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

September 14, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 14 September 2009 Lundi 14 septembre 2009

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

TOURISM

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXI OPERATORS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

CONTAMINATED PROPERTY

LAND TRANSFER TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

RIDING OF GLENGARRY–PRESCOTT—RUSSELL /

CIRCONSCRIPTION DE GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL

WALK OF HOPE

BUS TRANSPORTATION

RIDING OF STORMONT—DUNDAS—SOUTH GLENGARRY

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

RIDING OF NORTHUMBERLAND—QUINTE WEST

TORONTO INTERNATIONAL

FILM FESTIVAL

FLU IMMUNIZATION

BY-ELECTION IN ST. PAUL'S

TABLING OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO TAX

REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

BREAST CANCER

SCREENING ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DU SEIN

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICER

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

GARDE D'ENFANTS

TAXATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRADING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ÉCHANGE DE DROITS D'ÉMISSION

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members, I beg to inform the House that Mr. Hudak, member for the electoral district of Niagara West—Glanbrook, is recognized as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Applause.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Tim Hudak: It's a great honour to introduce to the members of the assembly today my beautiful wife, Debbie, and lovely daughter, Miller Olive.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I too am very privileged to introduce my wife, Maureen, who is in the gallery, along with three relatives from Ireland. There's Joe, Kathleen and Patricia Reilly. After their 13 days in Ontario, they describe Ontario as "brilliant."

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'd like to recognize a woman who is here from the riding of Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Teresa Osterback. Welcome, Teresa.

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm delighted to recognize a guest visiting us from Lisbon, Hugo Patrocinio.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'd like to welcome Xernina Fortson as my guest today, in the members' gallery. She is visiting here from Atlanta, Georgia.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the Minister of Culture and page Jacquelyn McLaurin, we'd like to welcome her mother, Joanne McLaurin, her sister Grace McLaurin, and an exchange student staying with them, Adé Dewavrin, sitting in the east members' gallery. Welcome today.

On behalf of the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure and page Mauricie Summers, we'd like to welcome her mother, Anita Whyte, and her father, Brian Summers, sitting in the members' gallery today.

I'd also like to recognize, in the Speaker's gallery, some friends of mine visiting from St. Thomas, Mark Cosens and Brigitte Cosens, and, I would say to the member from Timiskaming—Cochrane, Aubrey Cosens, who is named after a cousin of his who won a Victoria Cross in the Second World War. Welcome, Mark, Brigitte and Aubrey.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'd like to ask the Premier a question about his summer of scandal. Let's begin where it all began, at eHealth Ontario. On June 2 of this year, the Premier assured members of this House that PricewaterhouseCoopers was "retained to look at expenditures to ensure that management practice and financial controls are in place." Those are the Premier's words, but as the Canadian Press reported on August 11, a senior vice-president with eHealth was quoted as saying, "There is no contract in place." In the same report, a company spokesperson also said that PricewaterhouseCoopers was actually never engaged.

Why did the Premier tell the House that PricewaterhouseCoopers was retained when in fact they were not?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I'm pleased to receive the question, and I want to take this opportunity to personally congratulate the honourable colleague opposite on the assumption of his new responsibilities.

Speaker, I ask that you not allow these brief comments to detract from my time to respond. I say to my honourable colleague that I enjoyed the special privilege of serving as leader of the official opposition for seven long years, and I wish him at least the very same privilege that I enjoyed. It is also a distinct honour for all of us that the honourable member is joined by his wife and his daughter, and we wish him and his family very, very well.

With respect to the matter at hand, my honourable colleague knows that we did receive advice from the auditor that it would be superfluous for us to engage in both an internal audit and an audit conducted by the Auditor General. We have correspondingly placed all of our auditing in the hands of the Auditor General. We believe that we should give him the time to complete his work. When he has done so, that will be made public, and we are eager to act on any recommendations that he puts forward.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I thank the Premier for the very kind words and for his personal call just after our leadership concluded.

Premier, I asked a specific question. This has to do with your word, your honesty, what you told the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and members sitting here today and what the facts were. For weeks, we saw you and your health minister dodge, deflect and dismiss opposition questions about the eHealth scandal, and when you finally could not ignore this scandal any more, you yourself said that you retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to investigate. The fact we found out this summer: PricewaterhouseCoopers was never retained, despite the fact that the Premier told this very House that they were. Premier, exactly who told you that PricewaterhouseCoopers was retained?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It was certainly my understanding that PWC had been retained. There is no nefarious plot afoot, as my friend might intimate. We think that what we owe Ontarians is a full and thorough review of what has taken place at eHealth. We've asked the Auditor General to conduct that. We think the appropriate thing to do in the circumstance is to give him the necessary time to conduct that review. That's what we're doing, and that's what I would ask my honourable colleague to do as well.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: But Premier, if you were given the impression that PricewaterhouseCoopers had been retained when in fact they were not, what are the repercussions of that? We are talking about a very serious scandal that saw millions of dollars of untendered contracts go to Liberal-friendly consultants. We're talking about an extraordinary abuse of taxpayer dollars. And the Premier ducked serious questions here in the House by hiding behind that PWC contract, a contract that never existed. So, Premier, if it was the Minister of Health who told you that they had been retained, if it was the board at eHealth that told you PWC was retained, then why the heck do they still have jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what we owe Ontarians—and I think that's the dominant question behind everything that we struggle to do here—is a full and thorough review of what happened at eHealth. I think the best authority to conduct that kind of review is to be found in the office of the Auditor General. We have called upon the Auditor General to conduct exactly that kind of a review. He is taking the necessary steps to obtain the necessary information. His full intention is to make all that information public. That will be accompanied by both findings and recommendations, and we look forward to both. But in particular we look forward to acting on any recommendations he might offer.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I think what we owe Ontario is creditability of a Premier, who told this assembly for weeks a matter that was actually not in keeping with the facts, and a Premier who will get to the bottom and tell us exactly who told him information that was not true.

I have further questions about the summer of scandal for Dalton McGuinty. Over the summer, the Globe and Mail reported that on October 23 of last year the Premier met with Sarah Kramer before she was appointed CEO of eHealth. There was no open competition for this important post. There was no open competition despite the troubled history of this agency. So, Premier, we're left to wonder if hiring Sarah Kramer is the Premier's personal untendered contract. Premier, did you direct the hiring of Sarah Kramer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, I did not. I anticipated that my honourable colleague might raise this. What I learned was that the contract discussions concluded on October 22, 2008. I met with Ms. Kramer—as is in fact my habit when it comes to the appointment of important officials doing work on behalf of the government, to impress upon them the importance of that work and the value that I attach to their responsibilities—on the subsequent day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think as the Premier knows, from the beginning serious red flags were raised about Sarah Kramer. Before meeting with Sarah Kramer, senior ministry officials, we understand, including the deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister, were saying Kramer was not up to the task. The Premier was being told that Kramer lacked experience running a multi-million dollar organization. After only nine months on the job, she was severed, at a cost to taxpayers of some $315,000. Premier, why did you ignore the advice and warnings and personally shepherd Kramer through cabinet and into this job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I want to make it clear to my honourable colleague—I know that there have been musings about this in the media—not once from any quarter did I ever receive any information or advice that would lead me to believe that Ms. Kramer would be less than competent at assuming her new responsibilities. I want to make that perfectly clear. There was a process. That process was followed. My involvement was to thank Ms. Kramer for taking on the responsibilities, to encourage her to assume those quickly and effectively, and that's what I did.

In hindsight, obviously we wish things might have been done differently. But given the circumstances as they unfolded, I did not receive any information or advice to the contrary, and I met with Ms. Kramer after she was hired.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, it is clear that Sarah Kramer was the Premier's personal untendered contract, and shortly after that meeting your hand-picked CEO of eHealth followed your lead and went on an untendered contract spending spree all her own. And who were some of the recipients? A consultant whose record was heavily criticized by Alberta's auditor; John Ronson of the Liberal—connected Courtyard Group and chair of the 1995 Liberal election campaign—millions of dollars of untendered contracts to Liberal—friendly consultants. No doubt, Premier, your culture of entitlement set in fast and deep at eHealth Ontario.

Premier, the auditor will report on contract mismanagement, but who will shine the light on your involvement? Will the Premier commit to sending this to a committee of the Legislature to get to the bottom of it today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I've made it pretty clear in terms of my involvement in this. I met with Ms. Kramer after she'd been hired. One of the things that we have done, and I know that Ontarians will be interested in this, is we have eliminated the practice of sole-source contracts for our consultants. That was a practice that had been in place for a number of years in the Ontario government. It is one that had been accepted and utilized by my friend opposite when the Conservative Party formed the government. We decided that it was no longer in keeping with public expectations and we've made that change.

There can no longer be sole-source contracts for consultants. We think that's the appropriate thing to do and we think that's what Ontarians expect of us.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. All over this province, people are telling this Premier to stop his HST scheme, but he refuses to listen. In this recession, people want a government that makes life more affordable. Instead, the Premier is raising the cost of gasoline, hydro and so much more. People are looking for practical solutions to job loss, yet Ontario's chamber of commerce, tax harmonization's biggest supporter, says this: "sales tax reform [will] slow employment growth by between 10,000 and 40,000 jobs."

Why is this Premier ignoring the people of this province and ploughing ahead with a plan that will hurt families and kill up to 40,000 jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question from my honourable colleague, the leader of the NDP, but I cannot agree with the information that she put forward here. I think Ontarians understand in their heart of hearts that we need to do something together to strengthen our economy. What they may not know and what we will do more to convey to them is that the overwhelming consensus among economists and businesses is that the single most important thing that we can do to improve our economy, to strengthen the economy and create more jobs, is to move ahead with a single sales tax.

By the way, the very package that we put forward as part of tax reform in Ontario was supported by Ontario's food banks. I think at a time that you can put a package forward that's got the support of the food banks and the support of the chamber of commerce, you've got to be moving, broadly speaking, in the right direction. This is the right package at the right time. It lives up to the responsibility of our generation to do something that is not easy, but it's the right thing to do for our economy and to support our public services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's not my information; it's information from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that says there are going to be job losses as a result of the harmonized sales tax, and I can give the Premier the information if he hasn't read it.

Ontarians I've met over the summer, like Anne and Milton Marion in Thunder Bay, are worried about the impact of the HST. They're worried that it's going to increase the cost of their already sky-high hydro and heating bills. The Premier chooses to ignore them. The Premier's own caucus tells him that they cannot sell this. In fact, insiders say that the caucus is freaking out. He ignores them too.

Higher prices, 40,000 jobs lost—when will this Premier stop ignoring the people of this province and back away from this reckless scheme?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not clear as to where my honourable colleague is getting the information about the jobs she is talking about, but I will quote again from the head of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who said, "It's a very bold step ... it's smart for the time because it is going to take the shackles off business." That sounds to me like a positive endorsement and not a negative criticism.

In terms of the support for our families, my honourable colleague knows that we're exempting a number of items that are important to our families, like children's clothes and shoes and car seats and booster seats. She also knows that we're going to put in place an Ontario sales tax credit of $260 each for adults and children. That's the most generous in the country. That means that for a family of four, they will get, on a permanent basis, additional support of $1,040.

Again, if it's supported by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and Ontario's food banks, I think we're moving in the right direction.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What this plan is going to do is shackle the people of this province with even more job losses at a time when we can least afford it. This Premier's tax scheme is going to leave people paying billions and billions of dollars in new taxes every year, and it's going to kill up to 40,000 jobs.

Even the Premier's own federal leader, Mr. Ignatieff, says he's opposed to what he calls the "Harper sales tax." The people of Ontario don't want this, and neither does the Premier's own party.

Isn't it time just to take a step back now and consider some measures that will actually create jobs and leave money in people's pockets instead of ignoring the needs and wishes of Ontarians and kicking them when they're down?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important to remember the truth when it comes to this. The overwhelming consensus among economists is that this is the single most important thing that we can do to strengthen our economy and create jobs; 130 other countries are already there. Every single OECD country is there except the United States of America. Four provinces are already there. BC, when they learned of what we were doing with respect to the single sales tax, said, "We need to get there, because we don't want to allow Ontario to get ahead."

These are inconvenient truths for my honourable colleague, but they are the truths, and it's important that we find a way to move ahead with this.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier should worry about what's inconvenient for the people of this province when it comes to their affordability.

My next question is to the Premier. The people of Ontario need to trust their government with public money. A few short months ago, the Premier claimed that the board at OLG was "moving in the right direction." That's a direct quote. Now he has suddenly fired them all, amidst yet a new scandal. A few short months ago, this government claimed that they had hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to look at spending at eHealth. Now, we learn that they were never hired. Does the Premier expect the people of Ontario to believe he's serious when he only acts once he's caught?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that what we owe Ontarians is, when these matters come to light, to move as quickly as we can, in as transparent a manner as we can, to bring all the facts to the light of day. That's why we brought in the Auditor General.

But more than just that, we've done a number of things of late to increase accountability and transparency. We have banned sole-source contracts to consultants. We are now going to make the Integrity Commissioner ultimately responsible for the approval of expenses from our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions. Announced today, we're now going to have—and the private sector has been doing this for some time, and it's a good practice for us to adopt—mandatory training for the OPS and our big agencies, boards and commissions when it comes to the matter of expenses.

Finally, we are going to post online, for the first time in the history of the province, expenses from senior-level servants in the OPS, our ABCs and our ministers as well. We think that's progress for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: First it was eHealth; then it was the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. More recently, we've heard of more questionable expenses at MPAC. Ontarians want to know all of the facts, Premier. Instead, they see Liberal members shut down committee investigations and ministers claim that third party auditors are looking into an eHealth scandal, even though they haven't even been hired. Why is it that everyone is held accountable for this mess but the Premier and his cabinet?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think what Ontarians want is for us to take responsibility to ensure that these kinds of things, when they are brought to the light of day, are dealt with, and that we take steps to ensure that they cannot be repeated. That's what we're doing.

The opposition has, I must say, brought certain important facts to the light of day. We are acting on those facts. The media is also contributing in this regard. I think it's fair to say that, over time, governments of all political stripes have done much to enhance accountability and transparency for governments themselves. Now we're reaching further than that, to over 615 agencies, boards and commissions that operate at arm's length from government. We're putting in place new rules, new educational opportunities, new transparency so that we have heightened accountability. I think that's what Ontarians want us to do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What Ontarians tell me that they want is full transparency, and they want someone in this government held accountable for these scandals. We've seen well-connected insiders make out like bandits with millions in untendered contracts, and it's hard-working Ontarians who are left holding the bag.

We need to clear the air, and I have just the way to do that. In the name of transparency, will the Premier release today a complete list of all untendered contracts awarded by government agencies in the last two years?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What my colleague needs to know, when it comes to the matter of sole-source contracts, is that we are prohibiting those from now on. Those were rules that were deemed to be acceptable under the Conservative government and under the NDP government; we're now saying no to that practice.

We're also saying yes to something that is brand new for Ontario. We are going to take it a step further from what my colleague is requesting. We're going to post expenses online so that they will be available to all Ontarians. We're going to replicate a practice that is taking place in the federal government, but we're taking it a step further by including expenses for the senior execs at our agencies, boards and commissions. We think it brings the Ontario standard to a new level when it comes to transparency and accountability.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. There continue to be unanswered questions about his scandal-plagued agency. Earlier this summer, an all-party subcommittee agreed it was in the public interest to bring the board of eHealth before a legislative committee that would get to the bottom of the scandal. Last week, the Liberal members on the committee blocked our effort to get eHealth in before committee.

Did the Premier tell the Liberal members of the committee to block a legislative probe by the government agencies committee?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have an impartial, arm's-length, objective office which has agreed to take responsibility for reviewing the facts there. I think we should give that office, the Auditor General's office in particular, the necessary time and leeway to conduct their business. I understand that my colleague is impatient when it comes to the completion of this work. I think we should remain patient, and as I've said several times, we look forward to receiving both the findings and the recommendations so that we might act on those.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: With respect, what we're impatient with in the opposition benches is the continued mismanagement and misuse of taxpayer dollars in this province. The eHealth scandal is clearly a matter of public interest. The government has repeatedly said that it needed a second layer of review. Who better to do a review than a legislative watchdog committee? If the Liberal members weren't standing in the way, we could have had the second layer of oversight that the Premier wants.

When the media asked the Liberals why they wouldn't let eHealth executives appear before the government agencies committee, the minister clammed up and refused to give an explanation. So I'm going to ask the Premier one more time, is it because the Premier and the minister have something to hide?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think the question always comes back to, what do we owe Ontarians here? And I like to think what we owe them is an objective, dispassionate, thorough review of the circumstances. That will be best completed by the Office of the Auditor General.

I want to remind my honourable colleague as well that the public accounts committee will be reviewing the auditor's report on eHealth. This will be coming before the committee. There will be an opportunity to look at that report to ask questions of the Auditor General. I think that's the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Arrowsmith program for children with disabilities offers an imaginative, innovative program for students. Your supervisor at the Toronto Catholic District School Board, Mr. Hartmann, decided, against the wishes of trustees and parents, to cancel this valuable program, a program that works, a program that parents and students know works—and 60 of these students who were making significant progress now, one week after the start of school, still find themselves without a program.

You are now running this school board, so you, in my mind, have a choice: Are you going to restore a program that works or are you going to challenge these parents in court?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I welcome everyone back to our first day of school, although the kids have been in for a while.

I wanted to share with the member opposite a letter that he would not have had an opportunity to see. It went out today from the new supervisor—we have a new supervisor at the Toronto Catholic District School Board. He says, to the parents of the students who are in the Arrowsmith program:

"I am writing to you today in my capacity as supervisor of the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

"The purpose of my letter is to inform you that, after careful review of the issue surrounding the provision of the Arrowsmith program to students in seven classes in the TCDSB, I have decided, in consultation with the director of education, Ann Perron, to continue the provision of the program for those students currently participating until June 2012."

This action on behalf of the new supervisor will, in effect, grandfather the delivery of the program to the students who have been in the program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I am pleased that this decision has been made, quite clearly. I will sit down very shortly—because I went to that school board meeting. I heard the parents and I heard the students saying, "This program works. It works for me as a parent and it works for those kids." So we were puzzled that Mr. Hartmann obviously decided that he wanted to save some money at the cost of those students. So whatever your involvement, Minister—and I'm assuming you intervened. I do assume you intervened, and if you did, thank you for doing so.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to be clear that the new supervisor, Dr. Richard Alway, who was in the Toronto Catholic District School Board, took responsibility to review all of the decisions that had been made. He looked at this one and he made a decision to grandfather these students. I have every faith that, going forward, he will be able to make the right decisions for the students of the board.

TOURISM

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: This question is for the Hon. Monique Smith, Minister of Tourism.

First, of course, I'd like to tell this House that it's great to be back after the summer break. While I was in my riding of Etobicoke North, I was of course pleased to have the opportunity to work and meet with a great many of my constituents. Ontarians such as these recognize that tourism is one of the most important economic generators of the GTA and, given the challenges the province and the area have been facing—such as the fluctuating dollar, the economic downturn and of course, the confusion over passport requirements for entry and exit to the US—they emphasize they are concerned that fewer visitors are travelling to the GTA.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Tourism: What is our government doing in the GTA to help stimulate tourism and visiting to our area?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to wish everybody a good "welcome back" as the House resumes.

The McGuinty government recognizes that tourism is incredibly important to the Toronto area. This summer I've had the privilege of attending a number of festivals and events across the region, including desiFEST, Caribana, Just for Laughs, the Honda Indy —and last week I had one of the thrills of my lifetime in opening the Toronto International Film Festival. I have been attending the festival for 24 years and I've got to say, it was a pretty exciting night.

I know some of my colleagues from the other side were there on Friday night as well, and we've had lots of fun celebrating the festival with festival organizers. They have really focused the spotlight of the world on Toronto and I am so excited that my ministry has supported this festival to the tune of about $500,000.

It goes without saying that bringing over 1,000 international media to our community is an important driver for tourism and attracts so many investors and visitors to our community. I want to thank all of the volunteers and organizers at the Toronto International Film Festival for doing such a great job—

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

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is again to the Minister of Tourism. This weekend, thousands of visitors from around the world flooded to Toronto to participate in the 34th annual Toronto International Film Festival. Since the film festival's humble beginnings in 1976, it has grown in reputation and stature as the largest public film festival in the world and an important hub for the film industry.

Earlier this month, the minister announced that the McGuinty government is investing $10 million to support the completion of the Toronto International Film Festival Bell Lightbox. Once complete, the Bell Lightbox will serve as the new permanent home of the Toronto International Film Festival. Can the minister please inform this House why the government is investing $10 million to help the film festival complete this new home?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I share my love of the festival with the Minister of Culture.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The McGuinty government's $10-million investment in the TIFF Bell Lightbox is an important recognition indeed of the value of Ontario's film industry and the cultural sector as major economic drivers in this province.

As a result of our investment, about 1,300 construction jobs will be created, and when completed there will be in excess of 150 full-time jobs at the facility next year. Within five years of its opening, it's anticipated that the TIFF Bell Lightbox will host over 4,000 events, attract two million visitors annually and generate $200 million in economic activity. I can't think of a better investment. I'm sure this House would join me in that opinion.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Both opposition parties have given notice to the Speaker that we intend to raise a very serious matter with him. It has to do with representations the Premier and the Minister of Health made to members when they were scrambling to get a handle on the scandal at eHealth.

On June 2, the Premier and the minister told this House four times that PricewaterhouseCoopers was retained to do a review. On June 3 and 4, the minister repeated the claim nine more times. Premier, this wasn't a mistake, a slip of the tongue; it was repeated, repeated and repeated. Why would you and your minister provide this House with misleading information?

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw—totally inaccurate information.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I indicated before, and I'm pleased to do it again, that it was certainly my understanding. I thought that technically there had been a retainer and this was prepared to go in that. But I think what's really important here is the advice that we received from the Auditor General, who thought that there would be an overlap between the work done by PWC and the auditor's office itself. So we've acted on the basis of that advice and we've turned the work exclusively over to the auditor.

I know this is an important point for my colleagues opposite, but I think, from an Ontario perspective, what they really want to know is whether we're going to get to the bottom of this and to do so in the most objective way, and that's exactly what the Auditor General's going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, I think the Premier said earlier, "What we owe Ontarians," and as my leader said, we owe Ontarians the straight goods, the real facts. Between June 1 and June 4, the Premier and the Minister of Health said 28 separate times that the eHealth board was directed to engage an external reviewer. However, in the middle of the summer, the eHealth board announced that no such review was taking place; there never was a contract.

We don't know if this is a figment of someone's imagination, but Premier, the public and these government ministers who give this House accurate information, words they can trust—clearly, your minister can't be trusted. He's lost all credibility. When will you demand Minister Caplan's resignation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think what is important in the circumstances is for us to ensure that there is a thorough, comprehensive review of all matters at eHealth, including the very issues, should the Auditor General so choose, that my honourable colleague is raising at this particular point in time. He's certainly free to look at that as well. I think he is the holder of the office of which we can all continue to have confidence. What we owe him now is our patience, our support in any way possible, and then, when he does provide us with both his findings and his recommendations, we will have an obligation to act on those recommendations. We look forward to receiving them.

TAXI OPERATORS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In the last Parliament, there was all-party agreement to pass laws to come to the aid of limousine drivers at Pearson airport, particularly in the provisions of anti-scooping. This was contingent, though, upon the city of Toronto having the authority to license cab drivers within its jurisdiction, and that was given by all-party agreement with the City of Toronto Act. The minister has now seen fit to revoke unilaterally the city's authority without consultation and without explanation.

My question: Can the minister explain to Torontonians and especially to the hard-working cab drivers, who will be demonstrating at the Legislature today, why he did this?

Hon. Jim Watson: We did this because this was the fair thing to do to be equitable to both taxi drivers and limousine drivers from the airport. Nothing has changed, because in fact the city of Toronto did not enact the particular bylaw the member is referring to.

I quote from the Toronto Star editorial that said:

"Queen's Park is right to quash a Toronto bylaw banning airport limousines from picking up fares on their return trips....

"The province has opted to give Torontonians continued access to choice. That is a greater good, and the minister is right to defend it."

We did the right thing and, regrettably, perhaps some of the city of Toronto and some cab drivers are not pleased with it, but we think it was unfair to allow an empty vehicle to come downtown at a prearranged call and then go back empty to the airport. It was both an environmental issue and an economic issue and a matter of choice.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: There are 10,000 cab drivers in Toronto who drive to the airport and can never—never, ever—bring a cab fare back, because that's what you want to happen. I want to know, Mr. Minister, where's the choice there?

This is not acceptable, because for you to unilaterally act, you have to explain why it was necessary or desirable in the provincial interest to take away rights and privileges that your government itself gave at the passage of the bill. Many of the cab drivers in Toronto live below the poverty line and they work long, hard hours to see you act in such a unilateral and unfair way. How is your revocation going to help them?

Hon. Jim Watson: The honourable member is incorrect. An individual cab can go and pick up a prearranged fare at the Toronto airport in Mississauga, so the honourable member should get his facts straight.

Secondly, this is all about giving consumers choice. If an individual in downtown Toronto wishes to have a prearranged limousine pickup, they should have the right to do that. They've had the right to do that, in essence, for close to 15 years, so nothing is changing for those consumers. So we're looking out for the interests of the consumers.

We also admire and respect the hard work that cab drivers are engaged in, but they do in fact have the right to go to the Toronto airport for a prearranged pickup by paying the fee and picking up people at the Toronto airport. Nothing has changed. We're giving consumers the kind of choice that we believe they deserve to have and that they've had for close to two decades.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and it's a question about affordable housing. Minister, as you're well aware, many vulnerable Ontarians are in need of a safe, clean and affordable place to call home. It's a topic we read about in the papers, and we discuss with friends the need for action. But we often forget that they are our neighbours, members of our community and people who have a contribution to make. They just need that extra help up to get their lives on the right track.

This August, I convened an affordable housing consultation in my riding of Ottawa Centre, where a large and diverse group discussed our community's affordable housing needs candidly and productively. I know that your ministry, including you personally, Minister, have been travelling across the province consulting community members, housing providers and other interested advocates to develop a long-term affordable housing strategy. Can you tell the House how many consultations the ministry will be undertaking and what we are learning from them?

Hon. Jim Watson: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. We've had the opportunity to have close to 12 consultations throughout the province of Ontario, from Lindsay to Windsor to Ottawa to Toronto—we are going to Thunder Bay—and the turnout has been exceptional. We've had hundreds of people turn out at these events and they've brought forward goodwill, good ideas and good suggestions that we want to feed into a long-term affordable housing strategy. The mood has been—

Mr. Paul Miller: We've got to crash the party. We can't get invited.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's nice. The reference was made to the students having returned to school, and I would just remind the honourable members to remember those days when they were in a classroom and having respect for one another when they were speaking.

Ten seconds.

Hon. Jim Watson: I want thank the honourable member from Hamilton East because he's been the only member of the NDP that has actually shown up to the public consultations on affordable housing.

We look forward to bringing forward a thoughtful document, making it more accessible for people to get affordable housing in the province—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Minister. I think you would acknowledge yourself that as productive as these consultations are, they are not building homes today. The economic situation we have found ourselves in for the last year has made those problems more pronounced. More Ontarians are in need of support from all levels of government, whether it is employment insurance, Ontario Works or other forms of social assistance. Ontarians have needed our help and support in greater numbers. In economic circumstances such as these, it makes the need for affordable housing even more pronounced and necessary.

While it is great to develop plans for the long term, Minister, how are we dealing with these problems in the short term?

Hon. Jim Watson: The honourable member is quite correct. While we're looking at the long-term affordable housing strategy, we're not waiting. We actually have committed close to $622 million in Minister Duncan's budget, which is matching the federal contribution for affordable housing. That $1.2 billion, which is the single largest amount of money put into an affordable housing program in such a short period of time in Ontario's history, will see 4,500 new housing units built over the next two years and 50,000 existing housing units repaired or renovated—because some of these units are in deplorable shape.

We want to make sure that we get the money to the housing providers, such as, the honourable member is well aware, in his own riding, on Caldwell Avenue. A unit is going to be retrofitted and repaired—receive $5.4 million to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I thank the people who have attended those public consultations. I look forward to drafting the report over the course of the next several months.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. On June 1, Minister, you told the members in this chamber that you had met with the now former chair of the eHealth board, Alan Hudson. You stated that you directed the board to undertake a third party review of eHealth and that they were moving in that fashion. But we now know they weren't moving in that fashion at all. Minister, what evidence did the board provide to give you the confidence that they were actually acting in that fashion?

Hon. David Caplan: I also want to congratulate my colleague on her new critic position.

In fact, I did meet with Dr. Hudson in regard to this matter. I said to him that related to financial controls and management practices, I wanted a third party review. The board then met with PWC to go over the scope and the estimate of cost for that audit. In that period of time, the Auditor General took the step of contacting the board and in writing informed the board that he had expanded the scope of his audit, that he was concerned about duplication, and it was his recommendation that it stand down.

The board contacted me in writing with this information from the Auditor General—an independent officer of this Legislature—and I directed them similarly in writing to follow the direction of the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: You did say on June 3 in this House, "It's important not just for eHealth, but for all of us who have the privilege of serving Ontarians, includeing, 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...."

It's clear that the minister has no idea what's going on in his troubled ministry. Why did you scrap this review when it was clear that they were going to be running on both tracks?

Hon. David Caplan: I have here a letter from Rita Burak, the chair of eHealth, where she says, "The board immediately engaged with our external auditors and your appointee, to establish the terms of reference for the review. Staff of the provincial Auditor General's office and eHealth Ontario has met to ensure that the conduct of the Auditor General's review and the board's review were not duplicative and that the process could be handled smoothly." In fact, that's exactly what I said to this House: that there was that engagement of the board and of PricewaterhouseCoopers that did take place.

Of course, as the member is now aware, or, I hope, was aware previously, the Auditor General took the step to inform the board that he was concerned about duplication of work between the external auditor and himself. He in turn asked the board to stand down because of that duplication. I directed the board to follow the direction of an independent officer of this Legislature.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. As I have been knocking on doors in St. Paul's, I've heard a lot of concern about this government's harmonized sales tax grab. Tenants are especially worried about the HST's impact on rents. The Federation of Rental-housing Providers says rents will rise between 2.5% and 3% with the HST. The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations says the tax on renovations and utilities will put upward pressure on rents. Why is this Premier bringing in a tax that will make housing less affordable in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to reassure my colleague, and Ontarians generally, that the single sales tax would not apply to rents, and she knows that.

There are a number of important issues that have been raised in the by-election in St. Paul's, including the Wychwood Barns, which is an important community meeting place, and the Winona public school pool. Voters are pleased that we made a contribution to the Toronto board so that they can invest in their pools.

Tenants want to know that we will continue to do everything that we can to keep the rents low. I think they have been fairly, to state, impressed that we've had some of the lowest rent guidelines ever. There are issues regarding schools and hospitals, the OCB, public transit, so it's more than just a single sales tax, I think, in fairness to voters in that riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the Premier would be interested to know that when I was at the Wychwood Barns on Saturday morning, people were not happy about the harmonized sales tax. Even the Liberal candidate in St. Paul's realizes that the HST is bad for tenants. He's written to the government asking for protection for tenants from rent increases. I noticed that there has been no reply as yet.

The harmonized sales tax will make renting more expensive in this province. How can this government say that the HST will have no impact on rent when the people who own rental units and the people who rent them say it will, and your own candidate in St. Paul's says that it will?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: This is dangerous territory that the honourable member from the NDP is going down, because when the NDP were in office, rent increases consistently went up higher than the rate of inflation: rates like 3%, 2.6%, 2.9%. This year's guideline under the McGuinty government is 1.8%. The previous year's was 1.4%. So the good people of St. Paul's should know very clearly, under the NDP, rate increases went up substantially above the rate of inflation. We have now, as a result of change to the Residential Tenancies Act, tied rent increases to the rate of inflation. It's transparent. It's simple to understand.

The renters of St. Paul's should stand up for the Liberal candidate because he's going to stand up for them and protect them from excessive rent increases that were the hallmark of the NDP.

CONTAMINATED PROPERTY

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As you know, the CIP wet lagoon is highly polluted in the area of the town of Hawkesbury. The Canadian International Paper Co. left behind a waste water pond when it closed its doors in 1985. My constituents are understandably concerned about the threat to the environment that this sludge-filled lagoon presents.

There have been many rumours and much misinformation about what will be done to rehabilitate the site. I held a press conference in my riding on September 4 to address the concerns of my constituents.

Will the minister state for the record what plans are in place to get the restoration project off the ground and the cleanup started?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the member. The member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell asked me to go to his riding back in 2008 to look at this wet lagoon, which in fact was left by Canadian International Paper, a wet lagoon that has a safety hazard issue—and remember, this was a time when there was no legal obligation on behalf of companies to take up their responsibilities to deal with the environmental impact.

What we've done is invested about $1 million. We've fenced the area. We've ensured that there's a safety concern—and an eyesore, obviously. But also we're working very closely with the Ministry of the Environment, with Mayor Charlebois of Hawkesbury, who has been superb, her and her council, as to how we move forward to ensure that we take responsibility and clean up this wet lagoon. That is exactly what we're going to do. We have a process that's been put in place. It's public, it's open, it's accountable. We're going to ensure that in fact the lagoon is cleaned up so that the people of Hawkesbury can have a—

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: The cleanup of the CIP lagoon has been one of my top priorities for a long time now and I am anxious to see the project progress. Hawkesbury has one of the most beautiful downtown areas in eastern Ontario, and not only is the lagoon an eyesore, it is also stopping the development of Main Street.

Can the minister be more specific as to what the next steps of this project will be, as well as what possible future uses are envisioned for this site?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: The ministry has been working, as I indicated, with the mayor of Hawkesbury, the town of Hawkesbury and the Ministry of the Environment. Earlier this year, we did an environmental assessment, and that's completed. A closure plan was developed in conjunction with MOE. We're currently in the process of tendering for the detailed engineering design.

In terms of next steps intended, there's a pilot test work that will be conducted this summer and fall of 2010. That also includes testing for the best way to handle the organic materials currently found in the lagoon. We're also going to put in detailed environmental monitoring and we're going to do full closure work that's scheduled to commence in 2011.

We're going to find the most efficient way, as well as the most economical way, to clean up this site so, ultimately, it can be the site for the people of Hawkesbury, where they can use the land for recreation and where they can have a chance to actually get to the river. They'll end up with a cleaner site and a better place for the city.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, you will recall that during estimates this summer, I asked for you to review your ministry's decision to retroactively apply a land transfer tax to fractional ownership units. Have you undertaken that review and have you reconsidered your position on this tax grab?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. Many members in the House have raised this with me.

We want to let people understand that fractional ownership has been something that's been around in this province since the late 1990s, and land transfer is applied to fractional ownership. Normally, people pay it because they register at the land registry office, and some people have not been doing that. So in the province of Ontario, some people have been correctly paying their land transfer tax and others have not. We've been working with the associations involved to ensure that there is a fair and equitable application of the tax to all. It would be unfair for some to pay and others not to, and some have indeed followed the letter of the law and paid that.

That said, I'm more than happy to work with the organizations that are involved with—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: What is clear is you're going back seven years and you're reinterpreting the rules.

At a meeting this summer with ministry officials, it was clear that staff were not familiar with fractional ownership. Fractional ownership is closer to time share; it's closer to a club membership. Fractional-ownership owners face many restrictions. They can't vote, for example, in a municipal election.

Minister, will you commit today that you won't retroactively tax fractional-ownership units and that you won't bring in any more retroactive taxes?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Let's be very clear: On this side of the House, we expect people to pay the taxes that are owing under the law. In this case, the law is very, very clear as to the application.

My understanding is that the definition that is currently being used was something that was brought in when the member was in government. It is very, very important that we apply taxation fairly and equitably. Some people in this province with the fractional ownership have correctly paid that tax. It would be unfair to them if we were not to apply it equally.

That said, I'd be more than happy to work with the member and other members who are involved in this situation to ensure that that tax is applied fairly and in an equitable way. I'd be more than happy to meet with the member and to discuss this issue further to find a fair and equitable resolution of this situation.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Earlier this year, the Sudbury Regional Hospital was forced by your ministry into the difficult position of looking at cuts to its budget, staff and services. The hospital told the ministry that the only way they can balance their budget is if your ministry helped solve the alternate-level-of-care crisis. The Sudbury alternate-level-of-care community steering group studied the issue and presented their recommendations, and since June we have been waiting for your response.

Minister, your decision is overdue. My question is simple: When can the Sudbury Regional Hospital and all of its partners expect a decision from this minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I thank the member for the question. I want to assure the member that the hospital, the North East Local Health Integration Network and the ministry are working together to finalize a solution that is in the best interests of the people of Sudbury and the people of northeastern Ontario. All of the parties are making decisions to ensure the sustainability of Sudbury Regional Hospital.

I can assure you that my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has ensured that I'm aware that Sudbury does face unique ALC pressures. That's why we've recently invested more than $10.5 million to the North East LHIN for the aging-at-home program. The program ensures that more seniors can get the care they need at home, which helps reduce the number of alternate-level-of-care patients and beds.

I'm going to share with you in supplementary some of the other steps that we've taken in order to partner with and to invest in this—

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

M me France Gélinas: The people of Sudbury have been waiting 15 years for a new hospital. The transition needs to be carefully planned so that this extremely long and tumultuous journey becomes a success we can all be proud of. The Sudbury Regional Hospital will finally be on a single site. The hospital is planning to use the soon-to-be-empty memorial hospital site as a temporary long-term-care home for ALC patients, but planning is seriously compromised by the delay in this minister's decision. Will the minister do the right thing, help solve the ALC crisis, make the transition to the one hospital site a success, and fund the memorial site solution for the ALC crisis?

Hon. David Caplan: I thank the member for the question. I did mention I would highlight some of the investments, but I want to assure this member and all members that I will not do what happened 15 years ago, which was a 3.6% cut to hospital funding. I believe that this member was on the district health council that advised the NDP Minister of Health at the time. In fact, it was this government which got the construction of the new Sudbury Regional Hospital going. It was because of the member from Sudbury, my colleague the minister, that that advocacy was done.

I want to assure the member that I'm aware and working on a plan to ensure that patient care is not disrupted during the transition time. We're on track with the Sudbury redevelopment—

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: Well, The member doesn't want a history lesson, but that's the context, my friend, about what's happened.

This plan will include the use of the memorial site as a transitional facility for ALC patients as the new long-term-care beds come online.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Ontario welcomes more than 114,000 newcomers each year. These newcomers have the skills and expertise that our businesses need to compete at home and abroad, and helping these newcomers enter the workforce should be a priority now more than ever. Investing in our newcomers is also an investment in Ontario and its economy. We need to make sure they have the opportunities to get the training they need to find the jobs in their chosen field.

We're fortunate to attract so many skilled newcomers, and providing these individuals with the right opportunities to put their skills and knowledge to use leads to personal success, but it also gives Ontario an edge on the national and international stage.

Minister, what are we doing to ensure that Ontario's newcomers are going to come out of this economic recovery stronger than ever?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for her question. Supporting newcomers entering the workforce is a key priority of this government. Successful entry into appropriate fields for newcomers undoubtedly strengthens Ontario's workforce and our economy. We are committed to doing just that: strengthening our workforce, strengthening our economy while investing in our newcomers.

Our government recognizes the potential skills that workers bring to Ontario. Since 2003, our government has invested more than $120 million in over 180 bridge-training programs, helping 30,000 newcomers get licensed and get jobs.

We are proud of our record when it comes to supporting newcomers, because we know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1136 to 1300.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introduction of visitors? Seeing none, the member for Leeds—Grenville, on a point of order or a point of privilege?

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It is a point of privilege. I'm rising on this point for a matter on which the member for Welland and I gave you written notice earlier this morning. It relates to the statements the Premier and the Minister of Health made in this House about the steps they had taken to get to the bottom of the egregious misuse of public funds at eHealth Ontario, an agency of this government.

Speaker, as you will recall, the scandal at eHealth dominated question period during the last week of the spring session; that is, Monday, June 1, through Thursday, June 4. During those four days, the Minister of Health made repeated statements that he had ordered the board at eHealth to conduct a third party review of eHealth Ontario's management practices.

On June 2, the minister reported to members that PricewaterhouseCoopers had been retained to conduct that third party review. On the same day, the Premier also made it clear to this House and to Ontarians that PricewaterhouseCoopers was retained and that we should wait—referring, I guess, to the opposition—for the PricewaterhouseCoopers report before his government takes action.

In July, information came forward to show that PricewaterhouseCoopers was not retained, as both the Premier and the Minister of Health had earlier advised this House.

On August 11, Deanna Allen, a senior vice-president at eHealth, was quoted in a Canadian Press

article as saying, "There was no contract in place, the board never reached the point where it signed a contract with PWC for the specific audit." The same

article goes on to quote a spokesperson from PricewaterhouseCoopers stating that PWC "wasn't engaged with them (eHealth) whatsoever."

Speaker, the discrepancy between what the Premier and the minister told this House and the facts reported by PricewaterhouseCoopers and eHealth cannot be reconciled.

Earlier today, in question period, the Minister of Health outlined reasons why the eHealth board never proceeded with a third party review, but regrettably, he failed to address the issue he was asked about and the issue we're speaking to today: his assertions, supported by the Premier, that PricewaterhouseCoopers had been retained to conduct such a review—no equivocation.

Those totally inaccurate responses were, in our view, used to avoid responding to serious questions dealing with extensive abuse of tax dollars.

I think it's important to note that neither the Premier nor the minister ever once suggested the PricewaterhouseCoopers review as a possibility to be merely explored. Their language in the House shows consistently that not only was PricewaterhouseCoopers the firm selected to do the work, but also that the task of retaining them was a fait accompli. I'll explain with a few brief examples taken directly from Hansard:

On June 1, Minister Caplan said in this House, "That's precisely why I met this weekend with Dr. Alan Hudson, the chair of the board, and directed the board to undertake a third party review of the management practices at eHealth Ontario. In fact, the board has met and they are moving in that fashion."

On June 2, Minister Caplan said, again in the House, "That's why in fact PricewaterhouseCoopers has been retained...."

On June 2, the Premier said in this House, "I think we need to wait for the report coming from PricewaterhouseCoopers." On June 2, the Premier also said in the House, "But we need to get the best advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers...."

On June 3, Minister Caplan said in this House, " ... and in fact, the board has engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers...." On June 3, Minister Caplan also said in this House, "In this case they have taken on PricewaterhouseCoopers...."

On June 3, Minister Caplan further said, in this House, "That's why in fact PricewaterhouseCoopers has been retained...."

And if that wasn't enough, on June 4 the minister said the following in this House: "Of course, the member raises concerns, and both the Premier and I have said we neither condone nor defend the actions, which is why we moved quite swiftly to bring in and to order a third party review, under the auspices of an internal government auditor, in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers, to be able to conduct that investigation."

At this point you have to ask yourself: How could two people so highly placed in this government get their facts so wrong? It's highly probable that a Premier responsible for a $108-billion budget and a minister responsible for $42 billion of that total would have checked their facts at some time between June 1 and June 4.

Let's fast-forward to July, when we were told that the PricewaterhouseCoopers review was being cancelled. We didn't hear this from Minister Caplan. There was no statement or press release. Once again, eHealth was operating by e-stealth.

And it gets worse. On August 11, in a Canadian Press article, Deanna Allen said the following: "There was no contract in place, the board never reached the point where it signed a contract with [PricewaterhouseCoopers] for the specific audit." Deanna Allen is a senior vice-president at eHealth.

The

article also includes another quote, this one from a PricewaterhouseCoopers spokesperson, who stated that their company "wasn't engaged with" eHealth "whatsoever."

As I mentioned earlier, we initially learned the review was being cancelled, but in fact the situation was much more damning. PricewaterhouseCoopers had never been retained for the purpose of conducting the eHealth Ontario review, so it's fair to say the idea never even got off the ground. I will repeat here that neither the Premier nor the minister ever once suggested that the PricewaterhouseCoopers review was just an idea up for discussion.

I hope everyone here gets the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker: Hansard speaks for itself. Both the Premier and Minister Caplan clearly gave misleading responses to members on several occasions on the same issue. And I hope you feel that my arguments, based on the balance of probabilities, are strong enough to raise concerns related to motive.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw.

I will repeat that, Speaker, in case you were otherwise engaged: I hope you feel my arguments, based on the balance of probabilities, are strong enough to raise concerns related to motive. If not, I would respectfully remind the Speaker that he is empowered to exercise options that a civil court judge would likely envy. One of those options, based on precedent, would be to allow a committee of peers to further investigate this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling in the House of Commons dated February 1, 2002. In this particular case, MP Brian Pallister argued that former National Defence Minister Art Eggleton should be held in contempt for misleading the House on precisely when he had been informed about the involvement of Canadian troops in taking prisoners in Afghanistan.

In his ruling, the Speaker stated that while he was prepared to accept the minister's claim that he had no intention of misleading the House, the minister's contradictory statements in the House deserved further consideration by an appropriate committee. The Speaker invited Mr. Pallister to move a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's the equivalent to our Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. Since standing order 108(

g) authorizes our Speaker to refer matters directly to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, such a motion would not be required in this case.

The rules don't allow me or my colleague in the NDP to call witnesses before the House to substantiate our position, but witnesses can be called before a committee. We would all have more time in committee to find answers to the concerns that we and I have raised here today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you have a difficult decision ahead of you. However, your ruling on this matter can play a pivotal role in helping to maintain the integrity of this chamber and the members who come here to serve the public. I respectfully submit that a prima facie case of contempt of this House has been made.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Welland on the same point of privilege.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I'll not be lengthy. I'm going to make it very clear: The facts are very simple, and there's nothing equivocal about them. The New Democrats join with the official opposition in this point of privilege and this appeal to the Speaker.

Look, we're not talking about a neophyte backbencher, newly elected, who may have misused language inadvertently with no goal in mind. And indeed, there have been many occasions where honourable members have stood up in this House gladly to correct their record when they've been told by staff, when they discover via other means, that something they've said here is less than accurate. That's a highly respected response when one discovers that they've said something that may not have reflected the truth in all of its glory. The language is very clear, and again, it's a Premier and, at this point, a long-serving cabinet minister, both of whom have a great deal of political skills.

Let's put this in context: The heat was on the government. Problems were just erupting. Freedom-of-information requests were giving results on a daily basis. The press were running wild with it, with a whole lot more to come. Nobody envies a government in that position, even though they may be the authors of their own misfortune. Everybody here who's been in various governments understands how uncomfortable that is. Governments appropriately and instinctively try to spin their way out of these problems, and although not a particularly creative response, in this case the government said, "We will fix it.

We'll instruct the board to hire an arm's-length firm to examine the matter and give a report back."

Let's understand what the purpose was. I'm not imputing motive; I'm saying what the purpose is in doing this. It's a response to political heat that's become somewhat unbearable, but, ah, you're blessed with the prospect of a summer break—this is not the first government to have done it; I've seen a few other governments do it in the course of my years here—and you hire the outside consultant.

As the Premier says, "I think we need to wait for the report coming from PricewaterhouseCoopers." The Premier doesn't say, "The report that may come, should in fact their retainer be completed." Minister Caplan: "We've engaged"; "we've taken on"; "we've retained." "Retained" means, as everybody here knows, to secure, to engage in. They used language over and over again that makes it very clear that they're not merely contemplating PWC or some other third party, but that they're doing it, that they've done it, and now everybody should just calm down until PWC delivers the report.

I've got two problems here. One is privilege. I'm mindful—and I just read it again—and I know you are and other members here are of the October 1989 Speaker Fraser ruling from the Canadian House of Commons, where he said that "all breaches of privilege are contempts ... but not all contempts are ... breaches...."

With respect, I think we have two things here: We have a breach of privilege and a contempt. The mere fact of stating an inaccuracy in such a highly sensitive political context and leaving the opposition with a serious misimpression, as well as the public of Ontario—that mere fact, in my respectful submission to you, is a contempt. It could have been addressed promptly. Surely—look behind you, Speaker.

You've got minions and staff listening to the minister's responses and listening to the Premier's responses on a daily basis, who should have been—and, one can only fairly infer, indeed were—prepared to tell their boss that no, he wasn't quite right. They didn't say it just once; they said it over and over again, and they relied upon it. They relied upon it in here and out there: one, contempt; two, privilege.

We rely upon the, albeit meagre, responses. It's pretty thin gruel many a question period. But we rely upon their say-so to understand what the facts are. There's a reason—several reasons—why you can't accuse somebody of misleading the House, because one is presumed to be stating accurate facts, and, more so if one, being presumed to state accurate facts, misstates a fact, the honourable, conventional thing for that person is to correct their record promptly.

So we've got an interference here with the ability of other members of the House to do their jobs—quite frankly, even the ability of government backbenchers, because I'm sure they believed their Premier and their minister colleague when their Premier and Minister Caplan sent them home on the weekend saying, "Tell folks this is the response." Come on. We've all been around here a while. These are the lines. "If everybody sticks to the same line, we'll be okay." Your response is, "We've retained PricewaterhouseCoopers. They're going to do a full audit. Let's wait for them to determine what the real facts were" in this godawful expenditure abuse.

There may be some who would try to trivialize this, who say, "Well, in the end, in the total scheme of things, it really didn't make a difference because, after all, the Provincial Auditor got involved." That's not the point, Speaker. That's not the point.

I took a look at Griffith and Ryle on Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures—that's the Australian authority—a very valuable bit of information on contempt at page 137. "Here we list the main types of contempt, and give a few examples of actions (by members and others) which have been found to be contempts, with emphasis placed on those still significant today"—bear with me, Speaker; I want to create context here. "

(1) Misconduct by members or officers as such, e.g. deliberately misleading the House...." That's boldface type. The authors are saying this is still very, very relevant.

You don't have to make any determination of deliberate misleading, Speaker. We're prepared to live with the fact that, in the first instance, neither the Minister of Health nor the Premier had full possession of all of the accurate facts. What we're not prepared to live with is that they didn't correct the record at the earliest opportunity. Only when they got burnt by staff people outside of government did they even have to confront it, and then they avoided it.

That, Speaker, is the serious element of this incredible series of events. You don't have to make a finding of deliberately misleading, and we're not asking you to do that.

But I'm suggesting to you, sir, that if you find that that Premier and his minister misstated the facts, clearly with the goal of providing a panel of political asbestos, and repeated it hoping to merely cruise through this, knowing or, quite frankly, at this point, ought to be knowing that there was no taking on, there was no retainer, there was no engaging and there was nothing being done that would give us any confidence that there would be a report to be read, as the Premier told us to wait for, it's not fair to the people of this Legislature. It's not fair to the people of Ontario either, Speaker.

We need you. Obviously, our efforts in question period are not particularly fruitful. We need you to ensure that no member of this Parliament, least all of the Premier, be permitted to distort the facts in a self-serving way and then persist in maintaining their version only until they get caught. The people of Ontario and we expect more, sir.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Yes, the facts are quite simple in this case, I would agree, from the member from Welland. There is no case of contempt and there is no breach of privilege. In fact, I would suggest that the members opposite should be quite careful in their request for your ruling on this, in that alleging that a member has misled the House is, in fact, out of order.

The place for this question to be dealt with would be question period. It was dealt with in question period today. I refer the members opposite to Minister Caplan's answer in today's question period. This is what he said: "'The board immediately engaged with our external auditors and your appointee, to establish the terms of reference for the review.

Staff of the provincial Auditor General's office and eHealth Ontario have met to ensure that the conduct of the Auditor General's review and the board's review was not duplicative and that the process could be handled smoothly.' In fact, that's exactly what I said to this House, that there was that engagement of the board and of PricewaterhouseCoopers that did take place. Of course, as the member is now aware—or I hope was aware previously—the Auditor General took the step to inform the board that he was concerned about duplication of work between the external auditor and himself.

He in turn asked the board to stand down"—he being the Auditor General—"because of that duplication. I directed the board to follow the direction of an independent officer of the Legislature." That's a draft of Hansard from this morning.

On the question of point of privilege, I would like to refer to a couple of precedents for your reference as you make a ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. The first point of privilege was raised by Mr. Kormos himself in June 2002. Speaker Carr ruled against his point of privilege on June 17, 2002. I'm surprised that the member from Welland didn't refer to his own precedent, perhaps because Speaker Carr at that time was quite clear in setting out in his ruling exactly what the threshold was when dealing with a question of privilege.

I will quote from his ruling from Hansard dated June 17, 2002:

"On Monday, June 10, the member for Niagara Centre, Mr. Kormos, raised a point of privilege concerning statements made to the press by the Premier and to the press in this House regarding the Minister of Energy relating to executive compensation.

"The member contended that apparent contradictions between statements on this subject by the Premier and the minister and other apparent contradictions between statements made by the minister on different occasions left room for one to draw the conclusion that the minister had exhibited a lack of forthrightness when addressing the House. As a result, the member invited me to find the minister to be, prima facie—

Interjection.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this side of the House was quite respectful in their submissions, and I would ask the same indulgence from the members opposite.

"The Minister of Energy also briefly addressed the point of privilege and discounted the validity of the member's contentions."

This is Speaker Carr: "I have reviewed the material supplied by the member for Niagara Centre, together with the relevant authorities and precedents. As the member for Niagara Centre pointed out, Erskine May on page 111 of the 22nd edition, under 'Misconduct of Members or Officers,' states: 'The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as contempt.'" He then goes on to address a precedent from the Profumo affair, noting that "an essential component of this case is that Profumo deliberately set out in a prepared statement to purposely mislead the House and then did so."

Speaker Carr then goes on to say: "The threshold for finding a prima facie case of contempt against a member of the Legislature on the basis of deliberately misleading the House is therefore set quite high and is very uncommon. It must involve a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead the Legislature. In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct independently proved, a Speaker must assume that no honourable member would engage in such behaviour, or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or honest mistake."

I'm going to jump forward a little bit in his ruling to just address the precedent that was raised by my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, in dealing with Speaker Milliken's ruling on national defence minister, Art Eggleton. In that case, Mr. Eggleton concurred that contradictory statements had been made and that clarification of the reasons for this in a suitable forum was required. Secondly—and this is Speaker Milliken's ruling. Sorry; this is Speaker Carr's ruling.

"Secondly, I see no precedential value to Speaker Milliken's ruling—within the ambit of parliamentary privilege—since, if the ruling is carefully read, it becomes apparent that a prima facie case of privilege was not explicitly found."

Now, in the conclusion of Speaker Carr's ruling: "I would generally be hesitant to appropriate for myself such an original, informal approach since the precedents, traditions and customs of this House around questions of privilege reveal a more definitive tendency. In my view, there are no shades of grey when it comes to parliamentary privilege, and I would not like to promote such a view by delivering a ruling that failed to address, squarely and solely on its procedural merits, the question raised.

"In the case at hand raised by the member for Niagara Centre, I can only find that I am left with what amounts to a genuine disagreement between two honourable members. As a result, I am unable to find that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out."

I would suggest that that is the precedent on which you should rely in making your ruling in this case. I would also direct you to the ruling of Speaker Cass on May 10, 1969, where there was an another instance of allegations of a member having misled the House.

In this case, it is very clear that there is no point of privilege, there is no contempt and there is no breach of privilege in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to thank the member from Leeds—Grenville, the member from Welland and the government House leader for their comments. I would ask that any of you who quoted information—certainly, those rulings dealing with previous decisions in this chamber we will have access to. But any information that you can provide to me would be appreciated.

I trust that the honourable members understand that there have been a number of points that have been raised here today and references to rulings not only made within this chamber but rulings within other Houses as well, and numerous references made to Hansard. So I ask that the House give me the opportunity to defer my ruling at this time to ensure that we undertake a comprehensive review of the points that have been raised and the opportunity to review the Hansard. I will deliver a ruling at the earliest opportunity.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: In just over nine months, the citizens of Ontario will be subjected to the largest tax increase in the history of our province. The DST, as we call it, will start on July 1, 2010.

Over the past few months, with the summer recess, I've had a number of opportunities to talk to tourism operators in different areas about how it will impact tourism in our particular province. I think of things like an economy that has already been shattered and where people are having a very, very difficult time in that tourism business. Outfitters etc. in the far north are having a very difficult time. I can tell you that things like golf courses—someone playing a round of golf on an average of $50 will pay another $4 in taxes on that.

If you're going to take a ski pass with your family, it's a $50 ski pass and another $4. If you tie up your boat, whether it's a 12-foot runabout or a 50-foot yacht, you'll pay another 8% on top of that. It goes on and on and on. And already the tourism operators of the province of Ontario are suffering badly.

Without a question, all of the tourism operators I talked to said one thing: "It will cost jobs"—jobs for young people, and already we're looking at an almost 20% unemployment rate amongst our young people and our students. I can tell you, they cannot afford to go through with this. In the end, it will cost jobs. The reality is, we have to stop this Dalton sales tax once and for all. It's a mistake and it will cost jobs for the citizens of the province of Ontario.

RIDING OF GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL /

CIRCONSCRIPTION DE GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: On September 1, I had the pleasure to tour my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell with 34 ambassadors and high commissioners from the four corners of the world. The purpose of the tour was to introduce the group to what Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has to offer to the world. The ambassadors were treated to a day-long tour of our riding. Stops included the high-tech Cloverhurst dairy farm in Cumberland, owned by the Edwards family; the St-Albert cheese factory; and Montebello Packaging in Hawkesbury, which recently won an award for its first-class toothpaste tube.

The group also toured the Alexandria Moulding facility in Alexandria, and Potvin Construction cabinetmakers in Rockland.

Les gens de tous les continents ont constaté l'ampleur du futur parc aquatique Calypso.

Ils ont aussi reçu des visites guidées de Tulmar Safety Systems, Inc. et d'Alltech, deux entreprises dont les produits sont exportés à travers le monde entier.

Je voudrais offrir mes plus sincères remerciements aux ambassadeurs pour leur participation à cette tournée de Glengarry, Prescott et Russell.

WALK OF HOPE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Today I rise to recognize the eighth annual Walk of Hope, which took place on September 13 and was hosted by Ovarian Cancer Canada in Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa and 11 other Canadian cities. I would like to congratulate all the organizers, the sponsors and the participants.

The purpose of the Walk of Hope is to raise vital funds for ovarian cancer research and to raise awareness about ovarian cancer, including the fact that if it is found early and treated, it has a survival rate which can be as high as 90%.

Each year, 2,500 Canadian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and 1,700 will die this year. These women are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters and our granddaughters.

Yes, cancer continues to impact the lives of people of all ages. An estimated 63,000 cases of cancer were diagnosed in Ontario during 2007. Thirty-nine per cent of women have a probability of developing cancer in their lifetime. Although cancer mortality rates are expected to decline over the next decade, there will be a 40% increase in the number of people living with cancer, mostly due to our aging population. And so this walk was important. It helps to raise money for research and our awareness.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: Just recently, Greyhound bus lines announced that they were about to abandon bus service in northwestern Ontario. Now, as bad as that announcement is, the response of the McGuinty government was even worse. The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Northern Development were heard to say, "Oh, this is not a problem. There will be local providers who will step in and provide the service."

Once again, the McGuinty Liberals are missing in action when it comes to vital and important services in northwestern Ontario. The fact of the matter is, Greyhound has been abandoning services in northwestern Ontario for about the last five years. There has been little replacement of service by local providers, and where local providers have stepped in, in many cases, the service that is being provided is inadequate or impractical.

Imagine being a senior citizen living in the village of Rainy River and having to drive 100 kilometres to access the bus, or living in a First Nation community and not having a car and being told you have to drive 130 kilometres to catch the bus.

We're not talking here about frills. We're talking about people who need access to the bus to get to medical appointments in Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. We're talking about basic transportation services. The McGuinty government needs to act.

RIDING OF STORMONT—DUNDAS—SOUTH GLENGARRY

Mr. Jim Brownell: First I would like to welcome all members back to the Legislature today. After an eventful summer, it is once again my pleasure to represent the constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry as their member in this House.

It certainly has been a very eventful season in my riding. I am pleased to say that through the work of this government, my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has benefited from numerous funding commitments that will improve the quality of life of the citizens of my region and stimulate the local economy. Through programs like Rinc, Building Canada, the eastern Ontario development fund and many others, this government has committed over $45 million in new infrastructure and social funding to just SD&SG alone.

Just last week in Winchester Springs, with the assistance of a $1.85-million investment many from this government, the sod was turned on the first of four new salt storage sheds being built by the united counties of Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry.

There used to be a saying in my riding: "Ontario stops at Kingston." Not anymore.

Interjection.

Mr. Jim Brownell: That's right, Mr. Minister.

This phenomenal amount of funding demonstrates this government's commitment to eastern Ontario and to the entire province. It shows that we believe that all our citizens, regardless of where we live in the province, deserve the same opportunities, the same quality of infrastructure and the same level of service. It shows we will accept nothing but the best.

I would like to thank this government for the support they are giving to my riding and to the province of Ontario.

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

I trust that this government will recognize the importance of customer-friendly hours and reinstate the service on weekends and evenings. It's similar to the state of the private issuers' networks being eliminated. I would encourage the Minister of Government Services to reinstate the hours that best serve the public and the customer.

RIDING OF NORTHUMBERLAND—QUINTE WEST

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It's my pleasure to rise today to talk about the great summer we had in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West. Many exciting things happened there this summer but one day in particular comes to mind: In mid July we had the honour to host the Premier for a day.

We began our day at the Port Hope Community Health Centre. This CHC is a welcome addition to Port Hope, whose hospital was closed by the prior, Harris government. I was excited and proud to show the Premier this new construction that was completed in May of this year and came in under budget. They now have 1,500 clients, with about 40 new registrants each week. The Port Hope CHC boasts two new doctors and three nurse practitioners, along with dietitians, counsellors and a diabetes education team.

But that was only the first stop of the day. Off to Brighton we went. It was a privilege to stand beside our Premier to announce $5.4 million from our Good Places to Learn initiative to fund a new school in my hometown of Brighton. You can imagine the excitement of the youngsters, not to mention their parents, teachers, principals and representatives from the school board. Plans are in place for the groundbreaking opening for September 2011 to accommodate 300 students.

But the day wasn't over yet: It was picnic time. The Premier accepted an invitation to join my wife, Diane, and myself for an afternoon picnic with a couple hundred of my closest friends, colleagues and supporters. What a perfect end to an amazing day.

Thank you, Premier. It was a day we'll never forget.

TORONTO INTERNATIONAL

FILM FESTIVAL

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: As a Toronto member proudly representing the riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I know at first hand the vital role that the Toronto International Film Festival plays in and for our city. TIFF has become one of the world's premier film festivals and likewise deserves a premier facility to call home. That is why a $10-million investment in the TIFF Bell Lightbox underscores our government's commitment to investing in the jobs of today and of the future. It will be a destination for film lovers for years to come and will generate millions in economic activity for the province and the city.

This state-of-the-art facility, scheduled to open next year, has already had a large impact on Ontario's economy by creating 1,300 full-time construction jobs. TIFF's new home will also house its more than 100 full-time employees and provide year-round programming for Ontarians and tourists to learn, celebrate and experience film.

The Toronto International Film Festival expects the Bell Lightbox to generate approximately $200 million in economic activity within five years of opening, and this is in addition to the estimated $67 million and countless visitors that TIFF already brings to the province and city each year.

Ontario's film industry plays an important role as a major economic driver in this city and beyond as we continue to make strategic investments to build a strong economy and strong communities right across Ontario.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Mr. Rick Johnson: As September rolls around and the children start back to school—yes, dare I say it?—this also means the colder weather is not far behind, and with that colder weather comes another flu season. The McGuinty government wants to prepare all residents for the upcoming flu season, which will be a different flu season from previous years. With the emergence of the H1N1 virus, two separate vaccines will be made available this fall.

In addition to the vaccines, beginning next week every home in Ontario will be receiving information in the mail on how to prevent the flu and stay healthy. Some of these tips we've all heard before, but they can never be said too often. Proper hand cleaning is one of the important ways to guard against the flu and limit the spread of the flu virus. Hand sanitizers are also effective at limiting its spread. So clean your hands often to protect yourself and others from getting the flu.

We want all Ontarians to be proactive when it comes to their health, and we in the McGuinty government will continue to work hard to ensure quality access to health services to prevent disease and guarantee all Ontarians quality of life.

BY-ELECTION IN ST. PAUL'S

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Michael Bryant as the member of the electoral district of St. Paul's effective June 7, 2009. Accordingly, I issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

TABLING OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I further beg to inform the House that during the adjournment, the following reports were tabled:

On June 19, 2009, order in council number 1146/2009, dated June 17, 2009, reappointing Ann Cavoukian as the Information and Privacy Commissioner;

On June 23, 2009, the 2008-09 annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario;

On June 25, 2009, the by-election report for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock of the Chief Electoral Officer;

On July 13, 2009, the 2008-09 annual report of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario;

On July 14, 2009, a report from the Ombudsman of Ontario respecting Bestech Academy Inc. and enforcement of the Private Career Colleges Act;

On August 5, 2009, from the Office of the Auditor General, the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2009;

On August 10, 2009, the 2007 annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario;

On August 25, 2009, a report from the Ombudsman of Ontario respecting Cambrian College's administration of its health information management program and the oversight provided by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Mr. Greg Sorbara: Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 3, 2009, I beg leave to present a report on modernizing Ontario's electoral legislation from the Select Committee on Elections and move its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Sorbara presents the committee's report and moves its adoption. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Greg Sorbara: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just to point out that the all-party Select Committee on Elections was appointed to consider the current effectiveness of the Elections Act, the Election Finances Act and the Representation Act in the preparation, administration and delivery of elections in Ontario. I am pleased to present to the House the committee's opinions, observations and recommendations concerning amendments to these acts.

Might I point out, sir, that this committee had a very high standard of co-operation from the three members who sat on it: the member from Willowdale, the member from Welland and the member from Carleton—Mississauga Mills—

Interjection: Mississippi Mills.

Mr. Greg Sorbara: I'm sorry, Mississippi Mills. Thank you for that. I think I have it now.

The committee heard from many individuals and groups with an eye towards modernizing and updating and consolidating the current legislation and simplifying the language of the acts we have in place. The committee considered ways of improving the voting process, voters' lists, professionalizing service delivery, a process for managing electoral boundaries and modernizing election finance rules, improving access for persons with disabilities, and better enforcement of the elections acts.

Might I say in conclusion, sir, that we received a very high degree of co-operation from an officer of this House; that is, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, Greg Essensa, and the staff at Elections Ontario. With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

M me France Gélinas: Pursuant to the order of the House dated—the same as his—June 3, 2009, I beg leave to present a report on the prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Gélinas presents the committee's report and moves the adoption of its recommendations. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, the Auditor General released his Special Report: Prevention and Control of Hospital-Acquired Infections, in September 2008. He presented it ahead of the rest of his report because we felt it could have a significant and timely impact on the public health of the people of Ontario.

The committee worked well together. We reviewed the auditor's report and made 12 recommendations.

The first one had to do with accountability for patient care. We wanted to make sure that every board of every hospital in Ontario addressed the auditor's recommendations.

The second had to do with screening, regarding use and cost of universal screening for diseases like MRSA, VRE or febrile respiratory illness, FRI. We also want the report from the Ottawa Hospital, which is doing an evaluation.

The third theme has to do with routine patient practices and infection-specific precautions. There, we want reports back on hand hygiene, on isolation policies for high-risk patients, on making all new hospital rooms in new hospitals private rooms. We also want to hear back about environmental cleaning, that is, cleaning of the rooms, and new technologies for monitoring cleanliness.

The fourth theme was the use of antibiotics. We want a full report on antibiotics used in the hospitals, as well as a report on the new electronic drug dispensing system that is being used in Windsor.

Finally, under theme number five, surveillance, we want Ontario to set targets for hospital-acquired infections, as well as to report back to ensure standardization throughout Ontario.

Those are our 12 recommendations. I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO TAX

REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Mr. Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 199,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act to reduce taxation / Projet de loi 199, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac afin de réduire les taux de taxation.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Ontario's world-recognized tobacco control policies are collapsing. The tobacco market is being handed over to criminal organizations that are both unregulated and untaxed. These organizations do not comply with tobacco control measures, including restrictions on advertising, sales to children, labelling, mandatory health warnings and emissions reporting.

It's time for Ontario to reduce its tobacco taxes again, this time by one third, and to encourage the federal government to take action, as it did in 1994, to help put the illegal trade out of business.

BREAST CANCER

SCREENING ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DU SEIN

Mr. Orazietti moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 200,

An Act to increase access to breast cancer screening / Projet de loi 200, Loi visant à accroître l'accès aux services de dépistage du cancer du sein.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. David Orazietti: The bill requires that the minister ensure that breast screening services are provided free of charge to women aged 40 to 49 who are referred by a physician or nurse practitioner. The breast screening services may be provided through the Ontario breast screening program of Cancer Care Ontario or that program's successor. At present in Ontario, you must be 50 years of age to be referred to the Ontario breast screening program. This would have the effect of lowering that age to 40.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 98(b), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr. Naqvi and Mr. Zimmer exchange places such that Mr. Naqvi assumes ballot item 27 and Mr. Zimmer assumes ballot item 33; and that, notwithstanding standing order 98(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 27 and 30.

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

Motion agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICER

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we also have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding presiding officers of the Legislature.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that the member for York—Simcoe, Mrs. Munro, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House in place of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, Mr. Arnott.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to take this opportunity to wish the member for York—Simcoe well as she assumes her new responsibilities as a presiding officer in this House. She's an outstanding member and has always demonstrated reverence and respect for the democratic institutions we all hold so dear, as well as the customs and traditions of this House. We all admire and respect Julia Munro, the quality person that she is and the manner in which she does her job.

As I withdraw from my role as First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House, I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as former Speakers Mike Brown and Alvin Curling, for the privilege of working with them over the past six years, and I especially thank the table staff for their professional advice as well as the personal friendships we've had as we've worked together.

I should close by expressing my thanks to all MPPs who served here in the last two Parliaments for their indulgence, their co-operation and, at times, their patient understanding during the time I've been privileged to serve in the Chair. Thank you all for the trust that you've placed in me.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ted Arnott, the member from Wellington—Halton Hills. Ted has served as First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House since December 8, 2003. I want to thank Ted, his wife, Lisa, and his three boys for their efforts to support me in my role as Speaker, and previous Speakers. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, Ted, thank you very much for a job well done.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I have a petition signed by about 4,000 Ontarians. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontarians who now live in long-term-care homes are increasingly older, frailer and have greater complex care needs;

"Whereas our elder parents, family and friends deserve to live with dignity and respect;

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government failed to revolutionize long-term care and broke its promise to seniors to provide $6,000 in personal care, per resident;

"Whereas five years of Liberal inaction has restricted Ontario's ability to meet the demands of our aging population;

"Whereas more than 24,000 Ontarians are currently waiting for an LTC bed;

"Whereas Ontario funds significantly less resident care than Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick;

"Whereas dedicated LTC homes are short-staffed and have not been given resources to hire enough front-line workers to provide the level of care residents require;

"Whereas devoted LTC staff are burdened by cumbersome government regulations;

"Whereas some 35,000 seniors are living in LTC beds which do not meet more home-like design standards introduced in 1998 by the former PC government;

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

"That the McGuinty government must enhance long-term care by:

"—initiating a sector-wide staffing increase of 4,500 full-time positions within a year;

"—expediting the redevelopment of Ontario's 35,000 oldest long-term-care beds by providing adequate support and funding;

"—achieving an average of three worked hours of personal care, per day, within a year;

"—simplifying the regulations which govern nursing homes;

"—producing a comprehensive plan with benchmarks to reduce wait lists of more than 24,000 people; and

"—addressing inflationary pressures by adequately funding the increased operating costs of LTC homes."

I am very pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I'm really pleased to present the first 200 names from the people of my riding, Nickel Belt, for equity of access to PET scanning.

"Whereas the Ontario government is making positron emission tomography—PET scanning—a publicly insured health service; and

"Whereas by October 2009, insured PET scans will be performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

"Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with the Sudbury Regional Hospital, its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital, thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario."

I fully support this petition and will affix my name to it and send it to the table with page Gordon.

GARDE D'ENFANTS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: J'ai une pétition qui m'a été envoyée par Suzanne Hupé de St-Albert.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Nous, citoyens de la province de l'Ontario, méritons et avons le droit de demander des modifications à la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance, de façon à faire valoir l'importance des relations qu'ont les enfants avec leurs père et mère, ainsi qu'avec leurs grands-parents, comme le prévoit le projet de loi 33, 2008, présenté par le député provincial Kim Craitor.

« Attendu que le paragraphe 20(2.1) de la Loi exige que les père et mère et autres personnes qui ont la garde d'enfants ne doivent pas faire déraisonnablement obstacle aux relations personnelles qui existent entre les enfants et leurs grands-parents;

« Attendu que le paragraphe 24(2) de la Loi énumère les questions dont le tribunal doit tenir compte pour établir l'intérêt véritable d'un enfant. Le projet de loi modifie ce paragraphe de façon à inclure une mention expresse de l'importance du maintien des liens affectifs qui existent entre enfants et grands-parents;...

« Attendu que le paragraphe 24(2.2) de la Loi exige qu'un tribunal qui décide de la garde d'un enfant prenne en compte la volonté de chaque personne qui demande, par requête, la garde de l'enfant de faciliter les contacts entre celui-ci et ses père et mère ainsi que ses grands-parents, compte tenu de l'intérêt véritable de l'enfant;

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario adoptent le projet de loi 33, 2008, qui modifie la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance, de façon à faire valoir l'importance des relations qu'ont les enfants avec leurs père et mère ainsi qu'avec leurs grands-parents. »

J'appuie cette pétition.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the 13% McGuinty sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services; and

"Whereas the 13% McGuinty sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for coffins, coffee, haircuts, gym memberships, newspapers, lawyer and accountant fees and meals under $4;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I have affixed my signature as well.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Reza Moridi: I am pleased to rise in this House today and present a petition signed by 1,000 Canadians in protesting the violation of human rights in Iran. Some of the signatories to this petition are sitting in the gallery. When I talk about "violation of human rights in Iran"—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the honourable member, you need to read—the standing orders are clear: You have to read the petition.

Mr. Reza Moridi: The petition reads:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas millions of Iranians have poured into the streets of Tehran and other cities to protest against the results of the recent presidential election; and

"Whereas unarmed men and women have been confronted by the regime's armed militia and as a result many Iranians have lost their lives; and

"Whereas the government of Iran has repeatedly violated the human rights of its citizens, including the imprisonment of journalists and innocent civilians; and

"Whereas Iranian Canadians have reacted to this tragedy by organizing demonstrations in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver; and

"Whereas the actions currently being undertaken by this regime now face the growing condemnation by numerous countries, Nobel laureates and groups such as Amnesty International and the United Nations;

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

I fully support this petition, sign it and pass it on to page Robert.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. John O'Toole: I have a petition from the constituents in the riding of Durham which reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is conducting a review of the province's underserviced area program (UAP) that may result in numerous communities across rural and small-town Ontario losing financial incentives to recruit and retain much-needed doctors; and

"Whereas financial incentives to attract and keep doctors are essential to providing quality front-line health care services, particularly in small communities; and

"Whereas the people across Ontario have been forced to pay Dalton McGuinty's now-forgotten health tax since 2004, expecting health care services to be improved rather than cut; and

"Whereas taxpayers deserve good value for their hard-earned money that goes into health care, unlike the wasteful and abusive spending under the McGuinty government watch on eHealth Ontario;

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

"That the McGuinty government not reduce or eliminate financial incentives for rural communities and small towns that need to attract and retain doctors."

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of constituents like Roger Pierson and present it to one of the new pages, Alyssa.

TAXATION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas residents in Dufferin—Caledon do not want the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' blended HST will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' 13% HST will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' tax will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased to present this to page Gordon.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: It's good to be back. I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I'd like to very much thank the members of the Islamic Society of North America and the big ISNA mosque for having collected some of these signatures. It reads as follows:

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the ongoing capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be better performed in an off-site facility. An ambulatory surgery centre would greatly increase the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, reduce wait times for patients and free up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2009-10 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

I'm always pleased to sign and support this petition and ask page Carlos to carry it for me.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition with regard to Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare funding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas demand for health services is expected to continue to rise with the growing retirement population in Muskoka-East Parry Sound;

"Whereas recent funding cuts include the loss of health care services at the Burk's Falls health centre, reductions in acute care beds at both hospitals and cuts to services such as physiotherapy; and

"Whereas the government is providing hospitals with funding increases of roughly 2%, but costs for health care salaries negotiated by the ministry and other fixed costs are increasing at a rate of 4% to 5% each year; and

"Whereas hospitals will face ongoing budget cuts as a result of insufficient funding by the province of Ontario, despite collecting $12 billion in health taxes from Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty government and Minister of Health provide adequate increases in the operating budget of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare to maintain current health services for the people of Muskoka-East Parry Sound and provide long-term-care beds for Muskoka-East Parry Sound."

I support this petition and give it to Jacob.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I have here a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding the western Mississauga ambulatory surgery centre.

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the ongoing capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be better performed in an off-site facility. An ambulatory surgery centre would greatly increase the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, reduce wait times for patients and free up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2009-10 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

I join with the members of the Islamic Society of North America ISNA mosque in supporting this petition and send it to you by way of page Nicole.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network has mandated that the Huronia District Hospital balance their budget and the interim CEO has decided to remove outpatient services from the Penetanguishene site: diagnostic testing, laboratory, ultrasound, the diabetes program, dietitian counselling, nurse practitioner and physiotherapy services; and