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

March 19, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-19 (PDF)

L024 - Mon 19 Mar 2012 / Lun 19 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 19 March 2012 Lundi 19 mars 2012

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEBT

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HEALTH CARE

HOME CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CASINOS

DRUG SHORTAGE

DRUG SHORTAGE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

EDUCATION

POLICE

ADOPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

LIBRARY SERVICES

PETER MILLER

CURLING

VIOLENT INCIDENT IN LONDON

HERB CARNEGIE

PETER HEFFERING

ONTARIO CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

CERTIFIED GENERAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

DE L’ONTARIO

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POLICE SERVICES /

SERVICES POLICIERS

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

SKILLED TRADES

DOG OWNERSHIP

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

HYDRO DAM

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

LYME DISEASE

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Having been in the chair a short time now, I have observed that the period of time allotted for the introduction of visitors is sometimes used as an occasion to insert

preambles that both take up time and on occasion contain a political message.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all members that there is a short, five-minute time period to introduce your visitors, and it should be used for that purpose only.

While I don’t want to have to cut any member off during an introduction of their visitors, members who abuse this proceeding in the manner I have just described may leave me no choice.

I know that all members will be mindful of this as we go forward, while we introduce visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome Ontario cattlemen from across the province who are here with us in the public gallery, as well as Rob Black and Kathie MacDonald from the Rural Ontario Institute.

I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park on behalf of my colleagues and Tim Hudak, and I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s really a pleasure to have a special welcome today to my niece, Paige Henriksen, who is here today with her classmates from the grade 5 class of Mrs. Sandy Gonsalvez at St. Matthew school in Oakville.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: It’s a pleasure to welcome representatives from the Ontario Association of Children’s Rehabilitation Services, an umbrella organization that represents 20 children’s treatment centres in Ontario. I believe they are in the Speaker’s gallery, or will be there shortly: Linda Kenny, the chief executive officer; Bob McKay, volunteer; and Caroline Stone, a board chair.

I also invite all MPPs to a reception at 11:30, hosted by this wonderful organization.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my pleasure to introduce Gail Palmer and her son, Michael, who’s a grade 5 student at Dr. Ross Tilley Public School in Bowmanville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s my privilege today to introduce the family of page Julia Cole. Here today is her dad, Greg Cole; her brother, William Cole; and her grandparents, Judy and Bob Cole. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce the parents of page Liam Donnelly—Shannon Donnelly and Shawn Donnelly—joining us here today from the great riding of Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce young Sarah Zufelt from Havelock, Ontario, and her uncle, a dear friend of mine, Mr. John Hubble from Toronto.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This morning, I am pleased to welcome members of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards to Queen’s Park—so, welcome—including the chair, Dr. Alok Mukherjee and Henry Jensen, the first vice-president from Ottawa. Thank you for the important work you do in keeping our communities safe, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s my pleasure to introduce Bob Gordanier from the proud riding of Dufferin–Caledon as a member of the Dufferin Federation of Agriculture. Welcome, Bob.

Mr. Grant Crack: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association to Queen’s Park today as part of the Rural Ontario Institute advanced agricultural leadership program. They’re celebrating their 50th anniversary this year, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them, and the members who are here, on their continued leadership.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Jim Cole from Shallow Lake—he’s a member of the cattlemen’s association and my cousin—and all of his colleagues in the gallery as well.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would also like to welcome members of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards here to Queen’s Park today for their lobby day. I know you’ll be introducing someone I see in the Speaker’s gallery, but—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Steal my thunder.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —I’m looking forward to it.

Mr. Steve Clark: I would like to introduce two of my constituents here with the delegation from the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association: Kim Sytsma and Jodee Bolton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob Leone: I would like to introduce Amarjeet Gill, our candidate of record for Mississauga–Brampton South.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve already had you. We’ll go down to Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to introduce my friend Rob Black, who’s here representing agriculture in Ontario.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome, from the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association from my riding, Warren Schneckenburger and Rose Stewart, who are here to take part at Queen’s Park today. So, welcome.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to introduce Sean Dawe from Orono. He’s with the Ontario cattlemen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have an introduction—sorry. I will take two more.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise again to welcome two of my constituents from Oxford, who joined me for the trip to Queen’s Park today. In fact, they literally joined me on my drive in this morning: Dorothy Lipsit and Jack Graves from the great town of Tillsonburg.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Rob Unsworth with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome all our guests.

As alluded to earlier—stealing some of my thunder—in the Speaker’s gallery today we have my other brother: Joe Peters is here. Joe is here supporting his son Nicholas, who’s a new page.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEBT

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. In 2003, when you ran to become Premier of the province, you promised that the debt would only go in one direction, and that was down. Since that time, Ontario’s debt has doubled, and we’re on pace to hitting $400 billion in debt within five years. I’ll remind the Premier that Ontario’s credit rating has been downgraded twice, and another rating agency has recently put us on negative outlook.

Premier, let me ask you: Can you tell us your view on the level of provincial debt and its impact on investments and job creation in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, and I think it’s an important topic for us to engage in. Of course, there’s going to be a certain level of indebtedness that is always there. That is natural and understandable, and in fact it’s appropriate. I think one of the issues, of course, is: How did that debt arise? Again, I’d refer my honourable colleague to the Drummond commission and the specific references to the fact that Ontario is, relatively speaking, a frugal province.

In fact, Speaker, we are the lowest per capita spender in the entire country—I remind my honourable colleague about that—and we continue to create the most jobs in the country, which I think is, first and foremost, the most important consideration for Ontario families: how we’re doing on the jobs front, and that we keep creating new jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: It is hard to believe that the Premier said that with a straight face. The Premier knows that we’ve shed some 60,000 full-time jobs since the election alone—about 300,000 in the manufacturing sector under your watch. Ontario’s deficit is greater than all of the provinces combined. Premier, you say that it’s natural to have debt; it certainly is far from natural to be heading towards a $400-billion debt in the province of Ontario.

I was in New York City last week. I met with leaders in global finance, men and women who spend their lives determining where they should invest. They look at international, economic and financial issues. They said that the number one thing for future investment is confidence: Does business have the confidence that a government has its fiscal house in order, have its debt under control?

Premier, let me ask you: Is reining in runaway spending and controlling our debt the number one priority for the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we’ll be tackling the deficit in earnest, as my honourable colleague knows, in our budget, which marks the beginning of an important five-year plan. That will call upon all of us to make thoughtful, responsible and, in fact, smart choices.

I wonder if my honourable colleague, in his conversations with those individuals he tells us he was meeting with, mentioned to them that, when it came to a choice such as bringing an end to funding for the horse racing industry in Ontario, he indicated to them that he was prepared to make that difficult choice in order for us to make a step forward with respect to balancing our budget and ultimately getting our debt down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: In the wake of what’s happening in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, the people of Ontario expect a much more serious and thoughtful answer from the Premier of Ontario when it comes to the debt crisis here. Reining in government debt should be priority number one if we want to invite new investment and job creation in our province. Businesses know that governments with high levels of debt can’t afford lower taxes; they can’t afford to invest in infrastructure. The example of Greece and others is very clear that undisciplined governments can lose control at breakneck speed.

Debt, Premier, will always catch up with you. The chickens eventually come home to roost.

There are things that are out of our control, but you can’t let government spending become one of them. Premier, will you tell us today that reining in spending and balancing the books will be priority number one in your upcoming budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have some experience when it comes to dealing with deficits, because we inherited one from the previous government, Speaker. It took some time—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —but finally we eliminated—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to try to nip this in the bud. Please. Actually, there was even some heckling while the member was asking the question. So please keep it down.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, as I was saying, we have some experience when it comes to dealing with deficits. We inherited a deficit from the previous Conservative government. It took some time, but we eventually eliminated that deficit, and then we balanced our budget three times in a row.

I also want to bring to my honourable colleague’s attention that Ontario remains the number one destination in all of Canada for foreign direct investment. In all of North America, we’re second only to the state of California. So I think we are doing more than pulling our own weight—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, we’ve heard the same tired answers these last eight years, the same worn out talking points. Quite frankly, sir, I think the people of Ontario deserve much better answers.

Premier, you know that in 2012, you will be borrowing $35 billion to finance your debt. That’s $35 billion that won’t be invested in Ontario. Over the next five years, you’ll be borrowing $100 billion more.

Shortly after the election, you and I sat down across the table to discuss structural changes to provincial spending. I gave you a number of ideas to reduce the size and cost of government, but since that time, you’ve rejected them one by one.

One of the clear lessons learned in international financial circles is that your credit is good until it isn’t. You put it at risk when you don’t get spending under control. That’s the lesson in Greece, in Spain and in Portugal.

Premier, I don’t want to see Ontario turn into the Greece of Canada. Will you balance the books in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite was in New York dissing Ontario, our bonds were selling at a record pace. You ought to stand up for this province. They’re liquid; they’re available.

He was part of a government that took Ontario’s debt-to-GDP ratio from 20% to 32.1%. Since we’ve come to office, it has gone from 32% to 37.1%. There is a lot more to do. We will balance that budget. We’ve laid out a plan.

Let me give him some other talking points. “Ontario remains on track with its fiscal recovery plan.... While deficits are projected to continue ... better-than-expected results thus far and a supportive economic recovery have helped to lessen the impact on Ontario’s debt-to-GDP ratio.” That’s Dominion Bond Rating Service. I’ll give him the other quotes when he asks another question.

This is a great province, and we’re going to make it even better with our next—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: We did get the same tired talking points of the last eight years. I guess we got a bit more volume from the finance minister. We didn’t get any new information.

Finance Minister and Premier, you know you’re issuing a $35-billion piece of debt to finance your runaway spending. We have a different view here: We believe that lower spending leads to balanced budgets. A balanced budget leads to confidence in the economy. It leads to business investment and job creation. Balanced budgets give room for tax relief so they can move that even further down the road.

I’m worried that the Premier and his finance minister sound a lot like the Greek politicians of 10 years ago and say they can simply kick this down the can. But, Premier, again, our credit is only good until it no longer is good, and the next—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —to the Ontario economy puts it all at risk with your borrowing. Premier, aren’t you putting our economy at considerable risk with your continued overspending and big—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll share another talking point with him: The confirmation “reflects the view of the province’s better-than-expected fiscal results.... The province continues to have excellent access to capital markets during and after the recession as it’s completed its borrowing program.” That’s Standard and Poor’s, an independent credit rating agency.

We acknowledge that getting back to balance has to be a strong objective of this government. Our spending has gone up a lot.

The federal government’s spending, since the Conservatives took office, went up 65%. Ours went up by the same amount. Why? Because we worked together to fight the recession.

We have put forward a number of proposals to save money, and that leader and his party have been against all of them, Mr. Speaker. They talk a good game. They have no plan, no idea. This government has a plan to get us back to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: If I could, Speaker, let me take it back to the essence of the issue: the fiscal reality of the international financial situation in 2012. I don’t have to remind the Premier that we’ve already had two credit rating downgradings; a third recently put us on negative watch.

When I spoke to the credit rating agencies, I asked them what they’ll be watching for in this upcoming budget and what we can do to hold off future downgrades. They said the answer is simple: a credible plan with structural reform. They said they’ll be watching out for gimmicks, for one-offs that don’t address underlying cost-pressure issues, and they tend to look out for one-time revenue enhancements that don’t get to the underlying problem of spending too much money.

Premier, can you stand here today and guarantee that your budget will deliver actual structural reform—no one-off gimmicks, no one-off things—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —the problems? Will you actually reduce the size and cost of government in your upcoming budget?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, our budget will deliver structural reforms that will help get this province back to balance, protect our education and health systems, and build that better future. What’s at question is whether or not that leader and his party will have the courage to vote in favour of it. They try to have it both ways. They tell you they want restraint. Then when they get an opportunity to support restraint, they don’t support it.

I’ll just remind the Leader of the Opposition of a few more quotes. Here’s what Forbes magazine said: “Canada”—and by extension, Ontario—“ranks No. 1” as the best country for business. And guess what one of the reasons for that was? They said it’s because of Ontario’s reformed tax structure, which he was for, then he was against, then he was for. It’s kind of like full-day learning. He was against it, then he’s for it, then he’s against it. Mr. Speaker, he’s got more positions than the Kama Sutra.

We’re going to balance the budget. We’re going to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Today this government has once again announced sweeping changes to health care without consulting the people who are going to be affected. When the government brought in the LHINs, they promised an open and transparent review that would allow people to actually have a say. My question is a simple one: Why has that not happened?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I was very pleased this morning to announce one of those structural reforms that I think all of us know we need to make to sustain health care, Speaker. We announced a reform to the way we fund hospitals so that hospitals will now be paid to provide care to patients. It seems pretty obvious, but it is not the way hospitals are currently funded.

Looking at 91 of our 152 hospitals, our largest hospitals, they will see changes in the way they are funded. We’re working very hard to mitigate the transition, Speaker, so that hospitals will be able to make the changes they need in an orderly way. It’s the right thing for patients, and patients understand that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think everyone agrees that we need to constantly improve our health care system, but the everyday people who are stuck waiting in an emergency room want to see the kind of change that makes life actually better for them—and their wait times shorter—not a decision made behind closed doors to actually close their emergency room, which this government’s quite effective at.

I want to know from this government, Speaker, why are they proceeding with sweeping changes to our hospitals, sweeping changes to our home care system, sweeping changes to our entire health care system, without listening at all to the very people who are going to be affected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I fundamentally disagree with the assumption embedded in that question. We have listened very, very carefully to the people who are most directly affected by our health care system. Those are people who need more home care. Those are people who want shorter wait times. Those are people who want stronger primary care. We have listened very hard, and we are moving on the advice that we have received.

I can tell you the advice across this province is the same, Speaker. We’ve got to focus more on building supports in the community. We have to do a better job of building in more options for people so that they can leave the hospital when they’re ready to leave the hospital with the supports they need to stay at home or stay in the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the everyday people who make our health care system work really are ready to embrace change, but it has to be change that works for them. Instead, they see decisions being made behind closed doors by unelected, unaccountable LHINs and hospital CEOs who earn more in a week than most people earn in an entire year in this province, and the promises of better health care sound emptier than ever.

I ask again: Why is this government proceeding with sweeping changes to our hospitals, to our home care and to our entire health care system without listening to the people who are going to be most affected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The action plan that I revealed in January was very much informed by exactly the advice that the member says we should be getting. Speaker, we not only have the advice, we’re acting on the advice.

Today’s announcement was about providing higher quality care, more consistency of care across this province and better value for our health care dollars.

We need to make these changes, Speaker, so that we can build up the health care system where we don’t have enough resources right now, and that is primary and the home and community care sector of our health care funding. We are moving aggressively on transformation in health care because it’s all about providing care for the people of this province today and in the future.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. You know, people are very tired of hearing empty promises about better health care because the reality is really falling short in Ontario, especially when it comes to home care.

Lois McRea and her husband live in Sudbury, in that region, and they’re a family that requires two home care visits a day. She and her husband have great personal support workers—PSWs—who are very caring and dedicated people. However, on 16 separate occasions since October Lois and her husband have been left waiting alone for care that never came because the provider simply dropped the ball.

Is this a system, really, Speaker, that’s working for patients?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we have significantly increased funding to the home care sector. More people are getting more care. That’s the way it should be. But is there more we can do, Speaker? Absolutely.

While I’ve made it very clear that the community sector is where we really need to focus our attention, it’s exactly stories like that that drive me to the understanding that not only do we need to spend more money, we need to demand a higher quality of care.

Improving quality is embedded in our Excellent Care for All Act. Our entire health care system is now measuring quality and improving quality. When it comes to home care, we know that we can do better and we will do better.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Elizabeth Element’s father is 94, Speaker, and he lives more than an hour outside of Sudbury. Home care has allowed him to stay in his home, where he is comfortable. Her father has been left waiting for hours and hours in adult diapers, not knowing that the appointment has been cancelled.

When Elizabeth calls to reschedule, she reaches a call centre hundreds of kilometres away, and that call centre doesn’t understand that his distance from Sudbury means his waits are going to be even longer to get those diapers changed.

Can you explain or can this government explain why their outsourced home care scheduler is leaving Elizabeth’s father without the dignity and care that he needs?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think all of us in this place hear stories from constituents that demonstrate our need to be ever-vigilant in improving the quality of care. I think that’s what unites us all. We want better care for the people in this province.

As our population ages, as our population grows, the demands on our health care system are changing, Speaker. That’s why we are taking the steps we are doing to really transform health care.

Today I announced changes to the way hospitals are going to be funded. There are other elements of our action plan that we are moving aggressively on. It’s all about providing the best possible care for people in the right place—their home, whenever possible—at the right time, for the best value and for the best price. That is what we are doing, and I hope the member opposite actually embraces the reforms.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the change has been coming down the track for years, and this government has missed it. They should have been preparing for the demographic change in this province for years and years and years; instead they wasted our money on eHealth and on Ornge. That’s been their priority. Their friends have gotten a good deal out of it, but the people of Ontario have not.

Everyday families know that home care is a smart investment that will improve the system and will improve people’s lives, but after years and years of empty promises, women like Elizabeth and Lois are still struggling with a system that simply does not work. Instead of sticking with a privatized, for-profit model that leaves families falling behind, will the government start listening and get to work on an open, public review that looks at better ways to provide home care and the care that people need in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite is just wrong when it comes to her allegations. Ontario’s health care system is far, far stronger now than it was when we were elected eight years ago. Over two million more Ontarians have access to primary care. We’ve got 200 family health teams providing care and 26 nurse-practitioner-led clinics. Our wait times are half of what they were when we took office.

We have been working very hard to make the kind of changes that people expect of us and we will continue to do that. We will, in fact, accelerate the change. When it comes to quality of care, Ontarians can be very, very proud of their health care system.

Is there more to do? Of course. Have we come a long, long way? Yes, we have.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, to the Minister of Health: When the Auditor General tables his special report on Ornge this Wednesday, we know that the Minister of Health will once again insist that neither she nor her ministry knew anything or heard anything about what was going on at Ornge under her watch.

I ask the minister to explain this: On April 14, 2008, Keith Walmsley, a financial analyst at Ornge, sent this letter to the then Minister of Health Promotion, in which he exposed a number of business practices at Ornge that he described as “deceitful.” He also exposed the fact that Ornge was keeping two sets of books for the express purpose of hiding a $5-million surplus from the ministry. I would like to know this: What action did the Minister of Health Promotion and the Minister of Health take when they received that letter in April 2008?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think that when it comes to air ambulance service in this province, the people of Ontario have three pretty straightforward questions. The first question is, if somebody they love needs an air ambulance, are they going to get the care they need? The answer is: Absolutely, yes. Ontario is blessed to have one of the finest air ambulance services in the world.

The second question is, “Have you fixed the problem?” The answer to that, Speaker, is yes. I look forward to the Auditor General’s report coming in. But I can tell you, Speaker, I didn’t wait for that. I sent in a forensic audit team. The entire senior management team, including the board of directors, has been replaced. The issue is now under investigation with the Ontario Provincial Police. I will be introducing new legislation that will make sure this does not happen again, and we are working on a new—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, once again the minister has no idea that a letter even existed. I’ve just sent the minister copies, not only of the letter sent to the ministry, but of the ministry’s response, in which, on December 29, 2008, Ruth Hawkins, the executive lead of the ministry’s corporate and direct services division, assured Mr. Walmsley that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance’s team of investigative forensic investigators “acted quickly,” to use her words, to investigate the allegations and all was looked after. The result? They did nothing.

I ask the minister this: Who should be held accountable for allowing the scamming and the skimming to continue at Ornge for the four years while she was minister: the forensic investigations team, the corporate and direct services division or the minister responsible?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of confidence in the Auditor General. The Auditor General will release his report this week. I think it’s important that—as we always do, Speaker—we listen to the Auditor General and that we act on the recommendations of the Auditor General.

I also have tremendous confidence in the Ontario Provincial Police. They are investigating some allegations related to Ornge as well. So there is a lot of oversight at Ornge right now. I think it’s very important that we allow that work to be done.

I also think it’s very important that members of this Legislature take their responsibility seriously. I understand that the public accounts committee will be looking at issues related to Ornge. We will be introducing legislation shortly that, if it passes first and second reading, will go to committee. So I have every confidence that the people in this House will take their responsibility seriously.

CASINOS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Minister of Finance and OLG announced that they wanted to build new casinos, particularly in Toronto and Ottawa.

In a 1999 story by Michael Prentice in the Ottawa Citizen, the Premier said, “No new casinos, no more slot machines, no video lottery terminals. That will be my commitment as Premier.”

The question: Why is the Premier suddenly eager to expand gambling into communities that in the past have made it clear they don’t want them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, last week, the NDP and their critics said that we shouldn’t expand casino gambling; this weekend, their leader was telling us to open slots at racetracks again.

The member opposite forgets it was their party that introduced casino gaming to this province. The member opposite doesn’t accurately portray the recommendations. There are no VLTs for Ontario. There will be no casino in the GTA and there will be no casino in Ottawa, unless local officials want them.

The NDP are all over the map on this. They ought to take one solid, consistent position. A week ago, they were against gambling; on the weekend, when they were pandering in other parts of the province, they were in favour of it.

They don’t get it. This plan will help improve—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister just said it’s local officials; it’s not local officials.

My question is back to the Premier. The OLG act of 1999 requires a referendum by a municipality for it to become eligible for a casino. The last time the people of Toronto voted on this issue in a referendum, they rejected it in no uncertain terms.

My question, again: Will the Premier hold a referendum, and if so, will he listen to Torontonians if they say no to new government casinos in this city?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: From a party that allowed casinos without referendum, an interesting point of view, but we will rely, Mr. Speaker, on the will of Toronto. We will make sure that there’s a consistent position taken, unlike the party opposite that says one thing one week, another thing the next week.

I would remind the member opposite that there’s a potential for 3,000 jobs at a destination entertainment attraction somewhere in the GTA. So I look forward to the people of Toronto seeing what possibilities are out there. I look forward to their point of view as to whether or not they want the opportunity in the GTA or in Ottawa.

What I can tell you is the old way the OLG was run was not efficient, not effective. This is a better way to run it, more efficiently, with better returns to the people of Ontario.

DRUG SHORTAGE

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. During the past two weeks, there have been reports of a shortage of injectable drugs used by Ontario’s health care providers. Ontario has a responsibility to ensure that patients get access to the essential care they need throughout our health care system. Ontarians expect our Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to take action and to address—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland will come to order.

Mr. Bob Delaney: —shortage of critical drugs. Would the minister inform people in neighbourhoods like Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville what Ontario is doing to address the underlying issues arising from the shortage of drugs caused by one specific drug company?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member for the question. First of all, I think it’s important to indicate to this House that there have been no reported cancellations or delays of surgery in Ontario’s publicly funded hospitals, Speaker.

On March 6, I did write to the federal Minister of Health, asking to make it mandatory for companies to report shortages. The House of Commons subsequently has passed an NDP motion to do this, on March 14.

On March 7, I publicly detailed our action plan to address issues arising from the shortage. It includes an assessment of the inventory of drugs across Ontario, a redistribution plan to move available supplies of drugs across the province to where they are needed the most, provincial coordination of the procurement of effective drugs—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —a plan for service delivery in the event of drug shortages and ongoing communications with the health care sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: I understand there’s been communication with other provincial and territorial partners regarding this shortage, which affects all of North America. Patient care is Ontario’s top priority. This situation gives rise to additional questions regarding the roles and the responsibilities of all those involved, including Ontario’s health care providers, such as hospitals, long-term-care homes and hospices; all provinces and territories; the federal government; and drug manufacturers and suppliers. Minister, how are the province, our agencies and our health care partners collaborating to resolve this drug shortage?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, let me begin by saying that Ontario’s health care community has really risen to the challenge and are working together in a very, very collaborative way to ensure that patients do get the drugs that they need.

This is an issue that involves many health care partners. Drug manufacturers and suppliers produce the drugs in response to health care system requirements. The manufacturing and supply of drugs must be licensed by Health Canada. The federal government has standards, through federal legislation and regulations, to ensure safe and effective drugs and health products. Hospitals and other care providers purchase drugs and other pharmaceutical products through purchasing organizations. These organizations seek out sources for the drugs from federally licensed providers.

LHINs, Speaker, play an important role in managing emergencies. They work with the local health providers and community members to determine the health priorities of each riding. My ministry works with all of these—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

DRUG SHORTAGE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is also for the Minister of Health. Minister, it’s now been over a month. It was February 16 that you were first notified by Sandoz about the impending drug shortage, and as you know, since then the situation in the province of Ontario has worsened. In fact, we have now learned that hospitals and health care providers are scrambling to obtain medication to alleviate the undue pain and suffering of those patients suffering from cancer. Will the minister confirm that the supply of the injectable pain medication hydromorphone is almost depleted and being rationed in our pharmacies and hospitals? What plan does the minister have to obtain it elsewhere?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is of course a very important issue and one that affects people who really do need access to those drugs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from St. Catharines, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that we have an inventory, Speaker, of the drugs where we do have shortages. There have been no surgeries cancelled or delayed to date. That is—we have had none reported to us.

That is not to say, however, that this is not an urgent situation. Our community partners are working together. We have in place protocols to share the drugs if it gets to that point. At this point, I can tell you that our health care providers are working in a very collaborative way. They are looking after the patients of this province. I am enormously proud of our health care sector, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Minister of Health: This has nothing to do about surgery. As you know, this has everything to do about people who we want to ensure do not suffer undue pain. And so again I say to you, what are you doing?

Take a look at Ian Anderson House in Oakville, a six-bed hospice for end-of-life cancer patients. They’ve already been forced to turn away one gentleman, and they have said that they have received no guidance from the ministry as to how to deal with the drug shortage, as have others. So people with cancer are having not to go to a hospice or to remain at home; they’re now being forced into overcrowded ERs and hospitals, where hospitals now are saying they don’t have drugs.

So I ask you again: Knowing that these drugs are almost depleted and being rationed, what are you doing to obtain them outside of this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure you that the health sector, including the ministry and all the providers, are very, very focused on this issue. When it comes to the issue that was in the media around a hospice, what I can tell you is that we have conference calls three times a week with our providers, including the association of palliative care, Speaker. Once our ministry became aware of this situation, we reached out to the hospice to do what we could to resolve it.

I do encourage health care providers to report any shortages. We have a dedicated emergency line. I’m going to give that number: 1-866-212-2272. Any health care providers will get connected to the right support. Community organizations have begun daily reporting on March 19, today. Hospitals have been reporting since—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Speaker, last Wednesday, without bothering to consult community leaders and residents, the government put 210 workers out of a job in Fort Erie. This short-sighted decision to close the OLG slots in Fort Erie has thrown lives into turmoil and has damaged the economy of a region that is already reeling from severe job losses.

Speaker, will the finance minister explain how this government will spare Fort Erie and Niagara—the Niagara region—from more economic devastation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Of course there has been job loss as a result of this decision, and there is a very generous severance as well as retraining opportunities provided. One can certainly understand the position and views of families that are affected by this. But at a time like this, we had to choose. Do we want to provide $345 million to the horse racing industry, Mr. Speaker?

I remind the member opposite that last week her leader was asking question after question about the appropriateness of government money for business. Well, this is a big one: $3.8 billion since the program started.

These are difficult choices. We’ll continue to work with the families affected. It’s the right thing to do, but making this choice, as difficult as it was, was about a better future for all Ontarians, about setting our priorities in the right place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Finance. This isn’t a question of horses or health care; it’s a question of horses or welfare, because you’re going to put 2,000 people on the welfare line with this decision. Even the Liberal member from Niagara Falls has put the blame squarely on the Premier and the finance minister for the decision to close OLG slots at border communities.

The finance minister has wrung his hands over job losses in southwestern Ontario, and he’s put another 350 people out of work in his own community and 2,000 in Essex county that rely on the horse harness industry. Instead of tweeting excuses, will he explain to the workers how they’re supposed to pay their bills and feed their families, and when will we see a real jobs plan that gets them back to work in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Two questions ago, the NDP were opposed to gambling; now they’re in favour of it, Mr. Speaker. They can’t take a consistent position.

I’m with the 2,000 employees at Casino Windsor, with the Windsor Star and others in Windsor who said that, as difficult as it was, this was the right thing to do. Our market can no longer support two institutions competing with themselves, as they both lose more and more money.

So, yes, it is a choice. With $345 million, you can provide two million house calls from doctors. You can provide 27,000 hip and knee replacements. You can provide nine million hours of home care.

These were difficult choices. Leadership requires consistency and making difficult choices—something that’s never done and never seen on that side, because they’re never done pandering. One position early in question period, quite another at the end of question period. Shame on you for not being straight with your own voters.

EDUCATION

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I am proud to be a member of a government that has been acknowledged worldwide for its leadership in education. The OECD just recognized the Ontario government as a strong performer and successful reformer. Furthermore, the Guardian newspaper from the United Kingdom used the McGuinty government’s education system as a strong example of what they hope to achieve in the near future.

Minister, when this government came to power, the Premier made a pledge to raise graduation rates. Will the minister tell us if the McGuinty government has been successful in achieving these goals?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member from Richmond Hill for his interest and advocacy in public education.

Speaker, I, too, am very proud of the recognition that Ontario’s education system is receiving around the world. But do you know what I’m most proud about? I’m most proud about the investments that we are making in our students in Ontario. When we came to office, the graduation rate in 2003 was only 68% of students. Almost one out of every three kids was not graduating. This past year, we are so proud of our Ontario students. In 2011, 82% of Ontario students graduated from high school within five years.

That is 93,000 students whose lives are on a better trajectory, and that is because we have made investments in restructuring, rebuilding the confidence in our public education system and helping our students graduate so that they can have a better future for themselves.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Minister. Education is something that has great power to change lives. As a former professor, I know how important good schools are to the future of my young constituents. We all benefit from a strong education system: from parents with young families to the kids who are the next generation of teachers and doctors.

Ontario Liberals know that investing in education in Ontario is the best way to invest in the future of this province. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues here in this House look at what—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Everybody has to be quiet now.

Finish.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Unfortunately, many of our colleagues here in this House look at what teachers, students and parents have accomplished in education, and instead of celebrating the great news that more kids are graduating, they have nothing but criticism.

Speaker, will the minister please tell us how the graduation rate is calculated?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very proud to be part of a government that never leaves any of our students behind. We always focus on increasing our graduation rate and finding ways to help Ontario students build a brighter future for themselves and their families.

Speaker, we measure our graduation rate on a five-year graduation. But no matter how you measure it, let me tell you that more students in Ontario are graduating now than ever before. When we came to office in 2003, on a four-year graduation rate, it was only 56%. Now we’ve come up by 17 percentage points to 73% of Ontario students who are graduating after four years.

When you take into account all of the students in Ontario who graduate prior to their 25th birthday to build that better life for themselves, 92% of Ontarians are graduating from high school before their 25th birthday. That’s something we should all be proud of because it builds a much brighter future for them—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

POLICE

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Labour. A significant portion of policing costs is financed by the province, which is already under tremendous pressure, given your projected $30-billion deficit. Your approach so far has been to try to get blood from a stone. The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, along with the PC caucus, is calling on your government to help contain these costs by developing specific, well-defined criteria that arbitrators would be required to account for in their decisions.

Your handpicked expert, Don Drummond, called for it in recommendation 15-4 of his report. It further states, “‘Ability to pay’ criteria should be broadened to include economic and fiscal environment, and productivity criteria in arbitration ... decisions.”

Will you commit to enacting that regulation?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Well, it’s a great question, and I appreciate the question. I’m sure, as the member mentioned, Mr. Drummond did cover the issue in his report.

In his report, he spoke about the importance of developing principles that would best allow management and labour to work together to deliver excellent services, and with that, we agree.

He also stated that the system should be balanced, effective, transparent, and it should respect the interests of both the employers and the employees. We agree.

He also stated that the collective bargaining agreements that are negotiated between parties are preferred. We agree.

Lastly, Mr. Drummond said that we have an interest arbitration system in Ontario that is not broken. We agree, which is why I believe it’s important to get some of the facts on the table regarding interest arbitration.

Interest arbitration is not the first place people go to when a municipality and a union don’t agree or they’re at an impasse; it’s the last place. The facts show that the vast majority of cases where interest arbitration is available—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, you can have your talking points, but we know how long some of those agreements have taken to arrive at under your system.

As you know, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards is here today. They’ve come to Queen’s Park looking for help to help manage future costs. They’re asking your government to finally acknowledge what the PC Party has been saying for some time—that arbitrators rarely consider ability to pay, despite being instructed to do so. It is obvious that the arbitration system, as it exists, is not balanced.

Will you commit today to accept the advice of the PC Party and your hand-picked economic advisor and implement ability-to-pay criteria in arbitration decisions?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Mr. Speaker, our government has the greatest respect for the collective bargaining process. As a former municipal councillor, I value the work that our firefighters and our police do to keep people across this province safe. We really do.

The hard-working men and women in our labour groups have the right to bargain, and so do their employers. Going behind closed doors to negotiate is simply the best way to get a contractual issue resolved.

We have a good track record of success in this province. Almost 98% of negotiations in Ontario are now concluded without any labour stoppage. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s one that works. The vast majority of negotiations involving essential service contracts conclude without having to go to arbitration. It’s only as a last resort that negotiations go to arbitration.

On this side of the House, we have the utmost respect and appreciation for police officers and firefighters.

ADOPTION

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I know many in this House have read in recent weeks about the hidden tragedy of coerced adoptions in our province. Unmarried mothers were forced to give up their newborn children. I’ve spoken to some of those mothers, and let me tell you, the stories are heartbreaking. They were separated from their babies at the time of their birth and still live with the trauma of that experience to this day.

Will the minister meet with these mothers to hear their stories and help them uncover what happened to Ontario women in maternity homes?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to thank the member opposite for her question, and I have been following coverage of this story very, very closely. I have to say, as a parent myself, these stories are extremely difficult to read, and I want to commend the women involved for showing the courage to speak out.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely paramount that all women have their rights protected when making an important decision such as adoption and that they’re provided with all the information they need and provided with that information in an unbiased fashion.

My ministry is not aware of a concerted policy to obtain babies for adoption from unmarried mothers. We are committed to supporting an adoption system in Ontario that emphasizes the rights of and the respect for children, birth parents and adoptive parents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The Salvation Army and the United Church were among those running maternity homes where these practices have taken place. They have committed to investigating what happened.

Will the minister also commit to following their example by ordering an investigation into past adoption practices in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again for that question. I want to reiterate that my ministry is not aware of any concerted policy to obtain babies for adoption from unmarried mothers. Our government has worked hard to strengthen transparency and accountability when it comes to adoption practices and adoption laws in Ontario.

Child protection in Ontario currently has a variety of independent and rigorous government-mandated oversights, reviews and systems of accountability, including such measures as the Child and Family Services Review Board, which has the authority to review certain decisions and complaints.

Our government is committed to a transparent and accountable system of adoption. In 2008, we introduced the Access to Adoption Records Act, Mr. Speaker, which was subsequently passed into law, so that adopted adults and birth parents may be able to receive more information contained in records—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question?

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In 2009, the Auditor General made a number of recommendations with regard to the ministry’s environmental approval system, including the need to improve its information systems to allow for risk-based assessment, update certificates of approval in a timely and efficient manner and, thirdly, to improve the timeliness of processing new applications.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please provide us with a status update on the ministry’s environmental approval process?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Excellent question by the member. The government is transforming Ontario’s environmental approvals process to make it more efficient and effective. For the past 30 years, the approvals process has been a paper-based, one-size-fits-all process for business regardless of its size, complexity and potential impact to the environment.

That’s changing. As a result of the Open for Business Act, amendments were made to allow for the implementation of a new risk-based environmental assessment approvals process. Moving to a risk-based approach will allow the ministry to focus rigorous reviews on approvals for large-scale projects where there’s a greater potential for environmental impact.

We’ve also developed an electronic library that will improve public access to approvals and all related information. The ministry will continue to focus on ensuring that businesses know what they need to do, will monitor what they are doing and will take the necessary enforcement action, if required.

We’ve now committed to a six-month streamlined service guarantee to proponents for renewable energy project applications, subject to complete—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to see that the government is working closely with a broad range of stakeholders to build a modern approval system. That’s not only a win for businesses and the public but, most importantly, for our environment.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of the Environment: Could you please elaborate on some of the specific initiatives the ministry has recently implemented under the new modernization of approval program?

Hon. James J. Bradley: An excellent supplementary. Since October 31, 2011, the ministry has introduced the following: new compliance tools that will bring facilities with outdated approvals in line with current standards that will enhance environmental protection; a new online registration process for businesses involved in certain routine activities that have less potential to impact the environment; and a new environmental compliance approval that replaces the existing certificate of approval and includes application requirements that will attest to the accuracy and completeness of the application.

It’s important to note that there will be no change in environmental standards. Large industries will continue to require detailed ministry reviews and approvals. The ministry has and will continue to be actively engaged in consultations with a number of industry partners, environmental groups, municipalities and aboriginal communities to ensure that the new process is excellent.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, last week your government announced a greedy cash grab that will impact over 60,000 hard-working men and women in Ontario’s horse racing industry, killing these good jobs. Only in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario does shutting down an industry that contributes $260 million in direct tax revenue and billions of dollars to overall economic activity seem like a good idea. No wonder you’re staring in the face of a $30-billion deficit. Your cynical, short-sighted casino plan is not only risky but poorly planned and lacking in any economic reasoning. Clearly, Minister, adding numbers is not your strong suit.

Minister, why do you continue to play roulette with Ontario’s economy? Will any cash grab do?

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: At the beginning of question period, they were telling us to save money. They’ve talked about corporate welfare, and they want to continue to pay horse tracks $345 million a year. They can’t have it both ways. They didn’t want to support Chrysler and General Motors when they were in trouble, but they’re prepared to continue to support an industry to the tune of $3.8 billion—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just to highlight how concerned they are, they wait until the last three minutes of question period, thinking the world won’t see their inconsistency on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Leading today involves difficult choices. We’ll make those choices. At the beginning of question period, you spoke about the debt and deficit, but you’re prepared to fund horse racing for $345 million and you want to cut full-day learning.

Our priorities are very different than yours. We’re going to lead and we’re going to build a better province than you left us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary to the Minister of Finance: Minister, 262 lost jobs in Sarnia, 365 lost jobs in Fort Erie, and 1,500 in a city you know well—Windsor. We’re barely out of the gate and already your job plan is costing hard-working Ontarians over 2,100 jobs. Will you reverse this decision and work with the horse racing industry to ensure the long-term survival of this revenue-creating industry, or will you continue with your one-man wrecking crew, abandoning more hard-working Ontario families in Sarnia? We’re at the photo finish on that.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our priorities are very different from their priorities, Mr. Speaker. What the member opposite forgot to mention is that the OLG plan will actually create 2,300—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The two members up front, be quiet, please.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —net new jobs. I am glad that the members are putting on record their views of this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, the member from Renfrew-Nipissing: Come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —because I’ll be interested in hearing what they have to say when we start announcing where the new venues are going to be, where they will make more money, where that money will go to support health care and education.

Unlike the member opposite, we support a strong and vibrant education system, a strong and vibrant health care system, a consistency of view, taking difficult choices to lead this province. We choose education and health care. We choose to build that better province. We just simply don’t have—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The government has just announced cuts to a program that will kill thousands of jobs in rural Ontario.

In the Drummond report, it wasn’t just this program that was criticized; it was also the risk management program. That risk management program affects grains and oilseeds, beef, sheep, veal and horticulture crops. But I would like to know today if the minister, and perhaps the finance minister, will commit to keeping that program in the budget.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, these are serious times in Ontario, and we all need to do our share to make sure that we build a strong and vibrant Ontario. When we discuss programs, serious programs, which this government brought in, we do that in concert with our stakeholders. So we’re having discussions with the agricultural sector. We’ll sit down with our stakeholders, as is our wont to do and to make sure that we get things right, unlike governments on the other side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no deferred votes, this House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1141 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: If a contractual agreement between a government and an industry continues to guarantee an indebted province over $1 billion a year, would you cancel it? I think not. And if the contract allows an industry to thrive and over 60,000 jobs to remain stable in a province struggling to maintain jobs, would you cancel it? I think not.

So would it not be fit to ask why this government is cancelling a revenue-sharing contract with the horse racing industry and the municipalities which does just that? I think it would be fit to ask.

The direct effect on the horse racing industry of cancelling the slots for the racetrack program will also be felt by farmers who supply feed and hay, the veterinarian who cares for the animals and the myriad of suppliers who are essential to this industry. It will be felt by the racetrack employee and the tourism industry. It will be felt by municipalities.

In Quebec, after their government made a similar decision, the horse racing industry was totally decimated.

In Ontario, the horse racing industry is sustaining 60,000 jobs across numerous industries and is guaranteeing over $1 billion a year in government revenue.

It’s time for the government to reconsider cancelling this contract. It’s time to make the right fiscal decisions to ensure that Ontario prospers with jobs once again.

LIBRARY SERVICES

Mr. Jonah Schein: I rise today to speak against the most recent attack on people in our city and the ongoing impacts of austerity on the people of Ontario.

Picket lines have gone up today and library workers in Toronto have sent a clear message that our public libraries, our communities and our workers in this province will not be sold out.

Residents in my riding of Davenport will not have access to library services at St. Clair/Silverthorn, at Dufferin/St. Clair, at Perth/Dupont or at the Bloor/Gladstone library. They’ll be denied access to books, to magazines, to newspapers and computers. They’ll be denied opportunities to meet with authors, to participate in book clubs, to go to writing workshops, to get support with career and job searches, or to have a quiet place to study or do homework.

Valuable sites of public education will be closed, but the political establishment in Ontario will send a lesson to Ontarians: In an era of austerity, tax cuts are more important than public services; in an era of austerity, opportunity is reserved only for the rich and the well connected; in an era of austerity, the political elite expect workers to work part-time in libraries, with no benefits, and then go to work at Tim Hortons to try to make ends meet; in an era of austerity, workers, women, children, seniors and low-income and vulnerable residents will pay the highest price and inequality will increase across this province.

Our public libraries are vital to making Toronto a literate, equitable, engaged and vibrant city.

I urge elected officials in this House and across this province to reject the austerity agenda and stand up for the people of Ontario.

I encourage residents of this city to speak out and protect our public services and to stand in solidarity with our library workers.

Torontonians, please call your city councillors today and tell them to stand up for your community. Tell them to offer Toronto public library workers a fair deal—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

PETER MILLER

Mr. David Zimmer: Today, I’m pleased to speak to honour an extraordinary Ontarian and one of my constituents in Willowdale. This week, Community Living Newmarket-Aurora will pay tribute to Peter Miller with their 2012 Community Service Award. The award exemplifies the essence and spirit of a lifetime dedicated to making this world a better place for future generations.

Peter is a towering community builder who helps make good ideas become a reality. His support in the areas of health care, social services and sports seems to know no bounds. He’s done so much for so many and seeks no attention for it.

The list of organizations that receive his support is too extensive to list in full, but includes the Canadian Red Cross, Canadian Friends of Haifa University, Community Living Newmarket/Aurora, Ronald McDonald House Charities, the Salvation Army and the children’s aid society.

Of special interest to Peter is youth support. He’s been a long-time supporter of the Newmarket hockey house league tournament. It’s one of the oldest continuous house league hockey tournaments in Ontario.

In his community, Peter will be forever connected with extraordinary generosity of spirit. It’s fitting that he’s been selected to receive this award.

Peter, I send you my personal congratulations and the congratulations of this chamber. Thank you, Peter.

CURLING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m very proud to stand before you today and congratulate Team Howard, the Canadian Tim Hortons Brier men’s curling champions. Team Howard is made up of skip Glenn Howard, who has curled more games in the Brier than any other skip in history; vice Wayne Middaugh; second Brent Laing; lead Craig Savill; and, of course, the young spare, Scott Howard, son of Glen and boyfriend of Karley Pipiter of Coldwater.

For the seventh straight year Team Howard, curling out of the Coldwater Curling Club—and also very friendly with the Midland and Penetanguishene curling clubs in the township of Severn—have been the Ontario curling champions.

These guys are all great community leaders, continually helping young and new curlers with many, many events. Even this Thursday, between the Brier and the world championships, there’s a program called Curl with the Pros at the Penetanguishene Curling Club—it’s a fundraiser for the Georgian Bay General Hospital—and they’re taking

part in that as well.

From March 31 to April 8, Team Howard will represent Canada at the world championships in Basel, Switzerland. In the past, Glenn Howard has been to the world championships three times, and each time he has won the world championship for Canada. So we’re all cheering Glenn on as he represents Canada again in the world championships, and we want to say how proud we are of this great Team Howard.

VIOLENT INCIDENT IN LONDON

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to use my statement here today to speak about the incident that occurred in my riding of London–Fanshawe this past weekend.

On Saturday, March 17, when many share in the celebration of St. Patrick’s Day, London experienced an unacceptable outburst of violence, vandalism and disrespect for our community.

At approximately 10 p.m., the London fire service was called upon to attend to a small brush fire on Fleming Drive, which is a residential neighbourhood of Fanshawe College.

It was reported that a group of approximately 1,000 people confronted and assaulted the London fire service with bricks and bottles upon their arrival. The London police were called in to protect the firefighters and escort them away from the violence.

The scene further escalated into vehicles being set ablaze, and damage to our community is calculated to be in the range of $100,000. While many referenced Fanshawe’s students as the agitators, it’s important to recognize that others were attracted to and participated in these events.

I stand with the students and community members who have expressed their dismay and outrage at these actions. I am deeply grateful that the situation did not escalate further and that no one was critically hurt.

I do want to personally thank the London fire service, Middlesex London EMS and the London police for their dedication and concern for our community. You have my sincerest thanks for your service and for the risks faced on our behalf. These events are deeply disappointing, and this is not what the Fanshawe community is about.

I know our community will work together to get to the root of these problems.

HERB CARNEGIE

Mr. Michael Coteau: On March 9, 2012, Herb Carnegie, a legend in the sport of hockey and an icon in Canadian history, passed away at the age of 92.

Born in Toronto to Jamaican immigrants in 1919, Mr. Carnegie grew up loving Canada’s game of hockey. He and his brother Ossie rose through the ranks of their local north Toronto league, and Mr. Carnegie eventually landed a position in the minor leagues. He was named most valuable player in the Quebec provincial league three times and eventually got to the New York Rangers’ NHL training camp.

Mr. Carnegie’s talent was noted by hockey luminaries of his era, but it has been said that the elites of the game did not want to see a black player in the NHL. Insultingly, he was offered a minor league contract at less money than he was making in the Quebec league. Mr. Carnegie would never play in the NHL, something he deserved, and this was due at least in part to the prejudice that existed during his era.

In retirement, Mr. Carnegie dedicated his life to others. He poured himself into charity work, and he and his family established the Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation, a charity dedicated to providing scholarships, building communities and fostering self-esteem in youth. He excelled in business and was a recipient of the Order of Ontario and the Order of Canada.

Mr. Carnegie leaves behind a towering legacy that was formed with courage, grace, dignity and tenacity. Herb Carnegie challenged the dominant assumptions of race inside professional sports during an intolerant time, and he fought to belong in a sport that had never seen a black professional player. He was our Jackie Robinson, and today and forever we fondly remember him.

PETER HEFFERING

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to rise today to pay tribute to a Canadian agricultural legend. Peter Heffering, a giant in cattle and horse breeding, passed away earlier this month at the age of 80. He was known as “the great artist” of Holstein cattle because of his pioneer work in genetics with the Hanover Hill herd.

His other passion was standardbred horses. Peter owned many champions and founded Tara Hills in Port Perry, a farm operation operated today by his son David and his family—I would say it that way. I recently visited the farm, and it’s one of our premier horse-breeding operations in North America.

He was inducted into both the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame and the Canadian Horse Hall of Fame. Peter Heffering was a shining example of success in Ontario’s agricultural communities. It’s a privilege and an honour to say that I’ve known him.

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are shocked to learn the McGuinty government is dismantling the successful partnership with racetracks and breeding that enables Ontario farms like Tara Hills to thrive. The McGuinty government is already closing the slot facilities in Fort Erie, Windsor and Sarnia at a cost of 560 family jobs.

I urge this House to look at the $2 billion in value it receives from this contractual arrangement and 60,000 jobs related to this part of the economy in the horse industry. I ask people to look closely at how important it is to this community.

ONTARIO CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I rise today to recognize the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and their members who are visiting Queen’s Park today as part of the Rural Ontario Institute’s advanced agricultural leadership program.

The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association is a grassroots organization that provides leadership to cattlemen from all sectors of the industry. I think all members of this House can be proud of the work that the OCA does so that Ontarians can enjoy delicious locally produced beef.

The OCA recently elected a new president, Dan Darling of Northumberland county. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dan—I look forward to working with him this year—and also to thank outgoing president Curtis Royal of Simcoe county for his many years of work with our government. We’ve enjoyed working with you, Curtis.

To everyone involved in the OCA and to the 19,000 beef producers who are members of this organization, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate OCA on your 50th anniversary and 50 years of wonderful service to the cattlemen of Ontario.

CERTIFIED GENERAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Rod Jackson: Today, I’d like to recognize and express my gratitude to the certified general accountants who volunteer their time and expertise providing free tax preparation for thousands of lower-income Ontarians every year.

The association of certified general accountants is a self-regulating body that represents 20,000 CGAs plus 8,000 aspirants to the designation. They are committed to contributing to the development of public policy that supports economic health and growth in Ontario. Their free tax preparation clinics will provide relief to more families than ever this year.

Barrie has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. There are many people in need. This month, we had the opportunity to welcome the CGA volunteers at our constituency office to co-host several free tax clinics for the public. I’m proud to announce that this event was immensely successful and well received by the community. The amount of people served by the dedicated expert CGAs doubled compared to that of the previous year, with our combined efforts. To quote a constituent at the tax clinic, “The greeters were so pleasant and cheerful, and the tax experts were second to none.”

I just want to thank all the CGAs, my staff and volunteers who came together to share their expertise and help relieve some of the mounting economic burdens carried by Ontario families today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. MacLaren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the OSPCA Act will separate farm animals from non-farm animals. Farm animals will fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; non-farm animals will stay under the jurisdiction of the OSPCA and the charity that it currently is and with the sheltering service it currently offers.

Under OMAFRA, staff people will work for OMAFRA, under the umbrella of the OSPCA legislation. They will respond to complaint calls, go to farms, enter on to farm properties with the farmer’s permission or a warrant, call a veterinarian if there is any thought of abuse—a veterinarian’s professional opinion. The farmer will have the chance to approve of the vet or call his own vet. That report will determine whether there is abuse or not. The veterinarian will recommend treatment and removal of animals if necessary. The inspector would go to a justice of the peace to get an order to remove animals.

The inspector would have the ability to call a policeman if he felt it was necessary to have a policeman decide if there was a need to lay charges.

Non-farm animals would be under the jurisdiction, again, of the OSPCA as it is currently structured. The inspectors there would have the same powers—limited. They would have the authority to respond to calls, call a veterinarian, a justice of the peace if seizure is needed, and call a policeman if there’s a need to lay charges.

As well, there would be a change to how the chief inspector is selected. Currently, the OSPCA board of directors chooses and appoints a person to be the chief inspector. This would be changed to be the Lieutenant Governor in Council, who would have the authority to review any appointment or remove an appointed person as chief inspector of the OSPCA. This would put in place government oversight.

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

Mrs. Cansfield moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to establish the Alzheimer Advisory Council and develop a strategy for the research, treatment and prevention of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia / Projet de loi 48, Loi créant le Conseil consultatif de la maladie d’Alzheimer et élaborant une stratégie de traitement et de prévention de la maladie d’Alzheimer et d’autres formes de démence et de recherche en la matière.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: First of all, I would like to thank and share how grateful I am to my co-sponsors of this bill, the member from Parkdale–High Park and the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

This act seeks to establish an Alzheimer Advisory Council. The council would consider all matters related to persons with Alzheimer’s disease and their informal caregivers and make recommendations to the minister. The minister would be responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy respecting research, treatment and prevention of Alzheimer’s disease and other related forms of dementia. Furthermore, the minister would be required to take into consideration the reports of the Alzheimer Advisory Council to contribute to the development of the strategy.

This bill states the government of Ontario’s undertaking with respect to the critically important issues related to Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementias.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POLICE SERVICES /

SERVICES POLICIERS

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I rise in the House on this occasion to remind all members that today is Queen’s Park day for the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards.

Several representatives of the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards are in the visitors’ gallery this afternoon. I invite all members to welcome them and thank them for their contributions towards keeping Ontario safe.

Les commissions de services policiers civiles font tout leur possible pour mettre en place des services policiers de haute qualité dans leurs collectivités. L’Ontario Association of Police Service Boards est ainsi un chef de file de la promotion de la sécurité communautaire à l’échelle de la province.

This government works closely with the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards for the benefit of all Ontarians. Recently, we invited the association and our other major policing partners to participate in a summit on the future of policing. This was a very productive meeting which will help to lay the foundation for future work. Together with our policing partners, this government is committed to pursuing effective methods of law enforcement, crime reduction and crime prevention even during tough economic times.

Après tout, des collectivités sécuritaires sont essentielles à la qualité de vie des résidants et résidantes de l’Ontario. Notre gouvernement tire parti des liens solides qu’il a établis avec le secteur des services policiers depuis de nombreuses années.

We’ve collaborated with our partners to launch several successful law enforcement initiatives since coming to office. Those initiatives have helped to remove drunk drivers, gangs, guns and illegal drugs from our streets. They have placed officers in schools to work with youth at risk, helping to prevent crime and the victimization of vulnerable children. And they have helped police crack down on the despicable crimes of child Internet exploitation, human trafficking and hate.

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement is a challenging field that is constantly evolving. I am confident that this Queen’s Park day will provide an important opportunity to continue an important dialogue with the policing community. Our government shares the same goal as every member of every police service board in the province: to keep Ontarians safe in a manner that is effective and sustainable for generations to come.

I encourage all members to participate and offer a special thanks to the women and men of Ontario’s police services boards. I look forward to seeing all members of this House at the reception hosted by the association this evening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Responses?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s my pleasure to respond to the minister’s statement today on the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards day here at Queen’s Park. I too welcome them and thank them for joining us here today to articulate some of the issues that they feel are important in allowing them to help do their work as members of the police services boards in their communities.

I know a number of these folks personally in my riding, and I can tell you that they do a tremendous job not only in acting as a liaison between the police themselves and the community, through their work on the board, but they also do a tremendous job in trying to ensure that the community can continue to make those services sustainable.

One of the things I must say, Speaker, is that today I asked the Minister of Labour a question with respect to the arbitration system here in the province of Ontario and how it has failed police service boards across this province.

The minister’s answer, instead of saying that she would adopt recommendation 15-4 of the Drummond report—which, of course, was their hand-picked economist to review some of the things that might be done better here in the province of Ontario, and he specifically looked at the arbitration system and recommended that the ability to pay be established as a key criteria in that system—the minister’s answer to the question was simply to say, “Very few contract negotiations ever get to arbitration.”

That is, in fact, correct; very few do get to arbitration. But there’s a very good reason for that, and the minister is quite aware: because the history of what happens once it gets to arbitration has made police service boards across the province reluctant to ever allow it to get to that stage because they’re concerned that the decisions made, should it get there, are going to be more expensive than the negotiated settlement.

I say to the minister, you’re the government. They’re asking for something; they’re asking us to bring this issue to the Legislature, which we have; they’re asking the government to do what is stated clearly in the Drummond report with respect to the arbitration system.

You can’t say that a system is not broken when nobody is using it. That’s a poignant example of what is wrong with it: Nobody is using it because they’re afraid of what will happen if they do use it. So I say to the minister: Take heed of the messages that are being delivered by the police services boards here today.

Let’s get one thing very, very clear: We are extremely proud of the men and women in this province who put on a uniform and serve in a police department across this province, be it provincial or municipal. We’re very proud of the work they do. They are among the best, if not the best, in all of the world, and they should be commended and compensated well for their work.

At the same time, the police services boards are asking this Legislature to help them in their very important work in ensuring that those police services will always be available and will be continuously sustainable under the framework of any taxpayers’ situation, and that is the fact that we don’t have an open chequebook. The ability to pay must be something that is taken into consideration. I know that police unions across this province will agree to that; they’ll share that view.

There may be other ways to cut costs in this province with regard to the actual cost of the services. There are many ways that can be looked at, but I don’t think the component of a better arbitration system that speaks to the ability of the municipality to pay is foreign at all. It is one that would be extremely helpful to our municipalities, and I know that those folks from the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards today would like to see that change take place.

Having said that, Speaker, I do encourage all members of this House to meet with members of the services boards today, if they can. Certainly, join us at the reception this evening. They will be having a reception for all MPPs and their staff later this afternoon. Thank you very much.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure to offer my greetings and welcome to members of the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards who are here at Queen’s Park today on their lobby day, so to speak.

It was my pleasure, as well, to meet with members of the board and their representatives, along with the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, who is our critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke raised one of the issues that I heard today regarding the arbitration process. However, there were several other issues that were raised that I think the minister is certainly aware of and that I’m hopeful she will take a look at.

One of them is quite simple, in the sense that there are 630 board members that make up the Association of Police Service Boards across Ontario. Each and every year, new members come in, and some leave, yet there is no stable funding mechanism to ensure that they are trained adequately so that they provide the services to their community that they want to, that they’re offering. Members of police services boards in municipalities, Mr. Speaker, are not necessarily involved in policing or law; they may simply be concerned citizens who want to do their part and want to add to their commitment to their communities. However, we don’t give them any training whatsoever through the province.

It was the case in 1996 that the government did provide some funding to provide training to members of these boards. However, in 1997 that was cut. Subsequently, the ministry did take up a portion of the training. However, that was cut wholeheartedly in recent years.

Now the services boards are requesting a real small commitment on the side of the ministry where, on an annual basis, they would commit $120,000, roughly 30%, to police services boards for governance and education and training programs. I think that’s really a small commitment. It’s something that certainly will go a long way in ensuring that these boards can provide their mandate, can do it well and can make the decisions that municipalities are hoping that they make and that they’re wanting to make for the betterment of policing in this province.

Other issues that were raised today are, really, the entire nature of what we use policing for in this province. More and more, we see us relying on our policing services, whether it be through the OPP or municipal services, for incidents that weren’t typically under their mandate. We see them responding to higher incidences of mental health issues; typically that void was filled by community support workers and social services. There’s an indication there that there has been, over the years, quite a massive amount of downloading from the provinces that has added to the budgets of municipal forces and to the OPP, and that has increased costs and really made it unsustainable.

I think the Association of Police Service Boards is warranted in asking the ministry to take a look at where they’ve fallen back, where they’ve missed the boat in terms of the support for those social services that could play a real, important

part in reducing the need for such enormous budgets on the side of our policing in this province.

Of course, they’re looking at other issues in terms of post-traumatic stress disorders that our first responders sometimes have an inclination towards when having dealt with disastrous scenarios. I think it’s an important component to ensure that we provide that safeguard for our first responders. If they’re going into a disaster zone or an emergency scenario, we should ensure that the province has the mechanisms to provide that training or the care that they require should they suffer adverse effects from that. It’s the least we can do, certainly from this province’s standpoint.

I look forward to further discussions with the services board, and I thank them once again for coming here today and meeting with us.

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present the first petition of this particular session from my riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

“Whereas industrial wind turbine developments have raised concerns among citizens over health, safety and property values; and

“Whereas the Green Energy Act allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approvals”—and I’m glad to see the Minister of Energy is here;

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

“That the Ministry of the Environment revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments and that a moratorium on wind development be declared until an independent, epidemiological study is completed into the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

I’m pleased to sign the petition because I agree with it, and present it to Kyle, one of the new pages here.

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a petition signed by some residents in my riding. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the operation of cellular commercial transmission equipment on new or existing cell towers has been proposed near residential areas in Oakville and other communities around the province; and

“Whereas Industry Canada has ultimate authority to approve the location of cellular communications transmission equipment under the federal Radiocommunication Act; and

“Whereas the province of Ontario has no jurisdiction in the placement of cell communications, equipment or services; and

“Whereas many area residents and local elected officials have expressed concerns with the location due to its proximity to residential areas;

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

Thank you, Speaker. I’ll sign this petition.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert Bailey: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government has announced that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. will end its Hiawatha racetrack slots operations in Sarnia on March 31 ... even though the current agreement does not expire until 2018; and

“Whereas the end of this program will cost the city of Sarnia 140 jobs immediately and $1.5 million a year in gaming revenues, not to mention potentially 60,000 jobs across the province” that the program has scrapped entirely; and

“Whereas there has been absolutely no consultation with the community, employees, or owner/operator of the local facility; and

“Whereas the McGuinty government continues to put more and more Ontarians out of work due to its ill-conceived, ad hoc decisions, including, in Sarnia, the loss of 80 jobs at the local jail, 100 jobs at Lambton generating station, and numerous others due to high energy costs on businesses;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the McGuinty government stop risking thousands of jobs in Ontario and $1.5 billion in potential revenue by mismanaging the racetrack slots program and focus on finding solutions to the real problems that” Ontarians are facing.

I agree with this petition, Mr. Speaker, and will affix my signature to the same.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the horse racing industry employs approximately 60,000 people, creates $1.5 billion in wages and $2 billion in recurring expenditures annually; and

“Whereas the partnership that was created between government and the horse breeding and racing industry has been a model arrangement and is heralded throughout North America, with 75% of revenues going to the provincial government to fund important programs like health care and education, 5% to the municipalities and only 20% goes back to the horse business; and

“Whereas the horse business is a significant source of revenue for the farming community and rural municipalities;

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

“That the Ministry of Finance continue the revenue-sharing partnership with the horse racing industry for the benefit of Ontario’s agricultural and rural economies.”

I agree with this petition, will affix my seal and give it to page Aylin to deliver to the Clerk.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Jim McDonell: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas a new policy from the Electrical Safety Authority [that] mandates that all electrical contractors must have at least one licensed master electrician on staff for every business effective” this past “December 31, 2011, is forcing electrical contracting small businesses in Ontario out of business;

“Whereas this ESA policy severely impacts small electrical contracting businesses in Ontario. George, in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, who has been in the electrical trade for the past 51 years and a small business owner for the past 36 years, who” is in “good standing with the Electrical Safety Authority, Ontario Hydro, local utilities, who follows the same rules and regulations of the ESA, follows the Ontario electrical codes, adheres to the same inspections and pays the same fees as large companies, will not be allowed to renew his electrical contractor licence.

Effective December 31, 2011, George will no longer be licensed to practise in Ontario. George will be forced to close his small business.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the Minister of Consumer Services to direct the Electrical Safety Authority of Ontario to modify the licensing requirements to allow small electrical contractors and self-employed electricians to work in the residential and rural market without the unnecessary burden of obtaining a master electrician licence, or at the very minimum, grandfather those who are currently qualified and entitled to work in Ontario.”

I agree with the petition and will be signing it. Thank you, and I’m handing it off to page Teresa.

DOG OWNERSHIP

Mr. Robert Bailey: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas currently the law takes the onus off of owners that raise violent dogs by making it appear that violence is a matter of genetics; and

“Whereas the Dog Owners’ Liability Act does not clearly define a pit bull, nor is it enforced equally across the province, as pit bulls are not an acknowledged breed;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly passes Bill 16, Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2011, into law.”

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll send this down with Sharmeila.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Norm Miller: Speaker, a petition in support of Bill 9, paved shoulders on provincial highways. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas pedestrians and cyclists are increasingly using secondary provincial highways to support healthy lifestyles and expand active transportation; and

“Whereas paved shoulders on highways enhance public safety for all highway users, expand tourism opportunities and support good health; and

“Whereas paved shoulders help to reduce the maintenance cost of repairs to highway surfaces; and

“Whereas the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka’s private member’s bill provides for a minimum one-metre paved shoulder for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists;

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

“That private member’s Bill 9, which requires a minimum one-metre paved shoulder on designated provincially owned highways, receive swift passage through the legislative process.”

Mr. Speaker, I support this.

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: A petition, again, from some citizens in my riding. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the operation of cellular commercial transmission equipment on new or existing cell towers has been proposed near residential areas in Oakville and other communities around the province;

“Whereas Industry Canada has ultimate authority to approve the location of cellular communications transmission equipment under the federal Radiocommunication Act;

“Whereas the province of Ontario has no jurisdiction in the placement of cell communications equipment or services; and

“Whereas many area residents and local elected officials have expressed concerns with the location due to its proximity to residential areas;

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

I agree with this, Speaker, and will sign it and send it down with Seph.

HYDRO DAM

Mr. Norm Miller: I have hundreds of petitions here to do with Bala Falls, and it reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the McGuinty government permitted the release of crown lands to enable the development of a hydro dam in the heart of Bala without discussion or proper consultation with the municipality of the township of Muskoka Lakes, the district of Muskoka or the residents and businesses who would be directly affected; and

“Whereas the community is a tourism destination which is dependent on Bala Falls as an attraction; and

“Whereas residents and business people alike are deeply concerned about the economic and environmental impact that the construction and operation of the dam will have on the community;

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

“That the McGuinty government and in particular the Minister of Natural Resources reverse the decision to release crown lands for a hydro dam in Bala Falls.”

Mr. Speaker, I affix my signature to this petition.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr. Robert Bailey: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by hundreds of people from Sarnia–Lambton.

“Whereas the proposed closure of the Sarnia Jail will impact 76 employees and result in a loss of over $6 million to the local Sarnia–Lambton community; and

“Whereas the McGuinty government states that the Sarnia Jail is underutilized while in fact it is currently at 105% capacity; and

“Whereas there are no costs currently associated with transporting inmates from the Sarnia Jail to the Sarnia courthouse, and transporting inmates from Windsor to Sarnia will greatly increase costs, costs which may become a burden to the city of Sarnia and thus local taxpayers; and

“Whereas the mayor, local OPP, the Sarnia police chief, the RCMP, aboriginal police, First Nations … and the Canadian border services were not consulted prior to the Sarnia Jail … announcement, and if closed, Sarnia would become the busiest border crossing in Ontario without a” facility;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the McGuinty Liberal government immediately conduct a public review of the Sarnia Jail and make that cost-benefit analysis available to the public prior to its closure.”

I agree with this petition, will affix my name to it and send it down with Kyle.

LYME DISEASE

Mr. Jim McDonell: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the tick-borne illness known as chronic Lyme disease, which mimics many catastrophic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s” and others “is increasingly endemic in Canada, but scientifically validated diagnostic tests and treatment choices are currently not available in Ontario, forcing patients to seek these in the USA and Europe; and

“Whereas the Canadian Medical Association informed the public, governments and the medical profession in the May 30, 2000, edition of their professional journal that Lyme disease is endemic throughout Canada, particularly in southern Ontario; and

“Whereas the … public health system and the Ontario health insurance plan currently do not fund those specific tests that accurately serve the process of establishing a clinical diagnosis, but only recognize testing procedures known in the medical literature to provide false negatives at 45% to 95% of the time;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the Minister of Health … to direct that the Ontario public health system and OHIP include all currently available and scientifically verified tests for acute and chronic Lyme” diagnosis “and to have everything necessary to create public awareness of Lyme disease in Ontario, and to have internationally developed diagnostic and successful treatment protocols available to patients and physicians.”

I agree with the petition and will sign this and deliver it with page Emily.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas residents of Ontario want a moratorium on all further industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed; and

“Whereas people in Ontario living within close proximity to industrial wind turbines have reported negative health effects; we need to study the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts of wind turbines; and

“Whereas Ontario’s largest farm organization, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario have called for a suspension of industrial wind turbine development until the serious shortcomings can be addressed, and the Auditor General confirmed wind farms were created in haste and with no planning; and

“Whereas there have been no third party health and environmental studies done on industrial wind turbines, and the Auditor General confirmed there was no real plan for green energy in Ontario and wind farms were constructed in haste;

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

“That the Liberal government support Huron–Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson’s private member’s motion which calls for a moratorium on all industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed.”

I agree with this petition—it will come back to the House again, I trust—and I affix my name and send it with Alexander to the Clerk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 7, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Public Works Protection Act, amend the Police Services Act with respect to court security and enact the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2012 / Projet de loi 34, Loi abrogeant la

Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics, modifiant la

Loi sur les services policiers en ce qui concerne la sécurité des tribunaux et édictant la Loi de 2012 sur la sécurité des centrales électriques et des installations nucléaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 34 at second reading, the New Democrats had the floor. I now turn to the government. Further debate? I recognize the member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 34, the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2012. During the few minutes allotted to me today, I’d like to speak to the bill but also to some issues relating to courts and their cost of operation in my riding and across Ontario.

How ironic that just this past weekend, we saw another instance of this sort of hooliganism and wanton disregard for public and private property during the St. Patrick’s Day riot in London, Ontario. Canadians have for most of my life believed that those sorts of antics were restricted to parts of the world where there are not the same deeply entrenched democratic values and respect for property rights of others. That’s what we thought. But the Premier managed to dispel that belief by hopelessly mismanaging what should have been another routine public safety issue when the G20 meetings were held in Toronto in June 2010.

You’ll recall that just prior to the commencement of those meetings, the Premier announced that he and his cabinet, in secret and without any prior public debate, invoked regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act, which in effect turned a massive swath of downtown Toronto into a public work. By doing so, he claimed that this would give the police special arrest powers and would ensure that the G20 meeting site was protected, inside and outside the fence erected around the site, against any untoward activity.

Instead of protecting the site, the announcement of these unprecedented police powers simply inflamed the public and gave one more excuse to those who were looking for reasons to protest what they claimed was the oppression of any number of civil rights by one or more of the G20 countries. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Premier played right into the hands of the protesters and gave them exactly the sort of undemocratic power trips that were the raison d’être for the protests in the first place.

While I’m pleased that the Premier has seen fit to eliminate the ability of his government to replicate the public disgrace of the G20 regulation, it does not excuse his poor judgment in 2010. If the Premier is looking for notoriety, I think his fiscal mismanagement will be enough to ensure his place in the history books of Ontario. He didn’t have to emulate the other great example of left-wing liberalism, Pierre Trudeau, and his enactment of the War Measures Act.

Nowhere in this bill, or in the comments made by the Liberal members who have spoken to it, has there been an apology for the abuse of power and the abuse of the public trust.

It is simply unacceptable for a minister of the government to leave the impression before the G20 meetings that the regulation gave the police the ability to enforce a five-metre exclusion zone outside the fence when it gave no such authority. It was unseemly for the government to then point the finger to the Toronto police and try to pass the buck when they knew full well that the information provided to the police had been misleading.

This was a major scandal, Mr. Speaker, and the use of this World-War-II-vintage law to round up people during the G20 summit wound up contributing to a major embarrassment for this province and massive property losses to businesses and individuals in the downtown core.

Even the chronology of the passage of the regulation contributes to the abusive nature of the government actions. The regulation was passed by the cabinet on June 2, 2010, and it gave the police extraordinary powers of arrest until June 28, 2010, the day after the G20 summit ended. While the new regulation did appear on the online provincial database known as e-Laws one week before the summit, it wasn’t officially published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3, one week after the regulation expired.

So the bottom line was a misleading press release to the media suggesting that the police could demand identification from anyone moving within five metres of the fence that formed the perimeter around the G20 meeting site. If they refused to provide identification, they faced arrest and, if convicted under this regulation, could face up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

Opposition to this inappropriate action by the government was swift and widespread. No less than the provincial auditor recommended that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should take steps to revise or replace the Public Works Protection Act: “If the government wants to claim the authority to designate security areas to protect persons, an integrated statute should be created that could be used not only to protect public works but also provide proper authority for ensuring the security of persons” during events when required.

The auditor then went on to question whether it was appropriate to have the guards offer conclusive testimony about the location of security boundaries. He condemned the lack of openness, transparency and accountability with the means through which the regulation was passed, and he suggested that the public was not properly advised of the true nature of the regulation.

The government asked former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to review the entire act, which he did, and he reported back with his recommendations in April 2011. Here we are, almost one year later, and we are only now just proceeding through second reading of the bill that will respond to the criticisms of the provincial auditor, the recommendations of Justice McMurtry and the outrage of the people of Ontario.

I think it is a sad commentary on the current government that no previous government had ever abused the powers of the Public Works Protection Act in the 70 years it had been in effect, Mr. Speaker. No previous government felt the urge to trample on public rights. None of the 14 cabinet ministers had the courage to stand up and decry the misleading and abusive nature of the regulation they were asked to endorse.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this bill, primarily because it is essential that this government be denied the opportunity to repeat the sordid and unseemly actions of June 2010. Protecting our courts, our nuclear plants and our power generation facilities are all legitimate goals and, I suspect, were the inspiration for the passage of the original Public Works Protection Act back during World War II.

To suggest, though, that the very realistic fears of fifth columnists and sabotage during the world war could possibly be compared with any risk that was facing downtown Toronto is simply ridiculous. We cannot afford to have public liberties limited, even in the face of anti-social threats by the likes of those individuals who participated in the G20 protests. Passing Bill 34 will ensure that more appropriate controls are in place to guarantee that no future government will yield to the temptation to follow the inappropriate example set by this government in June 2010.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on the courts and court costs in the province of Ontario. If this government has any concern for municipalities, particularly small and rural municipalities, it will end the downloading of court costs, a process he spent hours decrying when he was in opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank my good friend the honourable member for Northumberland–Quinte West who raises several wonderful points that I think have been well articulated throughout the several weeks that we’ve debated this bill.

Number one that he raises is that there has yet to be a fulsome apology from the government side on the actions that were taken during the G20 and the secretive nature that brought about the imposition of this bill on those peaceful protesters who took to the streets during the G20 summit. That certainly should be a component that the government realizes and hears. Just as a tip, if this bill gets passed, you may want to preface the remarks with a fulsome apology because I think it will go a long way to having Ontarians accept the sincerity of this bill.

Secondly, I see that the government seats are quite vacated, but I would caution the minister, as well as members, that threats to our nuclear system and to our energy capabilities and infrastructure aren’t as they were in the past. I wonder if the ministry is contemplating virtual threats, and by that I mean viruses that are launched by outside forces, similar to the Stuxnet virus that was launched on other nuclear facilities. We have to take a serious look at this. I don’t know if this bill goes that far in terms of scope, but there are outside influences and threats that are even more tangible than any one person or group could ever offer to infrastructure.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak on the comments that were moved forward by the member from Northumberland–Quinte West on this bill. First of all, I want to thank him for his support. He’s going to support this bill.

It’s about time this bill was reviewed. Under the great recommendations from Justice McMurtry, we have drafted a bill to replace the one that is outdated, and we thank Justice McMurtry for his good recommendations.

It’s important that our courthouses and our electric facilities be safe—and also the people who work in our court facilities: our judges, our crowns and all the officials. Because of unfortunate happenings in the past, Judge McMurtry saw fit that we not only do away with the past bill, but that we replace the bill to ensure that our courts are very secure and our electricity facilities are also very secure.

I encourage all members in the House to support this new bill, and if they have any suggestions to improve it, we’re open to them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett: It was a very good presentation by the member for Northumberland–Quinte West. We shouldn’t be surprised: a former high school teacher and a farmer—there are a few of us in this House who have had those careers—who brings forward the kind of common sense and communication skills that you would expect having a background like that.

Rob took over a riding that, at one time, for many, many years, was represented by Doug Galt, who had quite a presence in this Legislature. There seemed to be an ongoing duel year after year between that member, Doug Galt, and a member from a neighbouring riding, who’s actually still here and continues the oratorical tradition. It was a tough fight during the election to get this member here, and by what we see in this Legislature, it’s going to be a little easier next time.

With respect to this legislation, it’s almost too focused, in a sense, and I know members opposite have—and I see in Hansard it says, “Well, we have the Criminal Code, we have the Trespass to Property Act, we have other more modern legislation that is far superior to what we had 70, 71 or 72 years ago, when this legislation was brought in.” I think that’s somewhat naive. We continue to live in dangerous times. I know someone in the House said that we no longer need to fear saboteurs operating in the dark of night. I think that’s naive, given the present situation in our world.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West. I have not had an opportunity—because he’s so recently arrived—to hear him speak many times in this House, and I want to commend him for what he had to say. He had a very good analysis of why we are here debating this particular bill.

It isn’t so much that people on the opposition side are opposed to this bill, because we all recognize that this bill is preferable to the one that it’s replacing. But the question still has to be asked, and he asked it very well: How is it that after 70 years of existence, this was the first time that any government saw fit to use it? How is it that it was not used in this, I would put, form of barbarity during the entire Second World War? It was not used during the Korean War. It was not used at any juncture, even in the War Measures Act.

No government of Ontario saw fit to use this bill until the Liberals, a few years ago, looked at it, in light of the G20, and thought that this was the answer, this was the solution, this is what needed to happen.

He is absolutely right that it was inappropriate, and he’s absolutely right that it needs to be replaced, because I don’t think we should ever allow any government of any stripe to use that kind of bill against the civil liberties of the people of this province ever again.

He was absolutely right that this was used, and what is happening now is a cover for the inappropriate actions that this government used against the people of Ontario last year.

He is absolutely right that not one of the 14 cabinet ministers or those who hung around the table on that day had the courage to stand up and to protect the civil liberties of the people of this province.

So I commend him for what he had to say here today. We need to get on with passing thi