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

April 19, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-19 (PDF)

L017 - Mon 19 Apr 2010 / Lun 19 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 19 April 2010 Lundi 19 avril 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

WORKPLACE SAFETY

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

WEARING OF SASH

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EARTH DAY

TULIP FESTIVAL

VOLUNTEERS

STUDENT LEADERS

CAREFIRST

TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

COOTES TO ESCARPMENT

PARK SYSTEM

NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK

POLISH COMMUNITY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS

FOR VOLUNTEERS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS

DU CASIER JUDICIAIRE DES BÉNÉVOLES

YEAR OF THE MÉTIS /

ANNÉE DES MÉTIS

PETITIONS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ENERGY CONSERVATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for personal thought and inner reflection.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: It’s with pleasure that I rise today to introduce Tara Leithead and her parents and family who are here today. Tara is the team leader for the pages today. Iain Leithead, Tara’s father, is here; Cindy Holovac Leithead, her mom; Gregor Leithead, Tara’s brother; and Suzanne Weaver is here, Tara’s sister, with her two children, Thea and Reagan. We invite them to enjoy the proceedings this morning.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It’s my pleasure to introduce Jim and Linda Finkbeiner, who are here watching question period today. Welcome.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce my daughter Natasha, sitting in the west members’ gallery, visiting us from Whitehorse.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I’d like to introduce, visiting us from Vermilion Bay, the parents of page Zachery Lang. His parents are Debbie and Karl Lang; also, his sister Emma, who is celebrating her 11th birthday today; and finally, Zach’s uncle and aunt from Oakville, Len and Lynda Currie. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome the medical students who are here today at Queen’s Park for the OMA’s medical student day. There are five students here that attend Western medical school: Dalal Dahrouj, Caitlin Symonette, Tony Di Labio, Charles Ho and Sandeep Dhaliwal. Welcome to all of our future doctors.

M me Andrea Horwath: Je souligne la visite à Queen’s Park de JoAnne Bellehumeur et la classe de cinquième année de l’école Monseigneur-de-Laval, située dans ma circonscription de Hamilton Centre. Je leur souhaite la bienvenue.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Laura Burke from the great community of Corbeil, Ontario in my riding is here with the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. I’d like to welcome her as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Oxford and page Kyle Rutherford, to welcome his mother, Carolynn Rutherford; his sister Jenna Rutherford; and his aunt Marilynn Vandenborre, to the galleries today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today the Consul General of Switzerland here in Toronto, Mrs. Bernadette Hunkeler Brown. Please join me in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Tuesday, March 30, the member for Whitby–Oshawa, Mrs. Elliott, raised a point of privilege concerning a statutory requirement in the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, that a legislative committee undertake a review of that act within the stated period of time. Specifically, subsection 39(1) states:

“A committee of the Legislative Assembly shall,

“(

a) begin a comprehensive review of this act and the regulations made under it no earlier than three years and no later than four years after this act receives royal assent; and

“(

b) within one year after beginning that review, make recommendations to the assembly concerning amendments to this act and the regulations made under it.”

The deadline for the commencement of the legislative committee review was March 28 of this year, four years to the day that the act received royal assent. The member for Whitby–Oshawa contended in the first instance that the failure of the government to take the necessary steps to enable a legislative committee to carry out the required review amounts to a contemptuous flouting of the oversight role of the Legislative Assembly. Secondly, the member further contended that the provision in the budget bill currently before the House, Bill 16, to repeal and replace clause 39(1)(

a) of the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, and thereby defer the statutory requirements of the review of the act, was likewise contemptuous of the Legislative Assembly, particularly because the provision would have a retroactive effect.

The government House leader, Ms. Smith, responded to the point of privilege and later wrote to me to bolster her contention that the existence of Bill 16 and its introduction to the House before March 28, 2010, was indicative of the government’s proactive effort to ensure that there would not be non-compliance with a statutory provision. She further argues that even if there is an issue with the current situation, such issue would be purged by the eventual passage of the amendment, if and when that occurs, since the legal framework would ultimately contain no gap during which the required review of the act remained unstarted and incomplete.

The third party House leader, Mr. Kormos, contends that the government House leader’s comments revealed not only foreknowledge that the provision in the statute would not be complied with, but also an effort by the government to frustrate the required review. According to the member, this aggravated rather than bolstered the government House leader’s position.

In reviewing the matter, I was first of all influenced by Speakers’ rulings, including some of my own, in which Speakers have consistently declined to deal with legal issues or become involved in the

interpretation of the law. To the extent that this point of privilege revolves around such a legal issue, the Speaker is simply not in a position to interpret a statutory requirement as found in subsection 39(1) of the act or to consider the legal ramifications presented by the assembly’s ostensible non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Moreover, while I note that commencement clauses in bills providing for the retroactive coming into force of all or part of a bill is not at all an uncommon feature of legislation, their legal orderliness is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker to consider.

However, in the case at hand, it is not the legal question that is at issue. There is no dispute between parties that the statutorily required review of the act by a legislative committee has not been set in motion by the date mandated in the act. Additionally, though the government House leader defends the government partly on legal grounds, the member for Whitby–Oshawa did not base her contempt argument on such a legal

interpretation.

The member contends that the government’s failure to take the steps necessary to bring the House into compliance with the existing law, and its introduction of legislation to set aside the requirement in any event, amounts to a contempt of the House because these actions deprived the House of part of its role to oversee the government of the day.

The member supported her argument by referring to rulings in the Canadian House of Commons by Speaker Sauvé and Speaker Fraser, and to a 1997 ruling in this House by Speaker Stockwell.

It is worthwhile to consider what constitutes a contempt of the House. As is noted in House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

“Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be

an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results....

“Contempts, as opposed to ‘privileges,’ cannot be enumerated or categorized. As Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: ‘… while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.’

“Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate what may fall under the definition of contempt, it is not even possible to categorize the ‘severity’ of contempt. Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.”

The government House leader has described the steps the government took, before the arrival of the date mandated in the act, to change the statutory provision and how, once Bill 16 is passed, the new provision will retroactively have the effect of erasing what might be called the “limbo period” since March 28. How can the House be out of compliance with a legal requirement that will not exist if Bill 16 becomes law and comes into force? So goes, in effect, the argue of the government House leader.

The member for Whitby–Oshawa referred to Speaker Stockwell’s January 22, 1997, ruling, where he found a prima facie case of contempt was established with respect to government advertisements that he found conveyed the impression “that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House.”

Does the current situation rise to this level? Does the failure of this Legislature—or more precisely, the persons in responsible leadership of it—to put itself in compliance with the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, by whatever means one might normally expect this to occur, constitute a contemptuous disregard of this Legislature by the government?

The provision in the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, for a committee review was not some secretive or obscure provision, nor was it recent. The government would or should have known about the approaching deadline and could easily have taken the necessary steps to deal with this well before now. The government should have done so much earlier.

But does this amount to a contempt of the House? In comparisons with the situations ruled on by Speakers Stockwell and Fraser that I just cited, I do not find that the matter raised by the member for Whitby–Oshawa represents either a flagrant or disdainful dismissal of the role of the Legislature, intended to diminish or devalue this institution, nor is it a swift repetition of the transgressions about which the government has relatively recently been warned.

The Speaker does not control the government’s agenda, nor can the Speaker compel a motion or any other kind of business to be brought before the House for decision. I will say, though, that a bit more advance deference to the House, and outside of an omnibus bill, would have been a far more preferable way to have this dealt with. But it is still the case that the consent of the Legislature must be secured before the change of the act can be made. As well, notice to the Legislature of the intended change was given in advance of the deadline date by way of amending legislation. I cannot find, therefore, that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.

However, I do think that this matter deserves some more serious consideration. Despite the existence of Bill 16 and its provision to repeal and replace the LHIN review process, this House is nevertheless, right at this moment, seemingly not in compliance with the statute.

This is not the only such occurrence. For instance, subsection 76(5) of the Commodity Futures Act requires a legislative committee to review the report of the Ontario Commodity Futures Act advisory committee. The report was issued in 2007, and while a standing committee was assigned an order of reference to conduct the review, this was interrupted by the dissolution of the House before the committee devoted a single meeting to the issue. The review was never renewed and, to this day, a provision of that act remains unfulfilled.

Frankly, the purpose of these types of provisions baffles me. When the House passes legislation that embeds a statutory required future review by a legislative committee, the House is in effect ordering itself to do some subsequent thing, something which it already has the full power to do any time. Such provisions seem superfluous, especially when they go unobserved by the very body that mandated them in the first place. They are a recipe precisely for the type of complaint raised by the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Furthermore, in the face of such a self-made prior order, when the House itself fails to comply, what is to be made of such lack of diligence, discipline and rigor?

Specifically to the point raised by the member from Whitby–Oshawa, taken to its logical conclusion, is the House in contempt of itself in such a scenario? It certainly won’t be this Speaker who tries to make that case, but I don’t think it is wise to be casual about this kind of thing. It causes me great concern, and I therefore will be writing to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to standing order 108(g), to ask the committee to consider this issue and to provide me and the House with advice on the potential for procedural remedies that might assist in these situations in the future.

In closing, I thank the member for Whitby–Oshawa, the government House leader and the third party leader for their contributions.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d just like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your very thoughtful and thorough consideration of these matters.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question to the Premier: In a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade in 2005, the inaugural CEO of the Ontario Power Authority said, “I consider the OPA to be a transitional entity. For those of you who are worried about big bureaucracies, that sounds good.”

Premier, if this was the case, why has your so-called transitional agency swollen from 15 employees to 300 in just five short years?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to respond to the question. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition and his party wouldn’t know about the importance of planning the system, planning the new generation that’s necessary to provide the power that our economy needs and to provide the power that our consumers need, in terms of their quality of life.

The role of the Ontario Power Authority is to do that planning. It’s important work; it’s complex work. You’re dealing with multi-billions of dollars in terms of infrastructure investment. It requires a great deal of expertise, expertise that the previous government lacked because they didn’t have a plan.

We continue to rely on the Ontario Power Authority to provide the excellent advice that they provide to us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister: Clearly, you obviously have no plan or you keep changing your plan. Fifteen staff members have bloated to some 300 in five years. Your government’s promise that this would be a transitional, virtual agency has become quite the opposite.

As you know, many commentators on the energy file are noting that your agencies are “doing much less for a lot more money than they used to,” or “a great source of high-wage jobs and rising salaries, but their actual productivity is declining.”

Ontario families are very concerned about this. They found out this past week that their energy bills are going up some $350 a year on average, but now we see the number of bureaucrats at your OPA balloon significantly. Minister, are you going to get it back to its original mandate?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Power Authority is a transition agency. The transition we’re talking about, however, is the transition away from the old way of doing things under the previous government, where there weren’t plans in place to deal with the amount of generation we needed; and where there was energy generation, it relied entirely on coal. We are transitioning the energy sector in this province away from dirty coal to cleaner and greener sources of energy.

Let me give you an example. When the honourable member was in cabinet between 1995 and 2003, coal-fired generation went up 127%, and CO 2 emissions increased by 124% over that same period. Under us, so far we’ve been able to reduce that by 33%. By—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, Minister, the only thing you seem to be planning, when it comes to the OPA, is how to transition from being lean to bloated and growing each and every year. Look at the $100,000-salary list for the OPA. It went from six executives earning $1.5 million in 2005 to 75 people who earn over $11.5 million today.

As the minister knows, as part of the Ontario PC plan, 10for2010.ca, we’re calling for a sunset review to assess how much value these kinds of transitional agencies are offering Ontario families. But what they’re seeing is the bureaucracy growing and, in return, their hydro bills up $350 a year.

Minister, will you support a sunset review for the OPA?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think Ontarians are looking for hope for the future in terms of energy generation sustainability to ensure that the energy we’re creating is not harming our children, and potentially our grandchildren, and they’re looking for reliability.

The system we inherited when we came into office did not offer either of those. We’ve had to make some tough choices, and we’re relying on the Ontario Power Authority to give us advice and help us transition our energy sector through these tough times.

These are tough decisions that your government failed to make. You did not have the courage to make these decisions when you were in office. On behalf of Ontarians and the future of their children and grandchildren, we have the courage to make these decisions. We will provide a more sustainable energy sector and, indeed, a more reliable energy sector—

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

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Quite frankly, Premier, to you and your energy minister, there is no courage in allowing a bureaucracy to bloat from 15 to 300 employees; there is no courage in allowing energy rates to skyrocket in the province of Ontario.

Premier, let me see if you will answer my next question.

We’ve seen that bureaucracy increase from 15 to 300 employees. We’ve seen the number of $100,000-or-more-a-year employees skyrocket. We’ve seen Ontario families’ energy bills increase significantly. If the bureaucracy at the OPA was expanding by leaps and bounds, why do they spend $56 million on consultant contracts on top of that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve made it very clear to all our energy partners that they must do everything within their power to ensure that our ratepayers are getting value for money, and we will not yield in our efforts to ensure that that is indeed happening.

At the same time, we know that you oppose our efforts to try to build a more reliable energy sector. But consumers need to know that the energy will be there when they need it; our economy needs to know that that energy will be there when we need it.

We recognize that you may oppose the decisions that need to be made today to ensure that that takes place, which means you oppose the investments we need to make in modernizing our nuclear fleet; you oppose the investments we need to make in moving away from coal to cleaner, greener renewable energy; you oppose the investments and—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister: Do you know what? You’re right. We oppose the growth of this bureaucracy from 15 to 300 employees and a $350 increase in bills for Ontario’s seniors and working families that they cannot afford in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario.

I’ll say to you, Minister, that millions of dollars were handed out in sweetheart contracts to consultants, even though the executive salaries at the OPA, a so-called transitional bureaucracy, grew by over 1,000% under Dalton McGuinty’s watch, and its overall size ballooned by some 1,900%. Minister, given those staggering figures, what was left for these consultants to actually do?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Nothing is more important to us than ensuring that all of our energy partners ensure that our ratepayers are getting value for money.

That being said, they have an important job to do on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of the people of Ontario, and that’s cleaning up after the mess that you left behind. Nobody can say that the old Ontario Hydro was operating at maximum efficiency. Nobody ever made that claim when you were in power, so we’ve had to transition the entire energy sector toward getting better results, toward building better opportunities in terms of energy generation.

The day has finally come when, in the short term, we have enough energy generation to get us through the next number of years. That wasn’t the case when you were in office.

We’re now planning for the long—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll try back to the Premier. The Premier passed on the first five questions; I’ll try number six.

Premier, according to public accounts, your bloated OPA spent a staggering $56 million on consultants, even though it had a runaway payroll in high-priced bureaucrats. The problem is that we have no insight into these sweetheart consulting deals. What did ratepayers get in return, aside from bills going up some $350 on average?

We’ve brought forward a plan, Premier, that would see all contracts of $10,000 or more signed by provincial public bodies posted online, to turn every Ontario family and ratepayer into a watchdog on their provincial government to see if they are getting value for this runaway spending at the OPA. Premier, will you support our plan to increase transparency and post these contracts online?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What the member opposite refers to as runaway spending is investment in our nuclear generation: refurbishing our nuclear units, working toward a rebuild, a new build. It’s investment in renewables to ensure that we move away from coal to cleaner, greener sources of energy.

The lecture we’re getting here is a little bit rich when it comes to their record in office. Let me just remind—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let me just remind the Legislature about their record in office when OPG and Hydro One were in place and the Tories gave over $10 million to help their key friends.

Do you remember Tom Long and the $2.3 million that he received; Deb Hutton and the $250,000-per-year job she had at Hydro One as senior vice-president; Paul Rhodes and the million dollars he had; Mike Harris, with over $18,000 as a consultant after he served as Premier; Leslie Noble—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. I want to start by wishing him a happy Earth Week.

A recent report by the Pembina Institute shows that transit is key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario, but they have words of caution. Transportation systems “are particularly vulnerable to funding cuts that could stop or seriously delay potential GHG reductions.”

We know the impact that the Premier’s transit letdown has on transit riders across the GTA, but can the Premier tell Ontarians and Ontario families what this cut means for Ontario’s climate change targets?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I’ll just take the opportunity to commend the folks at Pembina. They do some fabulous work for us, and I think they have issued an appropriate caution when it comes to these kinds of public policy initiatives.

But again, I’m not sure I can do more than what I’ve already said in terms of reminding my honourable colleague and Ontarians about the dramatic investments that we have, in fact, made in public transit: $9.3 billion since 2003, which represents $9.3 billion more than the previous government.

When our revenues were affected by the recession, we decided it was important for us to make some adjustments. When you’re sitting in opposition, you feel no adjustments are necessary, but when you’re visited by the responsibilities of government, you know you’ve got to make some adjustments. We decided to stretch out our investment in public transit. It’s not a cut; it’s just a matter of investing over an extended period of time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Funding Transit City was a big part of the government’s climate change plan. Transportation is, after all, the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But the government has admitted it’s not even close to meeting its own climate change targets, and the budget cuts will only keep more people waiting in gridlock.

Why can’t the Premier tell Ontario families what this transit cut means for Ontario’s greenhouse gas targets?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I remember having conversations with Mayor Miller about this in our determination to find a way to work together.

Historically, the provincial government has not fully funded these kinds of initiatives, but we decided that we were going to take on that responsibility. We thought it was the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

Circumstances have changed somewhat. We are affected by this recession, as you well know. We decided that we had to extend the period of time over which we were making these investments—and I’ll be honest about that: There are some downsides associated with that. We just can’t move as quickly as we would have liked.

What we said to Ontarians is that we will not be making cuts to their hospitals, to their nurses, to their doctors. Instead, we will extend the period of time over which we invest in their public transit.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what the Premier said in June 2007, after promising to fund Transit City: “This project will remove 300 million car trips off our roads. And that’s good news for the air we breathe—and the fight against climate change we’re waging together.”

Even before the transit cuts, the government admitted that it is almost 50% off its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets—already, before the cut.

The Premier’s transit cut is bad news. It’s bad news for the economy, bad news for commuters who are waiting at bus stops and bad news for the air that we breathe.

Will the Premier use Earth Week to make amends and reverse his $4-billion cut to Transit City?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is admittedly an important connection between public transit and greenhouse gas reductions, and we’re going to move as quickly as we can to make those investments and get them done.

We are investing, as we speak, $870 million to extend the TTC subway to York region. Work has already started on the Sheppard LRT. We put over $700 million for new TTC hybrid buses, subway cars, track repairs and improvements, and on and on.

We’re also very proud of the fact that when it comes to GHG emissions from our coal-fired generation, they are at the lowest point they’ve been in some 45 years. The single greatest source of GHGs in Canada comes from our coal-fired generation in Ontario, and as you know, we have a specific commitment to eliminate those entirely.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier as well.

The cost of electricity seems to be climbing with each passing day, and the Premier’s unfair sales tax will make it a lot worse. The HST won’t be helping the environment, but it will add another financial burden to people who are already feeling very much squeezed.

Does the Premier think it’s fair to add a new tax to electricity when rates are already on the rise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m delighted for the question, because it is important for us to remember the totality of our tax reform. The leader of the third party has mentioned one part of it, but I am delighted to tell the people of Ontario and the members here about the other things that we are doing to help consumers.

The first thing we’ve done is we’ve reached a historic agreement with the federal government that sees some $4.3 billion transferred, this year and next, from the federal government to the provincial government. For single people who make $80,000 or less, they’ll be receiving, in transitional payments, some $300 tax-free. As well, families who have a total income of $160,000 or less will be receiving $1,000 tax-free to help in the transition from a world where we used to have two sales taxes to one where we just have one, like all the other modern economies—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The HST is absolutely the wrong tax and it’s absolutely the wrong time. Not only is the Premier bringing in a tax that will raise the price of electricity by 8%, he’s also increasing the cost of conservation by cancelling the sales tax break on energy-efficient appliances.

In Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario, people will be forced to pay more, whether they consume or whether they conserve. Can the Premier explain: How does this make any sense at all?

Hon. John Wilkinson: As I was saying, it is important to understand the entire situation regarding the HST. For example, as you’re talking about the need for public transit, perhaps you have not heard what was reported by the city of London—that when they buy new buses after July 1, they will for the first time receive a 78% rebate from this government for the portion of the HST that goes to the province. That is reducing the cost for a city to invest in its public transit. That is something you voted against.

I would say to the member of the third party that it is important to take a look at the entirety of this, and I would recommend that she join some 1.3 million other Ontarians who have gone to a source of information found at www.ontario.ca/taxchange. That is a wonderful resource that allows you to understand the entirety—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the Premier and his revenue minister obviously have not heard is all of the families in Ontario who are very, very worried that the HST is going to make it more expensive to heat the house, make dinner and give the kids a bath every day. This is like kicking people who are already struggling in a very tough economy in the teeth.

If they’re trying to conserve, they’re going to find out that one of the government’s very few energy conservation measures has been stopped. The question is a simple one: How can this Premier possibly get it so wrong?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I find it rich that the NDP comes to this House and tells us about the HST when obviously they haven’t heard a single comment about the NDP government in Nova Scotia raising their HST by 2%. I find it quite interesting that it seems to be one thing in Nova Scotia for their party and something else here in Ontario.

It is important for the good people of Ontario to understand that on top of the GST rebate families receive here in the province of Ontario, we are adding the new HST rebate, which will also be paid quarterly. That, for qualifying individuals and families, is some $260 per year, tax free, for adults and children in the family—the most generous in the province. As well, perhaps the member forgets that we lowered personal income taxes on January 1, so we have the lowest personal tax rate of any jurisdiction, of any province in this great—

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

ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. The Ontario Power Authority, your so-called transitional bureaucracy, grows and grows with each new tax and fee you add to people’s energy bills. Are you making Ontario families pay $350 more per year on their energy bills so you can find a place to dump failed political candidates and former political aides like Ben Chin?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Power Authority has very important work to do, and that’s transitioning this energy sector from what we inherited to where we need to go.

They’re working on our conservation programs. When we look at—

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We know that the party opposite does not support the investments that go into conservation because they complain about them all the time. We need to conserve, and our conservation initiatives are helping 160,000 families reduce their energy consumption through our home energy plan.

We’re investing in green energy. Just two weeks ago, we announced initiatives that will create 20,000 jobs in our green energy economy. You’re opposed to those—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Maybe with all the noise, I didn’t hear Ben Chin’s name in that answer.

In 2004, when you created the Ontario Power Authority, you said that your energy LHIN was supposed to be independent and would take the politics out of electricity. But everyone knows Ben Chin is a big Liberal. The sunshine list reveals that Chin’s salary went from $112,000 per year to $185,000 per year when he left your office to dream up PR schemes for the OPA. His most recent one is a promotional giveaway of air miles to the first 150,000 families who will pledge to become “laundry smart.”

First you had Casino Windsor running an energy centre; now you have a power authority running contests. Did it even occur to you that Ontario families would rather see a break on their energy bills than subsidize air miles?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We know that the Conservatives are opposed to conservation, and will continue to be, but we are not. We will continue to work with the Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I, like the member from Renfrew, want to hear the answer.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We will continue to work with the Ontario Power Authority and we will continue to drive forward the need to develop a culture of conservation in this province.

The Ontario Power Authority is working very hard at conservation initiatives on behalf of Ontarians. I know you don’t recognize this, but we do. For every megawatt that’s saved, that doesn’t have to be produced or generated, it saves dollars in terms of future generation, which is a lot less effective and efficient.

I’ve got a list here of Conservatives that have been involved in the energy sector for a very long time. Let me just quickly read them off: Tom Long, Deb Hutton, Paul Rhodes, Mike Harris, Leslie Noble, Michael Gourley, Jaime Watt; you know all of—

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

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

When the CEO of a LHIN decides to quit two and a half years into a three-year contract, that CEO is compensated by being paid his or her full $250,000 yearly salary despite working only six months of the last year.

Minister, whether it is LHINs or hospitals, CEOs are signing lucrative contracts that allow for very generous compensation packages when these CEOs quit, retire or are fired or let go. Why does the Minister of Health allow for this culture of entitlement to flourish among health care top executives?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. What I really need to say is that the value of the LHINs is extraordinary in our health care system. I know of no one who actually thinks the system we had before was better when it comes to driving integration in our health care system. What we had before were very siloed parts of our health care system. The hospitals were siloed, the CCACs were siloed, long-term care was siloed. There was nobody who was driving those important but distinct parts of our health care system together.

It’s only through the LHINs that we’re starting to see some really good news on the ground. We’re starting to see our aging-at-home strategy making a difference when it comes to moving people who are in hospital but don’t—

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

M me France Gélinas: My question was about compensation packages.

Just to let you know, the average salary increase of hospital executives was 7% in 2009. I can assure you that no other groups of workers negotiated a 7% increase in 2009. We now have, in health care, a $700,000 club on the taxpayers’ dime. And, as I mentioned, we see CEOs earning a full year’s salary for six months’ worth of work. The culture of entitlement amongst health care executives and other agencies of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care must end. It is wrong.

My question: When will the minister come out and say it is wrong, and signal to the health care system that these exorbitant salaries and benefits, those compensation packages, are not acceptable?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would be less than honest if I didn’t say that I, too, was concerned about the high level of compensation of some of our executives in our hospitals. That is why CEO salaries will be frozen for the next two years under the budget bill. It is an issue, and as I do my work to make sure that we in Ontario get the very best value for the money we spend on health care, looking at compensation is one of those things that I think we need to have a look at.

Those salaries will be frozen for two years, and we are looking at other options when it comes to making sure we get the very best value for the money we spend on health care.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know that it’s often a struggle for young people, especially those living independently, to pay for all their monthly expenses. Many young people in Guelph tell me that they are paying out of pocket for their prescriptions, either because they are no longer covered by their parents’ drug plan or because they’ve got a job that doesn’t actually have health insurance, which is the typical situation for young people.

There are many prescription items that young people in these situations have to pay for themselves, including, for example, oral contraceptives—birth control pills—and medication for depression. I understand that the government’s plan to provide fair generic drug prices for Ontarians will reduce the cost of generic drugs. Could the minister please provide an example of how—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Guelph for her question. We’ve heard lots about what these reforms are going to mean for the owners of pharmacies. I’d like to talk about what these reforms are going to mean for people.

Someone who is on the birth control pill Aviane 21 or Portia 21 currently pays about $123. Once the price reductions are in place, their cost will be $41. That’s a saving of $82. The drug citalopram for depression: Someone on this drug would currently pay $337. Under the new plan, they would pay $114. That’s a saving on the drug cost of $223. That’s significant. The drug paroxetine for depression: They currently pay $385. Once these savings are in place, they will pay—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Minister. Those are amazing savings, and I look forward to passing along the details to my constituents, because they do show what Ontarians can expect to save under this plan.

Generic drugs are used by lots of Ontarians to treat a variety of conditions, and when people don’t have access to a drug plan, the costs can add up very quickly for people without drug coverage and with limited incomes. In some cases, it means that parents are not able to afford other things for their family; for example, supporting their children in after-school activities.

Can the minister please provide some more examples of how the government’s plan will reduce prices for Ontario families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These changes are the right thing to do. They will result in real savings for real people.

Let me give you some more examples. The drug pantoprazole is for acid reflux or ulcers. Someone on that drug now would pay $528 over the course of the year. Under the reforms, they would pay $179. That’s a savings of $349. The drug omeprazole, also for ulcers and reflux: They currently pay $423. Under the new plan, they will pay $200, for a savings of $223. Ramipril for hypertension: They currently pay $256; they will pay $87.

These are real savings for real people. I look forward to hearing from the Conservative Party why they have taken—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. As many in the Liberal caucus know, we’re just 73 days away from your greedy HST taking $3 billion out of the wallets of Ontario families. The Liberal backbenchers over there hope the cheques you’re mailing out will make Ontario seniors and families forget that you are raising taxes yet again. But Gilles Lamese in Cornwall sees the tactic for what it is. He says, “This attempt to bribe us with $1,000 per family”—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Notwithstanding the fact that you are quoting, that is language that is not parliamentary.

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw. “This attempt … with $1,000 per family or $300 per individual is not only childish, but insulting.”

The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry won’t stand up for Gilles Lamese, so I will. Will you spare Ontario families and seniors the insults, and scrap your greedy HST tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for being so forthright by saying that he believes that Prime Minister Harper, Minister Flaherty and Senator Runciman are wrong on this.

When our economy is faced with the challenge of trying to create new private sector jobs that will create the wealth that pays the taxes for the services that the good people of Cornwall expect from their government, we decided to take a historic step by working with them.

I just had an opportunity to be in Cornwall with my colleague from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and we had a remarkable trip where we had a great opportunity to answer people’s questions. What they were telling me is that they were surprised by how much misinformmation is out there and how very happy they were to find out the reality that seniors, for example, will have the largest tax cuts in the history of this province, effective on July—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m a little tired of the minister’s rhetoric. Senator Runciman is a straight-shooter and a man of honour.

When the $350 in energy taxes, fees and regulatory charges Dalton McGuinty has—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. The personal attacks at one another can take place outside the chamber: They’re not appreciated in here.

Please continue.

Mr. Steve Clark: When the $350 in energy taxes, fees and regulatory charges Dalton McGuinty has tacked on to electricity bills is added to your health tax, Ontario families won’t see a nickel of your so-called “rebate.” In addition to the health and energy taxes, in 73 days, people will be paying 13% more for gas at the pump, home heating and utility costs, haircuts, gym memberships, and the list goes on and on.

Betty Cook of Windsor makes a more blunt statement than Gilles Lamese in her assessment of the HST when she says, “I think it stinks.” Ministers Duncan and Pupatello won’t stand up for Betty Cook so I will.

What makes you think $1,000—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: Well, I’m having a little trouble over here with the members opposite. I’ve heard from them that they are opposed to this, but I have not heard their leader say that they would repeal it. I have not heard their leader say that they would change anything that we’re doing. I think that they agree with their former colleague Senator Runciman, who said, before we introduced this, “I think, in theory, our party is supportive of harmonization. In principle, we think it’s something that should occur.” Of course, then he followed his leader in opposition to it, but of course, he won’t repeal it.

Now he’s in the Senate, where his job for the Prime Minister is to ensure that legislation gets through that Senate.

So I want to thank Senator Runciman and all of the good people who are working together; they understand that we need 600,000 more people in this province working. We need $47 billion—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Ontario workers lost their jobs because of reckless, greedy Wall Street bankers. Ontario taxpayers should not give them more money so they can take away more of our assets.

From the subprime mortgage debacle that tanked the world economy to monkeying around with Greece’s debt, from apologizing before Congress for disastrous dealings to facing fraud charges, Goldman Sachs does not share Ontarians’ values and doesn’t deserve our money.

Will the Premier sack this reckless, unethical Wall Street bank today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I gather my colleague is making reference to some contractual arrangement that our government may have entered into with Goldman Sachs. It is our practice to honour any agreements that we have entered into.

I think as well, from what I read—and I know my honourable colleague would have read the same kinds of things—that there are some pretty serious allegations that have been made against Goldman Sachs south of the border. I think we owe it to, if nothing else, our respect for the process, for the process to unfold and for a determination and a finding to be made, if any, at some point in time.

But of course, I think the responsible thing for us to do is to honour any agreements which we might have entered into.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m sure that Goldman Sachs is happy that there’s a defender somewhere in the world for them.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has launched fraud charges against Goldman Sachs. The European Union is investigating them. Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is calling for authorities there to investigate and accusing the investment bank of “moral bankruptcy.” The German government is demanding information about their dealings.

If you’re unprepared to fire them, will you immediately cancel all work with Goldman Sachs until the serious allegations are addressed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague makes reference to actions taken by national governments. We are a subnational government.

We have contracted with Goldman Sachs to perform particular kinds of work. I think it’s important to come back to what we’re really talking about here. We’re talking about a potential asset transaction of some kind. We’re looking at some of the monies that have presently been invested in some of our long-term businesses, like OLG, LCBO and others, and whether the best way for us to use that taxpayer money is to continue to have it invested in those systems or to remove that and invest it in some kind of initiative to help us build a stronger economy. It’s a thoughtful review process, and we look forward to continuing to engage in it.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Labour. This province needs new health and safety initiatives for Ontario’s workplaces, and I’d like to ask about a recent inspection blitz focusing on fall hazards in the construction sector.

Falls can have tragic consequences in the construction sector. Reducing their frequency makes Ontario workplaces safer.

This inspection blitz ended last Friday. It was a targeted enforcement campaign where inspectors visited construction projects and focused on fall-related training, supervision and equipment. It was the longest health and safety blitz ever conducted by the ministry.

Minister, Ontario needs to know more about this safety blitz. What else can you tell us?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for his advocacy and for his support of the health and safety of our province’s workers.

As the member stated, our 90-day blitz of fall hazards concluded last Friday. During these past three months, we visited more than 2,500 construction projects involving thousands of workers. We inspected these workplaces for compliance with health and safety requirements. We issued a range of orders, everything from warnings to stop-work orders.

Over the next few weeks, we will be posting our findings on our website. We will also be providing our blitz results through our health and safety partners, as well as our expert advisory panel, chaired by Tony Dean, and the

section 21 construction committee. I’ll be asking for recommendations on—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, the health and safety of Ontario workers is essential, both for construction workers and for the firms that employ them. During the past six years, Ontario has improved workplace health and safety in this province. Workplace lost-time injuries have decreased by more than 20%.

There’s more, however, to this than statistics, and Ontarians need more information. Would the minister please share with this House how the results and analysis of this particular safety blitz will help protect our workers in the future?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Thank you to the member again. It’s my ministry’s mandate and my personal pledge that we will do all we can to make Ontario’s workplaces safer and healthier. That’s why my ministry inspectors are out on work sites every single day: to ensure that our workers’ rights and their safety are protected.

I’m confident that the results of this extensive blitz will give us a good picture of occupational health and safety in today’s construction sector. I am very much looking forward to hearing the advice and recommendations from our health and safety partners as a result of the data that have been compiled during this fall-hazards blitz. These results and recommendations will help us point the way to improve health and safety. My ministry and our partners will join together to fight the common dangers of fall hazards.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Do you support the Pascal report on full-day kindergarten in its entirety?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think our government has a very strong commitment to early learners in Ontario, and that is why the Premier announced that we will establish our full-day learning program for four- and five-year-olds.

We did ask Dr. Pascal to consider our earliest learners and provide us with some ideas on how we might move forward to support families and our youngest learners to enable them to be successful when they arrive at school.

We’ve received the report, and I think it’s fair to say that the reaction to our initiative on the part of this government has been overwhelmingly positive, particularly by parents but even by the business community, which recognizes that what we are doing here, the first of its kind in North America, is an investment in our youth and an investment in—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Pascal report, With Our Best Future in Mind, states on page 14, “Children’s participation would be by parental choice, with parents having the option of a half, full (school hours), or fee-based extended day of programming.”

Minister, I have an email that I’m going to ask the pages to take over to you.

Can you explain to me why, on January 7, a memo from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board suggests that you are taking away parental choice by forcing parents whose preference is half days to, instead, transfer their child out of their current school that is only offering full days? What kind of choice is that for parents?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The choice is still there. Parents continue to have the right to choose if they want to have their children enrolled in a kindergarten program in the province of Ontario. In fact, the law in Ontario is that, until a child is six years of age, they are not required to be enrolled in any school. With the announcement of our early learning program, the same rules apply. If parents wish to have their children enrolled in the program, that would be their choice.

We are not making any law that says, “If your child is four years old or five years old, they must be enrolled.” It continues to be the option for the family. We are committed to ensuring that in the province of Ontario we have the very best early learning program. We know that the—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Minister of Health. People in Kenora want to know: Does the Minister of Health believe it is right that a 90-year-old woman who is a patient at Lake of the Woods District Hospital is told that the only long-term-care bed for her is in a long-term-care home in a community that is 220 kilometres away? Does the Minister of Health think it is right to tell families to send their loved ones so far away just to get the health care they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, I do not think it is right for people who are in hospitals in Kenora to be told they must go hours away for long-term care. This is an issue that I have taken some interest in, and I think the member might want to know that there are now 13 patients in need of long-term-care beds at the Lake of the Woods hospital. They are a top priority for placement in long-term care in the community and where they choose across the LHIN. The LHIN is working actively with the ministry on a plan to address the ALC pressures in Kenora. This is a range of solutions, including interim beds and home care.

There are two long-term-care homes in Kenora. Birchwood Terrace has five spaces available. They are temporarily not admitting people because of an infection outbreak. They are working with public health, and we are hoping that situation—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: As the minister knows, it’s not just this 90-year-old patient; it is several patients. They are all being told that if they want a long-term-care bed, “then go 220 kilometres down the highway, away from your family, away from your loved ones and anyone who even knows you.” What is worse, there are 12 long-term-care beds at the home for the aged in Kenora, but they are shut down due to lack of funding.

Many people have written to the minister, and I’ve written to the minister, asking that the 12 long-term-care beds that are shut down due to lack of funding receive the operating funding they need. The question is: Will the minister provide the funding, or does the McGuinty government think it’s appropriate to send people—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me confirm that no patients have moved from the Kenora area to Rainycrest, Fort Frances. This is not hospital policy. The CEO of the hospital has sent a letter to the families, to the patients, and clarified with the doctors and the nurses that they are not moving.

The member opposite is apparently unaware that Pinecrest, the home he is speaking about, does have beds available but they are what we call D beds. They are not up to the standards that we insist be met for interim beds.

We are working with the LHIN, with Pinecrest, to determine how we can address this issue as quickly as possible. We are committed to doing this, and we are working very hard to get—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Minister, transit is a vital part of the greater Toronto and Hamilton region. Whether you live in the downtown core, in communities like my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, or further away in places like Barrie, Oshawa or Georgetown, transit provides a convenient and environmentally friendly alternative to driving.

Minister, the greater Toronto and Hamilton area is projected to grow by more than 3.7 million people by 2031. Ensuring that we have a strong, comprehensive transit system in place is going to be the key to supporting our communities and the economy.

Would the minister tell the House what the government is doing to build better transit for tomorrow?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for his question and for his work for the city of Toronto and for his constituents.

Our government knows how important it is to build a strong and coherent transit system. That’s why we delivered on our commitment to establish Metrolinx. The job of Metrolinx is to improve the coordination and integration of all the transportation in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

We continue to make investments. Just last week, I was at the Lansdowne bridge in the west end of Toronto, with Metrolinx staff and the federal Minister of Finance, where we made a joint federal-provincial announcement for $16.6 million toward six GO projects in the GTA. This money will go toward the Bloor Street bridge, the Brock Street bridge, the Dufferin Street bridge, the Dupont Street bridge, and Lansdowne and Queen, all along the Georgetown South corridor, to accommodate a fourth track, which is necessary to build capacity on that track.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Minister, thank you for your response. I’m pleased to hear that the government and Metrolinx are moving forward to expand capacity of the GO Transit network. This is good news for all Ontarians. Families and seniors in Scarborough–Rouge River rely on the TTC as well as GO Transit to get downtown and to other parts of the city.

Minister, there has been a lot of talk about Transit City over the past few weeks and misinformation about the government’s commitment to these projects.

Would the minister clarify for us the status of the Transit City projects and tell us more about the government’s investment in transit in Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There has been a lot of talk about this issue over the last few weeks.

Let me be clear: We are not cancelling these projects. Rather, we’re stretching the investment over a longer period of time, and we have said that repeatedly. I’ve asked Metrolinx to come up with a plan to phase these projects in. They are in the process of doing that. It will be a fiscally responsible plan. We were forced to do that because of our economic circumstances.

We have made landmark investments in the GTA in transit. Since we began the gas tax program in 2004, the city of Toronto has received almost $688 million in gas tax. We have provided the city of Toronto $416 million for the replacement of streetcars, $870 million for the Spadina subway extension. There have been more investments in transit than for a generation—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Minister, the agricultural fair is an important tradition in communities across Ontario. As you know, admissions to events held and sponsored by agricultural societies are exempt from charging the provincial sales tax.

Can you assure agricultural societies that your government will continue to exempt agricultural fairs from having to pay the harmonized sales tax to suppliers, as well as charging HST on the admission to fairs?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I’m going to pass this to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. It is, in the province of Ontario, a situation today where the GST is or is perhaps not charged when it comes to agricultural fairs. It really depends on the amount of ticket revenue they have.

So what are the federal guidelines right now? As a not-for-profit, if the agricultural fair has less than $50,000 worth of sales, they do not charge the GST and they do not charge the PST. I can assure the member that after July 1, they will not charge the HST because they will not fall under the current federal threshold.

In a situation where an agricultural fair does, indeed, charge the GST, they will be required to charge the HST, but as a result, they will also be entitled to a rebate—the most generous series of rebates in the country. So I’d be more than happy to help the member—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, that answer just reinforces why I’ve had so many agricultural societies in my community ask me to get clarification on whether or not they are exempt. They have written a number of letters; they’ve asked the Minister of Agriculture to respond to this issue, and she has ignored it. I suppose that by referring it, she is ignoring it again.

I simply am looking for clarification on whether agricultural societies across Ontario will continue to be exempt from charging the HST on their admission. Without all of the other side stuff, will you answer that question? Admissions: Are they going to be HST-exempt?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say to the member, when you ask a question about sales tax, the answer comes from the Minister of Revenue, not the Minister of Agriculture. So it is important that you ask the minister responsible.

What I can tell you is that the federal government today, in regard to the GST, has a series of rules that apply to agricultural fairs. It has to do with, what are their sales? I’d be more than happy to sit down with the member and review each and every agricultural fair in her riding to ensure that her agricultural fairs, which form the backbone of the heritage of our agricultural communities, have the information that they need.

As I’ve said many times, anyone can go to our website at www.ontario.ca/taxchange; some 1.3 million Ontarians have already gone to that website. I know that if she went to that website, she would find—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. On Friday, Labatt closed its Lakeport plant in Hamilton. The move cost 143 families good jobs that they relied on to pay the bills. A few companies are actually interested in taking over the plant, which would keep very much-needed jobs in Hamilton. It’s not going to work, however, if Labatt is following through with their plans to take the equipment out of the plant.

My question is this: Has the Premier talked to his friend and Labatt executive, Charlie Angelakos, about the company’s plans?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I do appreciate the opportunity to speak about Hamilton, firstly, because Hamilton is an important hub for Ontario business, and we are determined to do everything we can to help Hamilton thrive. Number two, let me speak specifically to this issue: We worry greatly when we hear that there are workers who suddenly find that they won’t have a job. We worry about those people.

We have been in constant contact with the member from Hamilton Mountain, who has raised this issue continually with us, and I have to tell you that we have made contact with Labatt. We have talked to them. The Ontario government cannot tell a business what they’re going to do, but what we can do is prescribe the kind of business environment to want business to happen in that region, and Hamilton is the prime example where significant infrastructure investment by this government will make for a terrific future for the city of Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is a chance to protect 143 jobs in a very hard-hit community. Labatt needs to be convinced that keeping the equipment at the plant is actually the right thing to do. What better candidate for that job than the Premier, whose dear friend and former aid Charlie Angelakos is an executive with Labatt? Will the Premier get on the phone with Mr. Angelakos, ask him to keep the equipment at the plant and work out a deal to protect these jobs? That’s what we need. We don’t need worry; we need to you pick up the phone and call a friend.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think what’s very telling is that the Hamilton region, as well as other parts of Ontario, do extraordinarily well in those microbreweries, in craft breweries. Ontario has a terrific reputation, not just with the big international breweries, but also with the ones that were successful in the Lakeport plant.

What we’re determined to do is continue to sell Hamilton to the world, to continue to talk about the skilled trade that’s available in that region—to know that we have workers who are prepared to work as well as any best workforce in the world. We’re determined to do that.

We are happy to play a role, if we can, to incite others to come and look to Hamilton to see what they can do in terms of investment. We will continue to do that and we are determined to do the best that we can for the city of Hamilton.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Ontario’s culture industry plays a central role in improving the quality of life in Ontario, but it also plays a critical role in Ontario’s economic life.

Artists are important to the economy of Ontario. They cultivate creativity and they drive economic activity. There were 80,000 net new jobs created between 1999 and 2007, but things are tough right now; things are very tough in the cultural industry. My question to the minister: What are you doing and what’s our government doing to strengthen support for artists and this vital cultural industry?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I want to welcome the opportunity to talk about culture in Ontario. Ontario artists are indeed the driving force of the culture industry.

Our government understands that investments in the Ontario cultural industry are now more important than ever. Since 2003, our government has invested more than $2 billion in our culture agencies. That includes over $800 million in the Ontario Trillium Foundation, over $300 million in the Ontario Arts Council and over $80 million in the Ontario Media Development Corp.

These investments support Ontario artists, strengthen Ontario’s cultural industry and improve the socioeconomic state of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. David Zimmer: What the cultural industry and artists are looking for are some very specific assurances from our government. Specifically, Minister, they want to know that we remain committed to supporting the arts and culture in the future. It’s no time to slow down in this investment, given this economic climate.

Minister, in this year’s budget, what specifically are we doing to support artists and the cultural activity of this province and the economy that it supports?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member again for the question. I want to assure artists across this province that our government remains committed to supporting the cultural industry. This year, the Trillium Foundation will receive $120 million to continue support for the non-profit arts and culture organizations.

Since 2003, we have increased the Ontario Trillium Foundation’s budget by 20%. We also increased the Ontario Arts Council’s annual budget by 140%, bringing it to $60 million per year. As I said before, we remain committed to continuing these investments and to continuing support for Ontario artists and everyone in Ontario’s cultural industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1148 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know they will be acknowledged shortly, but I wanted to acknowledge, in the east gallery, Gary Lipinski, the president of the Métis Nation of Ontario; Sharon McBride, vice-chair of the Métis Nation of Ontario; Tim Pile, secretary treasurer of the Métis Nation of Ontario; Joanne Meyer, director of intergovernmental relations; Bill Wilkinson, director of economic development; and Melanie Paradis, director of lands, resources and consultation. On behalf of all members, welcome.

WEARING OF SASH

Hon. Christopher Bentley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d be asking for unanimous consent, for those members who wish, to wear the Métis sash.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EARTH DAY

Mr. Toby Barrett: As the minister and this government fill our calendar with the new designated green days—Climate Change Awareness Day, Waste Diversion Day—and celebrate the latest week-long designation of Earth Week, I’m old school; I prefer to go back to the roots, if you will. Call me a purist, but I prefer to stand by the message that first launched a coordinated effort aimed at across-the-board environmental awareness. I’m speaking, of course, of Earth Day, which we will all recognize this Thursday, 40 years after the first such event helped spawn the environmental movement.

With the multitude of days, weeks, months and hours—I’m still waiting for someone to declare Earth Fortnight—we lose the importance of what we’re supposed to be doing in the first place. Maybe that’s why we see government more interested in setting targets than meeting them. This government told us years ago that it was targeting 60% diversion by 2008. We’re now at 2010 and nowhere near that number.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has told us that Ontario will again come nowhere near its carbon emission targets. Never mind the targets, this government couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. I guess that’s why we see this government going mute on the issue of climate change since the passage of its much-ballyhooed cap-and-trade legislation.

So I invite Ontarians to turn back the clock, go back to our green roots and recognize Earth Day this Thursday, April 22.

TULIP FESTIVAL

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the world-famous Canadian Tulip Festival, happening soon, from May 7 to 24, in the beautiful city of Ottawa.

The festival originated with a gift of 100,000 tulips to the city of Ottawa from the Dutch royal family as thanks for Canada’s legacy in freeing the people of the Netherlands from oppression in the Second World War and for providing a safe harbour for the Dutch royal family in our city during that tumultuous period.

With that special history comes an important anniversary this year. The 2010 festival will be officially celebrating the 65th anniversary of our Canadian troops’ liberating the Netherlands. In addition, this year’s festival will also be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Navy.

This event has become a staple in Ottawa, because not only are there truly impressive tulip displays, but events for people of all ages and cuisine, music and crafts from more than 30 countries.

I would like to compliment the hard-working team that makes this event possible every year, including Chair David Luxton, President Teri Kirk and the rest of the team and volunteers who make it happen.

I encourage residents of Ottawa to get out and enjoy this very special event. Ontarians, Canadians and our guests from around the world ought to come and see one of the best festivals in Canada, right in our nation’s capital. Tulipfestival.ca has all the information and events to make the most of this year’s festival.

VOLUNTEERS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Volunteering is a fundamental act of citizenship in our province. As more and more people become involved in volunteering, our communities continue to grow and prosper.

By caring and contributing to change, volunteers are changing lives while increasing their own life skills. Every day, thousands of volunteers donate their time and energy without any expectation of monetary reward. Thousands of Ontarians benefit from the selfless acts of volunteers. This week, during National Volunteer Week, we celebrate the hard work put forth by Ontario’s volunteers.

Today, I will be reintroducing my private member’s bill, the Criminal Record Checks for Volunteers Act.

Many volunteer organizations, particularly those dealing with children and individuals with a disability, require their volunteers to submit a criminal record check. In many cases, volunteers have to pay out of their own pocket for a criminal record check, or the organization has to fundraise to underwrite the cost of criminal record checks for their volunteers.

The goal of my bill is to allow volunteers to pay for their criminal record check once per year, yet access this record to distribute to multiple agencies at no additional cost to the volunteer or the agency. This cost-saving initiative would encourage more volunteers to donate their time to multiple causes and reduce unnecessary duplication for our police services.

Volunteering is important for our communities. Without the important work that volunteers do, our schools, hospitals and many organizations would suffer.

STUDENT LEADERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I want to rise today to acknowledge some phenomenal schools in my riding: Fern and Parkdale, which last year were the first schools to host the girls’ government program anywhere in Ontario; and this year, Annette and Runnymede. The girls this year were immortalized in Jim Coyle’s

article about them

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the clerks and to everyone else, including Minister Bradley, for taking

part in this wonderful initiative to get young women involved in politics and parliamentary procedure.

I also want to thank City View Alternative Senior School, another great, forward-looking school whose students Colin, Liddell and Corinne are shadowing me all week, both in the constituency office and here, to learn about what we do and to open these doors so that students can really learn about the political process.

I’m hoping that one day down the line, all of this actually encourages these young people to run for office, particularly the young women, and that one day we see them not only come back here as members of provincial Parliament but also in Ottawa, where I take girls’ government as well, so that one day we see both a female Prime Minister of Canada and a female Premier of Ontario. That would be good news.

Thank you to all the schools, and thank you to the students here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m sure you’ll see a female Speaker at some point here in the province of Ontario too.

CAREFIRST

Mr. Reza Moridi: I rise today to speak of an organization known as Carefirst, which serves my riding of Richmond Hill.

Carefirst Seniors and Community Services Association is a non-profit charitable community services agency serving the greater Toronto area and York region. This organization was established in 1976, and its services have grown from the delivery of a Chinese meals-on-wheels service to a full range of community support services.

Carefirst Family Health Team, which is part of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care initiative to establish greater access to interdisciplinary physicians as well as other health care specialists for communities across the province, opened its doors to patients in July 2007.

With a team of family physicians, registered nurses and nurse practitioners as well as supporting administrative staff, Richmond Hill family health centre provides primary health care to the surrounding communities, including Canadians of Chinese and South Asian heritage.

I had the great pleasure of accompanying Premier McGuinty on a visit to the Carefirst Richmond Hill location this past Friday. I was very pleased to see the amazing and tremendous work that is being done at the Carefirst Family Health Team.

Please join me in thanking the dedicated staff at Carefirst for their outstanding work in serving the people of Richmond Hill.

TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

Mr. Ted Arnott: Three and a half weeks ago, the government tabled its budget for the coming fiscal year. Within the Ministry of Finance’s budget papers document, we see that this year the Ministry of Transportation plans to spend over $3 billion on highway expansion, highway and bridge rehabilitation and other transportation infrastructure. This budget allocation is up dramatically from last year’s funding levels.

I’m the first to acknowledge that the Ministry of Transportation has many worthy projects on its priority list, I’m sure, but surely this increased funding, some $606 million more than last year, means that people in Puslinch township can anticipate that the Morriston bypass will soon be built. We’ve talked about this project for decades—literally. Working with Puslinch township council and staff, we have repeatedly stressed the need for this project in every possible way.

On behalf of the residents of the township whom I’m honoured to serve, I have to say that we are sick and tired of this government’s continued excuses for delays. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation is in a privileged position to help move this project forward. We need her active advocacy for this project, which will benefit the city of Guelph every bit as much as it benefits the county of Wellington.

On February 22, the Minister of Transportation was invited to come to Puslinch township to speak to the council and its residents and see for herself why this project should be considered amongst the ministry’s highest priorities. I call upon the minister to accept this invitation, come to the township of Puslinch, meet with the council and residents and help us to move this project forward.

COOTES TO ESCARPMENT

PARK SYSTEM

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I rise today to discuss an important conservation strategy under way in my region, the Cootes to escarpment park system. Eight different agencies have come together to protect 3,700 acres of natural landscape containing nearly a quarter of all of Canada’s different plant species growing within its boundaries, including several rare species.

In the face of growing communities and urbanization, this is the last area of the escarpment that is not divided from Lake Ontario wetlands by a 400-series highway. It is a region bigger than Hyde Park in London or Central Park in New York.

The eight organizations that own various parts of the land are now working under a new management system to preserve these lands and implement a strategy to educate the public on the biodiversity of the area and protect this irreplaceable region.

The plans for the Cootes to escarpment park system were developed in consultation with public stakeholders, local government and non-governmental organizations. I’d like to commend all those involved in protecting this beautiful area and certainly offer my support.

I would add, on a personal note, that it’s my hope that this will be the first step, perhaps a springboard, to seeing this area eventually declared Ontario’s first urban biosphere provincial park.

NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I rise today to recognize and bring attention to National Soil Conservation Week, which runs from April 18 through April 24. This marks the 25th year that Canada is recognizing this event to highlight the importance of conserving vital topsoil.

The McGuinty government recognizes the significant contribution that farmers make to Ontario’s environmental stewardship. We understand the pride that Ontario’s farmers take in being excellent stewards of the land. Soil is one of their most precious resources.

Good soil management contributes to better-quality and higher crop yields, and every farmer in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and Ontario understands the importance of conserving this vital resource for the next generation of food producers.

Soil conservation is not only necessary for our agricultural producers but also for society in general. It helps maintain resources, such as water, air and wildlife habitat. Today’s soil conservation practices contribute significantly to reducing and removing overall greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. This resource is one of the most fragile on the planet. To paraphrase Mark Twain, they’re not making any more of it.

I urge members to take time during National Soil Conservation Week to think about our soil resources and to give credit to the producers and their organizations, such as the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, that are so dedicated to its conservation.

POLISH COMMUNITY

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: On Thursday, April 15, 2010, I joined with thousands of Polish Canadians to remember the lives of the President of the Republic of Poland, the late Mr. Lech Kaczynski; the First Lady, Mrs. Maria Kaczynski; and 94 other Polish military, political, social and religious leaders who had lost their lives in a fatal plane crash on Saturday, April 10, 2010. I was touched by the strong show of support for Poland at the St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic church, which is in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South.

With more than a thousand years of history, the Polish people have demonstrated that they are a resilient people. They have endured partition, wars, occupation and Communism, and have still come out a strong, democratic nation.

The story of Poland is a testament to the principle of freedom. With the same strength that the Polish people have demonstrated to overcome the Nazi occupation and the Katyn massacre, I know they will overcome this sorrowful time as well.

But they are not alone. Ontario mourns with Poland, and on behalf of the residents of my riding, Mississauga–Brampton South, I would like to express my most sincere condolences to Polish Canadians in my riding and across Canada.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

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

Bill 236,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act / Projet de loi 236, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

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

Report adopted.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS

FOR VOLUNTEERS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS

DU CASIER JUDICIAIRE DES BÉNÉVOLES

Ms. Jones moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act respecting criminal record checks for volunteers / Projet de loi 38, Loi concernant les vérifications du casier judiciaire des bénévoles.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The goal of my private member’s bill would be to create a system whereby volunteers pay for their criminal record check once per year, yet can access this record to distribute to multiple volunteer organizations at no additional cost to the volunteer or the agency.

YEAR OF THE MÉTIS /

ANNÉE DES MÉTIS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice respecting the commemoration of the Year of the Métis and that up to 15 minutes be allotted to each recognized party to debate the motion, following which the Speaker shall immediately put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We move that this House commemorates 2010 as the Year of the Métis; and that the Ontario Legislature recognizes and honours the distinct culture, identity and heritage of the Métis people in the province as well as the historic and ongoing contributions of the Métis in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: At the outset, I’d like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Ottawa West–Nepean, Mr. Chiarelli, and the MPP from Sault Sainte Marie, David Orazietti.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today on this very important and unique occasion where we recognize the unique history, culture and people who are the Métis. I introduced earlier Gary Lipinski, president of the Métis Nation of the province of Ontario, and his executive, Sharon McBride, as well as Tim Pile, Joanne Meyer, Bill Wilkinson and Melanie Paradis.

I would like to say at the outset:

Remarks in Michif.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: And to all of you who don’t speak Michif, that’s Michif for “Hello and welcome.”

The Métis are an important part of the richness of Ontario’s cultural tapestry. They are one of our founding peoples and are recognized specifically in the Constitution Act of 1982.

Les Métis constituent une

partie importante de la richesse de la mosaïque culturelle de l’Ontario. Ils comptent parmi nos peuples fondateurs et sont reconnus comme tels par la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982.

They built a new culture, taking the traditions of First Nations and European fur traders and creating something very unique. This culture remains vibrant today, a symbol of the strength found not only in valuing differences but in celebrating them, and we can learn from these lessons.

It is appropriate for us to honour the Métis this year, for it was 125 years ago that the Northwest Rebellion ended at Batoche in Saskatchewan. Batoche has since become a symbol of the resilience of the Métis, of the people who were determined to preserve their culture, their heritage, their uniqueness.

The Métis, of course, were born of the union between European fur traders and our First Nations peoples. The result was a people with knowledge of and respect for the land, an adventuresome spirit, a drive and determination, and a people dedicated to freedom. The voyageurs, working for 16 to 18 hours each day, paddled and portaged across this province and across this land at speeds that many of us would find incomprehensible, all of which they accomplished with about 200 pounds strapped to their backs. They helped to build what would become Canada, what would become the province and the nation that we love.

The coureurs de bois ran the rivers and woods of early Canada carrying messages and medicines, supplies and furs, and battling the elements—both the physical elements and the natural elements. From these rugged souls, now symbolic of the Métis culture, grew a people with a unique lifestyle, a unique attitude, who valued their freedom and independence. Indeed, long before their official recognition in the Constitution Act, they stood with all peoples in Canada and fought for the freedom of our country, of those fighting against a tyranny throughout the Second World War and many other wars throughout this country’s history.

The Métis rallied behind Louis Riel, a Métis who had helped bring the province of Manitoba into being in a fight for the land they loved. Though they were denied the land they had settled by the Red River, they survived and prospered. Though governments refused to recognize them and, again, pushed them from their community at Batoche, they survived. The Métis are a strong people. Their strength helped build Canada and this province. They helped keep our country safe. They helped protect and preserve the freedom that we oftentimes take for granted, but which enables us to stand in the Legislature today and make laws for the province we know as Ontario.

For this and for their

part in our history and what we as a province and country are today, they deserve our respect and our recognition.

Pour cela et pour le rôle qu’ils ont joué dans notre histoire et dans ce que sont devenus notre province et notre pays aujourd’hui, ils méritent notre respect et notre reconaissance.

So I say, in closing, on va se revoir. À la prochaine. Prends soins de toi. L’Ontario connaît et honore votre passé, votre présent, puis votre futur dans la province.

We honour your past, your present and your future in Ontario.

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

Mr. Bob Chiarelli: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to help honour the Métis Nation of Ontario.

This proclamation speaks to the distinct culture, identity and heritage of the Métis people, and very significantly mentions the ongoing contributions of the Métis in Ontario. This is important. They are now building on the strengths of their history, heritage and wisdom to build a stronger Métis Nation and a stronger Ontario.

The Métis Nation of Ontario today is a vibrant, energetic, responsible, contributing people actively engaged in education and economic development at all levels—a community of peoples who live and work in every sector throughout this province.

It was not that many years ago that the relationship between the government of Ontario and the Métis Nation was not as strong as it is today. Today, Ontario’s relationship with the Métis Nation of Ontario has become a series of historic events which continue to strengthen our relationship.

On July 7, 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Métis Nation of Ontario signed a four-point interim harvesting agreement that recognized the Métis Nation of Ontario’s harvest card system. This historic agreement meant that Métis rights holders hunting for food to feed their families would not be charged unless in violation of safety standards or conservation. We look forward to celebrating with the Métis Nation of Ontario when the long-term agreement on harvesting is signed.

In addition, on November 17, 2008, Ontario and the Métis Nation of Ontario signed the historic framework agreement recognizing the unique history, identity, customs, practices, traditions and rights of the Métis communities in the province. This agreement provided a framework for the parties to work together for a better future together.

Since the signing of the framework agreement, two other relationship agreements were signed, with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, and agreements with other ministries are being discussed.

As well, Ontario’s new relationship fund has provided the Métis Nation of Ontario and its communities with the capacity to participate in meaningful consultations with government and the private sector. Indeed, in the first six months of the 2009-10 fiscal year, the Métis Nation of Ontario received over 300 consultation notices, and is currently involved in consultation activities for 50 major and medium projects across the province. These are in the energy, mining, forestry and infrastructure sectors.

The Métis Nation of Ontario has developed an economic development strategy to create wealth for the Métis Nation, and Ontario’s economic policy will assist them in moving forward with their plans.

When Premier Dalton McGuinty was in opposition, he proposed that there should be a chair of Métis studies. That proposal has become a reality, and the chair of Métis studies is now in place at the University of Ottawa.

Incidentally, I have to say as a member from Ottawa that I’m very proud that the head office of the Métis Nation of Ontario is in the city of Ottawa, and I, too, want to welcome the special guests we have here today.

In closing, I know I speak for everyone here today in saying we all look forward to celebrating 2010 as the Year of the Métis and the continuation of our strong relationship together.

I again welcome them and thank them for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. David Orazietti: I’m pleased to participate today in expressing my support for the 2010 Year of the Métis Nation and to recognize the guests that are here with us to share this year with us and also this very, very important historic and cultural recognition.

It’s my pleasure to join the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the member from Ottawa West–Nepean in acknowledging the unique history, culture and people that the Métis individuals are in Canada, and to commemorate 2010 as the Year of the Métis.

As a point of interest, our own caucus member from Brant, Dave Levac, is of Métis descent. I don’t know how many people knew that, but I know that he has expressed to me that this is a very proud year for the Métis as well and he shares in that support.

In particular, I want to recognize Gary Lipinski, the president of the Métis Nation. I know that Mr. Lipinski has been instrumental in enhancing and strengthening relationships, certainly with the government of Ontario.

As many of you know, Sault Ste. Marie is home to the historic Métis council. The distinct culture of the Métis Nation of Ontario has evolved from a rich and dynamic history of European fur traders and aboriginal people in the 18th and 19th centuries, as has been referenced today. Harvesting and hunting was an integral part of the Métis community and certainly part of the culture in Sault Ste. Marie. The modern-day Métis community of Sault Ste. Marie is still rooted in the historic culture of the community, and they are one of the four founding peoples, obviously, recognized by the Constitution Act.

Métis people assisted new settlers adapting to the harsh climate of this country. The Métis worked to clear land and plant crops and were instrumental in the trade industry that existed at that time in our country. It is important that we recognize and celebrate their contributions to the building of provinces in this country and to our national unity.

The Métis were obviously instrumental in the entry of Manitoba into Confederation in 1870, and today the Métis are involved in all facets of Canadian society and continue to contribute to the building of our province and our country.

The Métis Nation of Ontario has contributed so much to the enhancement and the preservation of Métis culture in Ontario that it is very fitting that we recognize this year in celebration of the Métis Nation.

Today we have a much better understanding of and appreciation for the dynamic history of the Métis Nation and its contribution to the building of Canada. I can say, as a former high school history teacher, having spent many lessons discussing with young people in our community in Sault Ste. Marie the events and the factors that helped to shape and build our country, that the story of Louis Riel and the Métis Nation and the contributions of the Métis people to our country are at times controversial but no less important. They certainly play a very important role in the making of our country.

I know that the students I taught as a high school teacher were always very intrigued, interested and took away very valuable lessons from the story of Louis Riel and that time period in Canadian history. I want to thank the representatives who are here today for continuing to make us aware of the challenges and the issues that Métis people in Ontario and in Canada face and for being here today.

I think it’s also important to mention the recent progress with the Métis community. As you’re aware, the Ontario government and the Métis Nation signed an historic agreement on November 17, 2008, in which we jointly agreed to promote and facilitate the recognition and advancement of the Métis people in Ontario. This framework has set a new course for a collaborative relationship between the Ontario government and the Métis people of Ontario.

This framework is certainly very important, and we will continue to work with the Métis Nation of Ontario to improve the well-being of Métis children, families and communities while working to protect and promote the distinct culture, identity and heritage of the Métis people.

We are also encouraging economic partnership opportunities and recognize and respect Métis traditions, structures and institutions. We remain committed to building trust, prosperity and hope by expanding opportunities for Métis people in Ontario, together with First Nations and Inuit peoples living in the province, and we continue to work to preserve their distinct culture.

I want to recognize the minister and Mr. Lipinski for the great work they’re doing and the great work that the Métis community continues to do in my community of Sault Ste. Marie. I certainly think that as a government, being the first government in this province to create the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, we have taken a very notable step forward in helping to build those relationships and dedicate specific resources, staff and the like to recognizing that the aboriginal peoples of the province of Ontario play a very important role in its well-being.

Again, it’s a pleasure to participate in the discussion today and to recognize the important contribution and rich heritage of the Métis people.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: As the PC critic to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I’m honoured to rise this afternoon in support of the declaration of 2010 as the Year of the Métis. I want to thank my friend Dr. Alex Roman for his assistance in the preparation of these remarks, which I extend to the House today on behalf of the loyal official opposition.

On December 9, 2009, the House of Commons of Canada adopted the following motion by unanimous consent:

“That, in the opinion of the House, the government should utilize next year, 2010, to commemorate the Year of the Métis in recognition of the 125th anniversary of the historic events of 1885 in Saskatchewan; and further, the government should recognize and celebrate the invaluable contributions of the Métis Nation across Canada which have enriched the lives of all Canadians socially, economically, politically and culturally.”

As Métis National Council President Clément Chartier has stated, “The Year of the Métis will be an opportunity to commemorate the Métis who fought defending their people at the Battles of Duck Lake, Fish Creek and Batoche 125 years ago. It will also be a year of celebrating Métis culture and heritage, which now flourishes in this country.”

The entire world witnessed the Métis Nation’s participation in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games and beheld the richness and vibrancy of Métis culture, which is an integral part of Canada’s national heritage and cultural mosaic.

The Year of the Métis Nation will also include the “Back to Batoche” celebrations, which will be held from July 18 to 25 in Batoche, Saskatchewan, the site of the final battle of the Northern Resistance.

The Métis people came into existence as a result of the fur trade. They were the offspring of European traders and First Nations women, independent in spirit, living a lifestyle of hunting, trapping and freighting with trade and commercial endeavours.

Batoche was settled in the early 1870s by Métis. They had been forced to leave Manitoba’s Red River settlement by federal government policies that ignored their rights in order to accommodate the anticipated flow of European settlers to the region.

The Red River Rebellion, which was led by Louis Riel, was touched off by federal surveyors who refused to acknowledge traditional Métis land holdings in that district.

Louis Riel is credited with leading negotiations that led, in 1870, to the establishment of Manitoba as Canada’s fifth province, but ill feelings from the rebellion, coinciding with an influx of European settlers, extinguished a government pledge to give the Métis a 1.4-million-acre land base.

By 1884, Métis who had moved to the Batoche settlement on the South Saskatchewan River were encountering some of the same problems they experienced at Red River. In anticipation of white settlement, federal land surveyors were dividing up the Métis traditional riverfront lots using the square, range-and-township format employed in central Canada at the time.

With the disappearance of the buffalo, Métis calls for help in their transition to farming life and the education of their children were ignored by Ottawa.

The Métis were not alone in their grievances with central Canada. Cree Chief Big Bear was trying to establish a coalition of First Nations to negotiate more favourable treaty terms for the First Nations of the northwest, many of whom were starving and having trouble adjusting to a new way of life on the reserves. And white settlers in the region were angered that the federal government was treating them unfairly, especially with its decision to construct the new national railway more than 100 miles south of the proposed route.

Through the fall and bitter winter of 1884-85, Louis Riel attempted to negotiate with Ottawa not only on behalf of his Métis people but also on behalf of all the First Nations and white settlers of the region.

On March 19, 1885, he established a provisional government at Batoche, naming himself president and Gabriel Dumont military commander. The Métis pressed their cause by taking prisoners at Batoche and occupying nearby Duck Lake.

The first battle of the North-West Resistance—between Métis and First Nations forces and the North-West Mounted Police—occurred on March 26, 1885. Louis Riel’s men forced their opponents to retreat. Riel himself limited casualties on the side of the North-West Mounted Police by forbidding his fighters from pursuing the retreating enemy.

Alarmed at the success of the North-West Resistance, Ottawa sent more than 5,000 troops under General Middleton.

Led by the agile commander Gabriel Dumont, the Métis excelled at guerrilla tactics as highly mobile fighters ready with their surprise strikes at lightning speed.

Dumont would have preferred to do battle with Middleton in accordance with these tried and true tactics, but it was Riel, who believed that God sided with the righteous cause of the Métis, who ordered that they should make a stand at Batoche. On May 15, 1885, Riel surrendered to the federal forces and was subsequently put on trial for treason. He was hanged later that year, on November 16.

Today, Louis Riel is widely recognized as a father of Manitoba. November 16 has been declared Louis Riel Day in Canada, and Manitoba has recently renamed its Family Day holiday in February after him as well. As Canadians gain a deeper understanding of the cause of the Métis and of the precipitating factors of the northwest conflict of 1885, greater momentum occurs for the complete rehabilitation and exoneration of Louis Riel.

Each year on November 16, members of the Métis Nation of Ontario gather on the grounds of the Parliament of Ontario here at Queen’s Park, before the statue commemorating the northwest conflict, to celebrate the life and role of Louis Riel. I was proud to attend that ceremony this past fall. They all wear the familiar richly decorated Métis sash that I’m proud to wear in this House today in honour of our Métis Nation.

I would like to propose to all members of this House that the Ontario Legislature consider taking some proactive steps to likewise celebrate Métis heritage. We should consider renaming the statue of the Northwest Rebellion in honour of Louis Riel and the Métis Nation, and also consider placing a portrait of Louis Riel within the Legislative Building.

In addition, we could consider changing the name of the conflict to “Northwest Resistance,” and that Louis Riel Day become a formal provincial day of observance in Ontario, with appropriate educational materials on Métis history and culture developed by the Ministry of Education for inclusion in the course of studies in all Ontario high schools. Finally, we could consider that the Métis sash be formally declared the Ontario provincial sash, alongside other Ontario insignia such as the Ontario tartan.

I offer these suggestions to the Premier and his government for their consideration and, perhaps, for consideration by a legislative committee, perhaps the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Métis were a people who hunted buffalo like their aboriginal brothers; created stores and businesses like their European relatives; valued the education of their children; cherished their independence; developed their own language, incorporating French and Cree; honoured their patron saint, Joseph; and enjoyed, and continue to enjoy today, a rich cultural life of festival, song and dance. Today they are making significant strides in their struggle to be recognized as a distinct people with land, economic and social rights similar to their First Nations counterparts.

We welcome representatives of some of the Métis nations here today and thank them for coming. We really do appreciate the opportunity we’ve had this afternoon to discuss these issues. In closing, I want to say that long after the final volley, the battle of Batoche continues.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m very pleased to be here this afternoon to support the commemoration of 2010 as the Year of the Métis.

Gary Lipinski, it’s really great to see you here today. Gary has done a great job as president of the Métis Nation of Ontario for the last few years. I want to acknowledge in this Legislature as well his predecessor, Tony Belcourt, who became a good friend of mine. Tony did a lot of work as well to support the growth of the Métis Nation in Ontario.

We’ve heard a lot of history today, but I want to talk about a couple of the fun things that happen with the Métis Nation. I’ve had the opportunity to attend a number of general assemblies with the Métis Nation—I think a total of six over the years. They usually hold it each year in July at some community in Ontario; it could be a larger community or it could be a very rural community.

I want to talk about going up one time to Eagle Lake, just west of Kirkland Lake. My wife and I went there for three days and had a wonderful time. One of the nice things about the Métis Nation of Ontario is that they love their song and dance. They had us up dancing and playing to the fiddle, and I can tell you that they had two songs I’ll always remember, the Jean Chrétien Breakdown and the Ernie Eves Sidestep. They did them specifically for myself and one of the Liberal members who was there. They were two songs they played that day, and we had a wonderful time.

We’ve also had the general assembly in Penetanguishene, Ontario. And Gary, any time you want to bring the general assembly back to north Simcoe, you’re very welcome. We’d love to have you there again. It’s a great opportunity.

The reality is, in our community of Simcoe North, we have the largest concentration of self-identified Métis in the province of Ontario. There are over 2,000 members as we speak, but probably 5,600 could be identified in north Simcoe. They belong to the Georgian Bay Métis Council. Each and every year, they have a number of events that are fun to go to that really promote their heritage and their culture, one of course being the Christmas season, with the Christmas spirit we enjoy at their offices.

This year, on August 7, we have Métis Day at the historic Discovery Harbour in Penetanguishene. They have the whole grounds turned over to support the cultural events and show the history, the way food was cooked over the years, dance etc. It’s a great, great day, and I would welcome anybody who wanted to take an afternoon to go up into Simcoe county to see Huronia Historical Parks and historic Discovery Harbour. They would really enjoy Métis Day—just kind of an ad at the same time.

Then, of course, on September 18 of this year we have what we call the Rendezvous gathering. It’s held each year in the francophone community of Lafontaine. Métis Nation groups from all over Ontario visit Lafontaine—another fun day supporting the culture and heritage of the Métis here in Ontario.

I think the most important day of the year for the Métis Nation is November 16. I know a number of us have attended the events here at Queen’s Park.

I fully support some of the suggestions made by my colleague Ted Arnott, the critic for aboriginal affairs. I think some of the ideas he’s had, particularly with the renaming of the statue, are long overdue. It’s time for the government, the opposition and the third party to all support these sorts of initiatives. I think it would be very well supported by the Métis Nation as well.

I want to welcome you all here today, along with my colleagues in the PC Party. We really support this commemoration today. I hope it’s a great year, and I hope everybody gets out to as many Métis Nation events as possible this year to see the fine culture, history and heritage of this group.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ll be sharing my time with the member for Timmins–James Bay.

It’s my great pleasure to speak on behalf of New Democrats in support of this motion declaring 2010 the Year of the Métis in Ontario, and to also welcome the members of the Métis Nation who have come to Queen’s Park today to celebrate with us.

The story of Canada, of our country’s emergence as a nation, cannot be truly told without reference to the Métis people. They are a nation literally born out of the momentous meeting between European colonists and aboriginal nations. All schoolchildren are taught the grand foundational stories of the fur trade and the buffalo hunt and how crucial both were to the growth of our nation and the opening up of the West. But too often, the central role of the Métis in that history is glossed over or given only passing reference.

In truth, the Métis were involved in every facet of the fur trade, acting as trappers, guides, interpreters, merchants, agents, voyageurs and many other roles. They hunted buffalo to make pemmican in order to feed outlying communities and trading posts. They shared the knowledge of the land that they had learned from their aboriginal elders with the newcomers, who were often unprepared for survival in the climate of the northwest.

The demise of the buffalo and the decline in the fur trade, combined with the annexation of the northwest by the Canadian government, brought about an end to the traditional economy of the Métis. The Red River Rebellion of 1869 grew out of the Métis desire to protect their rights and way of life against an aggressive and distant government.

Louis Riel, the Métis leader of that rebellion, is regarded as a hero to a great many Canadians today, and as one of our country’s pioneering champions for minority rights. His legacy and unjust execution at the hands of the federal government of the day, following the Northwest Rebellion, is remembered each year in ceremonies across the country on Louis Riel Day—including ceremonies here at Queen’s Park, which I’ve had the pleasure of attending.

The Manitoba Act of 1870, which created the province of Manitoba, recognized Métis claim to aboriginal title. The Dominion Lands Act of 1879 recognized that claim as well. The federal government, however, unilaterally extinguished these claims through individual land and grants scrip. Denied the recognition of their collective rights, the Métis became Canada’s “forgotten people.”

While they may for a time have slipped from view, the Métis people did not disappear. They have remained a vibrant, engaged and active community. In the years since the Red River Rebellion and the Northwest Rebellion, the Métis have distinguished themselves, not only in their steadfast defence of their community and rights but also through their active engagement with the larger community. In the same spirit that motivated their ancestors to teach hapless settlers the skills they needed to survive on the harsh prairie, Métis have continued to make a valuable contribution to our province and country.

They are decorated veterans of past conflicts who continue to serve with distinction in Canada’s armed forces. Métis have distinguished themselves in fields as diverse as music, medicine, industry, education, art and the law.

The Métis of Ontario have been an important voice speaking out for the need to take care of our natural environment. In fact, I expected the member for Simcoe North to mention this, but I was very proud to stand with many Métis people and talk to them during the protests around the site 41 landfill problem that was occurring there. We saw the Métis people very much engaged in that fight against dump site 41, again speaking out on the environment as they have always done.

It is only fitting that we honour a people who have been such a crucial part of our history, who have given us so much and who continue to make a significant contribution to making Ontario a fairer and more just place. They deserve to have a year named in their honour—absolutely.

I believe, however, that naming 2010 the Year of the Métis in Ontario is not the only thing that we should be doing. Though recognized by the Constitution of 1982 as one of Canada’s aboriginal people, the Métis have never received the benefits governments grant to status Indians and Inuit. In its final report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated, “It is unjust and unreasonable to withhold from Métis people the services and opportunities available to other aboriginal peoples.”

Here in Ontario, we have only in the last few years reached an agreement with Métis people confirming their right to harvest animals for food within their traditional territories. Simple justice calls out to us to speak in one voice and to call on the federal government once and for all to end this discrimination. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair and just thing to do. It’s a simple gesture of thanks for the priceless contribution the Métis have made to our history and to our nation.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais m’exprimer, comme le critique en matière des affaires autochtones de la part du caucus NPD, pendant cette journée qu’on prend aujourd’hui à l’Assemblée pour donner nos vues, nos déclarations, même nos pensées et tous les autres rêves qu’on peut avoir comme citoyen de cette province, mais spécialement pour ceux qui sont Métis.

C’est intéressant aujourd’hui, à cette Assemblée, qu’on prend chacun 15 minutes, chaque caucus, pour s’exprimer pendant cette journée importante. Ce n’est pas pour dire que ce n’est pas important, ni pour dire que ce n’est pas apprécié, parce que je suis sûr que mes amis, mes collègues, tels que France Picotte et d’autres qui sont ici aujourd’hui, vont dire que c’est une journée spéciale. Il faut remercier le gouvernement et M me Smith pour avoir accordé les 15 minutes.

Je veux dire que c’est beau de dire de belles paroles, mais on sait qu’il y a beaucoup de boulot et beaucoup de chemin à faire. On sait que la communauté métisse à travers cette province, ainsi qu’au Manitoba et dans d’autres provinces, œuvrent pour trouver leur place dans cette province qui est égale aux autres dans cette province quand ça vient à beaucoup de matières.

On regarde les efforts des Métis à travers la province, quand ça vient au développement économique. C’est quoi l’histoire? La majorité du monde dans la communauté métisse se trouve, en comparaison, un peu—comment dire?—moindre, quand ça vient à l’égalité économique et sociale dans cette province.

Puis on se demande la question : « Pourquoi? ». Ce n’est pas la faute de ce gouvernement, ni du gouvernement avant celui-là, mais je pense que c’est la faute de nous tous comme citoyens qui n’ont pas vu que c’était nécessaire que tous les peuples dans cette province, Métis inclus, aient l’habileté de trouver leur place dans cette province quand ça vient à l’économie.

On voit qu’il y a beaucoup d’intérêt ces jours-ci, spécialement dans le nord de l’Ontario, quand ça vient aux ressources naturelles. On a entendu parler du « Ring of Fire », puis on a entendu parler d’autres projets comme le « Victor diamond mine », De Beers, Musselwhite et d’autres projets qu’on voit. Mais où est la place pour les Métis dans tous ces projets? On n’a pas encore aujourd’hui en place dans cette province, en cette année, quelque chose d’aussi simple que de dire qu’il y aura un partage des revenus quand ça vient à ces projets, non simplement pour les autochtones, mais aussi pour les Métis, où ça fait du bon sens.

Quant à moi, si on veut faire le développement dans ces parties-là de la province, on sait que la majorité du monde qui demeure là est qui? Ce sont les autochtones; ce sont les Métis. Ce sont eux autres qui sont là chaque jour et qui œuvrent dans des situations assez déplorables pour trouver une vie pour eux et pour leur famille.

On a besoin, nous dans cette Assemblée, non seulement de prendre 15 minutes pour donner nos déclarations, pour dire, « On est content de signaler la contribution des Métis », mais de dire ce que chacun de nous va faire, ce qu’on va faire comme membre individuel de cette Assemblée, ce qu’on va faire comme chefs de parti et ce qu’on va faire comme parlementaires pour assurer qu’on peut avancer la situation pour les Métis et les autochtones dans cette province.

Vous le savez : beaucoup d’entre vous ont passé à travers les communautés et vous avez vu, vous avez visité, vous avez mangé, vous avez été au souper, vous avez été aux événements avec les Métis et les autochtones de cette province, et ce qu’on trouve, franchement, est épeurant. On voit de la pauvreté ici en Ontario comme on n’en croirait pas, à moins que tu sois là toi-même. Si tu regardes les communautés autochtones à travers cette province, c’est une pauvreté qui est vraiment fessante. C’est remarquable, que c’est encore la situation aujourd’hui dans ce pays.

Qu’est-ce qu’on va faire comme pa