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

May 4, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-04 (PDF)

L115 - Wed 4 May 2011 / Mer 4 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 May 2011 Mercredi 4 mai 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

SMART METERS

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE

HYDRO RATES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

SMART METERS

FOREST INDUSTRY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY

TO ANIMALS

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

HEARN GENERATING STATION

PARKDALE UNITED CHURCH

WINE INDUSTRY

PENSION REFORM

TEACHERS

SILFAB ONTARIO

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SUPPORT STAFF APPRECIATION DAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BIG A AMUSEMENTS LTD. ACT, 2011

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

SKILLS AWARD ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE PRIX

COMPÉTENCES POUR LE 21 E SIÈCLE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

RENÉ PICHÉ

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH WEEK /

SEMAINE DE LA SANTÉ MENTALE

DES ENFANTS

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

PETITIONS

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

CHILD CUSTODY

TOBACCO CONTROL

PARAMEDICS

DOG OWNERSHIP

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PARAMEDICS

DOG OWNERSHIP

SPECIAL EDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 3, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 179,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption and the provision of care and maintenance / Projet de loi 179, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l’enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne l’adoption et les soins et l’entretien.

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Good morning. It’s a pleasure to continue where I stopped off yesterday. I know I have a couple of minutes left to speak on Bill 179, which is

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption and the provision of care and maintenance.

Throughout the debate yesterday, all members who spoke were in favour of this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, this is something that is needed, and needed as soon as possible so we can help the most children and young people who are in care currently in our system.

I have to say to you also that many of us need to just look back at the track record of this government and the things we’re doing for young people. This is just one more step in the right direction to make sure we give children and young people that good start, that early start, that worthwhile start in life so that they can be contributing members of our society, that opportunity that they have long been waiting for.

If you look at the youth-at-risk strategy that we implemented, if you look at the poverty plan that we looked at, it’s all about children. If you look at the children’s mental health strategy and monies that have been put in the budget for young people, it’s all about giving the young people in our community and in our province that early start to give them a chance to be successful in life. Again, I would say that we’re doing the right thing.

I just want to use one quote that I know my colleague used yesterday. It’s to remind us that the “OACAS applauds Minister Broten and the McGuinty government for this comprehensive and thoughtful announcement. These changes, taken collectively, are important steps in making ‘family’ a reality for many, many children and youth in CAS care. We look forward to working with the government on the details of the proposals and putting Ontario on the map as a leader in supporting children and families.” That is from Mary Ballantyne, the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.

That speaks volumes for the direction the government is taking. This is one that this particular organization has long requested. Obviously they support us, and we’ll be working with them as we move forward.

I will end by saying again that I hope this House moves this particular piece of legislation quickly through and that it’s implemented before we end this particular session and go to the polls.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member from Scarborough–Rouge River. I’m sorry I missed some of his remarks yesterday, but I did participate in this debate.

We all agree about putting children first. I think that’s what is so harmonious about Bill 179. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has told us categorically that we’re supportive of it, that we need to go to committee and that we need to get on with it today. I expect the House leader, who is here this morning, will probably call her peers from the NDP as well as the Conservatives and advise us that this is going to committee next week. This is what should happen. We could get this done.

Now, if that does not happen—and not to be cynical. We need to move forward right away with this. This is about vulnerable children, especially the crown wards. This bill provides an opportunity for up to 800 or 1,000 young people today who are in custody, if you will, under the control of the children’s aid society or other networks, to have a family. It’s in that sentiment, in that mood of reflection, that we are putting children first.

We want to move forward and go to committee and make sure that we address some of the issues that have been brought up during the debates here: the issue on First Nations, about repatriation, about support for adoptive families when needed, especially in the case that was mentioned of grandparents adopting. There could be the death of a mother or father or some other tragic event of some sort where there could be some allowances—that is, funding—that could be forwarded to help that family adopt one of their own flesh and blood.

It’s the right thing to do. We are encouraging the ministry to move forward as soon as possible, have some hearings on it and get this back to the Legislature before we adjourn in the next three or four weeks. We can get it done. Put children first.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I was here yesterday afternoon when the member for Scarborough–Rouge River began his comments, and I was here this morning as he wrapped them up. He’s right; there is all-party support for this proposition. There are concerns, and you’ve heard them articulated once again by the member from Durham, who repeated some of the comments he made during his participation in the debate here yesterday, and certainly by me and certainly by our member for Kenora–Rainy River, who will be pleased to be speaking to this bill this morning.

The concern is about the adequacy of support for family and children’s services, for children’s aid societies. We know that presently, on an annual basis, opposition members have to stand up in the chamber and advocate for their local family and children’s services, their children’s aid societies, appealing to the government to please fund these people because they’re midway through the year and they’re on the verge of bankruptcy; they’re at risk, literally, of shutting down their doors. So here we give them more responsibilities—not inappropriately—but with no suggestion of any adequate funding that they can count on.

Of course, I also raised yesterday, when I spoke to this Bill 179, the private member’s bill that’s being put forward on Thursday by Mr. Marchese, the member for Trinity–Spadina—Thursday afternoon, private members’ public business—which will amend the Ombudsman Act to expand the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The government House leader, I’m sure, is very enthusiastic about seeing Mr. Marin’s Ombudsman jurisdiction expanded to include oversight over children’s aid societies. What an effective way of monitoring adequacy of funding.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I was pleased to listen, yesterday afternoon and again this morning, to the comments from my colleague the member for Scarborough–Rouge River. I know, from a personal perspective, that the member from Scarborough–Rouge River was always very concerned about putting children first. I know his background: Certainly, prior to his arrival here, the member from Scarborough–Rouge River was one of the best-known soccer coaches in the Scarborough area, and he spent a considerable amount of time over the years working with our youngest citizens in the Scarborough area, teaching them skills and working with them.

His speech, both yesterday and today, I think reflects the great interest that he has in children and in bringing about amendments to this particular piece of legislation, dealing with the 9,000 crown wards we have in the province of Ontario, the ability to change this legislation to facilitate the adoption of individuals who find themselves as crown wards in the province of Ontario and the opportunity to place these individuals with strong families in the province of Ontario.

We do know that, for a wide variety of reasons, there are some families that just can’t have children on their own, and this is a real opportunity to address this issue, which has been sitting around for many, many years.

It is true that there is a consensus that is building in this House on this particular bill, Bill 179. We’re hoping that it can get to committee rather quickly to hear presentations on areas of the bill that need to be improved—and then get this bill back to the House as quickly as possible for third reading and royal assent to improve the lives of children in Ontario.

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

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I’m pleased to comment on the remarks of the member for Scarborough–Rouge River because this is a pressing problem that we all agree upon. I think we’re all agreed upon the remedy and would like to see this bill go to committee to be passed before the end of this sitting.

There were approximately 9,400 crown wards in 2008—9,400. Of those, only 822 were adopted in 2007-08. These children, in effect, do not have a home. They are made crown wards for their own protection as our society deems necessary, and unfortunately, they do not have a permanent home, which is necessary for any child who wants to be a member of our society. I think I can speak for all members: We are all concerned with the lack of action in regard to the small number of adoptions. Hopefully, this bill will help.

One of the problems, however, is that our children’s services are totally underfunded. There’s even talk of some children’s aid societies in Ontario going bankrupt, being put in bankruptcy by their boards of directors because of the lack of funding. How this government expects, with that lack of funding, adoptions to increase is beyond me. I don’t understand the logic, and I think the real concern is the lack of funding in our children’s aid.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Scarborough–Rouge River, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I just want to thank the member from Welland—did I get it right?—the member from Durham and my colleague from Peterborough.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Just call him Jeff.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Well, he’s one of my better colleagues. He’s a guy that I look up to, and it’s interesting that he’s followed my career in politics all these years. On top of that, he knows some of my extracurricular involvements. But Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to go there too much.

This is a bill that is long awaited by our agencies that work with crown wards. There are also a lot of families out there that are willing to adopt these young people into their families, give them a home; give them the support, the care and the love they deserve; and give them a new start in life. This bill makes a big difference in that particular sector.

Also, some kids that have been in care have left care for whatever reason, got out onto our streets, and then realized that the world out there is not very friendly and that it’s not very easy to survive in our streets. This gives them a chance to actually go back to children’s aid services and receive the help and support and all the things they need to lead what I would call a full life and a life they would be very proud of themselves. This particular bill allows us to do that.

We should move forward with it as rapidly and as quickly as we can. I know the minister is excited about getting the job done quickly. I have to say, it’s a step this government is taking in the right direction, and we should do it quickly.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I am so pleased to be speaking to this bill today, because what is more important in our society than trying to assist, to nurture, to mentor and to embrace children—our own children, children in our communities, but most especially the most vulnerable children? Those are the children we are talking about in this bill today, Bill 179, the Building Families and Supporting Youth to be Successful Act, 2011.

This bill, if we pass it, deals with two issues: It deals with access orders to make it easier to adopt children who are currently crown wards, and it makes it easier for children between the ages of 15 and 16 who have left the care of the CAS and are returning to CAS care.

Under this new legislation, when a child is placed for adoption, all access orders will be terminated—such an important piece in this legislation.

Like I say, what more important job do we as adults have in life than to nurture, to mentor, to care for and to advance our children to the point where they are confident, well-rounded, productive human beings? And what better way to do it than to give children who don’t have a family, access to a family and everything that a family brings: the joy of belonging, and the ability to share in activities, in celebrations and in parents and families attending sports games and advising and mentoring kids through their school years? I think that what this bill will do is create the ability for that to happen that much more for kids who don’t have that today.

There are some 1,500 potential adoptive families in Ontario—1,500—and I think it behooves us as a government to recognize this and move forward to create many opportunities for these families to become adoptive parents. The ministry has to deal with the wait-list for a home study before any adoption process can move forward, and this places additional burdens on the CASs. CASs have had a history, in the last little while, of having great difficulties balancing their budgets. It’s been almost impossible for CASs, without exception, to respond to the kind of lack of funding that they receive.

For an adoption process to move forward and for a CAS to have the ability to move this forward, I think that the part this bill is silent on is important and something we should have a real look at as we go through the committee process, and that is, how do we fund all CASs on an equal, level playing field in order for them to be able to move forward with the adoption process and do the home studies? Right now, what the CASs have done is abandon doing home studies because they just don’t have the money. The ministry has not provided that money, and that needs to start happening.

We support this bill, because it’s about taking children who are currently crown wards and not eligible for adoption and allowing many more of them to be adopted into warm and loving families. It can’t be more positive than that; there are a lot of families that are waiting to adopt these kids. But most importantly, it provides a chance for them to have this family experience. It provides a chance for them to have all the benefits that go along with that, and it brings that positive change in their lives that gives them a better foundation to move forward and create a positive life for themselves and an opportunity to succeed in life. How much better could it be than for that to happen?

Things have changed. Currently there are far too many children who don’t have the ability to be adopted, who don’t have access to adoption, and there are far too many families who want to be adoptive parents who are not able to go through that adoption process. I think that what this bill does is begin to open the door for that to happen.

There’s one part of this bill that concerns me, though, and it is that currently—I was talking about the financial situation of CASs—the CASs provide some subsidy to families who adopt crown wards. It’s at their discretion. There’s nothing mandated for them to do that, but it is the right thing to do. I know that the minister has said she would like there to be a consistent adoption subsidy, but in this bill there’s no mention of that happening. She says she will be seeking the advice of experts, but for me that again is a further delay in that process.

It creates unpredictability for the prospective adoptive parents, but mostly for the CASs, who are actually left holding the bag, because they have to find a means to try to assist these prospective adoptive parents with some kind of subsidy.

CASs are broke. Let’s face it: That’s the only word we can use. They’re broke, and they are providing one of the most important tasks we have in our province; that is, to take broken families and broken children and try to piece things back together again. What more important job in life is there than to create some stability for a child? But they’re broke. They need some predictability. They need some assurance from this government that they will have the dollars to cover this, but this legislation makes no mention of that.

I’m hoping that through the committee process, through the hearings, we’re going to be able to create the kind of awareness that will allow us to put forward amendments that the government will accept and we can make a change to that part of the legislation.

There’s another part of the legislation that is of some concern to me, and that is that there is no mention of special-needs children. Special-needs children cannot be forgotten in this opportunity. This legislation cannot be an opportunity lost for special-needs children. These children have the absolute least likelihood of being adopted, because they have special needs. It takes extra care. It takes a really special family to be able to embrace a special-needs child. It takes a lot more money.

So again, I think it would behoove this government to look after those social and medical needs with regard to special-needs children and mention them specifically in this piece of legislation. We can’t forget them. We can’t leave this opportunity behind without including special-needs children.

Currently, if a special-needs child is a crown ward, they have access to programs and medical supports. But guess what? Once the child is adopted, the family has to assume all responsibility for those needs. Is it fair that a family has to consider their financial position to the point where a special-needs child gets left behind, even though there was a chance that child could have been embraced by a family?

I really think it’s important that we raise this issue at the hearings, that we have more discussion about this and that, again, the government accept some amendments with respect to special-needs children.

Let’s go back to the access order. An access order is to be terminated: Currently, when an access order is to be terminated, a notification in writing is made to the holder of that access order. It’s done so in a very legal, very technical, very logical way. It is now the responsibility of the children’s aid society to use every means possible to contact the holder of the access order. I have no question with that; that’s a good thing to happen because there need to be safeguards in everything that happens when we’re looking after children.

The judge, then, must determine that all reasonable steps were taken to notify the access holder. This, again, is the burden of the children’s aid society.

I go back to my point: The children’s aid societies are stretched to their limit. They’re stretched to their limit, and they deal with some very serious, sombre issues on a daily basis. They deal with broken families, they deal with disturbed children, they deal with all kinds of issues we don’t even want to think about, on a daily basis. To continue to add this extra burden, I think, is unconscionable, and I think that we have to start looking at some ways to either resource CASs more fully or to take some of that burden away by reviewing the structure of how some of these things happen.

These kids deserve it. Our society is better for it. We’re creating, I think, a better community by being compassionate, by being understanding of these special issues.

Crown wards, at this point in time, who are looking for a family; families who are looking to adopt: It seems like a match made in heaven. We ought to do everything—turn every stone, create every opportunity, cut as much red tape as possible—to make this happen. For all of the children who are looking for adoption, for all the families that are looking to be loving adoptive families, we have an opportunity here. I hope that we don’t miss that opportunity, because, in some bills that I’ve seen come through this House in the last four years, we’ve missed some really big opportunities to do really good things.

For whatever reason, the opportunities have been missed. This is not one that we should do that with.

I look forward to the hearings, and I look forward to being part of moving legislation forward that makes such a positive change in our province for children, for families and for the future of this province.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened to my colleague from the Conservative Party, and I want to thank her for raising what I think are the real issues in the context of this bill. The fact of the matter is, you can pass all kinds of high-sounding legislation, but if the children’s aid societies do not have the resources and the staffing to do the work, not much is going to happen.

So far we haven’t seen anything that indicates that’s going to change, so I want to thank her for wrestling with what I believe is the real issue: If we want to see more adoptions, then there has to be some resourcing of children’s aid societies so that they can do the work which allows adoption to proceed and happen. If they don’t have the resources to do that, then this government can pass six or seven pieces of legislation and not much is going to happen. I think that’s what we’ll need to get into in committee: to look at the nuts and bolts of what needs to happen but which so far isn’t happening at all.

New Democrats want to see this legislation go to committee, we want to see this legislation dealt with at committee and we want to see the real issues wrestled with. Is this government going to provide the resources that children’s aid societies need, or not? If we don’t see the resources, then we can pass this legislation and six other pieces of legislation like it and not much is going to happen.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes, it’s true. We can always do more, but I think we have to deal with the reality of the situation, and it’s my understanding that if you put all the budgetary items together, we spend more than $1.5 billion per year on child welfare services in this province.

In my earlier career as a lawyer in Kingston, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked quite a bit with the children’s aid society and with the various children who were under their protection. I can tell you that the issue of crown wards is probably one of the saddest situations to be involved in at times, particularly when these children basically—it used to be that at age 16 or 18 they were cut loose from the system, because they were no longer part of the system.

This initiative here is an excellent initiative that deserves the support of all members in the House. It’s a good initiative on a number of different counts. There are crown wards who families in the province want to adopt. This kind of legislation, the initiatives that are contained therein, will allow this to happen. Also, when a child is a crown ward and perhaps needs extra help beyond the age of 16 and 18, they will be able to get it up until they’re 21 once the legislation is implemented, with these various rules and regulations.

This is a good piece of legislation. I noted that the members across the House will support it. Yes, I agree that we always need more resources, particularly to look after the most vulnerable in our society, which includes children who are crown wards, but I think we also have to deal with the reality of the situation: Right now in the province we are already spending something like $1.5 billion per year to make sure that the children of this province get the best kind of services and the best kind of support that they could possibly have.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I thank the member from Burlington for her sensitive tone, which was very evident in her remarks: non-political, non-accusatory, positive. These are the right kinds of tones that need to be used in this particular debate. We’re actually supportive of this legislation. We, along with the NDP, recognize that there are some changes required—whether it’s dealing with First Nations, native peoples and others—and that there are specific challenges that need to be addressed, and I think she covered it with the right tone.

There are a couple of things I’d just put on the record that need to be said. Her response to the CAS is true. It’s true in Durham; it’s probably true across the province. I’m surprised that the Minister of Government Services—whichever ministry he has now. “The former Minister of the Environment” is how I like to think of him.

I got thrown off the boat, but anyway, the reason it’s really important to recognize here that the cost to families—and there are transitional funds available through the CAS that need to be taken advantage of. But if you look at a family—I’m looking at the expert panel’s report—adoptive families told us that the cost of private adoption ranged from $20,000 to $30,000, with intercountry adoptions costing up to $60,000 and more. Yet we know that a ward in care is about $32,000 a year.

Some of that money, rather than being spent on the bureaucracy of the CASs—we should change the approach and allow these crown wards and others, under the appropriate conditions, to be adopted, and provide support for these adoptive families.

One of the other options is the in-vitro fertilization option for families that want children.

This change could allow some of this to happen, and this is what’s reflected in the expert panel’s report. So I commend the ministry to move forward. Stop ragging the puck on this issue. Get it to committee. Bring it back before the election is called.

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: As I’ve had a chance to say previously in this House, we are anxious to get this bill to committee. We are committed to seeing this legislative process move quickly so that this bill can be passed. On the day of introduction of the bill, I talked about the importance and the urgency of seeing this legislation passed, because so many thousands of kids are dependent upon these changes being made so that they can have a better future.

I want to thank the member for Burlington. I appreciate the tone that she took in her remarks, and I appreciate very much the support that we are receiving from all sides of the House.

But I do want to comment on the fact that we need to acknowledge that we are well under way with working hard to find a pathway to sustainability for the whole child welfare sector and to focus more on outcomes for kids. “Outcomes for kids” means permanent families, whether that family is a family of customary care, whether that is the prevention of an admission so that they stay with their own family, or whether, in the case that we’re talking about on the floor of the Legislature today, it’s about making the pathway to adoption more available.

We have seen increased investments, and we are putting CASs on a stable footing. In fact, 72% of CASs are receiving more funding this year than last year. We’re also targeting that funding to make sure that we spend our time in a children’s aid society doing the work that is best for kids, making sure that we take a look at, with the advice of our expert panel, paperwork burdens that might be in place.

All of our attention and focus, as it is on the floor of the Legislature today, always must be what is best for Ontario’s kids, how we can work together to make sure that those kids who are our collective responsibility—they are Ontario’s kids when they are crown wards—that we give them everything we can to make sure that they find their forever family.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Burlington, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: As I said, the PCs will be supporting this bill. How could we not? It does move forward, and it does do some good things for children who are in need. I want to thank the member from Kenora–Rainy River, the Minister of Consumer Services, the member from Durham and the Minister of Children and Youth Services for their comments.

When I first began my political career in 1982, one of the first tasks I was assigned was to be a director on the board of the children’s aid society in Halton. I know the member from Oakville has also served on that board and is very familiar with the kinds of issues that children’s aid societies faced back then. I think those issues have only escalated today.

I know that more money has been put in the pot for these kinds of things, but the problem isn’t fixed yet. Children’s aid societies still go through the excruciating pain of trying to determine whether they can take on more families or not.

I can remember how many times the province insisted that we go through exceptional-circumstance reviews and the kinds of human resources and money it took to do that, and took away from looking after children. So I think that the whole process needs to be reviewed and understood better so that the money that we spend at CASs is the money that goes right to the front line, to the families and to the children who need it. That’s part of what I was trying to say.

This is one of those issues where you just park your politics at the door. This has nothing to do with politics; this has to do with—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to say a few words about this bill,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption and the provision of care and maintenance.

Let me indicate at the outset that New Democrats are going to support the legislation. I call this legislation feel-good legislation, and we’ve seen a lot of that from the McGuinty Liberals over the last few months: legislation that perhaps has a nice title or subtitle and is designed to make people feel good, but by itself probably will not accomplish much. So while we’re going to support the legislation, I want to spend the time that I have here today dealing with the real issues.

One of the first real issues is this government’s continuing lack of understanding—or, should I say, lack of caring—about what First Nations think, and I want to deal with that in the context of this bill. When the bill was introduced, I called a number of the child and family service organizations in my part of the province that work with First Nation communities.

First Nations have a real interest, both today and historically, in the issue of adoption, because in the sad history of Ontario, what happened all too often was that child and family service organizations would go into First Nations, would take children from their families and would place them for adoption with non-native folks, with white folks, who happened to live in cities and towns elsewhere. Native kids were adopted into families in the United States or adopted far away from their community, from their culture, from their families, from their brothers and sisters, from their extended family.

I think when we reflect on that now, we’d say that that kind of behaviour was verging on criminal behaviour. It was certainly quite inhumane. So First Nations have a real interest in this. They want to know that if children are going to be placed for adoption, that sorry history is not going to be repeated again.

When the government introduced the legislation, I called three or four of the First Nation child and family service organizations and I said to them, “Has the government come and actually consulted with you about this legislation and about the issues?” And you know what? They said, “What are you talking about? We don’t know anything about this. No one’s come and consulted with us. No one’s talked to us.” I called some chiefs and some of the tribal organizations and I said, “Has anybody from the government come and talked to you about this?” And you know what the answer was? They didn’t know what I was talking about either. They hadn’t heard a thing about it.

Members of the government may think that this is not an important issue. Let me tell you, Speaker: This is repetitive behaviour for this government. Only a few months ago, we saw the government crowing about the Far North Act, and we had the galleries full of First Nation chiefs and elders and tribal organizations saying, “This has a direct and enduring impact on our lives, our communities, our livelihoods, our future and our lands.” And do you know what? This government didn’t even bother to talk to the First Nations, who are the only people who live in the Far North.

Insult was added to it, because the Minister of Natural Resources flew in to about six communities over the summer, held a 15-minute photo op, then tried to say, “Well, that’s consultation with First Nations.” Not only was it dishonest; it was insulting. Imagine when First Nations leadership, elders, tribal organizations and First Nation child and family service organizations see the same thing happening again.

I understand that the government’s response is, “Oh, there was a conference in Thunder Bay, and the legislation was mentioned.” Holding a conference in Thunder Bay and taking two sentences out of a paragraph of a speech to mention the legislation is not consultation. It’s not consultation, it’s not respectful and, once again, it’s insulting.

This is one of the reasons this bill has to go to committee, because I think First Nations deserve to have the opportunity to look at the bill, to examine the bill, debate the bill, discuss the bill, critique the bill and, if they feel it necessary, oppose the bill. Hopefully, the public hearings will be located such that First Nations will actually be able to do this. We don’t want another repetition of the Far North Act, or recently with the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, who holds a forest tenure reform that’s going to affect lives all across northern Ontario and refuses to hold public hearings in northern Ontario. We don’t want another repetition of that.

There need to be public hearings, and the public hearings, in my view, need to travel outside of this building. They need to go to places like Sioux Lookout; the public hearings, I think, need to go to places like Moosonee, so the people who may be very seriously affected by this legislation actually have an opportunity to think about it, talk about it, debate it and, if they feel so inclined, to oppose the bill or oppose parts of the bill or insist on amendments to the bill.

The second issue which I think, again, needs some work at committee—and the minister tries to provide some sugar-coating with this issue, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of children’s aid societies in this province are being pushed over the cliff. The demands for their time and their resources far exceed their resources. The fact of the matter is, we have probably more families in Ontario under economic pressure, financial pressure and housing pressure than ever before.

We have more families in need, we have more families that are struggling, we have more families that are being challenged—all of which means a lot more work for children’s aid societies. When you talk with the executive directors, when you talk with people who serve on the volunteer boards of the societies, when you talk with the social workers, they all will tell you the same reality: The demands on their time are greater than ever and the resources are simply not there.

So the natural question is: If children’s aid societies are already being pushed over the cliff by services they must provide—they don’t have any choice; they are legally required. The law of Ontario says to them, “Thou shalt do this. Thou shalt provide this service. Thou shalt deal with these issues as a priority”—if children’s aid societies are already pushed over the edge of the cliff by the mandated services they must provide, then how do they find the time to provide the support, the counselling and the ancillary services that go with adoption?

It’s amazing. I’ve heard government speaker after government speaker get up, and none of them want to deal with this issue. None of them want to deal with this issue. They all repeat the spin words that this legislation somehow, magically, by the stroke of a pen is going to wonderfully, completely, totally improve the situation without dealing with the real issue, and the real issue is that children’s aid societies simply don’t have the resources right now to support adoption services.

I’ve seen this trick before. I remember the wonderful period of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan government would pass all kinds of legislation in the United States but then never provide any funding, any resources or any framework for the implementation or the enforcement of the legislation. The result was that nothing happened. The press releases went out announcing this wonderful legislation. The press releases went out announcing that this was world-class, leading-edge; it was going to be the silver bullet which was going to solve and address these pressing problems.

But nothing happened because there were never any resources devoted to implementation. There were never any resources devoted to operation. There were never any resources devoted to things like enforcement.

This needs to be addressed at committee. And I say to the government: You can pass this bill, and you can pass 10 other bills like it, and you can send out the press releases saying, “This is wonderful. This is fantastic. This is unbelievable. This is incredible. This is world-class. This is leading-edge.” We all know that nothing’s going to happen if you do not provide the resources for implementation, for operation and for enforcement of what’s in the bill.

All we’ve heard so far—my God, if I had a dollar for every time we’ve heard this from the McGuinty government—is, “We’re are going to discuss,” or, “We’re going to hold a panel to talk about how we implement this.” In other words, no commitment; just another conversation, another promise to perhaps, maybe, somehow, possibly do something in the future. That’s not going to do anything. In committee, this issue needs to be raised.

I can tell you that one group of people in this province who are going to be very interested to hear if there are going to be any resources will be the First Nations. It will be the First Nations because First Nations know all too well what happens if you do not provide the financial and other resources for the implementation and the operation of the legislation. What happens is what they’ve experienced in the sorry history of Ontario. Kids are placed for adoption who perhaps shouldn’t be placed for adoption. Kids are placed for adoption in homes that perhaps they shouldn’t be placed in. And you get some very sorry results.

The third issue which I think needs to be addressed is this: There was an expert panel on adoptions. That expert panel on adoptions gave the government a report. They gave us, as legislators, a report. I have to say that it was a very good report. There were a number of recommendations in it. If you looked at the discussion that was contained in the paper and then the recommendations, they all flowed more or less reasonably and logically. You could see how one issue buttressed or depended upon another.

Regrettably, what we have in legislation here is a very, very small sliver of what was recommended. What’s missing are some of the things which would make this legislation effective. I just want to talk about one of them now.

I’m not going to go into the long history, but the reality in Ontario today is, if you are a family and you have a child who has special needs—let’s say your child has a developmental delay of some kind which requires counselling, requires some sort of special education services, or perhaps it’s a physical or physiological issue which again requires special services—and you’re a family of limited means—you’re like a lot of families in Ontario, a modest- or middle-income family—the only way you can get services for your child now, the CASs will tell you, is that you have to place the child as a crown wardship.

Those children in some cases are then placed in foster homes.

We have a lot of children in foster homes who are special-needs children. One of the things that happened—and I give the expert panel credit for this: They actually talked to foster parents who had been caring for some of these children for three, four and five years, and the foster parents said, “We would love to adopt this child.” But the law in Ontario today is this: If they were to adopt the child, all of the funding that provides special services for that child, special services that that child needs, would be lost, would be taken away.

So they say, “As much as we would like to adopt, as much as we love this child and we have treated this child as our own, as much as we have spent the last three or four years investing ourselves emotionally in this child, we cannot adopt because it would be against the interest of this boy or girl to adopt them and see them lose the special services. We don’t have the financial wherewithal in our budget to provide the services.” The expert panel said that if you really want to promote adoption, this issue has to be dealt with. It has to be addressed.

Do we find anything in the legislation that commits the government to doing that? Do we find a whisper, a sliver, anything that commits this government to doing that? Regrettably, the answer is no. What we’ve heard again are vague promises that the government will perhaps put together a group to discuss it, to investigate it, to look at it, to consider it, but no commitment to do anything.

I say again: If the government is serious about actually doing something other than passing legislation which sounds nice, uses nice words, has nice press releases and has lots of nice rhetoric, the government has got to address some of these issues. That’s why this legislation has to go to committee and that’s why these kinds of questions have to be answered, yes or no.

For eight years we’ve heard from this government—I’ll give you an example: the whole issue of poverty in Ontario. We’ve heard over and over again that the government’s studying it, that the government’s got a group working on a strategy, that the government is developing tactics and position papers. What’s the reality? On almost all fronts, we have more people falling into poverty in Ontario, and we have more people falling into deeper poverty in Ontario than ever before. Housing is one of the principal issues, and we just saw a housing bill that’s not going to build any new housing; not one cent’s worth.

I think people in Ontario have seen enough and heard enough of this. This bill needs to go to committee so the real issues can be raised and we can get some real answers, not vague promises to possibly, perhaps, maybe do something five or 10 years in the future.

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have just a few brief moments to comment on the comments made by the member opposite, and to talk a little bit about, if I can, specifically the issue of aboriginal child welfare.

I want to correct the member opposite: We weren’t in Thunder Bay. We spent two days at Fort William First Nation, where we hosted the first-ever aboriginal child welfare summit. Myself, alongside my aboriginal adviser, John Beaucage—who, again, is a first in this province; the very first time we have someone whom we are working closely with on these very important issues.

I will be the first to say, and I’ve said it many times around the province, that the legacy of the residential school scoop, of children being taken from their families, is a legacy in this province that we cannot be proud of. We know that we continue to see struggles in communities across the province as a result of parents who were parenting children when they had never been parented themselves. And that is something that we take to heart as we do work in the province with respect to customary care and finding that as the pathway to permanency for these children.

At the very introduction of this legislation I had an opportunity to talk about how, for some children in the province, adoption is the pathway to permanency. For aboriginal children, customary care—a model that recognizes the historical way they were cared for in their communities by someone who might be part of their community but not a blood relative—is a traditional form of model that is recognized within the Child and Family Services Act. And that is what we spent over two days talking about: how we can improve that model and how we can have better outcomes for aboriginal children and families.

It’s something that we need to continue to do work on, but I’m very proud of the steps that we’ve taken to date.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I do think the member from Kenora–Rainy River brings a very definite level of passion to this and consistent remarks over the last couple of days of debate on Bill 179, so I commend him for that. In fact, I think the minister recognizes, by responding in a positive way, that there were hearings in the north for the first time ever, which means you have made some impact in the overall recognition of this customary care model.

I’ve tried, without the same level of expertise as the member, to acknowledge that: that customary care has to deal with the cultural background and reference points in an individual child’s life. Whether they’re from a different country or a different culture, these things need to be important so that it’s customized and the child is first.

When you look at even the most easily understood, the familial adoption—that would be a grandparent—there need to be transitional supports. The expert panel report says, “It costs at least $32,000 a year to keep a crown ward in care. It costs significantly less to provide supports and subsidies to help adoptive families parent children.” This is a key recommendation of the expert panel. This is what I think are the views held here.

Children’s aid societies, for all their well-intended purposes, may not be the right model all the time, and there are provisions for these transitional support costs that are addressed in many of the reports and recommendations, such as in the First Nations customary care model as well as in the other family members that may adopt—and they may be from a cultural background. Whether the person is from a Muslim, a Hindu or other kind of non-traditional Christian background, these are important accommodations for the children to adopt. And I urge the minister to move forward with that sentiment.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: The member for Kenora–Rainy River certainly touched upon one of the most serious issues that we face in Ontario and indeed throughout Canada today: our aboriginal children. In the two years of being the PA to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I toured about 50% of the First Nations communities throughout Ontario: Sandy Lake, Anishinabek, Sagamok, Sudbury, and in my own community of Peterborough, where I have two First Nations communities, Hiawatha and Curve Lake. We all know that our children prosper when they’re put into stable, safe family relationships.

It’s interesting: Back as early as 2000, the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society and the two First Nations communities in my community, Hiawatha and Curve Lake, entered into a new service arrangement that was based on the cultural heritage of those two communities. That has been a model that other areas have looked at across the province, one that recognizes the cultural heritage of our First Nations people, and recognizing that the outcome of residential schools—that, in fact, our First Nations communities lost four generations of parenting within their social structure.

If the non-aboriginal community in Ontario had lost four generations of parenting, you can only imagine what kind of social upheaval that would have brought about in our family structure. That’s something that, as this bill goes to committee, we need to look at.

I want to applaud the minister, because I looked at an

article from the National Post called “Suffer the Children,” and they acknowledge that “Laurel Broten is to be applauded for examining the problems faced by Ontario’s native communities. Not many politicians are willing even to cast a glance at this issue.” She is commended for taking that step.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I, too, would like to commend the member from Kenora–Rainy River for the comments he has made. He continues to make passionate comments about the plight of the First Nations people in his area, and the kinds of challenges, obstacles and barriers they face with government red tape. I commend him for continuing to present their issues passionately, logically and sensibly. I hope that this Legislature can, with this legislation, Bill 179, make some positive difference in how the adoptive parents and the children who are waiting to be adopted can be treated in these circumstances.

The member makes some really good points. He has the experience, and has talked to us about them on many occasions. It would really be a step forward for us to listen to him about the experiences of his constituents.

Once again, I’m going to say that this is about parking your politics at the door. When

an act goes forward, it’s an opportunity to include as many things in it as possible that we can think of to make life better, to create a quality of life for people in Ontario that moves us forward. We are only as strong as the most vulnerable people in our communities. This act certainly shines light on those folks who need our help. It would behoove us to make those kinds of changes and get it right.

I look forward to the committee hearings, I look forward to making those changes, and I hope that the government side will accept the amendments that are so critical to make life better in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Kenora–Rainy River, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to thank my colleagues in the government and the Conservative opposition for the comments.

In response, just let me say this. The minister refers to discussions about customary care. Customary care is very important. It’s especially important in First Nations communities, and some of the native child and family service organizations have done truly excellent work on this front. Some of the other First Nations child and family service organizations want to follow that lead and further develop the model. But holding discussions about customary care is not consultation on the legislation.

That’s what this government seems to miss all the time. Just as we saw with the Far North Act, the government thinks that if the Minister of Natural Resources flies into six northern First Nation communities and holds a 10-minute photo op, that’s consultation. That is not, and it’s dishonest to even pretend that it is, and it’s insulting to pretend that it is.

That is one of the issues that need to be addressed at committee: Did this government consult with First Nations on this issue or not? I think what the record is going to show is that there was no consultation; otherwise, First Nations would not be saying to me, “We’ve never heard of this bill and we’ve never heard of what’s in it.”

They also say—and I continue to be struck by this. When I raise the issue of special-needs children who, under the current law, lose their special-needs services when they’re adopted unless the adopting parents have the financial resources to pay for them, never a response from government members on this; just silence.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings to announce that there have been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader indicates otherwise.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, we’d like the debate to continue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Notwithstanding that decision, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear green ribbons in recognition of Children’s Mental Health Week.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to ask the Legislative Assembly to welcome one of my constituents in the west gallery: Jack Graves, a constituent from Tillsonburg, who is here with us here today and is becoming a regular visitor. Along with him today is his granddaughter Katie Kerckaert and her friend Alexandra Tranmer. We’d like, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, to welcome our guests this morning.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I would like to introduce to the House Gloria Richards, who is in the Speaker’s gallery and in fact works for yourself, Mr. Speaker. She is here today to keep an eye on her granddaughter Melanie Soltau, who is one of our pages, from the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m pleased to welcome Lisa Katzman, the mother of page Benjamin Katzman.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce to the Legislature Barb Santini, who is the mother of page Rachel Santini from the great riding of York South–Weston.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to introduce and welcome Maria and Mara Gagiu from the riding of Don Valley West. Maria practises dentistry in Thorncliffe Park, and Mara is a student at Northlea school, and she’s heading off to the TOPPS program next year, which is a great honour.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to introduce Gail Yattavong. She is the mother of Jasmyn Yattavong, who is our page from the great riding of Brampton–Springdale.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’d like to introduce Stefanie Palmer from Guelph. She is here to visit with her daughter Kyla Fishburn, who is one of our wonderful pages and who will be having her 13th birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday, Kyla, and welcome, Stefanie.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to question period today a delegation from Dubreuilville in the Algoma–Manitoulin riding: Dave Jennings, the general manager for the mill there, as well as Mayor Louise Perrier and CAO Réjean Raymond.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to introduce my good friend Kevin Aitcheson, who is with the Stratford Fire Department.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome Michael and Heather Haines from Cobourg, in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. Welcome.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to introduce the class of All Saints Catholic school in Whitby, which is actually the riding adjacent to mine, but their teacher, Chris Moriah, is an Ajax boy and is here with them today, and they’ll be here momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of page Andrew Lamb and the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, to welcome his mother, Janet Purcell, and his father, Doug Lamb, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I too would like to welcome the keeper of the Speaker’s apartment, Gloria Richards, as she is here in the Speaker’s gallery. It’s great to have you here, Gloria.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): With that applause, you might want to run for election and get elected Speaker. You’ve got support on both sides of the House.

We have with us today, seated in the Speaker’s gallery, a group of interns from the National Assembly of Quebec, who are visiting the Ontario Legislature. They are Guillaume Tremblay-Boily, Alex Perreault, Loïc Blancquaert, Èvelyne Beaudin and Dominic Migneault. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We hope you enjoy your visit to Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to ask the pages to assemble for introduction, please.

I ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 39th Parliament: Amira Abdalla, York Centre; Kyla Fishburn, Guelph; Erica Geen, Simcoe North; Christian Gill, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock; Jonathan Hampton, Kenora–Rainy River; Lukian Husak, Hamilton Centre; Caleb Jones, Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; Benjamin Katzman, Windsor–Tecumseh; Andrew Lamb, Eglinton–Lawrence; Hamza Naim, Ajax–Pickering; Allison Rudback, Whitby–Oshawa; Rachel Santini, York South–Weston; Melanie Soltau, Oak Ridges–Markham; John Tatsiou, Toronto–Danforth; Leena Tran, York West; Jonah Villanueva Merali, Trinity–Spadina; Chelsea Wallace, Toronto Centre; Maggy Watson, Niagara West–Glanbrook; Jasmyn Yattavong, Brampton–Springdale; and Viktor Zhou, Scarborough Centre.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. Please reassume your positions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, in municipal elections last fall and the federal election on Monday, Ontario families chose leaders who respect their need for relief—relief for average hard-working families. Yet you’ve become so out of touch that yesterday you took the extraordinary step of inviting the media into your caucus room to witness you telling the Liberal caucus, “Don’t panic.” You told them that you were going to stay the course and continue to increase taxes, increase hydro rates and increase government spending.

Does your attitude, Premier, mean that you are going to continue down the path and impose your smart meter tax machines on every household in the province despite the fact that they can’t afford to pay the bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s just a lot of doom and gloom over there these days. I’m reminded that somebody once said, “It’s hard to be angry and smart at the same time.”

I would encourage my honourable colleague to use his better judgment and acknowledge that Ontario is not that bad a place in which we might choose to live and to recognize a few facts. We are turning the corner out of the global recession: 93% of our jobs are back. That contrasts with the US, where it’s only 15%. We’re the first in Canada and second in North America in attracting new job-creating investments, according to the FDI report. And according to the Programme for International Student Assessment, our schools are now in the top 10 globally.

Again, I think that speaks to the importance of the direction that we continue to—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, of course Ontario is an incredible place with extraordinary potential. We just need a change in leadership to become the leader again in Canada and not a have-not province.

Premier, I think the fact that you’re going headlong down this path with your smart meter tax machines shows how dramatically out of touch you have become with average, everyday families. We found out that this week, the McGuinty government flipped the switch to the expensive time-of-use setting on the two millionth smart meter. That means that some senior citizens will be living in a cold house, afraid to turn the heat on. It will mean that some young family will have all of the kids lined up by 7 a.m. to have their shower before the higher rates kick in.

Premier, are you so bound and determined to suck more money out of their pockets that you are going to do a million more?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to give credit to my colleague for his fanciful

interpretation and his creativity. There’s no shortage of innovation coming from the mind of my honourable colleague.

The fact of the matter is that we have smart meters in place because they’re helping us to put in place a modern, efficient, reliable, clean, job-creating electricity system. I would encourage my honourable colleague to take a look at what they’re doing in the United Kingdom, where the new Prime Minister there has decided to accelerate the program to put in smart meters throughout the country because, in fact, they have the desired and intended effect.

I also want to remind my honourable colleague that, as of the 1st of May, we have increased our discount period for electricity rates. We brought it down from 9 o’clock in the evening; it now begins at 7 o’clock in the evening. The discount period is now fully from 7 at night till 7 in the morning. That’s another 10 hours every week of discounted electricity.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you just don’t get it. I’m talking about real senior citizens who come up to me with their hydro bill in their hand, their hand shaking, with sadness and anger in their eyes, saying that they can’t afford to pay the bills—real-life Ontario seniors who are living in cold houses because of your time-of-use smart meters that are nothing more than tax machines.

You’ve managed to raise rates on your smart meters eight times in five years alone. We understand from your meeting with caucus yesterday that you plan to continue increasing hydro rates and taxes on the backs of these same families.

Premier, if you don’t understand what’s happening in households, listen to the Ontario PC caucus. Will you pull the plug on your mandatory smart meter tax machines and give families a choice in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand that my honourable colleague says these things with tremendous intensity and with his usual decibel level, but I don’t believe him. I’m just going to be straight with you, Speaker: I don’t believe him. I don’t believe him, because he’s wrong.

We put in place an intelligent, thoughtful, progressive plan to deal with our electricity needs. People need to remember that we came from a place where we were facing a desperate shortage of electricity in the province of Ontario. We’ve worked long and hard with Ontarians during the course of the past seven-plus years now.

It’s not an easy thing to do, and there are costs associated with it; we’ve been up front with the people of Ontario about that. But we want to make sure that when they go to flick that switch, there’s electricity there for them. We know there’s a cost, so we’ve put in place a new clean energy benefit that’s cutting 10% off of our electricity bills for the course of the next five years.

We’re cleaning our air, keeping our bills down and creating thousands of jobs.

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, I don’t know what kind of bubble you’re living in. We hear from families each and every day that say they can’t afford the basics. They can’t pay their hydro bills.

If you don’t believe us, members of your own caucus should be telling you this, because we hear from families each and every day. The Ontario PCs will stand up for those families, we’ll stand up for the seniors, and that’s why we’ll pull the plug on your mandatory smart meter tax machines.

Premier, if you don’t believe me and you don’t believe your own Liberal caucus, then listen to your hydro utilities. PowerStream, the second-largest hydro company in Ontario, has written to the Ontario Energy Board. They’re asking for this experiment to be postponed because they say they’re worried about “the impact of potential bill increases” on their customers.

Premier, if you won’t listen to me, will you listen to the second-largest utility in the province that’s saying no to your smart meter tax machines?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just can’t accept what my honourable colleague is introducing here as fact. I want to remind my honourable colleague of where we found ourselves in 2002—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members, please come to order. We have a number of guests here today who want to hear both the questions and the answers.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague where we found ourselves in 2003, and I want to remind him of something by way of a notice put up by the Independent Electricity System Operator. They said at the time: There are “significant strains on the power system. A large amount of electricity is being imported, but we still face possible shortages. Unless there is an immediate drop in consumption, we may be required to take protective actions, which could include voltage reductions, or rotating cuts to supply without any additional notice.”

I remember that. My honourable colleague chooses not to remember that, but the fact was that we were in desperate circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, families are not bringing me hydro bills from 10 years ago. They’re bringing me hydro bills from 2011, and they’re saying, “Tim, I can’t pay these bills, and I can’t afford these smart meter tax machines that are forcing families to have all the kids showered by 7 a.m.”

The Premier just blithely rejects it. He says he’s not hearing about hydro bills when he goes across the province. That might be why he regally declared that Saturdays will now be laundry days across our province, to cope with your smart meter tax machines.

Premier, will you at least listen to PowerStream? Will you at least listen to the other utilities that are saying, “This is not broken”? Will you do what we would do and pull the plug on your mandatory smart meter tax machines?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to remind my honourable colleague, so that he can pass on this information to Ontarians, that there are now 10 extra hours a week of lower prices. I’d also recommend to my honourable colleague that he take a look at the example bill put out by the Ontario Energy Board just recently, which speaks in detail and in fact about what’s happened to our bills in Ontario.

I’d also recommend to my honourable colleague that at some point in time he tell Ontarians by how much he intends to reduce their electricity bills. We’re reducing them by 10%. It would be interesting to know if, at some point in time, they have some kind of a plan that goes beyond burning coal, that goes beyond ripping up contracts that we’ve entered into for clean energy and getting rid of all those jobs. At some point in time, he may want to introduce his plan to the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, the Premier is moving from being out of touch to bordering on arrogance. He expects us to dance in the streets now that he has decreed that we get 10 extra hours, a whole week—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The comments that I just made to the opposition about hearing the other side: I offer the same comments to the government side as well. We do have guests who want to hear both questions and answers.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier, not too long ago, regally declared that Saturdays shall henceforth be laundry days in our province, and now with the same tone he declares we get 10 extra hours, a whole week of lower rates.

Premier, the Ontario PCs believe that Ontario families deserve better, and that’s why we’ll pull the plug on your mandatory smart machines that are taking more and more money out of Ontario families’ pockets. It’s not simply PowerStream, Premier; 28 local hydro companies—over one third—have called for relief from switching on the switch to the most expensive time-of-use rates. That’s why we pulled the plug.

Premier, don’t you get it? Why won’t you do the same?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague likes to pay close attention to political events beyond Ontario, and I’m sure he’s paying attention to what has happened in the United Kingdom. I just want to quote something that was put out by that government: “The rollout of smart meters will play an important role in Britain’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and help us meet some of the long-term challenges we face in ensuring an affordable, secure and sustainable energy supply.”

Again, I’d encourage my honourable colleague to take a look at what has, in fact, happened to smart meters as they are being used today in BC, Quebec, the US, Italy, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. I could go on, but the fact of the matter is, we’re moving ahead to put in place a progressive, intelligent, affordable, reliable clean electricity system that is creating jobs.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. During the federal election, the Premier said that he wanted a new national health accord and that he wants to see reforms. Ontario families are already concerned about the state of health care in this province. They want some specifics from the Premier. What does he want to see reformed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I hope that we’ll have some support from my honourable colleague when it comes to our new engagement with the federal government on putting in place a new 10-year accord. I know that the present arrangement expires in 2014. We’re absolutely convinced that we can put to bed a new arrangement by the end of 2012, and I hope I would have my honourable colleague’s support in ensuring that we come to the table with a single-minded purpose, and that is to ensure that we secure medicare for the future.

We’re not going to be defenders of the status quo when it comes to our medicare system, but we do insist that we maintain medicare in a way that ensures that it evolves, that we introduce reforms so that it’s there for our children and our grandchildren. I hope I have my honourable colleague’s support in that matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Given the Premier’s track record, Ontarians have every right to worry. They’ve seen first-hand this government’s approach to health care. Services have been cut, delisted, privatized. Families are not getting the health care they need and deserve. But instead of doing his job and delivering for Ontarians right here at home, he is musing about a new national health care accord. When will he turn his attention to the immediate health care needs of Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague just a little bit about our record. She knows that we’re building 18 new hospitals. She knows that we’ve hired 11,000 more nurses. She knows we have 2,900 more doctors. She knows we have 200 new family health teams. She knows we’re putting in place 25 nurse-practitioner-led clinics. She knows that we now have the shortest wait times in the country. But what she may not know is something we announced just this morning: We are expanding pharmacy services for seniors and social assistance recipients. They now are going to have more access to free consultations with their local pharmacists.

Seniors, in particular, can have a challenge when it comes to dealing with all their medications, and sometimes they end up in the hospital because of a mix-up. We want to make sure we address that issue. We’re inviting seniors to go in and visit their pharmacist. We’re now providing a new free service to help them ensure they’re taking the right drugs in the right way.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’re getting a real sense of the Premier’s election strategy, his re-election strategy: He’s going to try to position himself as the great defender of Ontario’s interests. He’s going to be glossing over—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I could shorten the member from Simcoe North’s stay in this House.

In all sincerity, we do know that there’s going to be an election, but to start making direct comments at other members in this House as to who’s here and who’s not going to be here—I can honestly say that I won’t be here, but I don’t need to hear shots being delivered across the floor at one another, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: With those kinds of displays, Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful from the member from Renfrew.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, these guys are so out of touch, they don’t even get sarcasm when they see it. The Premier is going to be glossing over his own record by diverting attention to the federal government, but the issue is, why isn’t he spending his time, his focus, his attention, on the health care needs of everyday families in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years, and I think, by any objective measure, we’ve made significant strides forward.

What I would invite my honourable colleague to understand is that we are always at our best when we work together. We need a strong federal partner who’s not only committed to ensuring that we have additional funding to accommodate the growing pressures within our health care system, but we are also looking for a partner in Ottawa who’s committed to medicare, who believes in universality, who believes that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast, as they say, receives the same high-quality health care within the framework of the medicare system that we have created here inside the country.

I think my honourable colleague might want to join me in that particular regard, to ensure that as we make progress inside the province, we also put in place a new deal that will last us for the next 10 years.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: Here’s the problem with the Premier’s position: His government has little credibility left on the health care file. They have slashed services. They have delisted others. They have closed ERs. They have reduced front-line staff. Now the Premier wants to negotiate a new health accord. How can Ontarians have faith that this Premier is up to doing that job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say with the greatest respect to my honourable colleague, I’m not sure how far she’s going to get pursuing that line of attack.

I think, by any objective assessment, we have made real, measurable improvement. Funding alone has been increased by over 50% since 2003.

Again, I’ll go through the list for my honourable colleague: 18 new hospitals; 11,000 more nurses; 2,900 more doctors. We had zero family health teams; now we’re up to 200: They’re looking after three million patients. We have 25 nurse practitioner-led clinics; 10,000 more long-term-care beds. We’ve got 176 new drugs that we’ve added to the public drug plan. We’ve increased breast cancer screening by 90,000 more through this particular—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In communities across Ontario, it’s families who are coping with the consequences of this government’s health care failings. I have to state them again, clearly. Emergency rooms are closing. Nurses are being let go. Long waits for long-term-care beds do exist. Seniors are being forced to pay to stay in the hospital. Home care has been privatized.

Given the litany of the health care problems created by this government, does the Premier actually believe he’s the best person to negotiate on Ontario’s behalf?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would argue that, as I said many times before, for our province leadership is not an option. I would argue that we have been commissioned by history to play a leadership role in the continuing evolution of this great country, and there’s an important debate that we’re about to enter upon right now, which is the future of our health care system—in fact, the very future of medicare itself.

Again, I would invite my honourable colleague to join with me and in fact, I believe, the people of Ontario, in ensuring that we secure a new arrangement with the federal government that not only accommodates our financial pressures but also ensures that we can look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say, “The benefits that we enjoyed under our medicare system: We worked hard to ensure they are there for you and for your children as well.”

I think that’s our shared responsibility, and I invite my honourable colleague to join me in that regard.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In his public musings, the Premier said he wants a new 10-year health accord. Ontario has an election in five months. At that time, Ontarians will decide who they want to trust on the health care file. Since the Premier has no mandate whatsoever to start negotiations, will he at least agree to do the respectful thing and wait for the verdict of Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is suggesting that we should somehow put down our tools when it comes to fighting for medicare for the future. That is something we are never, ever prepared to do.

Again, I would have thought that when it comes to my honourable colleague and the New Democratic tradition, which she represents in the province of Ontario, there’d be very little daylight between us in this regard. I thought that I would have her support when it comes to making representations to the federal government to ensure that we begin work as soon as possible to cobble together a new arrangement, a new agreement that secures medicare for the future.

Again, I invite my honourable colleague to join us in this quest to protect medicare for the future.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Premier. Premier McGuinty is so out of touch that he’s the only one in Ontario who believes that hydro bills have gone down. He should take a look behind him and he’ll see all the startled faces in his Liberal caucus. Every time the Premier says that hydro bills have flatlined, it looks to us like it’s the members of the Liberal caucus who have flatlined over there. Even they aren’t buying what Premier McGuinty is selling, and they know they can’t sell such an absurd proposition to Ontario families at the door.

Why should Ontario families believe what Premier McGuinty says about hydro bills when even his own Liberal family doesn’t believe him?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member and his leader continue to try to make things up here in this Legislature. The reason for that is the Ontario Energy Board, a couple of weeks ago, blew their cover. The fact of the matter is, according to the Ontario Energy Board, bills have stabilized over the last year. Bills are flat. Those members may not want to admit that because the facts get in the way of a story for them, but the facts are the facts are the facts.

Bills are going down. Our clean energy benefit is having the desired effect. All the while, we’re building a strong, clean, reliable, modern energy system, and they’ve been resisting that every step of the way because they want to take us back to their dirty old days of a dirty, unreliable and outdated system. Ontarians don’t want to go there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: The fact that Premier McGuinty gave his caucus an emergency pep talk yesterday shows that he knows no one is buying his absurd line that hydro bills are the same this year as last. The Premier is so out of touch, he said he’s sticking to his guns and putting it on the heads of his caucus to sell his hydro increases. No wonder there are so many gloomy faces over there. My guess is, he called the media into his emergency pep talk yesterday to buffer himself from Liberal caucus members who know that Ontario families will punish them at the door if they try to make this turkey fly at the doorstep.

Premier, why won’t you give Ontario families a break from your hydro rate increases and, at the same time, give your caucus a break from this incredibly embarrassing situation?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The only political parties that don’t want to give families a break on their energy rates are those guys, because they don’t support the clean energy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’d say to a number of ministers that one of your ministerial colleagues is trying to answer a question and you are shouting across the floor, drowning out your own minister. I can’t hear your minister because of the interjections. I’d ask you to be respectful of your own caucus.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The only parties in this Legislature that don’t support helping Ontario families out with their energy bills are the Tories and the NDP, who don’t support our clean energy benefit that’s stabilizing rates.

Let’s go back to the old days and what that very member had to say back then about their energy system. This is what he said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My comments again hold true to both sides of the House. One of your colleagues just asked a question. I think he would like to hear what the minister has to say.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As quickly as I can: “This summer when we didn’t have enough electricity in this province because we hit peak high temperatures and all the air conditioners were running, we had to buy power.... I had to pay $7 million one day to keep the air conditioners on in our hospitals.” According to that member opposite—this is what he said: “That was highway robbery.”

That was their system. We’re building a clean, reliable, modern system that Ontario families can count on. They don’t support it, but that’s what—

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

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Can the Premier explain why his government voted down the number one recommendation from the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions to move mental health services for children and youth to the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to speak about this important issue. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of a government who issued a recent budget that put children’s mental health back on the map. The investments that we are making in children’s mental health are historic, and I am so pleased to be working with my colleagues the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care as we find a way to make sure that we use that significant historic investment to its wisest; to make sure that we get services out to the front line; to make sure we respond to the needs of children and families right across this province.

That’s where our focus is. We’re focused on service delivery, on getting those wait times down and on giving the kids and families the very services that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: If you want those dollars to pay dividends, you have to bring children’s mental health under the Ministry of Health. These are not kids with bad behaviours; these are kids who are sick. They have a mental illness. We’re talking about kids who are suicidal, kids who are cutting themselves, kids who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. These kids are suffering, and they are not getting the care they need because they don’t have that behaviour. They are sick and they belong under the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Can the minister explain today, during Children’s Mental Health Week, to those kids who are dealing with mental health issues why you’re turning your back on them and why the Liberal members of the select committee voted against their own recommendation?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Frankly, I thought the member opposite understood this issue more than she does, for her to say that we are turning our backs on children in this province.

I, too, have travelled across the province and had an opportunity to speak to families about what they need. They need us to deliver these services in a way that doesn’t stigmatize kids, that makes sure that the services are close to home, and that makes sure that we speak to the issues that families are calling upon.

I would suggest to her that she needs to take a look at those experts that are out in the field that have given us good advice. I’ll talk about Gordon Floyd, the president and CEO of Children’s Mental Health Ontario: “We’ve heard for years promises about investments to children’s mental health to close the gap and shorten the waiting lines and this government has put it forward.” We are the government that is going to make historic steps when it comes to ensuring that services are available for kids. We’re very proud—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know how important our publicly funded universal health care system is to the people of Ontario. We also know that as we move forward, there are always opportunities for us to strengthen our cherished and vitally important public health care system. As a matter of fact, this government has already taken a number of significant steps in improving the quality of care for Ontarians while finding efficiencies to reinvest in more and better front-line care across the province.

Minister, as you know well, there have been numerous significant investments for hospitals in my community of Ottawa, as there have been across the province. But Minister, while the McGuinty government has made remarkable progress in rebuilding and reinvesting in our health care infrastructure and capabilities, can you please tell us how we have been improving the quality of care for Ontario’s patients to ensure the system is—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks to the member from Ottawa Centre for this very important question. The only way we can preserve our cherished universal health care system is to make the changes that are necessary so it’s there for our kids and for our grandkids. The status quo is simply not an option.

One of the steps we’ve taken is the Excellent Care for All Act. This is legislation that helps refocus our health care system, refocus our efforts on high-quality care for patients. It requires our health care partners, starting with hospitals, to create quality committees, to look at quality indicators, to make sure that patients and that staff are taken into the conversation around those quality indicators. They have to develop and post quality improvement plans. And, Speaker—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: This focus on excellent quality health care is an incredibly valuable goal for Ontario’s patients. We know that our citizens fundamentally want a system that is not only strong, well equipped and capable; they also want a system that is compassionate and focused on helping Ontarians, not just during their greatest times of need but also serving them throughout their life.

As the minister said, we need to have a sustainable system if we hope to continue achieving these goals. I know from speaking with my constituents that they ask us to ensure that it is efficient by achieving savings now and also by making smart investments to improve our overall health, saving future costs, not to mention improving people’s quality of life.

Minister, this government has taken large steps to find efficiencies in our health care system, which have allowed us to invest in front-line care for Ontarians. Can you tell the House about some of the ways that—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of the ways we’re getting better value for our health care dollars. We’re now saving $500 million each year because we lowered the price of generic drugs. This has helped us fund 35 new cancer drugs. We’ve expanded the number of bariatric surgeries being performed right here in Ontario so that we don’t need to send patients out of country to receive that care. That’s saving us an estimated $45 million this year. By investing in more vaccinations for children, we’re going to save significant health costs down the road.

We’re also serious about preventing illness through health promotion. The causes here are straightforward: poor diet, lack of activity, and smoking. We’re taking steps to keep Ontarians healthy and get them healthier.

We’re finding many ways to get better value for our taxpayer dollars. This is work—

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

SMART METERS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier. A smart meter tax revolt is under way to put a stop to Premier McGuinty increasing hydro bills before he increases them again. PowerStream, the local hydro company in my riding, has joined the smart meter tax revolt. They say that they are taking up the fight against your smart meter tax machines to “mitigate the impact of potential business bill increases.”

Will you stop driving up hydro bills with your expensive tax machines before small businesses are driven out of the province? Or are you so out of touch that you’ll only stop once they are completely driven out of business?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We all know the member opposite very, very well, and I would think that she would want her constituents to be very well-informed on these issues. I think it’s important that all Ontarians are well-informed on these issues. I certainly invite her to my office and would be happy to brief her on the Ontario Energy Board report last week, which indicated, indeed, for those on time-of-use and those who are not yet on time-of-use—that their bills are flatlined over last year. That’s because of our clean energy benefit.

She may want to mention to her constituents as well that she and her party did not support that clean energy benefit. That’s why they’re afraid to share their plan with Ontario families, because the first piece of their plan is to jack bills up by 10% as they cancel our clean energy benefit. That is not in the interest of her—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: Families have joined the smart meter tax revolt; small businesses have joined. Now even 28 of the local hydro companies themselves are joining. But you are sticking to your guns, enforcing mandatory time-of-use on millions of families and businesses anyway.

It shouldn’t take a smart meter tax revolt to get a break. An Ontario PC government would take a different path and look for ways to give families relief from the skyrocketing hydro bills. Why are you continuing down the same path of hydro increases that are making families go broke and small businesses go bankrupt?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member opposite can twist it, torque it and talk about information that is not accurate all she wants, but the fact of the matter is, the Ontario Energy Board does not have that luxury. The Ontario Energy Board is a regulatory agency, and what they have said is that indeed bills are flat from last year. They have been stabilized as a result of our clean energy benefit. So rather than talk about information that’s not factual, the member should be letting her constituents know about that.

The member should be explaining to her constituents why she doesn’t support the 10% reduction that we put in place for Ontario families’ bills. It’s saving Ontario families $150 a year, stabilizing their bills, and you don’t support that.

I can understand why she’s not comfortable with this issue—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you will know that Dubreuilville is a community that totally relies on the forest industry for its survival. At a reception last night, you ran across Louise Perrier, the mayor of Dubreuilville, and she asked you directly if you’re prepared to intervene to make sure that the wood that your minister took away from that community will be reallocated to that community in order to continue. Will you intervene, and will you make sure that Dubreuilville gets the wood it needs so that it can continue to survive?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Certainly the Premier spoke to me earlier about the opportunity he had to meet with Mayor Perrier, and I welcome her and others from Dubreuilville.

As the member knows, the wood supply competition which we put in place has put back to work about 2.5 million cubic metres of wood that has not been harvested for some time—and we’re very excited about that—and also created or retained over 1,500 jobs in a number of communities across northern Ontario. We had a chance last week to make two more announcements, and we have more to come.

Having said that, we are incredibly sensitive to the challenges facing those communities such as Dubreuilville that were not successful in terms of the wood supply competition.

I also had an opportunity to meet with Mayor Perrier yesterday. May I say that her hard-working member, the MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin, Mr. Brown, has been extremely aggressive about supporting the community. We’re working together to try to find a very positive solution for the community.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Premier, can I have your attention? Thank you. The mayor of Dubreuilville asked you, the top person in the government, to intervene. She has not got satisfaction through the ministry. The ministry has taken away her wood. The question was: Are you prepared, as Premier, to intervene to make sure the community gets the wood that was taken away from them?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are engaged in very good discussions with Mayor Perrier. We are working together on dealing with the challenge that has faced the community related to the fact that under the wood supply competition, there were some communities that were successful and some that were not. We had a very positive meeting yesterday. The Premier did speak to me this morning. Mr. Brown, the MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin, has been very aggressively looking for a solution, and we are doing everything we can. I think if you speak to the mayor, she will indicate that indeed we had positive discussions yesterday.

There is no question that there’s a real challenge. We have some extraordinarily good news related to the wood supply competition in communities all across northern Ontario, but there are challenges associated with the fact that not all communities were successful.

I will continue to work closely with the mayor and the community to do what we can to see a positive resolution of this challenge for the community.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I thought that one thing that we all agreed on in this House was making sure that our kids had clean air to breathe. The opposition’s call for a moratorium on renewable energy shows that that’s not the case. We know they didn’t believe it eight years ago when they increased coal emissions 124%.

My constituents in Ottawa–Orléans know that developing renewable energy is the right thing to do for cleaner air and more local jobs. But they want to know if it’s true that once a company announces a new project—do the municipalities and the public have any say?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Under the law and under the Green Energy Act and the regulations, it’s indeed the case that both the public and municipalities have their say. We’ve been very clear that we will say no unless municipalities and the public have been given their say. That’s why we use that process.

Interestingly, my ministry has received some 45 applications for proposed wind projects, and 24 have been rejected. Why? Because there has not been sufficient consultation, both with the public and the municipality.

We say to our municipal partners, “We need your feedback and we’ll take it whatever way that you want to provide it, but it is important for you to let us know what are the concerns of your municipalities.”

We want to be very, very clear that people have a right to clean air but they also have the right to a good night’s sleep, and we need to hear people’s concerns so we can address them in any approval.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Minister, I know that my constituents will be pleased to hear you correct that misconception. I’m glad to hear you confirm that there are clear setbacks and a clear process for municipal consultation, and that municipal consultation is embedded right in the approvals process for any other renewable project.

Some residents are also concerned, however, that our stringent 40-decibel limit for wind turbines might be exceeded and that there is nothing they can do about it. Will the minister tell us why he is unwilling or unable to follow up on these calls from local residents?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The reason there is a Minister of the Environment is to protect human health. That’s what we do, each and every day. We want to tell people that if they have concerns about any project, concerns about a wind turbine, they can call our ministry.

There was a recent report that said that in the last couple of years, with some 800 turbines in the province of Ontario, we received some 757 complaints, but they came from 50 individuals, primarily from 20 individuals.

We take all of those calls very, very seriously. That’s why we’ve taken action. We’ll continue to take action until the calls stop, because we expect wind turbine companies to be good neighbours. The vast majority of them want to be good neighbours, but they know that the Ministry of the Environment has ultimate say about their ability to produce renewable energy, which we want, and therefore they pay attention. When we call them, it’s because their neighbours are calling us, and we take the calls of the neighbours very, very seriously.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. I have an open letter sent to you and the Premier from Gord Taylor, president of the Ontario School Bus Association. In it, Mr. Taylor expresses OSBA’s increasing concern about your new school transportation procurement policy and its threat to the sustainability of the industry.

He states, “We had a clear understanding that the ministry would set the ground rules of this transition. That has not happened. Instead, the worst-case scenario is happening.” And then he goes on to say that that includes a lack of transparency, accountability and full disclosure of the results to all involved.

Both busing organizations are now telling you that the new policy is a failure. Will you respond to their demand to put an immediate halt to the new policy and meet with them to get it right?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have the opportunity to say in the House that both the Premier and I have had the opportunity to meet with leadership of the school bus operators’ association, so we are very aware of their issues.

The honourable member would know that the Provincial Auditor has provided us with some clear direction around how we engage services. The Provincial Auditor has some comments about sole-sourced contracts, and that is why the process that is used by school boards to engage them—we are looking to improve that.

We are definitely open to working with bus operators on this. That is why, as well, we have chosen to move forward in a piloted way, and we are going to look very carefully at the results from the pilots. We want to ensure, moving forward, that we are—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Minister of Education: Both groups are telling you to immediately suspend your process. It is threatening the livelihood of the school bus operators as well as the entire industry.

You talk about the pilots. Well, the results are in: The Wellington-Dufferin pilot project resulted in 103 of the 105 routes being stripped from Ontario’s small businesses and given to multinationals. I have heard from families who are concerned about the fact that you’re not addressing the issue now.

I ask you again, on behalf of the independents and the school bus association, who are desperately concerned: Will you put a stop to your new flawed policy and meet with them to develop a new plan?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, meeting with bus operators is something that we have done and I’ve committed to do going forward.

I think it’s important for the people of Ontario to appreciate that with the pilot the honourable member referenced, there were also small bus operators who actually gained routes in that process. So they’re telling one part of the story.

That being said, I will say that with respect to the second pilot, we have made some changes to the process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry, Minister. The member from Durham, the member from Oxford and the member from Simcoe North will please come to order. The member from Halton.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What we want to ensure going forward is that boards are able to engage those faithful, reliable services to carry children to school in a cost-effective way. We have been working with bus operators. We are committed to continuing to do so going forward so that boards will be able to provide safe transportation to their schools for all of their students.

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. A US company wants to build the second-largest quarry in North America near Shelburne, which would destroy productive farmland and could threaten the area’s water, right at the headwaters of rivers that provide drinking water for more than a million Ontarians.

The government has extended the short 45-day public comment period for this project by about 30 days, but submissions received after April 26 will not even get a response. Why is this government limiting public consultation and refusing to allow a full environmental assessment of this massive and potentially destructive project?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I understand that there’s been local concern expressed about the aggregate licence application from Highland Companies in Melancthon township. I can confirm that our local district office has received the licence application.

I want to make it really clear: This is only the beginning of the Aggregate Resources Act process. While legally I cannot extend the comment period, I did mention that I wanted to consider comments outside of the official objection period. As I’ve stated in the House, I can confirm that I have extended the EBR comment period now to 120 days in order to accommodate any of those additional comments.

As I said, it’s early in the process. We want to hear from municipalities and neighbours because we understand that local citizens are concerned with the project and they want to be involved in the consultation process. We get it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians want the government to do more to protect our watershed. They don’t just want to be listened to; they want to be talked to as well. They want responses to their submissions.

Over 1,400 people are urging greater protection of waters in the Oak Ridges moraine—and I’ll pass the evidence of those 1,400 people over to the Premier by way of Jonathan, the page—yet the McGuinty government is allowing this US company to dig a 2,400-acre quarry deeper than Niagara Falls without a full environmental assessment.

Why won’t the government designate this project as an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act and require a full environmental assessment with full public participation before this project is approved?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: As I stated earlier, this is the very beginning of the process. What I have done is I’ve listened to the residents. I spoke with the mayor. I spoke with the member in the Conservative Party who questioned me on this issue.

I’m not sure why you can’t take yes for an answer. The request was, “Can you extend the period?” I have extended the period for people to participate in the process. It’s the beginning of the process. We have to talk to all of the residents, and there is an opportunity for the municipality to work with us to try to resolve as many objections as possible. We have extended the process. I’ve provided that evidence in the newspaper. I’ve provided it in an editorial to the community.

Even before the application was submitted, I knew that it was the subject of many local petitions and interest. I know the residents are—

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

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

Mr. David Orazietti: My question’s for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In recent months, there has been significant public discussion regarding the necessity of continued support for literacy skills training in Ontario. Many community groups came forward requesting additional support for their programs, and there were concerns that federal funding would be eliminated as it was scheduled to end in March of this year. At that time, I had asked you how we planned on providing the needed support for these essential services in our communities.

As you know, there are approximately 300 sites across the province delivering literacy and basic skills programs. In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, there are a number of local organizations that provide basic skills training for adult learners through organizations such as the Algoma District School Board, the Huron-Superior board, Sault College, the Indian Friendship Centre and Program Read. Minister, what steps have been taken to ensure the continued support of literacy skills training in our local communities?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the question from the member and I appreciate the support from all members of the House who have come to me to express concern about the need for increased literacy training in the province of Ontario, particularly during the period of the recession.

Through a partnership with the federal government, we were able to invest more in terms of literacy training over the last two years. Despite my efforts in making presentations to the federal government and the support of many literacy providers in going forward to the federal government, that funding was discontinued on March 31.

I was very pleased, however, that our government, in the most recent budget, came forward with a $44-million commitment to literacy training over the next three years, including an additional $13 million a year in base budget increases for literacy providers across the province, including, of course—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: Minister, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. I was pleased to see funding devoted to these much-needed literacy and basic skills programs announced in our government’s 2011 budget.

Providing individuals with the tools to improve their knowledge and skills contributes in a positive way to their overall quality of life. Higher levels of literacy raise an individual’s employment opportunities and provide them with the opportunity to apply for better-paying jobs. Higher levels of literacy are also associated with higher levels of involvement in various community groups and organizations and in volunteering activities. Ensuring that all Ontarians have the opportunity to upgrade their skills is one of the best investments we can make. Not only does it help people succeed in their career goals but it builds a strong foundation for our local economy.

Minister, what specifically are we doing to provide support to our literacy groups, and how will we make sure that these services are available for those who need them most?

Hon. John Milloy: Let me share some statistics with the House—with the honourable member and the House—about support within northern Ontario. This funding is going to help northern Ontario literacy providers.

Right now, adults can get help with literacy and basic skills for free at 83 sites in northern Ontario, including colleges, school boards and community-based organizations. In northern Ontario, these organizations that deliver literacy and basic skills training are receiving more than $14 million to help 8,366 learners this year.

In the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, over $1.2 million will be provided to the six organizations referenced, helping an additional 964 learners. This additional funding will support Ontarians who are looking to upgrade their skills and move on to—

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

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY

TO ANIMALS

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. Once again, I rise to call into question the mismanagement and unjust actions by a McGuinty government agency.

Recently, in the case of Ralph Hunter, a resident of Iroquois, the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the charges and admonished the actions of the OSPCA and their inspector, Bonnie Bishop. Once again, rural Ontarians are being harassed to the point where the actions of the OSPCA are violating our charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Minister, when will this government finally hold the OSPCA to account and show rural Ontario that the abusive actions against Mr. Hunter will not be tolerated?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As you would know, the OSPCA is responsible for, in the province of Ontario, enforcing the laws which, I think, members of this House agreed to some time ago.

I think it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on matters that have been before the court because, as the member knows—and if he were to consult people who have been either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of the province of Ontario in years gone by, he would know—it is inappropriate, particularly where there may be an appeal that might take place, for a minister of the crown to comment one way or another on these situations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll put it back to the Attorney General. My honourable colleague from Newmarket–Aurora brought a motion to this House that your government voted against, a motion that would have reviewed the powers and the authority delegated to the OSPCA and would have provided much-needed oversight. It is nothing new for this government to ignore the mismanagement and the abuse by its agencies, boards and commissions. However, when the actions of OSPCA officials are admonished by the courts on the grounds of being unconstitutional, such abuses reach a new low.

We have seen this growing trend with your government that believes justice is optional—just ask Roy McMurtry. When will this government take responsibility and show rural Ontarians that their privacy and property will be—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have been reading certain publications that have had some rather startling revelations that would be perhaps embarrassing to the government caucus—sorry, to the Conservative caucus. Annoying, perhaps, to the government caucus, but embarrassing to the Conservative caucus. This is the member who persuaded his leader, as a condition of supporting him for the leadership, to—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Answer the bloody question, Jim.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark: You just asked the question. You know the standing orders in the House. After you have heard the answer and you’re not satisfied, you can call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is the member, I can say, that persuaded his leader, as a condition of support for leadership, to agree to abolish—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just want to caution the minister to stick to answering the question and not—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’ll withdraw when that minister withdraws.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): An unequivocal withdrawal.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll withdraw, and I would expect the same from that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to give you one last opportunity—just an unequivocal withdrawal.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll withdraw.

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

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Tatiana is a single mother in my community whose son needs constant care. Her son Radu is non-verbal and high-needs. His day program at school ends in June. He’s come to the end of those programs. She has no alternative. She will have to quit work and go on welfare to look after him.

Money has been pledged for children’s mental health, but no program exists now to give this family the help it needs. Will you, Minister, see that this mother can continue to work and this young man can receive care by directing your staff to use the money allocated?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services, please.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to talk about—yes, again—the investments that our government will be making in children’s mental health. We know that this is a significant need in many communities across the province. We’re very proud of the record that we have of putting kids first when it comes to ensuring that we build a bright future in this province. Investments like the Ontario child benefit—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East would please return to his seat and withdraw the comment that he made.

Mr. Paul Miller: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, I appreciate the commentary. The situation we face is, the mother is exhausted. She really is coming to the end of her rope on this. Very soon, she will have to quit her job to look after her son full-time.

Can you commit that your staff will work with the family and do all they can to ensure that the supports are in place when this young man no longer can go to the daycare programs that she has depended on?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’ll take the question as one that the member opposite wants to advocate on behalf of his constituent, and I appreciate that advocacy. I would suggest to him that the best place to advocate for our constituents is not always on the floor during question period. I certainly look forward to an opportunity to look into this issue.

I’m very pleased at the initiatives that our government has taken. We’ve invested in child care, we’ve invested in the Ontario child benefit, we’ve invested in a great deal of services for kids and families, and we’ve focused on women’s economic independence to make sure that women can go out into the workforce and make sure that they have an envelope of support around them. The members opposite have not always supported us in these initiatives.

I certainly take the member at his word, that he looks to advocate for his constituent. I look forward to more details with respect to this issue and having an opportunity to focus on this. But I certainly do look for his support as we move forward with a number of other initiatives when it comes to supporting kids. I hope that the New Democratic Party will support us because often, in the past, they have not.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Education. More than ever, our students are going to require the specialized skills needed to ensure their success in an ever-changing economy. They need these skills to meet the demands that will be placed upon them in a competitive and fast-paced job market in the future. We all agree that we need to ensure that students excel in school in order to become successful members of Ontario’s workforce. It’s important to me and my constituents in Peterborough that students in Peterborough have the opportunities to achieve the best results for themselves and our economy.

Minister, I’m hearing from constituents that it is difficult t