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

March 5, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-05 (PDF)

L020 - Mon 5 Mar 2012 / Lun 5 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 5 March 2012 Lundi 5 mars 2012

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

JOB CREATION

JOB CREATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

IMMIGRATION POLICY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

SENIOR CITIZENS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS

DEFERRED VOTES

ATTRACTING INVESTMENT

AND CREATING JOBS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT

À ATTIRER LES INVESTISSEMENTS

ET À CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO DIRECTIONS PROGRAM

GLOBAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

DURHAM COLLEGE

EDUCATION

LAUREN HANNA

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT

(ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE

VEHICLES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(VÉHICULES D’ASSISTANCE

ROUTIÈRE)

PETITIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

DOG OWNERSHIP

SCHOOL CLOSURES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WIND TURBINES

BAITFISH INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

WIND TURBINES

HYDRO RATES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

WIND TURBINES

EYE EXAMINATIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I would like to welcome back to this Legislature my wife, Kate Bartz, and our family friend and former page of the Legislature, Anthony Boland. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from—Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There is no way I’m going to tell you, Speaker; no way I’m going to tell you.

I’d like to welcome our guests who are just arriving from the CAA. They’re here today on their lobby day, and they’re meeting with members from all three political parties to talk about the importance of road safety and other issues. Welcome to the assembly.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It’s my pleasure to introduce representatives from the Canadian Automobile Association’s three Ontario clubs, collectively representing over 2.2 million Ontarians. The CAA is here today as part of their advocacy day. Guests include president and CEO Nick Parks and chair Dina Palozzi from CAA South Central Ontario, president Tim Georgeoff and chair Frances Mannarino from CAA North and East Ontario, and president Pat Nielsen and chair Bruno Iafrate from CAA Niagara. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s my pleasure to introduce the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, including president Marc Brazeau and manager of policy and communications Jason Kerr, here promoting their Be Car Care Aware campaign. They’re joined by some of their members who are leaders in the aftermarket automotive industry, an $18.2-billion industry that employs more than 420,200 Canadians. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature today.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to introduce Ms. Vijaya Narayan, mother of page Kriti Ravindran, from Richmond Hill, sitting in the public gallery here.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We have a guest in the House today all the way from Uganda. Adrian Jjuuko is a human rights lawyer. He is here with York University. This is a very courageous young man who is not gay, who is a lawyer and a human rights activist in Uganda. Within the next month or 60 days a law will likely be introduced in the Uganda Legislature making being gay or lesbian subject to the death penalty or being HIV-positive subject to the death penalty. Adrian is here with my friend Doug Elliott. I would like you to recognize him.

There are many reasons I’m a little emotional, Speaker. To be a friend of the gay and lesbian community, Adrian is risking personal death and at least seven years in prison simply for speaking out on behalf of gay and lesbian human rights. As you know, many gay and lesbian people have been beaten and killed.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really pleased to introduce Rick Mauro. He’s the vice-president of marketing and public relations for CAA Niagara from the great riding of Niagara Falls.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of my colleague the member from Brampton West, I’m pleased to recognize a group from Nigeria Customs attending the Canadian Training Institute in Brampton. I’m pleased to introduce, in the members’ east gallery, instructor Samuel Amoah and Lesley Anne Amoah, Mustapha Mohammed Munir, Nuruddeen Musa, Birdling Bubwa Abasiryu, Njoku Emmanuel Ifeanyi, Ayawa Danladi, Heme Howell Ndukwe, Chibuike Chinaka and Awogbemi Petson Olanrewaju. Please welcome them to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’d like to introduce to the House—they were here briefly, and I think they might have stepped out—the family of page Sophia: mother, Jakai Shwe; father, Sai Shwe; and sister, Grace. They’re all here to see page Sophia, so I’d like to welcome them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions?

We have two introductions in the Speaker’s gallery. We have in the Speaker’s gallery someone who is probably going to take notes about how well I do, former Speaker David Warner, the former MPP from Scarborough–Ellesmere in the 30th, 31st, 33rd and 35th Parliaments, and Speaker from 1990 to 1995. Welcome.

As well, we have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the ambassador of the Portuguese republic to Canada, His Excellency Pedro Moitinho de Almeida, accompanied by the consul general of Portugal to Toronto, Mr. Júlio Vilela. We welcome them with warm feelings. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker; my question is to the Deputy Premier.

Any good jobs strategy, a jobs plan, will involve reliable and affordable energy in the province of Ontario. The McGuinty government has taken us down a very expensive path in the feed-in tariff program that is driving up our rates. In fact, you’ve created a bit of a gold rush, with tens of thousands of applications already in the kitty for these expensive subsidies, and you’re going to continue down that path.

Deputy Premier, given that every other country that tried this, even 10 years ago, is backing away or ending these programs altogether, if we want to create jobs in Ontario, shouldn’t we do the same and have reliable and affordable energy to attract investment and job creation here?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the leader for the question. We are committed to clean energy, to clean energy jobs and to reliable power. Over the last eight years, the people of the province of Ontario have done a lot of work fixing a power system that was left in some state of disrepair, bringing on new generation and eliminating coal, which, although it looks cheap, is very, very expensive and bad for the health of the province of Ontario.

We’re committed to a reliable system, a clean system and an affordable system, and we’re committed to the opportunities that clean, green energy jobs present for the people of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back, then, to the minister, Speaker. Minister, as our energy rates have gone up, our job creation has gone in the opposite direction. The higher the energy rates, the less attractive Ontario is for investment and job creation; the things are obviously very related.

So I think it’s important now to take a step back, to pause and to chart a different course to reliable, affordable energy that will help create jobs in the province again; to make us robust in job creation, not at the back of the pack. The important part of doing this, when you look at the Auditor General’s report, for example, is to end your feed-in tariff program that is driving up rates.

Let me ask you, Minister, directly: Will you end this feed-in tariff program that Ontario families simply can’t afford?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: No. We are committed to clean energy. We’re committed to clean energy jobs. In the last two years, we have over 20,000 jobs in the province of Ontario, we have over $27 billion of investment that’s come in to support those jobs and jobs to come, and in the course of developing clean, green energy, we’re saving the lives and the health of thousands of Ontarians and we’re getting out of the 18th-century technology that the party opposite seems to be committed to. Coal does not have a future in the health or the lives of the people of this province.

Clean, green energy does, and I’d call upon the leader opposite to support clean air, clean energy and the thousands of jobs that go with it.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister: It is disappointing that on a very serious policy issue, the minister engages in these specious arguments that aren’t related to the matter at hand.

Your program has become increasingly expensive. There was a devastating report by the Auditor General this past December that indicated, for the jobs that you brag about, he felt that three quarters were in fact not full-time, permanent jobs, as you argue. In fact, the Auditor General says that for every job you create through big subsidies, you lose two to four jobs in the broader economy.

Minister, the answer, when you’re heading down the wrong road and over a cliff with higher energy prices, is not to simply slow down; the answer should be to turn the car around, head in the opposite direction to make Ontario open for investment again.

Minister, I’ll press: Will you do the right thing and support a private member’s bill that I’ll bring in to end the feed-in tariff program that is chasing jobs out of the province?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, no matter where you go in this province, you can see those jobs. I was in Welland just the other week at OSM Solar. OSM Solar has come out of an old plant that closed years ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. It’s Monday morning. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: OSM Solar has come out of a facility that was closed years ago. It has 60 workers now; they’re targeting for 100. It doesn’t matter where you go in this province. You see the people who are manufacturing. You see the businesses that support the manufacturing. You see the investments through steel, whether they’re electricians or plumbers. There are over 20,000. We’re going to 50,000. Why won’t the member support the jobs and apprentices that he talks so much about—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier: An important thing happened on Thursday last week where my colleague the member from Newmarket–Aurora, Mr. Klees, and the member for Nickel Belt, Ms. Gélinas, brought forward a bipartisan effort to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal, and I congratulate those members on working together to address this important issue.

The health minister seemed to indicate that she would support such a select committee to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal. Speaking in your capacity as Deputy Premier, will you support the call standing in the name of Mr. Klees and Ms. Gélinas?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. Once again, my answer remains the same as it was on Thursday. If it is the will of this Legislature that there be a select committee—I would not presume the will of the Legislature—I will, of course, be fully supportive of that.

There will be, for sure, opportunities for the Legislature to have robust conversations about Ornge. I suspect public accounts will want to have this conversation, as will the committee reviewing the legislation that I hope to introduce in coming weeks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, if I could redirect my question to the Deputy Premier: The Minister of Health basically gave the same answer she did on Thursday with respect to the will of the Legislature. You are the spokesperson for the Liberal side as a whole today during question period. I would ask you directly in your capacity as Deputy Premier to indicate your view on the will of the Legislature from the Minister of Health. Clearly, the Ontario PC caucus and the Ontario NDP caucus support this bipartisan idea for a select committee. Your Minister of Health seems to feel the same.

Could you actually speak clearly on behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus to say: Will you support this select committee to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My focus is on fixing the problems that have been revealed at Ornge. We are taking decisive action to address the issues that are, frankly, of real concern to the people of this province.

We’re fixing the problems that have been identified. We’re also moving forward with new legislation that will strengthen the transparency and the oversight of the Ministry of Health at Ornge. These are important changes that we’re making at Ornge, and I look forward to the support of the members opposite when that legislation does come before the House.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, I’ll try for a third time to speak to the Deputy Premier in his capacity as Deputy Premier in the province of Ontario to indicate the will of the Ontario Liberals. Clearly, the Ontario PCs and the Ontario NDP have suggested that this is the right thing to do. These types of bipartisan efforts are uncommon, I think you’d agree, and now we need to move forward. We could table a motion in the Legislature or committee to do this at the express will of the Legislature.

I think we could just cut to the chase today, Deputy Premier, with all due respect, if you speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus and indicate clearly: Do you support the select committee to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal or do you oppose it? Please let us know which it is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the steps that we have taken to actually get to the bottom of this issue. There were concerns raised. We did our best, within the ministry, to get answers to questions. The Auditor General was stonewalled in getting answers to questions he was raising. When that came to light, we took swift action: a completely new leadership at Ornge, we sent in a forensic audit team, and now the Ontario Provincial Police is doing a thorough investigation.

I think it’s important that we let the OPP do their work, that they can do their work so that justice can be done.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Acting Premier. Apex Fund Services is a global hedge fund based offshore, in Barbados. Last October, the government announced plans to give this offshore hedge fund, with $20 billion in assets, $350,000 as a job creation measure. My question is: How many jobs have been created at Apex?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the years in trying to build an economy here that’s creating jobs, that’s helping to transition our economy from the old manufacturing jobs to next-generation jobs. The investments we’ve made have leveraged billions of dollars in private sector investment in Ontario and created tens of thousands of jobs for Ontarians.

I appreciate the fact that the NDP may not understand or appreciate the importance of restructuring our economy, but that’s something the people of this province are counting on us to do, and we will continue to make those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, maybe I can help the minister out a little bit. When we called the office, we were told that there were five employees at Apex. Now, using the freedom of information act, we requested the agreement that the government had with Apex, but of course the jobs clause was blacked out.

Given that your government refused to release the complete agreement with job targets, can we assume that five jobs is the target that you set for a $350,000 handout to a $20-billion hedge fund?

Hon. Brad Duguid: In all of these investments there are very stringent job targets that are there. There are very stringent investments that have to come from the private sector so that every dollar we invest is leveraged. It’s leveraged two times, three times, sometimes up to eight times, depending on the fund and the investment. It’s very important, Mr. Speaker, that we invest in these sectors.

I think what the leader of the third party needs to know is that here in Ontario we have the third-largest life sciences sector in all of North America. That’s something we’re very proud of. It’s something that has not happened—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Brad Duguid: —it’s something that’s coming about because we’re attracting innovation. We’re attracting innovative companies to invest here in this province. It’s not by accident that we’re the second most desirable location in all of North America when it comes to foreign direct investment. It’s because of the investments we’re making—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the contract with Apex funds has a clawback provision in it, in case they don’t meet their targeted job creation numbers. When we called Apex, as I said before, they said they had five employees. Now, my question to the minister is: Has Apex actually met its targets, and if not, how much money has the government successfully clawed back from this $20-billion hedge fund company?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, of course we have accountability mechanisms in these programs, and indeed they’re enforced, and enforced very readily. Companies that do not meet their job targets will see dollars clawed back on most of these programs.

One of the things we’re working very hard on, and I think it follows in line with the Drummond commission, is that we’re looking at these investments to look at ways to consolidate and get a one-window approach so that these programs are easier to access for businesses that want to invest in Ontario. So rather than standing in the way of attracting this investment, Mr. Speaker, the NDP should be supporting our efforts to create jobs in Ontario, to attract investors to Ontario and to grow a global leading economy here in this province. That’s where we’re going—

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

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker; my next question is to the Acting Premier as well. You know, sadly, Ontario families have seen this movie before. They saw it last month in St. Catharines, when New Food Classics took a government grant of $1 million and then closed up shop. London families saw it when Caterpillar took their corporate tax giveaways and repaid Ontario by shipping the jobs south of the border.

Families have a pretty simple question, Speaker: Why is public money going to companies that aren’t creating jobs, that are laying off workers and that are shipping our jobs somewhere else?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I thought the investment in Chrysler and General Motors was very important and is an example of how jobs work. The investment in Linamar, which is creating jobs, was an important investment.

Interjection: Ken Lewenza.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to thank Ken Lewenza, the CAW, Chrysler and General Motors for that.

I thought the investments in the Essex engine plant in Windsor, which are protecting 800 jobs, were the right investments.

That leader and her party are shipping jobs everywhere but Ontario. They want to raise the HST. They want to raise taxes. They have no answers to tough questions. We have accountability mechanisms in all these agreements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I wish you would have supported us at Chrysler. Ask your members from Brampton and Essex how important those jobs are. Shame on you—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Just a small reminder that when I say “question” or I say “answer,” you do the wrap-up within a 10-second period, please.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the shame should be on a government that gives $350,000 to a $20-billion hedge fund.

But nonetheless, for families who are struggling with tough times, it’s pretty hard to take. Money that could be used for nurses, for example, to be hired to help with our health care system or to create long-term-care beds is handed to companies who don’t create jobs.

Isn’t it time for tax measures that actually do start rewarding the job creators in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this government has eliminated the capital tax, which every major business organization called for. She opposed that. We cut the small business rate. It’s now one of the lowest in Canada. That member and her party voted against it. We have harmonized the collection of corporate taxes, which is saving businesses half the cost associated with compliance of tax. That was an important initiative that that member and her party voted against.

She didn’t support us when we supported Valiant in Windsor, which continues to employ people right across the city—hundreds of them—as they service a variety of industries. She didn’t support us when we invested in a variety of high-tech industries in Waterloo, a key part of our economy.

She wants to have it both ways. She demands help over here and opposes it over there. She needs to be consistent. She needs to understand the economy—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well gee, Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I think the minister was actually agreeing with me: All of this largesse that he rails off hasn’t created jobs in Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are still gone in this province.

In these tough times, what families really want to see is a real plan to create jobs, not no-strings-attached giveaways, like the minister just railed off, to companies that take the money and run—or line their pockets without creating any jobs whatsoever.

Is the minister really finally ready to start taking a look at a real plan to reward the companies that are the job creators by targeting tax relief to companies that are creating jobs, that are making investments, that are training workers in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, Mr. Speaker, 121,000 net new jobs in the last year. The member opposite doesn’t want to acknowledge that. She doesn’t want to acknowledge that in spite of a challenge with unemployment that remains, not only here in Ontario but right throughout North America and western Europe, we now have more jobs than we did prior to the downturn.

These are all difficult choices. The member opposite wants to have it both ways. She wants to raise taxes on small business, then she talks about targeting tax cuts to—what about the apprenticeship tax credit? We do that, Mr. Speaker. There are a variety of other initiatives of that nature that we look at all the time.

I can assure the member that we will continue to build on our record of job creation, recognizing the enormous challenge in the economy for those families who still struggle to find work. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult choices that we make. We still haven’t heard what that member and her party would do to help create jobs.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, to the Minister of Health: We know that the $144-million deal for the Ornge AW139 AgustaWestland helicopters was manipulated. We also know that there is a criminal investigation of that deal and the minister insists on hiding behind that investigation. But the minister can’t hide from this: namely, the safety record of those helicopters that the minister now owns and for which she has direct control.

Can the minister tell us if she is aware of the latest airworthiness directive issued on February 17, 2012, by the European Aviation Safety Agency concerning the Agusta AW139 helicopter?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member opposite knows, there is an OPP investigation under way right now as relates to irregular financial arrangements at Ornge. It’s vitally important that those of us in this House, if we have information, share that information with the OPP. It’s important that we do not jeopardize that investigation.

Speaker, I have put in strong new leadership at Ornge. The new interim CEO, Ron McKerlie, a former deputy minister, is doing his job. We have put in place a very strong board of directors—a very strong board of directors—under the leadership of Ian Delaney, and with excellent members of that. Patient safety is their number one consideration and they are taking appropriate steps.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Apparently, the minister didn’t get this memo either. The airworthiness directive issued just days ago by the EASA warns the owners of the AW139—the minister is one of those—that they are required to conduct repetitive inspections and maintenance of the tail rotors every 25 flight hours and orders to replace them every 600 hours. The reason? They fall off.

In 2009, the tail rotor detached from an AW139 while taxiing for takeoff. Tail rotor detachments were the cause of the following crashes of AW139s: July 2010 in Hong Kong; May 2011 in Qatar; August 2011 in Rio De Janeiro. And now we have 10 of those same helicopters shuttling patients in Ontario.

This has nothing to do with a police investigation. What will the minister do to ensure safety of our air ambulance—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can tell you that—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Nothing is more important than patient safety, and I think the new board is very much focused on that issue.

We also have excellent engineers and mechanics who work at Ornge and who are very much on top of all of the communiqués that come from the manufacturer. I myself have spoken with some of these mechanics, and I have every confidence that they are doing absolutely everything to keep Ontarians safe.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Fourteen months ago, in January 2011, at least three staff in the Premier’s office were copied on Ornge’s briefing note describing the web of for-profit companies connected to the organization and its executives. Jamison Steeve, the Premier’s principal secretary, was one of them. As former chief of staff to George Smitherman, he would have had in-depth knowledge of the Ornge file.

Can the Acting Premier explain why Ornge’s proposal did not raise alarm bells back then?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s very important that the people in this House understand the steps that we have taken to address concerns that have been raised. I don’t think there’s any question that the steps we have taken enjoy the support, frankly, of the people opposite.

So what have we done, Speaker? Because we were being stonewalled and because the Auditor General was being stonewalled, we were unable to get answers to questions that the people of this province deserve to have. That is why I have taken the action that I have taken. I called in the forensic audit team. They put a very robust team in Ornge for several weeks. At the end of that process, I felt I had no choice but to call in the Ontario Provincial Police.

We have replaced the leadership at Ornge. We have a very strong new leadership and they are making changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Deputy Premier: The briefing note was given to three members of the Premier’s office and it explained the web of for-profit corporations as well as founders’ shares for management, complete with performance incentivization, long-term incentive plans, the 3% solution—and it goes on and on.

Deputy Premier, there is no way those top bureaucrats could have looked at a document like this and not reacted. I don’t believe the force of inertia was enough to keep this quiet for 12 months.

Is the reason the Ornge briefing did not raise alarm bells back in January 2011 because they already knew what was going on at Ornge, they supported it and they agreed with it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the issues that have been raised regarding Ornge are serious issues. We have taken them very seriously. We have gone step by step in a deliberate strategy to get answers to questions. We could not get those answers, and in hindsight we all believe, Speaker, that the original performance agreement that limited our ability to get information was not strong enough. That’s why we’re moving forward, not just with a new performance agreement that will have much tighter oversight; it will allow us, for example, to send in a special investigator or even a supervisor if we feel that it is appropriate, just as we do in hospitals.

The new performance agreement will require patient advocates, so that patients will have a voice—

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

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question this morning is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Speaker, as we all know, newcomers play a really vital role in Ontario’s economy, but not just the economy. They bring their skills and experience to bear on all aspects of Ontario, thereby contributing to one of our biggest assets: our diversity.

Immigrants like Srikkanth Danthala, who came to Ontario 10 years ago and today runs a company out of North York and Mississauga and employs 150 people, have the world to choose from, so Ontario is in a race against the rest of Canada and the rest of the world to attract the best and the brightest in the world and ensure that they’re integrated into our economy.

To this end, I know that the minister announced on March 2 that he’s going to be developing a new long-term immigration policy for Ontario. Can the minister—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member for the question. The member makes a very important point: Immigrants are key to Ontario’s future economic growth and prosperity. By 2014, immigrants will account for all of Ontario’s net labour growth. At the same time, the federal government’s selection system doesn’t meet Ontario’s needs and they continue to make decisions unilaterally.

The time has come for a made-in-Ontario immigration strategy, and that’s why we’ve created this expert roundtable on immigration. They will examine a range of immigrant issues, including recruitment, selection, integration and retention.

I look forward to their findings and recommendations, which will contribute to the development of our long-term immigration strategy, a strategy that will outline how immigrants and immigration can best support Ontario’s economic development while improving the economic and social prospects of new immigrants.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: This is very good news. I know that newcomers and businesses in my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville will be very pleased to hear about Ontario’s made-in-Ontario immigration strategy.

It’s troubling, however, to hear that the federal government is still refusing to negotiate a new agreement with Ontario. The federal government is responsible for determining who enters the country and in what numbers, but Ontario is in a better position to decide which kind of immigrants are best for our own labour market needs.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What effect are federal immigration policies having in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I was pleased that in a recent speech, the federal Minister of Immigration recognized what we’ve been saying for a long time: The federal immigration policies are hurting Ontario, and changes must be made.

Ontario remains the number one destination for newcomers in Canada. Over 200,000 people destined for Ontario are stuck in huge application backlogs in the federal skilled workers program. At the same time, the provincial nominee program only allows our province to nominate 1,000 individuals per year, a very small number compared to other provinces.

It’s unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario is the only province that does not have an immigration agreement with the federal government. I continue to encourage the federal government to work with the province instead of unilaterally taking steps that determine Ontario’s economic recovery and economic future.

Ontario needs to have a greater say in the immigration selection to ensure the province has an immigration mix that supports our economic—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: Speaker, airworthiness directives are not a common occurrence. The minister knew nothing about the airworthiness directive related to the helicopter she now owns. It is clear that the minister must acknowledge her responsibility for the safety of our air ambulance fleet.

I want to ask the minister this question. Knowing what she knows about how that original purchase deal was manipulated, and given that there is, in fact, a criminal investigation around it, and the fact that she now knows that safety was obviously trumped by the kickback related to that deal, I want to know this: Will the minister agree, knowing what she knows, to take the steps necessary to cancel that agreement, demand our money back and tell them to take their helicopters back—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I take my responsibility as Minister of Health extremely seriously. That is why I have taken the steps that I have taken to fix the problems at Ornge and to make sure they don’t happen again.

As I said earlier, it is vitally important that the OPP investigation not be jeopardized. We need to let that process unfold.

I also have a very real responsibility to make sure that this doesn’t happen again, and that is why I am bringing forth legislation that will entrench in law the transparency and oversight of Ornge that I believe the people of this province expect.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: If the minister could depart from her briefing notes just for one question, it may indicate that she actually understands this file.

My question is not related to the financial scandal. It is related directly to the operational scandal over which this minister has direct control and for which she has responsibility.

She now knows that our air ambulance fleet is in serious trouble because of the safety records of that helicopter. This is important for the minister to understand. Those helicopters are at risk, as are the crews and patients who will be flying in them. Why will she not agree to do the responsible thing, cancel this flawed agreement, recover the multi-millions of dollars that paid for those aircraft and ensure that our crews and our—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it’s very important that the people in this province know that Ornge is there for them when they need it. Air ambulance is a vitally important link in our health care system. It transports patients to get the care they need as quickly as possible.

It’s also important that the people of this province understand that we have a very strong new leadership team at Ornge. I will let them do their work, Speaker.

Under the leadership of Dr. Barry McLellan, they have put in place a special committee to look at patient safety issues. This new leadership team at Ornge is absolutely committed to the same goal that the member opposite has, and that is excellent—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ma question est dirigée au ministre des Finances.

In 2008, salary disclosures with Ornge CEO Chris Mazza appeared on the public sector disclosure list, more commonly known as the sunshine list, at just under $300,000 per year. In 2009 and 2010, Chris Mazza’s name had suddenly disappeared from this list. We now know that Mazza’s salary had ballooned to over $1.4 million per year, plus extravagant benefits that he was awarded.

Mr. Speaker, why didn’t Chris Mazza’s exclusion from this list raise any red flags for the minister responsible for the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, it was exactly that exclusion from the sunshine list that first alerted me and my ministry to the fact that there was something happening at Ornge that ought not to have been happening.

We made several attempts to untangle the for-profit from the not-for-profit and, ultimately, Speaker, it came to the point where I had to send in a forensic audit team from the Ministry of Finance with the very clear instructions to follow the public money. It was only after a meeting that I had with the then-chair and then—COO of Ornge that they did disclose the salaries, and it was then that I knew we had to take further steps.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Reports indicate that senior officials with the Ministry of Finance were briefed on the web of for-profit companies encircling Ornge: Ornge Global, Ornge Real Estate, Ornge Global Brazil—the list goes on and on.

Will the minister confirm that his senior officials received a separate briefing on Ornge? Why didn’t they raise alarms about public money being used to fund private for-profit schemes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It was exactly because of that sort of example that we have taken the action we have taken. It’s exactly because of situations that the member opposite has raised that we are bringing in much tighter, stricter oversight of Ornge.

Under the new performance agreement, any changes to the corporate structure will require the minister’s approval. Ornge will be required to have a patient advocate, just like our hospitals do. There will be much more oversight on the financial planning and monitoring so that this will not happen again.

I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who doesn’t think a stronger performance agreement is the right thing to do.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, through you, my question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The abuse of prescription narcotic drugs or pain-killers has emerged as a public health and safety issue in jurisdictions around the world, including here in Ontario. This government has developed a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy, as well as a narcotics strategy to help address the ongoing issue of drug abuse.

I also understand that there have been important changes regarding a particular drug on the market. Effective March 1, Purdue Pharma withdrew OxyContin from the market and introduced OxyNEO. OxyNEO is reported to be a more tamper-resistant tablet than OxyContin, to prevent misuse.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Given the changes made by the pharmaceutical company in producing this drug, what changes has the ministry made in regard to access to this new drug called OxyNEO?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is indeed a very important issue in Ontario. There are important changes in how Oxy is prescribed in Ontario.

Firstly, Ontario Drug Benefit recipients who are currently receiving OxyContin will be automatically transitioned to OxyNEO for a period of up to one year. However, for Ontario Drug Benefit recipients requiring a new OxyNEO prescription, that prescription will be funded through the Exceptional Access Program for chronic pain patients and through the palliative care facilitated access list for palliative care patients.

OxyNEO will not be available for general prescribing through the ODB formulary. Many jurisdictions have made similar changes. These changes are based on the best possible evidence and recommendations from the—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Speaker, the issue of abuse of prescription narcotics such as OxyContin is a very serious issue particularly in some communities, for example in northern, remote communities. We have heard from First Nations leaders that up to 70% of the adults in those communities are addicted to OxyContin. We also know that there are also people in urban areas who are addicted.

We need to make sure that our government is taking strong action to save lives and improve health outcomes for Ontarians by stopping abuse, addiction and the diversion of narcotics and controlled substances while ensuring that patients who need the pain treatment get it.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: What is being done to help those addicted to narcotics and, specifically, OxyContin?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We expect a number of consequences from this change. It could be an important turning point for people with opioid addictions and it is expected that some will seek supports to take this opportunity to kick their habit.

I’ve called together an expert working group on narcotics addiction. They will provide advice on short- and medium-term responses as OxyContin is coming off the market.

I met with this group last week. They are front-line people, they are academics, they are extremely knowledgeable and are providing very good advice. Work will also continue through the Trilateral First Nations Health Senior Officials committee, co-chaired by Grand Chief Stan Beardy, from the Chiefs of Ontario. They have identified addiction to prescription narcotics as their number one issue.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that all Ornge dispatch calls are recorded. I assume that the emergency health services branch has made her aware of this particular call.

On July 10, 2010, a call was made to Ornge to request the transfer of a stroke patient from Sault Ste. Marie to a Toronto hospital for surgery. The patient’s doctor was told that Ornge was sending someone for the patient only to be told in a subsequent call that the transfer was being delayed from the helicopter to a fixed-wing because it would save $9,000. The doctor is heard on the tape saying, “Is this what it comes down to, that we’re making decisions based on money?”

Has the minister been told about this case and is she aware that the ministry is in possession of the tape?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell the member opposite is that I have been briefed on the process by which complaints are investigated. I’ve had a thorough briefing on that issue.

What I can also tell you, Speaker, is that every single complaint is investigated. It doesn’t matter whether it comes from a member of the public, a patient, a family member, a physician or from any other ambulance service. No matter where a complaint comes from, that investigation is done. It is done thoroughly and it is done in a timely manner. There is a process whereby complaints result in action and the file is not closed until that work is completed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: This is an issue of patient safety. According to reliable sources, the helicopter that was originally to go was at the Sudbury base, staffed with critical care medics and ready to launch. Then it was told to stand down and that a fixed-wing plane would be used later that night. Then, that plane had to fly back to Timmins to get fuel, fly to Sudbury to pick up the critical care medics and then to Sault Ste. Marie for the patient. When the doctor went to Toronto the next day to see his patient, he was shocked to be referred to the morgue.

Was this intentional delay a contributing factor to the patient’s death? This is the type of issue that we need to get to the bottom of. That’s why we need a select committee. Will the minister agree to a select committee?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, people who work in the health care system are making life-and-death decisions every day, and I have confidence that the system that is in place to review complaints is a very strong system. The issue, when appropriate, is referred to the coroner. The coroner’s office and my ministry work very closely together.

The people in health care are professionals. They’re in the world of health care because they care about the patients. They want to learn from mistakes and they are very focused on improving safety every step of the way.

There is a process in place, and that process works.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Why is the minister allowing Ontario Power Generation to spend $600 million of Ontarians’ money to start the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear reactors without a completed environmental assessment and before the final cost of the project is known?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Nuclear has been a part of our baseload generation for decades. It’s safe, it’s reliable and it’s clean.

After 25 or 30 years, you need to refurbish the generators and the fuel rods so that you can continue using them for another 30 years. OPG has conducted a competitive approach, and, unlike the world’s approach to refurbishment, they’re taking a different approach here. The $600-million contract is called the definition phase, so they can plan, down to 30-minute increments, to make sure that when the actual refurbishment work starts, they have the right project at the right price according to the right specifications—a responsible approach.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, Speaker, this government does not have a particularly good record on these matters. It is trying its best to hide the real cost of power from the families in Ontario. They refuse to reveal the potential cost of cancelled gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, estimated at hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Now the government is committing to a massive contract at Darlington. Will the minister tell us now if the contractor will absorb the risk for all potential overruns?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Maybe the NDP wants to shut off all the nukes—that’s half our power—so turn off half the lights everywhere. Maybe the NDP don’t support the 80,000 jobs in the province of Ontario that are tied to the nuclear industry. Maybe the NDP don’t support an appropriate and responsible approach to renewing our power generation fleet. That’s what this is.

They’re taking an entirely different approach. They’ve learned; they’ve studied. This contract is the first part of the refurbishment phase, and will enable us to better identify the full cost. It will plan the refurbishment into 30-minute increments, 30-minute periods of time, and transfer the cost of any overruns fully to the contractor. A responsible approach, a responsible—

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

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. According to statistics I’ve seen, Ontario is home to approximately 1.8 million people over the age of 65—that’s 13.9% of the entire population of Ontario, and it’s growing. Experts are predicting that by 2036, the number of people over the age of 65 in Ontario will be 4.2 million people.

Minister, I’m not the only one who’s aware of these statistics. These numbers are often quoted to me by my constituents in Don Valley East. They want to make sure that this government is taking the necessary steps to protect and look after our senior population. They want to make sure that their grandparents and their parents will enjoy their senior years of life in comfort. And they want to make sure that when their time comes, they’ll be looked after.

Minister, I don’t have to tell you that the decisions we make today as a government will affect the 4.2 million seniors that will be living in the province by 2036. My question to you is, what is this government doing to protect seniors in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: The protection and the well-being of our seniors is a top priority for this government, so I want to thank the member from Don Valley East for the question. After all, as he stated, they’re our parents, our grandparents and the people who worked hard to help make the Ontario we live in today.

Our government is working hard to ensure that Ontario seniors continue to get the support that they need to live active, healthy lives. As a government, we are committed to providing income support for seniors through tax credits and the Ontario pension system; our home renovation tax credit; making health care services accessible to seniors at home; making affordable housing available to seniors; and protecting seniors from abuse, neglect and harm.

I’m also proud to mention that for the first time in Ontario’s history, the care provided to retirement home residents will be regulated under provincial legislation, the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Coteau: I thank the minister for the response. My constituents will be happy to know that our government is addressing our province’s aging situation head-on, and I’ll be proud to tell them that our government is the first in Ontario’s history to regulate the province’s retirement homes. I agree: There are much-needed safeguards to protect our seniors from abuse and neglect, although, Minister, I feel compelled to mention that we are in difficult economic times, and taking on the regulation of retirement homes across the province sounds costly.

How will retirement homes be inspected in an efficient and cost-effective manner? More importantly, how will the government fund retirement home regulation authorities? Can we really afford this essential action at this time?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: As I stated earlier, the safety and the well-being of seniors who live in retirement homes is a top priority for this government, and that’s why we created the Retirement Homes Act. We’re proposing that retirement homes across the province be inspected on a risk-based approach. It will enable the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority to focus its resources on ensuring the requirements for higher-risk homes. This balanced approach, we believe, will ensure appropriate safety and consumer protections for the most vulnerable seniors in Ontario.

The regular inspections will be conducted at least once every three years, but higher-risk homes will be inspected as often as necessary to keep our seniors safe. The operators not in compliance with the RHRA regulations could face fines or be shut down. Once fully established, the RHRA will not receive any more government funding. It’s a small, reasonable fee that we believe is reasonable to protect our seniors.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, let me read you recent worldwide headlines: “Arrivederci Solare: Italy Cuts Solar Subsidy”; “Dutch Pull the Plug on Wind Subsidies”; “UK Solar Subsidies Slashed”; “Germany Slashes FIT”; and “Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts.” Minister, when is the Liberal government going to learn what the rest of the world already knows?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We are committed to clean air. We’re committed to the clean energy jobs. We’ve taken an approach in the province of Ontario that both brings in clean—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Merci beaucoup.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’ve also taken an approach in Ontario that not only enables us to bring on the clean energy and clean up the air, but with our requirement of Ontario-based content we’ve made sure that we’ve grown a clean energy industry here.

My friend will know that in all parts of this province there are thousands of clean energy jobs and billions of dollars of investment specifically tied to the feed-in tariff approach we’ve taken in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Our party believes in clean energy, but at a price that seniors can afford. Under the Liberals’ failed energy plan, bills rose 26% in the last two years and are expected to rise 46% in the next three years. Thousands of jobs are leaving Ontario for cheaper energy in Quebec and the US. The Auditor General told us that we lose two to four jobs for any green job created.

Minister, how many more jobs are you going to be prepared to lose before you cancel the FIT program and fix this disastrous energy plan?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Well, I know the honourable member believes in green energy because he put solar panels on the roof of the city hall. But his party, I think, is very much the party of coal. The world is going greener. We’ve got thousands of green energy jobs.

This morning, we met with the international press, who are here to celebrate and observe what we’re doing in terms of the smart grid.

It’s time the party opposite recognizes the world is going green. We’re determined to be leaders. There are no jobs for followers. Join us. I say to the honourable member, get your—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Contrary to what some people might believe, this isn’t a competition as to who can yell the loudest. Just a thought.

New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The question is to the Deputy Premier: Premier, in the Drummond report, under page 324, there is a mention here that says, “Studies and reviews conducted over the past several years in Ontario and other provinces illustrate how its services”—and we’re talking about the Ontario Northland—“could be provided more effectively and efficiently” through targeted privatization of that particular company.

You stood with us, sir, in opposition to the Mike Harris government, opposing privatization of ONR. Is it still your position today?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Listen, let’s look at the history. The Tories wanted to privatize this. In 2003, we ran and we said we would be as creative as possible to try to make the ONTC a very viable entity. Our government has long supported the ONTC, providing almost $490 million in funding since 2003.

The reality is, we will continue to look, through the Grow North initiative, at a multimodal transportation system that suits the needs of northerners, that ensures that there will be a modern transportation system in northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, this agency reports to you, and my question was very simple. While we were in opposition together to the Mike Harris government, you stood with me in this House and you went to the rallies. You opposed the privatization, in whole or in part, of the ONTC. My question to you is simple: Do you still maintain that you will not privatize, in part or in whole, the Ontario Northland commission? Yes or no?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Listen, I will match our government’s record with regard to the ONTC against anybody or any party’s record with regard to the ONTC.

The Drummond report asked us to ensure that we have a very productive, modern transportation system in place that meets the needs of northerners. We’re ensuring that that takes place. We’re doing that through a multimodal transportation study, which is being headed by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Innovation. We will continue to ensure that northerners always have a very, very modern, multimodal transportation—

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Earlier this year, ReNew Canada came out with their annual list of the biggest infrastructure projects in Canada. I was not surprised to see the Windsor-Essex Parkway on that list at number 22, ahead of the Bruce-to-Milton transmission corridor and the Calgary International Airport development. The parkway is practically in my backyard, and it’s amazing to see the amount of work that’s occurring. It looks different every day I drive it.

This project is creating thousands of jobs in the area, and we want assurances that the Ministry of Transportation will see this vital project through and do so on an aggressive schedule. Can the minister commit to that for the residents of Windsor-Essex?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to wholeheartedly assure the member for Windsor West that the building of the Windsor-Essex Parkway to connect Highway 401 with the new Canadian international plaza remains at the top of our infrastructure and economic priorities. It is a $1.4-billion investment that’s creating about 12,000 jobs. We view this scale of investment as a necessity for Ontario’s future economic prosperity.

More than $100 billion a year in trade flows between Canada and the US through the Windsor-Detroit border, and much of that trade happens over infrastructure that’s almost 100 years old. This project is critically important, not just for Ontario but for Canada and North America as a whole.

I can tell the member that over the next few months, various aspects of the parkway construction will be going out for subcontracting, and that will mean jobs and job opportunities for families in Windsor-Essex.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Cambridge has given notice of his intention to raise a point of privilege. The member’s point relates to a passage on November 24, 2011, of his private member’s motion calling on the government to table a detailed plan relating to hospital expansion projects by March 1, 2012. The member alleges that, since this plan was not tabled by that date, Thursday of last week, this represents a contempt of the Legislature.

I am prepared to rule on this point of privilege without hearing further from the member for Cambridge or anyone, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to do.

As is the case with all private members’ notices of motion, the one put forward last fall by the member for Cambridge was preceded by the words, “In the opinion of this House.”

As the member noted in his written submission, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

“Hence, such motions which simply suggest that the government initiate a certain measure are generally phrased as follows: ‘That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider....’ The government is not bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action as a result of the adoption of such a resolution since the House is only stating an opinion or making a declaration of purpose. This is in contrast to those motions whose object is to give a direction to committees, members or officers of the House or to regulate House proceedings and, as such, are considered orders once adopted by the House.”

It is settled in the Ontario Legislature that private members’ motions may only have the effect of stating an opinion of the House. In an October 24, 2001, ruling, Speaker Carr ruled that:

“As members well know, private members’ motions are typically framed so that if and when they carry, they constitute expressions of the opinion of the House; in other words, they are said to be non-binding. This same principle has been applied on several occasions during the time allotted to consideration of private members’ public business when the Speaker has denied requests for unanimous consent to give third reading to a bill or to alter some later proceeding of the House.

When members are meeting for the purpose of considering private members’ business, they cannot bind the House to a final decision on a matter. Were it otherwise, a government could easily take advantage of its majority and a time-limited private members’ debate to pass motions which could, for example, amend the standing orders. This is clearly not the intended purpose of private members’ public business.”

The motion of the member for Cambridge that passed last November was, as mentioned, framed in the typical and acceptable way for private members’ motions in this House. It is clear in our practice and precedent that such motions, when passed, serve to express an opinion of the Legislature but are not binding or directive. While one might like or expect requests such as the one embodied in the member’s motion to be complied with—and that is all it is, in effect; a request—there is no compulsion to do so.

I therefore find that the member for Cambridge has not made out a prima facie case of privilege.

DEFERRED VOTES

ATTRACTING INVESTMENT

AND CREATING JOBS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT

À ATTIRER LES INVESTISSEMENTS

ET À CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act respecting the continuation and establishment of development funds in order to promote regional economic development in eastern and southwestern Ontario / Projet de loi 11, Loi concernant la prorogation et la création de fonds de développement pour promouvoir le développement économique régional dans l’Est et le Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1144 to 1149.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members, take your seats, please.

On December 6, 2011, Mr. Milloy moved second reading of Bill 11.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Craitor, Kim

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Piruzza, Teresa

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Schein, Jonah

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Leone, Rob

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Milligan, Rob E.

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 68; the nays are 35.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): So ordered.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order for the member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: We appreciate that we can’t challenge your ruling on the member from Cambridge’s point of privilege, but I would ask the government, then: Please change your arrogant behaviour. Listen to the will of this House and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1154 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I earlier introduced the family of page Sophia Sengfah, but the family wasn’t in the room at the time. Now the family is in the room, so I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce mother and father Sai Shwe and Jakai Shwe, as well as sister Grace Sengfah. I would welcome everyone to welcome them together.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: On Monday, February 6, a beautiful day in Hampstead was shattered by tragedy. On that day, a tragic accident killed 11 people, including 10 farm workers from Peru and the driver of a transport truck. Three others were injured.

But in the face of tragedy, we saw the true character of our community. From the professional, dedicated first responders to the neighbours who took action, to those who donated to the community trust fund, and to the many who simply said a prayer, we know the character of our community is strong.

I saw that again on February 10 at a community prayer vigil held at St. Joseph’s Catholic church in Stratford. I saw that again on February 25, at an auction and evening of live entertainment. That event raised $15,000 for the families of the victims and survivors. I want to thank event organizers Sue Dunfield and Stewart Reynolds.

Finally, I want to recognize another constituent, who represents the very best of our community’s character. After reading about the Hampstead tragedy, 11-year-old Kiarra Wells of Listowel took action. Hoping to raise $100 for the victims’ families, Kiarra started a penny drive. She called it Pennies for Peru. So far, Kiarra has passed her goal of $100, raising over $400. Kiarra, thank you. May all of us follow your example of character and service.

Let’s also remember, Speaker, that we are not in that much of a hurry that we cannot take the time to drive safely.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO DIRECTIONS PROGRAM

Ms. Sarah Campbell: On Saturday evening, I was fortunate to meet with six students from Dryden High School—Tara, Darren, Kayla, Clarissa, and Conan—and their teacher, Sherry Ambridge. These students are among 13 from across my riding who are taking

part in the University of Waterloo’s annual DIRECTIONS program for aboriginal youth. The program provides First Nations students with the opportunity to travel to Waterloo and take

part in a number of workshops that showcase their post-secondary options. The program also focuses on increasing their academic self-confidence, thereby increasing the likelihood of their success.

Programs like this serve as very important ways to show our First Nations students that there are many opportunities for them out there if they dedicate themselves and work hard to succeed.

I would like to congratulate these students and all of the participants of the program, as well as the University of Waterloo for creating an affordable program that makes a real difference in the lives of First Nations students. I would also like to thank Keewatin-Patricia District School Board for being a leader and encouraging their students to succeed.

I would particularly like to recognize Sherry Ambridge for her commitment to this program and her dedication to her students.

GLOBAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE

Mr. Phil McNeely: One week ago Saturday, the Global Community Alliance held their annual gala dinner marking Black History Month at the Sheraton Hotel in Ottawa. During the gala, several deserving individuals were presented with community service awards.

Reverend Anthony Bailey received his award for the work he has done in rebuilding the congregation at Parkdale United Church, which is now one of the most culturally diverse congregations in the city of Ottawa.

Suzan Lavertu is the founder of the School of Afro-Caribbean Dance, which is committed to preserving and sharing Afro-Caribbean culture through dance. The school has a performing company and focuses on various forms of African and Caribbean dance for youth and adults.

Finally, the Young Black Professionals of Ottawa also received an award for helping young people of colour make the transition from college and university into the business world by providing mentoring, social networking and professional development. The keynote speaker of the event was Adrian Harewood, who is the co-host of CBC News in Ottawa and a bright young star in the broadcasting industry.

The gala evening was organized by Ottawa–Orléans resident Moses Pratt, his wife Kelly and their children Tembeka and Lanre, with the help of Zybina Richards and Bertillia Christian.

The Global Community Alliance was formed in 2009 to help highlight the diversity that fosters unity within the Ottawa community, raise awareness of some of the issues in the community and recognize the efforts of individuals, associations, business and organizations that make a significant difference within Ottawa’s global community.

I would once again like to congratulate Moses Pratt and his family for putting on another wonderful event to celebrate and honour the black community in Ottawa.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Bill Walker: This Liberal government has ignored the people in rural Ontario by not answering our repeated call for a moratorium on industrial wind industry. Yet, when it came to the health concerns of people in Scarborough, Oakville and Mississauga, this Liberal government responded by instantly bringing in moratoriums on offshore wind and gas plant projects. Clearly, this is a double standard.

It seems there are two sets of rules where, one could argue, the voice, concerns and wishes of vote-rich cities command this government, while rural Ontario is ignored. The Liberal government does so at a great expense to the entire province.

Contrary to the advice of the Auditor General, contrary to the advice of energy, health and economic experts who warned against the coming crisis—a surplus of energy and paying others billions of dollars to take it, driving energy bills through the roof and losing jobs due to high electricity prices—the Premier steamrolled ahead anyway.

As it stands, this government is clearly broke, financially and democratically. But the government’s ignorance came to a grinding halt just recently when Ornge was officially added to the list of spending scandals, along with eHealth, OLG and the cancelled gas plants. With billions of precious tax dollars wasted and no new jobs created, this government is clearly out of control. The question now becomes: Just who is calling the shots in this government?

To my fellow backbenchers on that side of the House I say this: When you vote on Lisa Thompson’s moratorium motion this Thursday, vote according to your conscience, according to your beliefs and those of your constituents, not your party. Please do the right thing and vote for a moratorium.

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It is a pleasure to rise today to acknowledge the work of the National Farmers Union Local 353 in my riding, who held their annual general meeting this past Saturday.

I was fortunate enough to be invited as their guest speaker and had the opportunity to talk to the members of the NFU in Essex county about issues regarding regional concern and, of course, provincial concern, and we also addressed some of our national issues.

Mr. Speaker, the NFU has long provided a progressive voice for farmers across this country. They promote sustainability, equality and the security and sovereignty of our food system in a whole host of ways. They bring about a wide variety of ideas when it comes to energy efficiency and the safeguarding of our environment; they are the stewards of our land. It was really a pleasure to be able to discuss some of those issues with them.

They’re certainly concerned about the economic aspects of our province, but yet they feel that farmers can play a really vital role in that, and indeed they have. They’ve provided the backstop for our economic downturn. When times were tough, farmers were there, still providing us with a safe, reliable source of food and regional job creation. That’s something we often forget. These are local jobs that provide local food. It’s something that the NFU promotes, something I certainly promote as an associate member of the NFU, as I rejoined this past Saturday, and I urge all members to contact their local

chapter of the NFU, become aware of the policies they promote and support them in this House and across the province at large.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr. Joe Dickson: I rise today to mark a significant milestone in Ontario Power Generation’s refurbishment project at Darlington nuclear. OPG has awarded a two-phase contract to plan for and then replace major components of the four reactors at Darlington. The contract for more than $600 million to a joint venture of SNC-Lavalin Nuclear and Aecon Construction is one of several that will be awarded for the refurbishment of the facility.

Mr. Speaker, the good news in this announcement is twofold: One, the refurbishment, once complete, will allow Darlington to produce safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy for another 25 to 30 years; two, the project will create 6,000 jobs, and most of them will be in Durham region, including my communities of Ajax and Pickering. This is an investment in nuclear energy and in Durham region. We expect the project to inject approximately $800 million into our local economy.

I thank the Ontario government and Ontario Power Generation for its commitment to a balanced electricity supply mix in the province, maintaining nuclear energy as 50% of our baseload instead of dirty coal, and for once again investing in my Durham region. I also pay tribute to regional council and chair Roger Anderson and Clarington council and Mayor Adrian Foster.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s wonderful being here again today, especially with that trimmed moustache.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: In a recent meeting, members from Durham College relayed their disappointment that this government had overlooked their application to pursue a jointly funded phase 3 development of their campus. This proposal would see 900 new post-secondary spaces created in some of the fastest-growing fields of study in the province, including the culinary, hospitality and urban agriculture programs.

Members of Durham College are concerned that despite the clear economic imperative for this development, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities did not include Durham College’s proposal on a list of 20 projects that will receive provincial funding. In other words, of the almost $600 million spent on new infrastructure projects, not a single dollar was allocated to one of the province’s fastest-growing colleges in one of the province’s fastest-growing regions.

What’s more troubling is the fact that 18 of the 20 post-secondary projects were awarded to colleges in Liberal ridings, despite the fact that many of those colleges have seen declining enrolment numbers.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that Durham region is one of the fastest-growing regions in the province, given the fact that Durham College has a distinguished record of delivering its knowledge infrastructure programs on time and on budget, and given the fact that the college planned to fundraise a significant part of this project, not just depending on a government handout, I would respectfully request that Durham College be given due and fair consideration in future development applications.

EDUCATION

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Mr. Speaker, faced with tough economic times, our government is making thoughtful choices to build a better Ontario. We’re watching our finances just as families watch theirs. We are making sure services we all rely on are even better.

Nothing is more important than quality education. That’s why we have worked so hard with parents and teachers to reduce class sizes, improve quality, and see hundreds of thousands more students through to graduation and beyond. That’s why we’re protecting the investments we have made in our children in full-day kindergarten. Mr. Speaker, this is very important to parents and children in my riding.

McKinsey has measured Ontario schools against the rest of the world and says that, together, we have created one of the best education systems in the world. Just last week, I was pleased to see that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recognized Ontario as a “world leader in its sustained strategy of professionally driven education reform.” The OECD highlighted the innovative strategies our government has adopted to increase our students’ success. They have recognized how successful we have been at increasing literacy and numeracy results and improving graduation rates.

They single out our Equity and Inclusive Education strategy for helping schools reduce discrimination.

We are building on that great foundation with the Accepting Schools Act, and we’re making the choices that will continue the progress we’ve made in our education together.

LAUREN HANNA

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I rise today to give recognition to the Ontario legislative internship program and particularly the intern whom I have had the pleasure of hosting in my office: Lauren Hanna.

What is unique about this program is that the interns choose the MPPs and not the other way around. I feel honoured as a new MPP to have been selected by Lauren as her host office. Lauren recognized that Huron–Bruce matters and, for that matter, rural Ontario matters.

Lauren is from Aurora and has recently completed her honours bachelor of arts in political science from Acadia University in Nova Scotia. She has been a great help in our office, writing speeches and statements and doing much research on renewable, affordable energy in Ontario.

Lauren visited the great riding of Huron–Bruce on a few occasions, got behind the scenes in terms of a tour of Bruce Power, climbed inside a wind turbine, and was instrumental in the grand opening of two of my constituency offices in Kincardine and Blyth. Lauren’s energy and keen interest in rural Ontario made her a perfect fit in our office.

I recommend the internship program not only to other graduates interested in pursuing a career in the political world, but to my colleagues here in the Legislature.

Lauren departs our office at the end of this week, but I wanted to take a moment and to thank her in the Legislature for all of her hard work, especially her work in advance of my second reading of my private member’s motion on Thursday. Thank you, Lauren, and best wishes.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House of the following exchange in the order of precedence for private members’ public business: Mr. Yakabuski assumes ballot item number 23 and Ms. Scott assumes ballot item number 37.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT

(ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE

VEHICLES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(VÉHICULES D’ASSISTANCE

ROUTIÈRE)

Mr. Dunlop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to safety precautions to take when approaching roadside assistance vehicles / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les mesures de sécurité à prendre à l’approche de véhicules d’assistance routière.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act. At present, the driver of a motor vehicle is required to slow down upon approaching an emergency vehicle that is stopped on the same side of a highway as that on which the driver is travelling. The bill extends the requirement to cover cases where a driver approaches a roadside assistance vehicle that is stopped on that side.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, could I read the names of people who are here today? Because they weren’t here earlier.

There are a number of people here today from the CAA. They’re slowly working their way into the room. I would like to acknowledge John Ennis, Frances Mannarino, Ms. Pat Nielson, Anna Halkidis, Bruno Iafrate, Christine Alum, Tony Salerno, Phil Wilson, Rick Mauro, Teresa Di Felice and Henry Westenbrink. I’d like to welcome them here to Queen’s Park on their advocacy day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome our guests. That wouldn’t be a point of order, but I’m glad they’re here.

PETITIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

“Whereas Solray Energy Corp. has given notice of its proposal for a class 3 solar power facility known as Epsom Solar Farm to be located in the township of Scugog; and

“Whereas the site is on”—this is the issue here—“prime” agricultural land “that has been in production for many generations; and

“Whereas we consider productive farmland to be of vital importance to farm and rural communities by providing healthy, locally grown food and ensuring the sustainability of Canada’s food supply; and

“Whereas class 1 to 5 farmland ... that is zoned rural or agricultural should be protected from” McGuinty’s “current proposal and similar projects that may be considered in the future; and

“Whereas other sites of less” valuable agricultural land “are better locations for solar power developments”—if at all, at 80 cents a kilowatt hour;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature not to allow large, industrial solar farms on prime agricultural land, and we further express our support for giving local communities, through their elected municipal” officials, “the power to control and approve large-scale renewable energy developments” in their municipalities.

I sign this and give it to Katelyn, one of the taller pages here today.

DOG OWNERSHIP

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

I couldn’t agree more. I’m going to give it to Patrick to be delivered to the table, and sign my name.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to present this petition with respect to the decision to close Blyth Public School by the Avon Maitland District School Board.

“Whereas the pupil accommodation review states that an ARC committee is required, among other things, to determine the value of a school to the local economy, yet in the case of the Blyth Public School, there is in the minutes of the ARC committee not a single reference to any discussion of the effects of school closure on the local economy; and

“Whereas the same guideline states that the ARC, which is appointed by the board, must include membership drawn from the school community and the broader community, including, among others, business and municipal leaders, yet the ARC meetings considering the Blyth Public School included no Blyth business or municipal leaders; and

“Whereas the only invitations to public meetings in Blyth regarding the accommodation review were taken home by students to their parents, with the result that the broader community were not represented in the discussions; and

“Whereas many other communities across Ontario are now encountering very similar behaviours by their school boards; and

“Whereas single-school communities across Ontario are being permanently damaged economically and socially by the closure of their only school, which is, according to Premier McGuinty, the heart and soul of these communities; and

“Whereas the current Education Act of Ontario very undemocratically provides school boards with the absolute power to close any school they choose, with no avenue of appeal available to anyone, not even members of their own communities;

“Therefore, we, the residents of Ontario who have signed our names below, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt and enact the following measures:

“

(1) An immediate moratorium on all disputed school closures resulting from the accommodation review process and continuing until June 30, 2015; and

“

(2) The immediate striking of a truly independent third party body with the authority to review and reverse all disputed school closures found to be detrimental to the community or in conflict with other provincial programs or regulations; and

“

(3) Revision of the Education Act to require school boards to work with their municipalities and communities to ensure school closures comply with the principles and practices of sound community and educational planning.”

I agree with this petition, and I affix my signature and I will give it to David to give to the Clerk.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have these petitions from the people of northeastern Ontario, and they read as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario government” is making PET scanning “a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients...; and

“Whereas,” since October 2009, “insured PET scans” are 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” Health Sciences North, its regional cancer program “and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

“We ... petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through” Health Sciences North, “thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, Mr. Speaker, and will affix my name to it and ask page Judy to bring it to the clerks’ table.

WIND TURBINES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my seal to this and give it to Adrian to present to the House on my behalf.

BAITFISH INDUSTRY

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the live bait industry. It reads as follows:

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

“That the Ministry of Natural Resources recognize and work with the live baitfish industry to ensure a viable, quality baitfish product for the anglers of Ontario.”

I support this petition and will affix my signature.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Phil McNeely: My petition is from the parents and children of Avalon Public School in Ottawa–Orleans.

“To the Legislature of Ontario:

“Whereas the current enrolment of Avalon Public School is 687 students;

“Whereas the student capacity of the school is 495 students, as determined by the Ministry of Education’s own occupancy formula;

“Whereas the issue of overcrowding and lack of space makes it impossible for Avalon Public School to offer full-day kindergarten until the overcrowding issue is addressed;

“Whereas Avalon Public School is located in a high-growth community;

“Whereas the enrolment at Avalon Public School is expected to continue rising at a rate of 10% to 15% a year for the foreseeable future;

“Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has made building a new school in Avalon a top capital priority;

“We, the undersigned, call on the province of Ontario and Ministry of Education to provide the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board with the necessary funding to build an additional school in Avalon, to open no later than September 2014.”

I send this to the desk with Samantha.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: This was on wind turbines as opposed to solar, which was my previous one.

“Whereas there is a growing body of evidence confirming industrial wind development has serious adverse effects on host communities;

“Whereas over 135 people in Ontario have reported serious negative health effects from industrial wind development, and at least a dozen families have been bought out of their homes” to avoid controversy;

“Whereas Ontario’s Green Energy Act has ended local planning control by stripping municipal councils of their rights;

“Whereas 80 municipal councils, representing two million Ontarians, called on the government to put in place a full moratorium on industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological health study is completed, proper environmental regulations and protections are put in place, and local democracy is restored;

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

“Immediately put a moratorium on all industrial wind proposals; fund an independent epidemiological health study to develop safe setbacks; legislate those findings; develop stringent environmental protection standards for natural areas; and require all projects to comply with regulations based on science,” not on politics.

I’m pleased to sign and support this and present it to Sophia.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to present this petition on behalf of residents in Algoma–Manitoulin.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers have been paying over millions in extra charges on their hydro bills to help retire the debt. The amount collected to date as per the Auditor General’s report is $8.7 billion, but the amount owing was $7.8 billion;

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers are asking, where is the money being invested?

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers are asking why this was not addressed at the time the debt was paid;

“Whereas electrical rates have increased with the new creation of green energy coming online to include solar and wind, refurbishment of nuclear plants and deregulation of Hydro One;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows to obtain answers to the following questions:

“How much of the debt remains?

“When will it be eliminated from Ontario taxpayers’ hydro bills?”

On behalf of the residents of Algoma–Manitoulin, I will be signing this petition and presenting it to Mackenzie, who is also from Algoma–Manitoulin.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Jeff Yurek: A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the residents of Elgin–Middlesex–London are concerned about the sacrifice of 400 acres of prime agricultural land in the town of Belmont to the development of a solar farm despite the Green Energy Act’s prohibition of building on such high-grade agricultural land;

“Whereas the company First Solar” Inc. “claims their use of such valuable land is justified under the older renewable energy framework that was in place when the company received its OPA contracts;

“Whereas the government has grandfathered the project into the new Green Energy Act, thereby allowing the company to circumvent any municipal opinion and review;

“Whereas the government has effectively allowed this project to use favourable aspects of two separate regulatory frameworks while avoiding aspects of those same frameworks that are meant to protect one of Ontario’s most vital finite resources: its world-class agricultural land;

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

“To put a moratorium on the” First Solar “development in Belmont until the province decides by which set of regulations First Solar is to abide.”

I agree with this petition and I affix my signature.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Michael Harris: I’m happy to read a petition on behalf of residents in some beautiful communities next door to us: Bayfield, Goderich etc.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my name to this petition and send it down with David to the table.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it is unmistakable that clear and pain-free eyesight is a crucial factor in enabling Ontarians, young and old, to go about their daily lives and fully participate in democratic society;

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care clearly states that ‘OHIP coverage includes the lens that the patient’s physician determines is medically necessary for the individual patient at the time of (cataract) surgery ... No amount may be charged to the patient for the medically necessary lens or eye tests, or for other necessary add-ons to the insured services, such as premises, equipment, supplies and personnel that are required to provide the service;’

“Whereas the government of Ontario is demanding that its citizens pay a $300 fee for a mandatory eye exam prior to having cataract surgery;

“Whereas it is contradictory and disingenuous for the government of Ontario to cover the costs of cataract surgery while at the same time subjecting recipients of the surgery to a $300 eye exam in order to receive the surgery;

“We, the undersigned”—the hundreds of undersigned—“do hereby petition the government of Ontario to cover the costs of citizens required to undergo an eye exam for Ontarians prior to having cataract surgery.”

I agree with this, sign my name and will pass it on to page Adrian.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

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

Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics, modifiant la

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate on second reading of Bill 34? I recognize the member for Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to speak on

An Act to repeal the Public Works Protection Act, amend the Police Services Act with respect to court security and enact the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2012.

This is a response to the Public Works Protection Act legislation which was passed in 1939 when the Second World War was raging and I was all of one year old. It was intended to protect power plants, dams, bridges and other critical infrastructure from sabotage during the war. While its powers have not been used extensively, it does serve two main purposes: court security, allowing peace officers to request identification from and search a person, vehicle or property entering or on court premises; and the security of power generating facilities.

The use of the Public Works Protection Act during the G20 summit in downtown Toronto showed the need to protect civil rights in Ontario. The legislation was used in a way that many individuals lost the protection of their rights to protest peacefully in their own city, in their own province.

These are two legitimate uses of this legislation, but over 70 years later, it is time to modernize the legislation to be more in line with current realities. It is clear that the security concerns of today are different from those of the Second World War era when the Public Works Protection Act was adopted.

In light of the transpiration of events during the federal G20 event and the application of the Public Works Protection Act, our government took action to evaluate the use of this legislation and ensure it fit with modern-day applications.

The use of the Public Works Protection Act—the need to safeguard public works and the need to protect civil rights of all Ontarians—does not strike the right balance, and therefore will be replaced by the new bill.

There was significant concern amongst the public that the civil rights of many were ignored on the basis of the old bill at the 2010 G20 summit. The G20 was a federal event held in Toronto. The G20 was led by the Harper Conservatives through the direction of the Prime Minister’s office. After considering other sites, including Exhibition Place, the location preferred by the city of Toronto, the federal government decided the G20 summit would be held in the downtown. The Harper Conservatives gave Huntsville two years to prepare security for the G8, but only gave Toronto four months to come up with a security plan.

When you’re bringing in that many foreign heads of state and trying to ensure their safety, there are some distinct challenges. G8s and G20s typically attract a high level of attention from individuals and groups lobbying to have their issues heard. The heart of the downtown core of Toronto is home to many businesses, large companies and individuals who call it home. There is a definite challenge, not only to ensure civil order, but also to properly control and contain all activities taking place, whether legal or illegal.

These summits are accompanied by significant groups of protesters, as well as many people who do not agree with the way our governments are acting, and protests against these summits is a healthy occurrence. In addition to the normal protests are criminal elements who are organized to cause damage.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has said that the federal government is responsible for the G20 problems. They were quoted as saying, “What is needed is a comprehensive review that can examine the decisions and policies of all of the actors involved in the G20. The G20 was a federal summit, hosted by the federal government, policed by a federal security agency and paid for by federal funds.”

The federal government, in allowing insufficient preparation and time for an event which historically results in hoodlum-type demonstrations and damages, placed our police forces in a difficult situation, and the PWPA resulted in a mass overriding of peaceful protesters’ civil rights. I think there’s agreement on all sides on that.

Shortly after the G20, our government tasked former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to provide a report on the scope and appropriateness of the PWPA. Justice McMurtry recommended the repeal of the PWPA after potential security gaps were considered. Justice McMurtry was requested to review the PWPA legislation and arrived at the conclusion that there was no need for general purpose public order policing legislation.

Civil liberties groups, municipalities, justice officials, police, power generation stakeholders and the public were all consulted in drafting this legislation. Justice McMurtry’s recommendation to repeal the PWPA focused on balancing personal liberties and public safety.

In its current form, the PWPA provides a broad definition of public works, including:

—railways and other transportation infrastructure, public buildings, electricity generating facilities etc., and the ability to designate additional works as public works;

—the ability to appoint guards with the powers of a peace officer for the purpose of protecting a public work;

—additional powers for guards or peace officers to demand identification, conduct warrantless searches and refuse permission to a public work;

—the use of force to exclude a person from public works;

—that it is an offence to refuse to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer under the act.

The PWPA has not been used extensively, and the act is relied on only in limited circumstances. It provides a legal foundation for enhanced security measures without a warrant, particularly routine searches at courthouses. This is a widely recognized and accepted security practice based on known risks that are associated with court proceedings.

The Public Works Protection Act is also used by security personal at nuclear facilities. The peace officer status conferred on security personnel under the PWPA supports their authority to carry firearms and is used as authority for providing security in the controlled area of a nuclear facility premises. Other power facilities, the Ontario Legislature and other government buildings sometimes rely on the PWPA to empower guards to perform searches without a warrant.

Introducing modern, focused rules for protecting courts, nuclear and other power facilities, while also protecting the civil rights of all Ontarians, is what we are focused on with this new legislation. The Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act repeals the PWPA. The proposed legislation amends the Police Services Act to provide for court security. It will require any person entering or inside a courthouse to produce identification and provide information to assess their security risk. It allows for search, without a warrant, of any person, property or vehicle entering or attempting to enter premises where court proceedings are conducted.

It allows peace officers to search without a warrant, and use reasonable force if necessary, any person who is in custody where court proceedings are conducted or who is being transported to or from such premises, or any property in the custody/care of that person. It does not compel a person attempting to enter a courthouse to a search, to produce identification or to provide information. They can simply choose to walk away. In this way, we are giving citizens a choice if they want to have their personal information shared.

If they persist in entering the courthouse after refusing to provide information or submit to a search, court security personnel can refuse entry and/or demand that a person leave the premises. They may also use reasonable force, if necessary, to exclude or remove a person. If a person tries to enter and/or refuses to leave, they could be arrested. It establishes offences and penalties for those breaking laws or creating an issue. It is important for court security guards to have these types of laws to support them. This will help ensure the safety and security of courthouses and those who attend them.

Violent incidents, including murder, have occurred in Ontario courthouses in the past. The proposed measures will help to prevent these kinds of incidents in the future. When Ontarians enter our courthouses, there is an implicit sense that they will be safe and protected, and this legislation will ensure that that level of safety and security can be maintained.

Searches at courthouses undertaken pursuant to the PWPA were upheld as constitutional by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2005, in the case of Campanella.

In terms of electricity generating facilities and nuclear facilities, the legislation applies to prescribed electricity generation facilities and nuclear facilities. It designates security personnel at these facilities as peace officers with a specific set of powers. They can request any person who wishes to enter or who is on their premises to produce identification and provide information for the purposes of assessing the person’s security risk. It grants them the power to search, upon consent, any person, property or vehicle entering or on the premises.

The legislation does not replicate the power in the Public Works Protection Act that gives guards the authority to exercise their power in the approaches to the public work. Mr. McMurtry and civil liberties groups identified this language as too vague and too hard to define. This proposed legislation will only allow the specified powers to be exercised on the premises.

We are proposing specific authorities to secure Ontario’s power plants based on the unique nature of these facilities in Ontario. Ontario nuclear plants are generally located closer to populated areas, and they therefore need a different measure of protection. Ontarians living near these plants expect to be protected.

Should an emergency occur and public safety and security could potentially be compromised, residents need to be assured that their homes and communities will not be endangered. We have developed this approach based on in-depth discussion and consultation with the nuclear industry, law enforcement and civil liberties groups, all of whom recognize the need for measures to ensure the security of Ontario’s nuclear facilities.

If other infrastructure is identified in the future that should be included in the act, it would require a legislative amendment, consistent with Justice McMurtry’s recommendations and with what we have heard from civil liberties groups.

Because the list of infrastructure is quite limited and the content of any proposed amendments is subject to public debate, we are working to ensure transparency in the use and scope of this act.

The ministry has also implemented a public notification protocol when police powers are amended by regulation, to ensure adequate time for public review and input prior to passage.

While Mr. McMurtry suggested that the federal government should regulate security at nuclear facilities, and we agree with him that that would be the ideal solution, we have not had a comprehensive federal response as yet. We have approached the federal government to determine its interest in creating the appropriate legislation or regulatory authority for security measures. However, they are unable at this time to fully address these issues in federal statute.

We have therefore developed legislation that proposes a made-in-Ontario solution. We will maintain open channels of community with the federal government and look forward to working with them to develop a federal solution in the future.

Justice McMurtry reported that there is no need for general-purpose public order policing legislation—the way police manage mass demonstrations and protests. Common law police powers are based on case law and provide police with sufficient authorities if a breach of the peace is imminent.

This government is committed to addressing security needs for an event like the G20 and will work with others to ensure that appropriate measures are in place if another event like this is arranged in Ontario.

The police have the required powers to manage mass demonstrations. Common law police powers are based in case law and provide police with sufficient authorities if a breach of the peace is imminent.

We’re the first Canadian jurisdiction to put in place specific legislation, but following discussions and consultation with the nuclear industry, law enforcement and civil liberties groups, all recognized the need for measures to ensure the security of Ontario’s nuclear facilities.

This legislation will ensure that Ontario’s nuclear facilities, electricity generating plants and courthouses will be better protected. It is more modernized, transparent and focused on security that is necessary.

As Minister Meilleur stated when this new legislation was proposed, it will “achieve the important balance between protecting critical facilities and civil liberties.”

Many people contacted my office after the G20 mess, concerned about the trampling of civil rights. I’m sure most members of this Legislature received those complaints. It was recognized that we had to do things differently, and this is what this bill is all about. It will protect people’s civil rights. When these leaders come to our cities, or other cities in the world, there are always many people who are against globalization or are against many of the issues that these leaders bring along with them. So we have to make sure those peaceful protests can occur, and we have to protect the civil rights of people who just want to protest.

Ontario does not wish to see a similar situation arise in the future where people expressing their views in a proper manner are subjected to an obvious overreaction from police and the loss of their civil rights.

The PWPA was enacted over 70 years ago, in a war against the Nazis. The legislation was used in a different era, when it was not needed. The new legislation is very specific to a few situations. It is important to safeguard our courts and our electricity generating stations, and will not be used again where our policing powers are sufficient to protect property and people.

Mr. Speaker, I too believe that this legislation will allow for better safety and security for our courts and nuclear and electricity-generating facilities while balancing the important rights and responsibilities of the public.

I thank you, Speaker, for this. I’d just like to quote from the statement made by Madame Meilleur when she was bringing this bill in: “Our government recognizes that we have a responsibility to ensure that our courts and critical infrastructure are protected; however, we must always balance the need for security with a respect for civil liberties like the freedom of assembly and the principles of an open and transparent justice system. I believe that this legislation does indeed strike that necessary balance.”

I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m pleased to stand and comment after my colleague across the floor, Mr. McNeely from Ottawa–Orléans

I’m very pleased, as I have Bruce Power in my backyard, to support the safety and security of such a significant facility in my riding.

It’s unfortunate, though, that Bruce Power actually felt the need to put their own security system in to ensure that that system was there in place. I’m also pleased to say that they are international award-winning with their security services.

I also proudly and equally support the need for security in courts in Owen Sound, where a good friend of mine, Clayton Conlan, was just appointed to the bench. This is notwithstanding, though, that the Liberals have closed both of our jail facilities in Owen Sound and neighbouring Walkerton, and we still wait for facts and figures that will support that this decision is going to be to the benefit of the Ontario taxpayer. They continue to tell us that there are savings associated and this was a necessity, but we get no answers when we ask the question: “Show us the numbers, show us the savings and that this will provide better service.” It was hastily executed and poorly planned.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across said that we need to respect civil rights and democracy. I would suggest that it’s confusing, because when we come to the Green Energy Act, they do not listen to the people of Ontario. They have resoundingly, in fact, not listened to the people of Ontario who have stood up and said, “We do not want wind energy to go through at this current time. We want a moratorium. All we’re asking is to hold the line and allow us to go there.”

Mr. Speaker, it’s imperative that a sound security program is delivered in a cost-effective manner. We cannot have endless administration and bureaucracy that’s going to add to the cost, like many of the other things that the Liberals on the other side of the House have done of recent. I would suggest to you the arbitration laws that they have invoked—it’s something that we cannot afford; the taxpayer of Ontario cannot afford to pay. However, we do support good security in these vital facilities.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’ll speak directly to the bill at hand, as I have, as well as my colleagues on our side of the benches. I’ve spoken with some measure of hesitation and offered some suggestions about how this bill may indeed be better or actually may impact some of the more fundamental aspects of our legal system, particularly when it comes to presenting the powers under the PWPA to security guards in courtrooms. We question some of the extensions of those powers and the limits to which security officers will be able to go to retrieve information, to demand identification, to impede upon the public and their access to our provincial courts, all in the name of security.

As my colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton rightly pointed out, it is under the auspices of security and terrorism that typically our rights begin to be infringed upon. Of course, we know that this bill comes about—we think—from a black mark on this government’s history in dealing with the G20 here in Toronto, where rights were infringed. Democratic rights to assemble and to protest were infringed upon by this government under the cloak of secrecy, in the dark of night, where a secret aspect of this bill was passed without the knowledge of the broader public and really without knowledge to those police forces that had the responsibility to enact it or to enforce it.

So we hope that some of those concerns will be highlighted and, of course, addressed by this government, but we are thankful that we are in a position where the majority of this House has the ability to provide that insight and oversight so that we don’t make the same mistakes twice.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 34, the Public Works Protection Act, and I guess to thank former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry for the work that he did looking into the whole issue around the G20 and the Public Works Protection Act and how we modernize that, how we provide for better, more current security regulations, and also to thank Madeleine Meilleur, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who has brought us the act and done the follow-up work on following along after Mr. McMurtry’s advice.

I think this has been a really, really difficult issue, because there is no doubt that there were legitimate security concerns. In fact, I happen to come from a city where one of the people who actually ended up in jail as a result of behaviour at the G20 lives, and there’s another person awaiting sentencing who also, from time to time, lives in my riding. So we have seen in my riding that end of it where there have been legitimate concerns, and we do need to have law that will take care of those legitimate security concerns.

But I also have constituents who are at the other end of the spectrum, who were wanting to legitimately engage in political protests and were not looking to engage in acts of vandalism.

So it’s finding that proper balance between those who are engaging in deliberate thuggery and those who are engaging in political protest, and being able to better sort out those two. I think, with this bill, we have obtained a better balance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question and comment. I recognize the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back as a summer job, I had the benefit of working at the Bruce Power facility and saw just how immense it was and the issues that of course have been changed over the day. I realize that there is a critical importance to make sure legislation deals with the security around these normal power stations and, of course, our courts that are there to guarantee our rights. But, of course, t