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

April 12, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Apr-12 (PDF)

L107 - Tue 12 Apr 2011 / Mar 12 avr 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 12 April 2011 Mardi 12 avril 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

TAXATION

GASOLINE PRICES

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

NUCLEAR SAFETY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

FOREST INDUSTRY

VICTIMS OF CRIME

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

NUCLEAR SAFETY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BROCKVILLE AND AREA YMCA

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION

SMART METERS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

GASOLINE TAX

LONDON EMPLOYMENT HELP CENTRE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

2011 ONTARIO BUDGET

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

PETITIONS

HYDRO RATES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

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

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2011, on the motion for third reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

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

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 141. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred until the conclusion of question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business this morning.

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

The House recessed from 0903 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce to the House this year’s Girls in Government from Parkdale–High Park, from the schools of St. Pius X and Swansea Public. We’ve got Jennifer Bucci, Alicia Bialzcyk, Maxine Pichler, Joyce Costa, Justina Ha, Bianca Harvey, Jenna Yuen, Charlie Creatura, Hannah Azaria, Naseem Shaikh, Skye Macneil, Eden Hailu, Savahna Idris, Emily Henderson, and their school staff, Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Legacy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I’m really proud to introduce—and the pages will be very interested in this—a page from 1999. His name is John David Doan. John, stand up.

John is from Sault Ste. Marie. He left here, went to high school, enrolled in university, and is now in his final year of medical school at Queen’s University. He’s doing a placement in the ICU unit at Mount Sinai Hospital.

John David, this whole Legislature is very, very proud of your accomplishments as a former page. He’s also my nephew and my godson.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my privilege to introduce Bob and Joyce Poland in the west members’ gallery, grandparents of our page this session, Travis Poland. They are also my sister and brother-in-law.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the teachers and classmates of page Ciaran Thomas to Queen’s Park. Ciaran is from my community of St. Paul’s, and joining us today in the public gallery are Ciaran’s teachers, Jan and Madeline, as well as his classmates from Howlett Academy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to introduce Amanda Robertson, who is in the gallery today. She’s director of fundraising from Street Health Community Nursing Foundation here today. I would like to thank Street Health for their commitment to serving the homeless in my community. This is their 25th anniversary this year. They have had a tremendously positive impact on the lives of so many of my constituents. If you could, please join me in welcoming Amanda today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I’m really happy to introduce to you a very famous TV producer. It’s the TV Viet Tien producer Mr. Viet Tien Nguyen, and his assistant Mr. Tang. They’re here to report on the calmness of our debates so people back home can see how democracy really works.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust the member from Davenport will be leading.

Further introductions?

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask all members to join me in welcoming a good friend of mine, Dr. Bob Warnock, in the Speaker’s gallery. Bob is a chiropractor in the riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, in the town of Aylmer, in the Speaker’s gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park today, Bob.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday, March 31, the member from Welland, Mr. Kormos—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order—raised a point of order concerning standing order 23(f), which states:

“In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she:....

“(

f) Reflects upon any previous vote of the House unless it is the member’s intention to move that it be rescinded.”

In his point of order, the member took issue with what is, in fact, quite a common occurrence in this chamber: reference by one member to a previous vote by another member, or another party. The member contended that standing order 23(

f) should be interpreted as representing a prohibition against such references. The House leader of the official opposition, Mr. Yakabuski, supported this proposition and later renewed the same point of order when he complained about an oral question on Thursday, April 7, which again made reference to a previous vote in the House. I reserved my ruling and am now prepared to deliver it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members, it would be important to listen to this.

What gives rise to the opposition House leaders’ objections is when members of the government taunt the opposition with statements like, “You voted against giving seniors that tax credit,” or, “You voted against that support program for farmers.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This is a statement for all members.

The nuance here is that these kinds of measures have been included in a bill which may contain a broad array of measures that, when voted upon, demand a single decision from every member, not a separate decision on each of its parts. Had they been able to vote separately on each part, members might well have voted in favour of that metaphorical seniors’ tax credit or farmers’ support program.

Preparing this ruling has caused me some degree of difficulty, because I do have to profess some sympathy for the opposition House leaders’ point. I don’t much like this when it happens, either. It almost always provokes disorder, to the extent that the practice has now given rise to this point of order. But what is the purpose of standing order 23(f)?

The rule is designed to protect the integrity of the collective decisions of the House. The process of a decision duly and properly made, whether by a majority or unanimously, has to be shielded from criticism or disparagement. Otherwise, the authority and legitimacy of the assembly itself and the legislative process is drawn into question. Thus, it is out of order to reproach the House as a whole or to scornfully criticize it for one of its decisions, for to do so would impugn the reputation of this House.

The standing order anticipates that the House may have mistakenly decided a matter: Perhaps different or additional information emerges that might have affected the decision, or there was a significant procedural irregularity when the vote was taken, or the House cannot agree with the side that the Speaker chose when breaking a tie with his casting vote. In such decisions, reflecting on the vote is necessary in order to justify a motion that it be rescinded.

The point of order before me focused on criticism by one side of the House of the votes by the other side—or one of the parties, or of another individual member. As I have noted, standing order 23(

f) works to preserve the integrity of the collective decisions of the House, not to forbid ever referring to how an individual member voted on any given matter before the House. A member’s voting history is what it is. It is on the public record, available for all to see, and it stands on its own.

It is instructive to note that research into this question was not successful in finding a single instance of this standing order ever being exercised to prevent a member from referring to another member’s vote. Indeed, the very common and longstanding practice to the contrary belies that position.

Even setting aside the procedural realities of the House, though, I am still left to address the practicality and reasonableness of the requested remedy to this grievance; that is, a prohibition against referring to previous votes by another member. I think such a limit would very quickly prove to be unenforceable and regularly offended. How can it be reasonable that it would be perpetually off limits ever to mention how another member voted on issues in the past?

Surely no one genuinely expects the Speaker to shield an individual member, or certain members, or one of the parties in the House from attention to or comment about their vote on any matter. This happens all the time, and I see it as a natural part of the political process of which this place is the heart. It has simply never been a part of our culture that making an observation about a member’s voting record has ever been out of order.

For all the reasons I’ve just given, I cannot find that standing order 23(

f) works to exclude the types of references complained about in the point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday, Premier McGuinty began the day with an astonishing admission that he’s breaking his own expense disclosure rules. In fact, he and four other ministers have not filed a single expense online since April 2010, when it began. By midday, you, Minister, sent out a memo trying to justify the process as being “successful so far,” but at the end of the day, the Premier accepted that he got caught. He backtracked and said he would stop hiding his expenses under the names of others in his office.

Effectively, they had three different positions in one day. So who was wrong: the Premier in the morning, you in the afternoon, the Premier at night, or all three?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Acting Premier and Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have before me—

Interjections.

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

Acting Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have with me a ministerial expense claim for the Integrity Commissioner’s office. It’s form—

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m not going to hear the point of order. I know that the Speaker should not anticipate, but he’s going to question the referral to another minister, and that is allowed to be done within the chamber.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s form 7540-2059, which is created—this is an interesting piece of legislation; the opposition and House will remember—by the Cabinet Ministers’ and Opposition Leaders’ Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002. This was created because the leader’s former colleague—one of them—had expensed $150,000 in hotel bills. Another one had expensed $1,200 a night for drinks and wings at bars. They rushed this legislation through. We’re using your forms. We’re reporting according to the law that your government brought forward.

This government has cleaned up the awful mess of expenditures that were left by that party of entitlement, who abused taxpayers’ money at every opportunity they had.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ve got one word for the minister: eHealth, the biggest boondoggle in the history of the province, which went into the pockets of your Liberal friends.

Sadly, the minister, the so-called integrity czar, refuses to answer basic questions about a memo that the integrity czar sent out. Who’s running the ship over there? Why are you getting paid if you won’t answer questions about a memo that you sent out? Come on.

Three different positions in one day; the Premier got caught trying to hide his expenses under the name of his staff, and it appears to be rubbing off on his ministers, because there are four other ministers who haven’t filed a single expense and have tried to hide them under their staff’s names. If this guy is not responsible for integrity in government, I don’t know who is. Why do you keep blaming everybody else for your own problems in hiding your own expenses?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing that party has no comprehension of is integrity in government. Let us just review the record.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition took a trip: 140 days between April 1 and August 23, 2001. He and his staff racked up $23,633 in expenses. Let me review with you what some of those expenses are.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: C’mon, Timmy, ask your seatmate how many—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sandra, you can ask questions in the fall.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew. Member from Nepean–Carleton. Minister of Consumer Services. Minister of Transport. Member from Essex.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Among those expenses by the Leader of the Opposition when he served in government were plants, gum, doughnuts and napkins.

This government has brought a level of accountability to ministerial expenses that was absent under that government. This government and the members of its ministry are in compliance with all the rules and regulations around full disclosure, and finally, everything we file is subject to freedom of information. We’re about—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, come on. Your Premier got caught breaking his own rules yesterday. The Premier had one position in the morning; he had another position at night. Your integrity czar has been all over the place, except where he should be: answering questions here in the Ontario Legislature.

I don’t know where you’re coming from, Minister. You say you complied. You haven’t posted a single expense since June 2010. You’re trying to hide yours as well.

Minister, why don’t you come clean? Stop blaming the Integrity Commissioner. Stop blaming everybody else. Point the finger squarely at your chest and your Premier’s. Why were you breaking your own law when it came to publicly filing your expenses in our province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: If the Leader of the Opposition were to fill out one of these forms today, like what he filled out to expense his chicken McNuggets, he would know that it goes through a variety of scrutiny. It’s looked at by the Integrity Commissioner. The rules are fully followed. There’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark and the member from Nepean will please come to order. Member from Hamilton East. Member from Dufferin.

Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Lisa and Tim eat at Jack Astor’s.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There have been trips to Jack Astor’s by members of that caucus; $92 for nachos.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Nachos?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Nachos.

This government has brought openness, integrity and accountability that was absent under the Conservative government. The people of Ontario don’t want to go back to that culture of entitlement. They’ll stand behind us. The integrity of the Premier and his government is second to none.

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Nobody believes that anymore, Minister, and that’s what I want to see changed in our province. I’m going to invoke the faint hope that the Minister of Government Services will actually answer a question that has to do with his portfolio. So let me try again.

To the integrity czar, the Minister of Government Services: Premier McGuinty has changed. He’ll say anything to get re-elected. He used to say that anyone who failed to follow his expense claim rules would be “visited with the full consequences of their failings.” The Premier broke his own rules. Four ministers haven’t posted since April 2010. So when the Premier says “the full consequences of their failings,” what does that mean in McGuinty-speak—a slap on the wrist, a loud tsk-tsk or a wink and a nod from the so-called integrity czar?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark. The member from Durham, who’s not in his seat—stop the clock. The member from Peterborough as well. The member from Halton. Minister of Community Safety. So much for the member from Davenport’s wish.

Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me outline what the procedure is for posting these expenses so it’s clear to the House. Expenses must be submitted by the ministers, the PAs and the political staff in the 22 largest agencies. They are reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, and once the Integrity Commissioner has reviewed them they are sent to Ontario Shared Services for posting. Expenses have been posted approximately every month since April 2010. If some expenses are not up yet, it is likely that—

Interjection.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Do you want to answer this question rather than me?

The Integrity Commissioner is still reviewing them or they are in the queue to be posted. Sometimes there’s a backlog with the Integrity Commissioner and it takes time to post the expenses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters) Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister asked if he could refer the question to the member for Renfrew in the opposition. You referred it to pretty well everybody else, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you tried it.

Minister, you yourself have broken your expense filing rules. You are one of the seven ministers, like the finance minister, who hasn’t filed a single expense since June 1, 2010. The Premier himself broke the rules and at least admitted that yesterday and said he’s going to change. Instead of coming clean with Ontario families, you sent out junior staffers to defend your own failure to follow your own rules.

Minister, I’ll ask you: How can we trust you to run this expense disclosure system when you yourself are breaking the rules?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Here is a list—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please—stop the clock.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You’re mixing your metaphors.

Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to maybe start looking himself, because my expenses are on the website. Here’s a list of three expenses that are right on the website. So maybe he should start looking at it.

Here is the difference between our party and their party: I met with the Leader of the Opposition and asked him to post his expenses. You know what they did? Rather than actually linking the website on which they post their expenses, they created a separate website that nobody can find to see if their expenses are posted or not. They have a secret website, and they don’t want the people of Ontario to see if their expenses are posted on the website or not. Why is your website not linked to your main website? Why are you hiding these from the people?

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty said that if you fail to follow the rules, there will be consequences, so let me ask about what those consequences are going to be. More than half of cabinet have not posted a single expense since June 2010. As a result, agencies are following suit. Fully 14 of the 22 agencies that this regulates have similarly broken the rules—more than half.

Minister, this was brought to your attention in October 2010. You have had six months to do something about it, and all you put out was a memo to excuse everyone who’s breaking the law.

Minister, you’ve had six months. If the Premier breaks the rules and you break the rules, how can we actually trust you to run the system and why should the agencies follow suit?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: This reminds me of a saying that says that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at others.

Let me just read this from the St. Catharines Standard of December 6. This is not what I said but what the St. Catharines Standard on December 6, 2002, said: “While Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Tim Hudak spent your tax money to go to a conference in Las Vegas with vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney.”

This is what the Welland Tribune, on October 4, 2002, said: “Tourism Minister Tim Hudak went on a province-wide junket in the summer of 2001. In 145 days between April 1 and August 23, 2001”—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Tonight—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Education. Member from Simcoe North.

Interjection.

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

As I’ve reminded members before, we do have a rotation in this chamber when it comes to question period. Right now, that rotation has moved to the third party, and I would ask members, particularly of the official opposition, to allow the leader of the third party to put her questions.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Tonight is federal debate night in Canada. Those tuning in will see the federal leaders offer vastly different opinions on corporate taxes. They’ll see that when it comes to corporate tax cuts, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario are like two peas in a pod, yet study after study proves that these corporate tax giveaways don’t result in increased business investments or job creation. When will the McGuinty government finally chart a different course and abandon the corporate tax giveaway policies of Stephen Harper?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government brought forward a comprehensive tax plan for jobs and growth. I am proud that we were able to reduce personal taxes. The leader of the third party earlier this morning tweeted that we’re giving oil companies tax cuts. What she doesn’t realize is, they don’t headquarter here or pay their corporate taxes here.

What we wanted to do was say to the forestry sector and the auto sector, which employ tens of thousands of Ontarians, that, “You can compete on an equal footing with those other corporations, so that we would have more jobs in Ontario.”

The New Democrats want to create jobs in Alberta. They want to create jobs in Michigan. They want to create jobs anywhere but Ontario. Our plan is the right plan for Ontario. Ontario’s part of a strong—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East.

Mr. Paul Miller: What are you doing for the steelworkers in Hamilton and Sudbury?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You can’t even hear me.

Mr. Paul Miller: I couldn’t hear you; sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): He couldn’t hear you because of yourself.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know what? They may be inconvenient, but here are some facts for the minister: In 2000, the combined provincial-federal corporate tax rate was 42%. A decade later, the combined rate is now 28% and soon will fall to 25% because of the Harper Conservative-McGuinty Liberal corporate tax giveaways. During the exact same period, business investment in plant and machinery has fallen from 7.7% of GDP to 5.5%. During tonight’s debate, it will be Stephen Harper alone defending corporate tax cuts.

When federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff turns to Harper and tells him that corporate tax giveaways don’t create jobs, who is this minister going to be cheering for?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d like to know what the leader of the third party said to Mr. Layton when he endorsed the HST in Nova Scotia.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Fifteen per cent—

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A 15% HST. Let me tell you what Mr. Layton had to say about all of this. He says, “The thing about what happened here under Darrell Dexter was, there was a whole program”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Member from Renfrew. Stop the clock.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here’s what Jack Layton had to say: “The thing about what happened here under Darrell Dexter was, there was a whole program of rebates and specific reductions.” Ours are bigger than Nova Scotia’s: interesting. He endorsed it after the NDP in Nova Scotia raised the HST by two points. That leader and her party wanted to raise the provincial sales tax by 1%.

We cut taxes for jobs in Ontario: jobs for steelworkers, jobs for auto workers, jobs for forestry—

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Excuse me?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Why, did you say something? You have a guilty look on your face.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps we should take this opportunity to get back to the point. The mountain of evidence proving the folly of corporate tax giveaways continues to grow. Statistics Canada data show that corporate tax giveaways don’t create jobs. A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found the exact same thing, yet the McGuinty government persists.

When it comes to corporate tax policy in this province, why is the government listening to Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty while ignoring virtually everyone else?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The point is jobs. The point is to make sure that Ontario workers have an opportunity to work again in the auto sector, in the forestry sector, in all of the important sectors of this economy.

The leader of the third party wants to have it both ways. She cannot justify her position on the HST versus that of Jack Layton. You can’t have it both ways. So if you support Jack Layton’s tax policy, does that mean you support a 2% increase in the HST? That has to be what it is.

This government, this party, will stand up for auto workers to get them work. It will stand up for steelworkers to get them work. It will stand up for forestry workers to get them work instead of selling them out to low-tax jurisdictions where they don’t have a chance to compete. It’s about a stronger economy—

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

GASOLINE PRICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. Ontario drivers are angry about gas price rip-offs. Some drivers in Thunder Bay today are paying $1.34; in Timmins, $1.37. A CIBC study released yesterday shows that gasoline prices are up by about 25% since 2010. The increase could cost the average Ontario household as much as $950 more this year alone.

In every eastern Canadian province but Ontario, governments have moved to stop these kinds of rip-offs by regulating the price of gasoline. Why does this government continue to take the side of oil companies and refuse to protect the interests of Ontario residents?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ontario consumers recognize the problem in the world oil supply. They also recognize that this is happening right across the country, right around the world. They also recognize that in those provinces where these so-called fixes have been brought in, not only have they not lowered prices, they’ve raised prices.

It is important that we continue to build a better economy by making investments in education and health care. It is important that we not lose sight of those broader issues as we build a better economy and build better jobs for our children. I would invite the leader of the third party to try to understand what is happening in the world economy today. If she did, she’d realize just how empty her rhetoric really is.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The CIBC study shows that this continued gas price rip-off means that Ontarians are likely to spend less on things like sporting goods, clothing, personal care products and a whole other list of everyday items. Things are even worse because of the HST now levied at the pumps.

New Democrats believe that it’s time that the Ontario government finally stood up to the oil companies and stopped these gas price rip-offs. Will this government regulate the price of gas or is Ontario going to continue to be the only province in eastern Canada where oil companies can just keep on ripping off motorists?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party knows full well that the federal government has responsibility for that and we can’t regulate it. That is well known.

I don’t disagree with what the CIBC report finds. Rising gasoline prices do in fact impact the economy. Unfortunately, this Legislature, and certainly the leader of the third party, can’t control circumstances in Libya and can’t control circumstances in any other part of the world. It is a world price. We pay the world price, and that is our reality. What we can do is build prudence into our budget; we can build reserves to accommodate the challenges that are going to happen.

Interestingly enough, the principal gasoline tax revenues actually decline when the prices go up. Not only that, but because we give two cents of that to municipalities, it helps fund public transit. We don’t want to cut public transit; we want to build a better future for Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I wish the minister would pay attention to the circumstances of Ontario drivers these days. That’s a circumstance he needs to put his mind to.

More than four years ago, a legislative committee voted unanimously—that means every party in this House on that committee—to investigate precisely these sorts of rip-offs and explore the possibility of a made-in-Ontario gas price regulation regime. But this government stopped the committee in its tracks and refused to allow it to conduct even one single public hearing. Ontarians are tired of having their pocketbooks picked by oil companies that exploit world tensions to fatten their own bottom line.

When is this government going to finally take the side of Ontario drivers and stop the continued price gouging by oil companies?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontario consumers can see through empty rhetoric that is steeped in no substance whatsoever. The leader of the third party would have us believe that this Legislature can affect the price of gasoline. Ontario consumers are too smart for that. They can see through the emptiness of that. They’ve heard this from all three parties over the years—all kinds of mindless grandstanding by the NDP on this issue.

The reality is this: We pay a world price for gasoline. We take certain steps, through a number of tax relief mechanisms, to ensure that Ontarians are shielded somewhat from that. That is our reality. The leader of the third party’s tired old rhetoric is not going to get anywhere. The people of this province can see right through her.

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Infrastructure: The Minister of Health Promotion posted her expenses, and they’re current to December 2010. If the Minister of Health Promotion can comply with the law and post her expenses online and on time, why did the Minister of Infrastructure ignore the rules and not do so likewise?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We established a process which requires the members and their staff to file their expenses with the Integrity Commissioner by a fixed date. That has been complied with. What has happened is, the Integrity Commissioner has not finished working on these files. When she provides the information, we can then file them.

That is the process. It is a process which is much better than any process they had when they were in government, and we have complied. It is an irresponsible question. We have complied with all the requirements of expenses, and we will continue to do so. When we receive the information from the Integrity Commissioner, they will be posted on our website.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: Just to be clear, Minister, it is now the fault of the Integrity Commissioner that the minister’s expenses are not posted on time, as required?

Yesterday, we caught the Premier breaking the expense disclosure rules. Today it’s the minister, but he chooses to blame the Integrity Commissioner. I would ask the minister this: Is it that he in fact is simply ignoring the requirement to post on time, or is there something about those expenses that he has intentionally not disclosed? Which is it?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I answered that question in the main question.

I will answer the supplementary this way, and that is, we’ve been asking the party opposite where they posted their expenses. They promised to post in February last year. Almost a year later, they finally posted them on a secret website, Ontariopcleader.ca. There is no link to the secret website from the main PC Party website. The secret site is more or less impossible to find with search engines like Google. There was no announcement when the expenses went up on the secret site.

They are making it so hard—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean; the member from Lanark.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Community Safety, Minister of Agriculture.

New question.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. As a result of the ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis, the US Environmental Protection Agency is now reporting increased levels of radioactive iodine and calcium in milk, drinking water and rain water in cities across the United States. Radioactive iodine levels in milk in Los Angeles and Phoenix are at or above maximum acceptable levels, and in Vermont the milk is at two thirds the maximum level.

What I’d like to know is: Is the radiation level in the milk that we drink here in Ontario being tested, and are those results accessible?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think it’s really important, when we deal with issues regarding the tragedy in Japan, that we deal with those issues very sensitively. Indeed, I think the last thing any member of this Legislature would want to do would be to put out information that might have the effect of fearmongering to the public on these kinds of issues.

We here in Ontario have a nuclear system and a nuclear program that is at or above all international standards. The people of this province can be absolutely assured that indeed, our nuclear system here in Ontario is safe, it’s secure and it meets all international safety standards. Again, the last thing we would want to do is to suggest to our constituents that the facts are—

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

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to go back to the Minister of Health, because Ontarians are concerned about the health risk of radiation coming from Japan and they want full information about the radioactivity in the air that we breathe, in the food that we eat and in the water and the milk that we drink; the information about how to protect our health. This is about the health of Ontarians.

What will the Minister of Health do to ensure—

Interjections.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: That’s irresponsible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Guelph, it is not for you to be judging whether a question is responsible or not.

I just remind all members that the issues that we deal with in this chamber are of importance to the people of Ontario. This question that is being asked is of importance to the member from Nickel Belt. I would just ask that that same respect be shown on the other side in answering the question.

Please continue.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying: This is about the health of Ontarians, and having information is the best way to empower people to take responsibility for their own health. If you don’t have information, then people make it up. So what I want to ask is: Will the Minister of Health—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s simple. Yes or no?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, you make it up.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Research and Innovation, Minister of Municipal Affairs, comments like that are not helpful for maintaining good order and decorum in this House.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’re hearing more and more of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, it’s not helpful either, because some of those comments come from both sides as well at times.

Please continue.

M me France Gélinas: The radiation levels are accessible to the people in the US. I was on their website. You click and you can see it all. It’s clear and transparent. When will the Minister of Health ensure that radiation levels in milk, drinking water, rainwater, in the air, everywhere in Ontario, are monitored and posted?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Minister of Agriculture is very keen to respond to this.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I am very keen to respond to this. I want to reinforce that food safety is our first priority.

Specifically, the question that was asked is directly toward milk. I want to remind all the members of why we’re such strong supporters of the supply-managed sector. Milk is contained within the supply-managed sector, and I want to assure that under Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act it is illegal to deliver, distribute, sell or offer for sale milk that has not been pasteurized or sterilized in a plant that is licensed under the Milk Act. I’m very pleased to report to the House that the supply-managed sector, which milk falls within—we can absolutely give assurances that the—

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the last several months, the member opposite from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has criticized the McGuinty government for not doing enough for the people of Hamilton: not enough jobs, not enough for the economy, not enough, never enough—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will come to order. Member from Oxford. Member from Durham, who’s not in his seat.

Please continue.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Never, ever enough, he says.

I, for one, a representative of many constituents who are employed by businesses in the city of Hamilton and the surrounding area, am very concerned about this kind of negativity and want to hear from you, Minister, what you have to say about this. Minister, what exactly has the McGuinty government done to help families in the Hamilton area, and what is the government doing to create jobs in our great city?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me just say this: I’m delighted to speak to this. The member from Hamilton raises very, very important questions. It is very disturbing to hear the negativity that comes constantly from that side of the House as it relates to the great region of Hamilton. We have worked diligently with the city of Hamilton, with the economic development commission, to search for every opportunity.

Arcelor Dofasco is one perfect example where our government partnered with this company for their investment of $153 million, which is securing hundreds of jobs in the Hamilton area. We’re proud of the steel industry, proud of the history of Hamilton and what a significant player they are in the whole of the manufacturing sector in Ontario.

We, on this side of the House, are proud of the inroads we’re making to turn the corner of the recession, especially in the region of Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I very much appreciate that answer, and I want to thank the minister for it. It’s comforting to know that the economic recovery across Ontario includes all parts of this great province, and especially my beloved city of Hamilton.

I’m particularly interested in Max Aicher’s plans for economic development in Hamilton. I understand this is a successful international firm that has decided to open up shop in Hamilton.

I’d also like to ask the minister to tell the House what benefits the people of Hamilton can expect to gain from this particular business, and I hope the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek listens to the answer.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to be able to speak about Max Aicher, a company that we took the time to meet when we were on a trip in Europe, sitting down with a potential investor who, in the end, invested $106 million in Ontario, specifically in Hamilton, reopening a steel plant from the US Steel days, re-employing people who used to work at US Steel and are now working for Max Aicher—hundreds of jobs thanks to the investment by Max Aicher, a company that we invited to come into Ontario, that we’re delighted to have. They have a great international reputation in the steel business.

We’re delighted to have them. Max Aicher himself has since made several trips to Ontario and is delighted with our Hamilton operation, as the Ontario government is delighted to partner with a great company like Max Aicher.

I’m only sad to say that the—

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

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, you managed to post your expenses up until December 2010 last year. You also sit close to the Minister of Tourism, who didn’t post a single expense last year—not even for the trip to China he took with Premier McGuinty.

What’s your secret for obeying the law, and why haven’t you shared it with your cabinet colleagues?

Hon. John Milloy: I am very pleased that I have been able to get out across this province and talk about the great things that this government has done in terms of post-secondary education. It was only a few weeks ago that I visited the riding of Sarnia, where I talked about the tremendous investments that have been made in Lambton College. I was able to attend a Second Career graduation ceremony, where we talked about the literally hundreds and hundreds of laid-off individuals who have been helped through Second Career and who have received support from the government of Ontario, from a program that that opposition party stood up and derided, made fun of and did not support.

I talked about the great investments in terms of post-secondary education that that member and his party voted against. I talked about the way that we are—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: My supplementary is back to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. That sounded like a rendition of Gulliver’s Travels.

Minister, your colleague the Minister of Tourism isn’t the only one who would benefit from your advice on how to comply with the law and to keep up with expense disclosure laws. You managed to file your expenses—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw. You don’t even have to ask me.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stand and withdraw.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Speaker; it’s kind of you.

Minister, you managed to file your expenses even when you also carried the research and innovation portfolio. This current minister hasn’t posted a single expense. Did you take all the forms from the office, or is blaming the Integrity Commissioner just self-serving?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m a little shocked that the member would refer to a trip that I took to Sarnia to talk about the great investments made by this government—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Well, you could hear the answer, member from Sarnia, if your caucus would tone it down a little bit and allow you to hear that answer.

Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m a little shocked that the member would refer to a trip that I took to his riding as Gulliver’s Travels, but since the member has stood up and asked me to comment on my colleagues, perhaps he’d like to talk about some of his colleagues when they were government, cabinet ministers who expensed Timbits; cabinet ministers, such as the Leader of the Opposition, who expensed their trip to Las Vegas and Chicken McNuggets, who made a mockery of the expense system.

We brought a level of transparency to it. Our—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, recently you launched the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario. It’s interesting to see that

section 8.2 says, “An Engaged and Informed Population.”

“8.2.1 The province will work to implement the policies of this plan in a manner that is responsive to northern Ontario” by “seeking out the views and aspirations of northern Ontario residents and businesses” and “using a variety of consultation mechanisms,” such as public meetings.

How can you go forward with Bill 151, a bill that will affect the forest industry for years to come, and not adequately consult the north by allowing that committee to travel up north?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We’re very pleased that Bill 151, modernizing the forest tenure system, is moving forward. As the member knows well, we had two different, separate consultations leading up to the introduction of the legislation where we consulted very closely with northerners. We’ve continued that process as we lead up to the public hearings.

I am very pleased indeed that we’ve had strong representation from northern Ontario at the hearings that started yesterday and some very strong support. The consultation process has been extensive, and it is continuing.

In fact, I’m very pleased about the fact that we’ve been working with the forest sector in particular—up to last week—recognizing that the key to this is for us to get this legislation right. We are very pleased that the public hearings will give us an opportunity to bring forward some positive amendments that indeed will improve—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, it’s called the growth plan. In the centre of the growth plan is the idea that the government will consult northerners when it comes to decisions that affect them. You’re about to pass Bill 151 in a matter of weeks. You’re not travelling that bill to northern Ontario; you’re doing it down here at Queen’s Park, where northerners don’t have the ability to participate.

So I ask you again: How can you stand behind Bill 151 and, more importantly, how can you stand behind the growth plan when you don’t follow what you set out there, which is consultation with northerners?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are in the midst of extensive consultations related to Bill 151. We had two different levels leading up to the introduction of the draft proposal, and we went back out on the road and consulted all across the north. And, may I say, not just northern Ontario; there are many other communities in Ontario with, obviously, forestry being an important part of their economy. So indeed, that consultation process has taken place.

I am delighted that we’ve had strong northern consultations coming forward to Queen’s Park. We opened it up to video conferencing. In fact, Dennis Rounsville, from Tembec, appeared yesterday. He thanked us for the convenience of being able to conference in and not having to travel to be at the committee. We’ll continue the consultations. We’ll come up with a better piece of legislation—

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

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Attorney General. Sunday marked the launch of National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. The theme this year is Many Voices, Many Paths.

We fully recognize that no two victims are the same and each person works through the aftermath of the victimization in different ways. I know our government has played a significant role in addressing the diverse needs of victims. We have put numerous supports in place to help victims of crime overcome the impact of these horrific incidents.

While nothing can take away the terrible pain of those who have suffered from crime, can the Attorney General, who has taken a personal interest in this, tell the House what our government is doing to make sure that victims of crime all across Ontario are supported when they need help most? One, in the immediate aftermath of crime—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Davenport raises a very important point at the beginning of victims’ week. This week and every week we want to make sure that victims and their families have the supports they need at times of crisis and throughout the criminal justice process.

From the time we became the government we’ve invested almost three quarters of a billion dollars in victims’ services and supports; this year alone, $120 million, twice what the previous government invested in their last year. What does that pay for? It pays for the victim crisis assistance and referral services 24 hours a day, immediately, on a crime being committed; the victim/witness assistance service; the quick response service to put cash in victims’ pockets when they need it most; and the human trafficking initiative, just to mention a few—

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

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: There are organizations in my riding of Davenport and throughout Ontario that operate through the dedication and hard work of professionals, volunteers and community workers to provide victims of crime and their families with the supports and services they need to overcome trauma and help put their lives back together.

Front-line workers know that the court process is an inherently stressful time for victims, coming face to face with those accused in a case and reliving often horrific experiences. Of course, this can once more tear open old scars.

In the past, the justice system would rarely interact with victims beyond direct contact with them at the crime scene and again on the witness stand. Can the Attorney General tell this House and front-line victims’ service providers—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is right. Throughout his experience, he’s seen the development of these services: the victim/witness assistance program, helping victims and their families in court, just to name one.

But he’s also been able to identify a few gaps. We just launched a fund, the vulnerable victims and family fund, to address some of those gaps. For example, the families of homicide victims travelling to court: This fund will help them and support them financially so they can get to those court appearances; victims who require some additional

interpretation service, not just to testify but to follow the proceedings.

We want to make sure that victims and their families are as involved as they wish to be throughout the court process and get the support they need. Thanks to the—

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

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities was the former Minister of Research and Innovation. He posted his expenses online, and they are current to December 2010. If the former minister could comply with the law and post his expenses online, why do you refuse? Or did he, in fact, steal all the forms from the office?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s starting to sound like a Monty Python skit over there.

What was the Leader of the Opposition doing in Las Vegas with Dick Cheney? Was he getting hunting tips? I notice he got the fishing licence. Hopefully, the Vice-President didn’t get the hunting licence. That’s like the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills getting political advice from the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington or getting seasonal hunting advice from that member.

This party is hysterical. Not a single question on innovation or on productivity. In five years, not a single intelligent economic development question, because they don’t get it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Hysterical, going rogue or unaccountable? We can’t pick all three, but I’m certain one of them is exactly what you are—going rogue for sure today.

When he was caught bending the rules, Premier McGuinty’s first impulse was to dodge and try to change the channel. He only backtracked when he got cornered.

Will you finally admit and take some responsibility, be accountable as a minister of the crown and admit that you have tried to fool Ontario families and—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw.

Will you actually post your expenses and come clean with Ontario families?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I offered yesterday. If the member for Nepean–Carleton wants to write me a note, I’ll send her—my expenses are all up to date. They’ve all been filed with the Integrity Commissioner. They’re all making their way through the system.

Maybe you need better research staff. I don’t know what it is. God knows, your nomination process is out of whack. You can’t protect your own members.

Maybe you need to hire better research staff, because you get a lot of money from the taxpayers of Ontario. I would offer to take the member from Nepean–Carleton to dinner. Unlike her leader, I won’t charge taxpayers 87 bucks; I’ll pick up the tab. I’ll go through with you, at my expense, my expense account.

Maybe you need to get better researchers and get them off their butts, working for—

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

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Families in the Niagara region are frustrated with their health care system, for good reason. They’ve seen emergency rooms closed in Fort Erie and Port Colborne, health care services disappear and life-changing decisions being made without transparency or accountability.

Local governments are listening to the concerns of their constituents. Last month, the Niagara regional council approved a resolution calling for an independent investigation of the Niagara Health System, following on the footsteps of seven municipal resolutions. Why has the McGuinty government blocked this vital investigation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member opposite knows, this afternoon I’m meeting with several community leaders from the Niagara area to better understand their concerns.

What I can tell you is that this is a government that is committed to improving health care for all Ontarians, and that includes people in the Niagara region.

Niagara’s hospitals are a very important part of our health care system. Of course, it goes without saying that they are made stronger because local people care about what happens there and local people advocate for them.

I am absolutely looking forward to this afternoon’s meeting. I want to hear what they have to say, and I want to talk about how we can continue to improve—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today the mayors are meeting with the Minister of Health to talk about the Niagara Health System’s possible investigation. This is not news to the Minister of Health. This issue has been raised by me and others in this House many times. She knows very well. She shouldn’t be waiting to hear what they have to say; she should already know what’s happening in the Niagara region and the frustration people are having there. So her nice little words about this lovely meeting don’t really make much sense.

It’s clear that the people of Niagara have lost faith in the Niagara Health System and that something needs to be done about that. Something needs to be done about that right away, to bring back their support for their Niagara Health System. Can the people of Niagara count on this minister to do the right thing and actually call the investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If the member opposite is suggesting that I not talk to anyone, I fundamentally disagree with that. We always learn when we sit down and talk to people. I’m looking forward to learning more this afternoon.

I can tell you that health care is measurably better in Niagara than it was when we took office. We’ve increased hospital funding by over 55%; that’s more than $113 million more on hospitals. We’ve also worked very hard to bring down wait times. The people in Niagara are benefiting from those investments. We’ve been able to cut 200 days off the wait time for hip replacement and 127 days off knee replacement.

We’re building a wonderful new hospital in St. Catharines that will provide cancer care—

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, my constituents are asking how our government is finding savings within our government organization in an effort to cut expenditures while maintaining a high quality of service delivery.

I was pleased to see that there have been significant savings found across the government. I know that travel has been reduced, among many other expenses.

As you said before, “Every taxpayer dollar counts, particularly in these difficult economic times. It is more important than ever to ensure that we all take responsibility” to save money in our government.

Minister, can you explain to me and to the whole House and to my constituents your plan to—

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

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from London–Fanshawe for asking this question.

Better use of technology and tighter rules on travel have reduced employee expenses by about $30 million last year alone, and that is about a 24% reduction. Our government has saved more than 22,500 hours of travel time. It is expected that a further $10 million will be saved this year in reduced travel expenses.

Webcasting and video conferencing technology have played a key role in reducing all these expenses. Let me just give you some examples: $7.1 million in reduced accommodations; $6.2 million in air travel; $6.2 million in road travel; $1.4 million in meal expenses; and $9.1 million in other travel-related expenses.

We are doing everything possible to make sure that our expenses are managed better.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the minister for working hard, on behalf of all of us in this House, to find savings in government services.

It’s not just about saving. Another component to it is protecting our environment. Can the minister tell us, as a result of the saving and reducing all the papers and all the travelling, how it can impact the environment and what is the result of that?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: As the member said, it’s not just reducing the travel expenses; it’s also reducing paper and office equipment as well. That will save us about $15.6 million over the next two years. That is being done by eliminating 15,000 printers and computer servers, saving about $8 million a year; paper use reduced by 50%, saving about $7 million; reduced fax machines, saving about $640,000. Reducing the number of daily news packages by 96% will save about $1.5 million. The reduction in our office equipment alone will save about 30.5 million kilowatt hours per year as well. That is enough energy to power about 2,700 homes.

MINISTERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Why could the Minister of Health Promotion and the Minister of Training, College and Universities post their monthly expenses up to December 2010 and you won’t?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I certainly thank the member opposite for his question. However, I would appreciate at least one question on immigration from my critic someday.

I can tell you that I have submitted all my ministerial expenses. I’m glad that the member opposite has given me the opportunity to talk about what some of these travel expenses relate to. For example, this past October 8, I flew to Ottawa to meet with my federal counterpart, Jason Kenney, to demand that the federal government immediately begin negotiations on a Canada-Ontario immigration agreement to benefit newcomers. Because of meetings such as this one, Ottawa did, in fact, enter into negotiations with Ontario.

I urge the opposition to end their silence and stand—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m not sure Jason Kenney would know who the minister is. You should be more like the Minister of Health Promotion and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities instead of the Minister of Infrastructure or the Minister of Research and Innovation. Maybe the first two ministers could give you a lesson on how to fill out the forms on time. Why won’t you admit that you’re trying to fool Ontario families with your—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment.

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I find such comments pretty rich coming from the opposition. I should point out that the submission of ministerial expenses is an issue which is very important to this government and to all ministers, and it’s something that I take very seriously. I think, however, it’s quite telling that the immigration critic has not even taken the time to ask my ministry for a briefing on immigration matters, which is the level of attention he pays to that.

I’d ask the member opposite to take his job seriously, call his federal counterparts and demand a fair deal for Ontario and for Ontario’s newcomers.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Our neighbours to the south have found radioactive iodine and cesium in their milk. They reported their findings publicly. This is the basis of health promotion: Give the people transparent access to the information they need so they can protect their health.

My question is very simple: Is the government testing for radiation levels in the milk, the drinking water and the rain water across Ontario, yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very happy to actually have a chance to answer this. I want to emphasize the importance of monitoring radioactivity and other health hazards. I will undertake to have a conversation with the chief medical officer of health. I will have a fuller understanding of exactly what it is we are doing, and I undertake to get back to the member opposite with that explanation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I would like to thank the minister for her offer to follow up. I, too, am interested. As I said, the basis of a good health promotion initiative is to have the facts to make them accessible to the people of Ontario so we all know.

We encourage people to drink milk. It is good for you. But I would say that if there are reported levels of radiation that are happening in states like Vermont, then it is worth monitoring what is done in Ontario so we have a clear conscience. All I’m asking for is, please do the monitoring and make it available and accessible to the people of Ontario.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the member opposite’s willingness to give me a little bit of time to find out more about this. I look forward to learning more myself and to sharing that information.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question today is for the Minister of Government Services. Ontario families have a level of expectation of services they receive from our government. More than ever, Ontarians expect to receive high value for their government services and expect the service to be at par with the private sector.

I know that ServiceOntario in my community has been addressing a number of issues, such as long lines and wait times for core services, as well as issues like having to visit multiple locations for drivers’ licences and health cards. Fixing it wasn’t easy and didn’t happen overnight. It took hard work and some thinking out of the box. It took a service revolution involving a number of initiatives to make it easier for individuals, families and businesses to access government information services.

Could the minister tell us what changes or improvements the minister is doing or referred to in his budget to make service delivery better for Peterborough families?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I am very proud of the changes we have made to improve the services that we deliver to all Ontarians. We actually have integrated our services; we have streamlined our services; we have modernized our services. Now we have 300 services, which consist of two thirds private and one third owned by the government. They deliver family-friendly services to all Ontarians. We have extended the hours. All of those services are available within 10 kilometres. We are not only just providing certain services, but actually we are taking all the services and providing them under one roof as well.

We have actually started measuring the wait times so that we can improve the services and even start providing more guarantees for the services that we provide, so that in case we don’t deliver the services on time, the people can get their money refunded.

We are very, very proud of the services that we are providing to the people and the quality of services that we are providing these days.

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

CORRECTION OF RECORD

M me France Gélinas: On a point of order: I was referring to radioactive cesium, but my colleague told me that I said “calcium.” Just in case, I was talking about cesium, not calcium.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. That is a point of order. The member is allowed to correct his or her own record.

Mr. Jeff Leal: On a point of order: I’m trying to figure out this morning why the opposition never asked any questions on health care and education—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is not a point of order, and that is not helpful in helping to maintain order and decorum in this chamber.

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1148 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 141. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gélinas, France

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

O’Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Savoline, Joyce

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 69; the nays are 0.

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 just want to make two comments. One is, I’d like the House leaders to maybe talk about this issue of walking in votes. I watched very clearly, with the doors open, a member coming down a hallway, thinking that they were coming for a vote, and then with the vote being walked in, that member not being allowed to get in and standing right at the door. So I just put that out for members for discussion.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I also want to make some comments about this morning’s question period. The members will know that I have, on more than one occasion, reminded members that the use of temperate language is necessary for the preservation of the dignity of this place. Today’s question period had numerous examples, on both sides of the House, of language that was something less than temperate.

It is challenging for the Speaker to maintain a flow in the question period with interruption and without constant interruption. It is made even more challenging when the noise level makes it difficult to hear every word from every member, including those who properly have the floor. To some extent, there has to be some individual responsibility on the part of all of you to resist the use of language that casts this place into disrespect.

I heard comments. I had a note passed to me about one member questioning the integrity of another member—issues such as, “How can we trust you to run the system?”; “You haven’t got a clue”; “Stealing the forms.” It’s coming from both sides of the House.

I realize that we are in the lead-up to an election campaign and things will get heated in this chamber, but as elected officials, I know that it is within each of you, that you do have the ability to use temperate language, use language that is becoming of this place and use language that is going to set an example, whether it is to the young ladies who were visiting today or the hundreds of thousands of students who visit this chamber on an annual basis. I’d just ask all members on both sides of the House to be conscious of that.

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

The House recessed from 1155 to 1500.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BROCKVILLE AND AREA YMCA

Mr. Steve Clark: Last night, the Brockville and Area YMCA held its annual volunteer appreciation dinner. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to be there to give my personal thanks to those volunteers who are the broad shoulders this great organization is built upon.

Two special awards were handed out, and I want to take a moment to talk about Mohammad Khadra, the Spirit of the “Y” Youth Leadership Award recipient, and Sherry Connell, this year’s Dr. Stanley Brown Memorial “Y” Values Award winner.

Mohammad is a 15-year-old student at Brockville Collegiate Institute who has used his kind and compassionate energy to become a role model to elementary-aged school children at the Y. Since last year, he has been assisting with three programs, including giving up his time to help with the Saturday youth night event. Currently, you can find him at the Y on Wednesdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., helping children get involved in sports, do their homework and pursue healthy lifestyle activities.

Sherry is certainly no stranger to Y members, as she volunteers at least four times per week. That’s an amazing level of commitment and dedication. The local Y has recently reached a milestone of 5,000 members and I’m told they couldn’t survive without Sherry volunteering all those hours every week on the membership services desk.

I’m so proud to add my congratulations to Mohammad Khadra and Sherry Connell on this special occasion. Their involvement in the YMCA has enriched the lives of thousands and set an example of active citizenship to which we all should aspire.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I am receiving emails from Torontonians all over the city about the recent agreement between Premier McGuinty and Mayor Ford to dismember the Transit City plan. As people write, “This new plan builds only half as much new transit as was promised in the original Metrolinx Transit City plan, but it costs more! Worse still, it leaves out the very communities and neighbourhoods the original plan was designed to help!”

Bad enough that Torontonians are being left to choke on auto exhaust, wait ages for a bus or sit in endless traffic jams, but the agreement is very unclear as to whether or not the plan must go before city council for debate before it proceeds.

Premier McGuinty must make it clear that this new plan will require a council debate.

ONTARIO CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION

Mr. Dave Levac: It indeed is a pleasure to rise in the House to offer a warm welcome to the representatives from the Ontario Chiropractic Association who are with us in the Legislature today.

It might be of interest for you to know that the Ontario Chiropractic Association represents approximately 3,000 of the province’s practising chiropractors. As accomplished health professionals who deliver care to over 1.2 million patients in the province, chiropractors provide diagnosis, treatment and preventive care for disorders related to the spine, pelvis, nervous system and the joints. OCA members are committed to educating patients and the public about their health while empowering them to make informed decisions about treatment options and their overall wellness.

For the second year running, groups of chiropractors will be meeting today with MPPs and government officials to talk about the contributions made by the profession to the health care system and share their experiences from our various constituencies. Of course, it would not be Queen’s Park Day without the Ontario Chiropractic Association’s reception for all MPPs.

A number of the OCA’s members have travelled from ridings across Ontario to be here today to let us know how they are making a difference for patients living in our communities. I personally welcome Dr. Ivone De Marchi of the OCA, who represents Brantford.

I encourage each and every member of this House to attend the reception that the Ontario Chiropractic Association is hosting this evening here, in committee rooms 228 and 230 from 5 o’clock to 7 o’clock, so that we can all meet our representatives from our ridings. I hope we can all count on your attendance.

SMART METERS

Mr. Randy Hillier: For the past few months I’ve been asking questions and delivering statements on behalf of my constituents, calling on this Liberal government to end their expensive hydro experiments. I have told this government time and time again that their smart meter tax machines are doubling and tripling the hydro costs of my constituents, increases they simply cannot afford.

But today, the issue hits even closer to home for me. I just received this month’s hydro bill for my constituency office in Perth and couldn’t help but notice that since the smart meter was installed in my office, the usage has now doubled from the same time period last year.

While the McGuinty Liberals would prefer that parents have their children get ready for school before 7 a.m. and cook their dinners after 9 p.m., they can’t possibly expect the constituency offices of my fellow members to also follow such ridiculous hours of operation.

There is something wrong with the McGuinty government’s smart meter tax machines. Even without the time-of-use pricing, his new tax machine has doubled our constituency office hydro usage.

More than 8,000 people saw their usage triple last year, according to Ontario Hydro—8,000 people.

It’s up to the McGuinty Liberals to come clean and account for yet another one of their expensive hydro experiments.

Speaker, I did bring in my hydro bill, which I’ll bring over. I see the Minister of Energy is here—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Scarborough Southwest.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise today to acknowledge our government’s commitment to building a modern transit system for the city of Toronto. On March 31 of this year, the Ontario government announced that it has committed $8.4 billion towards expanding Toronto’s subway and rapid transit lines.

Our new transit plan will have a profound impact in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. Scarborough’s aging rapid transit line will finally be replaced by a modern, new light-rail transit system. The Scarborough line will also connect to a new underground light-rail transit system along Eglinton Avenue, which will help to ease congestion and reduce pollution along one of Scarborough’s busiest streets.

The residents in my riding and all across the greater Toronto area are getting a better deal under the government’s new plan. The McGuinty government understands that building a stronger transit system will help reduce gridlock, improve air quality and build stronger communities. That’s why our government has funded important infrastructure projects on the TTC, which has increased bus services along some of Scarborough’s major routes. That’s why our government has worked closely with the mayor and the city of Toronto on a revised plan to improve public transit, and that’s why our government is committed to making the largest transit investment in a generation.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Ted Arnott: With every new tax fee and price increase, Ontario families know this: They have a provincial government that is, at best, totally indifferent to their economic hardship.

The latest example: Yesterday the Minister of Finance categorically rejected a cut to his government’s HST on gasoline. Canadian Press quotes the minister: “You see overnight swings in these prices much larger than the HST.” How insensitive. How callous. People who are struggling know that every saving, no matter how small, makes a difference in their household budget. Every little bit helps. This may be a revelation to certain ministers, with cars and drivers, who haven’t noticed that the price of gasoline has gone up.

The minister could have acknowledged that rising gas prices are causing real financial pain. The minister could have also offered some encouragement on rising gas prices. But he didn’t so much as indicate he wanted to find a solution. Instead, he just made excuses.

Here’s the worst part: The McGuinty Liberals continue to deny small and rural municipalities their fair share of gas tax revenues. Cities with transit systems receive a portion of the 14.7-cent-per-litre provincial gas tax. Small-town and rural Ontario municipalities without transit systems still have to maintain their roads, but this government leaves them out in the cold. Our caucus has long advocated that this discriminatory policy must change so that all municipalities, large and small, can provide the transportation infrastructure that they need. Again, I call upon the government to address this inequity.

LONDON EMPLOYMENT HELP CENTRE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: On Friday, April 1, Minister Bentley and I attended an open house at the London Employment Help Centre. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work being done in my community by this outstanding organization.

The employment help centre is a community, not-for-profit, charitable organization that provides employment services at all stages of the job search process, free of charge, including career counselling, individualized job placement services and how-to workshops, as well as access to essential resources in today’s job-search market, including computers with Internet access and a voicemail service.

The centre receives funding from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities as well as from the United Way and various community donors. Community organizations like the London Employment Help Centre play a pivotal role in rebuilding the province’s economy, helping laid-off workers to find new jobs and helping to equip individuals with networking and job-search skills.

I want to congratulate the employment help centre for the excellent job they’re doing in my community of London, Ontario, and especially in London–Fanshawe, because they help a lot of laid-off workers to find jobs and support their families.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I rise today to speak to International Day of Pink, which takes place tomorrow all around the world. This is an internationally recognized day to take a stand against bullying, discrimination and homophobia. I know all members in this House agree that there is no place for bullying in our schools, at work or in our communities.

Our government has taken a strong stance on bullying in Ontario’s schools and made it clear that bullying is never acceptable. That is why we passed our safe schools strategy, which creates serious consequences for violence in our schools but also recognizes the importance of prevention targeted at stopping bullying before it occurs.

To prevent bullying, we must address the root causes. To help combat homophobia in our schools, we have brought in the first-ever equity and inclusiveness strategy. It requires school boards to have policies in place to combat discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.

Speaker, and all members of the Legislature, please join me tomorrow in wearing pink to show our support for the fight against bullying, discrimination and homophobia. Together, we can build a more inclusive and supportive Ontario, and our government is committed to achieving this goal.

2011 ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Bill Mauro: Very soon, both opposition parties, Conservative and NDP, will have an opportunity to support both a budget motion and a budget bill. There are significant measures contained within our budget that I’m hoping they’ll find the capacity to support: first of all, the full implementation and funding of full-day kindergarten; 60,000 new college and university spaces, which are very significant, including spaces at Lakehead University and Confederation College in my riding.

Also significant, I would suggest, given the economic situation on the planet for the last couple of years: $44 million over three years for literacy and basic skills—hopefully, that will gather some attention from them as well; $93 million a year for a province-wide mental health and addictions strategy, a strategy that all members from all parties had a hand in formulating—I’m hoping they’ll find the capacity to support that; $15 million a year to expand Ontario’s breast screening program, a program that will provide 90,000 more screenings for women who are at risk of developing breast cancer due to their genetics or family history, that will see the age for eligibility reduced to 30—very significant; and, of course, a piece very fundamental and important to northern Ontario is an increase in the northern Ontario heritage fund from $90 million to $100 million, an additional $10 million in that budget.

It was always at $60 million. We’ve gone from $60 million to $70 million, $70 million to $80 million, $80 million to $90 million and, this year, from $90 million to $100 million—very important in northern Ontario.

I’m hoping the opposition parties can support that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received a report on intended appointments dated April 12, 2011, from 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.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

Mr. Martiniuk moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr39,

An Act to revive Faradale Farms Ltd.

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): Pursuant to standing order 86, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased to rise in the Legislature today to recognize this week as National Volunteer Week. National Volunteer Week gives all of us the opportunity to say thank you to Ontario’s five million volunteers. It gives us an opportunity to celebrate the generosity of our volunteers and to honour their spirit of service.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is important to you that this year’s National Volunteer Week theme is “Volunteers: Passion. Action. Impact.” I can’t think of any more appropriate words to describe our hard-working volunteers. Our volunteers embody a passion for service. Their passion and commitment results in meaningful action. That action makes an impact, a positive impact that creates stronger and more vibrant communities right across Ontario.

Whether as advocates, coaches, mentors, fundraisers, board members or in countless other roles, volunteers get results. Quite simply, volunteers change the world, and they build our communities. Their enormous contributions help make Ontario the best place in the world in which to live.

Our generation has inherited a powerful and proud tradition of volunteerism, a tradition that we must preserve and pass on even stronger to the next generation. We recognize that volunteers are the heart of our community, and that’s why we support an active volunteer engagement and recognition program. We do so through Ontario’s annual Volunteer Service Awards. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Volunteer Service Awards, which recognize the outstanding contributions of exceptional Ontario volunteers.

Since its inception, more than 150,000 Ontarians have proudly received the honour of the Volunteer Service Award. In 2011 alone, we have 48 ceremonies in 35 communities that will recognize another 10,000 devoted and deserving volunteers.

During National Volunteer Week, we will also present the June Callwood Outstanding Achievement Award for Voluntarism. This award recognizes individuals, businesses and other organizations for their outstanding volunteer contribution.

To encourage and engage the next generation of volunteers, this week we will award the Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers to youth who have performed outstanding community service. Yesterday, the Minister of Education and I launched the fourth annual ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge in Belleville. The youth volunteer challenge has captured the imaginations of our young people. Last year, more than 11,000 of them took action and volunteered more than 42,000 hours.

Ontario must continue to support our strong tradition of volunteerism and to find new ways to work together with the not-for-profit sector. That’s why, last month, our government announced Ontario’s strategy to create a stronger partnership with the not-for-profit sector, and to help guide this strategy we are creating a partnership advisory group which will include leaders from the not-for-profit, public and private sectors. We are also establishing the partnership project office to help renew and streamline and modernize the government’s relationship with community organizations and to provide better coordination.

Volunteerism and service help define our province and our people. It is this spirit that brings out the best in all of us, in our communities and in Ontario. I urge the members of the Legislature to recognize their community volunteers this week and during the Volunteer Service Awards ceremonies taking place in the coming weeks. Please join me in applauding the dedicated volunteers of all ages and all backgrounds who make an immeasurable difference to the lives of each and every one of us each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s an honour to stand on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, again this week to talk about the importance of recognizing in this announcement National Volunteer Week from April 10 to 16.

I know that I join with the minister in paying tribute to the more than five million Ontarians who give something back to our province by volunteering every year. Whether people are coaching our children in minor sports, being a companion for our seniors or helping at the hospital auxiliary, they do it quietly and for a compensation that’s not defined by dollars and cents but by the invaluable feeling we get when we help in extending our hand to others. These dedicated citizens put their own busy lives on hold and contribute 800 million volunteer hours annually.

Imagine how much of what we love about living in our communities across Ontario would disappear if not for our legion of selfless volunteers. All across the province this week, organizations are holding special volunteer appreciation ceremonies to give their hard-working helpers a moment of well-deserved glory.

Earlier today, I was privileged to talk about two of those volunteers, Mohammad Khadra and Sherry Connell, who were the special award recipients at last evening’s Brockville and Area YMCA volunteer awards gala.

Like every member of the Legislative Assembly, I’m looking forward to attending the annual Volunteer Service Award ceremonies later this year. As the minister stated, it’s the 25th anniversary of that event. The volunteers who will be recognized at these ceremonies come from all walks of life and are all ages. But I think it’s important to focus on youth volunteers, especially as the minister has issued the 2011 ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge. As the minister said, it’s a three-week initiative which aims at getting teens more involved in volunteering.

Of course, we should remember that it was the PC government in 1999 that had the foresight to issue the mandatory 40-hour volunteer credit for Ontario high school students. I’m proud that our party recognized then, as we do now, that instilling the spirit of volunteerism in our youth today is essential to create a generation of active and engaged citizens tomorrow. It’s worth noting that the legacy of this program is that the volunteer rate among youth ages 15 to 24 in Ontario is now a remarkable 63%. As the minister quoted, over 11,000 youth volunteered 42,000 hours of their lives in 281 not-for-profit agencies.

In that spirit, I want to mention some of my local events because the minister encouraged us to be involved in our local communities. The Volunteer Bureau of Leeds and Grenville, in my riding, has taken up the minister’s youth volunteer challenge. On April 20, 180 students will converge on the Mac Johnson Wildlife Area, a local conservation area that’s a popular place for people to connect with the outdoors year-round.

These students will spend the day giving the area a spring cleaning, learning from having hands-on lessons about the value of protecting our natural resources as they work side by side with a group of volunteers, the Friends of Mac Johnson. They will work in groups with a biologist to talk about the role of science and the environment and what they play in our lives. I’m confident that this experience will inspire many of the participating students to explore new ways that they can make a difference, whether it be preserving a cherished nature reserve or helping a not-for-profit organization.

This weekend I’m also participating in my community’s 10th anniversary edition of the local mayor’s walk, which raises funds for the Volunteer Bureau of Leeds and Grenville. Under the very capable direction of Frank Rockett, our volunteer bureau helps connect 15,000 volunteers with more than 50 agencies in 38 communities in my riding. I’ll be at this weekend’s walk doing something—many of us in Ontario will make that special opportunity to say thank you to the millions of volunteers who play an important role in making our—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: I am walking, Minister—to make a better place for our communities.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an honour to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party and our leader, Andrea Horwath, and to speak about National Volunteer Week. Certainly, you’ve heard the numbers from my esteemed colleagues: five million in Ontario, some 800 million volunteer hours that are spent. Certainly, 95%, we know, of all Canadians volunteer at least part of their time.

It’s an interesting fact that I don’t think has been mentioned that the idea of Volunteer Week was first started in 1943. It was started to draw the public’s attention to the contribution of women. So, it had a gendered beginning of women during the Second World War, because we remember that women took over many of the roles that were performed by men in their families during that effort. Certainly, in our own community, in Parkdale–High Park, every June I host a dinner where we recognize the 12 top social activists and volunteers in our riding and also five new businesses that have weathered the storm and managed to start something in difficult times. We certainly pay homage to all of them.

I want to use a few minutes of my time, however, to focus on one primarily volunteer-driven organization, and that’s victims’ services. It’s not far from here. I suggest to every member that they drop in. It is just around on 40 College Street, housed in the police services building there. And sadly enough, when I heard the announcement from the Attorney General of the hundreds of thousands that are supposedly going to the victims of crime, I thought for a minute, “Oh, wonderful. Finally victims’ services will have their day, finally they’ll get some relief,” because they haven’t had any money from this government for a long, long time.

Now, to understand victims’ services, here’s what you need to know: First of all, 150 volunteers work out of there. They contribute 20,000 hours of volunteer work, and what do they do? They are the first respondents to victims of crime. That’s who they are. So I’m appealing to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to the government House leader and any other members of cabinet who sit around the table to please make sure some of that money goes to them. Here is why: Many of the victims of crime don’t ever see their day in court. We know this.

And the money that the Attorney General announced is going just to court support services. Here we have volunteers who go out with a staff person in the police car, responding to the moment of crime, to the victims of crime on the scene, and they haven’t seen a dime. I immediately emailed them when I heard the announcement—Bonnie Levine is their executive director, a hard-working woman—and I said, “Did you get some of this money, Bonnie?” She said, “Not a dime.”

So, please, I am really pleading with you for them, because without them, victims would not see anybody at the scene of the crime, and we know that many victims of crime, unfortunately, particularly of homicide, never get their day in court. They never are involved in court at all, fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be.

The other thing we should know about victims’ services is that the major crimes they are called to are situations of domestic violence against women, so there’s another gendered aspect that I would like to highlight here. Having just had the Girls in Government here, with their wonderful teachers who took time away from their busy schedules to get them active and involved in the political process and to meet ministers here and in Ottawa, again, we know how important the contribution of volunteers is, particularly women volunteers, because, let’s face it, that’s the bulk of volunteers as well. It has a gendered face.

So I appeal to all those across the aisle, on behalf of Bonnie Levine and victims’ services: Please step up. It has come to a point with victims’ services where they’re simply not going to be able to respond unless they get more money from this government. They’re simply not going to be able to do what they do, volunteers or no volunteers, unless out of some moment of insight the Attorney General changes the rationale for how this money is being delivered and gives some to victims’ services—the obvious recipient, first of all, of any volunteer award, but second of all, any money that goes to victims and their needs.

Please take that to heart, and again, here’s to all the volunteers who work in all the agencies across Ontario. The best to all of them. Thank you so much. You in fact are keeping this province running.

PETITIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Steve Clark: “Whereas the McGuinty government is pushing ahead with the installation of so-called smart meters and mandatory time-of-use billing by June 2011 despite the flaws with the program; and

“Whereas 21 energy distributors, including provincially owned Hydro One, said that the rush to make time of use mandatory by June 2011 doesn’t give them time to fix all the problems with the meters, fix bugs with the software to run them, and to fix the inaccurately high bills they produce as a result; and

“Whereas the Ontario Energy Board, in a letter of August 4, admitted that energy distributors ‘may encounter extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances during the implementation’ of time of use, and said that ‘these matters need to be addressed’;

“Whereas relying on computer technology that the energy industry says is not ready, isn’t reliable and is making families pay too much on their hydro bills;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To call upon the McGuinty government to suspend the smart meter time-of-use program until billing problems are fixed and Ontario families are given the option of whether to participate in the time-of-use program.”

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’d like to read a petition on behalf of my constituents Zofia and Henryk Nieradko.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are over 7,000 people with disabilities waiting for the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services’ special services at home (SSAH) funding and almost 4,000 on wait-lists for Passport funding; and

“Whereas such programs are vital and essential to supporting Ontarians with developmental disabilities, and their families, to participate in community life;

“ARCH Disability Law Centre, supported by Family Alliance Ontario, People First of Ontario, Community Living Ontario, Special Services at Home Provincial Coalition, Individualized Funding Coalition for Ontario and the undersigned individuals and organizations, urge the Ontario government to take quick action to substantially improve developmental services.

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

“—Ensure that all qualified Passport and SSAH applicants immediately receive adequate funding;

“—Make the application and funding allocation processes transparent; and

“—Ensure that sufficient long-term funding is in place so that eligible Ontarians with disabilities can access the supports and services they need.”

I agree with the petition, affix my signature to it and give it to page Christopher.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Toby Barrett: This is a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

“Whereas Ontario families are struggling in an economic downturn to meet the demands of eco taxes, the HST, energy price hikes, wasteful spending and increased taxes;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Initiate the process for legislation to allow Ontario residents to recall Dalton.”

I affix my signature and apologize for the wording at the end of this petition.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis;

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known and universally practised procedure that is low-risk and at relatively low expense;

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

“That the Minister of Health agrees to proceed with clinical trials of the venoplasty treatment to fully explore its potential to bring relief to the thousands of Ontarians afflicted with multiple sclerosis.”

I agree with the petition, will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Jimmy.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Ontario families are struggling to help put their kids through university;

“Whereas students in Ontario graduate with an average $26,000 in debt and have the highest tuition and largest class sizes in the country; and

“Whereas Ontario tax dollars should be kept in Ontario to help Ontario students, not sent overseas;

“We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the McGuinty government to cancel its plan to give foreign students scholarships of $40,000 a year and reinvest these funds in scholarships for Ontario students.”

I sign this petition.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I want to thank the Food For All Food Bank in Prescott for providing it to me.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas agriculture plays an important role in Ontario’s economy and deserves investment;

“Whereas PC MPP Bob Bailey has introduced a significant tax credit for farmers who donate agricultural goods to food banks, helping farmers, food banks and people in need; and

“Whereas over 25 million pounds of fresh produce is disposed of or plowed back into Ontario’s fields each year while food banks across Ontario struggle to feed those in need;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call MPP Bob Bailey’s private member’s bill, Bill 78, the Taxation Amendment Act (Food Bank Donation Tax Credit for Farmers), 2010, to committee immediately for consideration and then on to third reading and implementation without delay.”

I agree with the petition, will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Leighton.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I want to thank Amy Preston for providing it to me. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis;

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known and universally practised procedure that is low-risk and at relatively low expense;

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

“That the Minister of Health agrees to proceed with clinical trials of the venoplasty treatment to fully explore its potential to bring relief to the thousands of Ontarians afflicted with multiple sclerosis.”

I agree with the petition, will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Riley.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 173,

An Act respecting 2011 Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, when Bill 173 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the vote on second reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21, 2011, during its regular meeting time for public hearings, and be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 5, 2011, during its regular meeting time, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2011. At 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2011, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment for clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday, May 5, 2011.

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, May 9, 2011. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 56.

Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett: As we in this Ontario Legislature have debated this latest have-not budget, it has become clear that this have-not province’s Premier really has no intention of halting the high spending, the high taxing and the high deficitting—if that’s a word—that sees all of us paying for bigger government and smaller results.

It’s also clear that it will take a real change of direction, concrete action, to dig out of this hole. While I realize that government forces are waiting in the wings to cut off debate on this spending plan, I appreciate the fact that it has given me and my colleagues in the opposition an opportunity to make it clear that there’s a better way.

You can time-allocate all you want, but it won’t stop us from opposing the budget and the various measures, and presenting our plans to give families relief and to reallocate taxpayer dollars to services that people care about and services people need—front-line health care, for example.

We brought forward a number of ideas to redirect this government’s course from its poorly-thought-out experiments and wasteful spending. To start, time allocation or not, we’ve proposed pulling the plug on the mandatory smart meter tax machine to give families a choice on their electricity bills. As well, opposition leader Hudak continues to call for a forensic audit on the debt retirement charge on our electricity bills, a debt that should have been paid off by now. Families have already paid $7.8 billion on this $7.8-billion debt.

Part of our goal is to end wasteful spending. We need to cut wasteful spending, and this debate allows us to expand on some of our plans to close the doors on the regional health bureaucracies, the LHINs—again, put every penny back into front-line health care.

Last week, opposition leader Tim Hudak introduced and debated legislation to initiate a sunset review process through an all-party committee of all the 600-plus agencies, boards and commissions to root out wasteful spending. Government has become too big, too expensive, too clumsy, and part of that is exemplified through a number of these agencies that may well have their due date coming up.

I should move on with respect to time. I’m just getting started here.

In recent months, we’ve also made clear our plans to deal with a series of concerns that are siphoning off and wasting tax dollars. We will provide clear and tight time frames that will ensure public sector agreements reflect the ability of families to pay, by bringing in more transparency, bringing in more accountability to the arbitration system.

We’ll take on the unfair distribution of gasoline taxes, building on some of my attempts to establish a mechanism to ensure rural municipalities receive the full benefit of gas tax transit initiatives.

In rural Ontario and northern Ontario, roads and bridges are our form of public transit. We pay the taxes at the pump. We get nothing in return if our municipalities do not fund public transit. Again, the price of gas goes higher, as we all know, and to be standing there pumping gas, to read the list of provincial road taxes, let alone the HST—and to realize that none of those taxes are coming back to a riding like mine, Haldimand–Norfolk.

In this House, I’ve presented petitions from the Dunnville area—well over a thousand signatures to investigate the establishment of connecting public transit links between Haldimand county and Norfolk county and to ensure rural municipalities receive the full benefit of the gas tax transit initiative. Again, there’s no initiative from this government.

We remain the only provincial party to pledge the return of municipal decision-making power on wind towers. We will also eliminate the practice of paying out inappropriately expensive subsidies under the Green Energy Act, the FIT program. Again, since the passage of this government’s flawed Green Energy Act, we’ve watched in my area, indeed right across Ontario, as wind towers pit neighbour against neighbour.

There’s little doubt in my mind that we do need municipal oversight, oversight that has been ripped away from our municipally elected representatives by this draconian attempt to usurp power and implement a “green at all costs” agenda, again through the Liberals’ Green Energy Act. We’ve made very clear our demand for a moratorium on wind power until we see the return of this municipal decision-making. I have about 200 wind towers coming just to the southern part of Haldimand county.

This government does not want to hear some of the issues that were raised as recently as last week, sticky situations—former deputy health minister Ron Sapsford receiving $762,000. This was the year after he quit during the eHealth scandal. We will end the practice of paying outrageous severances to public servants.

Interjections.

Mr. Toby Barrett: The members opposite obviously don’t want me to talk about some of these things and issues that were omitted from their budget plan. We summarized much of this in what was referred to as the “10 for 2010” campaign. Again, in the budget there’s no mention of plans for a one-year payroll tax holiday for all new hires, for example, a program that would help young workers; a one-year suspension of the land transfer tax to help families achieve the dream of homeownership; an end to corporate welfare and the practice of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

We will bring in a cap on government spending—all part of an overreaching plan to end the out-of-control, wasteful spending exemplified in this, Ontario’s recent have-not budget.

Before I wrap up here, I feel it’s important to note that in this budget, in my riding, our tobacco economy has been deep-sixed, replaced by illegal tobacco that has bankrupted not only farms but businesses, companies, corner stores. The scrapping of a state-of-the-art coal generation facility—600 people used to work there. How can we run a steel mill down at US Steel? You can’t do it on windmills and solar, certainly not at 80.2 cents.

The treatment of commercial fishermen, cattlemen, hog farmers, cash crop, fruit and vegetable seems to be merely an afterthought rather than—usually, just before an election is looming, there is a bone thrown out to some of these groups.

Most importantly, five years ago this government ran away from two girls who were protesting in a Caledonia subdivision, which was allowed to explode into the most expensive, largest, longest-lasting occupation in the history of Ontario, bringing Caledonia, Haldimand county, Brant and Brantford to their knees.

Thanks, Premier Pinocchio, for promising in your first election—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I withdraw—promising in your first election no new taxes, then bringing in the largest income tax increase in the history of Ontario. Thanks, in the last election, for promising no new taxes and then bringing in the largest sales tax increase in the history of Ontario.

I predict that to try to win this coming election, Dalton McGuinty will promise no new taxes and then go to work at becoming what I would consider a three-peat liar, a bald-faced liar.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I will not withdraw, and I will address my comments to the Speaker. I will not withdraw. These are billion-dollar decisions.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’m sorry. I’m asking you to withdraw the comment.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I will not withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I name you then, Toby Barrett.

Mr. Barrett was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order.

Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: Well, here we are again: faced with a time allocation motion on something that I consider quite important, the budget for the province of Ontario. It’s not like it’s a thin document. We’re talking about over 300 pages of information, none of it in bold or anything like that, a big font. Certainly, something that is worth a little bit of debate. It is worth debate because when you look at it, you realize that there is lots that has been slid into the budget bill that tends to, how could I say, irritate me to the utmost.

One such thing that has been slid in there is this tiny, weenie little motion that had been defeated when we were talking about Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

Let me bring you back to November 2010; November 29, 2010, to be precise. After years of requests, people finally gained access to freedom of information for our hospitals. Hospitals are huge in Ontario; we’re talking $22 billion from our taxes, from the government, going to support our hospitals, yet hospitals had no transparency. If somebody had an event that they were not happy with, they had gone through the process within the hospital but they still hadn’t gotten closure and they still hadn’t gotten the information they wanted, that was it.

With hospitals, you could not go to the Ombudsman if you had a complaint against your hospital and you could not have access to information because you could not file a freedom of access of information for your hospital.

Finally we have the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, and finally hospitals—starting in 2012—are going to be FOI-able. You’re going to have access, through freedom of information, to information that you’ve never had access to before, information that a lot of families—basically, if they could have had that information, they could have had closure, they could have moved on. But no, we have a lot of people out there who have been going through tough times because they didn’t. So things look pretty good.

Then we go—I’m back on November 29, 2010. We’re going through clause-by-clause and here’s this tiny little motion that says we will give freedom of access of information, but a hospital won’t have to comply if it has to do with quality improvement. On one hand, everybody agrees; myself to start. We all support quality improvement in our hospitals. I mean, this is how we improve things, and we’re all in favour of this. The problem is that we had waited for a long time to get freedom of access of information for our hospitals.

Finally we were getting it, but at the last minute came this little clause that says, “but a hospital won’t have to comply if it has to do with quality improvement.” So when this came in clause-by-clause, I voted that down.

I do want hospitals to have the opportunity to talk about quality improvement, but in a very narrow way, because if you think of all of the teaching hospitals in this province, their motto is, “Continuing quality improvement.” Everything they do in teaching hospitals has to do with improving quality so that they can be at the forefront of best practices and share those best practices with all of the other 157 hospitals in this province.

So what does that mean? That means th