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

March 22, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-22 (PDF)

L095 - Tue 22 Mar 2011 / Mar 22 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 22 March 2011 Mardi 22 mars 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHRISTOPHER’S LAW (SEX OFFENDER

REGISTRY) AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

ENERGY POLICIES

NUCLEAR ENERGY

WATER SUPPLY

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

POVERTY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

NUCLEAR WASTE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CHILD POVERTY

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OXFORD BUSINESSES

JOYCE BURNELL

KAYLA MADUK

GARY MALKOWSKI

NURSES

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

BOMBARDIER IN THUNDER BAY

LOYAL KIGABIRO

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORLD WATER DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DE L’EAU

PETITIONS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS

CHILD CUSTODY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PARAMEDICS

RURAL AND NORTHERN SCHOOLS

PARAMEDICS

COYOTES

PARAMEDICS

TAXATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

SUPPLY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2011

SUPPLY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2011

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHRISTOPHER’S LAW (SEX OFFENDER

REGISTRY) AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

Mr. Bradley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 163,

An Act to amend Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000 / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi Christopher de 2000 sur le registre des délinquants sexuels.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I rise in the House today to, first of all, offer some background into the Ontario sex offender registry and the amendments the government is recommending to this important piece of community safety legislation. I think we would all agree that every Ontarian has the right to live a life free of sexual abuse. As legislators, we must do all that we can to protect our children from such abuse.

Ten years ago, almost to the month, Christopher’s Law was proclaimed, establishing Canada’s first sex offender registry and giving police services the tools they need to track and monitor convicted sex offenders in the province. Christopher’s Law was an initiative of the previous government and was unanimously passed by the Ontario Legislature. Christopher Stephenson was an 11-year-old boy who was abducted from a Brampton shopping mall on Father’s Day weekend in 1988 by a convicted pedophile on federal release. His abused body was discovered a few days later.

The police will tell you that the first 24 hours are crucial in any child abduction case. The Ontario sex offender registry enables the police to do the following: to quickly identify known pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders living in the area; to interview and eliminate suspects during the critical early hours of an investigation; and to narrow the field when searching for the abductor.

Christopher’s father, Jim Stephenson, is convinced that had a sex offender registry been in place at the time his son was taken, there would have been a much different outcome, and we will all recall that Mr. Stephenson was with us upon the introduction of this bill in the House the other day. He had said so in Ottawa two years ago at a House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

In December 2004, the federal government proclaimed legislation which created a national sex offender registry. This government has always supported the implementation of a national sex offender registry. Recently, the federal government passed legislation amending the national sex offender registry. Many of the amendments were changes advocated by the Ontario government, and we are pleased that our advocacy has been successful. We continue to work with federal officials to further enhance the registry to make it a more valuable investigative tool for police services.

One significant advantage of having a national registry is that Ontario’s police services can keep track of an offender who has left the province. Still, there are enough differences in the provincial and federal approaches to the registry to make it necessary to maintain a provincial system. For example, the Ontario registry can display offender residences within specific proximity to a given location, such as a school. The Ontario registry also provides timely access for all police services in the province, and that is a difference between the federal and provincial registry.

You would know that the federal registry deals with only one police service, and that is the OPP. So the OPP, in turn, would deal with our local services. In Ontario, all police services have access to the information on the Ontario registry.

As effective as the Ontario system was, we always consider that there is room for improvement. Any system that fails to keep pace with society’s demands or falls behind technology’s rapid march forward is a system hurtling toward obscurity. That is why, in 2008, this government amended Christopher’s Law to enhance the effectiveness of the Ontario sex offender registry.

As a result of these amendments, all those serving an intermittent sentence must register within 15 days of conviction; all those who are released on bail pending an appeal must register within 15 days of release; police services must notify the Ontario sex offender registry if they receive notification from a mental health facility that a person who is not criminally responsible in relation to a sex offence is being released from a facility unsupervised; and provincial correctional facilities must notify the Ontario sex offender registry of all sex offenders released from a correctional facility on an unescorted temporary pass within 24 hours before the release.

Together, these amendments obliged more offenders to register and, in some cases, register sooner so that police and the registry have an accurate account of all sex offenders in the community at any given time. Ontario happens to have a compliance rate of over 97%.

As Ontario was strengthening the province’s own sex offender registry, the federal government was reviewing the national registry. In 2009, MPs in Ottawa launched a parliamentary review of the national sex offender registry, and on December 9, 2010, a federal act that will amend the legislation that established the national registry received royal assent.

Once proclaimed, the amended legislation will create differences between the national and Ontario registries that this government wishes to address with proposed amendments to Christopher’s Law, which will be changed in such a way as to synchronize the two laws.

Ontario continues to be the only province to maintain its own sex offender registry. We will stick to this path because we believe it provides us with direct control over the tools that our police services tell us they need to track and monitor convicted sex offenders quickly and effectively. Even with federal enhancements to the national sex offender registry, Ontario’s registry will still maintain advantages as an investigative tool over the national registry, as will be clear as the debate continues.

The Ontario sex offender registry provides police with the information they need to help provide protection for persons who may be at risk. A sex offender registry is also an effective tool in preventing such crimes. According to the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, offenders convicted for failing to register are 50% more likely to reoffend. As Jim Stephenson has said, the sex offender registry reminds a sex offender that somebody is watching. If that isn’t preventive enough, I don’t know what else can be suggested.

The amendments to be proposed today will better align the Ontario sex offender registry with the national sex offender registry to maintain the prompt, effective sharing of information. It will also maintain the Ontario system’s independence, to be a more effective investigative tool and to provide greater protection for Ontario’s communities. To review, the amendments we are proposing to Christopher’s Law would help align the legislation with the national sex offender registry legislation as amended by Bill S-2.

Members of this House are aware that it was on April 4, 2000, that the Ontario government passed Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000 to establish and maintain a registry of sex offenders that police can use proactively for investigative purposes and crime prevention, and that the federal government established a national sex offender registry in 2004. The national registry was similar to Ontario’s, though it was less comprehensive. On December 9, 2010, the federal government passed that legislation which we referred to as Bill S-2, which brings the national registry more in line with Ontario’s.

However, the legislation, as I have pointed out, will create some differences between the national and provincial registries that will be important to resolve.

The sex offender registry is based on a very simple proposition: That is, if police know the whereabouts of a convicted sex offender in the community, they are better able to identify potential threats and can better focus their investigation into actual crimes. That is why Christopher’s Law requires offenders convicted of a criteria offence and residing in Ontario to register with their local police service within 15 days after a triggering event such as a release from custody, name change or address change.

Where there is no custodial sentence, they must register within 15 days after being convicted of a sex offence or within 15 days of receiving an absolute or conditional discharge for a sex offence when found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Currently, police services in Ontario are responsible for Ontario and national sex offender registrations, but police services in Ontario have direct access only to the Ontario registry to input and search offender information.

Because information captured by the Ontario and national registries is similar, police services in Ontario are only required to submit offender information into the Ontario registry. Information required by the national registry is automatically transmitted from the Ontario registry. However, the national registry will now require Ontario police services to collect additional information that cannot be entered into the Ontario registry because there is no legislative authority to do so. As a result, information that is automatically submitted to the national registry could be incomplete.

When Bill S-2 is actually proclaimed, there will be differences between the Ontario and national registries in the following areas—and this, essentially, is why this legislation is before this House.

First, reporting obligations: S-2 requires offenders to register within seven days, while the present Ontario legislation requires registration within 15 days. Offenders convicted outside of Canada are another situation: The federal registry will require registration of offenders convicted outside of Canada while the Ontario legislation, at the present time, does not.

There are also pardon provisions which would be different. The national registry will maintain the records of registered offenders who receive a pardon under the Criminal Records Act. Information pertaining to all pardoned offenders must be removed at the present time from the Ontario registry.

The federal legislation will also require the reporting of certain volunteer and employment information, while Christopher’s Law does not now require this.

The legislative amendments we are proposing would ensure consistency between the registries. Consistency is critical to the effectiveness of the registries, both national and provincial. It will help ensure that more offenders of interest are identified by an Ontario registry search during time-sensitive investigations. As members are well aware, time is of the essence in all of these investigations.

Having different Ontario and national registry reporting periods could increase the workload for Ontario police services. They would have to manually register offenders in Ontario to the national registry and confirm that offenders are fulfilling their national and Ontario reporting obligations if the registries happen to be inconsistent. The process of manual uploading of information from local police to the OPP, the only Ontario police service with direct access to the national registry, and from the OPP to the national registry could take up to four weeks, much too long for time-sensitive investigations.

This bill will ensure that Ontario continues to provide offender information to the national registry electronically and in real time.

Furthermore, there are differences in the time allowed for offenders to report to the Ontario registry and the national registry. Offenders may fail to differentiate the Ontario and national reporting requirements, resulting in potential criminal charges for offenders who mistakenly believe they have 15 days to report to the national registry.

Including sex offenders in the Ontario registry who have been convicted of a sex crime outside of Canada will help ensure that more offenders of interest are identified by an Ontario registry search.

The bill proposes to address these issues in the following ways:

Section 1 of the bill would add two new clauses to the definition of “sex offence” in

section 1 of the act. New clauses (b.2) and (b.3) would result in offences which were committed outside of Canada being included in the definition if the person who committed the offence is required to report to the federal sex offender registry, pursuant to an obligation under either

section 490.02901 of the Criminal Code or

section 36.1 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Section 2 of the bill would amend

section 3 of the act to remove the 15-day reporting timelines and would provide for the timelines to be prescribed by regulation. The

section would be further amended by adding two clauses, (e.1) and (e.2), which would require offenders who are subject to a federal sex offender registry reporting obligation pursuant to

section 490.02901 of the Criminal Code or

section 36.1 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act to report to the Ontario registry within the time prescribed in the regulation.

Section 3 of the bill would amend

section 7 of the act to remove the 15-day reporting timelines and have the timelines prescribed by regulation.

Section 3 of the bill also contains transition provisions which would stipulate that if the events that trigger a reporting obligation in subsection 7(2) of the act occur before the bill comes into force, the old reporting obligation provisions would apply, and if such events occur on or after the day the bill comes into force, the new reporting obligation provisions would apply.

Section 4 of the bill would amend

section 8 of the act to state that it applies to persons who become subject to an obligation to report to the national sex offender registry pursuant to

section 490.02901 of the Criminal Code on or after the day this bill comes into force. It goes on to state that the duration of the reporting obligation under the act is for the duration of that federal reporting obligation.

Section 4 of the bill would further amend

section 8 of the act to state that it applies to persons who become subject to an obligation to report to the national sex offender registry pursuant to

section 36.1 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act on or after the day this bill comes into force. It goes on to state that the duration of the reporting obligation under the act is for the duration of that federal reporting obligation.

Section 5 of the bill would repeal subsection 9(3) of the act. Under that subsection, the ministry is required to remove all of an offender’s information from the registry if the offender receives a pardon for all of the sex offences that triggered a reporting obligation.

Section 6 of the bill would add a new

section to the act,

section 9.1, which would require the ministry to remove all of an offender’s information from the registry if the offender receives a free pardon for all of the sex offences that triggered a reporting obligation.

Section 7 of the bill would add a new regulation-making power to

section 14 of the act allowing for regulations to be made in relation to the various timelines for reporting set out in subsections 3(1) and 7(2) of the act.

Even with the proclamation of Bill S-2, Ontario’s registry will maintain the following advantages over the national registry:

—It is accessible by every police service in Ontario,

whereas the national registry is only accessible by the OPP at their general headquarters in Orillia—I’m going to make reference to the general headquarters in a moment. As a result, local police services have to contact the OPP to conduct national registry searches.

—It allows police to perform searches that display the offender residences within a specific proximity to a given location, such as a school; the national registry does not have this capability.

—The provincial registry maintains historical and most recent photographs of offenders; the national registry maintains only the most recent photograph. Ontario’s registry is routinely checked by police services in the course of their investigations.

—Ontario’s sex offender registry has a compliance rate of more than 97%, one of the highest compliance rates of all sex offender registries in operation, including registries in the United States.

Christopher’s Law is an important piece of legislation. It is based on a very simple proposition; that is, if police know the whereabouts of all convicted sex offenders in the community, they are better able to identify potential threats and can better focus their investigations. The amendments proposed in this bill would, if adopted by this House, maintain smooth and efficient sharing of information between local police services and both registries, and more closely align the Ontario sex offender registry with the national registry.

I made reference to the fact that at the headquarters of the Ontario Provincial Police in Orillia, there are many services that are available. Upon touring that particular facility in my capacity as Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, one of the areas that was pointed out to me, and one which was of particular interest, was the kind of sophisticated equipment that the OPP has and the well-trained and -educated people whom the OPP happens to have as part of its operation and who deal with the sex offender registry.

The individuals who are involved in this operation, whether they are individuals who serve in local or regional police services or whether they are at the national or provincial level—in other words, the RCMP at the national level or the Ontario Provincial Police, in our case, at the provincial level—well, I’ll tell you that one of the most difficult jobs that a person can have in the field of policing is the job of identifying child pornography and the abuse of children through the making and showing of that child pornography.

The dedicated people who deal with these matters are to be commended by all citizens of the province of Ontario.

It has to be particularly difficult to have the job of viewing, on a daily basis, literally thousands of photographs and information that would come available to our individuals who are assigned to this task or volunteer for this task as part of their duties in police services across our province and our country.

When you see them interviewed on television, hear them on the radio or see them quoted in the newspapers or magazines, you will note that almost invariably, they talk about how difficult this is, particularly if they have children of their own, particularly younger children of their own, grandchildren or great-grandchildren. It is particularly difficult because obviously they can envision the possibility that their children might have, if it were not for fate or other circumstances, been caught in this kind of situation.

I think there’s also a recognition that young children are vulnerable. They require the protection of all citizens. So, for instance, when computers are turned in for the purpose of repair and maintenance, or perhaps are being disposed of, those who happen to come upon child pornography within those computers and who take the time to notify police authorities are, again, doing something for which they are to be commended. They are assisting in trying to prevent something which has now become, because of computerization and because of the Internet, much more of an international activity than would have been the case in the past.

Previously, people would have to exchange films or tapes or photographs, and they would have to perhaps do it through the mail or through personal contact. Today, it is much easier because of the Internet, and that means even more children are vulnerable, keeping in mind that those who take the time to view child pornography are, in fact, contributing to the problem. While they may not have been the people who have produced it, they are enabling those who have produced it to have a market.

I think there’s a general disgust in our society when we find that people who are in a very vulnerable position, our young children, are placed in this circumstance. So you should know, members of the House—I think most probably do—and people of the province, that our police services are vigilant. They have been given, over the years, by successive governments, more tools to deal with this problem. But police services across the country will tell you, whether it’s a national, a provincial or a local police service, that those who break the law utilize new and different tools to do so.

It means police have to have, first of all, the training and education to deal with this situation, and they are acquiring that. Some are now international experts who share information on how to deal with these problems; on an international basis, they share that information. Also, you need the latest equipment available to be able to track child pornography.

Our police services who looked for this tool some years ago, when this Legislature passed its bill unanimously—and it’s interesting to note, when I say “unanimously,” that not everything in this House passes unanimously. There are philosophical differences, there are partisan differences and there are differences in individual thoughts about pieces of legislation and issues that come before this House. Where you find a consensus is on issues of this kind.

I think it speaks well of all members of the Legislature that, in dealing with matters of this kind, we are together in trying to find the better tool, each and every time, for our police services to be able to carry out their individual responsibilities.

I think we recognize as well that when we have federal legislation and provincial legislation, we want to ensure as much as possible that they align with one another to avoid confusion. This bill and this kind of legislation is not a contest between one government and another government. Both governments have a similar goal. Some are in a more advantageous position, as we are provincially, for our local police services to access the OPP information; that’s exceedingly important. But as much as possible, we want to ensure that the two laws align, and that is why this legislation is being brought forward.

The opportunity was provided to the opposition parties—as is, I think, quite common in the House—to be able to receive a briefing or for their staffs to receive a briefing on the legislation coming forward. I have found, in my experience in this House, that the viewpoints of all members are very helpful. Sometimes they confirm a government position; sometimes they do not. They may have other thoughts that may be contrary to a government position, or in some cases they may want to add to or change in a minor way a bill to make it better.

But I think, overall, the goal that we are looking for in this House is the alignment of the two bills. I don’t want to pre-empt what might happen, but my guess would be that the more we would think of amending this bill, the more challenging it becomes then to see it as aligned with the federal bill.

However, I know that will not prevent some of my colleagues from offering thoughts in this direction, and of course I have the greatest respect particularly for those who are the official critics in those areas, because they assume a certain expertise in a field, and all members of the House who bring their own experiences.

I think all of us, when we saw Christopher Stephenson’s father in the House, were reminded of one instance of one family that was affected by this, and Mr. Stephenson has to live this over and over again. I want to commend, him because it has to be most difficult every time a piece of legislation of this kind comes forward, every time there’s a reporting of a crime and every time there’s a circumstance that would bring to his attention his son and the experience his son went through. His son, by the way, wrote some very compelling poems as a youngster that Mr. Stephenson has been kind enough to share with me.

I know that when he comes to this House, he brings a presence which is very positive in its contribution, and I know that he has developed an expertise in legislation of this kind because of the circumstances that have been created by the tragedy that affected his family.

If we think of it, there are many Mr. Stephensons and Mrs. Stephensons across this province who have encountered this circumstance, and it’s heartening to know that we, as legislators, can make a difference. There are those who, in their commentary, will say, “The elected members of a Legislature or a government really don’t make much difference in our lives,” and in some cases they may look and find some evidence that that is the case.

In the case of this particular piece of legislation and its predecessors, we have seen that members of this Legislature are echoing what they have heard in their communities and are taking to heart what individuals who have experienced the horror of the crimes of the nature of that which fell upon Christopher Stephenson have said, and that we are able to respond in a constructive and positive fashion to try to reduce the risk of this ever happening again.

So to my colleagues in the House, I recommend—and they will choose to do as they please; that is the nature of this House. But I would strongly recommend that we pass this legislation. I think you will find that the federal government—or the federal Parliament, I should say, not just the federal government, which has passed its legislation—would say that it is advantageous for the Ontario Legislature to have taken this action if, indeed, it chooses to do so.

I want to also note that in subsequent debate, Mr. Zimmer will be involved very much in the carriage of this bill. Mr. Zimmer has worked with opposition critics exceedingly well as a member of the legal profession and as a person who—again, as with all of us, the member for Willowdale has an interest in matters that relate to legal situations which confront this House. I know that he has worked well with his colleagues on the other side of the House in dealing with various pieces of legislation.

So I look forward with anticipation to the debate as it carries on. I know that there will be a lead that will take place by the Progressive Conservative Party, which will have its opportunity to provide its views on this legislation, and then by the New Democratic Party. I know that all of us will look forward not only to the leads but, perhaps, to the other contributions that are made. I would be very surprised if my friend from Welland—as well as others, but my friend from Welland always says this—would not anticipate and look forward to some time in committee, because he always says that. So I simply anticipate that he says that.

Sometimes matters can be resolved completely within the House, and committee is not necessary. That is rarely the case. I think certainly our government has endeavoured to send things to committee. It’s not always as long or as extensive as my friends in opposition might like from time to time, but we have recognized the importance of that where the House deems that to be important.

So with those remarks, I would move the adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The minister has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Thank you.

Second reading debate adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business this morning, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. With that, this House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 0941 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to welcome a group of Sheridan College journalism and media arts students who are in the press gallery today and will be in the Speaker’s gallery as well, from Sheridan in Oakville. It’s a pleasure to welcome them.

From my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome Mary Jane and Jerry Collins, seated in the Speaker’s gallery. Mary Jane was the greatest grade 6 teacher ever in the history of Edward Street school. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I would like to introduce a former member of the Legislature, the former member from Mississauga South, Tim Peterson.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yes, we do welcome the honourable member who represented Mississauga South in the 38th Parliament.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to give the pages an opportunity to prepare for introduction, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 39th Parliament: Kiruthika Baskaran, Windsor West; Madelaine Brown, Brant; Grace Conroy, Prince Edward–Hastings; Christopher DeGuzman, Mississauga East–Cooksville; Fatemah Ebrahim, Thornhill; Cherechi Emenogu, Mississauga–Brampton South; Logan Emiry, Algoma–Manitoulin; Jia Jia Ho, Willowdale; Devon Jones, Don Valley East; Daniel Mateus, St.

Catharines; Riley McPhail, York–Simcoe; Sydney O’Brien, Halton; Travis Poland, Sarnia–Lambton; Emma Redfearn, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex; Gemma Ricker, Haldimand–Norfolk; Devan Scholefield, Etobicoke–Lakeshore; Rafeh Shahzad, Brampton West; Ciaran Thomas, St. Paul’s; Jimmy Zhou, Mississauga–Erindale; and Leighton Zink, Kitchener–Waterloo. Welcome to our pages.

Please reassemble.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, do you still have confidence in the bloated hydro bureaucracy known as the Ontario Power Authority?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can understand why the Tories, yesterday and today, want to talk about the Ontario Power Authority. It’s an organization—I think that they don’t support the work that this organization does. They don’t support the efforts that this organization is making to help get us out of coal. They don’t support the efforts that this organization is making to help provide a more reliable energy system across this province. They don’t support the work that this organization is doing to create thousands of clean energy jobs across this country.

It’s pretty obvious that that party doesn’t want to come forward with their energy plan because their energy plan would kill the thousands of jobs that we’re creating in our clean energy economy. Their energy plan would blunt our efforts to get out of dirty coal by 2014. Yes, the Ontario Power Authority has an important role to play—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Minister, of course not: No, we do not support the Ontario Power Authority. Minister, we support the hard-working Ontario families and small businesses who are sick and tired of getting higher and higher hydro bills because of the expensive mess you’ve made in our system.

When Premier McGuinty first announced the Ontario Power Authority in 2004, your government said, “There’s been a misconception that this is somehow going to be a massive bureaucracy.” Well, since then, the OPA bureaucracy has ballooned from 15 to 300 employees. Salaries and expenses have grown by a staggering 465%. Why don’t you do the right thing and scrap your bloated hydro bureaucracy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What the Ontario Power Authority and all of our energy agencies here in this province are busy doing is turning around the ugly legacy that that Leader of the Opposition left behind when it comes to energy in this province. That means we’re working very hard to create more power generation in this province to ensure that we have enough power to reliably provide for the needs of Ontario families—something they did not do.

That’s why we’re working very hard to get out of dirty coal by 2014, to ensure that we can provide a healthier future for our kids and grandkids—something that that party doesn’t seem to care about, something that that party doesn’t support. We’re also creating thousands of clean energy jobs.

Why does that leader not come forward with his energy plan to tell Ontario—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Clearly, the minister embraces his bloated Ontario Power Authority bureaucracy. Minister, we would take a very different view. We would close the doors on the OPA and pass on the savings to hard-pressed Ontario families.

You said this would not be a massive bureaucracy, but the costs have grown by 465%. I guess that is simply standard, everyday bloat when it comes to the McGuinty government. We think they’re doing a poor job.

In fact, if anything, we think the OPA should be called the Ontario propaganda authority for spending millions and millions of dollars in ads to promote the McGuinty government. The OPA played a role in their backtrack seat-savers in Oakville and the wind turbine backtrack to save your own seat.

Minister, why don’t you do the right thing? Scrap this wasteful bureaucracy—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The last person we are going to take advice from when it comes to accountability is that Leader of the Opposition. He sat in the cabinet that allowed Hydro One to buy a yacht. I think they named it Defiant. He sat in the cabinet that allowed the Hydro One CEO, Eleanor Clitheroe, to earn $2.2 million a year, half as much as Hydro One is currently involved in with regard to compensation in terms of executive compensation.

The fact of the matter is that the Ontario Power Authority is engaged in improving our conservation programs—something that that party doesn’t support—

Interjections.

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

I’m finding it extremely difficult. There are a number of ministers who are shouting down their own colleague, who is trying to answer a question. I would just remind the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Finance of the importance of allowing their colleague to answer.

Continue.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The reason this party doesn’t support the work of the Ontario Power Authority is that they don’t support conservation, and that’s an initiative that the Ontario Power Authority is working on. They don’t support energy planning. That’s why they don’t want to come forward to Ontario families with their plan: because they don’t have one—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Energy: We simply do not support the McGuinty government waste that is driving up hydro bills for Ontario families. You don’t seem to get that. In fact, when the Premier created the OPA, which you fully embrace, he said that this so-called transitional agency “shouldn’t add to the cost of the” hydro “bill.” We’re as likely to believe that as his other zinger: that smart meters are going to save people money.

Nobody believes it, Minister. The jig is up. Look at the record of waste at the OPA: $1 billion, potentially, for your flip-flop and backtrack on the Oakville gas plant; a $1-billion tab for your smart meter tax machines that are driving up bills; and a $1-billion tab to pay Quebec and the US to take excess hydro. This is a great example of McGuinty waste that has to go. Minister—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: This Leader of the Opposition has been in his position for over 630 days. Not one of those days has he come forward to Ontario families with his plans for energy.

This is what their campaign director, Mark Spiro, had to say: “The only people who are demanding our policy at the moment in a booklet form, where it’s simple”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew is speaking so loudly, he can’t even hear me calling him to order.

Please continue.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Their campaign director had this to say: “The only people who are demanding our policy at the moment in a booklet form, where it’s simple and easy and they don’t have to do any work, (are journalists).” Then he went on to say that journalists need details of party policy documented because they are otherwise too lazy to discover them.

You’re hiding your plan from the journalists around Queen’s Park. You’re hiding your plan from Ontario families. You’re even hiding your plan from your own—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, this is what you just do not understand: Hydro bills are sitting there on the kitchen table for days and days on end. The hydro bill has now become “the” bill in the province of Ontario because it is skyrocketing from the McGuinty government waste and expensive energy experiments.

Look at some of the salaries you’re paying at the OPA as well, while families struggle: $120,000 a year for an office manager; over $200,000 a year for something called an “executive advisor”; almost $600,000 a year for the CEO. We have seen boondoggle after boondoggle after boondoggle; $1 billion wasted on smart meter tax machines that are driving up the bills.

Premier McGuinty used to be against this stuff. He has changed. Close down this wasteful bureaucracy and pass on the savings to families through their hydro bills.

Hon. Brad Duguid: After over 630 days as Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he take the advice of his energy critic, because this is what he had to say: “Ontario needs an energy plan and the leadership to see it through. Not having a ... plan is just wasting precious time.” I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Stop wasting the precious time of this Legislature. Stop wasting the precious time of Ontario families. Let them know where you stand.

There may be reasons why you don’t want to do that. Maybe it’s because you don’t support our clean energy benefit that’s taking 10% off their bills. Maybe it’s because you don’t support the thousands of clean energy jobs we’re creating in communities right across this province. Maybe it’s because you want to stay with dirty coal and not be out of coal by 2014. But Ontario families deserve to know where you stand. Why are you—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, I told you where we stand. We would close the doors on your bloated OPA hydro bureaucracy and pass the savings on to Ontario families. Why don’t you get that?

I know it’s hard for you to admit that you made a grievous error. This thing has been a massive, wasteful bureaucracy, and their screw-ups are as long as the day. They screwed up on the smart meter tax machines; they’re subsidizing exports to Quebec and New York state to the tune of $1 billion. Let’s get this straight: While Ontario families are paying more for their hydro, you’re subsidizing customers in Quebec and New York state? Why is it that families would have to move across the border into Buffalo to find any kind of savings from the McGuinty government?

This has been a big mistake. It has driven up bills. It’s not too late: Close down this wasteful bureaucracy and pass the money on to Ontario families.

Hon. Brad Duguid: This comes from a Leader of the Opposition who, in his last two years in office when he served in cabinet, had us import power because we weren’t producing enough, and that cost Ontario ratepayers $1 billion in their last two years. What does he know about managing an energy system? We’re not really sure, because he won’t tell Ontario families what his plan is.

What about Ontario farmers? I think they deserve to know what your plan is because you have members in your caucus who are going around this province telling Ontario farmers that you’re going to kill the energy policies that are helping those farmers out, that are helping those farmers engage in our clean energy economy, that are helping to provide up to $10,000 for Ontario farmers.

Come clean with Ontario farmers. Come clean with Ontario families. Come clean with Ontario businesses—

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

Stop the clock.

One of the reasons that it’s important to speak through the Chair is that when the Speaker does rise, you will see that he has risen, and that is your signal to sit down. I would just remind the honourable member that he needs to keep an eye on the Speaker.

New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. From Windsor to Thunder Bay, there’s a lot of economic uncertainty out there and lots of anxiety. People are concerned about finding a job, about paying skyrocketing hydro bills, soaring gasoline prices and, now, higher costs for food. Will next week’s budget actually give people a break?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What working families are looking for is better education and health care; they’re looking for a clean, reliable system of energy; and they’re looking for a range of opportunities for their children and their parents that will build on a quality of life that is second to none in the world right here in Ontario.

The policies we will lay out in the budget are designed to recognize the fact that our economy is turning the corner, and what we have an obligation to do is to work with all families to build a better future for Ontarians, to ensure that, as we get the budget back to balance, there are more new jobs, better health care and better education for all Ontarians.

I look forward to presenting the budget next week to lay out a clear plan for a better future for our children and grandchildren.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Next week’s budget needs to focus on family budgets, not corporate budgets. Household debt loads are at historic highs, and the recession has forced many to take lower-paying jobs.

Will the Acting Premier give families a break and take the HST off of home heating bills?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Families have had a number of breaks from this government. Let’s talk about the Ontario child benefit: $1.2 billion for Ontarians of modest incomes. That member and her party voted against it.

Let’s talk about the lowest tax rate on the first $37,000 of income in the country in the 2009 budget. It kicked in last year and it reduced taxes on the first $37,000 by almost 20%. That member and her party voted against it.

Let’s talk about the Ontario clean energy benefit, which lowers hydro bills, including taxes, by 10%, more than eliminating the HST would from those bills. That member and her party voted against it.

This party helps families. That member and her party vote against them, routinely.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Linda Guyle wrote to me about her utility bill. After explaining all the charges and every single step that she has taken to try to keep costs down, she writes: “It’s time to give people a break instead of breaking people!”

Will the Acting Premier help family budgets by taking the HST off home heating bills? Or will he put corporate budgets ahead of families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There is one Ontarian I’d like to hear from later today, and that’s Jack Layton. Will he vote for a federal budget that leaves the GST on hydro bills? I think that’s an important question. Will he vote for a budget that continues corporate tax cuts? That’s an important question that Ontarians want an answer to.

Ontarians also want to know why it is that that leader and her party have voted against every tax credit for senior citizens that this government has brought forward. They have no plan other than to spend money they don’t have.

We’re going to get back to balance and make important investments in education and health care to build a better future for our children as the economy turns the corner. That’s what we’re about. We look forward to hearing from our friends opposite.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question is also for the Acting Premier. Like Ontario’s budget next week, today’s federal budget is expected to contain another round of corporate tax cuts. Does the Acting Premier support Prime Minister Harper’s corporate tax giveaways?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Like all Canadians, I anxiously await the budget later this afternoon. I had an opportunity last evening to speak to the federal finance minister. We shared views on a variety of issues.

Canadians are waiting to see if the NDP federally will vote for those corporate tax cuts. It appears as though they’re going to. The NDP—and they are one party; I remind them over there that it is one party—said initially they were going to oppose the corporate tax cuts, but that wasn’t on the list they gave to the Prime Minister as must-have demands in order to support the government.

The leader of the third party doesn’t have a plan other than to spend more money. We are going to make important investments in education, in health care and in children’s services to build a better future as this economy turns the corner. It is about our children and grandchildren, and that’s what we’re focused on. She’ll see what we have to say about all of these issues a week from today, right here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are the words that Mr. Ignatieff and other Liberal MPs have used to describe corporate tax cuts: “reckless,” “unaffordable,” “economically and socially irresponsible” and “not the most effective way to create jobs.”

Does the Acting Premier disagree with the position of his federal Liberal counterparts?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we believe in is that, in order to keep jobs in Ontario, we compete against Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

Her plan, her policies, will create jobs in British Columbia, they will create jobs in Alberta, they will create jobs in Saskatchewan, and they will create jobs in Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. This government—this party—wants those jobs right here in Ontario.

We have the best workforce. We have the best education system. We have the most productive economy. We have a bright future, and that’s what we’re about.

We’re going to lay out a clear plan that strikes the balance, that says to Ontarians, “As this economy turns the corner, our children and grandchildren will have a better future because one party in this House has a clear vision and is prepared to enunciate it to the people of Ontario.”

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Family budgets need help right now. Corporate tax cuts won’t help people pay their bills. Our manufacturing and forestry sectors are struggling, and corporate tax cuts will not help them either—unless, of course, they happen to be turning a profit.

People want to see jobs and help with the growing cost of living. Why is the Acting Premier making life more expensive for families and offering tax giveaways to corporations that are laying people off?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The people of Ontario have needed help over the last two years, and do you know what? When we cut their taxes, she voted against it. When we created the seniors’ energy and property tax credit and then doubled it, she voted against it. When we created the Ontario clean energy benefit to lower people’s energy bills by 10%, she and her party voted against it.

I would like to remind her of what her colleague from Beaches–East York had to say last week: “I mean, the tax burden has gone down on everyone, in spite of what people think. You know, taxes have gone down, literally in all income groups.”

Interjection: Who said that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member for Beaches–East York said that. He was right. Why did you vote against every initiative designed to help families across this province? No plan, no idea, no future; better future, better plan—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’ll give the Minister of Finance a break. He’s out of air. I’ll pass this one to the Minister of Energy.

In May 2004, the rationale the McGuinty Liberals gave to Ontario families for creating the Ontario Power Authority was that the agency would produce a stable price for hydro, but the only thing it has produced is one hydro rate increase after another. Ontario families have already seen their bills go up by 75%—100% if you’re using a smart meter—and you increased them by at least another 46%.

What makes you keep an agency around when it has failed so miserably in one of its stated mandates, and that’s to keep the hydro bill down? Why would you keep it around?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If that member was really concerned about the budgets of Ontario families, why would you not have supported our clean energy benefit that’s taken 10% off their bills? Why did you vote against that? Ontario families, farmers and small businesses deserve that 10% off their bills. You voted against that.

If that member really cares about Ontario families, why would he not want to ensure that we have cleaner air for our kids by getting rid of dirty coal by 2014? Why are you and your colleagues still in favour of letting coal churn out across this province, continuing to pollute our air and impacting the health of ourselves and our kids?

If you really cared about Ontario families, how can you stand up today and not support the efforts that we’re making to clean our air, to create jobs and to build a reliable—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier McGuinty used to complain about renovations to a boardroom at hydro offices being added to the bills at a time when rates were going up by 30%. But you see, that was before he increased them by 75%; 100% if you have a smart meter installed, a smart tax machine. It was before he planned to increase them by another 46%, and it was before—and I love this one; this is great—the OPA was in the process of hiring a hospitality service executive, until the Ontario PC caucus caught them in the act.

Premier McGuinty has taken his eye off the ball. He has made a mess of Ontario’s electricity system, and consumers are paying. Why won’t you give consumers and Ontario families the relief and spare them from paying any more for your bloated OPA—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: This comes from the PC Party, a party that, when they had control of Hydro One, bought a yacht and they named it Defiant; a party that had CEO Eleanor Clitheroe making double what the CEO today makes at Hydro One. Unbelievably, they removed Hydro One and OPG from being subject to freedom of information. What did they have to hide?

There’s a list this long of Tory operatives who benefited in those days. Those days are gone. We’ve cleaned up the Tory mess that they left behind. Our organizations are accountable; they’re doing important work and building a clean, reliable and modern energy system, something they don’t support. They don’t want to talk about their plan today. They haven’t wanted to talk about their plan since their leader became—

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

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Public hearings on plans for a new nuclear plant at Darlington began yesterday. Is the Ministry of Energy fully participating in the public hearings and open to answering all questions that concerned community members may have?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ve been in touch with my federal colleagues on this matter and I’ve written, as the Premier indicated to the House yesterday, to my federal colleagues, encouraging them to ensure that any lessons learned from the Japanese experience are applied in this federal environmental assessment process.

This federal environmental assessment process is the highest level of environmental assessment in the country. The panel is indeed meeting and holding open public consultations. They are hearing from anybody who wants to speak to them. I think it’s an important part of the accountability, as we move forward with the purchase of two new nuclear units, that we allow the federal government to work through this process.

We welcome input from the member opposite. We welcome input from all families and people in Ontario, and all organizations. Certainly, that—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The minister may or may not welcome input, but he certainly doesn’t welcome questions.

On January 13, 2011, Peter Landmann, counsel for the Ministry of Energy, wrote to the panel confirming special treatment for the ministry. This letter indicates that community members and groups can only ask questions to the Ministry of Energy “with the consent of” the ministry, and that “no cross-examination ... will be permitted.”

Why is the Ministry of Energy actively seeking to avoid questions from concerned community members and thus undermining those public hearings?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We don’t avoid questions from anybody, and I think I’m up on my feet enough in this Legislature that the member would know that.

But what I would say is this: We take very seriously the need to ensure that we continue to learn from the experiences of others around the world, but I think the member would want to be on his feet on a continual basis to reassure his constituents that here in Ontario our nuclear units are safe. They continue to be safe. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission oversees that and ensures that that takes place.

The hearings that are ongoing are a very important part of our process. This is the beginning of a very long process that’s going to take place. There’s a number of approvals that will be necessary. There will be a lot of time for consideration of all the issues that are involved here, but the key is that our units are safe today and our units will be safe in the future.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, Ontario families know a sustainable water source is vital to our well-being and our way of life. A great deal of the world’s fresh water is found right here in our backyard in the Great Lakes. A key plank of the Open Ontario act is to ensure that Ontario becomes a centre of excellence in developing technology for clean water. Some residents in my riding want to make sure that any economic development does not come at the expense of this valuable resource.

My question is simple: Will the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act actually improve water conservation in Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. On this side of the House, we don’t believe that it’s a question of the economy versus the environment, but it’s a question of finding the balance between the economy and the environment. I’d like to say today, on World Water Day, how important it is that we on this planet find that balance. That’s why right around the world we are celebrating World Water Day.

Let me assure Ontarians of one thing: When it comes to our Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, it’s about exporting our clean water technology, not about exporting our precious resource, water. We live in a world that is increasingly thirsty. There are estimates that within 15 years, 1.8 billion people on this planet will not have a source of safe drinking water, so we see tremendous opportunity here in the province of Ontario to export that technology so that people around the world can have that most precious resource which all life depends on, which is water.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: It is estimated that the global market for water technology is more than $400 billion US per year and doubling every five to six years. In the next 20 years, worldwide demand for water is expected to be 40% greater than current supply. There are companies throughout Ontario that have expertise in water technologies and would like the support of your ministry to ensure they have the resources to turn into global companies. By your ministry supporting these companies, we will be seeing more knowledge-based jobs for Ontarians.

Furthermore, by helping build expertise in Ontario, we will be able to export our technologies to help other countries conserve water. Will the minister tell us what supports there will be for these high-growth water technology companies in my riding?

Hon. John Wilkinson: To the Minister of Research and Innovation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Just weeks ago, thanks to the good efforts of the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, I met with delegations from the cities of Kawartha Lakes and Peterborough and was impressed by their historic and ongoing efforts to build water technology and advance it.

As members may know, at Fleming College, Dr. Brent Wootton of the Centre for Alternative Wastewater Treatment is helping Canadian companies become more competitive by extracting the value from what was previously considered waste water.

Good news travels fast, and in London, Ontario, Trojan has just added 119 jobs to Ontario—in one of our largest expansions—my ministry will be launching WaterTAP, an industry-led association to accelerate water development.

This is a critically growing area. Right now, Ontario is home to 2,800—

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

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Acting Premier: Yesterday, Premier McGuinty said that parents who were denied support because they hadn’t witnessed the murder of their children can expect changes to his broken victims-of-crime program, but Ontario families have heard it all before from this Premier.

In 2006, he said he would fix the problem after the Ombudsman described how Mr. Aurelio Almeida was treated like a con artist for seeking support following the rape and murder of his five-year-old daughter. Eva-Marie Devine had to choose between food and burying her murdered daughter. In 2008, the Premier said he would fix the problem after getting advice from the Honourable Roy McMurtry.

It’s 2011 and nothing’s changed, not even your briefing notes. So I say to the Acting Premier: Can you tell grieving families why they should believe a Premier who broke his promise to them twice already?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: On behalf of the Attorney General, I say that you’ll recall the answers of the Attorney General and the Premier in the House indicating clearly that a review of this matter was taking place.

I think what’s important, and the member would agree with me, is to state how much money has been allocated in this regard. Since 2003, the Ministry of the Attorney General has provided $757.6 million on vital services for victims of crime. In 2010-11, there has been an allocation of an additional—I say “an additional”—$120 million. This is almost double the amount that was allocated in 2002-03, the last year of the previous government. So we’ve seen a significant and substantial increase—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, another review isn’t needed. You went out and got advice twice already on Premier McGuinty’s broken victim compensation program, even though there’s no mystery to what the problem is or how to fix it: Take the surplus you’re sitting on in the victims’ fund and release it to victims and law enforcement agencies; change the definition of “victim” so it includes parents, whether or not they witnessed the crimes committed against their children; and add victim compensation representation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Despite having already received advice from both the Ombudsman and the Honourable Roy McMurtry, you’re stonewalling victims by asking the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for yet a third opinion.

Minister, what is Premier McGuinty’s timeline for action that actually gives relief to Ontario families who are victims of crime?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think the—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member for Lanark interjects. I’m worried about what’s happening in eastern Ontario, about what the member for Lanark is trying to do to the member for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just remind the minister to stay on the point of the question, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m being interrupted by the member for Lanark and I was trying to help the member for Mississippi Mills.

May I say to the member that I know comparisons are useful because it’s a clear indication of whether people are talking the talk or walking the walk. I want to indicate to him—and I’m not being critical of the past—that the present government has allocated more than three times as much from the victims’ justice fund as the previous Conservative government did. The Premier is asking for immediate action in this regard, as is the Attorney General. We believe it is a serious situation and we’re—

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

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Acting Premier. Can the Acting Premier tell this House why 400,000 Ontarians are forced to rely on food banks?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government of Ontario, working with other governments, has constructed an anti-poverty strategy where, for the first time, not only do we measure the challenges to poverty, we are setting targets for better outcomes. There is always more to do on this front. As long as one Ontario family has to turn to a food bank, that’s too many.

We will continue to build on the progress we have made in terms of enhancements to various programs and services that are designed to help those of more modest means, and we look forward, as the economy improves—and it is improving—to all Ontarians sharing in the benefits of a faster-growing economy with more jobs, better outcomes and better opportunities for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The Ontario food bank association report shows, first, that food bank usage has increased in Ontario by 28% since 2008, which is, coincidently, the same year that this government announced its poverty reduction strategy. Ontario ranks third-highest for food bank usage in all of Canada.

This is the government strategy. This is the government legacy. This is the government poverty production plan—that’s what it is: It’s a poverty production plan. Can you tell us again what a good job you are doing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d rather rely on the food banks themselves to tell you the job we’re doing. They supported our tax plan for jobs and growth because they recognized that it was in fact a plan about lowering the tax burden on the most vulnerable in this society. It was about creating opportunity. That’s why groups like the Daily Bread Food Bank and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supported this initiative as being extremely important for relieving poverty in this province.

We have laid out a plan. It’s been endorsed by those food banks. It’s taken 90,000 low-income Ontarians off the tax rolls. It’s lowered taxes for the lowest-income earners in Ontario.

That member and his party are trying to have it both ways. They vote against it, offer nothing substantive in return. This government has a plan and a policy that’s working for all Ontarians.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

I’m very concerned with a recent poll released by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students on university education over the last eight years. I’m very discouraged to see that the poll results found that nearly half of respondents believe the quality of post-secondary education has stayed the same since 2003, and only 8% said that education had improved. The poll also indicates that respondents think that post-secondary education will be a top priority in the coming election.

As we all know, a post-secondary education has become essential for Ontarians to compete in our knowledge-based economy. Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that post-secondary education remains a top priority for—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I’m very pleased to comment on the poll, which asked people to compare our record with the record of the previous government. I’d like to remind members of the House about the record of the previous government—the fact that they cut over $400 million from our colleges and universities; the fact that they allowed tuition to increase by 67%; and they cut student financial aid by 40%.

We came to office, and by investing billions of dollars into the system, I’m very pleased to say that we have the highest post-secondary attainment rate in the western world here in Ontario. On the university front, we have the highest participation rate. We have one of the most generous financial aid systems in the country, the lowest default rate on student loans and an increased graduation rate in both our colleges and universities.

In seven years, I’m—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Students know they need to obtain a good education in order to compete in today’s high-skills economy. However, there are still many people who feel that post-secondary institutions have become too expensive.

I’ve heard concerns from the University of Guelph about the cost for students from middle-income families, and students who have never had a family member at university may not know what assistance is available. My fear is that potential students will be discouraged from applying to our universities because they don’t think they can afford it, and the debt they could accumulate might be too high.

I know Ontario offers some of the best universities and colleges in the country; I’ve got one in Guelph. What is the government doing to limit tuition fees and keep post-secondary education affordable?

Hon. John Milloy: As I mentioned, independent experts have told us that we have one of the most generous student financial aid systems in the country. Through the Reaching Higher plan, we put forward $1.5 billion in additional funding for student aid. We’ve seen 140,000 more college and university students enter into the system.

Last spring, we announced further changes to OSAP, some $81 million to make it more generous, to allow more students to access it and, at the same time, to bring in measures like the repayment assistance plan, which allows students who have some financial difficulties after graduation to see their loan payments reduced to match their income.

I am very proud of the progress that we’ve made in terms of student aid in this province, and we can say that no qualified student in this province will ever be denied access to college or university because of financial reasons.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, last fall, the residents of Shelburne and north Dufferin were promised that a health and wellness centre would be created in Shelburne, offering a broad range of community-based care. Shelburne council, with the support of the county of Dufferin, is currently working on a proposal that would see the health and wellness centre located at the Shelburne closed hospital. Minister, will you consider this proposal from the county of Dufferin?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for this question. What I can tell you is this is an issue that the local health integration network is working on. We of course are committed to improving health care in the area of Shelburne and right across this province.

We’ve made significant investments at Headwaters. We’ve increased funding by close to 30%. That’s in stark contrast to what the Progressive Conservative Party did when they were in government; they actually cut funding to Headwaters by 4%.

We’ve also invested over $1 million in reducing wait times for people in the Shelburne area, at Headwaters, and we’ve seen results. Cataract surgeries have been reduced by 43% and cancer surgery wait times have been reduced by an astonishing—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, your answer concerns me greatly. The LHINs have actually directed the new executive director in fact not to speak to the mayor of the town of Shelburne or the county of Dufferin. They are refusing to consider this site.

Minister, the residents in my community would like to see this closed Shelburne site continue to be served and to be used as a community health asset. We’re looking for a concrete plan with a time frame for the creation of this health and wellness centre.

The board of Headwaters Health Care Centre has determined that the Shelburne site is surplus to their needs. Subsection 4(4) of the Public Hospitals Act indicates that ministerial—not LHIN—approval is required for the disposition of hospital buildings and land.

Minister, will you—not the LHIN—commit—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member has said, this particular site is no longer used as a hospital. It is a surplus hospital site. The hospital has made the decision and they are working with the municipality to work out what arrangements can be made.

I think it’s important to emphasize, though, that this is an issue that needs to be worked out at the local level, and we have never refused a request to approve the sale of any hospital site.

I would recommend that the member opposite continue to work in her community to find a resolution to this.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today is World Water Day. It should be a day to celebrate progress in protecting water. Instead, the Anishinabek Nation and others are launching a campaign to try to stop an imminent threat to the Great Lakes: a proposal by Bruce Power to transport radioactive nuclear steam generators across the Great Lakes system.

Will the McGuinty government finally speak up and oppose this unnecessary risk to a source of drinking water for 40 million people?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve talked about this issue in the past and we’ve dealt with this issue here. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has held hearings on this particular matter, heard from a number of different stakeholders and, I believe, heard directly from First Nations as well on this. They’re the experts on these matters. They determine, indeed, what needs to be done, what’s safe and what’s not safe in terms of our waterways when it comes to nuclear and the transportation of potentially radioactive material. They’ve done their job. They’ve made their decision.

There’s still more work to be done because there are other jurisdictions now that are undergoing consideration of this matter. But those public hearings have been held and the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to make input and, to the best of my knowledge, she failed to take advantage of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government says it’s safe to ship these massive containers, even though radiation levels exceed international standards and there’s been no environmental assessment of the plan and environmental groups, mayors and aboriginal communities all oppose the plan.

Why won’t the government, on World Water Day, of all days, stand up for our shared waters and finally stop this shipment?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ve shared with this Legislature in the past, and I will again as Minister of Energy for the province of Ontario, that certainly I wrote to Bruce Power and I wrote to my federal colleagues urging them to ensure that every last stone was unturned with regard to the consideration of safety on this particular issue.

I’ve been assured that indeed that is what has taken place. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has done their job as the experts they are in these particular matters.

I also encouraged at that time the Leader of the Opposition to in fact make a deputation and indeed make her views known, but she failed to do that. Those hearings have been held; the decision has been made. There’s still work to do in terms of other jurisdictions with regard to this shipment, but the leader had her opportunity and she failed to take advantage of it. I can’t help her with that now.

À l’occasion de la Semaine de la francophonie, la ministre aurait-elle l’obligeance de nous fournir une mise à jour sur la manière dont les divers types de plaques d’immatriculation sont disponibles dans les deux langues du Canada?

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

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Je souhaite remercier le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour sa vigoureuse défense de cet enjeu de taille.

Mon collègue soulève une question très importante. J’ai demandé au personnel du ministère des Transports de l’Ontario d’explorer des façons d’offrir cet important service en matière de plaques personnalisées—

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, last week, I toured the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to check on the dialysis unit which, as you know, has a waiting list of eight patients. Because of your government’s delay in approving the funding, patients now have to travel either to Barrie or Orillia for this life-saving treatment.

While touring the hospital, I learned of an even greater crisis: The hospital is bursting at the seams. Even if you help to eliminate some of the current backlog by approving the funding, if any further patients come along, there will be no room to provide them with dialysis services locally.

The hospital has had a capital expansion application in to your ministry since 2004, but you’ve ignored them for seven years. Minister, why have you overlooked the needs of patients in southern Georgian Bay who rely on the Collingwood hospital?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am more than happy to talk about what we have done to improve health care infrastructure in this province. The reality is that when we came to office in 2003, we inherited an extraordinary deficit in our hospital infrastructure, so we rolled up our sleeves and we went to work. We have now built 18 brand new hospitals and embarked on major capital projects at 100 more. Our commitment to improving the infrastructure is undeniable, and the evidence is in the hospitals that are opening right across this province.

Is there more to do? Yes, there is more to do. We’ve made a significant dent in that infrastructure deficit, but there is more to do. We are determined to come back to this House and continue to improve infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, your government had no problem approving a remodel of the CEO’s office at the Central West Community Care Access Centre into an executive suite that cost taxpayers $400,000. You have no problem spending money on bureaucracy, but turn to patient care and you’re broke.

Patients in Collingwood are lying in the hallway. Administrative offices at CCACs and LHINs have no hemodialysis machines, they don’t perform any surgeries and they can’t take your blood or repair a broken arm. If you don’t act quickly, there will be no additional access to dialysis services in Collingwood.

The hospital needs your approval so they can get going on building a new wing for ambulatory care and dialysis, which would also allow them to expand the emergency room. Minister, when will you be approving the expansion of Collingwood General and Marine Hospital?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is simply an astonishing question coming from this particular member of the opposition. This member was the Minister of Health. He was the one who got the hospital restructuring commission rolling. He’s the one who’s responsible for the closure of 28 hospitals.

Let me look at the record of this particular riding. The Stevenson Memorial Hospital had their budget cut by almost 6%. That hurt families. The General Marine Hospital in Collingwood: They cut almost 10% from the hospital budget there. In stark contrast, we have been investing more and more in hospitals right across this province. At Stevenson Memorial, it’s 34% more; in Collingwood, there’s a 45% increase in spending. We are committed to continue improving.

They want to cut health care. There is no way you can cut health care and improve services. We are on the side of the patients of this province.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier, and it’s very simple: Can the Acting Premier tell this House how many strikes or lockouts are using temporary replacement workers right now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I can tell the member opposite is that Ontario has enjoyed unprecedented labour stability in the last eight years. What I can tell her is, unlike her party, which unilaterally opened up and stripped collective agreements, that’s not something this government has ever done. She forgets the social contract, where they turned on their friends in the labour movement, took their contracts and tore them up, just like that.

This government works co-operatively with labour. This government works co-operatively with business. It is about building a better economy for our children, about better health care and better education and working with labour, because they’re an important part of this province’s future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: My question was about temporary replacement workers, and the minister couldn’t have answered it because the government does not keep track of the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout.

In my riding, the people at Vale Inco walked the picket line for a year while replacement workers were being used. In Brantford, workers at Engineering Coated Products have been asked to take a huge concession. They went on strike. The company brought in replacement workers. That was two and a half years ago. Those people have been on strike for two and a half years while temporary replacement workers do their work.

The use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts is growing exponentially in Ontario. It is tearing communities apart. It is prolonging labour disputes. How can the government get a picture of the use of replacement workers when it does not even keep track of it? Is it because they don’t care about the health of those communities?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government continues to support collective bargaining, free and open. The labour movement and working Ontarians remember what that member and her party did once they came to office. They asked questions like this for decades before they came to office. What did they do? They opened and stripped every collective agreement, so they have no credibility.

What is important is that we work with labour and we work with business. Our economy is turning the corner, and it’s turning a corner to a better future. That better future will be enhanced by the kinds of investments we’re making in education and health care, which will build a productive, more healthy economy, will create jobs for our children and their children. It’s about working together.

We’re proud of our record in working with labour, in working with management. We look forward to that better future for our children and our grandchildren.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, today the Ontario Association of Food Banks released a report called Running on Empty, which calls on Ontario’s political parties to make hunger reduction a central priority.

In western Mississauga, the Eden Community Food Bank has served more people through its facilities in Meadowvale since the global economic downturn. The Running on Empty report asserts that, even as our province recovers from the recession, more than 400,000 Ontarians turn to food banks each month.

Minister, Ontarians need to know how our province will aggressively pursue our target of reducing child poverty by 25% within five years. How have Ontario’s investments made a difference to those who have been using community food banks in this province?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for the question and his advocacy for his community on this important issue.

I also want to thank the Ontario Association of Food Banks and the anti-hunger advocates in Toronto. This report, released by the Ontario Association of Food Banks, recognizes that, like other jurisdictions, Ontario is recovering from a global economic recession, and that Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy, the first in our province’s history, set a target to reduce child poverty by 25% by 2013.

Like other jurisdictions, we know that poverty is unacceptable, and we continue to work on that important goal. Ontarians need to know that the report also recognizes that investments like the Ontario child benefit, full-day kindergarten and seven increases in the minimum wage have made incredibly important progresses—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, the Running on Empty report highlights that the number of children and youth under 18 using food banks has declined since 2000.

In western Mississauga, the local student nutrition program received nearly $2 million to deliver healthy meals and snacks to students across the riding. That means that when I visit students in their classrooms in Meadowvale, Lisgar and Streetsville schools, our kids are focusing on their lessons and are ready to learn. We know that healthy meals and snacks can help children to focus in school and to be ready to learn.

Minister, the NDP has claimed that our government is not doing enough for low-income Ontarians, despite their having voted against the child benefits. Minister, how many kids are benefiting from Ontario’s investments in student nutrition?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I recently had the opportunity to attend, with my colleague and seatmate Minister Mitchell, Thorncliffe Park Public School in Don Valley West, where we celebrated the big crunch, and we talked a lot about our student nutrition programs.

I was able to tell those students—and I’m pleased to tell the House today—that 600,000 students are getting healthy breakfasts and snacks in school, thanks to our student nutrition program, and that’s working out to 68 million snacks and meals last year. Here in Toronto, the student nutrition program served more than 15.2 million meals to more than 137,000 kids during that time.

Reducing poverty isn’t about politics or partisanship. It’s about having a plan. It’s about executing that plan and working together to provide the opportunity for people to meet their full potential.

We continue to look for a partner in the federal government, and today’s federal budget will provide, perhaps, an—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has ended.

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, 2011 and to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2011 sur la modernisation du régime de tenure forestière en Ontario et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

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

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On March 2, 2011, Mr. Gravelle moved second reading of Bill 151. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Mangat, Amrit

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Tabuns, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 52; the nays are 26.

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

Second reading agreed to.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

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

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

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): For the information of the members and staff within the building, there was a fire alarm that was triggered on the fourth floor of the north wing. Security was there. Toronto Fire Services has been on-site, and there is no fire. We have received an all-clear.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OXFORD BUSINESSES

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Recently, I conducted a survey of Oxford businesses, and I want to thank all the people who took time to share their thoughts and the challenges they are facing. Today, I’m pleased to rise and share their concerns.

While the economic climate has improved somewhat since the last survey, most businesses are still cautious and many of them expressed concerns about the cost of doing business in Ontario. Eighty-seven per cent of businesses reported that, based on the level of services they receive, taxes are too high. They varied on the tax cuts they believe would help their businesses most, but the top two were payroll taxes and a reduction in the HST.

That isn’t the only cost that’s too high. Ninety-five per cent of businesses reported that they have been impacted by the increasing cost of hydro, and 60% of those businesses said that the impact was significant. It is the same story that we are hearing from families.

I asked people to identify the biggest challenges their business is facing, and the most frequent response was government red tape. When asked to identify the biggest issue with government red tape, 21% said confusing forms, 39% said too much paperwork and 40% said difficulty finding out rules and regulations.

A few weeks ago, I asked the Premier about an internal document that showed this government is hiding red tape rather than cutting it. I hope that this government will listen to the results of this survey and realize that our businesses need action, not just a public relations exercise.

JOYCE BURNELL

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s with sadness today that I rise in the Legislature. Last week, Oakville said goodbye to one of our community’s most inspirational leaders, Joyce Burnell, who passed away in her 91st year.

One of her friends remarked recently that Joyce devoted her entire life to the Oakville community, and I fully agree with that statement. She taught elementary school in town, and she volunteered at St. John’s United Church, the Retired Women Teachers of Ontario and the Oakville Historical Society. She was recognized with the Community Spirit Award and the Senior Citizen of the Year Award.

She was an unstoppable force, and her volunteer work only increased as the years went by. In fact, she was most known for spearheading a campaign just a few years ago to save the 250-year-old Woodlands white oak tree on Bronte Road. Some people wanted the tree torn down, but Joyce mobilized the community and raised $343,000 to reroute the road and save the tree.

Joyce is going to be fondly missed by many in our community. She was a true role model for old and young alike. Every time I drive by the big oak tree on Bronte Road, I’m going to remember Joyce Burnell, and we all should, as an example of how a life should be lived.

KAYLA MADUK

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Kayla Maduk is the daughter of James and Heather. She’s a grade 9 student at John McCrae Secondary School. She’s a Barrhaven resident. She is an athlete. As of two weeks ago, she is also a world champion.

Last week, Kayla Maduk made Barrhaven and Canada proud when she won gold and silver medals at the world championship of tae kwon do in New Zealand. Her coach, Steven LeGrow, is from Orléans, as my colleague across the way is also so happy to acknowledge. He operates Blackburn Tae Kwon-Do and won a bronze medal.

Steven and Kayla were two of only three from Ontario to represent Canada at those games. I must say I am very proud of Kayla, as we all are in Barrhaven, because she won the most medals on behalf of Canada.

Her mother said—and I want to quote this, because I think it speaks to all of us who are parents as to how much pride we have in our own children—“I can’t tell you how proud I felt watching my little girl standing on the podium hearing the national anthem.”

I want Heather and James to know that the people of Nepean–Carleton share their pride in their daughter. We are so proud of her hard work, her determination and, of course, her talent. We also want to thank Heather and James in this Legislature for being supportive and dedicated parents who have helped their daughter realize her dream, meet her goals, and achieve the status of world-class athlete.

To the whole Maduk family on Kayla’s gold medal success: Congratulations for your win and thank you for sharing this moment of history with us.

GARY MALKOWSKI

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise again in this Legislature to salute the accomplishments of Gary Malkowski, who represented the riding of York East in the 35th Parliament from 1990 to 1995. On May 13, Gary will be awarded an honorary doctorate of humane letters at Gallaudet University, from whence he graduated in the mid-1980s. He will also be the commencement speaker.

He has won all those awards, but I think the one that surely will mean a lot to him is the honour of his alma mater, as they recognize him with a doctorate of humane letters and as he speaks to the graduates at Gallaudet University as only he can.

NURSES

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m pleased to rise and share with the House that last week I was delighted to be part of a service for 29 new graduating practical nursing students from Niagara College, who received their nursing pins.

This pinning ceremony signifies the official initiation into the brotherhood and sisterhood of nurses and is part of a time-honoured nursing school tradition. This ritual, I am told, can often be more personally meaningful than the graduating ceremony as it is rich in symbolism.

I can also tell you personally that constant care by a good nurse is just as important as a major operation by a surgeon. We are fortunate that 29 new nurses will be joining 31 more new nurses graduating later this spring to explore the many opportunities that a career in nursing in Niagara will provide them.

Speaking with the graduating nurses, I found out that while most of them already have job offers, they were delighted that the incentive and support from the McGuinty government would have provided them with guaranteed jobs upon graduation. These nurses tell me that this guarantee gave them the confidence to realize their dreams and enrol in Niagara College’s excellent nursing program. We’re better off because they did that.

I would ask the House to join me in congratulating these exceptionally talented nurses and wish them well in their new careers.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I rise today to recognize two recent announcements by the Liberal government.

First, the changes to Christopher’s Law will bring new reporting obligations to convicted sex offenders. While I think it’s a step in the right direction, I still believe we can and should do more to keep an even closer watch over these heinous criminals.

Under the Change of Name Act, it is possible for sex offenders to avoid having their criminal past checked, and so it’s possible to legally obtain a new name and assume a new life. Hypothetically speaking, this loophole means that convicted sexual predator Graham James, a former hockey coach convicted of sexually abusing young players, could have easily assumed a new life under a new name in Ontario, just as he was doing in Mexico until recently.

What I want is for Ontario to start using fingerprint technology to screen out people seeking a new name for unscrupulous reasons. My hope is that sooner rather than later, we will overhaul Ontario’s name-change process in an effort to stop child molesters from hiding their pasts.

Secondly, I’d like to see real help for MS patients. While providing follow-up care is a step in the right direction, I think Ontario needs to push for therapy trials. Some of you will argue that these procedures carry risks, but this is why it’s critical that we start running trials.

We have a responsibility to provide therapy options to our citizens instead of leaving them at the mercy of foreign medical communities. Because MS is such a crippling disease, I know most of the patients would want to volunteer for clinical trials. For us, this treatment may be a novel science, but for those whose time is running out, this treatment is their only hope.

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: The weekend of March 26 to 29 is the 26th International Conference of Alzheimer Disease International. People are coming from across the globe: from the Netherlands, Turkey, France, India, Prince Edward Island, Africa, Lebanon, Ireland, China, Tunisia, Finland, just to name a few—even Japan.

They’re coming to share their knowledge on epidemiology, identification and prognosis. They will talk about social and cultural issues, and depression in elderly caregivers. They’ll talk about rural and northern communities and the public stigma of the disease. They’ll talk about the direct trials of drug use: what works and what doesn’t work; and the ethics: what to do in end-of-life care.

They’ll talk about community-based assessment, speak about behavioural challenges, and they’ll talk about the qualify of life of caregivers, respite care, staff training, cultural change in the homes and person-centred care. These are just a few of the topics that will be discussed over the next number of days.

Why does this make any difference here? In Toronto alone there are 39,000 people who have been identified with Alzheimer’s disease, and 500,000 in this country. It will rise to 1.2 million within the next 10 to 12 years, a $15-billion problem that will become a $159-billion problem unless we do something about it. That’s exactly what this 26th international conference is prepared to tackle, and I agree with them. I think we should be tackling it together.

BOMBARDIER IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Bill Mauro: Last week we had another great announcement at Bombardier in Thunder Bay. Our government announced a $125-million investment for the building of 50 new bi-level rail cars for GO Transit. This will allow the approximately 250 men and women connected with this line to continue their work—work that began with previous GO contracts.

You’ll remember that the former government wasn’t interested in funding mass transit. As a result, from 1995 to 2003, the local plant in Thunder Bay was in jeopardy of closing.

Our government committed to supporting mass transit in our 2003 platform and since that time we’ve made substantial investments: $770 million for LRVs, $416 million for replacement streetcars, $280 million for subway contracts, $94 million for previous GO contracts, and now another $125 million. In total, our government has invested around $1.7 billion toward a total of more than $3 billion worth of contracts for Bombardier.

Today, there are 1,000 men and women working in Thunder Bay’s Bombardier plant, an increase of 500 to 600, as a direct result of these investments.

This plant and its employees constitute a world-class facility. They produce world-class products and their reputation for quality is well known. The contracts announced, with our government’s support, have positioned this plant as a major employer in Thunder Bay’s economy for years to come, and that’s providing greater security to the 1,000 men and women working in this plant.

LOYAL KIGABIRO

M. Phil McNeely: Durant la Semaine de la francophonie, je veux vous parler du groupe Loyal Kigabiro, un groupe des tambours sacrés du Burundi. J’ai assisté à leur spectacle de percussions le 11 mars dernier, à l’école élémentaire catholique des Pionniers à Orléans. Je remercie M mes Carole Gauthier et Carole Payant, directrice et directrice-adjointe de l’école, pour leur accueil, ainsi que la présence de M me Louise Michaud, directrice artistique du Festival d’Orléans. Un tel spectacle ne serait pas possible sans l’initiative et le travail de M. Patrice Ntafatiro.

Le groupe a fait ce spectacle grâce à une subvention de 5 000 $ du Conseil des arts de l’Ontario. Le Loyal Kigabiro a su intégrer les femmes dans leur groupe alors que cela est interdit au Burundi. C’est un spectacle où le chant, la danse et le rythme du son des tambours nous permettent de comprendre le respect des Burundais pour le tambour, l’instrument sacré au Burundi. Les artistes portent l’uniforme national aux couleurs du Burundi, soit le rouge, le blanc et le vert. Les spectacles se font dans les écoles francophones que fréquentent les membres du groupe.

J’aimerais donc saluer et féliciter le jeune Parfait Représentant Bonwa, en 6 e année, pour sa participation.

Ce fut un honneur pour moi d’assister au spectacle et de leur offrir le drapeau franco-ontarien, le Burundi étant un pays membre de la francophonie.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion respecting the consideration of concurrence in supply.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, the order for concurrence in supply for the various ministries and offices, as represented by government orders 34 through 45, inclusive, and order G167, second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, shall be called concurrently; and

That when such orders are called, they shall be considered concurrently in a single debate; and

That the time available to 5:50 p.m. shall be allotted to the debate, divided equally among the recognized parties, at the end of which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the order for concurrence in supply for each of the ministries and offices referred to above, and to dispose of all remaining stages of Bill 167; and

That any required divisions on the orders for concurrence in supply or on the motion for second reading of Bill 167 shall be deferred to deferred votes, such votes to be taken in succession with one five-minute bell.

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

Motion agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORLD WATER DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DE L’EAU

Hon. John Wilkinson: Today is World Water Day, an international day of action to draw attention to the importance of clean, safe water.

Ontario has one of the world’s largest supplies of fresh water, and over the past decade we have made significant strides to protect it. We have gone from having people get sick from water to being the North American leader in providing safe water.

Je veux d’abord rappeler qu’aujourd’hui est la Journée mondiale de l’eau, une journée internationale de mesures de sensibilisation à l’importance de la pureté et de la salubrité de l’eau.

L’Ontario bénéficie d’une des plus importantes réserves d’eau douce de la planète. Ces 10 dernières années, nous avons fait un grand pas en avant en ce qui a trait à la protection de cette réserve. Nous sommes passés de cas de maladies liées à l’eau à une qualité de l’eau qui fait de nous les chefs de file de la protection de l’eau en Amérique du Nord.

Through our groundbreaking source protection program, we have funded more than 2,500 on-the-ground actions to protect local water sources.

We’ve also taken significant steps to help restore the ecological health of Lake Simcoe, the Great Lakes and their respective watersheds to protect families in nearby communities. Lake Erie’s Wheatley Harbour is one great example. The harbour, once a toxic hotspot, has been brought back to life. Water quality has improved and the harbour is now home to an abundant and diverse community of fish and wildlife.

Last year, we passed the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act. It’s about helping Ontarians use water more wisely, promoting innovation in Ontario’s growing water sector and sustaining Ontario’s water infrastructure.

We’re bringing together the best minds in academia and the business world to create an advisory body called WaterTAP to harness our water leadership, to create more skilled jobs that will build a stronger and more competitive economy, and to support water technology companies so they grow, expand and export not water but ideas to an increasingly thirsty world, using their made-in-Ontario expertise.

Ontario is home to a number of companies who are leading the way in the water technology and water services sectors, like Trojan of London, Ontario, which specializes in using ultraviolet light to safeguard the world’s water. In the last three years alone, Trojan has created more than 100 new jobs and has just won a contract for the largest ultraviolet disinfection system installation in Melbourne, Australia.

Another example is Zenon, which developed the mobile water filtration technology used to remediate Walkerton’s well water. Today, Zenon is part of GE Water and Process Technologies, employing hundreds of Ontarians in Oakville and around the province.

We believe that clean, safe water should be available to everyone, and that’s why we’re taking a leadership role to bring clean water to more people. Close to half of the world’s population, about 46%, do not have running water in their homes.

Nous croyons que tout le monde devrait avoir accès à une eau pure et salubre. C’est pourquoi nous assumons un rôle de chef de file afin d’offrir de l’eau pure à une population plus nombreuse. Près de la moitié de la population mondiale—environ 46 %—n’a pas l’eau courante à la maison.

We’re eager to export the technologies that helped us turn things around so that we can create good jobs here at home and help our friends and partners throughout the world deliver clean, safe water to their people too.

In honour of World Water Day, I’m pleased to announce the new Minister’s Award for Environmental Excellence to recognize outstanding environmental achievement, leadership and innovation in environmental protection right here in Ontario.

I encourage all Ontarians to think about our most precious resource, the envy of the world, and what they can do to preserve it for the future of our province.

J’invite tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes à avoir une pensée pour notre ressource la plus précieuse, celle qui fait l’envie de toute la planète. Je les encourage à se demander ce qu’ils peuvent faire pour la protéger pour l’avenir de notre province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

Mr. Toby Barrett: So here we are recognizing World Water Day, and there’s no doubt that the availability of water and the protection of water is one of the world’s and Ontario’s most important resources for priority, including for our PC caucus, but I do question the push. It seems we designate so many days on the calendar, and I’m not sure to what extent we see real-world results.

We have World Water Day some four months after the pomp and ceremony of the government’s legislation, the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act. I’m not sure if really anyone across the way did much to lift a finger with respect to the opportunities or the conservation that the bill supposedly allows for. Headlines were grabbed, the cameras went home, and, in my view, so did the government’s initiative to crack down on this issue.

One question: Are municipalities presently at work creating and submitting the water use and sustainability plans?

Where are we at as far as WTAP, the vaunted new water corporation? We do know that at the time, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association described it to us as “an unnecessary cost to taxpayers,” adding that it would “slow down the process of developing and implementing regulation.” I told the House during debate that WTAP does create another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of red tape.

The legislation can create the spectre of taxpayers’ money going to particular companies favoured by the McGuinty government and, again, can be seen to skew the marketplace where we have a situation where big government starts picking winners and losers in the water business.

Again, things were pumped up four months ago: pump and dump. Things were dumped once the television cameras were turned off.

We have noted, of course, that water, and particularly clean water, an element so basic and so essential to individuals, to life on earth, to business, to industry, to our environment, does require protection. There’s no question about that. To what extent today’s water day brings us closer to that goal, let alone the aforementioned legislation—I hope this government is not watering down the message, if you will, with a seemingly endless series of environmental dates we put on our calendars. To what extent does that dilute the message, dilute the public relations and the promotion, something we saw so successfully done for decades now with Earth Day?

This is a group that brought forward World Water Day. The members opposite brought forward Zero Waste Day; the same caucus brought us Climate Change Awareness Day, Greenbelt Day—on and on.

Environment Commissioner Gord Miller’s recent report indicated, again in his words, “poor” and “deteriorating” conditions with respect to water near shore areas, along the beaches at both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Again, where’s the progress on that one?

The world is facing a water crisis, something that will increase in magnitude with the ever-increasing population in the world. Close to two billion people now, at present, live in water-stressed regions. By the year 2025, there’s indication that two thirds of the world’s population will face water scarcity. This appears to be a given. There is work to be done by advanced economies like Ontario’s.

In my lifetime, the world’s population has tripled. In my lifetime, water consumption has increased seven times over, so the future does give pause for concern. We know that by 2025 we will need an 80% increase in water supplies just to produce food, and particularly meat, which is much more popular as the world grows.

Mr. Howard Hampton: On behalf of New Democrats, I’m pleased to be able to make a few remarks on World Water Day.

Ontario is indeed blessed. In fact, of all the jurisdictions on the planet, Ontario is probably in one of the most favourable positions when it comes to the availability of clean, safe drinking water and having abundant resources. But we should be judged on what we do within our own bailiwick in terms of taking responsibility for our water.

Sadly, First Nations in Ontario today are having to join forces to oppose the shipment of 16 radioactive-contaminated steam generators through the Welland Canal, the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River. In fact, these First Nations are marking World Water Day as the launch of the light-blue ribbon campaign to protect Ontario’s Great Lakes water supply.

Southwest regional Anishinabek Nation chief Chris Plain says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Bruce Power Corp. did not sufficiently consult First Nation communities about the proposed nuclear waste shipment. “We will do everything in our power to prevent the Ontario and federal governments and the nuclear power industry from using our precious waterways as a garbage disposal route,” says Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee of the Anishinabek Nation.

As I said, we should be judged on what we do in our own bailiwick. Before we talk about the global market for water, we need to look after our own backyard. What’s happening in our own backyard? Well, over 80 First Nation communities are currently under boil-water advisories, and 21 communities are deemed to be at high risk for contamination. We have this unusual situation where the federal government says, “Water resources are an Ontario responsibility,” and Ontario says, “But First Nations are a federal responsibility,” and everyone forgets that First Nations are citizens of Ontario too.

We would all be wise, on World Water Day, to remember northern communities like Kashechewan, whose residents were forced to evacuate by the hundreds due to poor water quality and unsanitary conditions in 2005. Contamination and inadequate water and sanitation services in First Nation communities are a real and present threat to human health and to the environment.

The government claims that its Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act aims to stimulate Ontario-based clean water industry by creating municipal demand for clean water technology and by supporting clean water technology development. I can only say that First Nations across Ontario are saying, “And what about us? Don’t we matter? Don’t we count?” And rightfully so, that they ask these questions.

Despite the good intentions of the government’s bill, there are a number of concerns about how this bill will improve the quality of life for all Ontarians, including those living in aboriginal communities in the north. Some of the concerns include affordability for consumers and infrastructure costs. Announcing a bill but then failing to provide municipalities with the funding to undertake water conservation measures is not a way to proceed. It will likely result in higher water rates falling on local citizens.

Municipalities already spend $1.5 billion per year on water and waste water systems, and in 2008 the Association of Municipalities of Ontario review found that municipalities would have to spend an additional $6 billion every year for 10 years to make up the gap between current investment levels and needed investment levels.

On World Water Day, one is given to ask, “Where is the province in addressing this issue?” Access and quality: We’re worried that this bill may lead to privatization of water delivery, leading to rising costs and water for some and not for others..

PETITIONS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas thousands of people suffer from multiple sclerosis; and

“Whereas there is a treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, more commonly called CCSVI, which consists of a corrective angioplasty, a well-known and universally practised procedure that is low risk and at relative low expense;

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

“That the Minister of Health agrees to proceed with clinical trials of the venoplasty treatment to fully explore its potential to bring relief to the thousands of Ontarians afflicted with multiple sclerosis.”

I’ll affix my signature and send it to the table, and it is certified.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was collected by Mr. Joe Guido and Mrs. Selina Clement Mikkola, both members of Local 6500 USW Sudbury, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: 97% of collective agreements are settled without a strike or lockout; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those two provinces have never repealed those laws; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

“Whereas the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community in the short and the long term as well as the well-being of its residents;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my name to it, and will ask page Devan to bring it to the Clerk.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Phil McNeely: A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas this government supports full-day kindergarten in all schools; and

“Whereas full-day kindergarten was introduced in Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School, Convent Glen public school, ÉÉC Sainte-Marie, Brother André Catholic School, École élémentaire publique Des Sentiers and École élémentaire catholique Alain-Fortin in Ottawa-Orléans in September of 2010; and

“Whereas it is the government’s intention to introduce full-day kindergarten in Fallingbrook Community Elementary School and Blessed Kateri Catholic school in Ottawa-Orléans schools in September 2011; and

“Whereas the government intends to fully implement full-day kindergarten in all schools by 2015; and

“Whereas parents of four- and five-year-olds have supported this program;

“Whereas the Conservative Party of Ontario said that they would freeze this program;

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

“To support full-day kindergarten and to follow the implementation

schedule which will complete the program by 2015.”

I will gladly sign this petition and send it up with Sydney.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Shurman: I have here a petition being read in the Legislature for the first time, 123 pages long and signed by 1,229 people who come from my riding of Thornhill, Glen Shields, Brownridge and Concord West. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and GO/Metrolinx are currently proposing the construction of a GO/Metrolinx intermodal station hub and parking lot on crown land (land registry PIN number 032320650) owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation, land which adjoins to the east of the Concord West community in the city of Vaughan and has been in the community’s traditional green space; and

“Whereas the land in question is ecologically sensitive and demonstrably part of the Bartley Smith Greenway; and

“Whereas safe access to this land and the said greenway by the Concord West community residents and seniors is needed from Rockview Gardens;

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

“That the McGuinty government transfer the subject land from the Ontario Realty Corporation to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.”

I agree with this petition. I affix my name to it and file it with page Fatemah, from Thornhill.

TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS

M me France Gélinas: Il me fait plaisir de présenter une pétition qui a été avancée par M. Conrad Mazerolle de l’Association des enseignants francophones de l’Ontario.

« Attendu que les grèves et les lock-out sont rares; en moyenne, 97 % des conventions collectives sont négociées sans arrêt de travail; et

« Attendu que des lois contre le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs existent au Québec depuis 1978 et en Colombie-Britannique depuis 1993, et les gouvernements successifs de ces deux provinces n’ont jamais abrogé ces lois; et

« Attendu que la loi contre le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs a réduit la longueur et la discorde des conflits du travail; et

« Attendu que le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs pendant une grève ou un lock-out compromet le