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

June 3, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Jun-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 June 2009 Mercredi 3 juin 2009

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MINISTRY CONTRACTS

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

MEDICAL ISOTOPES

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

NUCLEAR ENERGY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMES RICE

BATTLE OF STONEY CREEK

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO SCARBOROUGH

TAY CANAL

EVENTS IN AJAX–PICKERING

BOWMANVILLE ZOOLOGICAL PARK

SHERIDAN COLLEGE

MEDICAL SCHOOL

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION

OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALLAURA INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT, 2009

CITY OF OTTAWA

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VILLE D'OTTAWA

1312510 ONTARIO LTD. ACT, 2009

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 191

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MOIS DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES /

SENIORS' MONTH

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

FOR ST. PAUL'S

GORDON DEAN

PETITIONS

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

WIND TURBINES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

CEMETERIES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

HOUSE SITTINGS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 2008-09.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 2, 2009, on the motion for third reading of Bill 167,

An Act to promote reductions in the use and creation of toxic substances and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 167, Loi visant à promouvoir une réduction de l'utilisation et de la création de substances toxiques et à modifier d'autres lois.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a real pleasure this morning, although a little earlier than expected, to have the privilege to speak on Bill 167. I have listened carefully to the debates thus far, and I've come to a couple of conclusions that would lead me to think that this bill, in some persons' minds, goes too far, and in others' does not go far enough. So I'm going to dwell on some of the things that are more practical in nature—as soon as I find my notes.

Just a couple of things at the outset: It's a fairly intensive bill, a red tape bill, if you will. There have been hearings. In fact, I'm kind of curious. The longer and shorter story here is that I'm curious as to how the government can live with this. They've kind of rushed it. It was introduced on April 7 and had second reading on May 5. Then it had hearings.

Now, even to the extent of the hearings, I was in contact with some of my constituents—Detox Environmental, a very large and very successful but, I will say, very environmentally conscious business that deals with spills and other kinds of things, and many of these people work directly with the MOE, the Ministry of the Environment. I wanted them to have an opportunity—either them directly, or through their stakeholder organization—to present to the committee, but the committee was rushed as well.

There were a couple of days in committee when the House was down—and it all gets down to the same old, what's the rush here?

This is an important thing. I want to make it very clear. Our position as a party is very clear. You might say that this bill—the government members often say that we're not in support of this. In fact, it is our idea. Let's be clear on this: We said back in 2007—and now it's 2009; that's two years ago our policy was out there—"Tory Announces Made-in-Ontario Plan to Reduce Toxins." I have the details here. It's a public statement. It's a press release. It's a plan with real action and real strategy to reduce and/or eliminate, and create more public awareness of, toxic substances. The goal of course was to eliminate and, at the least, reduce.

Now, it was modeled after a plan called the TURA plan, the Toxics Use Reduction Act that was executed in Massachusetts some years ago, I think it was in 1989. So we're quite aware and quite supportive of doing the right thing. We didn't do polls. We said that this is just good public policy. I'm surprised that somehow the characterization by the member from Oakville especially, pointing fingers at us when he should be pointing the finger at himself. They had the public hearings; even the Canadian Cancer Society responded unhappily.

Now, I see the member from Cambridge coming in. He often gets upset that I use part of his desk, so I'll put that aside. He is quite fussy at times. But he is a good friend at that.

Here is an e-mail I got from Kathleen Perchaluk—recommendations from them to strengthen the Toxics Reduction Act. It says:

"Mr. O'Toole, as you know, the Toxics Reduction Act will be debated during second reading in the Legislature." Now, this was back in April, and as I said, they rushed the hearings; our member from Haldimand—Norfolk can tell you that. I think he said it in his hour leadoff yesterday. It says, "As you may be aware, the Canadian Cancer Society, along with other health, environmental and labour groups, has been calling for specific measures to be included in the Ontario toxics use reduction legislation.

Our recommendations are based on best practices in other jurisdictions and are echoed by the Ministry of the Environment's toxics reduction scientific expert panel." The final memo was released on April 7. So there was some consultation here, but they just didn't get it right.

Now, how many amendments were there?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Sixty-two altogether.

Mr. John O'Toole: Sixty-two, and none of them were passed. That's completely unconscionable. What is the rush here? We're in support of the concept; we initiated the concept. We know that imitation is the finest form of flattery. We're fine with that. We're fine with supporting it.

But when I hear agencies like the Canadian Cancer Society—here's what they say: "To ensure that the Toxics Reduction Act will integrate the best practices in health protection with the concern for a sustainable economy, a clean environment and good jobs, the following five Rs need to be included in Bill 167." Here are the five Rs, and they're quite simple and straightforward. Why didn't the government, why didn't Minister Gerretsen act on this advice? What is the plan here? It's to be seen to be doing the right thing, but in fact there's another game afoot.

There's some strong language in the legislation, but it's strong on hiring enforcement and inspectors and stuff like that—warrantless entry—that's the kind of stuff they've got going on here, but I'm going to stick to the Cancer Society's statement. Here are the five Rs:

"Reduce the release of toxic chemicals in places where people live, work....." Bill 167 does not include numeric goals or targets.

"Replace toxic chemicals where safe alternatives exist." This is the Canadian Cancer Society: "Bill 167 should make substitution a requirement....

"Restrict the use of toxic chemicals that are still in use through guidance from the Ontario Toxic Use Reduction Institute (OTURI).

"An institute was an important component to the success of Massachusetts's TUR legislation...." It is currently not part of the proposed legislation. The weaknesses here are evident: independent, non-partisan experts as opposed to the political interventions that I see in this legislation.

"Report annually on progress and monitor emissions, holding industry accountable to reduce their use of toxic substances through the development and enforcement of new regulations." These are their comments: "Setting targets and the development of an institute will help hold industry accountable by the government and the public."

"Reveal to all Ontarians the toxic chemicals in their workplace, community and homes through an identifiable product label or symbol and access to a public database.

"Bill 167 should include a component for product labelling."

There's the five Rs. They have failed completely on each and every one of those requests. In fact, they ignored—to their peril, I believe—the advice given by the cancer society. I appreciate the letter here and the other communications from Rowena Pinto, senior director of policy at the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division. The society strongly feels that all Ontarians have the right to know if they are being exposed to carcinogens in the products that they use every day.

The society believes there should be a strong focus on community right to know, because with more information about toxic substances we are being exposed to, Ontarians can make a better decision about their health and the health of their families. A strong community right-to-know component would fulfill one of the government's key objectives of Bill 167, which is to inform Ontario.

Look, I want to repeat, at the risk of sounding redundant or rhetorical here, that we believe in this goal. It's clear the government does not. I don't know what their agenda is; I wouldn't impute motives. I have no clue on why they're doing it the way they're doing it. All of the deputants—it's my understanding from the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, who sat through the days—was it one day of hearing?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Two days.

Mr. John O'Toole: Two days and then they had clause-by-clause.

Let's put context around this. Ontario is a large province that represents probably a third of the population of Canada, probably about—well, it used to be 50% of the economy of Canada. It's now dead last; it's probably a smaller component. It's tragic. The whole thing seems to be going in the wrong direction. But here's the issue: We really believe that we've got to work in partnership, and here are the partnerships, Mr. Speaker. You would know this, because you spoke yesterday about not wanting a wind turbine in your riding.

Here's the issue: The federal government has, as we know, CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and they have the CMP, the chemical management plan. In this, there are federal standards. Why is it so important that we have national standards? Well, it's very simple: You can't work in isolation in the economy of North America, let alone the economy of Ontario. Whether you are importing or exporting products, trading or transporting products—and the product labelling, with the trucks that go down the road that have these hazardous labels on them—there need to be national standards and there needs to be conformance with those standards; that's the first and primary role of Ontario.

I can't understand why—it's sort of like the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act. There's another case where they want to appear to be doing the right thing but in fact there are federal standards. It's called the pesticide management act, and it's the same thing. Federally, we do have these standards, and Ontario is sort of going it alone. It would be different if they were making it stronger. They're not. They're actually not making it stronger, they're making it weaker or more—how would you say?

They call it transparency, but it really is making it more confusing, because for the—let's work this down to the small business person, a small shop. We're dealing with another bill—I don't like to mix them up—the apprenticeship bill, which is a tragedy in itself—another thing they've screwed up. But here's the issue there: A small shop; they're going to have all these manuals, big piles of manuals. What are they doing today? I looked at it. In fact, I worked in industry for about 30 years.

I worked in the components of training, safety and personnel, but I actually worked as a plant manager—not the manager of a plant but of a

section in a plant, a very successful company at the time. The point is that I clearly recall in my 30 years there that we had rules at the time, and they were called OHSA, the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I have another one of my peers—they must have come this morning to hear me speak, I guess. They're normally not here all the time.

Paramount under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there were clear rules of worker safety, the workplace hazardous materials information system—they were called WHMIS rules. Many members here—probably Mr. Leal from Peterborough—would remember WHMIS rules. WHMIS rules were an information system where you could access materials that could expose you to risk. These rules were how to handle, contain, control, safety precautions, cleanup precautions and what the constituent parts were, outlined on sheets called MSD sheets. These sheets were unique to each product and what treatment action would be required if your skin or other parts of your body came in contact with it.

So it's not like there were no rules on this. They're acting like they're inventing something. They're not; they're interfering with something, with a system. The principle here is, what are they trying to do? First of all, they're rushing it through. They're not listening to the stakeholders—they never adopted one amendment—and they want this thing done this week. They're probably going to have to time-allocate it. What's the rush?

Let's get it right. We want to do the right thing; I think you don't want to do the right thing. But they're the government, and at the end of the day they will force—their members will have to vote, otherwise they'll be kicked out of their caucus. Those members will dutifully vote yes, like little sheep walking into the slaughterhouse. It's tragic. What have they got to hide? I keep raising this issue of the uncertainty of their motive.

In my riding this is so important—I have to get down to a more serious tone in the conversation with the people of Ontario. First of all, we have the challenges facing the auto sector, and of course my riding of Durham and that of my colleague Christine Elliott—who is probably going to be the new leader of the party, according to the paper this morning—and also Jerry Ouellette's riding of Oshawa.

There was a presentation to the committee by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association; it was made by Mark Nantais. I've got the submission here and, as the member from Haldimand—Norfolk said, I think some members on the government side didn't even listen to the input. I don't want to impute motive; I think they ignored them. Why? Because they didn't pass one of the suggestions, not even part of one. I don't think they even asked any questions that were respectful to the issue.

I had sent out a memo to my constituents, because of the rush—I had to send this out, as I said, to Detox and other constituency businesses. I advised: "There are opportunities for input at public hearings … in Toronto, May 13 and May 25. Interested people … should contact the committee clerk," and I gave the clerk—I also sent it to David Orazietti, who is the Chair of the committee, to advise them of my concern that they had to make space and time for these constituents: real people, real jobs and wanting to do the right thing.

Mr. Nantais appeared on behalf of the auto sector. Here's really what he wanted, in

summary—unfortunately, I'm running out of time. Could I have more time, I wonder, maybe up to an hour? I could probably get it done in an hour. I'm sure some people would change their minds.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Unanimous consent.

Mr. John O'Toole: Unanimous consent.

I'm going back to the bill, because when I looked through it, I was trying to make sense of some of it. Here's another good one,

section 46 of the bill, "Protection from personal liability." Guess who's protected? Mr. Speaker, you'd be interested in this, as kind of a policeman here today. "No action or other proceeding may be instituted against the following persons for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of any duty or authority under this act...." It says a member of the tribunal can't be called to court and held liable or accountable. An employee of the ministry, the inspector who shows up and gives you a hard time—and provincial officers. You can't take any action; they're immune from prosecution.

The regulations

section starts in

section 49. It's four columns. It goes right from (

a) to (z), and each one of them has two or three subsections. The whole bill is defined in regulation.

So we're passing a bill, but we really don't know what the toxic substances are, what the reporting mechanisms are and what the inspections are.

I do know that the provision here—it says "crown"; it's warrantless entry. They can enter your property day or night, if they suspect something is happening, and start fooling around with your patent information.

As I said, Mr. Nantais had another one:

"Allow for one plant facility plan to address multiple toxic substances and the substances of concern" and provide for more flexibility in methodology of use.

"Provide equivalency with other certified environmental management systems"—EMS—"such as ISO 14001, without any changes to the EMS, and actually provide, again, powers to the ministry directors to recognize such plans under the act...." There are plans. Most companies aren't out there to be sued for some liability for some substance.

"Providing for some of the same exemptions as those afforded in the NPRI"—the national pollutant release inventory.

"Exemption of vehicles from the consumer products provisions in the act, as they are already covered under federal legislation"—in my riding, there's a cement industry.

My concern is, what's the rush? We want to do the right thing.

I don't see anything in this bill that's supportable. It's not transparent; it's not clear. At a time when there are so many other concerns, with the economy going down the drain, the people of Ontario without income, the new HST tax—they are going completely in the wrong direction.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the member from Durham.

Having been through the hearings and the second reading debate and having gone through clause-by-clause, generally I don't agree with what the opposition has to say about this bill, but I have to say that there are a number of things where they're exactly on the money.

This is a bill in which, overwhelmingly, what we have is a series of clauses that give the Lieutenant Governor in Council power to set regulation. So for us, we're voting on a bill whose substance is limited at best.

We are voting on a bill that, as the member from Durham talked about, has not gotten a ringing endorsement from one of the most significant stakeholders in all of this, the Canadian Cancer Society. I will be quoting them when I make my commentary, but he's entirely correct. If in fact this bill has come forward, doesn't have teeth, really amounts to a blank cheque for the government, which, from the perspective of the opposition, can be written for draconian legislation, and from the perspective of the NDP, simply allows the government to cut a deal with whatever industry it wants and do extraordinarily little to deal with the problem we have—that's all that's on the table.

I'm not going to hold up this bill. I'm going to speak to it today. I've recommended to my caucus that we vote for it—not out of any enthusiasm, as has probably been gathered. But, frankly, the question does arise, what is the rush for something that has so little in it? If in fact this bill was making things move forward substantially in Ontario, I could see the need for speed, but other than being able to put out a headline that we have this act—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to rise today and join the debate. This is a bill that has come forward that I think has struck the right balance that Ontarians want. There's tremendous public support for this type of initiative. What I haven't heard described today by any of the speakers so far this morning is the fact that Ontario is a leading jurisdiction in this regard. No other province in this country has this type of legislation nor, as I understand it, at this point in time, is proposing to pass this sort of legislation that the public is crying out for.

As community members, workers and consumers, we all have the right to know about the environmental and occupational risks that we are being exposed to so that we can make informed decisions about our health.

"The Canadian Cancer Society applauds the government of Ontario for taking action to reduce toxic substances where we live, work and play. We look forward to working with government to ensure the supporting regulations have a strong community right-to-know component." I think that is a very reasonable statement. I think that's a statement that's based on knowledge. That statement comes from the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division, chief executive officer Peter Goodhand, who's also chair of the Take Charge on Toxics campaign.

I believe that this bill is supportable. The third party, as I understand it, is supporting it. The official opposition I think has yet to make their mind up, but I would hope that, at the end of the day, they would see this is a reasonable bill that should be moved forward.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: I appreciate the comments from the minister—well, not yet, but I've always expected this guy would be a cabinet minister—the member for Durham. He knows of what he speaks. As he indicated, he has a 30-year background in manufacturing. He continues to be concerned about Ontario's dwindling economy, not only in automotive but also the cement industry and other major players within the riding of Durham. The member for Durham laments the fact that this legislation is not transparent and there is no clarity. Right off the top, there's no definition of what a toxic substance is.

We have people in this Legislature debating toxics. We have no idea what this government is talking about with respect to toxics.

If you want to find out what the parliamentarians and scientists are dealing with, go to the federal legislation, go to the federal program. They have a definition for toxics. They have a program. The province of Ontario is probably the only subjurisdiction in any country that has decided to go off on its own and to duplicate, or attempt to duplicate, what the national level has accomplished. We saw this with the pesticide legislation that was introduced a year ago.

Within this legislation, there's no definition of "substance of concern." We don't know whether that's a cup of coffee, a can of pop or chlorine. We're really wandering in the wilderness on this legislation. It's way too vague.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: No, he has two minutes to respond.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I guess we should do that this morning, shouldn't we?

Mr. John O'Toole: Unless I could have 10 minutes to respond—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I thought the member from Durham had said everything he could say, but he does have the opportunity for two more minutes.

Mr. John O'Toole: There's simply not enough time in the day.

However, I want to thank the member from Toronto—Danforth, and I compliment him as well, because I look forward to his one-hour speech. I may be in the cafeteria. But anyway, here is the issue: He said I was exactly right. I appreciate that.

The member from Oakville admitted here today that this bill is entirely in regulation. It is; the whole thing. There's nothing in this, outside of a mechanism of enforcement; it's very detailed in that. The member from Haldimand—Norfolk—I refer the listeners today to read Hansard online; his one-hour speech was kind of a thesis on what's the right thing to do.

I will bring up, in the few seconds I have left, that I put a question on the order paper about a week ago, and I'd encourage members to look at it; it's about a very important issue in my riding. This issue deals with nuclear waste. Here's one of the reports that I am in the midst of reviewing and providing input. This is the report; this is the draft copy of a pretty well secret document. This is a public information notice on the environmental assessment for Port Granby long-term low-level radioactive waste management. This is from Joanne Smith, Natural Resources Canada.

Canada takes a very responsible, mature, thorough lead. Dalton McGuinty has this obscure piece of work on Bill 167 that has no clarity in it. In my riding, this issue is a public health issue of the highest order. I don't want Premier McGuinty and John Gerretsen monkeying around with this stuff. They have no expertise, and they're confusing the public about one thing about toxic waste when in this case here, they would probably say, "Oh, that belongs to the federal government."

So let's be clear about this: We should have one set of rules; they should be tough and they should be enforced, and Ontario's interfering with the system that's already in place.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to talk about Bill 167. During discussion of the bill, we've heard repeatedly about the urgent need to take on the problem of toxic chemicals in this society, the need to reduce their use and reduce the release of those toxic chemicals. We've heard that in North America, Ontario is second only to Texas in tonnes of toxic chemicals being released into the air and water and going to our landfill sites. Ontario is the fourth-highest emitter of carcinogenic chemicals in North America; Ontario is the second-highest emitter of reproductive toxins in North America.

Ontario's industries account for 36% of the total Canadian discharges of reportable chemicals into the air and 15% of the discharges into the water. That's a lot of toxic chemicals. That's a lot of cancer-causing material that becomes part of the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe.

In Ontario, 23,000 chemicals and substances are used in manufacturing products that we use every single day of our lives, products such as building materials, toys, cars, food, medicine and entertainment products. Ontarians depend on these products to be safe.

I have to say that the safety of these products is often discovered quite directly by their impact on the people who work with them, and that has been the case for decades. Too often we've learned the consequences of the chemicals when we've seen the impact directly on the lives of the people who work with those chemicals. Vinyl chloride was only found to be a potent carcinogen after a physician diagnosed two cases of a very rare cancer, angiosarcoma of the liver, in workers from a single plant. If this had been a more common cancer, if this had been a cancer that could have been related to another factor, then the reality of that chemical would not have been understood for much longer.

I should note before I go further that I'm referring to testimony given by Mike Wright, director of health, safety and environment for the United Steelworkers. He spoke in February of 2009, this year, before a congressional committee looking at the Toxic Substances Control Act. He noted in his testimony, "It took the lung cancer deaths of 54 workers in a plant making ion-exchange resins to identify bis-chloromethyl ether as a carcinogen."

The reality is that far too often, we find out that chemicals are toxic because the people who work with them suffer direct health effects. One he cited that was interesting—they're all interesting, but particularly interesting—was something called diacetyl, which is the main component in artificial butter flavouring: "When inhaled, diacetyl causes a rare lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans—and," as Mike Wright said, "it's as bad as it sounds.... In May 2000, eight workers in a microwave popcorn plant were diagnosed with the condition," and it took some time before the chemical itself was recognized as the cause of the problem.

Mike Wright, in his testimony, said, "We have no idea how many more untested chemicals are causing unrecognized illness amongst workers and consumers." That is the reason why anyone who is interested in reducing the burden of cancer and reducing the burden of occupational disease and injury is concerned about the presence of, the use of toxic chemicals and substances in everyday life in this province. He was right when he said, "We have no idea how many more untested chemicals are causing unrecognized illness amongst workers and consumers."

In the United States, there's been a calculation done on the health burden and the cost of occupational diseases. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the States in 2005 reviewed 38 studies, and they conservatively put the toll at 50,000 deaths a year, at a cost of between $128 billion and $155 billion—very substantial. So when we deal with toxic chemicals and when we deal with

an act that is extraordinarily weak, which the Canadian Cancer Society says doesn't have the teeth to actually bring about the reduction in toxic chemicals and the protection of the public that is needed, then we need to pay attention. We need to look at the act before us and recognize that although the act will likely be passed, although there will be a headline somewhere or a story written about, "Toxics Reduction Act introduced and passed and put into law," the protection of the public is something that is, at this point, unknown.

Who knows if in fact this government will put in place regulations that will make a difference or not make a difference? My betting is that they won't. However, sometimes there are political currents beyond one's knowledge that move things in a particular direction. We'll see if those currents exist. At this point, I'd say, given the approach this government has taken to this piece of legislation—and the Conservatives would say from the opposite direction, but also accurately—essentially waiting for a blank cheque to be put before the cabinet; will they write a tough cheque or a weak cheque? It remains to be seen.

Prior to the last election, Premier McGuinty called for tough new toxic reduction law and a carcinogen reduction strategy. Well, be clear: That's not on the table today. He called for a plan that puts Ontario at the forefront in North America on tackling this issue: That is not before us today. Although the parliamentary assistant talked about Ontario being a leader, certainly it comes nowhere near where Massachusetts is headed, and frankly, when it comes to the European Union and their program—the acronym is REACH—we come nowhere near that.

During committee hearings, numerous respected health and environmental organizations spoke of the need to strengthen Bill 167. They stressed, before we went through the amendments, before we went through the process, to improve the bill, make something substantial of it. They stressed that the bill failed to incorporate a number of key recommendations from the government-appointed expert panel.

The cancer society, the registered nurses' association, the public health association, key environmental groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence and unions like the United Steelworkers spoke in unison about the need for several amendments. Those amendments were moved by the NDP and were voted down by the government.

First, the groups presented a demand outlining the need to modify the bill so it would address a wider range of toxic substances and facilities. As it stands, the bill will only cover 14% of the 320 substances on the National Pollutant Release Inventory by 2012. It will only cover 1.5% of the total annual tonnage of emissions of National Pollutant Release Inventory reportable chemicals for manufacturing and mineral processes. That leaves too many important chemicals off this list.

Indeed, the expert panel called for inclusion of all chemicals on the National Pollutant Release Inventory, plus cancer-causing chemicals listed by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US national toxicology program, and the reproductive and developmental toxins from California's proposition 65 and Health Canada's domestic substances list—very substantial calls for expansion of the range of chemicals to be considered to provide protection against, because frankly, there is a very large chemical soup that we are all swimming in right now.

It is fairly apparent that the federal government is not moving with anywhere near the speed that's needed to reduce risk to our population. This level of government needs to take action. What it has done with this act is far less than is needed to actually protect the health of the population.

Secondly, groups recommended reducing the thresholds of both facility size and volume of toxics released at which the bill would kick in. The current threshold of 10 employees and 10,000 kilograms of pollution exempts small and medium-sized businesses, which are responsible for emitting the majority of toxics in urban areas. Note that the city of Toronto with its own sewer use bylaw, it's own right-to-know bylaw, sets a standard that maintains no employee threshold and reporting thresholds of 100 kilograms for most substances.

So the city of Toronto is actually recognizing the burden of toxic chemical release on the population that exists in the city and is acting within the legislative framework that it has. This government could do far more, far more extensively, and has not risen to that challenge.

Thirdly, health groups called for the expansion of the number of sectors covered by the bill. The government's expert panel called for the act to apply to all sectors that meet the thresholds, including energy and waste management. At a minimum, it was deemed crucial to include sewage treatment plants. Sewage treatment plants receive effluent from 12,000 industrial and commercial facilities. Sewage treatment plants are responsible for 87% of mercury, 37% of arsenic, and 71% of lead releases into the environment.

Including sewage treatment plants would ensure upstream toxic use reduction, and it would also pressure sewage treatment plants to work with municipal governments on stronger sewage control bylaws. In fact, only 260 of 446 Ontario municipalities had sewer use bylaws in 2000 at all. So a failure on the part of this government to include sewage treatment plants in their legislation meant that a very significant source of toxic chemicals coming into our environment have been set aside, given a pass. It's not a defensible approach.

This is a level of government that has responsibility for protecting the population of the province as a whole, has responsibility for reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals, and had the opportunity in this act to put in place legislation that would in fact do that. It passed on that responsibility.

Environmental, labour and health groups called for a toxic substance use reduction institute. The bill is silent on the establishment of a toxics reduction institute. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts has been an integral part of the Massachusetts law's success. An institute is needed to educate and train professionals such as toxics reduction planners, to educate the public, and to sponsor and conduct research. The institute would work side by side with facilities on pollution prevention plans unique to their needs.

The government's expert panel called for an institute, saying it would serve as a "neutral forum for constructive dialogue among the public, industry and government."

If you actually look at what they had to say, this expert panel that was appointed by this government called for the establishment of "a well-resourced, collaborative, arm's-length agency and/or academic-affiliated institute to lead innovation and knowledge dissemination, as described above."

Frankly, if you don't have that institute—and the Canadian Cancer Society noted it as well—then you can't—sorry; I shouldn't say "you can't." It is highly unlikely that you will assemble the intellectual capacity to take on this issue and provide industry and small businesses the support they need to make the transition that we're going to have to have if we actually want to reduce people's exposure to toxic chemicals. The government's refusal to incorporate the setting up of that institution in the legislation was a substantial error.

It leaves this bill weakened, undermines its ability to deliver on what it's supposed to deliver on and leaves this province in a situation where other jurisdictions in Europe and the United States will move forward on green chemistry while our people flounder around, occasionally dealing with enforcement efforts by the Ministry of the Environment—heavily underresourced. We will miss out on the opportunity to make that leap into green chemistry, which has the potential to develop new industry here in Ontario, the potential to move us away from dependence on fossil fuels for our chemical stocks.

We need effective legislation. Failure to put in that institute says to the world that we're not serious about what we're doing; that in fact this act is being passed so that the government can say that it passed

an act, not so that we can actually reduce toxic chemicals, not so that we can actually make a transition to a whole other range of industrial activity.

The expert panel and health, environmental and labour groups that presented at the hearings spoke in unison about the need to include targets and goals for toxic use reduction in the bill itself. The expert panel recommended that the act include "clear, viable and progressive goals" and "a mechanism for monitoring and public reporting on achievement of those targets."

This is actually something that the Premier seemed to promise. In 2007, the Premier pledged that a re-elected government would "tackle the environmental causes of illness by ... introducing a tough new toxic reduction law that requires polluting companies to reduce their emissions." A tough new law, I'll tell you right now, isn't what's before us.

Requiring companies to reduce emissions—requiring someone to do something includes, as I read it, a mandatory reduction in emissions. Yet there is actually no requirement in this bill for companies to reduce their use or their emissions. They're simply required to make a reduction plan; they're not required to implement it. There is no goal or target for how much actual reduction in toxics in our environment will be achieved. So right now, we don't know how this government will be held to account five years or 10 years from now, or the government of the day, when it's pointed out that the reductions were virtually negligible.

Everyone can say, "We did our best. That's life. Stuff happens." If you don't have those targets, no government can be held to account for its failures. No government can be realistically praised for its achievements. There are no targets; there's no mandatory substitution. There is an ignoring of the work that was done by the expert panel that brought forward the recommendations.

When we talk about goals, what they had to say was that in particular Ontario's pollution prevention legislation should include "clear, viable and progressive goals (i.e., a percentage reduction in toxics use and release in the province within a specified period of time); the statute should include renewable toxics reduction targets, and a mechanism for monitoring and public reporting on achievement of those targets. The panel notes that goals are not set in the current discussion paper and therefore strongly encourages the addition of goals to the discussion paper and program."

So the panel itself brought in expert advice. As far as I can tell from reading their commentary, they had debates amongst themselves. They came, within their framework of directions, to positions that they felt were reasonable, and at the same time actually delivered on the goals that the government said that it had, which was to reduce the exposure of the population to toxic chemicals.

So I don't see their representations, their recommendations, as the highest ceiling to which one could aspire but a reasonable bar to determine whether or not the action set out in legislation is going to be effective or not.

Frankly, I have to say, having seen this legislation ignore the recommendations of the expert panel, ignore the recommendations of the Canadian Cancer Society, ignore the recommendations of environmental groups and health groups who came before us, particularly by not setting any goals—again, that gives a hollow sound to the pledge of the Premier in 2007 that a re-elected Liberal government would "tackle the environmental causes of illness by ... introducing a tough new toxic reduction law that requires polluting companies to reduce their emissions." That is not before us.

Massachusetts, the state that actually is a leading jurisdiction, in whose trail we follow, weakly—their Toxics Use Reduction Act requires a statewide 50% reduction of toxic by-products within 10 years. I don't know if 50% is enough. I do know that at least in that state, those who are concerned about these issues can determine whether or not the government has acted on the principles it said it was acting on and on the goals that it set out, and hold that government to account.

That's the kind of clear and ambitious goal that we needed here in Ontario if we were actually going to come back to the population and say, "You know what? We've looked out at the issues. We've looked out at the problems. We understand the steps that have to be taken, and we've taken them."

Sixth point: We heard several deputations at the standing committee calling for amendments to ensure that the bill established a fund to finance research, training and technical assistance for toxics use reduction. Without funding for the kinds of support that companies need to actually move forward, they're far less likely to implement their now-voluntary toxics reduction strategies.

Not just a fund is needed: Experts indicated that revenue for the fund should come from a small levy on users of toxics—not a large levy, not a levy that changes the economics, but a small levy that allows consistent funding of an institute that would go in and provide the technical support for companies to make the transition that's needed.

The Massachusetts toxics reduction fund—the actual leading jurisdiction; this is not a leading jurisdiction—is the most effective of all US programs because it established a dedicated revenue stream based on those modest annual fees paid by toxic chemical users. Firms paying a modest annual fee are more likely to engage in the program and use the services. Cost savings from reduced chemical use more than offset the cost of the fees themselves. And without these funds, there's a grave danger that the program will have to compete—not just a grave danger, a certainty that the program will have to compete within government with other priorities for allocation of funds.

The McGuinty government—and we will hear this, I'm sure, if not in comment, then in other statements that are released to the public—plans to invest $24 million to help industry find green chemistry alternatives and reduce the use of toxics. Health groups like the Canadian Cancer Society are concerned that that won't be enough to provide technical assistance and won't be enough to help businesses make the transition from toxic substance use to less-toxic substance use.

What's needed are programs to provide grants and loans to businesses to offset costs, money to support research and development of safer alternatives and, where it actually happens, provide re-employment assistance, vocational retraining and other benefits to ensure that any displaced employees are given that support to move on to their next careers.

The reality is that companies in Massachusetts have actually reduced their operating costs by reducing their use of toxic chemicals. This is not something that is novel. This is not something that is unheard of. This is something that in fact is old but minimized, marginalized.

In 1991, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a small paper, Achievements in Source Reduction and Recycling for Ten Industries in the United States. When we talk about these issues, so often people say, "Well you really can't get rid of these toxic chemicals. They're critical to the functioning of our society." There well may be instances for which that is true, but even in 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States published a study of industries that had done things that we should be doing on a large-scale basis here.

Trichloroethylene, a toxic chemical, was replaced in metal plating in some operations with a solvent extracted from orange rind, terpenes. Trichloroethylene was used to degrease metals before electroplating. Orange rinds, the non-toxic terpenes, were able to replace trichloroethylene, a very toxic chemical, at a substantial savings to the company that engaged in that activity.

Mercury and cadmium used to be substantial components of dry cell batteries that we use on a regular basis. In fact, their use was dramatically reduced and then phased out because dry cell batteries, the batteries that you use every day, were a significant source of mercury coming into our environment. That was done without battery companies going belly up or not being able to produce a battery that gave us power. That's entirely technically feasible.

Perchloroethylene, another substantial toxic chemical, is used to clean printed circuits so that you wouldn't have short-circuiting in your electronic products. The companies that dealt with that problem revamped their production process to dramatically reduce the amount of chemicals they used—period.

In fact, if you're going to reduce the amount of chemicals that we use in society and reduce the risk that both workers and the general public are exposed to, you know that there's a big body of knowledge out there already on how to do that, how to move forward. If you're going to apply it in a detailed way in industry here in Ontario, then you need people with the technical ability to develop the processes and get the information out to the industry and work with industry as a partner to make that happen.

The seventh point I want to make: Many of the groups articulated the importance of including measures in the bill to identify and encourage firms to substitute safer alternatives in place of toxic substances. I just set that out. The reality, though, again, is that having that toxics reduction institute would be a substantial part of making that happen.

We need to have a legislative framework—we don't have it—that ensures that the substitution takes place. We need to have identified the priority substances for replacement. We need to assess safer alternatives, develop alternative plans and put them in place with industry.

In fact, it was interesting to me to have people like the auto parts manufacturers and others come and say, "We're interested in moving this stuff forward. We would like your assistance in doing it. We don't disagree with the need to reduce toxic chemicals." There was an opportunity here for this government to develop a partnership with industry to move this agenda forward, a partnership that they seemed to have turned their back on. I don't know why. I guess I can speculate. I don't know why, in fact, they have not acted on this, but I can say that it is irresponsible not to have moved as far and as fast as they could on this legislation.

Groups called for amendments to include stronger provisions to ensure the public has full information about toxics in their environment and the products they use—something the cancer society makes reference to. The public has a right to know when they buy products that have toxic chemicals in them; they need to be informed of that. This government had an opportunity before the last election to pass a piece of private members' legislation that I brought forward, modeled on a very workable bill in place in California. They backed off on that.

In the course of debating this bill and in the course of going through clause-by-clause, they backed off on making sure that they had the power to actually inform the public. That was a mistake.

We heard from groups who talked about the need to incorporate the precautionary principle into this bill. Quite simply, it would mean that where there wasn't full scientific certainty, we wouldn't take a risk with people's health. For what it's worth, the Krever Commission, when it looked at the contaminated blood issue from the 1980s, said that in fact if those agencies which had been dealing with blood had used a precautionary principle, many, many people would have been spared illness and death that resulted from contaminated blood.

We need that kind of approach when you're dealing with chemicals that can cause cancer, sterility, neurotoxic effects—a broad range of health effects. We're not getting that from this government.

This bill, as it's presented to us today, is not a step forward. It's not necessarily a step backward. It depends on what happens in the writing of regulation. It depends on whether or not, in the writing of regulations, this government, in its dealings with those interests that want to make sure that toxic chemicals are used, comes to a deal that actually strengthens protection. It could come to a deal that undermines protection. That remains to be seen. That

chapter has not been written.

I think it's unfortunate that the government didn't take this opportunity, in the course of introducing this bill and in going through the bill on a clause-by-clause basis, to make it the kind of bill that we could be proud of in Ontario, the kind of bill that would meet the standards set in Massachusetts and hopefully go beyond that. It's a huge missed opportunity, and frankly, an opportunity that people will pay for with their health, and in some instances, tragically, with their lives.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? Further debate? Does any other member wish to speak?

Mr. Gerretsen has moved third reading of Bill 167. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day. The Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Gerretsen: There's no further business this morning until question period.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'd ask all members to help me welcome the students of Mr. David Weir of Deer Park Public School, who are here today to celebrate as they graduate from grade 8. They will be joining us at any moment.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's my pleasure to introduce two reverends, Rev. Ken Gallinger and Rev. Matthew Gallinger, and their beautiful little girl and granddaughter, Daria.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to recognize here today in the members' gallery the 2009 Mississauga Man of the Year, Jim Tovey. Jim was recognized for his outstanding efforts with the Lakeview Legacy project. Joining him today is also Professor John Danahy from the University of Toronto, who was also awarded with the merit of the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects in regard to the Lakeview project.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to recognize a young nine-year-old from my riding, Kyle Roberts from Bowmanville. He is here as part of the 21st annual fire safety awards. He's one of the award recipients today. Congratulations, Kyle, to you and your family.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Visiting today and seated in the members' east gallery is page Rebecca's beloved father, Edward John Penner. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I would like to welcome the students and staff from Beardmore Public School, who travelled 18 hours by bus to get here. They're up in the public gallery today. Welcome.

Mr. David Zimmer: I'd like to introduce Ms. Ghazal Momen, a recent graduate of York University, a resident in my riding of Willowdale and a volunteer in my constituency office, doing great work.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to introduce the family of page Stephen Rickert, who are here with us today: mother, Jennifer Rickert, who was a few years behind me in high school; and brother Brian Rickert, who I believe is celebrating his birthday today.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: In the gallery today is Elizabeth Seldon, the mother of Pam Hrick, who works in my office. I'd like to welcome her.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome Keith Pacey, a retired teacher from my riding, and Alain Perron, the chair of our North Bay General Hospital board and a lawyer in town, who are both visiting today, down for a hospital conference. We're happy to have them here.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'd like to welcome today John Earle, Cornwall's renowned cinematographer; a former student of mine, Michael Blodgett, graduating this Friday from St. Lawrence College, and my constituency assistant, Jeremy Gowsell.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to introduce my summer co-op student, Jason White, who's sitting in the west gallery with my assistant, Todd White.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Today is Glengarry—Prescott—Russell day at Queen's Park. I would like to recognize the mayors of the nine municipalities: the mayor of Hawkesbury, Jeanne Charlebois; our county warden, Robert Kirby; the mayor of Champlain, Gary Barton; the mayor of Nation municipality, Denis Pommainville; the mayor of Clarence-Rockland, Richard Lalonde; the mayor of Russell, Ken Hill; the deputy mayor of Alfred and Plantagenet, André Boudreault; and the mayor of north Glengarry, Grant Crack; also, on the other side, the members of municipal councils. Welcome to Queen's Park.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to recognize and congratulate the following members who, like me, are today celebrating 10 years serving as members of provincial Parliament: Michael Bryant, the member for St. Paul's; Leona Dombrowsky, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings; Garfield Dunlop, the member for Simcoe North; Dave Levac, the member for Brant; and George Smitherman, the member for Toronto Centre. Happy anniversary.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Health: Every day, more details are leaking out about the rapidly growing scandal at eHealth Ontario. You claimed last week that the reason why untendered contracts were handed out to consultants was because of "unforeseen emergencies." Minister, do you still maintain that to be the case?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, last week and this week, I have shared the concern, as has the Premier, of taxpayers to make sure that we are delivering value for the dollars that they are sending us, and also ensuring that we finally deliver on an eHealth system for the province of Ontario.

I can tell the member that yesterday I had the great pleasure to speak with Mr. McCarter, the Auditor General of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, it was, I say to the member from Renfrew, because Mr. McCarter shared with me the scope of the work that he has been doing, on behalf of taxpayers in the province of Ontario, looking into not only the legacy agency and the transition but the work of eHealth itself.

I have written to Mr. McCarter and, under

section 17 of the act, have asked him to table his report so that I can, on behalf of taxpayers in Ontario, turn the recommendations around into action as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I listened very closely, and I didn't hear a yes or a no. I think the minister is backing away from his earlier claim of untendered contracts for "unforeseen emergencies."

Minister, you know that Accenture received numerous untendered contracts totalling $1.3 million. The CBC reported last night that William Falk, a partner at Accenture, was listed on Sarah Kramer's job application as a reference. The CBC also reports that they are close family friends.

Could the minister explain exactly what the nature of the so-called unforeseen emergency was around the $1.3 million in Accenture contracts? Or is the reality as it appears: more evidence of the incestuous relationships, the quid pro quo, the "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality that you allowed to fester at your rogue eHealth agency?

Hon. David Caplan: First of all, I disagree with the premise of the member's question, because whenever possible, it's my expectation that contracts are tendered in an open and fair manner. The eHealth board made a decision during the transition period to get eHealth moving quickly on the goals that we have established, which are to get a diabetes registry into place, an ePrescribing regime into place, moving toward electronic health records as quickly as possible.

It's important not just for eHealth, but for all of us who have the privilege of serving Ontarians, including, I would say to the member, every member of this Legislature. That's why I directed the board to undertake a third party review, and in fact, the board has engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers, along with a representative of the Ministry of Health, to oversee that review. There will be internal government auditors managing that review.

As I have mentioned, I have spoken with Mr. McCarter related to the work that he is doing in ensuring that both of those—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me give you another example: Michael Guerriere is the head of the Liberal-connected Courtyard Group. The contacts and close ties between Mr. Guerriere and eHealth's Alan Hudson and Sarah Kramer run very deep. Courtyard got contracts for the wait times strategy that was headed by Alan Hudson, where they worked with Kramer. Liberal-connected Courtyard also got contracts at Cancer Care Ontario, headed by Alan Hudson, where they worked with Sarah Kramer. Now, Liberal-friendly Courtyard received over a million dollars in untendered contracts at eHealth, which is, no coincidence, headed by Alan Hudson and Sarah Kramer.

There has been, for some time, a growing stench at eHealth, all happening under the minister's nose. Minister, you have no choice: Will you do the right thing and resign and let someone else—

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

Hon. David Caplan: Again, the premise of the member's question is just incorrect. I can tell you that these types of allegations reinforce the measures that we have already taken.

We have an internal government auditor managing the review. I've asked the Provincial Auditor to speed up, under

section 17 of the act; to table with us the work that he has undertaken on behalf of the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario. I know, and I say to the my friend opposite, that the auditor has done thorough and excellent work on behalf of taxpayers. I will, in fact, receive his advice and turn it into action as soon as it is in hand. Rather than wait until his normal report comes out to release the findings, including eHealth procurement practices, I want to get as much good information as I can as soon as I can get it, so that this important initiative can continue to work, delivering—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Health: Let's look at some of the other contracts at eHealth. Anzen Consulting got a contract from eHealth. The head of Anzen Consulting, Miyo Yamashita, is married to the head of Liberal-connected Courtyard, your friend Michael Guerriere. Ms. Yamashita was hired for $268,000 on a four-month contract to produce a communications plan and branding strategy. At the same time, eHealth hired another consultant named Donna Kline on a sole-source contract for $192,000.

Her statement of work says that she was to provide, once again, a communications plan and branding strategy, the exact same contract Ms. Yamashita received. Minister, why is the government paying two different consultants to do the exact same work?

Hon. David Caplan: I can tell the member, as I have said in this House, that I have discussed these concerns with some of the expenses that have come to light with both the chair and the CEO of eHealth. It's important not just for eHealth, but for all of us who have the privilege to serve Ontarians, including this Legislature. The Premier and I both agree: While things are allowable, just because you can do it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done. We expect that private sector consultants abide by not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.

That's why I took the action to instruct the board to take on a third party. In this case they have taken on PricewaterhouseCoopers to be able to undertake this work to get to the bottom of financial controls and management practices at eHealth. I look forward to the results of their review—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: There are so many consultants involved here that we have to pay extra to keep track of them all. On December 1, Ms. Yamashita billed taxpayers for talking to her husband, the infamous Michael Guerriere, at Courtyard Group, a consulting firm on the end of literally millions of dollars in untendered contracts from eHealth. That phone call cost taxpayers $3,800. On December 5, Yamashita had yet another meeting with yet another consultant to discuss Donna Kline's role. For the privilege of one consultant talking to a consultant about another consultant, taxpayers had to fork out an additional $3,000.

Minister, PricewaterhouseCoopers has already conducted its review on your rogue agency. They violated those recommendations under your nose. Minister, this is out of control. Will you do the right thing? Will you step aside and let somebody else clean up—

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

Hon. David Caplan: You know, it is unfortunate that when the legacy agency, Smart Systems for Health, was set up in 2002, they were not provided with the proper mandate or the proper leadership in order to deliver on the modernization of Ontario's health care system. We are driving forward on a very ambitious and important agenda to improve patient safety and improve health care, as Ontarians would expect that they would.

The accomplishments in a few short months have been very good, and I would share them with the member. We have unveiled—or eHealth Ontario, rather, has—Ontario's first comprehensive, published eHealth strategy. They've launched an ePrescribing program, the first of its kind in Canada, piloted in Collingwood and in Sault Ste. Marie, connecting pharmacy with primary care. They have also partnered with OntarioMD, the Ontario Medical Association, to—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I assume these contracts aren't news to the minister. Here is another one that you should be aware of: On December 7, Anzen Consulting charged $900 to send e-mails to a consultant at the Liberal-connected Courtyard Group, Karli Farrow. Karli Farrow used to be chief of staff to the Deputy Premier and a policy adviser to the Premier himself. This was the first of several bills between the two.

On January 5, Yamashita phoned Donna Kline, a call that lasted an hour and a half, for which Anzen charged $450 and Donna Kline's timesheet shows that she billed $300 for the exact same phone call; 750 bucks for a single phone call. On January 14, Ms. Yamashita billed $1,200 for four hours' work with her husband's consulting firm.

Interjection: Out of control.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, this agency's out of control. It's under your watch and you've done nothing. Will you do the right thing and resign and let someone else—

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

Hon. David Caplan: That is precisely why I have the concerns that I have. I've met with the board and with board chair Dr. Hudson. I sought reassurance for some of the information which has come to light and did not receive it, and that is why I've ordered the board to take on a third-party review. That's why in fact PricewaterhouseCoopers has been retained to look at the expenditures to ensure that management practice and financial controls are in place that Ontarians expect would be there.

In addition to that, the Auditor General, an independent officer of this Legislature, has undertaken work previously and has done wonderful work on behalf of Ontario taxpayers historically. I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. McCarter yesterday and through that conversation directed him, under

section 17 of the act, to accelerate the work—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today a group of seniors has made the trek to Queen's Park to voice their concerns about the McGuinty government's harmonized sales tax. They're worried about the impact of having to pay 8% more—8% more to heat their homes in the winter, to take their daily vitamins, to go to the barber, to read the morning newspaper or to enjoy an evening at the theatre. As many Ontario seniors see the savings that they've built over a lifetime of hard work vanish, why is the Premier forcing them to pay 8% more?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all I want to take the opportunity to welcome all of our visitors to Queen's Park, but in particular seniors to whom we owe so much. I want to tell seniors and all Ontarians that the decision we have taken together as a government to move forward with a single sales tax is not one that we have taken lightly. But we feel it's absolutely essential if we're going to build a stronger, more competitive economy that will ensure that our businesses can compete with other businesses around the world and that they will continue to have the capacity to hire our children and our grandchildren. That's very important to all of us.

At the same time, we've put in place a package that cuts Ontarians' taxes; 93% of Ontarians will have their taxes cut. That's an important piece of information that doesn't seem to be reaching Ontarians. I know that my honourable colleague is going to want to talk about that a bit more at some point in time, but 93% of Ontarians are going to receive tax cuts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Seniors from across the province are flooding MPPs' offices with letters of dire concern. These are very difficult times for all Ontarians, but especially for seniors living on incomes tied to markets that have seen far better days. The McGuinty government's response to our seniors? "Get ready to pay 8% more to fill up the tank, to drive to see your grandchildren, to keep fit at a local pool or exercise club, to go for a coffee in the morning with your friends." Why is the Premier making seniors pay 8% more?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I recognize that what we are asking of Ontarians is not easy. But I do know that the very best advice we have received from the most thoughtful people on these kinds of issues is that we need to catch up to 130 other countries, we need to catch up to four other provinces which already offer their businesses a significant competitive advantage. We've got to find a way to ensure that Ontario businesses can compete with the best in the world and win. We've got to make sure they're strong enough to continue to hire our children and our grandchildren.

I've had the opportunity to speak to many seniors about this issue. Their single greatest concern is, "Are we going to leave a strong Ontario for our children and grandchildren? Will we be able to give jobs to our children and our grandchildren?" That's what this is all about. It's about building a bright future for all of us.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty Liberals know that this tax is going to hurt Ontarians and they're doing everything in their power to hide it. First they proposed hiding the tax in the final price. Today we learned the McGuinty Liberals are lobbying the Auditor General to skirt their own advertising rules. They want to go on a multi-million dollar advertising blitz on the public's purse. Ontarians will not be fooled. Will this Premier listen to them, forget the mass marketing campaign and pull the plug on this blatant 8% tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just to make it clear, we've put this together in such a way that 93% of Ontarians will get a permanent income tax cut. I think it's important for us to recognize that. At the same time, we're also putting in place some supports for our families at the lowest income levels. In fact, the Ontario sales tax credit is something new. It's $260 each for adults and children. That'll benefit some 2.9 million Ontarians.

What is happening to the province of Ontario is very, very significant, dramatic, and it has the potential to be permanently traumatic. We have to rise to the occasion. We have to do what is necessary to build a stronger economy, not just for us today, but for our children and for our grandchildren. I believe Ontarians are prepared to do what is necessary to build that stronger economy, not just for our generation, but for the next—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: The news out of eHealth Ontario is becoming more disturbing by the day. Instead of modernizing our health care system, we're seeing an elaborate network of rewards for friends and insiders. Executives and their consultant friends are living the high life as taxpayers are being left high and dry. We know that millions of dollars in untendered contracts went to consultant firms with personal connections to the CEO. My question is a simple one: What does someone have to do to get fired?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: During the past few days, the members of the opposition have put forward a number of facts which raise some real concerns, and I've said that in the past. There have also been some allegations and then some not-so-subtle insinuations.

I think the best thing for us to do on behalf of Ontarians is to introduce into this debate an objective, dispassionate, thorough investigator, in the person of the Auditor General. The Minister of Health has contacted the Auditor General, has asked him to conduct an inquiry, to be as thorough as he believes is necessary, and to produce that report, together with those recommendations, at the earliest possible opportunity. I can't for the life of me understand why the opposition would object to us calling upon the Auditor General and waiting for his recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, what the rest of us can't comprehend is why there's a litany of failure here and the Premier continues to stand by it. His Minister of Health has failed to do his job in overseeing eHealth Ontario. The same minister defended the outrageous billing practices and expense claims. Then he decided to hire a high-priced consultant to look into eHealth's high-priced consultants. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. The minister is incapable of doing his job. The Premier needs to fire him. Why won't he?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just so I can provide some reassurance to Ontarians and my honourable colleagues as well, I have a copy of the letter written to the Auditor General, sent by the Minister of Health. This is what it says, in part:

"I am formally requesting that as per

section 17 of the Auditor General Act, you consider tabling your report on eHealth Ontario in the Legislature as a special report as soon as it is complete, and then making it publicly available online on your website ... as well as in hard copy. I welcome your recommendations and if there are significant changes to be made at the agency, I believe that we should move to implement them as soon as possible.

"I can assure you of my full co-operation with your review."

Again, I think we should allow the Auditor General to do his work.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems obvious that the Premier is willing to defend his minister at any cost. It's a similar approach, in fact, to the way that friends and insiders are treated by eHealth's CEO. Ontarians want to see health care innovation, not $3,000-a-day consultants and contracts being awarded to friends.

It's plain and simple: The Minister of Health failed to do his job. When will the Premier clean house and replace him with someone who can?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I need to take issue with something my honourable colleague has raised, as well as the spokesperson for the official opposition a moment ago. I want to make it clear that some things have been done which are in fact factual but which we cannot possibly condone in government. I said that before, and we will not defend those. But in addition, I think there had been some unfounded allegations and some not-so-subtle, as I said, insinuations.

I think the single most important thing we can do is to turn the heat down a little bit, introduce a bit of light in the person of the Auditor General, have him come in and be as thorough as he can. He's objective. He is impartial. He is nothing, as I said before, if not thorough. Allow him to do his work—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Answer.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —bring forward those recommendations and make all the results of his inquiries public so that we can then consider those together and act on those together.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On June 1 in this Legislature, the Minister of Health, to justify the bonus to Kramer and the untendered contracts, stated, "The current leadership at eHealth Ontario is yielding good results...." The minister cites the diabetes registry as a deliverable of Ms. Kramer and Dr. Hudson, and he states, "We now have in place Ontario's first-ever eHealth strategy. That is directing the kind of investment" like a diabetes registry. It has been brought to our attention that Ontario does not have a diabetes registry.

There is no registry up and running or even populated. In fact, I have in my hand here the RFP for the registry, which was posted on May 20, revised May 28 and closes on June 8. How can you justify the leadership of eHealth when no action has been undertaken?

Hon. David Caplan: The member is simply wrong in her assertion. What I said in this House was that a request for expression of interest did go out on the diabetes registry, that we will be moving to a request for qualifications and then a request for proposal. That is entirely what I said.

I did say as well that, regrettably, the Smart Systems for Health Agency set up by the former member and her colleagues when they had the privilege to serve on this side of the House was given the wrong mandate, was given the wrong leadership, was given no direction. That is why my predecessor ordered an operational review of that agency. In fact, we took the move to quickly be able to change and bring in new leadership and, for the first time, have developed a real plan for eHealth infrastructure in this province.

We are already seeing good results, as I have mentioned here in this House. We've seen, for example, the launch of the baseline diabetes dataset initiative—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious that this Minister of Health doesn't have any idea what's going on. Six years—Smart Systems, now eHealth and no progress whatsoever on eHealth, which we desperately need.

Furthermore, in October 2008, a document from the ministry stated, "By the spring of 2009, Ontario will have a diabetes registry actively used by patients and physicians to manage diabetic care." Well, guess what? It hasn't happened. And you continue to defend Ms. Kramer and Dr. Hudson, saying they're on track, they're on target, that there's an "electronic health record for all diabetic patients...." The truth is, there isn't one. Will you, today, recognize that you're not up to the job? Will you resign and give the job to somebody else who can clean up the mess?

Hon. David Caplan: I recognize that we lost a lot of time because this member, as I've said, unfortunately, didn't understand the importance and the necessity to move quickly and in a focused way when on this side of the House. We did have to bring in people who are getting the job done and driving forward.

The member says that nothing was accomplished under Smart Systems for Health. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. They built and connected 7,000 secure network sites—all hospitals, public health units and satellite sites, family health teams and other physicians, continuing care agencies, pharmacies, Cancer Care Ontario, Cardiac Care Network, Trillium Gift of Life and air ambulance operations. Among its successes I would say is the wait times information system to give all Ontarians access to timely surgical procedures. We have seen the benefits of these eHealth initiatives as we are driving—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The fiasco at eHealth Ontario keeps growing. Contracts are being tendered according to personal connections rather than performance and evaluation. Personal connections supersede checks and balances, with the taxpayer holding the bag on outrageous excesses. To top it all off, Ontario still does not have a functioning electronic health record. I ask this Minister, how much more do we need to see before heads finally roll?

Hon. David Caplan: As I have stated in this House, one day from the New Democrats we hear to pull the plug and get out of eHealth initiatives; another day it's a crucial investment that we need to make.

I do agree with the member that it is long overdue and it is time for us to be able to get on with this, which is why we began eHealth Ontario back in the fall, earlier in 2008. That was the result of work that was commissioned by my predecessor to order an operational review. I do believe we are already starting to see good results and yielding good results from the current leadership.

I have mentioned earlier that we have the first comprehensive eHealth strategy in this province's history. We are launching the ePrescribing program. We've established the diagnostic imaging network, where we will be filmless in this province in very short order. We have developed an electronic system to store images from hospital CT scanners for neurosurgical and neurological care to improve patient access—

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

M me France Gélinas: This minister has clearly dropped the ball. His answer demonstrates he is not up to the job of protecting the interests of Ontarians as the health minister. He defends people that are beyond defence. He shields high-flying executives and high-priced consultants who are getting rich off the public purse. He is out of touch and, frankly, over his head. He has lost the confidence of those that he is supposed to serve. How much longer before he does the only honourable thing left to do and resigns?

Hon. David Caplan: Listen, I acknowledge that the investments that we are making in eHealth are substantial and important. It is long overdue for this province to be able to have the eHealth infrastructure that will drive and improve patient care and patient safety in the province. We are already seeing the beginnings of good results on behalf of the patients of the province of Ontario.

Now, I have expressed my concern about the revelations related to the expenses, as has the Premier. That's why I have taken the action to call in the chair of the board and to order a third party review of management function and financial controls. That's why I took the step to contact and have a conversation with Mr. McCarter—a non-partisan, independent officer of this Legislature. I understand the partisan nature of the member opposite, and that is her right. But I can tell you that Mr. McCarter will provide good advice—

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Recently there was a suggestion from the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook that the McGuinty government should rip open our negotiated collective agreements with the unions. This member's blatant disregard for our public servants is a Common Sense Revolution déjà vu all over again.

We've heard from doctors, nurses, water, meat inspectors, and we are incredibly worried about this. Even the member from Whitby disagrees with this idea, so I'm not sure that the party opposite has a coherent position on this issue.

We should all be worried about this because we all depend on the work of public servants.

Minister, can you inform the House if tearing up collective agreements with our public sector is a direction that he wants this government to take?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member for her question. I too have heard the reckless suggestion from the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook. I want to say to this Legislative Assembly that this is certainly not the direction our government is going to take. We value the work of our public servants. We all remember the Walkerton tragedy, and we sure as heck don't want to revisit that.

The negotiations this year with our labour partners were all done in good faith, and the agreements reached were fair and reasonable.

The mere idea expressed by the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook has the potential to bring profound labour unrest in Ontario. This province has already been through that with both opposing parties. This is not what Ontarians want. It's in times like these that we depend on public services the most. I can assure the members present that creating unrest—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm very pleased to hear that this government will continue to respect the work of our public servants, contrary to the party opposite. However, I'm also concerned about the impact of the commitment, in the 2009 budget, that would see a reduction of employees in the Ontario public service by 5% over the next three years. I understand that this measure would save $300 million annually, but I would not want to see these savings at the detriment of our public services.

Can the minister assure this House that this reduction will not negatively affect the important services that our Ontario public service provides?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Yes, I can. Just for the record, I want to confirm that our budget did lay out a plan to reduce our OPS by 5%, or 3,400 full-time employees, over a three-year period, primarily through attrition and other measures. But I want to assure the member that the quality of service delivered to the public will not be compromised by these changes.

We have no intention of taking advice from a party that fired food and water inspectors and thousands of teachers and nurses. Our view on this issue could not be more different than theirs. The McGuinty government is committed to reinvesting in our public services, services that were completely decimated when the party opposite was in power. With the help of our employees, we have rebuilt the public service, and we're proud—proud—to be one of Ontario's 100 best employers—

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

MINISTRY CONTRACTS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question again is to the Minister of Health. It has come to our attention that the shady procurement practices or lack thereof exhibited by eHealth Ontario are also occurring within the Ministry of Health. I have, on my desk here, an untendered contract worth three and a half million tax dollars for an institution which happens to be the former employer of Michael Guerriere, Matt Anderson and Dr. Hudson. I have been informed that the ministry approached this institution and offered it $3.5 million to develop fact sheets for the Ontario diabetes registry. It is our understanding that this institution did not submit a proposal to the Ministry of Health for this cash.

Could you confirm, Minister, if this contract was indeed sole-sourced, and, if not, would you produce the proposal submitted by the institution which received the money?

Hon. David Caplan: It's a little bit hard to comment on something that the member is very sketchy in providing the details on: "Some public institution is doing something related to"—if the member wants to share details with me I would be very happy to respond.

I can tell the member that Dr. Hudson has done outstanding work lowering wait times in the province of Ontario. We have already seen the benefits of that work as wait times are lower for hips and knees, for cancer, for cardiac and for diagnostic services. This is the kind of work, this is the kind of agenda that this government has moved forward on. I'm always happy to be held accountable here in this Legislature or in its committees for questions of the like, and if the member has details and would like to share them with me—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: In the Legislature yesterday, the Premier stated, "We've got to ensure that we are rigorous and careful with public dollars, whether they're being spent by the private sector through consultants or internally through government in our ministries." I understand that this is just one of many contracts sole-sourced by the Ministry of Health, whether to the public or the private sector.

Minister, does the Ministry of Health not have the expertise itself to develop these protocols? Why did you outsource this contract to an outside institution connected to three eHealth Ontario employees for three and a half million tax dollars? We understand that there's a big joke about that there is another Ministry of Health operating outside of the Ministry of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I'm not sure what the member is referring to. In fact, this government prides itself and has been extremely transparent in its dealings—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's not helpful, member for Durham. Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: Members on this side are very transparent in their dealings when it comes to, as the Premier has said, ensuring that we deliver value for the taxpayer dollar.

The ministry, in fact, has partners at local health integration networks, community care access centres and many others in helping us deliver fundamental services to the province of Ontario when it comes to their health care.

This would not be unusual—well, perhaps it would be unusual for the member opposite, because when they were in government they cut hospitals, they fired nurses, they partnered with no one and unfortunately the result that Ontarians received was a degraded state of health care in the province.

I can tell you that this government works with a variety of partners—

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

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Reverend Matt Gallinger is here from the Premier's hometown of Ottawa. He is seeking support for his 10-month-old daughter Daria, who has severe complex disabilities which warrant resources from the special services at home program. The family urgently requires access to this fund so that Daria can receive the nursing care she needs at home in a loving environment. Why is Reverend Gallinger finding it impossible to obtain funding through the government's special services at home program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, let me welcome the parents in the House today. We thank you for all the advocating you do on behalf of those parents who need special services at home for their children.

I'm very pleased to say in this House today that this government, since we came into power, has increased the money in this program by 45%. This year alone we will be spending almost $100 million for this very good program, a program that parents need to be able to continue to keep their son or daughter at home and to care for them.

This program provides money to the parents to get service for their disabled child.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A shameful political decision was made by the McGuinty Liberals to stop funding additional families and children with disabilities in this province. That's the reality.

Daria was born with cerebral palsy. She must be fed through a tube and has a host of exacting care requirements that qualify her family to receive support through this very program. The child advocate, the Ombudsman and New Democrats, as well as the community at large have all been pushing to have the McGuinty government meet its obligation to fund the needs of children like Daria.

Will the McGuinty government agree today to lift the cap they've imposed on care allowances for children with complex disabilities? Will you ensure that Daria and her family receive the support they need from the special services at home program?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: My ministry provided special services at home to more than 27,000 families this year. We know that we need to do more. We will continue to work with the parents and to work with our partners in the community.

Last Friday I was very pleased to be with the Premier to open the Rotary Home in Ottawa. The Rotary Home is a respite home to give a break to parents when they need to go away. Of course, they cannot leave these children to anyone, so we have this respite service in Ottawa and across the province.

We will continue to invest in special services at home. I'm very pleased to say that we are helping 27,000—

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

MEDICAL ISOTOPES

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question today is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know all members of this House are hearing from their respective communities about the reduction in supply of medical isotopes. As you know, the Chalk River reactor, which produces the majority of Ontario's isotopes, is down due to a leak. This is the second time in 18 months that Canada has faced such a shortage.

Medical isotopes are used to diagnose different kinds of cancer and cardiac care health issues. My constituents and the staff at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre are concerned about getting access to the diagnostic test if they need it. So I ask the Minister of Health, what is the ministry doing to ensure that access to these tests is not disrupted?

Hon. David Caplan: As the member from Peterborough rightly points out, the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor is a pressing and important issue. The reduction in the amount of available medical isotopes creates a challenge not just for the health care system in Ontario but for the health care system worldwide. It's a global disruption, and we are not immune. That's why we've taken proactive steps to address this challenge.

My ministry has implemented the Ontario medical isotope disruption plan. It has distributed two important notices to health care workers, informing them about what steps should be taken to conserve the current supply of isotopes. I have written to the federal Minister of Natural Resources. I've asked her about the federal government's plans to get Chalk River back up and running as soon as possible. I've offered her assistance from the province, if needed. We're working with our health care partners and with all levels of government to ensure our health system can respond directly to this challenge—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Minister, it's reassuring to know that the province is doing all it can to manage this very difficult situation. However, there's another aspect to this shortage that worries me and my constituents. In today's Globe and Mail there is a report that distributors of medical isotopes have increased prices due to this shortage. I'm concerned about the additional financial pressures this could put on the government's budget and our health care system. In these tough economic times, it becomes ever more challenging to manage these additional costs.

I know the province is in a difficult situation and resolving these issues depends in part on the actions of and much-needed leadership by the federal government. As such, I would ask what the Minister of Health is doing to engage the federal government on this very important and serious issue.

Hon. David Caplan: Again, my colleague from Peterborough raises a very important point. It's very concerning that distributors might be using their unfortunate situation as an opportunity to increase prices and to increase their profits. I'm going to continue to work with our federal government to resolve the situation. I've written to the federal minister and I will write to her again to ensure that the federal government addresses this issue. I have spoken with the federal Minister of Health.

I also want to ensure that our federal partners are providing us with timely information because we depend on the estimates to manage our supply of isotopes, as the diagnostic imaging and treatment needs of Ontario residents are extremely important. I want to encourage our federal government to be a leader among Canada's international partners.

As a province, we're going to continue to manage the disruption in supply. I know Ontarians will depend on these diagnostic tests—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Minister of Health, and it's regarding his so-called third party review, which is essentially a farce. Reviews have already been done. Policies are already in place. The problem is, they've been ignored by the board of directors, they've been ignored by Sarah Kramer, the CEO, and management. One of the individuals involved, a Dr. Penny Ballem, got thousands in taxpayer money even though she had no contract in place. This is clear proof that the rules are being broken; not that they don't exist, which you're suggesting with respect to this review.

This review is clearly a sham designed to bury this scandalous misuse of taxpayers' dollars. The minister should resign and let someone else clean up his mess.

Hon. David Caplan: I know that the member opposite has had his run-ins with the Auditor General in the province before, but to call his review a sham I think is a new tone in this House. This is a non-partisan—unlike the member opposite—independent officer of this Legislature, and I think he has done outstanding work on behalf of Ontarians and on behalf of this Legislature over the years. For this member to suggest that the auditor is not capable or that his review is a sham I think really speaks to other issues that this member has had in the past with the auditor and with his office.

I want you to know that I have full confidence in the auditor to perform his duties and to provide us with advice and guidance. I will act on the recommendations that he provides for me when it comes to—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This is a disgusting display. I was talking about the PricewaterhouseCoopers review, which he's been boasting about for the past couple of days and weeks.

We have e-mails with respect to this Dr. Ballem, which are saying things like, "We do not have a signed agreement," "I can't make payment"—a back and forth—and "A signed agreement is not necessary." The e-mails clearly show how eHealth contemplated having the Liberal-connected Courtyard Group pay Dr. Ballem and then get reimbursed from eHealth, in an attempt to break the rules already in place. And who approved the payment, despite the lack of a contract? Well, the fat cat from Alberta, the guy who's charging taxpayers $15 for a nightcap.

It's not a lack of rules; it's that Hudson and Kramer have ignored the rules, breaking the rules already in place. They need to be fired. You need to resign. Put somebody in there who can do the job and clean up your mess.

Hon. David Caplan: The member again makes allegations that I don't believe he can support. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a very reputable firm, one of the top international firms when it comes to audits, management consulting and financial controls in the world. I should suggest to the member that if he's trying to undermine their reputation, I think he is way off base.

I should note for the member that my direction to the board is that there is an additional layer of oversight appointed by my ministry. PricewaterhouseCoopers is not a consultant. They're the agency's external auditor of record, and every corporation or agency of its size has an external auditor. The previous PWC review was largely focused on administrative policies. The new review will be much broader in scope.

The member said that I've been talking about this for weeks; it was only just—

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

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I have a letter here from 21 of the organizations from your own education partnership table opposing your school information finder website. It says:

"At the Education Partnership Table meeting on April 6, 2009, Minister Wynne heard from virtually every representative that the site has had a negative impact for the many reasons we have stated in previous letters to you.

"We are united in our disappointment that our request on April 6, 2009 that the site be removed pending full consultation with all education stakeholders was denied."

The education partnership table is asking you to take down this offensive site. Will you do it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It won't surprise the member opposite that I was at that meeting and that the partnership table members spoke to me. I'm very clear what their position is, I have received the letter, and at that meeting we agreed that the shopping bag that was on the website would be taken down—that has been done—that the rest of the information would stay up and that we would have a discussion.

I just have to note that there are approximately 600 visits to the school information finder every day, to the website—28,000 visitors between April 15 and June 1, 2009. We hear from people who say things like, "Finally! A place to get all the information on a school in one convenient place. What a great resource for parents. Really transparent look at school system! Well done!"

What we will do is have the conversation with the partnership table, who are the education stakeholders. They are very aware that we're going to be having that conversation, and we will make some decisions—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, the partnership table wants to consult, but they're very clear: They want the site "removed while a meaningful and inclusive consultation with all stakeholders takes place."

The letter questions the content of the site, the lack of consultation, and it challenges your claim that there is widespread support for the information on the site. Further, your own partnership table is telling you that the social demographic data on this site is incongruous with the ministry's new equity and inclusive education strategy.

When is this site coming down?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, we are going to be having this conversation with the education stakeholders to talk about what more information should be on the site in order to flesh out the profiles of the schools. I don't need the member opposite to tell me the opinion of the education stakeholders. I know exactly what their position is, and as I have said before, we are very aware that they are not happy and that we need to have this conversation. But there are other people who are happy. There's more than one school of thought.

I quote another person who visited the website: "I think this is great information to have. I don't think we should fear how this information will be used since it is only part of the picture."

It is very clear that the best way to get to know what's going on at a school is to visit that school. But there are people who want information about schools. We are providing a transparent, consistent and coherent way of getting it.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, affordable housing is an important priority for our government, and we are all well aware that the previous government had ignored this issue for years. As a result, the system was over capacity and underfunded. Vulnerable Ontarians were asking us for help. Municipalities were forced to administer social housing and were requesting support to handle the backlog. Through investments and programs like the rent bank and agreements with the federal government and our municipalities to create more affordable housing, we have made significant inroads in addressing the housing situation in Ontario.

Part of our platform in 2007 committed our government to launch a long-term affordable housing strategy. Minister, could you please tell us what progress to date has been made on developing this strategy and when we should hope to see the strategy?

Hon. Jim Watson: I want to thank the honourable member, who has been a great advocate for affordable and social housing programs in his riding in Sault Ste. Marie, both as a very successful city councillor and now as an MPP

I'm pleased to report that today we're launching our affordable housing strategy and consultation process. I'm very pleased to report that my very first stop on our province-wide tour of listening to individuals will take place on June 16 in the honourable member's riding, in Sault Ste. Marie. My parliamentary assistants—Mario Sergio and Carol Mitchell—and I will be visiting 12 communities across the province, listening and learning so that we can help develop and build a long-term affordable housing strategy. We'd ask all Ontarians to go visit our website, Ontario.ca/housingstrategy, and encourage MPPs to hold consultations in their ridings as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Certainly, I appreciate your support on initiatives in our community. Affordable housing is essential to our success as a province, and together we need to work on ways to increase access to affordable housing in Ontario. Stable and secure housing provides a foundation for people to escape poverty and homelessness. It reduces the need for more costly government services and it attracts and keeps skilled workers needed to improve our economic competitiveness.

I understand that of the 1.3 million people who rent housing in Ontario, 20% are living in social housing. As well, approximately 6,000 Ontarians use shelters on a daily basis. These Ontarians want to succeed. They want to provide the best for their families but they need our help, and it's no secret that more needs to be done for affordable housing in Ontario.

With the launch of the consultations this month and the long-term affordable housing strategy, Minister, could you please outline some of the key principles, visions and goals of the consultation process?

Hon. Jim Watson: Our vision for a long-term affordable housing strategy is very simple: It's to improve access to suitable and affordable housing that provides a solid foundation on which to secure employment, raise families and build strong communities.

We're not waiting for the consultation. This government has been very active when it comes to providing needed dollars to our municipal partners and to the not-for-profit sector. For instance, last year the Premier announced $100 million that is already in progress of repairing and rehabilitating affordable housing units. Minister Duncan, in his budget, matched the federal contribution, to bring a total of $1.2 billion in new money to build 4,500 affordable housing units across the province and to refurbish and rehabilitate 50,000 units. This is in addition to the work that we've done to provide over 20,000 rent supplements for those people who need help.

We're in the housing business, and we look forward to listening to the people that—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Minister of Health. The minister's responses today, regrettably, reinforce the need for him to step down. eHealth is a mess. It's run by people who don't give a damn about the use of taxpayers' dollars. They have no reservations about billing taxpayers for $15 cocktails or $1.95 muffins while they're being paid thousands a day or doling out millions in untendered contracts to friends and Liberal supporters. The minister says, "Wait for the Auditor General," when the abuse is there for everyone to see. It's there, right in front of your face. Minister, will you step down and let someone else clean up your mess?

Hon. David Caplan: The member does raise legitimate concerns, and I've acknowledged those, as has the Premier, in this House. The Premier and I both agree that, while things are allowable, just because you can do it doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it. It's important not just for eHealth, but for all of us who have the privilege of serving the public, including every member of this Legislature.

We expect, I expect, that consultants will abide not only by the letter of the law but by the spirit of it as well. That's why I have taken the action to direct the board to undertake a third party review which is going to have the government auditor as a part of that review. That's why I've taken the steps, and I know the member disagrees—but having the Auditor General engaged and looking at his recommendations. The Auditor General is an independent officer of this Legislature.

I understand the partisan nature of the member opposite—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The minister keeps saying, "Wait for the Auditor General," but the real motive here is to bury this story. There's clearly no need to wait for the minister to do his job and take action. What he's doing day after day here is endorsing offensive misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

He's protecting people like Sarah Kramer, who gets $380,000 a year and gave herself a $114,000 bonus after three months on the job; Allaudin Merali, $60,000 a month, $10,000 to $15,000 in expenses, billing taxpayers for $15 cocktails; Donna Strating, $2,700 a day, billing taxpayers for a Tim Hortons tea, a dessert square at Second Cup and a barbecue sub; $2 million to Courtyard Group; Miyo Yamashita, $268,000 for reading the New York Times and listening to voice mail, $300 for talking to people on the subway.

Clearly, there is justification to get rid of these people, to clean this place up. You're obviously not up to the job. Step down and let somebody else clean up the—

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

Hon. David Caplan: This side of the House hasn't endorsed or condoned any of the expenses which have come to light. In fact, as the member, I hope, would acknowledge, it was he and his colleagues who set up the legacy agency which did not have the proper mandate, which did not have a plan, which did not deliver the results that Ontarians would expect. It didn't take the opposition or an auditor to bring those to light.

It took my colleague, my predecessor, to order an operational review of the Smart Systems for Health Agency, and it took the action that I did to in fact replace that agency with one that would get the job done, which would develop for the first time a comprehensive eHealth strategy.

We are already starting to see good results yielded: an ePrescribing project linking pharmacy with primary care; the beginnings of a diabetes registry, through an expression of interest which has been fulfilled—

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

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Premier, 13 environmental groups are urging you to hold off buying new nuclear reactors. Electricity demand is down. There's a surplus of nuclear baseload capacity. Will you listen to those environmental groups and delay the decision to buy new nuclear for several years? Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question.

I had the really good fortune to meet with a legend: Dr. Lovelock, a British scientist. He's 90 years of age; he remains as active as ever. He developed the so-called Gaia theory, which I have known about for quite some time. The point is this: He's an acclaimed environmentalist, and he thinks that we need to build nuclear. He thinks that we've got to make some difficult choices.

I appreciate the position that my colleague has taken on this, but the fact is that there's a division among environmentalists as to what we need to do in the face of climate change, arguably the single greatest challenge confronting humanity. One of the things that we have decided to do is to shut down coal-fired generation in the province of Ontario.

We need to maintain baseload. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. We've got to find a way to ensure we have baseload capacity. That's why we're looking at new nuclear.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: I'm referring to standing order 37, in particular 37(a). What prompts this point of order was the question put earlier during question period by the member from Huron—Bruce to the Minister of Government Services.

Now, I know that the tradition and convention here has been for the Speaker to allow a fair amount of leeway in terms of the type of question that's posed, but I would ask the Speaker to refer to the power of the Speaker to disqualify a question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Standing order—

Hon. Jim Watson: It's not a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Municipal Affairs should be prepared to listen to this.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Standing order 37(

a) gives the Speaker the power to disqualify a question that the Speaker "does not consider urgent or of public importance."

The question put by the member for Huron—Bruce to the minister was a not-very-veiled or concealed ad hominem attack on the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. It clearly was made or put in the context of his being a candidate for the Conservative leadership.

I respect the right and the need for government members to ask questions during the course of question period. But I would also, Speaker, ask you to reflect upon the fact that increasingly the trend by government backbenchers during the course of their questions has been to ask questions about anything but matters that are urgent or of public importance.

So I'm asking you, Speaker—especially when you consider the power that is given to the individual member in standing order 38(a), because 37(a), which gives you the power to disqualify a question, also gives the right to the person whose question is disqualified to seek a late show with respect to that question.

Speaker, what I'm asking you to do is to please consider whether in this chamber we're going to be more effective during this very valuable one-hour period if the Chair—you—applies 37(

a) more strictly than may have been the trend in the past.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I know people are anxious to move on, so I will be brief. We believe that it is of public importance to talk about public services and contracts. We believe the question from the member from Huron—Bruce was completely legitimate and within the standing orders, particularly standing order 37(a). We don't believe that standing order 38(

a) has any relevance in this discussion as there was no question of a late show being called for.

We appreciate the Speaker's consideration.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the member from Welland and the government House leader for the point of order that was raised. I will take the opportunity to review the situation, take the matter under advisement and report to the House as quickly as possible.

The time for question period having ended, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees: I am honoured to introduce family members of James Albert Rice, who are in the House with me today. I will have the honour of paying tribute to Jim Rice later on in the proceedings.

Present with us are Mary Rice, his widow, Doris MacDonald, Douglas MacDonald, Bobby MacDonald, Barb Collins, Aaron Collins, Patty Rice, Joe Pfaff, Jimmy Rice, Susan McGovern, John McGovern, Euston McGovern, Conrad McGovern, Parker McGovern, Michael Rice, Martha Rice, Theresa Davis and Matthew Rice. I would ask that we welcome them warmly to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome to Queen's Park.

Member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker. I want to welcome Mr. Michael Hackenberger, who is president of the Bowmanville Zoo; his wife, Wendy Korver, who is a veterinary doctor; Kurt Hackenberger, his son; Birk Hackenberger, his son; Anita Hackenberger, his mother; Peter, his father; Darlene Christianson, a staff person; and Rob Clements and Stephanie McEwan, who are all members of the family around the Bowmanville Zoo.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This could be a speculative introduction, because I'm going to be saying a few words about the late Gordon Dean, a former member of the Legislature. I'm not sure if members of the Dean family are present; I wasn't advised. But if they are—I'm getting a wave—welcome; it's good to have you here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome to Queen's Park.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Ontario Legislature today the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians, who are today celebrating their annual meeting: George Ashe, Bill Barlow, Robert Callahan, Gordon Carton, former Speaker Hugh Edighoffer, Herb Epp, Steve Gilchrist, Karen Haslam, John Hastings, Don Knight, Mac Makarchuk, Margaret Marland, Judy Marsales, Gord Miller, Lily Munro, David Neumann, Hugh O'Neil, Yvonne O'Neill, John Parker, Tim Peterson, Jack Riddell, Derwyn Shea, Yuri Shymko, David Smith, John Smith, Joe Spina, Gary Stewart, Anne Swarbrick, George Taylor, former Speaker John Turner, Murad Velshi, former Speaker David Warner, John Williams, Doug Wiseman and Jim Wiseman.

Welcome, former members, to Queen's Park today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMES RICE

Mr. Frank Klees: I rise to pay tribute to the life of James Albert Rice, whose family is here with us today.

Jim was born on July 14, 1932, and was raised in Richmond Hill, Ontario. He and his wife, Mary Deciantis, married in 1952 and raised seven children. They were blessed with 18 grandchildren.

As the great entrepreneur that he was, Jim embarked on a career as a general contractor, founding the James A. Rice Ltd. construction company in York region. Among his numerous and notable municipal, provincial and national project contracts was that of prime civil contractor for the military aeronautical communications system for the Department of National Defence in five provinces across Canada.

Over the years, Jim employed hundreds of skilled workers who remember him as an employer who encouraged them to constantly enhance their skills in the pursuit of excellence.

Throughout his life, Jim Rice made many contributions to his community and his industry. He served as a York region Catholic school trustee, worked with numerous charities and was a valued member of the Toronto Construction Association executive. In his later years, Jim also served as a member of the sovereign council of the Knights of Malta.

I am honoured, as a member of this Legislature and as a friend of James Albert Rice and his family, to invoke the recognition of all members of the Legislature of this great Canadian for his spirit of giving to his family, to his employees and to his community. May that spirit inspire us all.

BATTLE OF STONEY CREEK

Mr. Paul Miller: As this month begins, our thoughts become consumed by barbecues, the beach and all the other elements of summer. But June represents more than just this; it represents a pivotal moment in Canadian history, a moment which occurred in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. June 6 will mark the 196th anniversary of the battle of Stoney Creek, a turning point in the War of 1812 and a defining moment for Canada.

The battle saw over 700 greatly outnumbered British troops regain land previously taken by American forces. It was a starting point for a major push by the British. Following its conclusion, the American advance in the Niagara region ceased. It was a decisive victory for our troops, and it successfully interrupted the entire American invasion plan for Upper Canada.

As a former battle re-enactor, this anniversary is of great significa