grightmire arena at 11 a.m. this Saturday, December 12. I encourage all members to come out and see why Dundas is the best choice for Kraft Hockeyville 2010.

EGG FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise today to thank the Egg Farmers of Ontario for coming to Queen's Park this morning to provide members with a great omelette breakfast and to let us know what's going on in their industry. This is the 12th annual egg farmers' breakfast at Queen's Park, and as always, it was a great turnout.

I want to congratulate them on the great things that they are doing in their industry, including their commitment to research and innovation on production, animal health and advances like omega 3 eggs. I'm proud that some of the research that led to omega 3 eggs took place right here in Ontario in the laboratories in Guelph. I know that the Egg Farmers of Ontario are proud of their contribution to that research.

Recently in this Legislature, we have been debating animal health and traceability. Egg farmers are a great example of an industry that has taken steps to ensure food safety and quality among its members, with almost all egg farmers Ontario being certified under HACCP, or hazard analysis critical control points.

Egg Farmers of Ontario are working hard to let the people of Ontario know that eggs are rich in protein and a natural choice for an active lifestyle. But eggs are not only an important part of our diets; they are also an important part of our agriculture and provincial economy.

On behalf of the PC caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, I want to reiterate our commitment to supply management, or orderly marketing, and thank the Egg Farmers of Ontario for coming to Queen's Park and serving eggs to us today.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As members know in this assembly, devastating news for the city of Timmins and region: Xstrata has decided to, as they say, rationalize their metallurgical division. That is a big buzzword for saying that they're going to take all the metallurgical services after the concentrator, and they're going to process that outside of the province of Ontario. Nothing can be more preposterous than allowing a mining company to say that they're going to do the processing of ore outside of this province.

We've seen this happen before in the history of Canada. We all know the story of Newfoundland, when Voisey's Bay was first discovered. The company said, "We're going to mine, and we're going to take concentrate from this area and we're going to ship it outside of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador," in order to allow the company to make a little bit of extra money because they wouldn't have to build a metallurgical plant in that part of the province. Danny Williams, the government of the day, said, "No way.

If you want to build this mine, you're going to process the minerals here." The Newfoundland government stood up to the company, and at the end of the day, those jobs are still there.

We're calling on this government to do that in the case of Xstrata. We've seen it happen first in Sudbury with some of the productions being shipped out of the province there. Now we're seeing an entire metallurgical division in the province of Ontario shut down to be transported out of the province when it comes to production.

This cannot be allowed to happen, and this provincial government has got to step up to the plate, do what they did in Newfoundland and say, by way of law, "You're not allowed to process minerals outside of this province." These are Ontario minerals. They're also Ontario jobs.

DIANA SWAIN

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It is a tremendous pleasure to rise in the Legislature today to congratulate Oakville resident Diana Swain on her recent Gemini Award for best news anchor in the country.

Diana, as many of us would know, is the wonderful host of the Toronto edition of CBC News at Six, and she's no stranger to success. She is a five-time Gemini nominee and has been continually recognized for the quality of her reporting, her writing and her hosting on CBC news programs.

Her Gemini for best news anchor is her second. She previously won the category in 2000, joining other notables on the list, such winners as Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson. Her work has been included in winning submissions for the Michener Award, Canada's award for commendable public service in journalism.

Her broadcasting and reporting career, which spans two decades at the CBC, has taken her across the country and around the world. Her work as co-host of Disclosure, an investigative news program, takes her to places like North America, Europe and central America. In 2008, she joined CBC's Olympic team and hosted the morning broadcast. She has provided her talents to events that celebrate our country's writers and athletes, and she recently hosted the Oakville Sport Recognition Awards.

We have a number of outstanding news anchors in the country, but for 2009, the Gemini Awards think it's Diana Swain, and that's well deserved.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Over the past few years, my riding of Leeds—Grenville has lost a significant number of manufacturing operations and the jobs that went with them. The McGuinty government has aggravated the job situation with the closure of Rideau Regional, the recent closure of two Highway 401 service centres and its planned closure of transitional beds at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

With the job losses we've suffered, there's been an increased focus on growing tourism as one way to help our local and regional economy flourish. That makes sense, as my riding has two international bridges, the bulk of the Thousand Islands, a good chunk of the Rideau system, much of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and more. Its growth potential as a tourism magnet is significant.

However, the McGuinty government's decision to bring in the HST, the largest sales tax hike in the province's history, is a tax grab with the potential to do serious damage to an already struggling tourism sector and dash the hopes and dreams of many.

The Tourism Industry Association of Ontario says that with this new tax increasing costs by as much as 44%, it's clear that the McGuinty government either overlooked or didn't consider the impacts on tourism—that's a direct quote.

Either way, this government has been negligent, and the minister responsible has been missing in action. It's not too late to look at a transition that eases negative impacts, and I urge the government to do just that.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. David Orazietti: I rise in the House to comment on the staged competition for crown wood supply in Ontario through the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. This competitive process will help create green jobs and new investment in the forestry industry in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and throughout northern Ontario. This is part of our government's continuing commitment to support families that have been affected by the economic downturn.

This competitive process is open to anyone, including existing forest companies and new forest companies, interested in using crown wood supply and investing in Ontario. Proposals are currently being accepted for the use of approximately 11 million cubic metres of wood that will come from 41 management units across Ontario. Part of the wood supply in this competitive process will come from harvest residues which will support Ontario's emerging bio-economy sector.

The steps we're taking today are in addition to the $1 billion commitment to the forestry sector to date to update equipment and improve energy efficiencies, the largest investment made by any provincial government, which included $17 million in investment in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie to reopen St. Marys Paper.

Innovative job creation in my community is not only about a boost to the local economy, it's about an investment in our youth and our future prosperity. I'm pleased with our government's commitment to encouraging our youth and talented workers to explore opportunities in Sault Ste. Marie and our commitment to work to revitalize the forest sector in Ontario.

We recognize the challenges of the forest sector, which is why we are determined to create new opportunities.

BERNIE STEWART

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you for the opportunity to share with my constituents and the House the memory of an individual who was an indelible part of our community of Ottawa Centre.

Bernie Stewart, by all accounts, was a remarkable individual and a mainstay of Westboro life. Bernie was best known to me as the long-time chair of the Westboro business improvement association, and I was always happy to engage with him to improve the vitality of our community and his businesses.

It was a community about which he felt very passionate and was dedicated to helping, and that contribution will certainly be missed. But I've heard that Bernie was passionate about many things.

Bernie was passionate about books. He was most known for being the 20-year proprietor of Solo Books on Richmond Road. When he made the difficult choice to close the doors on Solo Books, he arranged for the thousands of volumes remaining to be flown to our troops in Afghanistan out of respect for the work they do.

As a veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Bernie was also passionate about aircraft and their workings, and as a master electrician in the forces he kept those skills, eventually running Westboro Computer Repair out of his home, where he loved working with all things electronic.

Most of all, Bernie was clearly passionate about life, family and community. I want to extend my condolences to his family and friends for the suddenness of his departure, but also offer my respect for such a warm and active individual in our community.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Our government has made a clear commitment to renew and strengthen Ontario's infrastructure. Roads and bridges, colleges and universities, community facilities such as pools, arenas, libraries and community centres are being constructed throughout Ontario.

Our $32.5-billion infrastructure investment will create and support 146,000 jobs in 2009-10. That will rise to 168,000 jobs in 2010-11. These investments will make significant long-term improvements to transportation, health care and education infrastructure.

Now, we're increasing the transparency of these investments through the launch of our new website, which tracks the progress of recently announced infrastructure stimulus projects in communities throughout Ontario. This website will highlight our contribution in stimulus funding for infrastructure projects and will track construction projects. It will also provide regular updates on new investments. For instance, if a constituent of mine in Pickering—Scarborough East wanted to know what infrastructure projects are occurring in our community, they could enter their postal code into this website and see how various projects in our community are developing.

This new website portal is a great opportunity for Ontarians to see how our government is building a strong modern infrastructure. I encourage everyone to visit the website at ontario.ca/infrastructure, and once they're there, to bookmark it for future reference and find out what's happening in their community.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 210,

An Act to protect foreign nationals employed as live-in caregivers and in other prescribed employment and to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 210, Loi visant à protéger les étrangers employés comme aides familiaux et dans d'autres emplois prescrits et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1516 to 1521.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour of the report will please stand and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 51; the nays are 14.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 26, 2009, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories / Projet de loi 175, Loi visant à accroître la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre entre l'Ontario et les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1525 to 1530.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 47; the nays are 23.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday November 30, 2009, the bill is ordered for third reading.

COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Last evening in committee—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'm rising on a point of order. Pursuant to a decision made by Speaker Stockwell in 1997, who indicated to this chamber that each member had a right to know what they were voting on, I made a simple request that the resolutions put forward by the Progressive Conservative caucus, the official opposition, be televised or put on a computer screen so that they could be part of a PowerPoint presentation and so we could see each one of them.

Unfortunately, the government didn't allow that and we were not able to look at any of the resolutions by the official opposition until 10 minutes to 5 last evening. As you know, 5 p.m. is when the time allocation motion by the government kicked in, and we were unable to debate one single resolution put forward by the official opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The government House leader on the same point of order?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we're talking about the very voluminous amendments that were put forward by the opposition, which I understand were delivered to the Legislature on Friday, with great fanfare and photo ops, but were not actually filed until noon, thus providing the staff in the clerks' office a very short, limited amount of time to print them even though they had them on Friday. It's unfortunate that the opposition did not try to accommodate the staff here in providing that information and are now demanding something they could have had, had they just been a little more accommodating.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. First, as the honourable member knows, the point of order that she raises concerns an issue that took place at committee. As well, as the honourable member knows, I saw her in the hall last night, and I did take the opportunity this morning to apprise myself of the situation, and I am satisfied that all was in order. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, I'd be happy to meet privately with you, or would again encourage you to raise the matter at the committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the December 8, 2009, report of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 108(f)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): An order of the House dated December 1, 2009, amended by the House on December 2, 2009, provides for allocation of time for proceedings on Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts.

The order provides that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall report Bill 218 to the House no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2009. The House not having received this report during reports by committees today, the bill is therefore deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1537 to 1542.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please take their seats.

Just to be clear, the order provided that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall report Bill 218 to the House no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2009. We now have a motion for the adoption of the deemed report of the finance committee on Bill 218.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time to be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 49; the nays are 24.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Mr. Bentley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 231,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act / Projet de loi 231, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la

Loi sur le financement des élections.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1546 to 1551.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 48; the nays are 23.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister for a short statement.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: During ministerial statements, please.

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(EXEMPTIONS FOR ARTISTS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(EXEMPTIONS D'IMPÔT

ACCORDÉES AUX ARTISTES)

Mr. Tabuns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 232,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 with respect to income tax exemptions for artists / Projet de loi 232, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts à l'égard des exemptions d'impôt sur le revenu accordées aux artistes.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The bill amends the Taxation Act, 2007, to give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to create regulations providing for income averaging for artists over a specified number of years and providing for income tax exemptions for artists receiving income from specific grants or royalties. The bill also gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to set deductibles and limits, and set out the rules of eligibility and methods of claiming the tax exemptions.

My thanks to the AFM, Equity and ACTRA.

TRADES QUALIFICATION

AND APPRENTICESHIP

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA QUALIFICATION PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

DES GENS DE MÉTIER

Mr. Bailey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 233,

An Act to amend the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 233, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Robert Bailey: This bill would amend the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act to specify that no more than one person may be an apprentice to each journeyperson of an employer in a trade and to remove the power to make regulations respecting the ratio of apprentices to journeymen who may be employed by an employer in a trade.

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(HERITAGE PROPERTY

TAX CREDIT), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT

POUR BIEN PATRIMONIAL)

Mr. Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 234,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to provide for a tax credit for heritage properties / Projet de loi 234, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts afin de prévoir un crédit d'impôt pour bien patrimonial.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The bill amends the Taxation Act, 2007, to provide a non-refundable tax credit in respect of qualifying expenditures that are directly attributable to a qualifying activity relating to an eligible heritage property, as defined in

section 365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, that is owned by the taxpayer or, if the taxpayer is an individual, the taxpayer's qualifying relation. The tax credit will apply to qualifying expenditures that are incurred after the prescribed date. Various components of the tax credit will be prescribed by regulations made under the Taxation Act, 2007.

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

Mr. Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 235,

An Act to enact the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2009 and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 235, Loi édictant la Loi de 2009 sur la protection des consommateurs d'énergie et modifiant d'autres lois.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1559 to 1604.

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

Ayes

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 66; the nays are 0.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister for a short statement.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I'll make my comments under ministers' statements.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome some guests of mine from my riding in the Speaker's gallery: Dean Paddon, Brian Bolt, Bob Ketchum and Barry Fry. Gentlemen, welcome to Queen's Park today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Let me transgress, seeing that the Speaker led the way. I'd like to introduce Larry O'Connor, a former member of the assembly who's here with us right now.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent—maybe I'll say that again for the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke; he sometimes has a slig