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

May 27, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 May 2009 Mercredi 27 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TVONTARIO

TAXATION

GASOLINE PRICES

PENSION PLANS

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

GO TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

MANUFACTURING JOBS

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WALTER BEATH

NIAGARA HEALTH SYSTEM

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

TAMIL CANADIAN COMMUNITY

SENIORS' EDUCATION DAY

WINDSOR SPITFIRES HOCKEY CLUB

GÉRALD SAVOIE

GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEEP RIVER MANAGEMENT

SERVICES INC. ACT, 2009

SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH

OF THE DIOCESE OF LONDON,

IN ONTARIO ACT (TAX RELIEF), 2009

ONTARIO TRILLIUM

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU TRILLIUM EN ONTARIO

NEW HERMES LIMITED/NEW HERMES LIMITÉE ACT, 2009

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

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

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

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

PETITIONS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

CHILD SAFETY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

ROAD SAFETY

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CUSTODY

LONG-TERM CARE

CEMETERIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONOR LEAVE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ POUR DON D'ORGANE)

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the reappointment of Ann Cavoukian as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on July 1, 2009, as provided in

section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c.F.31.

"And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 136. Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: It's my privilege today to stand in the House and to move the reappointment of Ann Cavoukian as our Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, as many in this House know, is set out in three statutes: the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner acts independently of government to uphold and promote open government and the protection of personal privacy.

Under the three acts, the Information and Privacy Commissioner resolves access-to-information appeals and complaints when government or health care practitioners and organizations refuse to grant requests for access or correction, investigates complaints with respect to personal information held by government or health care practitioners and organizations, conducts research into access and privacy issues, comments on proposed government legislation and programs, and educates the public about Ontario's access and privacy legislation.

In 2008, there were 37,933 information requests of our government and its agencies. Nearly two thirds of the 2008 requests were filed under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to such organizations as police service boards, municipalities, school boards and health boards.

Since the Information and Privacy Commissioner began emphasizing the importance of quickly responding to freedom-of-information requests, our compliance with the provincial 30-day compliance rate has nearly doubled, climbing to 85%, and I'm particularly proud of our government to reach that level of compliance with the 30-day requirement set out in the legislation.

Today, it's our privilege to confirm the reappointment of Dr. Ann Cavoukian, who is recognized as one of the leading privacy experts in the world. Dr. Cavoukian's leadership has seen her office develop a number of tools and procedures to ensure that privacy is protected in Ontario and around the world. She is Ontario's first Information and Privacy Commissioner to be reappointed. In fact, she began in 1987, during its start-up phase, as its first director of compliance.

In 1990, she was appointed assistant commissioner. Prior to joining the IPC–the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission—Dr. Cavoukian headed the research services branch of the provincial Attorney General. She received her MA and her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Toronto, where she specialized in criminology and law and lectured on psychology and criminal justice. She has been reappointed once before and, like the Auditor General, she serves as an officer of the Legislature, independent of the government of the day.

In 2007, Dr. Cavoukian received the distinguished Dr. Barbara Wand Award from the Ontario Psychological Association to acknowledge her outstanding work in the area of ethics and professional standards pertaining to privacy and freedom of information.

In November 2006, Dr. Cavoukian was honoured by the Ontario Bar Association for her outstanding contributions to protecting privacy rights in Ontario, her inclusive leadership role in involving both the public and private sectors and her success in promoting understanding of and respect for access to information and privacy rights.

In October 2005, Commissioner Cavoukian was presented with the Privacy Innovation Award at the largest-ever gathering of privacy professionals held by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Dr. Cavoukian and her office were recognized for the development of groundbreaking privacy short notices—a concise and easily understood notice informing individuals of how their personal information is being used.

Commissioner Cavoukian, who received the honour on behalf of the office, was honoured when she accepted that award and stated, "To have my office recognized for its innovative work in this field is truly gratifying. I've always believed that a practical approach advances privacy the most. Creating privacy notices that are short and easily understood maximizes our effectiveness in reaching the public."

I believe that's Dr. Cavoukian's trademark: She does make it easy for people to understand what their rights are, and she certainly has worked tirelessly to ensure that their rights are protected in the province. It is without hesitation that I move her reappointment to the position of Information and Privacy Commissioner, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues on this topic.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm very pleased and honoured to have a chance to participate briefly in this debate this morning because it's always a pleasure to rise and pay tribute to one of Ontario's outstanding public servants.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner acts independently of government to uphold and promote open government and the protection of personal privacy. To be effective and accountable, our system of government depends on this kind of openness, transparency and protection of personal privacy. It's essential, therefore, for Ontario to have a privacy commissioner who offers ample knowledge, strong independence and unfailing integrity. That's why we in the PC caucus are pleased to know that Ann Cavoukian will continue to serve this province with distinction for what I understand is an unprecedented third term.

Dr. Cavoukian received an MA and a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Toronto, where she specialized in criminology and law and lectured on psychology and the criminal justice system. Dr. Cavoukian is the published author of two groundbreaking books on privacy, entitled Who Knows? Safeguarding Your Privacy in a Networked World, which was published in 1997, and The Privacy Payoff: How Successful Businesses Build Customer Trust, which was published in 2002.

Her awards are many. She received the distinguished Dr. Barbara Wand Award from the Ontario Psychological Association, which the government House leader already alluded to. She was named the International Association of Business Communicators' All-Star speaker. The Ontario Bar Association honoured her outstanding contributions to protecting privacy rights in Ontario. She received the Privacy Innovation Award from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. The list goes on and on. She has been named one of Canada's top 100 most powerful women.

Dr. Cavoukian has always been a trailblazer. Under her leadership, her office has introduced new tools, technologies and procedures to ensure that Ontarians' privacy is protected. In doing so, she has made her office more acceptable, responsible and understandable to all of us. When called upon by elected officials or the media, she knows how to distil and explain complex issues of privacy and security in a clear and recognizable way. It is obvious that Ontario is very fortunate to have Ann Cavoukian carry on her service in this critical capacity. On behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, we congratulate the commissioner, and we look forward to continuing to work with her in the coming years.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Ms. Cavoukian, should she be listening now or should she read the Hansard down the road, I'm sure will fear she has died—these sound like eulogies—or at the very least that she has retired, and it's obvious that she has no intention of retiring.

Look, New Democrats share, and certainly don't dispute, any of the comments about Ms. Cavoukian—a career that has been impressive. But New Democrats do not support this motion here today, and let me tell you why.

First of all, the position of an officer of the assembly is an incredibly important one, and it's unique because it is not a partisan appointment. The officers of this assembly, in the time that I've been here, have served this assembly in that non-partisan role very, very effectively, and as often as not to the chagrin of the government of the day. That's what they're supposed to do.

There was a time, not that long ago, when these appointments were made as a result of, oh, a backroom meeting between House leaders. There was a time when reappointments were a matter of course. There was a time when there was very little transparency or public process about these appointments. That has changed considerably and, I say, for the better.

It's something that New Democrats, during the time I have been fortunate enough to be House leader for this caucus, have worked very hard to do: to create consistency from appointment to appointment to ensure that the process that's used is the same, whether it's the privacy commissioner or the Integrity Commissioner or the conflict of interest commissioner or any number of people who serve as officers of the assembly—the Environmental Commissioner.

We were encouraged—and in fact, it was during the last Conservative government, the Eves government—that the government acquiesced to a uniform hiring and reappointment process. We were very pleased. We recognize that, as in almost all legislation that provides for the appointment of an officer of the assembly, there is the power of reappointment, and we consider that an appropriate thing. But in this case,

section 4 of the act provides for a five-year term. Whether or not that five-year term is an appropriate one is yet another question, and that's something we're prepared to discuss, because it's acknowledged that somebody entering a job, for instance, Ms. Cavoukian or any other officer of the assembly—the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman—in the first month, year, two years may well find herself or himself acclimatizing or reorganizing. So we don't want terms that are so brief that, by the time they've become proficient at what they do and by the time they have put their imprimatur on the style of that particular office, they're shown the exit door.

We also believe that the reason we provide for terms—of course, any appointed person can be removed by the will of this assembly, so it's not as if they acquire some sort of sinecure. The fixed term is a fixed term, but it can be interrupted, should the assembly no longer wish to have that person serving the assembly.

We think the so-called term limits are very important things. We believe they allow the person appointed to act with an even higher level of impartiality that they assume by virtue of their commitment to the job and their professionalism. We also believe that these types of jobs, these types of roles, should not become long-term roles that exist—there was a clerk here, Mr. Lewis, who ruled this House. He wrote a book about it; he didn't call it "Rule this House," but it seemed he ruled this House for not just decades and scores of years—to some people, for centuries. Everything I've heard about Mr.

Lewis has been, by and large, positive—a skilled man. But upon reflection, I think a whole lot of people feel there was a failure in one person occupying that role for such a lengthy period of time.

There are legitimate reasons to have, effectively, term limits when it comes to these types of appointments. There are good reasons why one might want to reappoint, without process, a particular person. One might want to reappoint to cover or bridge a particular period of time, a gap. As I recall, that was the case with our last Integrity Commissioner, Mr. Osborne, where his reappointment was for a period of time shorter than the term, knowing full well that he was going to be leaving and that we didn't have the opportunity to acquire a new Integrity Commissioner—again, we're still waiting. But the process has been working.

New Democrats are adamant that even upon the occasion of a reappointment, unless it's an exceptional circumstance and notwithstanding the stellar capacity of a person who has served that role, there should be the same process. As I say, if five years is an inappropriately short period of time, then let's talk about expanding that. I don't know what it should be. Should it be five, seven, 10 years? That may well be the case. One may want to establish some sort of at least interim permanency to these positions, so that people taking them know they're not going to be shown the door in about five years' time.

New Democrats are very disappointed in that Ms. Cavoukian, upon exhausting her term—we weren't disappointed in that, or in the service. We were disappointed in the government, because rather than agreeing to embark on a process—and the process is pretty clear. You advertise the position, you see who's interested in the job, you vet them—we use the human resources personnel here at the Legislative Assembly; it's not governmental—and then a tripartite committee.

This is a process that has developed over the last relatively short period of time, and the one thing we've always required is unanimity—consensus on the part of all three caucuses—in the selection of a person, and we've been very successful at achieving that. There have been times when one caucus might have been less enthusiastic than the other two, but they've always found ways of working that out and addressing that. In terms of the appointments that have flowed as a result of the process, there has always been unanimity, and I think that's a very healthy thing; it's a very positive thing.

If the person in that role is going to serve the Legislative Assembly as a whole, then surely unanimity, as compared to majority rule, is a far healthier means of doing it.

What New Democrats proposed in this instance, as we have in every other one, is that once again there be a process that Ms. Cavoukian be invited to participate in, and she may well find herself reappointed. But that was not the wish of the government. We have no control over the fact that the government brings this sort of motion and will undoubtedly pass it because of its majority. Our opposition to the motion is in no way a reflection upon Ms. Cavoukian. Our opposition to the motion is our concern about the fact that, yes, this is unprecedented. This is a third term, and that is unprecedented.

We believe that when the appointment expires, unless there are outstanding circumstances, the process that has worked so well over the recent past should be applied. It's for that reason that we cannot support this motion.

You'll recall that we were in a similar position with respect to the reappointment of Mr. Osborne as Integrity Commissioner. Again, we didn't do it with glee, in terms of opposing that particular motion, because we had the highest regard, and continue to, for Mr. Osborne, now the former and retired Integrity Commissioner. But I tell you, this is a step backwards; it's an unfortunate scenario. I fear—and it could just be sloth, laziness on the part of us here not wanting to embark on that rather arduous exercise of setting up and sitting through interviews and having bureaucratic staff vet people.

It could be sloth; I'm not sure. It could be eagerness on the part of some to reward what have been good performances. In the case of Ms. Cavoukian, I can understand that motivation. She has performed well; I don't hesitate in saying that. I've had occasion in this House, as a matter of fact, to express gratitude for her on at least one very significant occasion.

But I say it's wrong for us, for such an important role, to simply reappoint, especially after a person has performed their second term, without looking around us and seeing whether there are other people in our community—our provincial, our national, our international community—who may serve that role equally well and maybe with an entirely different perspective.

Look at what's happened in the Ombudsman's office. We've had stellar Ombudsmen from the very get-go. Although not here when the first Ombudsman was appointed, I was watching that with great interest.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Arthur Maloney.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Former Conservative Arthur Maloney, that's right. As a matter of fact, I watched Arthur Maloney the first time, when he was doing the inquiry into police brutality here in the city of Toronto. I was a student over at York University and I remember coming downtown here to watch Maloney as he was doing that inquiry. It was one of the first times—talk about a gutsy, gutsy, integrous person—that sort of inquiry had ever taken place in a public venue with such zeal, without the police automatically being presumed to be truthful as compared to the non-truthfulness of every complainant.

So as I say, I watched Maloney and, my goodness, Clare Lewis, who I was a fan of, again, from many years ago as a very young lawyer.

But I also watched the nature of that office change and transform as each new Ombudsman was appointed, and it was a healthy thing. We now have André Marin, who has brought an exciting new face to that office, and who has left government members shaking their heads in dismay that an Ombudsman could be that zealous in the performance of his role.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. Smitherman responds. It was a modest interjection, and I'm not sure Hansard picked it up. It might best be recorded as a mutter, an incoherent mutter.

So here we are; we have an opportunity now to look around us and see whether there's another person who can perform this role. Ms. Cavoukian may well win in a competition, but in the absence of that process and competition, we are not supporting this motion today.

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

Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 136. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 26, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I'll take a couple of minutes to find my notes on Bill 173. They have been deliberately considered and prepared. With that, I did ask for the opportunity to speak to that, and I'm just in the midst of turning off my electronic device. Very good.

Bill 173, the Mining Act, is an amendment to the existing legislation. Apparently it has been a long time since this legislation has been reviewed, and I think it's a timely opportunity to review the legislation. Just to sort of familiarize yourself, I know our critic, Mr. Miller, from Parry Sound—Muskoka, was very eloquent in his remarks, as was the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, who spoke last on this. On May 13, the member from Algoma—Manitoulin spoke very well and was here to listen, and I appreciated his remarks.

If you look at the purpose clause, that's probably the best place to start in this bill. There's probably going to be, I would suggest, more hearings. Certainly, my concerns are that the mining association and others want to make sure that the regulations that will be attached to this bill are done on a consulted basis.

The whole process here is about finding a balance. We all know that the resources of Ontario are basically the collective wealth of Ontario. And what I mean by the collective wealth is all of the gold, silver and other resources that are in the ground, and on top of the ground, in fact—the forestry industry. All of those resources, those natural, wonderful and beautiful things that are in our province, including the water and the air, are kind of attached to the quality of life that we've become accustomed to and are the custodians of.

The First Nations people of Ontario want to be consulted and, I guess, to some extent have been consulted, to make sure we get this particular legislation, Bill 173, right. When I say "get it right," this is where the devil is in the details, if I could use that expression. The consultations which led to this, it's my understanding, was through the mining association, First Nations organizations and community leaders.

Really, what you want in this kind of investors was the shareholders themselves—or the mining companies, the exploration companies, and the prospectors and others. All of the stakeholders in this have a different perspective of, if you will, to be really crude, how we get to harvest these resources—"harvest" is a bit of a rough word—and leave the area that we are mining or excavating etc. in as great a condition, as healthy a condition as possible.

All of these things are to find stable investment agreements. It sounds a bit commercial to say that, but investors, whether it's a pension fund that is investing in a diamond mind, or whether it's some other pension fund or a pool of capital that's looking for a good home—there's a lot of money invested in these operations and usually, but not always, a lot of money is made.

Mining stocks were always touted to be one of the higher-risk stocks, because you've got to put a lot of capital investment in before you get five cents out. So you need a stable, clear set of rules for all of the stakeholders. That's very, very important.

The stakeholders here become the most important discussion point, the stakeholders being the landowners. I think there's a really important consideration in this legislation on the property rights issue. There are some clarifications on the property rights, and that's very important.

First, I just want to put on the record this memo that I received from the Ontario Real Estate Association, and I'm going to read what they say: "May 7.... Proposed changes to the Ontario Mining Act will strengthen property rights in Ontario,' says the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA). The government of Ontario introduced Bill 173, the Mining Act Amendment Act, 2009, in the Ontario Legislature last week after" lengthy consultations—pretty much everything I've said.

"'The government of Ontario took the time to get Bill 173 right,' said OREA president Pauline Aunger. 'The proposed changes to the Mining Act are important steps towards stronger, better-defined property rights in our province.'" It's a quote.

Here are some subtle differences, and I think this is very important to see, when you get into the detail of the legislation, how important the strong words and clarity are for all of the stakeholders, whether it's the prospector or the property owner: "Ontario's realtors are especially encouraged that lands in southern Ontario, where there is a surface rights owner and the mining rights belong to the crown"—that's very important; it's a subtle, micro-level detail there; the resource rights really belong to the crown—"are deemed to be withdrawn from prospecting, staking, sale and lease if the bill becomes law." That's very important.

In fact, it's worth repeating. If you look at southern Ontario, that would include my riding of Durham; it would include pretty well everything south of North Bay, really. "[L]ands in southern Ontario, where there is a surface rights owner"—that's me, my property; could be a farmer, could be a large landowner, could be the crown itself that owns that greenbelt area, but here's the key—"and the mining rights belong to the crown, are deemed to be withdrawn from prospecting, staking, sale and lease if the bill becomes law."

It goes on to say, "'Bill 173 reflects the realities of Ontario in the 21st century,' explained Ms. Aunger. 'Home and cottage owners in southern Ontario should be pleased to hear that their property is no [longer] subject to prospecting and mining.'"

This is what we have been hearing about, with the important growth in the nuclear industry: the need to have uranium resources available. They are available in Ontario, and yet there was kind of a rash of prospecting going on, which is a whole issue of how property rights can be impacted without the property owner even being consulted.

"For property owners in northern Ontario, Bill 173 puts restrictions on the types of property that prospectors can enter without permission from the landowner. It also approves the use of map staking." It's very important, map staking, with land formations, geological formations, satellite tracking and coordinates etc. It's quite possible, in the modelling of land formations and potential resources beneath the surface, that a lot of it can be done remotely, through what we would call map staking.

"'The new Mining Act encourages more consultation and dialogue between landowners and prospectors.... Traditional methods of prospecting are often destructive to private property. Map staking removes the need to cut down trees, knock down fences or excavate land when a prospector stakes a claim.'"

OREA represents 47,000 brokers and salespersons and 42 boards, and it's important—that's just one of the stakeholders, and there are many more as well that have been consulted.

I'm just going to read a couple of these into the record. I think it's important that we, first of all, understand that the opposition, the PC Party under Bob Runciman—or whoever, one of the other four people who are running for leader—would be in support of having a strong economy in Ontario, because the fundamentals of the resources, which are the collective wealth of Ontario, are the current and future wealth and well-being, the standard of living, in the province of Ontario.

We would be in support of having reasonable and fair rules so that there is one set of rules and laws and so that we can move forward for the common good of the people of Ontario. That's really, ultimately, what this bill is about.

It has a lot of detail, as I said before; an awful lot of detail. I would say even myself, just to be a modest person, when I first started to take the securities courses in Ontario, I did invest in some of the resource stocks. Right now, in the current economy, if you look at the market itself, I would suspect that one of the safest—if that's the proper word, I suppose—investments today would be in the resources sector. You can invest directly in the commodity itself, either gold or silver or diamonds, or you can invest in a company that's an exploration company or a mining company itself.

I think, ultimately, these are rare commodities. As I said before, I became quite interested in the resource sector from that point of view, whether it's oil or gold or other kinds of resources. Again, "buyer beware" is the best way to look at it.

I'm going to go on here and say that the "purpose" clause of the Mining Act is amended to include the statement that mining activities are encouraged "in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal and treaty rights." This is where you start to get into the—pardon me; I was going to get into the treaty rights. Do you have that treaty right? I'd like to make a reference to it. I think that's very, very important, because the long-standing debate has really been about the rights of the aboriginal people. You've got to go back to the rule of law.

Their law, of course, I believe, should be and must be respected in our law. That's where the two conflicting objectives bump into each other.

I'm just going to spend most of the time now on that, the reasonableness and importance of consultation. I think the government has that right. They've set apart from this bill, Bill 173, I think, a $30-million fund to resolve issues with claims. We saw the important agreement when they had the diamond mine—De Beers, I think it was—in northern Ontario, near Timmins. The diamond mine and the consultation in the development of that mine were worked out within the contract that was signed with the mining company and the rightful owners of the property, the First Nations groups—some agreements.

Those agreements have employment and training. I'm not sure if there is any resource sharing, meaning money sharing, but there's probably some royalty sharing. I think that's important. But here's what's important: When you look at a raw piece of land that may or may not have resources on it or below it—here is a good example of the work done by our member from Haldimand—Norfolk, who takes great interest in the fairness argument for First Nations people. Here's what he has provided me with just this moment, which I heard him read the other day. Here is what was agreed to in the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.

I'm going to read this verbatim. It's like a legal document.

"They the said chiefs and principal men, on behalf of their respective tribes or bands, do hereby fully, freely and voluntarily surrender, cede, grant and convey unto Her Majesty, her heirs and successors for ever, all their right, title and interest to, and in the whole of, the territory above described, save and except the reservations set forth in the

schedule here unto annexed.

"And further, to allow the said chiefs and their tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over the territory now ceded by them, and to fish in their waters thereof, as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing, saving and excepting such portions of the said territory as may from time to time, be sold or leased to individuals or companies of individuals, and occupied by them with the consent of the provincial government." You'd need to get a bit of a cobweb untangler to actually interpret those particular treaties.

James Bay Treaty number 9 is another case. I think it's worth putting this on the record because I believe that these agreements must be respected and worked out. It reads as follows—this is James Bay Treaty number 9:

"Whereas the said commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Ojibwa, Cree and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has being agreed upon, and concluded by the respective bands at the date mentioned hereunder, the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and his successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included....

"And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government of the country, acting under the authority of His Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes."

They go on, and I guess the point is that these are legal documents. My own humble

interpretation is that these laws and languages of the law in themselves were foreign to First Nations, the aboriginal people. As such, they were being almost coerced into making agreements in a language unfamiliar to them and customs unfamiliar to them. That may not be the case today, but they may indeed still be unfamiliar to them, because they don't own property individually; they own it in common. These are the issues that I have great appreciation for.

You can talk about this bill, Bill 173, which I'm doing. This bill is about 48 pages, and of that it's half French, so it's about 25 pages long. It amends a number of acts—in fact, it amends, I believe, five different acts—and it covers two or three different ministries. Here's the issue: The money made from the property that's held in common or under the name of the crown is money to be shared by all the people for all the purposes of the province of Ontario—health care, education, a justice system available to all of us.

It's the duty of the government and, in our case, the Premier of Ontario, in the rights and authorities bestowed upon them constitutionally—which is the law we all obey regardless of our country of origin. I suspect that's the real argument at the end of the day here.The real discussion is, who owns the land, who owns the gold and who gets to share in it? I think we own these things in common, and there are rules and laws that we all must abide by. That may be an oversimplification, but I think this bill sets about the right balance for the right purposes.

I'm just going to conclude, in the last few minutes I have: "Aboriginal consultation would be required for exploration plans and permits for exploration activity, proportionate to the potential impact of the proposed activities." Later-stage "activities such as advanced exploration and mine development already require aboriginal consultation, through closure plan requirements in the regulations. The bill would make more express reference to aboriginal consultation requirements for closure plans in the act.

In making decisions under the act that require consideration of consultation that has occurred, the proposed amendments signal that regard will be had to arrangements made between project proponents and potentially affected aboriginal communities." Really, what they're saying here is, in every instance, consultation with the aboriginals, if that is the case, must be adhered to in point. How the resources are shared I'm sure will be worked out in individual cases.

"Amendments are proposed with respect to oil, gas and salt solution mining in

part IV of the act, which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources," and amendments remove the geographical restrictions of

part IV applied province-wide. The duties and powers of inspectors are expanded, including the power to, without a warrant, at any reasonable time, gather information and make inspections as required.

Often I'm finding that a lot of the legislation now under the McGuinty government is kind of skipping over this—without a warrant, you can enter a premises. I start to get troubled with that, whether it's the First Nations or just me at my property.

So there are things here that I want to find the balance to, to get it right. This is a resource issue. We need to work together and make sure that we're being fair with all of the stakeholders.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: I have questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'm sorry; I was looking the other way. The member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: And I'm sure there are other comments in abeyance here.

I appreciate the presentation by the member from Durham. He raises the issue of native treaty history and treaty rights and some of the widespread misconceptions with respect to that. It ties in very closely with the issue of consultation and the duty to consult, which is quite a burning issue with municipalities, certainly along the Grand River. I'm afraid a lot of this is not as clear-cut with respect to this mining legislation as some of the media may leave us to believe.

I referred in earlier debate to correspondence from a concerned prospector, some of his concerns. He sent me an e-mail on May 21. I think everybody received this e-mail: "Did I read the act properly (86.1), in that natives are given the right to veto everything and seize property?" I think of the Platinex issue with KI, and apparently that is an ongoing issue. He goes on to say, "This includes staking, exploring and accessing all mining lands, which includes private property related to mining. This is how the act reads. Will there be any compensation or appeal process? Because the way it reads is, if the natives say no, we have to walk away."

There are similar sentiments that have come forward from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. In their EBR submission they ask for clarity on the issues of consultation and accommodation and they point out the failure of the provincial government to provide the necessary leadership, which can lead to distrust between aboriginal communities and mineral explorers.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I don't know that I'm going to have an opportunity to speak to this bill, so I'm going to try in two minutes to get it all in, and I know that's difficult.

The government was encouraged to make changes to the Mining Act because there were some significant issues out there. I would say that on balance not everything is perfect, but in general, I think they've done a pretty positive thing here, certainly for the concerns that were registered in ridings like mine, in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and by people in southern Ontario.

We were very concerned about the prospecting of land in southern Ontario with respect to looking for possible subsurface minerals and upsetting property owners who had no idea, quite frankly, that they didn't own the mineral rights. So the provision that mineral rights that are not already under claim would then be ceded to the crown and that the crown would have the subsurface mineral rights, I think, is a positive thing.

Of course, the property owners can still apply for those subsurface rights, but prospectors on small tracts of private property in southern Ontario will not be able to simply go in there and cause the kind of havoc that was happening over the last couple of years. So for people in my area of the province, that's a positive thing for sure, that they can rest assured that their properties are not going to be disturbed in a fashion that they had no understanding they could ever be. So I like that part of it in general.

The act addresses that issue and a number of others. There are issues that maybe aren't properly addressed in it, but that's not what I'm going to be talking about today. I simply want to say, I appreciate what they have done to deal with the problems of property rights in southern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and commons? The member for Durham, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O'Toole: I do appreciate the comments from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and I do hope he gets more time to speak on this and add his comments from his constituents. As well, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk has been very committed to this legislation and getting it right.

I just want to make observations: There were no government members who made any comments during that period, which means maybe they figure it's okay; I don't know. But I do take note that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here, Mr. Gravelle, and I have listened to his comments. I believe the consultations will continue with public hearings—it's my understanding—and that's important.

I think we're really just trying to say that these are resource issues. This is the wealth of Ontario. They are issues that are held in common by the people of Ontario. All of us, from every region of the province, enjoy the health care and the education and the justice system and the highways. The Minister of Transportation is here as well. So these are things that we share in common, and the resources, basically, somewhere or other, are our wealth held in common. We need to get this right.

We want to make sure that the exploration and development is done in harmony with the environment and our economy, and that would include First Nations as well as people living in condos in Toronto. We're all in it together.

My understanding is that the mining association wants to make sure that the consultations on the regulations are open. There's no such thing as perfection; this is on earth, of course.

At the end of the day, investors need certainty to make those kinds of commitments and they need the opportunity, with risk, to have reward. "No pain, no gain," is the market's old expression. I suspect for landowners like myself—if there was value under my property, somebody has to invest the money to get it, and it's up to the investor to make that decision.

I wish the minister well in—

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

Mr. Gravelle has moved second reading of Bill 173. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All right. Pursuant to the standing orders, this vote will be deferred until after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We have no further government business this morning.

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

The House recessed from 0952 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. David Zimmer: It is my pleasure to introduce Caroline MacIsaac-Power, who is the registrar of the College of Opticians and the president-elect of CLEAR. CLEAR stands for Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation; it's an international body for the professional regulatory organizations. This is the first time that a Canadian has been elected president of CLEAR. It is a very distinguished body. She will take office in Denver, Colorado, in December 2009.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It's a great pleasure to introduce three of the greatest ladies in Ontario, who are visiting us here today: Susan, Anika and Freya Hardeman. The reason that they're here is that Freya and Anika are here to have lunch with their grandfather, who represents the great riding of Oxford county in the province of Ontario.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to welcome the students from Arthur Public School who are here today. Particularly, I know that one of their alumni, my good friend the member from Wellington—Halton Hills, Mr. Arnott, is proud to have graduated from Arthur Public School. We're both very proud that they're here today.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to recognize one of my famous constituents, Jim McMillen, who is actually president of the CNE board, celebrating here today. He's also a regional councillor from the municipality of Scugog on the region of Durham council. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to welcome to Queen's Park Hamilton East—Stoney Creek page Kerala Brendon's family: her parents, Brenda and David Brendon; and her grandparents, Joan Brendon and John and Evelyn Hough. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome David Bednar, who's the general manager of the Canadian National Exhibition, and Jim McMillen, who has already been introduced, the president. The CNE opens this year on August 21, and I know that everyone is going to join us. Let's go to the Ex.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Visiting Queen's Park today, we have guests from the Canadian Hearing Society, who are here for an all-party hearing-access awareness reception to celebrate May as Hearing Awareness Month. The reception is happening this evening in room 228. We welcome them.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Page Alexander Singh is from my riding, which is an honour. I wish him well in his stay here at Queen's Park, and I'm looking forward to a wonderful lunch with page Alexander Singh today. Again, I welcome him in Parliament here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Given the rhetoric we hear in this place on a daily basis, we have to assume the Premier appreciates the financial challenges facing the province. His government is running a record deficit and thousands of Ontarians have lost their jobs. Premier, in this economic climate—

Interjections.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess the idea of a deficit is a joke to most of the folks sitting over there—a record deficit.

Premier, in this economic climate, how can you allow a downsized government agency, TVO, to increase the number of staff earning over $100,000 a year by 30%?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just say at the outset that we are very much seized of the magnitude of the financial challenges before us, just as Ontario families are making adjustments, just as our businesses are making adjustments. We will do everything we can to reflect those concerns and to give expression to Ontario values. Obviously, they want us to act responsibly. They want us to manage our finances in a way that's in keeping with what they would have us do.

I think we've demonstrated that on a number of fronts in terms of the constraints that we have put in place and in terms of the budget that we recently presented in this Legislature. I look forward to hearing a few more details from my colleague in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The only adjustment at TVO has been upward. There's a good column in the Toronto Sun today about the Premier and his colleagues trying to distance themselves from decisions and responsibilities they have as a government.

The overburdened taxpayers of the province feed TVO approximately $45 million a year—tax dollars. TVO's answer to the financial challenges of the province was to close its Queen's Park bureau while keeping its Parliament Hill office open and to dramatically increase the salaries of fat-cat executives. The CEO, who is your political appointee, Premier, makes more than double the salary of her predecessor. Premier, do you take any responsibility for this agency's abuse of hard-earned tax dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say off the top that I and this government have every confidence in Lisa de Wilde as the CEO of TVO. She has done a fantastic job. Under her watch, 85% of Ontarians tuned in to TVO last season. That's over 10 million people aged two and up. The point is that TVO is providing a service across this province to some of our youngest citizens. They're providing a non-commercial, educational experience of television, and that is incredibly valuable.

Ontarians pay less than $3 a person per annum for TVO. In terms of value for money, we are getting very, very great service.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To be polite, that response was what could be described as abuse of the airwaves. There was nothing there to deal with the issue related to the fat-cat salaries at TVO. These are tax dollars we're talking about, Minister. Why are they getting these fat-cat increases while the rest of Ontarians are suffering and struggling to make ends meet, while you're taxing them to death? In fact, you're even taxing them at death.

I think that you have some responsibility here. Private broadcasters are downsizing. We see what's happening at the gallery here at Queen's Park. But here, your agency, funded by taxpayers' dollars, is increasing by 30% the number of staff earning over $100,000 a year. Minister, you have a responsibility. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of this province. Stand up and justify that, or take action to remedy it.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The way that this can be justified is that this public broadcaster, TVO, is providing an educational service across this province, whether we're talking about the news analysis that is delivered through programs like The Agenda or whether we're talking about the educational programming that is provided to our young people or the independent learning service that allows people from around the province, adult learners, to upgrade, to get credits that they haven't been able to get otherwise.

The salary that is paid to the CEO is part of the overall cost of TVO, which is, as I said, $3 per citizen for the cost of TVO to Ontario. I think that for value for service, dollar for dollar, Ontarians are getting a very good service through TVO.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a familiar scenario: Protect Liberals at all costs—in this case, $44 million of taxpayers' money.

Back to the Premier: Premier, as more and more Ontarians become aware of the implications of the new McGuinty sales tax, concern is growing. That's reflected in recent public opinion polls showing that almost 70% of Ontarians oppose this new Liberal tax grab, Premier.

You're the man bringing in this massive and wide-reaching tax; you should know what the impacts are on hard-working Ontarians. Premier, can you advise us—my colleague asked you this earlier this week, and we'll try it again—of the impact your new tax will have on common fees and other expenses for people owning and renting condominiums?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we can say is that overall, 93% of Ontarians will experience a tax cut. The member simply cannot ignore the entire tax package. We have personal tax cuts; we have corporate tax cuts; we have tax cuts that will see that 93% of Ontarians will see a decrease in their taxes.

These are difficult and challenging times, and as the member opposite expressed the day after the budget, he and his party do support this in principle. In times like this, it is incumbent on governments to take the kinds of decisions we're taking. In the short and long term, our economy will be more competitive. Ontarians will see: When the world economy begins to pick up, Ontario will be bigger, better and stronger and better prepared to benefit from a growing world economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The Premier should be embarrassed. He can't or won't answer questions about abuse of taxpayers' dollars. He can't or won't answer questions about specific impacts of this new massive tax he's imposing on Ontarians.

I want to ask the minister—we have to go back to him, clearly; the Premier is not going to answer this: Why do you and your sheep-like backbenchers who won't stand up for their constituents think it's just fine and dandy to tax funerals, including prepaid funerals? Apparently, you're even contemplating applying this tax retroactively.

Minister, in light of your Premier not being aware of the impacts, can you try to tell us what impact this new tax on funerals, prepaid funerals as well, will have on the average cost of a funeral in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I can say is that in terms of prepaid funerals it is our intention that they will not be affected by the tax, subject to concurrence by the federal government through the Canada Revenue Agency on the transition rules.

The Premier of Ontario has laid out a plan to get this economy moving. He has laid out a plan that cuts taxes for individuals, cuts taxes for small businesses and cuts taxes for large businesses. Most importantly, the compassion side is part of that budget, too, to help low-income Ontarians through these difficult times, to make our system fairer and better, to invest in health care and invest in Ontario.

The member in the House who doesn't seem to be consistent in his view is the member who asked the question, who said on March 24, "I think ... our party is supportive of harmonization." What has happened? What has happened—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I don't think we've heard any answers to specific questions related to the impacts of this new tax. When you have a government responsible for the largest tax increase in the province's history that cannot get up and answer specific questions about impacts, that is shameful. That is indeed shameful. There's no question about it.

I'll ask you another specific question. I had a letter from a lady in my riding about small organizations—

Interjections.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This is a big joke to them. Billions and billions of tax dollars being imposed on the shoulders of struggling Ontarians, and all that crowd over there can do is laugh about it. They should be ashamed. They don't have any answers; they don't know what the impacts are going to be. They are a shameful bunch, and their backbenchers are a bunch of yellow—

Interjections.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: —whatever—who will not stand up for their constituents.

Let's talk about the non-profit sector here—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What's unfortunate is that the member would characterize an enormous tax cut as a tax increase. That's unfortunate.

To be specific, yes, the tax will apply to some things that aren't covered, and everybody knows that; it's well understood. But I think most Ontarians are looking to governments to take decisive steps to make sure that our tax system is the most competitive in the world. That's why Mr. Flaherty and the federal government have been so supportive of this. That's why the C.D. Howe Institute, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, a range of social groups, have been so supportive of this.

Is it a difficult decision? Yes, it is. That's what leadership is about; that's what Premier McGuinty is about.

This is the right policy for Ontario, for our future, for jobs, for all Ontarians—a tax cut that everyone will—

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

GASOLINE PRICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Gas prices are surging across Ontario. In the last week alone, prices at the pump have shot up by 4.7 cents a litre in Thunder Bay, 3.5 cents a litre in Toronto, 3.2 cents a litre in Ottawa, and 1.5 cents a litre in Windsor. For many Ontario families, there is no choice but to drive to work and drive the kids to soccer and to Little League throughout the summer. The McGuinty Liberals' HST plan will tack 8% more on to the price of gas, amplifying these gas pump shocks. Why is the Premier raising the price at the pump?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question.

Again, I think it's important to take a step back and take a look at the entirety of the proposal that we've put before the people of Ontario. The comprehensiveness of our plan, when it comes to what's going to happen to families—to state again what the Minister of Finance just did: 93% of Ontarians will get a permanent income tax cut. We're also making sure that the single sales tax does not apply to items that are especially important to our families, like diapers, children's clothing, infant car seats and books.

We also know that one of the most important demands of our families is to make sure that there are enough jobs there for mums and dads, and later on for their kids. They want us to make sure that our economy is competitive with those around the world. One hundred and thirty other countries already give their businesses the advantages that they enjoy in a harmonized sales tax system—a single sales tax. We need to get there in Ontario, and that's what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After a five-cent increase last week, it's now $1.02 to fill up a car on the way to work in Sault Ste. Marie or Sudbury. The 8% tax hike is going to push the price up to about $1.10 a litre. That adds up quickly, especially for many Ontario families who are seeing joblessness, fewer hours at work or lower pay.

Why is the Premier raising the tax on gas at the pump, and does the Premier really believe that this is the time to be hitting consumers with higher costs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just so my colleague can help spread this message on our behalf, this doesn't take effect until July 1 of next year. It is accompanied by 93% of Ontarians enjoying an income tax cut. It is accompanied by businesses, both small and large, enjoying reductions in their costs.

It does put us on a more competitive footing. Our manufacturing and forestry sectors in particular, which are struggling with the cost of their exports—this will reduce those costs, which will make them more competitive so they can create more jobs, so more mums and dads can get work and support their families. I know that my colleague would support that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's not just gas at the pump; it's heating oil and it's even propane. The summer barbecue is going to be more expensive because of the HST. The average Ontario family is going to be hammered with $330 more just for home heating and utility costs.

Why won't this Premier admit that the HST will make life harder for Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my colleague is just looking at one particular measure, and she has yet to factor into her thinking the fact that 93% of Ontarians will enjoy a tax cut. I don't think she has looked at the other dimensions of our budget; for example, dramatically increasing the Ontario child benefit for kids who are growing up in poverty, building more affordable housing, investing in better-quality health care services for all our families, investing in better educational opportunities for all our children.

Here's something that came from Adam Spence who's with the Ontario Association of Food Banks: "I think this government took important steps in this budget. It's going to put money in people's pockets and a roof over their heads."

Again, we have tried to be thoughtful and balanced to build a more competitive and a more caring Ontario.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Under a deal worked out between GM and the CAW, workers made extraordinary sacrifices to maintain the company's viability. Pension benefits are going to be frozen at current rates until 2015 and new GM hires will contribute $1 an hour towards the pension plan for the first time in CAW history. Finally, each worker is going to have to divert a $3,500 lump sum vacation clawback payment towards the pension plan.

In light of these extraordinary concessions by GM workers, will this government ensure that the financial assistance package negotiated with GM includes ironclad guarantees that the workers get every last pension penny that's owed to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I want to support the sentiment expressed by my colleague. The CAW has done something absolutely remarkable: In the last year alone, they've negotiated three separate collective agreements with GM, and they've made significant concessions every time. I understand that, I recognize that and I respect that.

Now, in fairness to Ontario taxpayers, they're also being called upon to make significant concessions as well—not to put more money into their hospitals or health care but to put more money in a private sector venture, General Motors of Canada. We think we have a responsibility to do that. That's why we've remained at the table. We're working with the federal government and the government in Washington to see what we can do to put GM on a sound footing. Those negotiations are continuing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm asking a very, very specific question here. There's confusion over what role this government is playing to ensure that GM pensions are protected. One day the Premier says the province won't contribute financially to protect pensions, and the next day he hints that the province may contribute to the solvency of the plan.

My question is, which is it? In return for a $2-billion investment from Ontario taxpayers, will this government insist on ironclad guarantees that GM will adequately fund its pension plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what I said was that there's no money to put into the pension benefits guarantee fund. I think I also said that we have both a political and a moral responsibility to help out employees, including pensioners with GM. I think I've said that in the past.

There are some legacy costs that remain very real for General Motors, and unless there is a way found to address those, including pension issues, then GM will not survive. It's as simple as that. That would mean that the single most important employer in Oshawa, Ingersoll and St. Catharines would go under. It would mean that parts suppliers from Belleville to Barrie to Windsor would be affected.

So what's at stake is a great deal, and that's why we're continuing these negotiations in earnest. We're doing everything we can to come to some accommodation that respects the interests of the pensioners, taxpayers, General Motors and Ontarians in a stronger auto sector in our province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here's what New Democrats believe: Before one more taxpayer penny flows to GM, there needs to be an ironclad guarantee forcing GM to adequately fund its pension plan. Workers didn't cause the problem. I would agree with the Premier there, but they've agreed to play their own part and keep that plant solvent. Taxpayers didn't cause the problem at GM, but they are being asked to fork over billions of dollars to keep that company alive.

It's is a very simple question: Will there be ironclad guarantees written into any financial agreement between the province and GM to ensure the company meets all of its pension obligations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've always maintained that the best way to protect pensioners and pensions is to rescue General Motors and put it on a solid footing, and that remains our principal objective.

When it comes to guarantees, the single most significant guarantee that we are looking for here is a guarantee of production. We want to maintain production levels in the province of Ontario. What that translates into in terms of job numbers is difficult to say, but that's our foothold. We want to preserve that capacity because that's something on which we can build going forward.

I know that my colleague has a sincere interest in these matters. What I can tell her is that we remain at the table. We're working diligently, and I remain confident that we'll come to some accommodation that will respect the interests of taxpayers, workers and pensioners at GM.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Education. Will the minister inform the House what she thinks is a reasonable walking distance for students to walk to school in communities where neither busing or public transit is available?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member opposite is referring to decisions that are being made in local communities about transportation that is offered to students. What we have to do in every board around the community is look at the particular circumstances, the particular geography. I know that in the member's riding there is a discussion between the community and the board at the moment because some of the rules are being changed around who can be picked up and who cannot be picked up.

What we know is that transportation consortia have been formed in boards around the province to maximize the opportunities for kids to get busing, but at the same time to make those routes the most efficient and effective possible. So I'm going to leave those decisions to the local boards and to the transportation consortia because they are the ones who know the community and they are the ones that can provide the services to the students.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: The parents know the community too. I'm going to have to get three pages to deliver the letters over to the minister here. Thank you very much.

There are over 1,000 letters, all from families in Georgetown with students facing long walks of up to two hours per day. They have no public transit option. Despite what the minister would lead us to believe, this problem did not originate with the school board. It originated in the Mowat Block in the minister's office. I warned the minister about this problem over two months ago and have written and spoken to her on many other occasions. I've told her that our school board needed prompt reassurance that their bus funding would not be cut if they continued to bus students from Georgetown South.

Having failed to do so, will she at least meet in person with the mayor of Halton Hills, which she so far has declined to do?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite a couple of days ago showed me these letters and I said I was happy to take them to my office and to make response to the board, and I am happy to do that. My ministry officials have been in conversation with the officials at the board.

The fact is that the board is in the process of changing some of the consortia, in the process of changing some of the rules. When sometimes there was what is called courtesy busing, when students who are actually outside the walking area were getting transportation, now the board is saying, "You know what? We have to make sure that all the kids who are being bused to the school fall within the distances." At some point boards have to say, "These are the distances within which we'll bus, and outside of those distances, we are not going to be busing kids to school." That's happening in every board around the province. It's only rational that there would be those kinds of limits.

I'm absolutely open to speaking to anyone who has a concern.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Premier. Today we're reading about yet another study about whether to electrify GO Transit lines. It doesn't take another study to tell you that electrifying GO Transit lines is good for the air, good for the economy and good for the people who live near those lines.

More than eight years ago the Toronto Board of Trade called for electrification of those lines. Two years ago this government committed to electrifying the Lake Shore GO line. Instead of waiting for another report, why don't you simply proceed to electrify the GO network—proceed now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J.

Bradley: As the member would know, the Metrolinx organization, which deals with these matters, has made a decision to indicate that it would be involved in a study of electrification of the lines that he's making reference to and that it would be a very extensive study to determine what the needs would be, for instance, and what the priorities would be in terms of that particular study and to involve as wide a group as possible in that study to determine the timetable for moving forward with projects, what exactly would be implied by having electrification in terms of what new lines would have to go in, what new stations would have to be put up in terms of electrification of stations.

They want to do a very thorough job on that, and I think the member—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the skill of the minister in circling around an answer, but what I want to go to is this: Minister, you know that we need to have electrification of these lines. You know that on the Georgetown line, there are hundreds of thousands of residents and thousands of children who want a network that will be clean and that will not contribute to pollution in their area. They are ready for electrification. You're in a position to move that forward. Why are you dragging your feet and why are Metrolinx and GO dragging their feet? Why don't you tell them to proceed with the planning for installation and get it happening now?

Hon. James J. Bradley: If I can identify one portion of that, and I want to make sure that I identify that one portion, the member asked why I don't get started with the planning immediately. That's exactly what's happening by having this study: getting involved with the planning immediately.

The Georgetown South service expansion includes an air-rail link, as you know, from Union Station to Pearson. It's a priority in the Metrolinx regional plan. I understand that Metrolinx is taking extra care on the Georgetown line expansion, for instance, to make sure it will be capable of supporting the electrification of this line in the future.

All structures, bridges, grade separations and so on will be designed and constructed to meet the greater height requirements for electrification. Track spacing is being designed to allow for the foundations and columns required, and signal systems are being upgraded to allow for an electrified train system.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On a number of occasions I have brought attention to the concerns raised by my constituents of York South—Weston in regard to the Georgetown South GO expansion. This project includes an air-rail link from Union Station to Pearson airport, which is currently undergoing an environmental assessment which will conclude in the fall. The proposal put forward by Metrolinx includes a stop and a new GO station facility in Weston, plus tunnelling the air-rail link and GO trains through Weston.

This is a great improvement from the original project proposal, and I would like to thank the minister for sharing new, exciting news with us today in respect with the electrification of the Georgetown line, which many of my constituents have been calling for.

My understanding is that these studies are necessary to move forward. Both Metrolinx and the minister have heard the residents of York South—Weston in the past, and have responded—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: One of my colleagues reminds me that we already are in the process of spending $7 billion on electrification in Toronto at the present time. I know that the member for York South—Weston has been a tireless advocate in this regard.

The Georgetown South service expansion, including an air-rail link, is a priority of the Metrolinx regional transportation plan, a plan that was unanimously adopted by the entire Metrolinx board.

Metrolinx recognizes the desire of those living along the Georgetown corridor to see electric trains running on their line as soon as possible. This is a desire shared with those living along GO Transit's rail corridors throughout the greater Toronto area and Hamilton. That is why the regional transportation plan also recommends express rail service throughout the GTHA, for which electrification is a key element. Metrolinx is conducting that study at the present time, and the member is right—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I look forward to forwarding this information to my constituents. I have spoken with experts in the field, many of those who, in fact, are working on this particular project, and I understand that the process of electrifying a rail corridor is an extensive one. This study sounds like an important first step in the right direction.

I am hoping that the Minister of Transportation would tell us more about the study that Metrolinx has commissioned so that I can share this information with those in my riding—specifically, what the study will entail, the time lines of the study and how it will affect the Georgetown corridor and air-rail link. The residents of York South—Weston look forward to electric train technology as part of Ontario's plan to increase transit use in the coming years.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I understand that an external advisory committee will be established to advise Metrolinx on the scope of the study. The committee will be made up of community representatives, transit riders and independent technical experts. Issues they could raise to be addressed in the terms of reference might include staging criteria for the electrification of GO rail lines, performance improvement for riders, urban planning benefits and vehicle technology options and availability.

It is important to note that until we are able to move forward with electrifying the line, we must address the current capacity and congestion concerns in the Georgetown corridor. That is why Metrolinx is taking extra care on infrastructure design to make sure it supports future electrification.

I mentioned previously that all structures will be constructed to meet the greater height requirements for electrification, track spacing will allow for the foundations and columns required, and signal systems are all being upgraded.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. I'm going to send the minister a letter. Minister, will you confirm that on June 29, 2006, your predecessor wrote to the 14 chairs of Ontario's LHINs, stating that "our government is in the process of developing a 10-year health systems strategic plan, to be made public next spring," which would be 2007? The plan, we know, is finished, sitting on your desk. Will you explain why you have withheld the 10-year plan from the public for more than two years? What are you hiding?

Hon. David Caplan: Ontarians aren't impressed by the nonsense rhetoric of the member opposite.

I can tell you that this government has very transparently shared with Ontarians our plans for health care. It's not only a good plan; it's good work, because today, 650,000 Ontarians who did not have a family doctor have one because of the plan and the effort of this government. Today, wait times for angiography are down by 57%; angioplasty, down 46%; pediatric surgery, down 47%; cancer surgeries, down 27%.

The head of the Canadian Medical Association says—and I'm quite proud of this—that Ontario has gone from a laggard under that party to a leader in Canada when it comes to wait-time management. The plan that was unveiled by this government to drive down wait times and access to family health care—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I think it's important that the minister recognize that he's in charge of a $42-billion corporation and it's operating without any plan.

We know the plan is finished, because on June 10, 2008, the former minister indicated he would release the plan in 2008. Secondly, KPMG's 2008 LHIN effectiveness review called on the ministry to release its plan. We now hear from the Ontario Hospital Association and the registered nurses' association, who are also calling for a strategic plan so that it could provide clarity around the government's vision, performance indicators as to what it wants to measure itself on, and targets.

When are you finally going to release the long-overdue plan? What are you hiding?

Hon. David Caplan: Unlike the member opposite, I don't have plans to fire nurses. When she was on this side of the House, she and her colleagues fired 6,000 nurses. She and her colleagues closed 28 hospitals. She and her colleagues saw community after community underserviced by family health care. Ontarians rejected that plan in favour of one to drive down wait times, in favour of one to ensure that Ontarians have access to family care. Ontarians rejected a party that vows a $3-billion cut to health care with the elimination of Ontario's health premium.

We are working on a 10-year strategic plan. We are going to ensure that it is delivered when it is ready and when we have it right. But I can assure this member and her colleagues that we will not take their advice to cut health care, to fire nurses and to close hospitals, because Ontarians have rejected that failed approach—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member for Toronto—Danforth?

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Minister of Transportation, who seems to be in transit at the moment.

Mr. Peter Kormos: And he's late.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: And he's late.

The city of Toronto is still waiting for the McGuinty government to partner in the purchase of new streetcars that would create hundreds of jobs in Thunder Bay, streetcars that would improve transit for millions of GTA riders, streetcars that would reduce smog and climate change.

When will the McGuinty government finally step up and support the purchase of Ontario-made streetcars for Toronto?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: First is to say to my honourable colleague that we're very, very grateful to see the transition in that party's approach with respect to public transit here in Toronto, because we remember all too well that they opposed the expansion of the Spadina subway line to York University and beyond, what they referred to as "the scarcely populated York region."

The honourable member must also have failed to notice that in recent weeks, our government, led by our Premier, made an unprecedented commitment to the construction of transit lines in Toronto, Metrolinx initiatives, at 100% provincial dollars. This is a remarkable transformation.

On the issue of streetcars, we continue to evaluate the city of Toronto's proposal for funds under stimulus and we expect to make decisions in this regard very, very soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's interesting to hear the minister talk about the investment in streetcar lines. I think we all look forward to looking at the streetcar lines, walking past them and, in some cases, driving past them, but when are you going to commit to put the money in place so there will be streetcars on those streetcar lines? This is a critical piece. If you don't have the streetcars, the lines are just there for show. When will you make the commitment?

Hon. George Smitherman: When will the honourable member stand up as part of his party and make a real commitment to public transit? Because in this Legislature on a daily basis, we see them walking, talking and working actively against the expansion of public transit in the greater Toronto area. They do that on the Georgetown line; they oppose the expansion of public transit to the airport. They stand and are on the record as being opposed to the expansion of the York subway line to York University and beyond to York region, and then the honourable member has the audacity to ask only about one piece of it. Where do they stand on public transit overall?

Our commitments are clear: unprecedented levels of investment, and on the streetcar purchase, in addition to the gas tax revenues, which produce for the city of Toronto $163 million every single year, we are looking for opportunities to continue to partner on the purchase of additional streetcars, as I said, from a stimulus application that is presently under consideration, with a decision coming shortly.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question today is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today is the Canadian Hearing Society's awareness day at Queen's Park. The Canadian Hearing Society provides services that enhance the independence of individuals who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing and that encourage the prevention of hearing loss.

As a mission statement, the Canadian Hearing Society firmly strives to create "a society where all people are respected; have full access to communication; and are able to participate without social, economic, or emotional barriers."

My question is very simple and direct: What is our government doing to ensure that the Canadian Hearing Society and agencies like it are able to successfully carry out this very important mission statement?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you to the member from Peterborough for this question. First of all, let me welcome to the House the Canadian Hearing Society and thank them for all the good work that they're doing.

In 2007, we announced that more than $20 million will be invested over three years to strengthen community social services organizations, including agencies providing interpreter and intervener services. With this investment, agencies providing interpreter services receive a 2% increase to base budgets. We have also provided funding for costs that may include wage increases, legal obligations and other cost-of-living increases.

Interpreter and intervener services are vital support services for Ontarians, and agencies such as the CHS are at the forefront of helping vulnerable Ontarians perform activities of daily living and engage in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Minister, thank you very much for that informative answer. The Canadian Hearing Society is one great example of an organization that is taking an innovative approach to providing mental health treatment from a community level. CHS is making a real difference in my riding of Peterborough through the CONNECT program, which provides mental health counselling services to individuals who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing.

As a member of the Select Committee on Mental Health, I've heard individuals and their compelling stories right across the province. I know that there is much to be done with regard to mental health and addictions. Would the minister share with the House what progress has been made to date with both the select committee and its advisory group on mental health and addictions in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I refer to the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member from Peterborough for the question and for his advocacy on this issue.

I'd like to recognize the Canadian Hearing Society for being here today and for the great work that they do in our communities. CHS is indeed a valued partner in the overall health care agenda, and I'm happy to share that the CHS was part of the provincial consultations with provincial providers and consumer organizations just this past Friday, as part of our advisory committee on mental health and addictions that I established. The advisory committee will help to provide direction on the development of a 10-year comprehensive strategy for mental health and addictions.

We have also established—and I was pleased that my colleague across the way suggested—a select committee on mental health and addictions.

Since 2003, our investments have expanded access to over 200,000 more Ontarians and hired more than 1,100 new mental health workers. Since 2003, this government has increased funding by more than $200 million—

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday, the Premier was announcing a handout for another winner in the McGuinty economic lottery. He jokingly offered the job of economic development minister to Sir Elton John. Meant to be humorous, this comment speaks to a very serious issue, and that is that this Premier and his government do not understand the critical role of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Economic development sets a framework for Ontario's competitiveness, productivity and, ultimately, the prosperity of the private sector, but this Premier is using the ministry for photo ops and grand announcements with celebrities.

Premier, why do you treat economic development like a personal plaything? When will you stop working for yourself and start working for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of things: I know that the member opposite is not recommending that any of us give up our sense of humour, notwithstanding difficult times. The other thing I'm asking him to recognize is that the announcement yesterday was about 265 Ontario jobs. Ontario taxpayers came to the table with $22 million.

Starz Animation Toronto is a world-leading production studio of digital media. They are at present producing a film for Tim Burton—and yes, Elton John is also going to have one of his movies produced there. If we can continue to draw big names like that from around the world, that's good for Toronto. It's good for jobs, it's good for Ontario, and it's good for our future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: Premier, it's very clear with your response yesterday that you're somewhat disconnected from economic reality. You're sort of like Elton John's "Rocket Man" song, where you're on another planet. And you're right: Starz Animation is a wonderful company and it's great to have Elton John involved; but Premier, this is very important. There are other studios, and you've just really got rid of all of them. You've given Starz a $23-million lead on the competition, so you're busy picking winners and losers. That's the issue here.

We don't think, in the opposition, Premier, that there are losers. What we're saying is, you've got to provide a level playing field for all the companies. We applaud competition. We applaud innovation. Premier, what is your plan for the other companies that you've just put out of business?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, a few things. My honourable colleague knows that there are a number of initiatives that we have taken in order to improve the business environment so that we can create more jobs. He knows about our proposal to cut business taxes for our big companies and our small companies; he knows about the special tax initiatives for the entertainment sector.

I'm not sure whether he's telling me that we should not have participated in this venture with Starz Animation here in Toronto or whether he feels that somehow we've cut off others. The fact is we have a great program: It's the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. It's open to applications from companies around the province. This was a successful application. It resulted in some 265 jobs. We think that's worthy of celebration. We think it's a good foundation on which to continue to build, and we want to use that to encourage more businesses to apply to our fund, so we can find more partnerships.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. With Ontario's jails increasingly overcrowded, with overburdened correctional officers forced to cope with deplorable working conditions and mandatory overtime, and with lives being put at risk, when will this government provide the resources Ontario's correctional workers so desperately, desperately need?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Well, the short answer to the question is: We have in the past, we continue to do so in the present and we will continue to invest in the future. Here is how we're doing that: We're doing that by increasing budgets; we're doing that by increasing facility space; we're doing that by increasing the number of beds—unlike what they did when they were in government, when they reduced beds, when they reduced facilities, when they reduced cash. This government will continue to be committed to the correctional services division of our ministry in a very, very proactive way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: The minister speaks so ill of his Liberal colleague Bob Rae.

Another life was lost just last month at the Elgin—Middlesex Detention Centre. Correctional officers had warned that this would happen because of overcrowded and inhumane conditions. Now we're hearing about inmates not getting to court on time because of chronic corrections understaffing.

How much more evidence does this minister need before he acts to resolve Ontario's growing corrections crisis and stops blaming it on his Liberal colleague Bob Rae?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Last time I checked, between 1990 and 1995 there was a New Democratic Party government. The last time history will check, it was that government. Here's what they did: They cut corrections operating budgets by $20 million in 1993-94, they cut $13 million in 1994-95 and they cut $25 million in 1995-96; that's the record. They didn't build one new bed; that's the record. They reduced staff; that's the record. They imposed the social contract; that's the record. We've taken exactly the opposite approach. We're building new facilities, new capacity.

We're investing in our correctional services sector, and we will continue to do so because, unlike the New Democratic government of 1990-95, we appreciate the efforts they put forth.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, Ontario promises a place of opportunity for newcomers to this great land. It is this opportunity that draws the world's best to our shores and to our province. Ottawa, like every city and town across this province, has a keen need for the skills, talents and energies of these newcomers so that they can participate fully and deservedly in an economy and way of life that only Ontario can offer.

Sometimes I wonder whether we have lived up to that promise, with all the tales of doctors driving cabs and engineers serving shawarma. Newcomers are a part of the backbone of our economy. It is imperative that we ensure that these immigrants are fully integrated into the workforce, especially in tough economic times.

Minister, could you please tell this House what this government is doing to improve opportunities for newcomers to forge stable and rewarding careers in Ontario.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. In the Ottawa area, I can assure you, the honourable member is a formidable fighter for the benefit of newcomers.

It's my pleasure to discuss bridge training programs, which have time and time again proven themselves successful in helping newcomers. These programs assist individuals with international credentials to move quickly into the workforce and enable newcomers to get licensed and get jobs in their field of study. This is why we are investing more than $30 million in 38 bridge training projects across the province. This initiative will help 10,000 newcomers, particularly in the health care, finance, agricultural, tourism and IT sectors. On your supplementary, I will elaborate more.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I'm pleased to note that five of these important programs will be based in my riding of Ottawa Centre—a total investment of almost $6.25 million to help newcomers there. Algonquin College will receive over $1.25 million to certify immigrant financial professionals. The Catholic Immigration Centre of Ottawa will get $1.5 million to help almost 500 internationally trained health professionals. The Ottawa Chinese Community Service Centre will develop 120 IT professionals for Ottawa's formidable IT sector using their almost $650,000.

Minister, please tell these organizations, our new immigrants and all the people of Ottawa Centre why we are certain that bridge training will be effective. How are we to know that it will build productive members of our economy and society for the future?

Hon. Michael Chan: Since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested more than $120 million in over 180 bridge training programs, helping 30,000 newcomers succeed. For example, 90% of participants who completed the CARE program for internationally trained nurses obtained employment within six months. Or just look at the University of Toronto pharmacy program, which has improved the pass rate on the pharmacy licensure examination from 20% to a whopping 90%.

Bridge training is truly a win-win-win situation. Employers win with access to a pool of highly trained workers, and newcomers win by being able to get licensed and find jobs in their field.

The McGuinty government, unlike the opposition, understands that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, in 2007, your government appointed Dr. Charles Pascal as a special adviser on full-day kindergarten. Since then, we haven't heard a word, not from Dr. Pascal, not from the budget and certainly not from you.

As you know, a program of this magnitude will require a great deal of preparation time on the part of school boards to implement. Your own Safe Schools Act, as you know, which is a mere two pages, is going to require eight months to implement.

It is now 18 months since the Premier appointed Dr. Pascal, and Ontarians, especially the parents who counted on this program, haven't heard any details. Are you waiting for this session to end before releasing Dr. Pascal's report?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No. We are absolutely determined to get this right. Dr. Pascal has met with the Premier, and both Minister Matthews and I have had conversations with him. He is working on the report, and we expect to receive it.

The important thing is that we are committed to moving forward on full-day programming for four- and five-year-olds. We have not indicated in any way that we're not going to continue down that road. In fact, we're very much looking forward to the recommendations that Mr. Pascal brings forward. I know that he has been speaking with stakeholders around the province—and, in fact, across the country—to get the very best models and advice possible. So I look forward to the report, and more than that, I look forward to moving ahead to implement full-day programming for four- and five-year-olds.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, all I'm asking for is what you promised, and the report is already past due. Parents and school boards really have a right to know—they need to plan. This was promised to them.

Children born this year would have been eligible for the early learning before the Premier de-prioritized this program and delayed the funding. Children only get one chance at this. The Premier plans to put early learning on the back burner, and that means that young parents who supported this government's campaign promise in 2007 for full-day kindergarten will be hung out to dry. That's the way it goes with this government: promises made, promises delayed, promises broken.

Is that what you are telling us, Minister? Is this another broken promise? Is this part of the plan to recycle this announcement for full-day kindergarten as part of your 2011 election campaign?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We've been crystal clear from the inception of this initiative that we were going to begin implementing the full-day programming for four- and five-year-olds beginning in September 2010. That has been our position from the beginning, and if the member opposite cared to look at the speeches and the platform that we ran on and that we have made since October 2007, she would know that we have been consistently supportive of that program beginning September 2010. That's the position.

In fact, we said that the report was going to be released in the spring. It is not overdue. We look forward to getting that report. As I said, more than that, we look forward to having that full-day programming for four- and five-year-olds. We always said it would be a phased-in program, beginning September 2010.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the new Minister of Economic Development. The city of Hamilton has suffered significant job losses. The US Steel-Stelco closure has affected families throughout our region. Not only do we have job losses at US Steel and Stelco, but we now have a work stoppage at National Steel Car—not instigated by the workers; by the company, which is talking about moving to Alabama and has already purchased land there.

When I started at Stelco, you couldn't get a parking spot on Burlington Street. You had to line up for the punch clocks. You could fire a cannon off down Burlington Street and not hit anyone now.

What has this government done to secure the return of good manufacturing jobs to the Hamilton area?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague will know that we've made manufacturing a very high priority, something that we are looking to continue to address. But one of the biggest demands placed on the steel industry comes from the auto sector, and that's why we have invested significant taxpayer dollars in the restructuring of Chrysler. That's why we're at the table with GM. It's why, beginning over five years ago, we put in place our auto investment strategy, which landed billions of new dollars of investment here. It's why we continue our discussions with the federal government and with Washington.

We have also kept a very close watch on developments in the city of Hamilton itself. I had an opportunity not too long ago to speak with the mayor, to talk more about the particular challenges and particular opportunities. I think that if you check the record, you'll see that on a number of occasions we have found a way to collaborate very closely with the people of Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'm very concerned about some of the comments that have been made in this House about, "No protectionism is going on in the States." I'm very concerned about, "Everything will get better." That's all I hear in here. Claims of "no protectionism" are suspect at best.

Our steel production has ceased in Hamilton. In Indiana, US Steel has reopened previously idled blast furnaces. US Steel has said that steel production will return to Hamilton when things get better. Then why are they sending ships from the States to remove all raw materials from the Hamilton plant and shipping them back? Twenty-six ships have taken all the raw material off the ground back to the States. That's not a good indicator.

We need a plan, actual steps to bring these jobs back to Hamilton and get a proper return on the money that we've invested. How is this government going to secure a return on its dollar and get jobs back to Hamilton?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I love this member's passion. The causes that he champions are important not just to him but to all of us, but he needs to understand that he has to get onside with our budget.

One of the most important things that we can do for our manufacturers in particular is give them the advantages that they enjoy in 130 other countries, where they have a single sales tax, where they can reduce their input costs, where they can reduce the cost of their exports so that they become more competitive, so that they can create more jobs, so that they can hire more mums and dads and make families feel a greater sense of hopefulness in the city of Hamilton.

It comes back to our budget. That's why I'd ask my honourable colleague to give us all his support as we move forward with the single sales tax in the province of Ontario.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. These trying economic times are affecting us all. Summer and the end of the school year are both fast approaching, and with the current economic crisis, many students in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham are particularly worried about securing traditional summer employment this year.

As the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services, I understand that part of your mandate is to foster entrepreneurship and innovation in our province. What initiatives has your ministry taken to encourage young entrepreneurship and help these young people secure jobs?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Oak Ridges—Markham for asking this question. I agree with her completely that these are tough economic times and challenging times especially for our students, so it's very important for our government to make sure that our students get the opportunity in the summer to start their own businesses.

Our Summer Company program is one of our very successful programs. Last year, we had about 360 students accepted into this program. This year, we have expanded the program by another $1 million so that we can provide more opportunities to students. Under this program, what we do is, we actually give money to students to start their own business—$1,500 in the beginning and $1,500 at the end. But in addition, we also provide them with mentors so that they can start their own business and be successful and own their own businesses. That's the only way we can create a culture of entrepreneurship in this province and make sure that in the future the province stays prosperous.

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 162, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1135 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 65; the nays are 25.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

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

Third reading agreed to.

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act / Projet de loi 173, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mines.

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

The division bells rang from 1149 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 79; the nays are 8.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to take this opportunity—Speaker's prerogative—to welcome some guests in the west gallery: Helen Harakis, Wendy Gamble and Alison Clarke.

There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1154 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I'd like to introduce Jacob Robbins-Kanter, from my riding of Toronto—Danforth. Jacob has just finished his first year at McGill. Welcome, Jacob.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature a long-time friend of many of us, Arthur Lofsky, who just can't stay away from this place.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I don't believe they have arrived yet, but I had my picture taken with two grade 10 classes from Rehoboth Christian High School. There are 50 students, and they were brought by their teacher, Frank Westerink. They will be here momentarily, and I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WALTER BEATH

Mr. John O'Toole: It's with distinct pleasure today that I rise to pay tribute to a very good friend and an important Ontario citizen, Mr. Walter Beath, who celebrated his 90th birthday on Valentine's Day 2009.

I'm pleased to report that Walter keeps active with long walks in Port Perry, the completion of a 200-page family history and a keen interest in politics at all levels.

Mr. Walter Beath was the first chair of the region of Durham, serving from 1973 until his retirement in 1980. Durham region brought together at least 20 independent municipalities into eight lower-tier municipalities and the single-tier Durham region. The success of Durham region is a tribute to Walter's diplomacy, vision and steady hand at the wheel during those formative years.

Walter Beath was a former Ontario county warden, a member of the East Whitby township council and a member of the Ontario county high school board. He served on the Ontario county crop association, the Oshawa Fair board and the beef association, and in the planning of the International Plowing Match, to name just a few of his connections to agriculture and his community.

Walter and his wife, the late Earline Hayes, farmed 200 acres near the Oshawa-Clarington town line, where they raised their sons, Grant and Wayne.

Walter Beath is a leader in agriculture, in the community, in public service—in everything he does.

I wish you a happy year ahead, Walter, as you approach your 91st birthday. Congratulations.

NIAGARA HEALTH SYSTEM

Mr. Peter Kormos: The board of trustees of the Niagara Health System, that unelected, anonymous, indifferent, disdainful backroom group, has been wreaking havoc on small-town hospitals down in Niagara. Fort Erie hospital is for all intents and purposes gone; Port Colborne hospital is for all intents and purposes going; Welland County General Hospital is being cut off at the knees—obviously, it's a slippery slope—to the point where it's but a shell.

This is the NHS, the Niagara Health System, that's supervised by Dalton McGuinty's equally unelected, undemocratic, hand-picked, politically appointed LHIN. There's a lot of winking and nodding going on down there, because the unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, hand-picked, politically appointed Dalton McGuinty LHIN, of course, is approving the hospital closures by the NHS that are taking place.

The NHS announces that it needs four new trustees. Is it holding a public election? Of course not. Is it a public process? Of course not. They're receiving applications. The very same board of trustees that has as part of its Dalton McGuinty-approved agenda shutting down small-town hospitals will pick and choose its new board members in a secret, backroom process that puts Tammany Hall to shame. One can just see the smoke curling up into the rafters.

This is unacceptable. It's time that we publicly elected hospital service boards to create transparency and democracy.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Mario Sergio: Last Thursday, I was proud to visit St. Basil-The-Great, a high school in my riding, which was a part-recipient of a $50-million investment for public school boards to reduce energy costs by installing renewable energy technologies for heating, cooling or generating electricity.

St. Basil's principal, Carmine Settino, and his dedicated staff have spearheaded a student eco club green campaign. It was inspiring to hear the students speak so passionately about their green school initiatives, regarding their wind projects, solar panels and strategic landscaping. They are a shining example of how a school and its students can lead by example.

Our government's green conservation investment will bring a range of renewable technologies to schools, including small-scale wind projects to generate electricity for use in schools, solar photovoltaic to generate electricity, solar thermal for heating, and geothermal systems for heating and cooling.

Ontario's elementary and secondary schools have significant energy costs: nearly half a billion dollars each year. The aim is to help school boards reduce those costs, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save on energy demand, and support more green jobs.

Ontario's green economy stands to benefit as this investment provides opportunities for suppliers of renewable energy technologies in the province.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I rise today to ask the government to postpone the opening of adoption records from June 1 for at least one month.

To date, only 2,500 people have registered a veto to stop the disclosure of their adoption records; this represents less than half of 1% of the people eligible to do so. In other provinces where similar laws have been introduced, the figure was 3% to 5%. This means that in Ontario we should have expected somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 vetoes to be filed.

Most people don't know this change is occurring to their privacy rights. In today's world, government newspaper ads are not enough to let the public know what's happening.

The sincerity of this government in advertising the right to veto disclosure is suspect. In their first adoption disclosure legislation, this government tried to run roughshod over privacy rights by not offering a disclosure veto. Luckily, that law was thrown out by the Court of Appeal, over their objection. Now I fear they are hoping to provide wide-open access to adoption records by not telling all Ontario adoptees and birth parents of their right to protect their privacy by registering the veto.

I call on this government to postpone the opening of these records until they have undertaken an extensive radio and TV campaign.

TAMIL CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise today to speak on the situation facing the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, as there are a significant number of Tamil Canadians in my riding, throughout Scarborough and the GTA.

Last week, the grounds of this Legislature were filled to capacity with Sri Lankan Tamils. They were numbered in the thousands.

Last week's events can be characterized more as a memorial to those who lost their lives in the Tamils' quest for justice in their homeland. In hindsight, it was a slow introduction to the community of the news that would follow days later that their leader as well as hundreds of innocent Tamils were killed in the final days of the army attack.

The UN Secretary General visited Sri Lanka on May 23 and called for international groups to be allowed access to the area. His request has been denied, and no international journalists or media are allowed. This has led to criticisms of the Sri Lankan government by international groups.

I've received several calls asking that our federal government call on the Sri Lankan government to handle the remains of dead families so that proper burial rights can be administered, and to be in dialogue with the new leadership.

The Premier has spoken to this matter and has echoed a call for all sides to enter into dialogue to resolve the issues that face Tamil people. I echo the call, on behalf of the Tamil Canadians I've spoken with, that the Premier made on May 14 that all sides come together to resolve all the outstanding issues.

SENIORS' EDUCATION DAY

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: My annual Gerry Martiniuk Seniors' Education Day will be held this Friday, on May 29, at 9 in the morning at the Newfoundland Club in Cambridge, 1500 Dunbar Road. Tickets for the event can be obtained free to Cambridge and North Dumfries residents by phoning my office, 519-623-5852.

This year we have arranged for a great program. My good friend Councillor Karl Kiefer and his associate Joanne Weiler will be speaking on personal health and long-term care. Abigail Dancey, representing the community care access centre, will speak on connecting you with care in our community. Liz Nieson, representing the Cambridge Working Group on Elder Abuse, will speak on ageing with dignity, honour and respect. To entertain, we have again brought back, at popular request, my friend Adam Timoon, entertainer extraordinaire. Afterwards a free lunch will be served.

Information tables will be available with representatives from the Waterloo Regional Police Service, Cambridge Fire Fighters, the Friendly Visiting program of Cambridge, the Waterloo Region Committee on Elder Abuse, the Elder Abuse Response Team, Community Support Connections, the Alzheimer Society, the VON PATER program, CMH Lifeline, Gary Goodyear MP, the city of Cambridge, Cambridge Senior Centres, Cambridge Hearing Society and the YMCA of Cambridge.

Thanks to the Newfoundland Club and my good friend Councillor Linda Whetham, for all of their help.

WINDSOR SPITFIRES HOCKEY CLUB

Mr. Bruce Crozier: How about those Windsor Spitfires, eh? After nine days of pressure—packed hockey for a team that faced elimination in four straight games, the Windsor Spitfires defied all the odds this past Sunday to capture their first Memorial Cup title in the franchise's 34-year history. In the 91-year history of the Memorial Cup, no team had won a title after losing the first two games of the tournament. Windsor eliminated the entire field on its way back to the top and capped it with a 4-1 win over the Kelowna Rockets in Sunday's final before 4,800 fans in Rimouski, Quebec.

It had been 21 years since the Spits even came close to tasting victory. In 1988, they played in their only Memorial Cup game, losing in the finals to the Medicine Hat Tigers.

I ask you to join all the fans of the Windsor Spitfires who watched this nail-biting round robin series in congratulating the fine young men who played their hearts out, not just for themselves, but for their community, for their coaching staff headed by Bob Boughner, and especially for their special captain, Mickey Renaud, who died 15 months ago. The game was in his spirit.

GÉRALD SAVOIE

GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

Mr. Pat Hoy: I would like to welcome members of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance who are visiting us here in the Legislature today, some of whom may have an opportunity to join us later in the members' gallery.

Formed in 2003, the alliance represents the largest cluster of greenhouse production in North America and is located right here in Ontario. The greenhouse industry contributes $4 billion per year to our province's economy. In Ontario, there are over 1,200 greenhouse operations, most of which are concentrated in and around the ridings of Essex and Chatham—Kent—Essex and the Niagara region.

Greenhouse operations in Ontario employ more than 17,000 people with over $2 billion in structures. At the current rate of expansion, the industry is targeting a further investment in Ontario of some $20 million per annum, bringing substantial benefit to rural economies.

Again, I welcome the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance to Queen's Park, and on behalf of my colleague Bruce Crozier and myself, I encourage all members to stop by the legislative dining room between the hours of 3 and 5 this afternoon to meet some of their members and, of course, to pick up a sample of their beautiful plants and delicious vegetables grown right here in our backyard, right here in Ontario.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business, such that Ms. DiNovo assumes ballot item number 28 and Mr. Hampton assumes ballot item number 45.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs. Julia Munro: I beg leave to Present a report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions: the Ontario Education Communications Authority (TVO) from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs. Julia Munro: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, it is a pleasure to table the report of the committee. This is the second in a series dealing with our mandated review of selected agencies, boards and commissions of the province.

This report of the committee reviews the operations and work of TVOntario and makes recommendations on how they may make improvements. Subjects dealt with in the report include TVO's coverage of Ontario politics and government, including the business of the Legislature; production of new cost-effective regional-based content; transparency in the reporting of TVO's membership and viewership numbers; and ongoing support for activities of the Independent Learning Centre—ILC.

Our committee expresses its appreciation to all witnesses who appeared during the public hearings on this agency. I thank the committee members for their helpful contributions to the review process, as well as legislative staff Douglas Arnott, clerk of the committee; and Larry Johnston, the research officer.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEEP RIVER MANAGEMENT

SERVICES INC. ACT, 2009

Mr. Yakabuski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16,

An Act to revive Deep River Management Services Inc.

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