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

October 26, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 26 October 2009 Lundi 26 octobre 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

ROAD SAFETY

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

PENSION PLANS

FIREFIGHTERS

CHILD PROTECTION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

ONTARIO CHILD BENEFIT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

CITY OF CORNWALL

WIND FARMS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

ON-TRACK

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

NORTH YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

VOLUNTEERS

ANNIVERSARY OF THE SINKING

OF THE GRAF SPEE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DIABETES TREATMENT

TAXATION

SHARK FISHERY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TOM LONGBOAT

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's my delight to have in the members' gallery Paul Pighin, the former candidate in London West and now a staffer in my constituency office; Bhutila Karpoche, also a staffer in my constituency office; and Susan Rogers, also a worker in my constituency office. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I'm pleased to welcome, in the members' east gallery, a member of my constituency, Mr. Roman Andrzejewski, accompanied by my legislative assistant, Jessica MacInnis.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Good morning. I would like to welcome to the Legislature today the students from William Tredway Junior Public School in the riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. They are not in the Legislature yet, but they are in the hallway making their way up.

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais présenter aujourd'hui M. Philippe Boissonneault, qui est le président du conseil d'administration du Collège Boréal.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome my friends Gary and Mary Margaret Koreen from the great city of London.

Hon. John Milloy: I want to give a blanket welcome to all the presidents of Ontario's community colleges who are visiting Queen's Park here today. As we've heard, some of them are in the gallery and others will be joining us and be here throughout the day, including a reception this evening. We certainly want to welcome them here to Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and page Nithya Nithiaraj, we welcome her mother, Christina, to the Legislature today. On behalf of the member from York West and page Rushabh Shah, we would like to welcome his mother, Reshma, and his father, Kamal, to the east members' gallery today. Welcome to the pages' families.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would just like to correct my record from Thursday's question period. During question period, in response to a comment from the Premier, I said that for every $1 that the HST costs consumers, 12 cents would be returned in income tax. I was in error and, in fact, it's 18 cents.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, within hours of revealing your record $24.7-billion deficit, the Dominion Bond Rating Service immediately rendered its verdict, downgrading Ontario's credit rating. Moody's and Standard and Poor's are sure to follow.

To the minister: How much more will taxpayers be forced to pay in borrowing costs because of this very sobering downgrade?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite is, in fact, correct that DBRS did lower it a notch, while not lowering it a grade. It's something that, frankly, we had anticipated. I would remind the member opposite that the last time Ontario got a credit upgrade was under the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government in 2004.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the finance minister: Before Ontario's credit rating dropped under Dalton McGuinty, the Premier was already spending $9.4 billion on serving the debt. That's more than the McGuinty Liberals spend on the entire colleges and universities system. It's more than they spend on the entire justice system.

Shockingly, with the worst deficit in Canada, the Premier's response on his plan to get us out of his mess was that he's going to stand there and he's going to do some heavy thinking. Well, Minister, it's been a year since the economic crisis began. Ontario families expect a Premier who will lead in a crisis, not freeze.

Is Canada's worst government so paralyzed by scandal that they're incapable of acting on this record deficit?

Going forward, governments around the world will have to grapple with deficits and we intend to do that. We will be responsible and focused. We will spend the next five months leading up to the next provincial budget consulting and working toward getting that down. That is the appropriate process, and when Ontario gets through this, and we will, we will be bigger, we will be better and we will be stronger.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: While the Premier spent the weekend and this morning in his thinking place, Ontario families are now reeling with the news that we have the worst deficit in Canada. Furthermore, the McGuinty government is spending a colossal $2.8 million more each and every hour than they're taking in in provincial revenue.

Not only did the Premier fail to bring a single item for restraint after that bombshell on Thursday, on the same day he revealed this record deficit the Premier said he'd bring in full-day kindergarten, a massive new spending program.

When Ontario families see their bank account is empty, when they find their credit cards are maxed out, they don't go shopping for a brand new car.

Has the Premier given up on any kind of restraint simply because this guy is hard-wired—

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

We believe that investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure is the appropriate response, even if it means a deficit this year and into the near-term future. Those are choices that governments around the world have made. It's about keeping the economy growing as much as we can in the context of a very difficult international circumstance. It's the right policy, and that leader and his party ought to tell the people of Ontario what they'll cut. Will it be hospitals? Will it be schools? Will it be water—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Deputy Premier concerning his billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. Last Thursday, when asked about the auditor's comments at committee, your Premier dodged, deflected and stonewalled all the opposition questions. I'll give you a chance to do better.

Deputy Premier, why has the Premier been suggesting that the auditor did not find party politics were a factor in the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle, when the auditor says that he did not even investigate this?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think the honourable well knows that the Premier has offered a quotation from the auditor himself on this very matter. But I do want to counter the characterizations that the honourable member offered in his very question.

First and foremost is his lack of willingness to acknowledge that while the auditor has pointed out areas where expenditures must be better controlled, he was also very clear in acknowledging that substantial pieces of the infrastructure necessary to implement an electronic health record have been created, and those expenditures which he continues to devalue—there has been clear evidence pointed out by the auditor of the investments that have been made in the underlying infrastructure toward the necessary implementation of an electronic health record.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: We found out at committee and by reading page 6 of the auditor's report that he did not have any mandate whatsoever to investigate the political ties between the Dalton McGuinty government and their Liberal friends.

The Premier, week after week, has selectively quoted from the auditor's report, but from the auditor himself we found out that they "didn't conduct a specific investigation" and "didn't do any research into who could be politically tied" to the grants.

This is a very different story than what the Premier has been telling us, rather artistically, in the Legislature. There is no doubt that the Premier's assertions have now been proven incorrect. Deputy Premier, was that intentional?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member, as has become the norm, seeks to impugn motive. First and foremost are his continuing references to the idea that there has been—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Hon. George Smitherman: I withdraw.

The honourable member continues in his presentations in this House to characterize the $1 billion spent as not having achieved any objective towards the implementation of an electronic health record. This is not factually correct. As the auditor's report has indicated, substantial progress has been made.

Further, this is a quote directly from the standing committee that the honourable member himself referenced: "I wouldn't want to say that our work would have been comprehensive enough to allow someone to conclude that on all of these contracts, without a doubt, we're concluding that there definitely weren't political ties. All we're saying is, we kept our eyes open; we didn't see any evidence of it."

This is a quote directly referenced from the very committee meeting that the honourable member was speaking of.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member from Renfrew to moderate his interjections, please.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Ontario families know what you achieved in your billion-dollar boondoggle: Liberal-friendly consultants got fat and rich, and Ontario families got absolutely nothing in return.

The Premier tried to suggest that the Auditor General investigated the ties—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I'd just ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to withdraw that last comment he just made.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier has tried to suggest that the auditor investigated ties between you, yourself, Minister Smitherman, and the McGuinty Liberals, and the Liberal-friendly consultants; the auditor, this past week, confirmed that he did no such thing.

There's no denying that at least Karli Farrow, your former senior political aide—and to the Premier—got rich from the untendered contracts, as did your friend John Ronson, the Ontario Liberal campaign chair.

I ask, are the McGuinty Liberals playing games with the auditor's quotes and refusing to call a public inquiry because they know other Liberal friends benefited too?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I do remind members on all sides of the standing orders about impugning motive. I have allowed some things to go through, but I would just ask members to be cautious of impugning that motive against decisions that have been made.

Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: In the honourable member's lead-in to his question, he talked about what Ontario families achieved. Ontario families achieved a wait-time information system so that all Ontarians have access to timely surgical procedures.

We connected 7,000 secure network sites, connected over 500 telemedicine sites and helped to build and maintain two highly secure data centres, the master patient index, the Ontario lab information system, the Ontario MD portal, the drug profile viewer, all the systems that support the Ontario telemedicine network and systems used by the community care access centres across the province of Ontario.

These are all evidence of the infrastructure investments necessary to support the implementation of an electronic health record, and they all stand in contrast to the ongoing characterizations of that member to the people of Ontario telling them they got no value for their money, when the clear evidence in all of these areas is that people bought necessary elements of the infrastructure to support the implementation of an electronic health record.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. The McGuinty government has a two-tiered solution to Ontario's fiscal woes: Ontario families get whacked with an unfair sales tax and are forced to live with cuts to health care, while well-connected insiders get corporate tax giveaways and lucrative contracts.

On Friday, we learned that McKinsey and Co. was paid $750,000 to propose cuts to seniors' drug benefits. Will the minister come clean and release the contract details and McKinsey's recommendations today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me be very, very clear about this: We are absolutely not looking at reducing drug benefits for seniors or for people on social assistance. Let me repeat that: We are not considering any reductions to drug benefits for seniors or people on social assistance. In fact, we're doing exactly the opposite. We are expanding the number of drugs that are available to people through the Ontario drug benefit program. We have made great progress in increasing access to drugs. We're getting better value for money for taxpayers. But there is more work to do.

Compared to other jurisdictions, Ontario is paying far too much for generic drugs. As I say, we have begun to get some savings, which we have completely reinvested in new drugs, but there is more work to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this deal was so secret that the government staff denied the sole-source contract even existed. Seniors and their families are told they need to pay higher taxes and accept cuts to health care, but this government refuses to tell them what it spends their money on.

Ontarians deserve full disclosure on what McKinsey charged in per diems and fees and what they recommended. Why won't the minister release the details of this secret sole-source contract right now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This "secret" contract actually formed the basis of a presentation that is on the Ministry of Health website. I would urge the leader of the third party to check out a discussion document that has been presented to our industry partners in July 2009. We are working with the drug industry, we're working with pharmacists, and we're working with consumers, all interested parties, to continue to increase the number of drugs that are offered to Ontarians. But we need to drive down the price that Ontario taxpayers pay for these drugs through using our greater purchasing power and providing accountability and transparency to our drug system.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Seniors and their families are willing to make sacrifices during tough times; there's no doubt about it. But they expect their government to be balanced, transparent and fair. Instead, this government cuts secret deals with consultants, refuses to share the details, and tells seniors to expect drug benefit cuts while corporate tax giveaways and consultants' contracts are handed out like candy on Halloween.

If the minister has nothing to hide, why won't she release all of the details of this secret contract and show Ontarians what they got for their money?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: We are absolutely not considering any cuts to drug benefits for seniors or for people on social assistance. We are doing exactly the opposite. We introduced Bill 102 so that we could leverage our drug program to get better value for money. We've saved $700 million through that, all of which and more we have invested in more drugs, better drugs. We've added 682 new individual products to the formulary since 2006. We've increased funding for cancer drugs from $72 million to $195 million. We are investing more and more in drugs for people. We will continue to do that, but we must make sure we're getting the best value for the money.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is back to the Minister of Health. In communities across Ontario, emergency rooms are closing and health services are disappearing, with tragic consequences. If, as this government claims and this minister claims, there are no health care cuts planned, why are local health integration networks projecting a decrease in hospital operating funds?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, we will continue to do what we've done in the past. We will continue to invest more in hospitals and in the health sector overall. I think that the member opposite is referring to a planning document that was shared with the LHINs. It's very important for you to understand what this document is. This is not a budget document. This is not a document that tells—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the honourable member from Hamilton East that if he chooses to offer some interjections through the question period, it best be done from his seat.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I say, the document you are referring to is not a budget document; it is a planning document that is incomplete and out of date. It does not include increases to the base funding, which we have provided every single year we have been in office and will be providing again next year. It does not include any of the funding that we've given to hospitals on our wait-times strategy. Hospital funding will be higher next year; I can assure you of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister knows that the document did, in fact, show up online and then it mysteriously vanished not too long afterwards. The minister was asked for details but she refused to speak to the details. She cancelled the interviews that were supposed to be held on this very issue.

This is a government claiming it can cut corporate taxes and pay consultants millions of dollars every day without cutting health care, but it keeps getting caught in the act of cutting. If they aren't cutting health care services, I'd like to know why local hospitals keep closing, why people can't get OHIP-listed services and why the public is kept in the dark.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me just speak to that. Health care is a key priority for this government, there is no question, and we have shown that year after year through our budget process. We know that we are facing difficult economic challenges, but our commitment to health care remains. We are very focused on enhancing the sustainability of the health care system because we need this health care system not just for our generation but for generations to come. So we are committed to increasing funding for hospitals. We are looking at any way we have to improve the sustainability of our system. Future generations are counting on us to do this job and do it well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, there's one thing I would agree with: The people of this province do need their health care system. Christine Wines from Grimsby lives in pain because her hospital cannot afford an OHIP-listed surgery. She needs her health care system. Bob Haynes from Port Colborne had to watch as his mother suffered a severe stroke because her local emergency room had closed. She needs her health care system, Minister.

The government can find billions of dollars to hand out in corporate tax cuts and pay well-connected consultants $1 million a day, while Bob, Christine, and countless Ontario families are told to accept cuts to their health care. How can this minister support such an unfair, unbalanced approach?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it's very, very important—I think people in this House know, but anyone who is watching this should understand that there are no cuts to health care; quite the opposite. We have continued to improve and enhance health care in this province since we were elected in 2003. I invite people to think back to 2003, when people were waiting in excess of a year for hip replacements, for knee replacements, and more than that for cataract surgery. People could not find a family doctor.

In fact, I had constituents in London who were travelling to Toronto to visit their family doctor because they couldn't get a new doctor in London. We have made tremendous progress since we were elected in 2003, and I'm very proud of the progress.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Deputy Premier and Minister of Infrastructure: According to the fall economic statement, the McGuinty Liberals' stimulus plan adds an additional $500 million to Minister Smitherman's ministry this year alone. What we know now is that while at the Ministry of Health, the minister was responsible for some 80% of the scandalous eHealth spending, some of which went to the stimulus of Karli Farrow, John Ronson and consultants at the Courtyard Group. Questions still remain, as we know, about how much more of the $837 million that he handled went to Liberal-friendly consultants.

I want to ask the minister: If the Premier does not call a public inquiry for this billion-dollar scandal and clear the air, how can he expect public confidence in his ability to oversee yet an additional $500 million of the public's money?

Hon. George Smitherman: First and foremost, I say to the honourable member that when I left the Ministry of Health, there was not one employee of eHealth, this organization that he has spoken about, but I did have substantial responsibilities over the Smart Systems for Health organization. I inherited that from a predecessor minister, and in the time that I was responsible for it, we invested substantially in building the infrastructure which supports the coming to life of an electronic health record. Clearly, the auditor has made comment about areas where that could be done more effectively.

We take responsibility, we accept those comments, and we'll work harder than ever to make sure that as we go forward, we give Ontarians what they need in the form of an electronic health record.

By way of supplementary, I'd be happy to go over some of those very tangible steps of progress that the patients and the people of the province of Ontario have received as a result of investments in Smart Systems.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: By way of supplementary, I want the minister to answer my question, and that is that it's very clear that the auditor did not clear Minister Smitherman of mishandling public money. There is no denying that Minister Smitherman has close ties to Courtyard and Liberal-friendly consultants who received millions of taxpayer dollars in untendered contracts.

A public inquiry would give the minister the chance to restore his integrity once and for all. So I ask the minister: The only thing standing between him and being able to clear his name is a public inquiry that would answer all of those questions. Will the minister tell us if he objects to a public inquiry that would shine light on the facts that he disputes, and if he does object, why?

Hon. George Smitherman: But it's the honourable member that disputes the facts. It's the honourable member who's unwilling to acknowledge that substantial progress has been made with respect to the investment that the people of Ontario have made related to the electronic health record project. I don't need clearance from the honourable member. I know that the time I spent at the Ministry of Health is associated with substantial advancement in access to health care for the people of the province.

All of the honourable member's political rhetoric and attack aside, the 600,000 additional people who gained access to a family physician as a result of the efforts that I was privileged to make is satisfactory for me.

But on the issue of Smart Systems for Health, we have substantial accomplishments that occurred towards building the network site and creating the capacity for the information at the heart of an electronic health record to travel amongst the thousands and thousands of points of health care—

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

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. According to her ministry's most recent quarterly numbers, the McGuinty government's autism program is not living up to the Premier's promise of ensuring that children with autism receive treatment regardless of their age. The IBI/ABA numbers for April through June 2009 continue to be troubling. Compared to the previous quarter, 1,649 children are waiting for IBI, 136 more than previously reported, and another 114 children have been abruptly cut off.

Why are more children with autism waiting for treatment, and why are more children having their treatment suddenly cut off and terminated?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: This is a file where I'm very pleased to be able to build on the work that's been done by our government and a variety of Ministers of Children and Youth Services since we took office in 2003. We've made a lot of progress. Kids are getting the help they need, we've expanded those services, and we're working to make sure that families also have the support they need. We're working to maintain that progress and push ahead, working with parents and experts. Over the last couple of years, we've been examining how we can do better for our kids in Ontario.

I had the opportunity last week to visit Surrey Place and speak directly with the experts and find out how they think we can best help kids in Ontario. There is more work to do—there is always more work to do. We continue to build on the efforts that we've put in place to make sure that Ontario kids get everything they need from our education system and that envelope of services around them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's been six years. These children and these families cannot wait any longer for this government to get its act together when it comes to the autism file.

The regular quarterly numbers don't lie. The government is cutting off more children from IBI when schools are not able to provide the therapy. Instead of funding treatment, the government is allowing waiting lists to balloon and children to languish. When will parents see adequate service levels and proper funding for children's autism treatment?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to put some key facts on the table. We removed the previous government's age 6 cut-off and more than tripled autism spending, from $44 million to $165 million. We've more than doubled the number of kids getting IBI treatment—more than 1,300 now, up from just over 500 four years ago. We've introduced respite programs that serve almost 7,000 kids. The growing waiting list is not acceptable. That's why we've put more resources into the system.

But I would say that the numbers being brought forward by the leader of the opposition are consistent with numbers that we've seen in the past: 114 kids have completed the services for IBI, and we now have 1,262 kids receiving that service.

We need to get service to more kids. We need to broaden that continuum of support. That's why we're working with world-renowned experts like Peter Szatmari and Nancy Freeman and why we've brought that group of expertise to the table to make sure that kids in our schools get the treatment—

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

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. Ontarians agree that driving while using hand-held communications and entertainment devices is a very dangerous practice. Most people recognize that driving while distracted is unacceptable. However, on a daily basis we still see individuals who choose to drive their vehicles while talking on cellphones and engaging in other distracting behaviours.

In 2006, I introduced a private member's bill that looked at distracted driving and novice drivers. I'm pleased to see that the government took this concept one step further, addressing distractions for drivers of all levels and ages.

I understand that today is the first day this new law comes into effect. My constituents are pleased to see this. However, how will this bill be enforced? What is and what isn't allowed to be used while driving? What will the fines be? Will the minister share with this House what the new law means for drivers all across this province?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to thank both the member for Oakville and the member for Durham. I think they both deserve applause for bringing forward an important piece of legislation.

As the member for Oakville noted today, this is the first day of the distracted driving legislation coming into effect.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You were on CFRB this morning.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I was on CFRB; you're right.

What we will see prohibited while driving includes the use of hand-held cellphones, BlackBerrys, text messaging, e-mailing, and any electronic device operated digitally with the hand. What will still be allowed are hands-free wireless devices, such as an earpiece or a Bluetooth device.

There will be a three-month educational period when police will pull over drivers who are using hand-held electronic devices. As of February 1, 2010, police will begin issuing tickets with a fine of up to $500. They can still lay charges—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: My question is once again for the Minister of Transportation. We all look forward to sharing the information he has provided, certainly with my constituents, but I do have further questions.

It's an important day for Ontario. The legislation will not only affect the driving behaviour of most Ontarians; it's also going to affect the millions of tourists who visit our province every year. There are studies out there that show that a driver using a cellphone is four times more likely to be in a crash than a driver who is focused on the road. Most people recognize that both dialing and texting while driving can be very dangerous behaviours. Common sense allows most people to understand the need for this type of legislation.

Today I'm wondering how we're going to advise the public that this government has delivered on making roads safer. Is there a planned publicity campaign to inform the general public and those who visit our province? Through you, Speaker, I was hoping the minister would be able to share with this House what steps will be taken—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: On top of the already extensive television, radio and print media coverage, the MTO will use a number of ways to reach out to the public during the three-month educational period.

These would include a targeted public education campaign emphasizing keeping your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road; information cards outlining details of the new law, made widely available to the public as well as to our road safety and police partners for distribution; a variety of hands-free safety messages to be placed in rotation on our COMPASS signs; road signs on our highways at border crossings and other strategic locations; updating our website and road safety education curriculum; and other local community initiatives.

It's important to remember that anyone who chooses to drive while distracted can also be charged with careless driving or dangerous driving, both of which carry severe fines and could lead to jail time and demerit point penalties.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Instead of giving taxpayers accurate information about Ontario's debt, the Premier seems more interested in PR schemes to sell his dismal economic performance. On page 60 of the economic statement, the McGuinty Liberals compare Ontario's debt-to-GDP to other jurisdictions in order to suggest that our provincial economy is in the middle of the pack. But the information is taken from a period before the full brunt of the global economic crisis was known. There's no doubt that the information is misleading. Was it intentional?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: I withdraw that, but there's no doubt that the information gives Ontarians an incorrect picture of our comparative financial situation. Was it intentional?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I refer the member to page 60—he has quoted that—and he'll see that the data between the graphs is comparable for the year ended March 31, 2009. It's designed to show the relative position of Ontario with the OECD countries as well as with our sister provinces. It is the most accurate and up-to-date information that's available to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: It's old information, and the minister may believe the inaccurate comparison, but international investors won't. DBRS has already lowered Ontario's credit rating, and others are soon to follow.

Because of the McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's deficit-to-revenue ratio is 27%—deficit, $25 billion; revenue, $90 billion—the highest in Canada. That's the worst in Canada. Every hour of every day, Canada's worst government spends $2.8 million more than it collects in revenue. When will the McGuinty Liberals start giving a credible plan to get Ontario out of this mess and stop giving us misleading PR campaigns?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw the last comments, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just by way of comparison, interest on the debt in 2000-01, for instance, was $10.9 billion or 16.4% as a percentage of revenue. That was under his party's watch. Even though we're in the midst of the worst downturn since the Great Depression, our interest as a percentage of revenue is only 10.4%.

There's no doubt the economy has gone through a terrible downturn internationally, but our government has invested in people. We've invested in people by creating stimulus, by investing in infrastructure—$32.5 billion over two years. We have invested in the so-called built-in stabilizers. We have not cut the things that that member and his party want to cut. It's the right policy for the times. As we move out of this, we will begin to address the deficit challenges that are facing all governments around the—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. On October 7, Nortel pensioners came to Queen's Park to ask this government to fulfill its obligations to laid-off and retired workers in this province. They came here to seek support from the McGuinty Liberals with their severance, benefits and pensions. Why is this government ignoring the plight Nortel employees are having with their severance, benefits and pensions and shirking its provincial responsibilities?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Nortel situation is, indeed, a challenging one. To those families that are experiencing the anxiety that goes with the bankruptcy of this company, of course our government is empathetic and sympathetic. That's why we've met with the employees—

Mr. Howard Hampton: I saw the executives; the executives are doing fine.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No, I saw executives, and they're not doing fine, Mr. Hampton. Unlike you, they lost their pensions. You kept yours, but they didn't.

It's not just a matter—it's a matter affecting all employees.

Government after government in this province refused to fund the pension benefits guarantee fund. We have made changes to it to give us greater flexibility.

We will continue to work with Nortel through this bankruptcy position. There's no doubt—the member is right—it's a very—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: We're tired of this government's whitewashing rhetoric. We're tired of them leaving laid-off and unemployed workers in the lurch while they pad the pockets of their consultant buddies. And we're really tired of them—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I reminded members about impugning motive. Please withdraw the comment.

Mr. Paul Miller: I withdraw.

We really are tired of them playing pensioners like a Ping-Pong game, fobbing them off to other levels of government.

When will the McGuinty Liberals stop ignoring Nortel and all the other pensioners in this province? When will they implement the Arthurs recommendation, their own consultant's recommendation, to increase the pension benefits guarantee fund's monthly benefit to $2,500? And when will this government finally stand up for pensioners and laid-off workers by enacting Bill 6, which would ensure laid-off workers the severance back pay owed to them by your own law?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite may not know this, but Professor Arthurs actually calls for employees to make much larger contributions to the PBGF. If you're supporting that, that's fine.

What we've done is followed up on his recommendation to do a complete actuarial study of the fund. That is under way. I expect, as I indicated in the budget, to be bringing that to this House probably in late winter, early spring.

There's no doubt that these people at Nortel, the families across Ontario, are very anxious. One can't blame them. Our government is working with them on this circumstance. There's a federal overlay in terms of bankruptcy protection and the place of pensions relative to other creditors.

What we don't need is tired, worn-out rhetoric from people like that member who offer no solutions, only more empty language.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, some time ago our government took the steps to ensure that full-time, professional firefighters and their families are treated with dignity and compassion in the event of an illness caused by the very dangerous work that they do. We brought in legislation and regulation to support full-time, professional firefighters who develop certain cancers or suffer from heart injury as a result of their job.

At the time, the then Minister of Labour indicated that our government would be determining how this legislation would apply to part-time and volunteer firefighters. I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us a little bit more about where we are with that particular issue.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for Brant for his advocacy and for his tireless work on this issue. I know I've had the opportunity to have some very positive discussions with the member regarding the expansion of presumptive legislation for volunteer and part-time firefighters.

Many of you here may know that the Premier made a commitment in 2007 to review how volunteer and part-time firefighters could be covered by presumptive legislation, and at that time our government began working with stakeholders and advocates to ensure that we got this policy right. Our government recognizes the hazardous, life-threatening work that these firefighters do, and we've taken steps to ensure that firefighters and their families are treated with dignity and respect. Volunteer firefighters are crucial to so many communities across our province—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I know that you are working with various organizations that appreciate the work you're doing. Thank you. Presumptive legislation allows for the creation of regulations that recognize prescribed diseases and heart injuries as presumed to be work-related in firefighters unless the contrary is shown.

It is important that we continue to work with volunteer firefighters and the Firefighters Association of Ontario on how legislation will apply to volunteers and part-time firefighters. It's important that President Bill Burns, past President Dave Thomson and their team, along with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, understand that this is progressing. Many of my constituents have sent letters of support for this presumptive legislation. I know the government has recognized this, and they realize that it's a hazard for firefighters in this job that they do.

Can the minister tell us a little bit more about the discussions and how they're proceeding, and what's being done to expand the legislation for volunteer firefighters? This is an issue that we've been working on, contrary to what some people have indicated in the House, and I would appreciate the minister—

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: With the member's tremendous support, we have been making great progress. I have to say that I've read many letters from municipalities, from ill volunteer firefighters and, sadly, from widows. I do not take lightly the responsibility I have over 18,000 volunteer firefighters, part-time firefighters and fire investigators who help all of our communities across this province.

As the member mentioned, earlier this month, my colleague from Brant and I met with a number of individuals to discuss this important matter, including the president of the Firefighters Association of Ontario, Bill Burns, and past president, Dave Thomson; and our health and safety representative and WSIB committee chair, Darren Storey. Consultations with part-time and volunteer firefighters continue. I appreciate the Firefighters Association of Ontario's continued support, and I look forward to working with them.

CHILD PROTECTION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, will you table a report setting out the additional resources required to enforce the Child Pornography Reporting Act?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The act which the member opposite speaks about is one that is in a field that I have worked on for many, many years. Bill 37, the Child Pornography Reporting Act, was my private member's bill under the last session, and I'm very pleased that child safety is of paramount concern to the government. As I drafted the bill, I consulted with a range of groups, including the Canadian centre for child abuse, The Gatehouse, Beyond Borders, KINSA and representatives from the OPP and the Toronto police forces.

Since the bill passed, my new ministry, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, has been consulting closely with those agencies again: the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the government of Manitoba, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I'm extremely proud of the legislation, and I look forward to the finalization of the regulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I asked the minister if she would table the report, because it will mean additional resources to children's aid societies. You obviously don't care what onus your private member's bill will put on the children's aid societies across Ontario. Your bill specifically broadens the responsibility of children's aid societies, yet your government is not willing to fund children's aid societies for the mandate they have right now. Thirty-seven out of 51 children's aid societies have told you they cannot fulfill their current legislated mandates.

Minister, you mentioned you called the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. What services have you recommended they cut from their budgets?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let's put some facts on the table because facts are imperative here. Over the last 10 years, funding for CASs has gone from $500 million to $1.4 billion. Our CASs across the province are protecting kids.

I want to speak for a moment with respect to protecting Ontario's kids from child pornography. That's who my priority is. That's who I care about, member opposite. I care about the kids in Ontario. This private member's bill put obligations on all of us to report incidents of child pornography.

I know what my bill did and it told all of us, including children's aid societies, including businesses, including individuals, that you can't be a bystander when kids are being abused. Every depiction of child pornography is a depiction of a child being sexually abused. Every depiction of child pornography is evidence of a crime. Those are the kids I care about.

Frankly, I think we can all step up a little bit and protect Ontario's kids better, and that's why I'm very proud to be part of a government—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I just remind honourable members, as I have in the past, if they're dissatisfied with an answer, file a late show.

New question.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. The McGuinty government's so-called northern growth plan makes no mention of the 40,000 direct and indirect Ontario forestry jobs that have vanished. Is the minister wearing blinders? Or does he think that if he just ignores it, the devastation is going to go away?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I was very pleased, along with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, George Smitherman, to release the northern growth plan last Friday both in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay. This is a document that is created by northerners, for northerners. It reflects their concerns and their recommendations for action, and there are many actionable items.

May I say, in terms of the specifics of the leader's question, the fact is, there are recommendations related to our need for forest tenure review, our recognition that indeed there is a transformation within the forestry sector and we must move forward in terms of wood supply allocation and other issues related to that as well.

So indeed, this is a document that relates to the potential for job creation in northern Ontario and is a real priority. We've very pleased indeed that we're now moving toward our final consultation process with communities in northern Ontario to further get some thoughts from our northerners. This is about job creation. It's about actionable items. We're very proud of this, as are all northerners. This is their document.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Six years later and the McGuinty government continues to fail Ontario's forestry sector. More than half of the promised forestry aid sits unused in a government bank account as 40,000 unemployed northerners try to pick up the pieces. The government's so-called plan makes five forestry recommendations, none of which do a damn thing to address the sky-high electricity costs that are killing forestry jobs in this province.

How could this government's so-called northern Ontario plan ignore the most important issue that faces Ontario's forestry industry?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The northern Ontario growth plan very specifically addresses that, plus many other aspects of the economic development needs in northern Ontario.

Interjection: I think she should read it.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: And I think the member should read it, exactly, and I encourage everyone to read it.

I was startled, indeed, by some of the comments made by your colleague from Kenora, who made no mention whatsoever of the incredible opportunity we have for the upgrade of the transmission lines in northern Ontario, particularly the priority line between Nipigon and Pickle Lake, which will bring stability and extra energy needs to the Musselwhite Mine in his riding, which he ignores, which will potentially take some First Nation communities off diesel and on to the electricity grid in his riding.

This report reflects the concerns that northerners have and the recommendations they've put forward. We have remarkable support from all across the north. We're looking forward to moving forward with this and our government is very proud of this plan.

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Being connected is vital for both our social and economic well-being. Given the importance of being connected in today's day and age, access to broadband infrastructure should be available to as many Ontarians as possible, including our farmers, rural businesses and rural residents.

Broadband access will encourage the use of technology, whether it's local farmers checking satellite weather imagery, rural businesses conducting their businesses, or families communicating with distant relatives or children at school. In my riding, municipal economic development offices are looking to attract businesses to locate in their municipalities, but often barriers, including access to fast Internet connections, stand in the way of companies deciding to locate in the area.

Could the minister let the House know about the steps the government is taking to ensure rural access to broadband infrastructure?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It's a very good question, because providing rural broadband infrastructure is absolutely essential for the health and well-being in rural communities.

In 2007, our government committed over $27.4 million for 47 broadband projects across rural southern Ontario through the Rural Connections initiatives. Our government continues to address broadband gaps in Ontario through two particular funding initiatives. One, we've committed $32.75 million to support projects in partnership with the federal broadband Canada initiative, the Connecting Rural Canadians program. We have also announced our commitment of up to $55 million to fund a regional broadband project in eastern Ontario.

I was in a school on Friday where the students are using smart boards. They're able to do that in a small rural community because—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My constituents will be pleased to know that our government is working to provide them with further opportunities to connect socially and commercially. The ability to connect through broadband infrastructure will allow for the continued success and the prosperity of rural Ontario. My constituents were especially pleased to hear that our government has committed to fund regional broadband infrastructure. These investments will ensure that the municipalities are able to move ahead with much-needed projects, and certainly in a timely fashion.

Minister, over the summer you announced a second intake of projects through the Rural Connections broadband program to address the broadband gaps in rural southern Ontario. Could the minister please give the House an update on the status of these vital broadband infrastructure projects?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: With respect to the program that was announced, there is an expectation that they would be complete by the year 2012. I'm also pleased to report that we have had steady progress with the 14 intake one projects that are underway, with 14 to be completed in the next six months. Intake two projects are also progressing well, with two projects under way and another nine at the stage of negotiations with the Internet service providers. In total, 26 of the 29 that were announced in intake one and intake two are in the RFP process.

In the member's own riding of Bruce county, they are going to receive $1 million of provincial funding toward a project valued at just over $3 million. This is good news for the people of the member's riding. We expect that many rural communities across Ontario will benefit from this very important investment in broadband.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: We're now in week 10 of the work stoppage at DriveTest centres across the province. Jobs are being lost because truck drivers can't upgrade their licences. New drivers can't get licences and so they can't get jobs; they can't enrol in driving training programs or in college programs.

The minister knows that the contract that was entered into with Serco obligates that company, under contract, to ensure that wait times for road tests are no more than six weeks, that there are acceptable service levels, that the MTO would safeguard the public interest under the terms of that contract. Serco is not meeting its obligations under the contract that they have with the province of Ontario. Why has the Minister of Transportation not stepped in to ensure that they meet those obligations and that Ontarians are not held hostage?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I hope that the member is not contemplating or suggesting that strikebreakers be used in this particular case. Perhaps he isn't, because that would be the only way, of course, that that service would continue, is if strikebreakers were used. I know that the member would not be advocating that. You will be aware that when your government signed the contract with Serco, it was a full 10-year contract.

The ministry has taken certain actions to protect those whose licences have expired, in some cases, and in the same category are able to continue. They've had extensions, in other words. We are going to extend further, if necessary, the deadlines that will assist people who are renewing.

I don't know what the member is contemplating in this particular case, but we—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: What I'm contemplating is the fact that Ontarians are hurting. It's not enough to extend deadlines. There are people who need to get into those tests to upgrade their licences. Jobs are being lost.

Here's what I'm suggesting to the minister. It has come to my attention that in fact an offer has been made but the union is refusing to put that offer to a vote by its members. The Minister of Labour has the authority to direct that an offer be put before the employees. I am asking the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Labour to ensure that at the very least an offer that has been put forward is put to a vote by the employees. That's what I'm asking.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The Minister of Labour has informed me that he has made available the very top mediators within the Ministry of Labour of the province of Ontario to bring both sides together. He has urged them to come together. The mediator is available seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to work with both of the parties in this case.

When efforts are being made to reach a collective agreement, when there are discussions going on, I know that individual members of the Legislature such as myself, particularly ministers, can be unhelpful in this regard by coming down on one or the other side of the issue.

We know the great difficulties being faced by people, and I do know that the Minister of Labour is prepared to take appropriate action to bring the two sides together so we can finally get an agreement in this conflict.

ONTARIO CHILD BENEFIT

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On October 10, I asked the minister a question about social assistance rates. In her response, the minister said, "We have the Ontario child benefit that we're supposed to get up to $1,100 ... by 2013, and we have advanced this investment this year so they"—and by "they" I assume she means families—"are receiving $1,100." Could the minister please clarify her statement? Is she saying that all families on social assistance are now receiving the full $1,100 child benefit?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, this government is very proud because we moved forward with the Ontario child benefit, which is a signature piece from our government.

As the member knows, the Ontario child benefit is related to the income of the family so that's why it's not only people on social assistance who receive it. That's the beauty of it. People who are in the low-income bracket can benefit from the Ontario child benefit.

Every situation is a different situation. You need to give me a special case, and we will be able to tell you how much the family will receive.

It's benefiting all the families that are in the low-income bracket and we're very pleased with that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the minister and she doesn't have a clue. The fact is that not all families receive the full increase to the child benefit. For example, on July 1, the government increased the child benefit paid to a single parent with a child over age 13 by $42 a month, but at the same time the McGuinty government decreased the basic needs allowance paid to this family by $41 a month, leaving a net increase in benefits of $1 a month. Why does this government think that some Ontario families should receive the full child benefit and others, those with 13-year-old children, should not?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I'd like to remind the member on the other side that he voted against the Ontario child benefit. We are very proud of it. It's a restructuring of social service assistance, and it was a request from the community: They wanted to have the benefits for children outside of social assistance, and that's exactly what we did.

On top of that, we've increased social assistance since we came to power. This coming November and December, the increase will be 11% since 2003. It's a lot better than what they did when they were in power, and it's a lot better than what the Tories did when they were in power, because they cut social assistance by 22%. A lot of families were in very difficult situations when that happened.

This government is very sensitive to the needs of people on—

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

The time for question period has ended, and there being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1136 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the member for Durham, John O'Toole, and his advocacy against driver distraction. As of today, we all know that a new law prevents Ontario drivers from talking, texting, typing, dialing and e-mailing using hand-held cellphones and other devices.

My colleague Mr. O'Toole was among the first legislators in our country to raise this issue through a private member's bill on distracted driving that he tabled right here in this House in the year 2000. Since then, he's been very serious on this issue of public safety. He kept the issue on our agenda with five similar bills.

Today, the province of Ontario joins Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec in restricting the use of electronic devices while driving. Manitoba has also passed driver distraction legislation.

Ontario's legislation is a good example of the parliamentary process at work, and it's a result of grassroots advice from citizens, along with input from researchers, police, doctors, insurers and many other stakeholders, as well as elected MPPs.

I would like to commend all those who were part of the process, but I would especially like to congratulate our colleague John O'Toole for his leadership on this public safety issue. It is an example why private member's legislation does work. It took a long time for it to get through, but in the end, the government listened. I know John O'Toole wasn't included today in some of the fancy press announcements, but everyone in this country and this province knows that John O'Toole was responsible for this legislation.

CITY OF CORNWALL

Mr. Jim Brownell: I rise in the House today to congratulate the city of Cornwall in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, which has recently been ranked by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as the fifth-highest Ontario community for entrepreneurship.

The communities were ranked based on a variety of factors, including net business start-ups, employment diversity, self-employment statistics, hiring expectations and local government involvement in business. Studies have shown that Canada offers many cost and quality-of-life advantages, and Ontario—and the 401 corridor in particular—is the first choice of most investors.

Cornwall enjoys a strategic location on Highway 401 between Toronto and Montreal and is just an hour's drive south of Ottawa, the nation's capital. This vital transportation link means that Cornwall companies can ship products efficiently and cost-effectively anywhere in North America, including international shipping ports.

Cornwall is not only part of Canada's most important transportation network, but it is also a vital link with an international border crossing to New York state. The strategic location offers companies advantages that go beyond the movement of goods, and transportation is quite easy by car, train, boat or air. Two international airports and the Cornwall Regional Airport are close by, and Cornwall is an important link on VIA Rail's passenger train service, allowing citizens to connect with people anywhere in the world.

Because quality of life continues to top most site selectors' lists, Cornwall's location on the shores of the St. Lawrence River adds just one more element to this mix. I'm very happy to congratulate Cornwall on this ranking in entrepreneurship.

WIND FARMS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I stand before this chamber today to support the private member's resolution of my Progressive Conservative caucus mate Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Mr. Murdoch is calling for a moratorium on wind farms throughout Ontario until more studies have been completed on the health effects wind turbines may cause.

The residents in the village of North Gower have contacted me regarding their concerns about a wind farm in our own community. During the committee hearings on the Green Energy Act, MPPs, including myself, heard from dozens of Ontarians who have warned us against the potential health hazards and impacts of those whose homes are near a wind farm.

Perhaps the biggest failure of the Green Energy Act—and there are many failures—is that local planning is taken away from local communities in favour of a made-in-Toronto plan by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. For the residents in my Nepean—Carleton riding, the only option left for us for any public input on this wind farm that the Liberal government wants to impose on our small community is Mr. Murdoch's resolution on a moratorium. Nepean—Carleton right now is battling two encroachments in our small rural community: not only the wind farm in North Gower but also the doubling of the size of Manotick because provincial bureaucrats, not local politicians, are dictating our—

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

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To our friend the Minister of Transportation, I've got to say that there are many people across this province who are anxiously awaiting your taking some action when it comes to the long labour dispute that's been going on at DriveTest. Now, I'm not going to pronounce one side or the other as at fault or right; the point is that there's a labour dispute that is unresolved and, as a result of that, there are thousands of people across this province and in my constituency who cannot get their driver's licence renewed or get a brand new driver's licence.

We have all kinds of issues. Bus companies that are trying to get people to drive your kids to school every day are running out of drivers and literally are in a position where some of the bus runs are having to be cancelled because there are not enough drivers to go around. Why? Because they are not able to get their certification to be able to drive a bus. As you know, in that industry there is a turnover of people, and now they're finding it extremely difficult to find new drivers.

I've got paramedics who have come to my office saying, "I am able to get a job. I've been certified, I'm ready to go, but I need to get a special licence to drive an ambulance." They can't do that. Why? Because at DriveTest we have a labour dispute.

We have the general public, who are just at their wits' end trying to get their drivers' licences renewed or trying to get a brand new driver's licence for the first time, and again are unable to do so.

So I say to the Minister of Transportation across the way, my good friend Mr. Bradley, you've got to intervene in this particular labour dispute and find some way to get the parties together to solve this, because if not, there are a lot of people who are going to be hurting over the next fall and winter.

ON-TRACK

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise today to speak about On-Track, a career and employment service for women program that began in 1999 north of Toronto. On-Track is making significant contributions to career changes of women in my riding of Scarborough Southwest and in our city of Toronto in general.

On-Track offers women a variety of employment skills, including its Trading Up program, that steer women into the skilled trades and apprenticeship career options. Trading Up is a ministry-funded program geared to assisting women 18 years of age and older to re-enter the workforce. This three-week program teaches women to manage change and to develop skills training, communication, decision-making, resumé writing, cover letter, interview and presentation skills, among other things.

This year, On-Track has partnered with Centennial College's automotive service technicians for women program and Seneca College's early childhood education. In the last decade, On-Track has literally helped hundreds of women return to the workforce.

At the root of On-Track's success are the tireless and selfless efforts of its executive director, Marie Heron, and her staff. On the 10th anniversary of On-Track, I extend on behalf of this House congratulations and best wishes to Marie Heron, her staff, and all the women who have benefited from On-Track's programs to get them back on track.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr. Frank Klees: Ontarians are becoming increasingly frustrated with the gridlock on our roads and highways. In the words of a Windsor resident, "I cannot begin to express the frustration that I have experienced trying to simply move around this province in the last two years."

What is of particular concern is the apparent mismanagement of highway projects and the resulting impact on traffic flow. Ramps to and from 400-series highways are closed almost daily with no on-road advance notice to drivers that would at least allow them to take an earlier alternate exit. Predictably, the result is more congestion and more frustration, and the addition of often many additional kilometres of unnecessary detour.

The gross mismanagement of 401 service centres can only be described as incompetence at its worst. To shut down service centres along this province's busiest highway with no alternative provided for travellers' comfort, to rest and to refuel, is beyond comprehension.

As much as the minister attempts to justify these examples of his ministry's incompetence, what matters is that the lives of Ontarians are being put at risk. That, I trust you will agree, is unacceptable.

I call on the Minister of Transportation to get a handle on his ministry, to call to account those individuals who are responsible for planning in his ministry and tell them to get on with it.

NORTH YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Mr. David Zimmer: I am pleased to congratulate the North York Historical Society for receiving Heritage Toronto's 2009 Community Heritage Award. It's an honour presented to one volunteer-based organization in each of Toronto's four community council areas for a significant activity that promotes or protects heritage in the area.

The mission of the North York Historical Society is to protect, preserve and promote the cultural heritage that defines North York and the Willowdale area. An example of the important work done by the North York Historical Society is Gibson House, which was identified as a historical building way back in 1960. The society lobbied for the preservation, restoration and adaptive reuse of this house as a museum. With the support of the society, Gibson House Museum opened in 1971. They've done marvellous things to enrich that heritage and make everyone aware of it.

The society continues its work in this regard, including the Dempsey store in North York and John McKenzie House—which, incidentally, serves as the headquarters for the Ontario Historical Society.

Heritage in Toronto is important to its citizens. The North York Historical Society has made a major contribution and should be congratulated.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Today I rise to congratulate all of the unsung heroes in Brampton. I'm referring to the everyday individuals who go out of their way to volunteer their precious time to make a difference in our community.

These people do not volunteer their time because they believe they will receive a financial reward at the end of the day. They do this because they believe in our community and they know that their effort will pay off by inspiring future generations to take up the cause.

I firmly believe that volunteering in our community is quite important, with volunteers like Angela Johnson, who donates her time to various organizations, including organizing our spelling bee right here in Brampton and helping to make Carabram a huge success in our city. Angela never asks for anything in return. She is selfless and is to be commended.

That is why I have decided to hold Brampton West's first annual volunteer awards celebration. This will be an opportunity for residents to nominate an individual who has demonstrated exemplary volunteer service. I'm proud to say that Angela will be our first person nominated for this recognition. Those selected will be honoured at an awards ceremony in my riding in the near future.

ANNIVERSARY OF THE SINKING

OF THE GRAF SPEE

Mr. Joe Dickson: The town of Ajax has celebrated the efforts of the Royal Navy veterans in World War II's first Allied major naval victory. Exactly 70 years ago, hundreds of young sailors on HMS Ajax, Exeter and Achilles fought against the infamous Admiral Graf Spee battleship, destroying that German ship, considered one of the best in the world.

The few remaining living sailors and spouses were treated to a week of honour by Ajax residents, including a massed band musical tribute on October 4. The dedication of the Ajax legacy obelisk was unveiled. The week was chaired by Councillor Pat Brown. Ajax always remembers its veterans.

Guests of honour were many, including the Honourable David Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and his wife, courtesy of our mayor, Mr. Parish, and Ajax councillors Jordan, Crawford, Collier, Ashby, Dies and Brown. The massed band performers included the RCSCC Harwood band, Ajax; the pipes and drums of RCL branch 43, Oshawa; the concert band of Cobourg, the band of Her Majesty's Royal Marines; the HMCS York band, Toronto; and the Pickering community concert band.

The final honour of the week was a flyover of the Ajax waterfront by a giant C-130 Hercules of the Canadian Air Force.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Estimates.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Mr. Dunlop from the Standing Committee on Estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 62(c), the following supplementary estimates (2009-10) are reported back to the House as they were not selected by the committee for consideration.

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

Pursuant to standing order 62(c), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the supplementary estimates of the ministries named therein as not being considered for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

Report deemed received.

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. John O'Toole: It's always a pleasure to be here and attentive during petition time. My petition here is:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is conducting a review of the province's underserviced area program (UAP) that may result in numerous communities across rural and small-town Ontario losing financial incentives to recruit and retain much-needed doctors; and

"Whereas financial incentives to attract and keep doctors are essential to providing quality front-line health care services, particularly in small communities; and

"Whereas people across Ontario have been forced to pay Dalton McGuinty's now-forgotten health tax since 2004, expecting health care services to improve rather than be cut; and

"Whereas taxpayers deserve good value for their hard-earned money that goes into health care, unlike the wasteful and abusive spending under the McGuinty Liberals' watch at eHealth Ontario;

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

"That the McGuinty government not reduce or eliminate financial incentives to rural communities and small towns needed to attract and retain doctors."

I'm pleased to sign and support this, and present it through Elliott, one of the pages here.

TAXATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Hassan and Ali Chaudhry of Mississauga for having collected it through the Effort group in Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a retail sales transaction in Ontario should not be subject to two separate taxes, at two different rates, under two sets of rules and payable to two different levels of government; and

"Whereas Ontario will implement a comprehensive package of income and business tax cuts in 2010, which will especially benefit working families and retired seniors; and

"Whereas the income taxes of Ontarians will be cut permanently, seniors will receive double their former property tax credit and other permanent savings will flow to Ontarians; and

"Whereas the cost to businesses to produce goods will go down permanently as embedded sales tax is permanently eliminated from the business cycle, enabling these businesses to lower business costs and pass savings along to their customers; and

"Whereas these measures represent the most comprehensive tax reform in a half century, enabling Ontario to be the most competitive place in North America to create jobs, move, grow and operate a business;

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

"That the government of Ontario and the members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly support measures to swiftly enact Ontario's comprehensive tax reform measures, including the move to a single sales tax as proposed in the province's 2009-10 budget."

It's an excellent petition. I'm pleased to sign and support it and to ask page James to carry it for me.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ServiceOntario will be terminating existing contracts with the approximately 60 independently owned and operated driver and vehicle licence-issuing offices in Ontario, we request that the Legislative Assembly stop the closures of these offices.

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

"The most efficient method of delivering driver and vehicle licence services to the public of Ontario is through privately owned facilities. Independent operators have an incentive to provide prompt, courteous service to their customers, many of whom they have been serving for years. Replacing experienced private issuers with ServiceOntario (government) employees will, at minimum, incur unnecessary training, salary and benefits, and facility costs which must be passed on to the taxpayer. Please keep our current issuers in business and their staff employed, providing the excellent service to which we are accustomed."

I'm pleased to sign that on behalf of my constituents.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition signed by many Ontarians from Unionville, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas protecting and preserving Ontario's cemeteries is a shared responsibility and the foundation of a civilized society; and

"Whereas failure to safeguard one of our last remaining authentic original heritage resources, Ontario's inactive cemeteries, would be disastrous for the continuity of the historical record and our collective culture in this province;

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

"The government must pass Bill 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

As I agree with the petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it is signed by over 10,000 loyal citizens of Milton. It states:

"Whereas the town of Milton is the fastest-growing community in Canada, with a population that is expected to surpass 100,000 by 2014; and

"Whereas the Milton District Hospital is designed to serve a population of 30,000; and

"Whereas young families, seniors and all residents of Milton are currently unable to access quick and reliable health care; and

"Whereas the excellent doctors and nurses at Milton District Hospital are constrained by unacceptable conditions and a lack of resources;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to immediately approve and initiate the process to expand Milton District Hospital and to provide adequate interim measures to prevent further suffering for the people of Milton."

I agree with this petition, I'm glad to sign my name and give it to Bethany to carry to the table.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me on this very important petition. It reads as follows:

"Whereas elementary school-aged children in the province of Ontario suffering from diabetes require regular blood sugar monitoring and may also require insulin and glucagon to manage their disease; and

"Whereas there is no medical or nursing assistance readily available in schools as there was in the past; and

"Whereas the parents/guardians of these children must currently visit their child's school several times throughout the day in order to test their child's blood sugar levels; and

"Whereas the absence of medical support in our elementary schools results in substantial stress and disruption to the lives of children and their working parents;

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

"

(1) That elementary schools in the province of Ontario have on-site staff trained in the daily monitoring of blood sugar levels of children who suffer from diabetes; and

"

(2) That the trained staff also administer insulin and glucagon when required, with the consent of the child's parent/guardian."

Since I agree, I'm delighted to sign this petition.

TAXATION

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to present petitions from my riding of Durham, which read as follows:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty is increasing taxes yet again with his new 13% combined sales tax, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

"Whereas by 2010, Dalton McGuinty's new tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day. A few examples include coffee, newspapers and magazines; gas for the car, home heating oil and electricity; haircuts, dry cleaning and personal grooming; home renovations and home services; veterinary care and pet care; legal services, the sale of resale homes, and funeral arrangements;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election. However, in 2004, he brought in the health tax, which costs upwards of $600 to $900 per individual. And now he is raising our taxes again;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

I'm pleased to sign and support this, and present it to Katelyn, one of the pages.

SHARK FISHERY

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a number of petitions here. This one here is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop shark finning.

"Whereas over 100 million sharks are being brutally killed, mutilated and butchered by the abhorrent practice of shark finning, which involves the removal of the fins of live sharks and then throwing the finless, immobile, live shark back into the ocean, where it is destined for a slow and torturous death, by either suffocation or attack by a predator;

"Whereas sharks are a vital component of the ocean's interconnected ecosystem, leading ecologists to warn that rapid decreases in shark populations will disturb the ocean's equilibrium...;

"Whereas the practice of shark finning can have disastrous effects on other fisheries...;

"Whereas the United Nations General Assembly itself has noted that the decline in the shark population could have 'an impact on broader ecosystem functions';

"We, the undersigned, urge the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the prohibition of shark finning and to call upon the federal government to support the prohibition of this cruel act."

I support this petition. I'll affix my name to it.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: This has been signed by about 1,100 people from the community of Penetanguishene.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ServiceOntario will be terminating existing contracts with the approximately 60 independently owned and operated driver and vehicle licence-issuing offices in Ontario, we request that the Legislative Assembly stop the closures of these offices.

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

"The most efficient method of delivering driver and vehicle licence services to the public of Ontario is through privately owned facilities. Independent operators have an incentive to provide prompt, courteous service to their customers, many of whom they have been serving for years. Replacing experienced private issuers with ServiceOntario (government) employees will, at minimum, incur unnecessary training, salary and benefits, and facility costs which must be passed on to the taxpayer. Please keep our current issuers in business and their staff employed, providing the excellent service to which we are accustomed."

I'm pleased to sign that.

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I'd like to acknowledge Cheryl Doran of Brampton for having collected the signatures on it. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the population in Peel has tripled from 400,000 residents to 1.2 million between 1980 to present. Human services funding has not kept pace with that growth. Peel receives only one third the per capita social service funding of other Ontario communities; and

"Whereas residents of Peel cannot obtain social services in a timely fashion. Long waiting lists exist for many Peel region service providers. The child poverty level in Peel has grown from 14% to 20% between 2001 and 2006, and youth violence is rising; and

"Whereas Ontario's Places to Grow legislation predicts substantial future growth, further challenging our already stretched service providers to respond to population growth;

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

"That the province of Ontario allocate social services funding on the basis of population size, population growth, relevant social indicators and special geographic conditions;

"That the province provide adequate growth funding for social services in Peel region; and

"That Ontario develop, in consultation with high-growth stakeholders, a human services strategy for high-growth regions to complement Ontario's award-winning Places to Grow strategy."

A very eloquent statement; I'm pleased to sign and agree with it and to ask page Madeline to carry it for me.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: It's another petition from the citizens of Penetanguishene.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ServiceOntario will be terminating existing contracts with the approximately 60 independently owned and operated driver and vehicle licence-issuing offices in Ontario, we request that the Legislative Assembly stop the closures of these offices.

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

"The most efficient method of delivering driver and vehicle licence services to the public of Ontario is through privately owned facilities. Independent operators have an incentive to provide prompt, courteous service to their customers, many of whom they have been serving for years. Replacing experienced private issuers with ServiceOntario (government) employees will, at minimum, incur unnecessary training, salary and benefits, and facility costs which must be passed on to the taxpayer. Please keep our current issuers in business and their staff employed, providing the excellent service to which we are accustomed."

I'm pleased to sign that and give it to page Rushabh to present to the table.

TOM LONGBOAT

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition signed by a number of constituents of mine from South Glengarry and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Tom Longboat is Canada's greatest long-distance runner; and

"Whereas Tom Longboat is a great role model for all Canadians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass the Tom Longboat Day Act into law so that we can honour this remarkable athlete and courageous Canadian who is a great role model for all Canadians."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have another petition.

"Whereas the community of Waubaushene in the township of Tay has two entrances off Highway 400, one of which is the Pine Street-Highway 400 ramp; and

"Whereas the Pine Street-Highway 400 ramp entrance has had numerous accidents, including fatalities, over the past two decades; and

"Whereas the Pine Street-Highway 400 ramp entrance is very confusing and awkward for drivers trying to make left-hand turns onto Highway 12 from either Pine Street or the Highway 400 ramp; and

"Whereas the Tay community policing committee and the council of the township of Tay have expressed grave concerns over the safety at the Pine Street-Highway 400 and Highway 12 intersection; and

"Whereas there is a strong feeling in the community that traffic lights at the Pine Street-Highway 400 ramp and Highway 12 intersection would save lives;

"Therefore we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario support the Tay community policing committee and the council of the township of Tay and immediately install traffic lights at the Pine Street-Highway 400 ramp and Highway 12 intersection."

I'm pleased to sign that and present it to Elliott to present to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

Mr. Fonseca moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 210,

An Act to protect foreign nationals employed as live-in caregivers and in other prescribed employment and to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 210, Loi visant à protéger les étrangers employés comme aides familiaux et dans d'autres emplois prescrits et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, I'll be sharing time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton West.

I rise today to speak on this piece of legislation, the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (Live-in Caregivers and Others), 2009. This proposed legislation would safeguard a group of employees who are among the most vulnerable in our province: foreign nationals who work as live-in caregivers.

Imagine this: In another part of the world—China, the Philippines, Singapore, the Emirates, the Caribbean—a foreign national picks up a local newspaper, reads an ad and sees an opportunity to work in what is seen as one of the best countries in the entire world, Canada.

As they look at that ad, they're the type of caring individuals who see themselves doing that type of service, working as live-in caregivers helping someone's family: maybe a family with young children; or an older adult lives at home and needs extra care, and the family needs that support. Someone may have a disabled child or adult in their home who needs 24/7 support through a live-in caregiver.

So the live-in caregiver answers the ad, goes to a location and hears about what they may find to be a dream world for them: an opportunity to come to work in the greater Toronto area, Ontario, Canada. They are given a talk by a recruiting agency. Then they are told about the fees that need to be paid to access that opportunity, and those are thousands and thousands of dollars. So, many of these live-in caregivers from around the world take out their life savings or borrow thousands of dollars to fulfill this dream to do work they want to do to help a family, maybe living in any one of our neighbourhoods, in one of our ridings.

They go through a process and, all along, this program is under the banner of our federal government: Canada's federal government temporary foreign worker live-in caregiver program. You feel pretty good when you think, "Do you know what? This program is being overseen by the federal government." So the live-in caregiver embarks on this journey, pays out thousands of dollars, finds themselves getting on a plane. They land at Pearson airport, come through Customs, and that's where the dream comes to an end.

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is making fun of something that is very serious. There are vulnerable workers who are being exploited, who are being mistreated, and the member is heckling these vulnerable workers. Shame on him.

The vulnerable worker arrives at Pearson, and this is where their dream turns into a nightmare. The recruiter who is there to receive them under this federal live-in caregiver program tells them all of a sudden when they arrive there, "Oh, sorry. There is no employer. That employer no longer exists."

So the live-in caregiver—I'm sure his or her dreams are destroyed—now has a decision to make: How are they going to get back home, or what are they going to do while they're here?

The recruiter maybe takes them to a holding locale and many times takes away their passport, takes away their work permit. Why would they do this? They'll do this because that gives them control of that poor, vulnerable employee, that live-in caregiver who is here—and then puts them into precarious employment or puts them into a spot which was nothing like the picture that was painted for them many months ago as they were coming over to Canada, to Ontario, to Toronto.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Imagine how she felt when she walked into Ruby Dhalla's house.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member keeps heckling exploited workers, vulnerable workers. I don't understand what this member is heckling about.

Our government sees this as something that needs to be dealt with quickly and forcefully. That is why we have looked at what is happening with these live-in caregivers. We have consulted, and through those consultations we have found every possible loophole that these unscrupulous recruiters are using to exploit these workers, and through this proposed legislation are trying to close every one of those, as well as continuing to work with the Canadian government, which administers this temporary foreign worker live-in caregiver program, so that they can fix many things that are outside of our jurisdiction of Ontario before those workers arrive.

Our government has responded very, very quickly, and at the same time, though, carefully and responsibly, to ensure that these vulnerable workers receive protections that they need and deserve.

This legislation is about compassion. Martin Luther King once wrote that he dreamt of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality. Recognition of the dignity and worth of others is at the heart of this bill.

Many in this House are aware that there have been reports of exploitation of employees who are part of this federal live-in caregiver program. There have been justifiable concerns raised about exorbitant job placement fees and other charges that have been levied on these live-in caregivers.

I want to thank the many advocates out there who have helped inform this proposed legislation. I want to thank Dale Brazao and Rob Cribb at the Toronto Star for their series on this very important issue and for shining the light on it. I want to thank Deena Ladd at the Workers' Action Centre and Mary Gellatly with Parkdale legal, Speaker, as you would know.

I want to thank the many, many live-in caregivers who consulted, who opened up, who explained their stories, who shared their stories of exploitation—and if it wasn't happening to them, the stories they heard from their colleagues, from their friends, as they met at church, as they met at community centres and as they spoke to each other and supported each other in a way to help address these wrongs.

I want to thank my colleague Mike Colle, who met with many of the live-in caregivers, met with the consul general of the Philippines, and looked to see what we could do here at the provincial level to stop these abuses, as well as my parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton West, who will be speaking and who was involved in those consultations throughout the summer.

There have also been reports of instances of some recruiters and employers who withheld the passports and documents of these workers.

As I said, these employees devote their lives to caring for our most loved ones. These are people whom we are entrusting with our babies, with someone who is not able to take care of themselves, who has a severe disability, with an aged mom or dad who may have dementia or Alzheimer's. They are caring for our loved ones. They deserve our care, our protections, to ensure that their rights are being upheld, and that's what we're doing with this legislation.

The protections this bill would provide were arrived at through our consultations this summer. We received much public input. These consultations helped identify and clarify the problem which is so international in scope. As I said, these live-in caregivers are coming here from all continents because they have been given information about what a great life they may have. And it's true. All of us, except for the First Nations, have immigrated to this country to find hope, to find opportunity. That's why people come here, and we provide that. We also provide protections for our workers, and these foreign nationals deserve those same protections.

The McGuinty government is moving forward now to do what we can to protect these vulnerable workers, these foreign nationals. Our proposed legislation would prohibit direct or indirect charging of any fees to caregivers, including those related to recruitment or job placement. This comprehensive ban would cover recruitment and placement fees for other supplementary services such as resumé writing, interview coaching etc.

We looked for all the possible loopholes: not just banning those fees that recruiters are directly levying on those live-in caregivers, but also roundabout ways that unscrupulous recruiters would envision as to how they could still charge and grab funds from these vulnerable workers. They may try to do it in a roundabout way, by levying those charges through the employer and then those monies would be receipted back to the recruiter. Those practices and many other types of tactics these unscrupulous individuals may try to use will not be allowed if this proposed legislation passes.

As I said, by some accounts, recruiters would make deals with employers. They would deduct those fees and try to get them in a different way. The recruiter in turn would give the employer a break in the fees that that employer, not the caregiver, should properly be paying.

Having heard these accounts of devious exploitation, we ensured that we would stop this type of practice done to our live-in caregivers.

Also, to hear that somebody's passport or work permit has been taken away from them—this is paramount to taking away somebody's freedom. You are holding somebody hostage. You are imprisoning somebody by taking that documentation because that person is now not able to find other employment, fears moving, fears being deported, and is stuck in what may be a very difficult situation.

Through this proposed legislation, we would give our employment standards officers the power to issue a warrant to come into a recruiting agency or, if need be, a home to get that documentation back for that live-in caregiver.

Also, our employment standards officers will not need to wait for a claim to be made or a complaint to be made by that live-in caregiver. We know that the community of live-in caregivers is a tight one. It's close. They talk to each other. If there are tips that our employment standards officers hear about, where these types of practices are happening at that recruitment agency, they can go out with a warrant and crack down on the agency—go in, inspect and see what is happening—to address the situation.

We know that, if this legislation were to pass, there will still be those out there who will think about breaking the law. What we have done is, we have put in the stiffest penalties in all of Canada. The penalties for those who would break the law under this proposed legislation would amount to up to $50,000 and up to 12 months of jail time. In no other province, even where they have banned fees and brought in other protections, has anybody brought in jail time. We would have 12 months' worth of jail time also as part of this legislation.

This legislation is about more enforcement—strengthening our enforcement; ensuring that we have stiff penalties; bringing in provisions for issues that we've heard about, like the withholding of personal documentation; and providing information to live-in caregivers as soon as they arrive, through their employer, through the recruiter, about the types of rights they have so that they know who they can call. We acted quickly as soon as we heard about the many stories of abuse.

In this House, we said that we would assemble a professional team at our employment standards office to receive calls through a hotline and address claims for live-in caregivers, help them with information, provide the type of information on their rights that they needed, make the general public more aware of the duties and responsibilities of the employer. Everyone should be aware that these types of abuses, of exploitation, will not be tolerated in the province of Ontario.

But it's a lovely country. It has given so much hope and opportunity to so many. Our diversity is our strength, and when it comes to those coming through the temporary foreign worker program and specifically the live-in caregiver program, yes, they will go through many of those challenges that we've all gone through, but what they should not go through is to be exploited, taken advantage of, duped by somebody who has sold them a bill of goods that is not correct and to have, in many instances, lost their life savings. This is completely unfair.

It is not what we've built this country and this province on. The values of fairness, of working together, of supporting each other, those are the values that these live-in caregivers coming from wherever have heard about this great country of Canada. We must support them when they're here.

This legislation would correct many serious injustices. It will help protect some of the most vulnerable in our province. It demonstrates our compassion for those who show compassion in their work and their everyday lives, caring for others by caring for all of our loved ones. I again want to thank all of those who gave input into the creation of this very important piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Brampton West.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I'm happy to address the Legislature on second reading of the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (Live-in Caregivers and Others), 2009. As the Minister of Labour has just said, this bill is about recognition of the dignity and worth of some of the most vulnerable employees in our province: foreign nationals who are live-in caregivers.

This past summer, during consultations held in preparation for this bill, I heard heartbreaking stories. I heard accounts of exploitation and abuse many of these employees faced. As caregivers and their advocates came forward and shared personal stories and accounts of situations faced by friends and relatives, an all-too-common scenario emerged.

Under the federal live-in caregiver program, a nanny will come to Ontario to work for a specific person named in the employment offer and the work permit. Typically, the nanny has no or little contact with the employer. Her only contact is the recruiter. The recruiter supposedly assists the nanny in navigating the immigration and work permit process, and for this service the recruiter charges the nanny several thousand dollars in fees. We heard accounts of live-in caregivers being charged between $10,000 and $20,000 in fees. These fees were in addition to all other costs of moving to Canada: the cost of the medical exam, the visa and the airplane ticket.

When the nanny arrives in Ontario, she is supposedly released. That neutral term refers to the practice of setting the nanny adrift in a foreign land. She is told that her employer does not want to hire her anymore. In many of these cases employer never really existed or was never interested in hiring a nanny.

Once the nanny is released, she is an easy target for the unscrupulous recruiter. The nanny often cannot afford to go back home. She has no job and no prospect of getting one, either. She is at the mercy of this recruiter. She can't work legally until she has a new work permit that names a new employer. An alternative scenario is that the nanny does go to work for the employer, but the situation doesn't work out. Either way the nanny needs a new permit, and it can take months to get a new permit.

Until she gets a new work permit, a nanny will often be forced to work in violation of the terms of this program. Once she does that, she will often be told that she is now here illegally and must do whatever her employer tells her to do for whatever wage her employer decides to give her. If she protests to that employer and asserts her rights, she is threatened with deportation. Sometimes her passport is taken from her to hinder any attempt to escape from this miserable situation.

Our legislation is about stopping these unscrupulous recruiters and the victimization of these vulnerable workers. That is why we have provided for a complete ban on fees, a prohibition on withholding passports and personal documents, strong enforcement and stiff penalties. I invite all in the House to support this bill and thereby support the foreign live-in caregivers who are in desperate need of our help.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I was looking forward to an opportunity to respond to both the minister's and the parliamentary assistant's comments on this legislation. I want to say up front that I support the legislation.

People are wondering why I was heckling, I was heckling because, in my view, part of the reason this bill is here is to extricate Liberals from the problems they had with Ruby Dhalla.

Ruby Dhalla is a federal Member of Parliament who decided—rightly so—that she wanted to have a nanny, and there's nothing wrong with that; it's a function of the lives people lead that leads them to that decision. As we remember, sometime last year, Ms. Dhalla was in a situation where she had a couple of caregivers in her employ. She had taken their passports away, she was getting them to work in the family business—there were all kinds of abuses as a result of the actions taken by Ms. Dhalla on those two particular individuals who worked for her.

I want to say up front that I support the bill. I think it's a good idea. Does the bill go far enough, Madam Speaker? I know that when you get a chance to speak, I'll hear more on this. But I'll say that the bill should be toughened up in order to make sure we toughen some of the provisions. But the point I was making is that the government, in this case, is introducing this bill for good reason, because protection is needed for workers who come into this country to care for our children, and there needs to be legislation to protect them. I support that. I think that's a good idea.

But let's not kid ourselves: This government has introduced this bill and talked about doing this bill at a time when there is a member of the federal Liberal caucus who is in trouble as a result of taking advantage of foreign caregivers who were in her employ.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock for a second.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville on a point of order.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Standing order 23(

h) specifically forbids making "allegations against another member," and standing order 23(

g) prohibits comment on any matter that may be the subject of a proceeding, which I believe the matter referred to by the member for Timmins—James Bay is. He's welcome to comment on the bill but not to contravene the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): My understanding of that standing order is that it refers to a member of this House—I'm looking for any further direction from the Clerk. Thank you very much for sharing, member from Mississauga—Streetsville.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, the member from Mississauga—Streetsville makes a point for me: It was a matter before the federal House of Commons—it was a federal Liberal member who got herself in trouble—and I'm commenting that this government, this Liberal government provincially, decided to introduce this legislation in the wake of what happened—I would just remind that the clock is not running; I wouldn't want to take anybody else's time.

Anyway, they were in a situation where they were trying to do some damage control on the Liberal brand, and that's why this particular bill has come forward. Is it a good idea? Absolutely. Will I vote for it? Absolutely. I think it's the right thing to do, but it needs to be toughened up. But let's remember why that bill is coming forward.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Timmins—James Bay may be totally shocked and surprised that I don't subscribe to that reason and rationale for the bill being introduced, except to say that there are many, many people who have indeed been taking advantage of the people we are trying to protect in this piece of legislation. On that we do concur. In terms of the branding situation, I think this is a long-standing understanding.

I want to thank the parliamentary assistant. He has done some honest-to-goodness consultations straight inside not just the Filipino community; many communities have given him some input right from the grassroots. That is the part that I believe has been instrumental in making sure that people understand that this particular stream we're dealing with is an extremely serious problem, particularly for those who were intimidated in many ways: first of all in leaving their homeland, and secondly, by the unscrupulous people who existed and knew they would do anything to be here.

Having said that, I thank the government, the Minister of Labour and the parliamentary assistant for bringing forward this issue—it takes time for us to remove the onion skin over and over again. I will quite frankly wait to see if there's absolutely anybody in this House who will stand and say this is not the right direction to go for this government to deal with this particular issue.

As I've said many times in this House, and the member from Timmins—James Bay knows, my philosophy about this is that this is a fluid activity in this place. We don't be-all and end-all with one piece of legislation. I look forward to the continuation of improvements for the people who are coming to the country under the impression that there aren't these people on the sidelines ready to rip them off before they even get a chance to make enough money to sustain their families.

I thank the government and I thank the parliamentary assistant, particularly for his grassroots work.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: One of the problems that the opposition is having with regard to the government calling their legislation is that they change constantly. As I understand it, this wasn't put on the agenda until this morning, and therefore our caucus has not had an opportunity to meet, talk about the issues and formulate our position. This is second reading debate, and therefore, for the debate to be meaningful, there should be an opportunity for the caucuses to meet and talk about the principles in the bill.

I want to say that when I was a government House leader for three years, from 1996 to 1999, I ensured that every bill that was to be debated in this House was caucused not only by my caucus, the government caucus, but by the opposition caucuses. I would say to the opposition House leaders, "Please have your caucus review bills X, Y and Z because we may be calling them for debate in the next little while." Under the old rules, before this government made closure much easier, that meant at least three days of second reading debate before closure could be brought forward. Now it can be brought forward in six measly hours.

But notwithstanding that, this government is in total confusion. They don't know what they're going to debate next. It's off the cuff. This was introduced for first reading last week and the caucuses haven't had the opportunity to discuss it, formulate their positions and become knowledgeable on the issues. Therefore, this government is not only out of control financially but out of control legislatively as well.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate the opportunity.

I remember the member from Brant speaking about the individuals being ripped off and the concern about what's taking place there, but in the media we all too often hear about those individuals who were ripped off coming to Ontario or to Canada in the first place.

Some of the aspects: I know individuals who hire predominantly Filipinos who are coming to work in specific areas. One of the areas of concern that has been expressed that I've heard about is that when they come over, there's an understanding, at least when they're coming across, that it's the paying of their dues to work in their discipline for a short period of time. Then, once they're in Ontario for over a year, they get jobs in other areas. So he's constantly getting individuals because he has a very heavily disabled son whom these individuals come over and assist with on a regular basis and take care of.

I've met with them and spoken with them; they're very happy with everything they do. However, it's on a short-term basis. So they come to Ontario, they work for about a year and then they migrate through the rest of the system.

I'm just wondering if there's any documentation to follow the individuals on how long they're in Ontario and how long they remain in those disciplines that they come to Ontario for. That's one of the areas of concern that we'd like expressed in some of the debate and hearings on this particular area, as to how long those individuals are there and how well they're taken care of, not only before they came here and what the expectation was when they arrive in Ontario and while they are here, but also afterwards. How long do they remain in those various disciplines?

I appreciate the opportunity, and I look forward to our caucus getting together and talking about this, probably tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Brampton West has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I want to thank the member from Timmins—James Bay, the member from Brant and the member from Carleton—Mississippi Mills for their remarks.

As the minister stated and I stated before, I had a chance to do some consultations over the summer on this issue. There were presentations made from a wide array of people from different communities and different ethnic backgrounds. As I stated before, the theme was all too apparent and all too often the same. The most appropriate word to describe what people were saying was just "heartbreaking," what these people had to go through. Oftentimes the amount of money that they have to pay is in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 or even more. These people do not have the money and often have to take out loans with stiff interest payments, and this amount snowballs to a very, very large amount.

These people have families back home who are dependent on them for support. Oftentimes they come here in the hopes of working and find out that they can't work, that they won't be given the work they were promised, and, yes, they end up doing whatever they have to. This is something that we're trying to change in this bill by way of a complete ban on fees, a prohibition on employers from withholding documents such as passports, and strong enforcement of these rules with real backup with real staff to make sure these rules are effective.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further debate.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I was just nearly brought to tears as I was listening to the minister's introduction of this bill. As he spoke, he stated that this Liberal administration would not tolerate abuses and exploitation. This, of course, is coming from a government who have abused their authority with taxpayers, have exploited taxpayers with their multitude of scandals and abuses on spending, and who have tried to dupe the people of Ontario into thinking that a billion-dollar scandal is not worth something to them. I guess there were new some drama classes in the Liberal caucus last week or whatnot, but any reasonable person would see through that façade.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House on Bill 210. I spoke to it at first reading last week. As the member from Carleton—Mississippi Mills said, we have not had time to caucus this bill. Because of the total state of confusion and chaos of this Liberal administration changing their bills, changing their patterns in debates, nobody knows what they're going to do next, not even themselves. But we did have first reading last Wednesday, and now we're into second reading.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We used to know everything because of time allocation.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That's right. But I do maintain that this bill is valuable and it is necessary. As representatives of the people of Ontario, we have an obligation to represent people—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We'll see if we can get some of the heckling down here.

We do have an obligation to protect the people of this province who cannot protect themselves. This bill is a good example of legislation that recognizes our responsibilities as representatives. So I once again applaud the government's attempt to protect foreign live-in caregivers who are not or may not be aware of their freedoms and their rights and responsibilities in this country.

That being said, though—and I think it's important to make this point—this bill is there to protect the rights and freedoms and justice for those foreign live-in care workers, but then, within this very piece of legislation, the government chooses to abandon those very same rights and freedoms and to trample the rights and freedoms of employers in this bill. We all know that you cannot create justice when you provide for freedoms and justice for one group, but harm another group by doing so.

Let me just read this. Subsection 34(1) says, "An employment standards officer may, without a warrant, enter and inspect any place in order to investigate a possible contravention of this act or to perform an inspection to ensure that this act is being complied with."

Why do we have to completely dismiss that long-held tradition, that long-held principle of common law that we are afforded? Our Constitution and our common law provide for protection of people within their homes. We have processes to ensure that government can still ensure that wrongdoing is not happening under the issuance and exercising of warrants. Why is it that now this Liberal administration decides we are going to dismiss 800 years of common law and provide for warrantless entry?

There is another

section in the bill, a revision to the Employment Standards Act,

section 92, that says that the employment officer may enter these residences to determine whether the employer of an employee who resides in this employer's residence is complying with this act. There's no need to even have the thought or reasonable or probable grounds that there is a contravention of the act. They can just enter anybody's home to see if they are in compliance with this act. That i