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

November 25, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-25 (PDF)

L074 - Thu 25 Nov 2010 / Jeu 25 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 25 November 2010 Jeudi 25 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

SMART METERS

ENERGY POLICIES

STUDENT ASSESSMENT

PEST CONTROL

POVERTY

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

CORONER’S INQUEST

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TOURISM

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BROCKVILLE RIFLES

FUNDRAISING

TAXATION

ENERGY POLICIES

FUNDRAISING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ALBANIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

HOLODOMOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

S.L. MCNALLY CONSULTING

SERVICES INC. ACT, 2010

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOME CARE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

VEHICLE SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VEHICLE SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 24, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 135,

An Act respecting financial and Budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 135, Loi concernant les mesures financières et budgétaires et d’autres questions.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: When I left off yesterday, I’d been going through the responses of the Premier to questions about his long-term energy plan, because the realities of that long-term energy plan bear directly on this bill. They bear directly on the 10% reduction in electricity bills that will be financed by borrowing $1 billion a year on the bond market, a matter of some consequence to the people of this province.

It was very clear from the Premier’s comments in question period yesterday, when he said, “We’re doing whatever we can to place as much of the risk as we reasonably can on to those of the private sector,” that the Premier’s previous position—and that of Ministers of Energy in various incarnations—had said, “No, we will no longer have the province of Ontario, the people of Ontario, on the hook for overruns.” What the Premier said yesterday was that that principle had been abandoned and that in future they’re going to try and cut a deal to reduce the risk, not eliminate it.

But as you are well aware, Speaker, since every nuclear power project in Ontario has gone over budget and has come in behind schedule, these are very substantial risks, and there are consequences to the treasury of Ontario and consequences to the people of Ontario in the position that’s been taken by the Premier.

The Premier talked about the thoughtful and responsible plan that had been put together but could not answer even some of the most basic and fundamental questions about his plan when he was here in question period yesterday morning. That indicates either a secretiveness or a lack of thorough enough preparation and knowledge on the part of those who put together the plan.

He was asked again by Andrea Horwath, the leader of the Ontario NDP, about the realities of his plan: “The Premier may not want to answer these questions, but they matter to the people who will be stuck with the bill. The Bruce refurb has cost $2.4 billion a unit so far and it’s not complete yet. The government’s new nuclear plan calls for 10 refurbished units. Where is the government’s evidence that those 10 refurbished units will cost less than $25 billion in total, and will it share that evidence with the people of Ontario?”

Now, the Premier could have answered that. He could have said, “Here are the numbers for this; here are the numbers for that.” But instead of that, he went on to say, and this was fascinating to me, “There are some pretty significant cost overruns....” Yes, that’s true, Premier, very significant cost overruns; cost overruns that, for the nuclear power plant in New Brunswick, led to a series of decisions that resulted in that government being defeated in the next election.

“There are some pretty significant cost overruns but, because of the contracts we’ve entered into, the private sector is responsible for all those overruns.” Well, first of all, (

a) that’s not true, because the government of Ontario in fact agreed to take on a portion of those overruns; and (

b) the simple reality is that last year Dalton McGuinty signed a sweetheart deal with Bruce Power to pay for power whether it was produced or not, resulting in a bill of about $60 million. He effectively changed the floor price for power, giving Bruce Power a benefit that will run for a very long period of time. If that’s protecting the people of Ontario from cost overruns, may there be mercy on us in the years to come, because that is no great protection.

It also raises the question: Will all future refurbishments be privatized in the way that the Bruce nuclear power station has been? Is that his plan for passing on that risk or part of that risk? There are more questions that are raised by the non-answers from the Premier than any answers given.

The other part of it all is to look at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the company that is backstopping all of this. Just this past summer, the Premier sent a little note of friendship to Prime Minister Harper asking for some mercy. Shawn McCarthy, Globe and Mail, Thursday, November 11 of this year: The headline reads, “Ontario Asked Ottawa to Delay AECL Sale.” Mr. McCarthy writes about a letter sent from the Premier to Prime Minister Harper: “The province wants Ottawa to help cover potential cost overruns of an AECL project, which could be substantial given that the company is offering a new generation of reactor technology that is still in the design stage.”

It sounds to me like the risk isn’t being passed on to the private sector. It sounds to me like the risk is being passed on to the public at the federal level. The Premier would like all of Canada to subsidize nuclear power here in Ontario. That’s the substance of his letter to the Prime Minister.

The Premier asked that the sale of AECL be delayed. Mr. McCarthy reports: “Instead, the federal government has plowed ahead with its auction process, despite a lack of broad international interest in the bidding. Two companies have submitted formal offers: Montreal-based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and Bruce Power....

“However, those two bidders will not commit to financing completion of AECL’s new advanced Candu....”

The future of the very technology that this government has been planning to incorporate into its power grid is in grave doubt. So, when you ask the Premier what this is going to cost, his guess is based on far more shaky hopes than we have seen in the past. His hopes are based on a wish that AECL will be there and will be subsidizing nuclear power, and I don’t think that’s a realistic wish anymore.

As reported by Mr. McCarthy, “Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis said Wednesday that AECL’s current operation is ‘unsustainable’ and that it is being restructured to diminish the burden” on Canadians. In that same article, Mr. McCarthy reports, “Industry sources say the province is going to have to accept some risk of cost overruns in order to conclude a reactor deal.”

Well, that is consistent with the Premier’s answer when he said he was going to try to move as much of the risk as he reasonably could. Once again, the Premier has backed off his commitment to protect Ontarians from cost overruns, and we all know how that plays out: Everyone who signs a cheque every month to pay their hydro bill and looks at that line “debt retirement charge” is paying for past nuclear failures. This government, this Premier, is committed to repeating history—and a very expensive history it is.

I just note some of what’s driving the federal government in its concern about AECL: That is that the federal government has had to allocate some $1.6 billion to AECL over the last two years to cover costs of overruns—some $446 million to cover cost overruns at its Candu refurbishment projects in New Brunswick, Ontario and South Korea. In fact, when that overrun comes along, it is the public treasury that is coughing up to cover that overrun.

My time remaining is short, so I’m going to move on to a second element in this particular bill. That is the changes related to worker safety, the WSIB. There are many concerns from the injured worker community about the changes in this bill. As they say to me, the government is changing the existing funding principle which has been in place since 1915. It’s a current account system, in which there has to be enough money to make payments as they become due, with a reserve specifically not required to be equal to full funding. The proposed system is a full funding system.

That is to have enough money on hand to pay all future costs of all claims on the books. It sounds attractive, but it does pose very significant challenges and problems for employers: It may well cost more, and for injured workers it may well result in pressure to reduce their benefits.

The government is apparently pre-empting the WSIB funding review that it has announced with Professor Arthurs. The preferred route, the route suggested by injured workers, is to wait until after the funding review before taking action. But if the government decides to proceed with this legislation now, then the legislation needs to spell out that if funds are not sufficient, the board must raise rates paid by employers. At present, the wording reads that the new

section 96.1 requires the board to “develop and implement a plan to achieve sufficiency that complies with the prescribed requirements.” What can be in a plan that is serious about dealing with sufficiency besides the rates? What will be the other source of income, if it is not from the rates? If the government is serious about protecting injured workers, the only option to deal with the problem is to raise the rates, and this needs to be made very clear.

Anything else will lead to interminable controversy every time the alarm bell goes off about “sufficiency.” This may seem to be a minor amendment, but it could in fact signal a far more fundamental and potentially negative change in workers’ compensation for injured workers. The government should be holding public hearings or waiting until the report of Arthurs’s inquiry before introducing these changes.

I note that the changes in this bill appear to stem from the Auditor General’s report—which was not only a numbers report but contained a very classic private insurance view of the funding of the public compensation system. The basic funding idea from the private insurance world is one that seeks to protect clients and investors in case of company failure. By law, private insurance companies need to be fully funded; that is, they must have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their clients for future benefits in case they go out of business.

I need to point out that the WCB—WSIB—was set up in 1913 to run like a public system and not have all the funds in the bank, as the system was not set up to fail. It has withstood the test of the Great Depression; it has withstood storms since then. The Ontario WCB has never been fully funded and is funded at about 50%, which is a higher ratio in the bank versus future liabilities than the Canada pension plan, a plan which is funded at about 26%. It’s called steady-state funding, and no one is in a panic over that.

The legislation calls for “sufficient” funds rather than full funding. The Ministry of Labour will say that it allows the parties to define what it is, but the basic idea is the same: Run the ship like a private insurance company.

Justice and fairness to injured workers will inevitably be pitted against the competitive employer rate argument. This has negative implications for injured workers, who were promised a system of justice and fairness in exchange for the right to sue. It’s a fundamental change, and there need to be hearings on this. I know that we will have committee hearings on this bill, and it’s my hope that the voices of injured workers are heard very clearly in pressing forward what they see as necessary amendments to this bill.

The last public study on unfunded liability was done by a Professor Weiler in 1980. Wheeler said he didn’t like employers putting all the money in the workers’ compensation board coffers for all future costs when they might like to keep it and use it for investments.

The government and WSIB have just announced a public inquiry into board funding issues called the funding review, headed by Professor Harry Arthurs. It’s looking into this issue, a complex one, and I think this government would be well served by waiting to hear the commentary from its panel before it made final decisions; at the very least, on any regulations that would flow from this legislation.

I will wrap up now and I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was listening to the member from Danforth speaking yesterday and today about the fall economic statement, about the bill, about his suggestions for changes and amendments to the bill. Of course, it’s always never enough. I have a great respect for the member from the NDP when he speaks; I know he comes with a lot of numbers and figures.

But we are more realistic on this side of the House. We talk about the reality of the economy and the reality of the future of this province; about how we can fix energy in the province of Ontario; how we can fix labour relationships in the province of Ontario; how we can look at the future of the province of Ontario; how we can invest in our education system in the province of Ontario; how we can maintain health care in the public domain and keep it accessible for all; how we can look after the vulnerable people among us.

No doubt about it, there’s going to be a lot of criticism from the other side of the House about whatever we do not being enough. Whatever we do is wrong, in their opinion.

But as a matter of fact, due to the economic circumstances in Canada, North America and the whole world, I believe we’re doing excellently. We’re performing more than any other nation on this planet. I would invite my colleague on the opposite side to go look and compare us to Ireland, compare us to England, compare us to Greece, compare us to Portugal, Spain, Italy, and to the United States, our neighbour to the south. Then see what we are doing and how we are performing in the province of Ontario, all of it because we have a plan.

We have a vision for the future, because we calculate every step we take in the province of Ontario. That’s why we are proud—I’m proud, particularly—to be in a government that has a plan for a bright future, that believes in the people of Ontario and believes in our ability to continue to be prosperous in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I particularly came this morning because I wanted to hear the final remarks from the member from Toronto–Danforth. He was consistent. I would say that on the nuclear file we probably disagree, but he understands that the government on the other side of the House has lost its way on this file. We can’t trust—this is the main issue about this debate.

When I look at the very name of the bill, the cynical name, the Helping Ontario Families and Managing Responsibly Act, this is shifting the blame onto the people they’re supposed to be representing, as if they’re responsible for the smart-meter mess up and for the unexpected increases in costs of the HST and that. This bill sums it up well; it’s got 21 different tables.

I generally have a lot of sympathy or at least appreciation for the perspective of the member from Toronto–Danforth, but we know, and have known for about 30 years, that nuclear is the baseload of electricity supply for Ontario. I’m proud to represent an area, the riding of Durham in the region of Durham, specifically the Darlington plant but also, respectfully, the Pickering plant. It’s been operated safely without event for many years.

In fact, it should be remembered that under our government, we refurbished a portion of the Pickering plant at great expense, I might add, but nonetheless providing safe, reliable, predictable forms of energy. They seem to forget that when the blackout happened, it was the northeast United States and a failure in its distribution and transmission system. I would say now that if they are promising to close coal plants anymore, you know they’re not telling you the truth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: As always, it was really interesting to listen to my colleague from Toronto–Danforth. If there is somebody in this House who knows a thing or two about the environment and who knows the energy file it’s the member from Toronto–Danforth. His background certainly speaks for itself. He has been committed to the environment through his entire career. You cannot separate the energy file from the environment file. The two are linked so closely together.

Nobody disagrees that the use of coal-fired generators has a tremendous, horrific, detrimental effect on the health of the people around those generating stations. Our chief medical officer of health and the people before her certainly have documented the ill effects they bring on the people, especially on the respiratory system, and then it spreads to the entire body. The damage we’re doing to the people of Ontario can actually be costed out to $2.7 billion to $3.5 billion in health costs that we can link directly to the use of coal generating stations that do nothing for the environment and nothing for the people who live close by.

Our member talks about the way to bring forward renewable energy that people need and to do this in a clean, green, healthy way. I think we should listen to what he had to say. The NDP had a plan to take the HST off your hydro bill. You just put it on a couple of months ago. It adds a burden that a lot of families are not able to shoulder. Why didn’t you just take that off?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I appreciate the couple of minutes available to respond in part to the member from Toronto–Danforth. Before I do that, I really have to respond to the two-minute response of the member from Durham. I’m hopeful—I’m optimistic—that his leader will get a copy of Hansard and be able to read what the member from Durham, who said he represents the Darlington plant area, said.

He talks about the base nuclear load, which he said before in this place is reliable, safe and ultimately cost-effective—I’m not sure he used that word, but I know he has in the past. And I agree with him; it is an important part of our baseload. He spoke about the refurbishment of the Pickering plant and the expenditure. I was the mayor when that process started, and it was so sorely underestimated by the government of the day. I think they estimated $800 million to do two reactors, and my recollection is that it was probably in the neighbourhood of $2.4 billion to do one reactor. So they certainly didn’t get the costing right.

But I’m hoping his leader has the chance, because they don’t have a plan. It’s a plan-free zone, I think the terminology is; a plan-free zone. He has laid out the first part of their plan, and I’m hoping that his leader has a chance to read Hansard, because it’s an important part of the plan. I hope they can put a cost on that part of their plan and maybe flesh it out a little bit along the way, because currently, they’ve got an absence of a plan. It’s a plan-free zone they live in across there.

I think that two minutes was very well spent this morning by the member from Durham, and I know his leader is going to take the opportunity to read Hansard carefully and use that as a fundamental basis for starting to develop a plan so that the debate we have here can be about alternatives—not just about complaining, but putting forward real alternatives as part of the debate.

I apologize for not having spent the time I should have on the member from Toronto–Danforth’s speech, but I felt, for my purpose and my needs in Pickering, that this was an important part of the debate this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Toronto–Danforth has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My thanks to the members from London–Fanshawe, Durham, Nickel Belt and Pickering–Scarborough East for commenting on my remarks this morning.

I’m going to go back to the member from London–Fanshawe, with his statement that what we have before us is a realistic plan. Then I’ll contrast that with the comments from the member from Pickering–Scarborough East, who noted the increase in cost for nuclear refurbishment going from $800 million to $2.4 billion.

This government has said that $33 billion will be the cost of the nuclear core of its electricity plan. The history of nuclear power in Canada—not just here in Ontario, but also in New Brunswick—is a history of costs doubling, sometimes going higher than that; it is a history of overruns and expense far beyond those that were ever recognized by those who started the plan.

This Premier, this Premier here, has decided that he will gamble the future of Ontario’s economy, he will gamble the future of Ontario’s public sector treasury on a technology that has already badly burdened this province financially once. That was not enough. Apparently, we put our hands on the hot stove element, we got burned, we didn’t notice and we decided to do it again. That’s what he’s planning to do here.

When the member from London–Fanshawe says that this plan is realistic, he needs to ask his Premier what his numbers are based on, because even the Premier, apparently, can’t give that answer when asked in this chamber. A realistic plan is able to explain where the numbers come from; this one isn’t.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’ll be sharing my time this morning with my colleague the member from York West. But first of all, I’d like to wish my wife, who is a vice-principal at St. Catherine’s in Peterborough—today is our 16th wedding anniversary. I did—

Mr. Mario Sergio: Sixty?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Sixteen, not 60. Holy smokes, I’d be getting a scroll from the Premier, my friend from York West. We look forward to a little celebration a little later today.

One of the most important parts of Bill 135—and I think it’s something that all of us in this House should take a very close look at—is the changes that we’re going to make to the Ontario Securities Commission here in Ontario.

I’d like to start off by quoting Howard Wetston, who appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies on November 2, 2010. He recently was appointed chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. He said, “The evolution of the capital markets also reinforces that now, more than ever, we must reform our system of regulation by supporting the implementation of a national securities regulator. I am committed to supporting the Ontario government, the Canadian Securities Transition Office and participating provincial regulators to make this important goal a reality.”

That is a very fundamental part of Bill 135, and let me tell you why. Every pension plan in Ontario and, indeed, throughout Canada—many of those defined benefit plans and those defined contribution plans have a base of their revenue in stock portfolios.

One of the things we noted some two years ago, when there was this meltdown of world financial markets that started south of the border—indeed the $40-billion bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers certainly indicated the need, through the trading of derivatives, the trading of sub-prime mortgages—was the need to certainly bring in new regulations to control the securities market here in Ontario, and both nationally and indeed internationally. All of us are very dependent on having oversight of the security regulation market, and this is a very important aspect of this bill.

I note that, interestingly enough, some two years ago there was a report in the financial

section of the Globe and Mail talking about the Central Bank of Iceland that went broke. When they reviewed the capital base of the Central Bank of Iceland, they discovered that it was totally made up of American sub-prime mortgages that that central bank had bought 15 and 20 times down the road. We all know what a house of cards that was.

I’m also concerned—it goes back to the previous government, the previous finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, who is now the federal finance minister. He was very supportive then of having a national securities regulator—the right thing to do. It is certainly the position of this government that there is a need to have a national securities regulator. That would certainly be in everybody’s interest, to do that. If I was providing any advice to the Prime Minister on this particular area, I would suggest that he move unilaterally to set up a national securities regulator.

I certainly read with interest this morning a headline from the Globe and Mail on the western Premiers—Mr. Stelmach, and Mr. Wall of Saskatchewan. The title is “Premiers Push Back Against National Securities Regulator Plan.” I have concerns when I read that, because I think all of us in this House should join together and support the federal government and support the province of Ontario to move ahead in this particular area.

There’s always talk about Darlington, and the cost overruns in Darlington. Let’s put that in perspective, too. The Darlington project was stop-start, stop-start on three different occasions. Also, during that period of time, the financing of Darlington went up to 21%. So when you start peeling away, like an onion, the costs associated with Darlington, you have to take into consideration that it did stop-start three times, and interest rates to finance that particular project ballooned to 21%. You have to put that in perspective.

I am concerned that the federal government is contemplating selling a portion of AECL, because indeed it is a unique Canadian technology. I would ask the federal government to show the same consistency with AECL that they showed towards the Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan. They decided it was in the national interest that that acquisition by a foreign company shouldn’t go forward, and I would ask them sincerely to apply the same test to AECL.

We hear a lot of talk in this chamber about electricity costs, and I have my own bill from my home in Peterborough. We have a very modest home. We have energy-efficient appliances, and I volunteered some two years ago to the Peterborough Utility Services to be a part of their pilot for a smart meter and load-limiter. So I went into PUS in Peterborough to look at my bill from a year ago October; that would be October 2009. Back in October 2009, I used approximately 690 kilowatt hours, and I could give you the breakdown of that usage.

We had 91 kilowatt hours at 9 cents; we had 431 kilowatt hours at off-peak, at 4.2 cents; and we had mid-peak, at 7.6 cents. With the GST included and the wheeling charges of $27, our bill was $79.50. I looked at our bill from October of this year. Our bill was $93.72. When you factor in the HST, the difference year over year was a meagre $8.17, and I can give you the background on that. We had on-peak use at 9 cents, we had off-peak use at 0.3 cents and mid-peak use at 8 cents.

When we hear some of the bills, some of the numbers that have been thrown around this House, I would say that people should sit down and take a look at their bills. The executive director of the Peterborough Utility Services in Peterborough, Mr. Doran, indicated to me that you may want to look at those bills. It may be the situation for people who haven’t paid their bills for a considerable number of months that they’ve had to restart their electrical service, and those costs have to be taken into consideration. But for my own bill, year over year, the difference is a meagre $8.17.

I’d like to also get on the record, from Hansard back on November 27, 2002, a question about green energy and conservation from my friend—the riding’s name was then York North—Ms. Munro:

“My question is for the Minister of Energy. We’ve heard from people across the province that the government’s recent announcement to lower electricity rates and provide rebates for consumers is exactly the kind of relief they were looking for. Obviously, this has been the focus of a great deal of media attention. But people may be less familiar with some of the other important aspects of the government’s action plan.

“Minister, could you please tell us what the government is doing to promote green energy and conservation?”

I will give you the answer of the esteemed Mr. Baird on that occasion:

“Our government is committed to the promotion of green energy and conservation. This Friday I’ll be in Huron county with my colleague Helen Johns, the Minister of Agriculture, where we’ll open the first commercial wind farm in Ontario. This wind farm will generate enough electricity in the province to meet the annual needs of about 3,000 homes with green electricity. That’s good news for Ontario and good news for the environment.

“We all believe we should have a commitment to promoting green energy. That’s why the government has accepted the challenge and a set of targets to show provincial leadership by targeting to buy 20% of its electricity from green sources. I think that’s good news.” I agree it’s good news. “We’ve also introduced some really substantial tax incentives to try to promote both energy conservation and clean, green and renewable energy in Ontario.”

I can tell you, I agree with Mr. Baird. He couldn’t have said it any better than that.

I want to leave some time for my friend from York West.

Some of the other, I believe, important parts of this particular fall economic statement: We continue with our permanent income tax cuts, that being for the 2010 tax year, taxes reduced by $200 on average for 93% of Ontario’s income tax payers; the elimination of the Ontario personal income tax for about 90,000 lower-income taxpayers; sales tax relief for about 3.1 million individuals and families through the Ontario sales tax credit. This credit, which would begin to be paid quarterly in August 2010, will provide up to $260 of relief per person per year and up to $1,040 for a family of four.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the deficit challenge. There’s no question the words are quite accurate. When the federal finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, who served with distinction in this House for many years, looked at the federal deficit being in the neighbourhood of $50 billion, he certainly said there are challenges that all governments face in order to reduce their deficit. But we are living, I think people can say, in some very extraordinary or challenging times.

Back in 2007 none of us would have anticipated that General Motors and Chrysler would be put to the brink. We had to provide them with $4 billion in assistance. In my particular case General Motors represents about 25% of the economic activity in my riding of Peterborough, between retired workers from General Motors and active workers for General Motors. Indeed, we were quite fortunate that most of the GM employees in my riding were employed in the car plant. We also have a number of manufacturers that supply General Motors each and every day.

When I looked at the challenges, the choice to support 25% of my economy had to be the top priority as the MPP for the riding of Peterborough. What that meant was that $4 billion was going to be added to our deficit. We are getting some of that money back; General Motors has provided some payments up front. They just recently issued their IPO, which has been successful. We look forward to recouping those dollars that we invested, certainly, in General Motors and, down the road, the dollars that we’ll get back from Chrysler.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, and I know it has had a great impact on your riding of Brant: We had to take $7 billion to invest in infrastructure. Most economists here in Ontario, and indeed around Canada, indicated that that investment in infrastructure is indeed very important. It provides the building blocks for a modern, successful economy. But we had to borrow money to do that, to inject that money into the economy to build airports, to build bridges, to build community centres and other things that will provide Ontario with that base to move forward in the future. I think that is pretty important.

When you peel back the $4 billion that we put into General Motors, the money that we invested in infrastructure, though it increased the deficit, I think everybody recognizes that that was the right thing to do. We now need to move on to the next step with an orderly way to start paying down the deficit that we indeed face in Ontario. For every billion dollars we reduce in the deficit, it reduces our interest costs by $50 million.

I’ll now turn it over to my friend from York West.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dave Levac): The member from York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say, you look very nice in that chair, very nice. Congratulations. I hope this becomes a more often and perhaps permanent position.

I want to add a few comments on the so-called Bill 135. It’s nothing more than the 2010 Ontario economic outlook and fiscal review. In the last couple of days, full of debates, we heard a lot about our energy plan and support. I have to say with all due respect, that the more I hear about it, the more I dwell on it, the more I can sense that our Premier is on track, is right. Not only the Premier himself, but the Minister of Finance, when he says that, yes, it is going to cost us more, but in the long run, we are going to gain economically, both as a province and the people of Ontario as well.

As well, I have to agree with the Minister of Energy when he says that the people are with us. The more we talk about it, the more I think the people understand that it is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for now and for the long term.

If we look at the past, what happened in our province, a lot of the evils we are dealing with today, evils we and the Premier had to deal with in the last seven years, are because of what has not been done in past years—not only what should have been done, but the little bit that has been done was done in the wrong way.

You want to hear something really interesting? Speak to the local municipalities. They will tell you about the problems that we have created as a government when the various cuts took place to practically everything, from social services to housing to infrastructure—all the assistance that is vital to our local municipalities.

When we come to the seven years of this government, if we put on the table all the many things that the government has delivered, I think we should be very proud. We should deliver to the people of Ontario the good things that we have been doing, because in everything we have done, we didn’t close schools, we didn’t close hospitals, we created new jobs, and we are at peace with our schools. We did this in a very unexpected time, but we are managing, and as the Premier often says, we have recouped 75% of the jobs lost.

At the same time, we have given—which I am in full support of—our seniors, on an annual basis, almost $1,100 in rebates and grants to assist them with the cost of rising utilities. We have cut taxes for 93% of our people, or 9 out of 10. I think they will realize that when the time comes to file their income tax. I think we should be very much aware, on a daily basis, of what we have been doing now as a government versus the others.

I have to say this: When they talk about the good times, we had some good times, but we had some terrible times. We had a recession that nobody foresaw. When I look at the previous government, they enjoyed some of the best years of economic growth that our province has ever seen, and what did we see? We saw cuts all over the place, especially to services, closing schools, closing hospitals, firing nurses, firing doctors. We didn’t do that, and we went through a very bad economic period as well.

I think when we dwell on the energy crisis, let me say that when our small business people and our industries open up the door and turn on the switch to start production, the power is there. It’s important for them, and it’s important for us, because they start producing, and they start selling.

It’s good for them, it’s good for our province, and it’s good for the people of Ontario. So I hope the opposition will support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I didn’t want to be disruptive, so I was watching the member from Peterborough outside in the anteroom here, and I wasn’t impressed. I’ll say that respectfully. The member from Peterborough works hard, but the real issue here is that I’m disappointed he didn’t speak at all about the changes in

schedule 21, which are changes to the WSIB.

This is important. There are really two parts to it: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. It’s insurance for health care. It’s private insurance for health care; that’s what it is, because if you fall off a ladder at work, the company pays through insurance, and the hospital is reimbursed through an insurance company. So it’s private health insurance.

Let’s be clear. We’re all saying, “Oh, this health care.” It’s insurance, as is auto insurance for personal accident and injury. It’s insurance. It’s private insurance that pays for health care, so don’t let the consumers of Ontario be misguided about what’s happening.

What’s happening in this

schedule 21? Most members have not read it, and I’m so disappointed. They don’t even understand it. This is what surprises me. Members here who are elected to represent the people have no clue what’s in it. This

section here underlies the—it absolves the province. Premier McGuinty is now absolved of any responsibility for fully funding WSIB.

The WSIB, the insurance board, has—it makes me so sad—$12 billion of debt. It’s a liability. They don’t have enough money to pay for all of the injuries or compensation for people who can no longer work. There’s a

section in his response I wanted to reply to, because there are two parts to the liability, in that it’s the future benefits provision that needs to be present and future benefits that need to be protected. Let’s respond to that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is rather refreshing to see you in this chair. Congratulations.

The comments from the member from Peterborough: He started his comments talking about the security change. People have to realize that the Ontario Securities Commission didn’t see fit to regulate this market, because they said, “Those are sophisticated investors who deal in derivatives, and those are complicated financial instruments. Therefore, we don’t need to regulate them because they are sophisticated.” Unfortunately, this did not serve the people of Ontario well, and although the bank has really pushed back hard about this, they now seem a whole lot more co-operative and Ontario is moving forward.

I was in an Ontario-Quebec intergovernmental meeting last weekend, and I can tell you that from the Quebec government, they are really trying to position themselves as the province that will be dealing in the derivatives. The work that Ontario is doing is really at the forefront. How this battle will end up, I’m not too sure, but I think, as with many things that the government does, we will know more because the devil will be in the details. How much control will we have? How much transparency will we have? We will only find that out once the regulations are rolled out. We’re dealing with a bill here.

We’re dealing at the 40,000-feet level. We don’t really know what it will look like on the ground, and we won’t know this until the regulations have rolled out.

As far as his hydro bill, I’m really happy to see that he was able to keep his hydro in around the $70- to $93-a-month range. That’s still $20 up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I’m very pleased to be able to stand up to speak to Bill 135, and certainly as it relates to the economic outlook that we have at this point in time.

I can honestly say that for myself, as a member, I have sort of a built-in focus group as to what’s happening at the constituent level. When you have five children who parent your 13 grandchildren, you know what is happening in their lives in the day-to-day and the kinds of worries they have, the kinds of bills they’re faced with, the issues around the economy, the insecurity around jobs, sometimes. My children have what most people would consider to be jobs of the type that—some are working in developmental services; I have a son-in-law who’s a truck driver.

They work in the same kinds of work that most Ontarians do. They’re hard-working and they have their struggles, but they also have their enjoyments. It’s important for us as a government to make sure that we recognize that.

Going through the economic statement that we have recognizes that these people are trying to get through what is the end of a recession in this province. As we move forward, the insecurity is still there, and they reflect that to me as I listen to what they’re talking about and the things that they’re dealing with. That’s why we have things such as the Ontario clean energy benefit, which is 10% on their energy bill. Those are things that will help them to make the transition, because we recognize that the cost of energy is going to continue to go up. That is a reality of our lives. What we need to do is to help them make that transition, and that benefit will do exactly that.

Those are the kinds of things we are looking at, but we’re also being very honest and very realistic about what the future holds for people in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m going to have an opportunity in a couple of minutes to make a few comments on Bill 135,

An Act respecting financial and Budget measures and other matters. It’s one of those omnibus bills, and it brought in the so-called discount on hydro. I look forward to talking about that for a while, because I’m very curious about the comments and the questions coming back from the Premier, in his response to our questions, on whether or not the official opposition and the third party have any energy plans for the province of Ontario. It will be interesting to delve into that a little bit more.

I’m really curious to see what the actual energy plan is for this government, because it’s been nothing but a bunch of floundering and flip-flopping for seven years, going back to the days of David Peterson when he completely destroyed the nuclear system, and here they’ve carried on over and over and over—

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Isn’t it incredible? You say one thing and the Minister of Agriculture has to yap away like usual. I sat quietly through her speech, and what do we have? We have this heckling and garbage going on from the other side, because you say, “This party has absolutely no energy plan,” and they try to speak as though this particular government, the official opposition—

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Here they are yapping away. Isn’t that an embarrassment? Because, you know what? They’re going down and they know it, and they’re desperate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Peterborough has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I do want to thank the members from Durham, Nickel Belt, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, and indeed Simcoe North.

I have spent a lot of time analyzing the part of the bill that deals with derivatives and the Ontario Securities Commission, because that’s part of my background and something that I’m very interested in. I happen to think it is a very important thing that we have to do.

Over the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Stop the clock. I’d just ask everybody to settle down, please.

Honourable member for Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, I’m now taking the opportunity to go through

schedule 21. Changes to the WSIB are part of this Bill 135, and a very important piece.

I can say to my good friend from Simcoe North, when I get educated about the nuclear industry, I go to the experts in Peterborough. They’ve been involved in Candu since 1952. We have one of the greatest collections of engineering talent of any community in Canada with regards to nuclear development in fuelling machines, in bundle development, and indeed design. That’s recognized; all members of the House, I think, will recognize that work.

I take the opportunity to sit down with Peter Mason, who’s the vice-president of nuclear development for GE Canada. He’s involved with their partner, Hitachi. They bring me in, they brief me, and they give the insight—the practical insight, not the rhetoric but the practical insight—into Ontario’s and Canada’s nuclear industry and how they’re positioning it going forward, the development of the ACR-1000, which is the next generation of the Candu reactor.

So I invite my colleagues any time: If they wanted to come, I’d set up a briefing and go through the details as it relates to Canada’s nuclear industry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I will be in Peterborough, door knocking for our Conservative candidate, so I may drop over and see you at some point, because that’s a riding we plan on winning.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Oh, Garfield.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Here we go; the heckling begins again. Isn’t it amazing? You come into the House to debate a bill, and all they want to do is yell and scream at you and heckle you, because you want to make a few comments that they don’t like to hear about.

I’m happy to speak to Bill 135 for a while,

An Act respecting financial and Budget measures and other matters. I think the funniest thing about this bill is the

short title of it. I think it’s something like Helping Ontario Families and Managing Responsibility Act, 2010. Well, I’ll tell you, that’s quite a name for this bill. It’s obviously an omnibus bill, and it brings together 21 separate bills that we deal with.

I’d like to concentrate a little bit on the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit Act, 2010, and the 10% reduction in electricity costs over five years. That alone is very, very misleading, just in the title of itself, because we know that energy rates are going up dramatically, and at the end of the day, they’re going to give you an invoice or your bill will come in the mail and it will say “less 10%.” You add 30% or 40% on, and we’re going to see 10% come off the bottom, and that’s going to be the Dalton McGuinty benefit.

I heard the member from Peterborough mention his bill. Are there a lot of people getting bills with only $6 or $7 more?

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’ll tell you, that’s not what we’re hearing. You know what? We’re not hearing that at all. Senior citizens are coming to me, and they’re saying to me, “Garfield, what am I going to do? I can no longer live in this house. I’m afraid of the future. I’ve watched the taxes. I’ve watched the harmonized sales tax. I’ve watched all these new taxes, all these crazy additions on the bills, the plan they have,” and they’re afraid of their hydro bill. They’re afraid for the future.

I’d love a copy of that bill, and I’m going to show people. I’m going to say, “This is what Mr. Leal is getting in the city of Peterborough.” His is only eight bucks a month—what?—$100 a year; only $8 a year—

Mr. Jeff Leal: No. I said October 2009 and October 2010—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Fine. I’d love to have it, because I’ll send some other ones back to you from other people.

As soon as we bring up energy in this House—now, they’ve obviously had their caucus meeting and got their messaging out that, “We’re not going to answer any questions, because we’re going to say to the official opposition and to the third party, ‘Where’s your plan?’” First of all, we don’t have to have a plan right now; our plan will be in our platform. You’re the government. You’re the ones who are supposed to have the plan. You’re not supposed to be questioning whether we have a plan. Where’s your plan, plain and simple?

Let’s talk about your plan. Let’s go back to 2003.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, can you do something about the noise in here, particularly the Minister of Agriculture? Maybe you should worry about the Ministry of Agriculture instead of heckling me. You’ve got a few problems in that ministry.

Let’s talk about the plan. When I remember 2003, Dalton McGuinty promised, “I’m going to close all the coal-fired generation in Ontario by 2007.” I remember watching him on Steve Paikin, and Steve Paikin was making a mockery of him on the show. He said, “Mr. Premier, in 2007, would that be near the beginning of the year or would that be near the end of the year?” And the Premier thought for a few minutes and said, “Mr. Paikin, I think it’s going to have to be near the end of the year 2007.” That bought him eight or nine or 10 months, but he never did close any coal-fired generation.

Elizabeth Witmer’s plan for the Lakeview generating station was the one that came into place, and that was actually closed. Of course, they took credit for it and never gave a word of good praise to the work done by Minister Witmer. But that’s what we found. So that was the beginning of the Liberal energy plan: to make a mistake by three years, and now I believe they’re at 2014 or 2015 or 2016, and they’re probably going to get them all closed down.

The one thing they’ve never explained to me in their energy plan was the emissions from the United States, where there are over 300 new, clean, coal-fired generating stations, and the prevailing winds do come this way. I’m wondering what the impact is of the United States of America coal-fired generating plants, what their emissions are and what the impact would be on the air in the province of Ontario, and in fact, in Canada, because the wind does blow up. The last time I looked, there wasn’t a wall there. The winds actually had to go through the air, and they could deposit the emissions.

We haven’t seen that impact, and that has been very discouraging to me, because they continue in every answer to talk about, “Well, you Tories believe in clean coal, which is dirty, dirty, dirty. And you know what? We believe in clean air for our kids.” But they never talk about the impact of the United States on this particular subject.

Then they went into the planning around how do you implement clean energy: solar and wind? Well, the first thing you do is make sure that the municipalities have absolutely no say. You let these projects go between the Ontario Power Authority and basically companies that are from Korea and the Far East—that’s who’s making the real profits out of the clean energy program—putting them wherever they want, with secret deals on farmland etc.

That’s the way it’s been in Simcoe county: No one knows where they were until they popped up one day and said, “Oh, by the way, we’ve got an agreement on that particular farm right there, and you know what? There’s going to be 185 acres of solar panels. That’s really bad farmland”—it’s only been farmed for 150 years, but it’s bad farmland; it’s class 3 or 4—“so we’re going to allow you to put it on there.” None of the neighbours know about it, none of the council members know about it, so they have a public meeting.

Now, the public meeting’s a bit of a joke. A snake oil salesman from the company comes up and he says, “Well, you know what? This is all good. There are not going to get any negative impacts. We’re here for 25 years. Goodbye. Leave us alone.”

I understand now, with how shaky this government is, that all those companies are now very, very concerned about their future in Ontario, because if another government comes in, they may want more accountability around the solar farms and wind generation here in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yeah. Jeez, boy. Yeah, you should worry more about the beef farmers and the hog farmers than about coal-fired, okay? Don’t worry about our—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. I just want to remind members to speak through the Chair and stop picking on each other.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m trying to speak through the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I can hardly talk to you because of the noise coming over from the other side about their so-called plan.

So we’re talking about some wonderful things now: their clean air program, which has no study on the impact from the United States; and their new plans for windmills and solar panels.

I get a kick out of the windmills. So much emphasis has been put on the wind generation. Can you tell me why, when the wind gets too strong or there’s too high-powered a wind, they stop? They stop; they don’t work under high winds. You’d think that wind generation would go faster and faster and create more and more power, but it doesn’t. And of course we know that the solar panels are very, very ineffective most of the time. On a day like today, when it’s cloudy outside, the percentage of power they produce is down as well.

But they’re putting their savings on that. They’re depending the future of this government on solar-powered generation and wind generation, and that’s going to be the backbone of their energy plan. But what they forgot to tell everybody, and what the average person doesn’t know, is that when you’re paying 35 or 40 cents a kilowatt hour, or you’re paying 58 or 60 or 80 cents a kilowatt hour for solar, it’s the average hydro user who picks up the difference. They pick it up on their bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Absolutely, and that’s every little guy. I’m surprised your bill isn’t higher with that.

But I can tell you, that’s where it’s going to happen. When this all gets into place, all those proceeds, all those profits are going to be going to companies in—for example, Sharp industries have bought the renewable solar projects from California, placing 20 separate projects, I think, in the province of Ontario. They’ve now bought that for $350 million and they’re heading over to—those profits are going back to Sharp industries, which is based out of the Far East.

Our people, here in the province of Ontario—although some may be manufactured here; there might be the odd solar panel built here or there might be some blades of the windmills build here—the proceeds from the people getting the 80 cents a kilowatt hour are actually in other countries. That’s what I don’t like about this. And I really don’t like the fact that our municipal councils haven’t had any say, no say at all in this.

They’re being pushed through, as we know. When we went back to the Green Energy Act, one of the things that happened right here in my riding—in the riding of Simcoe North, we had one of the first companies come forward and tell the mayor—they did tell the mayor in this case, but there was no planning program; on the biggest farm in Oro-Medonte, they wanted to put 235 acres of solar panels, until the people were outraged and said, “What’s this all about?

We don’t know anything about this.” And then we said, “It’s class 1 farmland.” So at least our caucus went to the committee hearings and stressed the fact to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture etc. that these shouldn’t be going on class 1 farmland, class 2 farmland and, in fact, the upper five categories of farmland. But in the end, they caved and they only said class 1 and 2. We all know that Canadian Soil’s inventory maps are not accurate because they’re far outdated, and the reality is that many of the lands that they are putting the solar power generation on are very, very good farmland.

I’m very, very disappointed, as a former municipal councillor and as a member of this assembly, that we do not have the backing and the support of the political process that allows for a rezoning. You have to remember: This is manufacturing, this is an industry, and when you take farmland without any kind of an official plan amendment or any kind of a zoning bylaw, you’re allowed to go into a complete different use of land. That infuriates the general public. It certainly is not good for our municipal councillors, because I can tell you right now, they still get the letters and they still get the concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t remember: Do we adjourn at 10:20 or 10:15?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): At 10:15.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I know you really want to hear me next week as well.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes, so I want to continue on here.

We go back to the government’s plan. I guess, somewhere, there is a plan, but no one has actually seen what the plan is—their energy plan. The latest thing is, when the pressure got on the government, they said, “We’ve got to do something. People are outraged over these hydro bills. Let’s give them a cut of 10%.” So in comes this bill as part of an omnibus bill.

What they’re probably going to do—there are probably some things in here that we like in this bill, Bill 135, but there’s things we hate about this. So you’re going to force us probably to vote against this. Then you’ll go around saying, “You know what? They voted against it. That bad official opposition voted against it.”

But you know what? I thought it almost humorous that the Liberal plan now is to say to the official opposition, “Where is your plan? Where is your plan?” Believe me, guys, we’ve got 10 months before the election; you will see our plan. Do you think we’re going to give you the date it’s coming out? We’re not going to do that. You will see: The people of Ontario will have a comprehensive energy strategy coming from this party, and they will have a comprehensive tax strategy coming from this party as well. We’ll develop that, and that’s what we’ll sell to the people of Ontario next fall.

The reality in the province—you all know. I think you’ve all been in Santa Claus parades, and everybody did the Remembrance Day circuit here a few weeks ago, with all the different events. I think a lot of you probably know that your government is not a very popular government anymore. The varnish has worn off, and you know what? People are very, very upset and discouraged, and they just do not have—the working families in the province of Ontario can’t afford a Dalton McGuinty government. They’re not asking for sex education in the classroom. They’re not asking for that for kindergarten and grade 1 students.

No one is asking for that. But you did a flip-flop on that. And then, because Tim Hudak agreed with mixed martial arts and thought it would be good for the economy, good for businesses, good for people with restaurants and bars—they were absolutely opposed to this. Dalton McGuinty said that there will not be any mixed martial arts. And then, all of a sudden, out he comes and suddenly he agrees with mixed martial arts. The list goes on and on and on.

But you know what? The best list of all is the list going back to September 13, 2003. When Dalton McGuinty said to Ontario citizens—does anybody remember this, when he signed the Taxpayer Protection Act? Does anybody remember that? We’ve got copies of it; we’ve got pages of it. It’s nice stuff for a future election. Mr. Speaker, do you remember what he said? The Speaker doesn’t even want to look at me. He said, “I will not raise your taxes.” Remember that? Dalton actually said that to the general public: “I will not raise your taxes.” Then he followed through with the health premium—it’s $1,000 minimum—very shortly after that, and then he brought in the harmonized sales tax. Unbelievable.

I’ll finish off next week when we go back to this. I’ll finish off this debate and look forward to having you all back to hear my final comments.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we’ll have question period.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Christopher Bentley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understand that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear white ribbons in recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: They’re not here yet, but today I’m expecting the arrival from Bowmanville High School of David Rempel and a grade 10 class. Welcome to Queen’s Park whenever you arrive.

Mr. Charles Sousa: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two outstanding members and residents of Mississauga South, Ron Olson and Mike Moorcroft. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I would like to welcome my guests from the Ontario Genomics Institute to Queen’s Park. I would also like to encourage everyone to attend Genomics in the Park, taking place in room 230 from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. today after question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today the Consul General of the Kingdom of Spain at Toronto, Mr. Francisco Pascual de la Parte. Please join me in welcoming our guest today. Consul General, welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. This Tuesday, the Ontario PCs showed that Premier McGuinty is not keeping to the caps for salaries of 367 senior bureaucrats in the Ontario public service. He is also not keeping to the wage restraint plan he said was necessary to balance the budget. The media has reported on six arbitrations that ignored your 0% plan. The Ontario PC caucus has uncovered the details of 11 more.

The Premier’s plan is off the rails, and it looks like the McGuinty government is balancing the books largely on the backs of non-unionized workers, 100% of whom had their wages frozen. Why has Premier McGuinty created a two-tier wage freeze?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d like to begin just by putting a few facts on the record. Ontario has the fewest public servants per capita of any province. We have the second most efficient public service in Canada, according to Statistics Canada. We capped the size of the Ontario public service in 2008. We are now on track to reducing the size of the Ontario public service by 5% in 2012. We laid that policy out; we’re more than halfway there. We expanded the sunshine list to cover OPG and Hydro One, which the Conservatives tried to hide. The average salary of OPS members on the sunshine list decreased by 2% last year.

We reduced consultant use by 54% from the time he was in government. We will continue to build on our successes today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: Premier McGuinty hasn’t held the line on wages, and now long-term-care homes in Toronto and Ottawa are scrambling to deal with awards of 9% or more over three years. He let arbitrator awards take over 5.5% over two years out of the budgets of senior care homes in Kingston, Orangeville and Thessalon, yet Premier McGuinty is quoted saying the province will not fund any wage increases for the next two years.

Why is the only hard line Premier McGuinty has taken with long-term-care homes who cannot afford these deals?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: With respect, I don’t believe this is about hard lines in the sense that—that member wants to pick a fight, and we want to build a better public service that’s more efficient for all Ontarians.

I would remind the member opposite that, in the case of long-term-care homes, many of those are privately owned, owned outside of the province, and there are challenges with respect to executive compensation in those organizations. But unlike the member opposite, this government’s plan is not to pick a fight with relatively low-paid workers while you ignore what’s happening on the balance sheet and income statements of large multinational health care providers.

It is about finding the right balance, it is about getting back to a balanced budget, it’s about building on the success of our health care system and our education system, and it’s about being fair to all and ensuring that this province continues to grow well into the future.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Premier McGuinty’s wage restraint plan for balancing the books has gone badly off the rails. Tom Closson of the Ontario Hospital Association says, “The plan failed. What we need is a new plan.” By backtracking on actual wage restraint, Premier McGuinty has left Revera long-term care, which seniors across Ontario call home, without money to pay wage hikes of 7.25% over three years. He left care homes in Huntsville, Pembroke, Woodstock, New Liskeard and across Ontario short of millions for imposed wage increases.

Premier, will your backtracking on the wage restraint plan leave homes to raise residents’ fees that Ontario seniors pay or reduce front-line support staff, or both?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government has invested unprecedented sums of money in long-term care. The member wants to ignore that. We are building 35,000 new beds right across the province of Ontario. Those beds are coming online now. Just last week I had the opportunity to tour a brand new facility in my riding that will be receiving patients for the first time in January.

I have confidence that the working men and women in those facilities, the companies that own them, the American companies that own them and compensate their executives, will want to work together with us to provide the best quality of service at an affordable price for all Ontarians.

This government’s commitment is to reinvest in health care; he’s promised to take $3 billion out of health care. We reject that play, we reject that way of doing business, and we will fight you on that, just like we’re fighting you on energy and how to run a province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. For all of the Premier’s tough talk on wage restraint, the only hard line he has taken is with long-term-care homes that have to manage resources for wage increases and Ontario seniors, who will pay more and live with less. Some 77,000 seniors live in our long-term-care homes. The Premier’s inaction means their homes will be forced to cut services and staff. My question is: What impact will the Premier’s failure to hold the line on public sector wages have for those 77,000 seniors?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, we now have achieved a number of collective agreements in Ontario since the introduction of the policy. The average settlement is coming down. The average settlement right now is 1.7%. For the first time, it’s fallen below the average settlement in the federal public service as well as the average settlement in the municipal public service, and it’s now below the average settled in the private sector in Ontario.

That member and her party cut nurses; they fired nurses. We have hired nurses, both in acute care and in long-term care. I believe that everybody working together can help us bring the budget back to balance. We are seeing progress now. This government wants to build partnerships; that party wants fights. We’re going to avoid that and work with—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: That’s interesting, because in its November 2010 funding submission, the Ontario Long Term Care Association questioned why Premier McGuinty is backtracking from his wage restraint plan. They told the Minister of Health that as a result of arbitration decisions, wage costs will increase by $60 million.

The McGuinty Liberals’ failure to create any new long-term-care beds over the past seven years shows that the homes do not have $60 million sitting around, waiting to be spent. Based on the OLTCA submission, homes will have no choice but to lay off 1,300 nurses and seniors’ care providers if the Premier continues backtracking from his wage restraint plan.

Why did Premier McGuinty tell Ontario seniors and families he would deliver a wage freeze and protect health care, but not do it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have to reject the presupposition of the question. In fact, what we said was, we are going to work with our partners in the public and broader public sectors to bring down wages to a zero and zero through negotiation.

I want to stress at the outset that we reject what they want to do, which is pick fights. We don’t want a scenario—we don’t want to go back to where we were. The people of Ontario remember what happened.

Leadership is very much about building. It is about partnership. I’m proud of the fact that we are now the lowest-settlements-on-average across the federal, provincial and municipal public services.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Real progress.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s real progress.

We will continue to work with the long-term-care side as well as with the unions there. We will continue to build on the progress we’ve made.

There’s more to do, and I believe all Ontarians want to work together and want to reject your idea about picking fights with just about—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The fact of the matter is that Premier McGuinty’s wage-restraint plan is badly off the rails. He backtracked from his tough talk about a wage freeze and left long-term-care homes to fend for themselves. Now, they have to deal with massive layoffs as a result of these arbitration awards. Some 1,300 nurses and senior care workers will receive layoff notices in April 2011, and those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg.

Why hasn’t the Premier done anything to protect Ontario seniors and families from cuts to front-line health care, despite all of his promises?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here we go again, coming from the no-plan zone. They say a lot of things, they don’t say things accurately, they don’t say what they would do and they fail to remember their own record. Let me just remind my colleague opposite about what they did with nurses. They fired 6,200 nurses; we’ve hired 10,000.

I accept the challenges. The Premier reminds me that with co-operation, working with our partners in the broader public sector, we have raised test scores, we have improved education and we have improved health care. Let’s talk about wait times, working with our partners. They didn’t have a wait times strategy; we do, and we’ve funded over two million procedures so far.

We don’t want to go back to their—show us your plan. It’s a no-plan zone over there. They have no idea—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. After seven long years, two false starts and a 70% increase in the hydro bills families pay, the McGuinty government now says that they have the hydro file figured out. Is this the last plan we can expect to see from this government, or can we expect another one between now and the next election?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a long-term energy plan. It projects our needs during the course of the next 20 years. We have put forward what I would argue is a visionary document. It’s going to ensure that our families breathe clean air; it’s going to ensure that we create thousands of new jobs in an exciting, revolutionary green technology industry; and it’s going to provide every Ontarian with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we’re going to have all the electricity we need—that’s clean electricity—for our families to enjoy their lives and for our businesses to grow and to thrive. We have a very specific plan.

I think it’s now incumbent upon my honourable colleague opposite to put forward her plan. I think if we’re going to engage, in an intelligent way, in a thoughtful debate, we’ve done our part. We’ve put forward a plan. It has got all the specifics, including all the costs. I think my honourable colleague has got to do the same, and it would be helpful if she’d do that just today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says all his cards are on the table, but for Ontario families facing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars in costs, the hand they’ve been dealt isn’t a winning one.

On behalf of families, the Premier has signed private power deals worth billions of dollars, but the details are all secret. When will the Premier finally truly show us all the cards that he has played and make the contracts public?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let’s talk about some of those dastardly private deals. Ten thousand of those private deals were signed with Ontario farmers. Just so we get into a bit more detail—because we’ve got lots of it and they have none—the typical investment by a farmer is $30,000. The typical annual revenue that will generate is $2,500. That’s what we are talking about with these “secret” private deals: 10,000 farmers, average investment $30,000. They’re going to the bank and borrowing that money, by the way.

It gives them an additional $2,500 every year, which supplements the income they get otherwise from their crops and other farm activities. We think that’s an important contribution to the quality of life in rural Ontario. We’re going to get clean power out of that, and we’re creating jobs when we manufacture those solar panels and install them. That’s part of our plan. We’ve got a plan, Speaker. They don’t.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier isn’t gambling with his own money here; it’s money that belongs to hard-working Ontarians. He’s saddled them with an expensive plan that he can’t explain and he won’t defend. Thousands of dollars will be coming out of family budgets to pay for these hydro deals. Yesterday I asked the Premier to explain his numbers. He refused.

Today I’m asking whether people can see the contracts this government is forcing them to pay for. How soon can we expect that, if ever?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are all kinds of community interests that have gotten involved in this exciting, revolutionary job creation, clean energy generating program in Ontario. I’d encourage my honourable colleague to get in touch with the Reverend Doug Moore. He’s at the Laidlaw Memorial church in Hamilton. This is the first church in Ontario to feed energy into the grid. I can tell you that the parishioners are very proud that they are able to make this contribution.

There are hundreds of community groups, faith-based organizations, municipalities, universities, schools and renewable energy co-ops, all kinds of community groups across the province of Ontario, that are onboard with our plan.

We have a plan. We’re proud of our plan. We’re sticking to our plan. It would be nice if they had a plan.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Here’s what families see: a government that spent years promising rates would hardly go up, and double-digit increases on their hydro bills; a government that said coal plants would be closed three years ago, making the same promises over and over again.

If the government is so proud of their plan, why can’t they answer the basic question about the math behind it or provide basic information about the deals they’re signing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I just want my honourable colleague to understand what and who she’s against as she opposes our plan.

Here is another story: Habitat for Humanity built 20 homes—

Mr. Paul Miller: Get a life.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will please come to order. If he’s going to remain sitting in that seat, it’s best that he sit there silently.

Mr. Paul Miller: Your choice. Okay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East—

Mr. Mario Sergio: Throw him out.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, I don’t need any help from the member from York West in doing my job. But I would just say to the member from Hamilton East that it’s one thing to have interjections, but some of the animation that he demonstrates in leaving one chair and going to another is not helpful for keeping this House respectful of one another. And I would just ask that he be conscious of his use of hand gestures.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can understand why my honourable colleagues in that party don’t want to be confronted with the reality of our plan, because it’s good news.

Here’s one more good story: Habitat for Humanity built 20 homes in west Toronto. Those homes will all soon be part of our microFIT program. Habitat is not only providing safe, affordable places to live for 96 people; they are adding clean power to the grid through solar energy, they are helping to pay their household costs, and as well, they’re being part of our program. That’s just one more example of tens of thousands of Ontarians who are excited about this program. They see their place in the future. They want to be part of clean energy. They want to be part of clean air. They want to be part of new jobs and a stronger economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government’s plan is based on contracts they will not disclose and details they will not share. Can the government provide any accounting of how they plan to refurbish 10 reactors and build two new ones for $15 billion less than anyone in Ontario’s history?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Here’s what Lynn Acre, the outgoing mayor of Bayham, said: “Wind energy is having an incredibly positive impact on our community. The Erie Shores wind farm has become part of our identity. My advice would be to come and see it for yourself.”

Here’s Lou Madonna, the reeve of the township of Prince, which is near Sault Ste. Marie; he said this: “The township … is happy with the wind farm. We have 61 … turbines and I wish we had 60 more. When you consider the revenue, why wouldn’t I?… For the township, it’s a win-win situation.”

People across the province want to be part of this program. We’re talking about economic opportunities; we’re talking about clean air; we’re talking about a visionary approach to meeting our electricity demands for the next 20 years. It’s a solid, well-crafted, thoughtful, responsible plan, and it would be nice if they had even the semblance of a plan over there to produce for Ontarians to take a look at.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the Premier wants to know what the NDP is planning, I can give him a sneak preview: We won’t promise a rate freeze for families and then go ahead and double their rates. We won’t tell people that rates aren’t increasing when they are. We won’t spend eight years making empty promises to close coal plants and never ever get any results. And we won’t slap an unfair sales tax on families that are already hurting in uncertain times.

After seven long years, does this Premier really think anyone believes him on how he plans to make things better for people in this province? Nobody believes him—nobody.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure there was a question in that, but let me just take the opportunity, since they don’t have a plan, to describe what we can see in this murky fog in terms of the position adopted by the NDP.

They’re against renewables. They’re against all those thousands of jobs that we’re going to create as a result of building a clean-energy technology industry in Ontario. They’re against the clean air that flows from the use of renewables, which our families, I think, attach a great deal of importance to. They’re also against nuclear energy. One half of the power that we get in Ontario today comes from our nuclear reactors.

We have a thoughtful plan; it’s a 20-year plan and the first long-term energy plan of its kind. It’s designed to ensure that our families have access to new jobs in an exciting new dimension of the economy. It’s all about clean air. It’s about ensuring that we have the peace of mind that comes from knowing we’re going to have all the electricity we need, but more than that, it is clean electricity.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. How many hours each week are government computers used for watching sports highlights and visiting entertainment websites and other websites that reduce productivity?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I thank the member for asking this question. We have about 65,000 employees in the public service. I’ve had the unique privilege of working in both the public sector and the private sector. I want to tell you that I’m very proud of our public sector because they perform a very useful service. I’m constantly impressed with the quality of the work that they do and the commitment they have to providing customer service to the people.

We have very stringent systems in place to make sure that there is proper use of the computer systems. If ever there is misuse, there are protocols in place and people are held accountable for it. There have even been some people who were dismissed if they abused the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: I don’t hear an answer in that; I hear more of an excuse. Tim Hudak and the Ontario PCs stand up with the Ontario families who are struggling to keep up with a Premier who can’t stop spending their money. Premier McGuinty isn’t holding the line on salaries for senior bureaucrats. He won’t hold the line on wage freezes that protect what Ontario’s families want invested in health care. The Premier doesn’t want Ontario families to know how much they pay for time wasted on improper use of computer systems and lost time that should be spent serving the taxpayers who are paying.

The Liberals have spent a year fighting tooth and nail to block releases, even of the number of hours being wasted. How do you, the integrity czar, justify hiding proof of the McGuinty Liberals’ waste from the families of Ontario who are paying for that very service?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me say this: I know the member opposite knows that the freedom-of-information requests are handled by the people who are assigned to handle those requests, and the minister’s office, or the minister’s staff, actually had no relationship with handling the freedom-of-information requests.

I heard about this issue for the first time today, as did the member. But I want to assure Ontarians that there are systems and checks and balances in place. If anybody misuses the system, they are accounted for, and there is solid action taken each and every time.

But I’m very proud of the public sector and the work that they perform. We are not going to beat up on the public sector the way they do, but we are proud of the public sector and the work that they perform.

SMART METERS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. With each passing day, it becomes clearer that this government simply didn’t know what it was doing when it implemented its smart meter program. New research suggests that some of those so-called smart meters are only certified to minus 30 degrees centigrade; this in a province where many regions experience prolonged cold snaps where the temperature drops to minus 30 degrees centigrade or lower.

Will this government finally admit that its smart meter program is in chaos and that its implementation has been bungled?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question, but I have to ask him, where is your plan to modernize our energy system? You stand here day after day, your leader stands here day after day, criticizing the critical investments we’re making in our energy system to provide a modernized meter system to Ontarians, to give them access to what will be the coming smart grid.

We’re preparing this province for the modernization of our energy system. That’s why we’ve put together a long-term energy plan that’s going to guide us through the next 20 years.

I ask the member, what is your plan to modernize this energy system?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This minister clearly has no answer to that question, so I’ll go to another question.

This government had no idea what it was doing with the smart meter program. All over Ontario, smart meters have been installed that apparently cannot talk to each other, cannot talk to the central data processing centre run by the IESO—fundamental telecommunications problems with what they’re installing. Our offices have been flooded with complaints that the meters are just plain inaccurate.

When will this government admit that it bungled the implementation of the smart meter program by not insisting on common technical specifications? When, Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I remember a day when this member used to support conservation. I remember a day when he used to call for the modernization of our energy system. In fact, I have a quote here from back in those days. This is what the member said to the policy-makers of the time: “Don’t ignore the economic opportunities that are presented by conservation and renewable energy—not to mention the enormous costs if we do nothing.” That member has moved a long way from those days.

I’m going to ask the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, through you—maybe we should have a moment of silence for the member, who has now gone over to the dark side, who no longer supports conservation. He’s joining the Tories in his anti-conservation policies.

It would be nice if they had a plan to help us modernize our energy system. They don’t, so all they can do is—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, Ontario families and businesses need honesty and clarity when it comes to what they’d expect to see on their energy bills. These families and businesses, like all of us, budget for future costs. They need a government that thoroughly plans for their future when it comes to our energy system and one that is forthcoming with them about what that plan is and what it means for all of us as we move forward. It is simply not acceptable for families not to have stability—like back in 2002, when Ontarians saw electricity prices jump 30% in just seven months.

Minister, how are you making sure that families have the clarity and the reliable information they will need going forward?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question. It is an important question, and that’s what our long-term energy plan is all about. It’s about laying out our plans to build a clean, reliable, modern energy system for the next 20 years—the investments required to make that happen and the costs associated with those investments.

We’re being straight up with Ontarians about our plan and the investments required to bring it about. We’ve been very clear that the increase in costs of our energy plan is about 3.5% a year over the next 20 years. To put that into perspective, if you go back 20 years ago to 1990, it’s the same increases over the next 20 years that we’ve seen over the previous 20 years.

There are those in the House who sit across the aisle, in that plan-free zone over there, who think that clean, reliable, modern energy somehow can invent itself, somehow can come about without making these important investments. It does take effort. It takes courage. It takes vision. It takes leadership. Clearly, the members opposite do not have that leadership, do not have the—

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Again to the Minister: Ontario’s long-term energy plan does lay out the pragmatic and forward-thinking agenda for Ontarians that they’re looking for. Knowing the costs and benefits associated with building new supply, upgrading and modernizing our transmission grid, and transitioning from a province heavily reliant on dirty coal to a province powered by a clean and healthy mix of reliable and renewable resources is exactly the kind of certainty that Ontario families need.

It is not acceptable for Ontarians to worry about whether there’s a sufficient supply of energy or to worry about where that energy comes from. They did enough worrying about that just eight years ago, when demand was outstripping supply and the use of coal was driven up by 127%.

What do you think is the biggest threat to achieving our long-term energy goals?

Hon. Brad Duguid: There’s no question that by far the most serious threat to us building that strong, reliable, clean energy system is just simply right across the aisle: It’s the Leader of the Opposition. He’s the most serious threat to creating those thousands of clean energy jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve just received a document here. It comes from the side—I’m not quite sure. It says that it’s the PC Party energy plan, 2010. If you don’t mind, Mr. Speaker, I’m just going to read a little bit of the excerpts from it. I’ll be right with you. The document—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the Minister of Energy, the Speaker’s not impressed. That was a definite use of a prop, and he knows better than that.

New question.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. Your Premier and government are clearly out of touch with the priorities of Ontario parents. Rather than focus on issues that matter to parents and children, the Premier has shown a disturbing preoccupation with pet projects unrelated to parental priorities.

Whereas you’ve demonstrated your concern with banning junk food and chocolate milk, the PC caucus supports the empowerment of parents in order that they can fulfill their important role in their children’s education.

Your decision to eliminate grades on the fall report card is an affront to parents. Why have you robbed parents of the ability to know how their children are truly performing?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Parents have made it very clear to us that they expect their government to invest in education and support their students. Parents have made it very clear that they expect students to continue to improve in terms of achievement.

Since we’ve come to government, we have invested over 40% in our schools; students are achieving better test scores; and we have higher graduation rates. And we certainly have listened to parents when they told us that they wanted the opportunity for their students to attend kindergarten for full days. We know that on the other side of the House they say that’s a frill. We have listened to parents. They are overwhelmingly supportive of this initiative. It is one we are committed to, and we know that it will continue to better support student achievement now and going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Minister: At a time when Ontario does need strong leadership and the opportunity for parents to be involved in their children’s education, we have seen this government backtrack, and the minister backtrack, on at least half a dozen education policies, such as changes to the sex ed curriculum, cellphones in the classroom, chocolate milk and cash for grades.

Minister, parents want you to listen to them. Will you now put grades back on the fall report card?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We listen very closely to what parents have to say. We are very grateful that they appreciate the investments that we have made, and we’re delighted with the success of students as a result of the hard work of teachers and parents.

What parents have been telling us, though—they are concerned about something. They’re concerned about the fact that the commitment to have full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario is not a vision that is shared on the other side of the House.

We have received concerns as well from parents who—they appreciate our phased approach but they want it now. If there’s anything that parents are saying to us on a regular basis and that school boards are coming to us with, it’s that there is a tremendous demand from parents across Ontario to have full-day kindergarten now.

We are taking a phased approach. We are absolutely committed: By 2015, we’re going to have full-day kindergarten in all schools in the province—

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

PEST CONTROL

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Bedbugs are a growing nuisance and a health concern to families across Ontario. Toronto Public Health asked the province to get involved in the fight to control bedbugs back in February 2008. They asked again in February 2009, and last week, they asked again if the McGuinty government would help them fight the bedbugs.

The McGuinty government refused all of their requests. Close to three years since Toronto Public Health raised the alarm bells on this issue, infestations have exploded.

Why has the Premier ignored public health experts on the bedbug issue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, and I want to begin by congratulating the MPP for Eglinton–Lawrence, Mike Colle, for his leadership on this very important issue.

This is a very important matter of public health. Again, I want to thank the MPP for Eglinton–Lawrence for his leadership for the summit that he hosted. I want to thank him for the recommendations that he has put forward.

I spoke with him on this very subject yesterday. We are now beginning to consider those recommendations, and I commit to finding a way to move forward on some of those recommendations at the earliest possible opportunity. I want to do that in concert with our public health officials around the province; I think we have a shared responsibility. We look forward to providing some leadership in this area, too.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I will to remind him that his colleague is asking for resources to help in this war.

The Toronto medical officer of health has been clear that they need funding support from the province to prevent the spread of bedbugs. Over a year ago, the chief medical officer of health from Toronto said that “Toronto Public Health is not adequately resourced” to address this issue.

I can’t believe that in this province, in this city of Toronto that has lived through SARS, we do not take public health as an important issue and as the serious issue that it is.

How can this government dismiss repeated requests over three years from public health experts? How many more homes will have to be affected, how many hotels, how many hospitals, how many long-term-care homes, before the McGuinty government finally takes action to stop the bedbugs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’m pleased to engage in an important discussion on this issue. This is not an easy topic for many to discuss. The fact of the matter is, there’s some stigma and embarrassment associated with this. There’s a tremendous amount of fear.

One of those responsibilities that we sense is to ensure that we’re providing good, solid, reliable information with respect to the bedbug issue. I’m proud that our deputy chief medical officer of health attended the summit and is now also reviewing the work that was conducted there and the recommendations that we received.

I do want to say, and I would remind my honourable colleague, that we have provided a record level of funding to the Toronto public health services. We’ve almost doubled it since 2003; it’s up $60 million.

But I also want to remind my honourable colleague that bedbugs, while they have been discussed with a great deal of profile here in the community of Toronto, also affect other parts of the province. We want to ensure that our response to the summit recommendations speak to those concerns broadly as well.

POVERTY

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday, Campaign 2000 released a report claiming that in 2008, poverty increased in Ontario. Constituents in the western Mississauga neighbourhoods of Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar have said that the patterns of poverty are different in Peel than they are in Metro Toronto, and poverty is every bit as serious a matter.

Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy has set specific targets. Yesterday’s report suggests that the province may not meet its poverty reduction targets, or that poverty reduction has somehow fallen off our government’s radar. Minister, please tell the House how poverty reduction remains a priority for our province and our government.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for the question, and thank Campaign 2000 for their report and for being part of the consultations that help shape our poverty reduction strategy.

We have a plan. We launched Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy in December 2008, and we’re currently in the second year of the strategy. The data from yesterday’s report was collected in 2008, and our key investments in child care, housing, the Ontario child benefit and full-day kindergarten are not reflected in Statistics Canada data.

Ontario is just now emerging from a worldwide recession. Families are in need of support, and that’s why the Ontario child benefit puts more money in families’ pockets. We have a plan, and we’re acting on it. Our investments are lifting children and families out of poverty. We’re proud of that plan, and we’re going to continue to work on that long-term strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Regularly, I get a chance to meet with some of the poverty awareness groups in our community, such as the Eden Community Food Bank in Meadowvale, Fair Share for Peel and certainly organizations like The Dam in Meadowvale that serve so many of our at-risk youth.

If the province is to continue its work on poverty reduction, please tell my constituents in western Mississauga what these investments look like in our western Mississauga community. How are real Ontario kids and their families seeing the efforts of poverty reduction close to our homes in western Mississauga?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for his advocacy on behalf of his community. We’ve been working hard on all fronts to support Ontario’s families, especially children and youth. Right now, there are three classes offering full-day kindergarten in the member’s riding; eight classes will be offering it this fall. We have served 8,800 children in our student nutrition program, with an investment of over $600,000 in Peel. Last year, 9,500 children in Peel received a child care subsidy, and Peel’s Ontario early years centres received $4.1 million and served 43,000 children, parents and caregivers. We created 200 youth jobs in Peel.

Reducing poverty isn’t about politics or partisanship; it’s about having a plan and working together to provide the opportunity for people to achieve their full potential. That’s what our plan is all about.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. He will know that the Sunrise Propane incident of two years ago was the result of illegal activity and the failure of the TSSA to enforce its own regulations. He also knows that regulation 400/08, coming into effect on January 1, does nothing to address the enforcement problem and will end up costing each operator a minimum of $25,000 to prepare detailed safety plans, forcing many of them to close.

The Ontario Propane Association has been trying for two years to tell the minister that this regulation will not work, will cost thousands of jobs and will do nothing to enhance safety. When will he replace this regulation and instruct his staff to bring forward a regulation that works?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I want to thank the member for that question, because I know it has been a concern within the propane industry over the last number of years. But public safety remains our absolute number one concern and priority, and I’m sure that the member feels the same way about that.

Yes, we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to require propane operators to have an RSMP. However, we also realize that it may place an undue burden, particularly on the smaller operators, and we’re talking about those operators that have a facility of 5,000 US water gallons or less. We have placed on the registry a proposal to deal with the smaller operators. We have been in constant contact, over the last three or four months, with the propane association. We hope to bring something forward fairly soon that will deal with their concerns.

But our main concern remains the safety and security of the people of Ontario. I’m sure that we will be able to come up with a—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: The minister needs to understand the consequences of his regulation. Thousands of jobs will be lost as propane refill stations across the province are forced to close. Thousands of environmentally friendly propane-powered vehicles, including school buses, recreational vehicles, special vans for the disabled and elderly, couriers and taxies will have no place to refill their tanks. These people, including many Ontario municipalities, have converted to a cleaner fuel to help reduce greenhouse gases.

I ask the minister: Will he stand in his place today and assure this House that his seriously flawed regulation will be fixed before it is too late and we see thousands of jobs lost in Ontario?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, the proposed changes were available for public review on the government’s regulatory registry website. We are reviewing the comments and have been working with the Ontario Propane Association. We’ve certainly attempted to make whatever effort is necessary in order to resolve this issue.

We realize that an awful lot of people in Ontario rely on propane for heating purposes and other purposes as well. We want to make sure that we do the right thing for the safety of the people of Ontario, but we also want to make sure that these propane dealers that have been in existence for a long period of time providing good, valuable service will be able to continue to provide their service in the years to come. We are working on it, and a resolution will be found to the situation that you’ve just raised.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In late 2009, Reilly Anzovino was seriously injured in a car accident and subsequently died. Following this tragedy, the Premier agreed that a coroner’s inquest should examine the factors contributing to Reilly’s death. The inquest is moving ahead, but the Anzovino family has learned that they have no access to legal funding, leaving them to shoulder the burden of expenses in addition to the emotional toll of reliving Reilly’s death.

Will the Premier ensure that the Anzovino family is provided with the assistance that they need through this process?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will want the opportunity to pursue this matter.

Coroner’s investigations are conducted independently. The coroner has jurisdiction. The coroner makes various decisions about participation. The issues that the member raises are important ones. I will make sure that they’re brought to the attention of my colleague who will bring them to the attention of the coroner in due course. We’ll make sure that they’re brought to the attention of the coroner so that they can be dealt with in a responsible and respectful way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Anzovino inquest is a matter of public interest. Reilly Anzovino’s death was tragic, and many questions remain about the contributing circumstances and what should be changed for the future. Reilly’s family has, luckily, a pro bono legal representtative, and they’re only asking for a modest amount to cover some of the additional fees that they’re going to have to pay out. Funds are available, and they would ensure that the family can actively participate in the inquest process.

Will the Premier, the minister and the other minister that he indicated all ensure that financial assistance is approved so that this government makes sure that the right thing is done for the Anzovino family?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Our sympathy goes out to the family participating in an enormously difficult, emotionally wrenching and trying situation.

The leader of the third party raises an important point. All members of this House would want every appropriate measure to be taken. I appreciate the leader of the third party raising this with me. I’ll make sure this is brought to the attention, immediately, of those it needs to be.

Again, our sympathy and our hearts, in this very difficult time, go out to the family who are looking to participate in this what must be an enormously emotionally wrenching and trying situation.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Mario Sergio: Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation: Having vehicle insurance is the law for anyone driving in Ontario. It is not only the law; it is also common sense. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimated that in 2005, at least 400,000 drivers in Ontario did not have insurance. This is more than 4% of Ontario’s 8.9 million licensed drivers. Studies show that uninsured drivers cause a significant number of collisions. This highlights the potential danger that honest Ontario drivers could be in.

Drivers are required to submit information about their insurance company and policy when they renew their licence. To the minister: What can the government of Ontario do to find a way to verify insurance at the point of renewal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for this important question. The fact that Ontario has some of the safest roads in North America is something we want to maintain. We’ve introduced tough drinking and driving legislation and distracted driving laws, are tackling street racing, and obviously the issue of uninsured drivers is a very important one.

The Ministry of Transportation has been working with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Ministry of Finance and ServiceOntario on an uninsured vehicle program. I’m happy to say that, as of this month, November 29, we’ll be able to electronically verify the validity of insurance when an individual registers or renews their licence plate sticker. This will provide real-time insurance verification for passenger vehicles when people renew their licence plate stickers, and this is a significant improvement in that service to Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Mario Sergio: I’ve seen the numbers, and the need for action is clear. In December 2008, there were more than nine million drivers in Ontario. In 2009, there were 13.6 million registered passenger vehicles in Ontario. In 2006, 0.5% of the total number of vehicles involved in collisions on Ontario roads were reported as not insured. The insurance industry has estimated that, in the past, between 6% and 15% of vehicles on the road were uninsured. In the States, a total of 28 states have an insurance verification program already in place.

I know that currently MTO asks vehicle owners to present their insurance information as part of the vehicle licence renewal application. To the minister, will people still need to present their paper insurance information at time of registration?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been working, as I said, with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The two databases, the MTO database and the IBC database, have to be able to talk to each other. There has to be a transfer of millions of pieces of data. Yes, people will still have to present their insurance information at the MTO, but now they’ll have the added assurance of real-time verification.

We’ve done consultations with the insurance industry from June 2009. In July 2010, I sent a letter of direction to the insurance industry of Ontario advising them of their obligations to report insurance information in a timely way for the purposes of insurance status verification, and beginning this past August, letters were sent out to Ontarians 120 days prior to their licence plate renewal expiry date. If there was a problem matching insurance information, letters specified that people should get in touch with their insurance provider.

That process is under way. This will be a very comprehensive program that will provide better service to Ontarians.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Attorney General. In two media scrums, the Attorney General made pointed reference that, in 30 years, he has never seen anything like the bizarre antics of Paul Alexander. He stressed the same point in answer to my questions yesterday. For a case this extraordinary, one would expect him to be fully briefed, yet yesterday, when asked, he could not or would not say if Alexander had been suspended.

How can Ontario families have confidence when you can’t answer their questions about this case?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I did indicate that, in 30 years in the criminal justice system, I had never seen or heard any case quite like this. I know it’s in court today, so we’ll let the court proceeding pursue.

I also indicated that the chief prosecutor was looking into this matter. The chief prosecutor is looking into this matter and will take the appropriate action. I can further indicate, it’s my understanding, that the crown is not in on any in-court duties at this time, while the chief prosecutor is undertaking his review.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: We know that Premier McGuinty is out of touch, clearly, and that the ministers he surrounds himself with are as well. Innocent victims are pushed aside at Caledonia. David Chen faces charges while repeat offender Anthony Bennett gets a plea bargain. Last week, a $1.2-million fraud case was deemed not important enough for court resources. Now, there’s a case like no other he has seen in 30 years, and all the Attorney General has to offer is spin and media lines.

Tell me, Attorney General, when did you get so out of touch with the priorities of Ontario citizens and families?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: One of the characteristics of the system of justice—a characteristic of all of the very challenging and difficult situations that come before the courts—is that we do not make the final decision on the street, at the barricade, in the media. We actually allow for the accumulation of facts, the determination of what actually happened and the application of the appropriate laws or procedures.

It’s not always popular to take a minute or two to make sure that we have the facts. It’s not always easy, and there are many who would wish to make the instantaneous judgment. But justice is not like instant cereal; it takes a little longer to make sure that we get it right.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Tomorrow, Hamilton’s Campaign for Adequate Welfare and Disability Benefits will rally to remind the government of their fight to save the special diet allowance and raise welfare rates. The 100,000 people in greater Hamilton who live in poverty also face a bleak Christmas and future unless these McGuinty Liberals finally take decisive, positive action, recognizing their dietary needs.

Will this government finally listen to poverty-stricken Ontarians and retain the special diet allowance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a very good question, especially at this time of the year, when people are raising funds to help those in need in our communities, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them, because they’re doing an extremely good job.

Yes, our people on OW and ODSP are very concerned about what’s going on. They’re concerned about their rates, and I want to remind them that we pay a lot of attention to that. That’s why we have introduced so many programs within different ministries, because poverty not only has to do with my ministry, but it has to do with a lot of ministries: health care, for instance; education; labour. We have launched quite a few programs to help those in need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: For 15 years, single recipients have received a substandard $580 a month, condemned to severe poverty. Unlike the minister, I lived on the welfare diet for a few days and was quickly feeling ill and unable to do basic physical tasks, let alone fight this government for decent support. The McGuinty government has turned its back on the poor in Ontario, obvious by their need to rally tomorrow in Hamilton.

Will this government recognize the horrible impact of its inaction and finally secure a decent living and dietary allowance for social assistance recipients?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I just want to remind the member opposite that when we came into power in 2003, the special diet allowance was $6 million. This year, today, as we speak, it’s $200 million. So I take exception to what this member is saying about the special diet allowance.

I have to also take into consideration the report of the Auditor General. We have to be concerned about those who need our services and we have to also pay attention to the money that is provided to us by taxpayers in Ontario.

I just want to remind those opposite that we raised social assistance by 12% since we came to power and we have introduced that wonderful program, the Ontario child benefit, that I’m very proud of. My ministry has worked closely and we know that now the OCB—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Recent Statistics Canada figures indicate that tourism numbers have increased this summer compared to the same time last year. This is great news and we must continue to build on this success to ensure that the tourism industry remains strong and vibrant.

The Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Ontario Science Centre are just a few of the cultural institutions that entertain thousands of tourists in Toronto every year. They provide insight into our rich heritage and showcase the talents of our artists for those visiting. But in order to successfully showcase our wonderful attractions, we must ensure that all visitors, including those with disabilities, have access. What is the government doing to promote our cultural attractions and ensure that all visitors have access to them?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period as ended and there are no deferred votes.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, the member for Newmarket–Aurora rose on a point of order respecting answers to written questions that he had asked of the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the Minister of Energy. The government House leader, Ms. Smith, and the third party House leader, Mr. Kormos, made submissions on this point of order.

The member for Newmarket–Aurora complained that the answers to his written questions were not acceptable on the grounds that they were neither complete nor in some instances relevant to the question asked. While the member raised this issue as a point of order, he subsequently sought redress by way of a finding of a prima facie case of privilege.

Let me clarify at the outset that while it may be arguable that this is more appropriately dealt with as a point of privilege, it was not raised as such with the requisite notice given. In any case, it has been determined previously that such an issue does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. However, from the perspective of the matter potentially being a violation of the rules, it is sufficient to raise it as a point of order and I will address it as such.

Standing order 99 sets out the provisions for written questions. With respect to the content or quality of the answers to written questions, standing order 99 is silent. It provides only that written questions be answered within 24 sessional days unless volume or complexity necessitate additional time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order, please. If you want to have a conversation please leave the chamber. It’s important that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As in the case with oral questions, there are no provisions in the rules or customs of this place for the Speaker to scrutinize or evaluate government responses to written questions.

On May 18, 2010, I ruled on the same issue and stated at the time that “numerous Speakers have ruled that during oral question period ministers may answer a question any way they see fit. It’s also the case that it’s not the Speaker’s responsibility to ensure that the answer to a written question satisfies that question.”

This is further supported, as the government House leader noted, in O’Brien and Bosc, page 522, where it says: “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

The House leader for the third party referenced standing order 1(

b) and seemed to suggest that somehow the standing order might allow for an expanded

interpretation of standing order