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

February 25, 2010

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Feb-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 25 February 2010 Jeudi 25 février 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'APPRENTISSAGE

DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

TAXATION

PENSION REFORM

NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

FUNDRAISING

PATIENT SAFETY

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PALLIATIVE CARE

FOOD SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MINING INDUSTRY

ENERGY CONSERVATION

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

THINK INDIGENOUS EXPO

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

HEALTH CARE

JOB CREATION

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

BRAD MARTIN

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

PETITIONS

TAXATION

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

TAXATION

CHILD CUSTODY

CLIMATE CHANGE

IDENTITY THEFT

CLIMATE CHANGE

TAXATION

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK

ZERO WASTE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA JOURNÉE

« ZÉRO DÉCHET »

ACCESSIBILITÉ POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK

ZERO WASTE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA JOURNÉE

« ZÉRO DÉCHET »

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'APPRENTISSAGE

DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 242,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in relation to early childhood educators, junior kindergarten and kindergarten, extended day programs and certain other matters/ Projet de loi 242, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation et d'autres lois en ce qui concerne les éducateurs de la petite enfance, la maternelle et le jardin d'enfants, les programmes de jour prolongé et d'autres questions.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Certainly it's a pleasure to rise today in the House, and it's going to be, I warn everyone, a historic moment. I'm about to say something that I've never said before and probably–well, who knows?—may never say again. So put aside your crossword puzzles, drop the clippings, and those who are watching at home, turn up the volume and maybe switch channels from the 150th replay of last night's game and listen, because I'm going to say that for once the McGuinty government has done something very good.

Applause.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I know. What can one say? I see Sophia over there beaming, the Minister of Consumer Services—congratulations; by the way, Minister of Agriculture, congratulations to you too.

Certainly this is something that we, as New Democrats, wanted to see and have been really pressing for a long time. I can't remember a time personally when, as a feminist, I haven't been struggling for more child care, which is really what we're speaking about here, because, quite frankly, women's rights hinge on having an adequate child care program in this province.

Now, of course, you know there are going to be caveats. You know that this isn't the full story yet, and far from it, because we're still dealing with women who have two-year-olds and three-year-olds and even four-year-olds, where they need help, and even the four- and five-year-old program, of course, we feel is going to be phased in a little too slowly and will not extend to everybody yet; we understand that. But way, way back in the 1970s, I remember asking for free universal, accessible child care. Because without it, women simply will never have equality. That is a huge piece of this puzzle.

We could also, and I will, talk about how it affects children—and it's always positive. The experience of other countries and other jurisdictions is always positive, when the government steps into this.

I look to neighbours who still, we in the New Democratic Party think, do it better. Manitoba has $17-a-day child care. Quebec, with a Liberal government, has $7-a-day child care. These, we feel, are better models, and they're paying for themselves. I'll talk about that as well. But, hey, this is a step, and we have to celebrate it, even though it's not the whole story.

Certainly Sid Ryan, head of CUPE and now the OFL, said it best when he said, "The best way to keep our eyes on the prize is to involve all concerned parties in the implementation of this new program. That means parents, schools, school- and community-based child care agencies, ECEs and teachers and the unions that represent them. Particularly, the province must take care not to disrupt existing child care programs as we go through the transition to an integrated, seamless day." So says the new head of the OFL. He's right. Those are some of the problems the government is going to face as this gets phased in.

Like any new program, it's going to have some kinks. And of course we in the New Democratic Party will be there to assist the government, to call the government to account, to actually try to pave the way so that this works well and gets spread out across the province quickly. We would like to see this spread out across the province a little bit more quickly than the government has on its agenda.

I have to say that in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park we've seen tragedies, in fact in part because of the lack of adult oversight of our children and adult care for our children. I think here in particular of the tragic case of Katelynn Sampson. Here is a case of a little girl who went missing from school for several months. There were not enough—and there are still not enough, quite frankly—adults in our schools, adults who have oversight over our children. So the school did what they could. They did everything they could. They phoned; they were told that she was back on the reservation.

They had no people to send to check out the factuality of that submission. So they had to go on the caregivers' word—caregivers who were far from caregivers, who were in fact murderers. But they didn't know that then. Had we more adults in the school system, they would have been able to send somebody out. But also, had we had more child care—after school, before school, and for four- and five-year-olds—at that point, Katelynn would have had some contacts in the community. She would have been known by adults in the community, and her absence would have been noted and there would have been follow-up.

This is a little life that might have been saved had there been adequate daycare supports, had there been adequate daycare supports for four- and five-year-olds, had there been adequate after-school and before-school daycare supports—and of course the supports would have had to be free or at very low cost, because we're talking about a family that had very little money, a mother who wrestled with health issues of her own and was unable to look after her daughter.

So there is a classic case, a case of a death that might, just might, have been averted had there been more adults watching, more adults able to follow up and to find out what was going on in that household, where that little girl really was: Was what the so-called caregivers said true, or not? That's something that we live with in Parkdale—High Park still. As I pass her mother on the street, probably at least once a week, I'm reminded of it.

So, again, universal, accessible, free daycare is what we should all be aiming for, to protect women, to allow women to achieve equality, which we don't have yet in this province, and to protect our children. It's something we're not doing yet for our children, although this is a step toward that.

Certainly, when I walked into this place—and I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I'm sure all women, as they walk into this place, are struck by a couple of noted details. Number one, that there are no—there are actually only two representations of women on the two public floors of Queen's Park. Although there are dozens of portraits of men, there are only two women depicted. One is Agnes Macphail—that's a bust of her as you walk up the stairs—and the other is the Queen. That's it. Everybody else's picture is a picture of a man.

Now, what does that say to our girl children as they walk in here on school tours? Well, it says that this place is the domain of men. Quite frankly, it is the domain of men. There are only about 24% of us who are female in this place.

Why is that? I would certainly say that part of it is the lack of child care. We are a symbolic representation of what goes on in the rest of the province. There is no child care for MPPs present at Queen's Park. Why not? I mean, if it were only symbolic, it would be important. It would be important if it were only symbolic. Because what we're saying to young women—not to women whose children have grown up—is that there's no place for you here.

If you have children, you've got to choose: either your children's welfare or political life. Because quite frankly, political life takes 12 to 14 hours a day. We all know that. And if there isn't accessible child care on-site where, between meetings and sessions of the House, we can go and see our children and interact with them, it's no place for a young woman, this place.

That's still the case, and I would really ask of the government that they look at that, that they look at the symbolism of not having child care for sitting MPPs, of having nothing but pictures of men on the first two floors of this building. The symbolic nature of that has real ramifications.

What are the ramifications for women, again, because of the lack of child care? We still only make 71 cents for every dollar made by men. That's the reality. That really hasn't changed much in decades. Why is that?

Again, look at the vast majority of folk who take time off on leave to look after their children. The vast majority of them are women. In their most productive professional years they have to take a year off, or sometimes more—many women take more—when men are still working. And those productive lags are what hurt women. Why do they have to take that time off, or why do they need to? Because again, there's not a child care around the corner that they feel really confident leaving their children with.

We're not talking here about what is increasingly happening in this province, which is a privatization of child care. Most women, most families, most men don't want to leave their child anywhere just so they can go to work. They want to be assured that if they are leaving their child, they're going to be educated, loved and cared for, and that it's going to be an enriching experience, not a depleting experience.

I can't tell you—and I know all the MPPs share in this—the number of times I've knocked on apartment buildings and houses where, clearly, there is unlicensed, unregulated child care happening, and what you see is a group of little kids watching TV. That's what you see. Is that the future of children in this province? I hope not.

Here is a step forward—not adequate, but it's a step forward. As I said, it's a historic moment that I would be saying anything good about this government, but I am. Who knew?

If we look at Charles Pascal's notes to the government, if we look at his report, we note a number of interesting details. First of all, we note that he made a number of recommendations—not only the one that the government followed up on, but a number of ones, and he made them for a reason. Because studies have shown—and across the board, really, there's no debate about it—that good child care, enriching child care, is good for people, and it's a great leveller. That is to say that children who are marginalized, who are racialized, who go into adequate, enriching, good child care actually get a step up.

It helps them and it levels the playing field in terms of how they'll do in school later on and how they'll do later in life.

His recommendations: He said, first of all, "The province should create a continuum of early learning, child care, and family supports for children from the prenatal period through to adolescence, under the leadership of the Minister of Education."

That was recommendation number 1. Even the government will admit that hasn't happened yet. We're working toward that—I hear you—but it hasn't happened yet. I think again of Katelynn Sampson. Would that have helped? Of course it would have. It might have saved her life.

Number 2: "The Ministry of Education should establish an early years division to develop and implement an early years policy framework that will create a continuity of early learning experiences for children from 0 to 8 years of age."

We point out that although it's a good thing, this legislation only affects four- and five-year-olds, not younger children. Again, there's work to be done, a great deal of work to be done there.

Number 3 is the one recommendation the government has acted on, and what we see is what we get: "a two-year, full-day early learning program prior to grade 1, available to all children."

Not quite all children, however; not quite phased in the way we'd like to see it; perhaps not quite funded the way we'd like to see it—a great question mark hanging over this piece of legislation is where the money will come from. Again, New Democrats will fully support this, assist where we can and push where we can to make sure that it rolls out the way it should.

Number 3: "The early years policy framework should also guide the transformation of programming for Ontario's youngest learners. Municipal authorities, with the necessary resources, should be mandated to plan, develop, support, and monitor an integrated network of Best Start child and family centres providing" children with—and here's where we see the great gap:

"—flexible, part-time/full-day/full-year early learning/ care options for children up to age 4," says Dr. Pascal;

"—prenatal and postnatal information and supports"—again, I think of these marginalized children, born to parents who are marginalized, and wonder where those postnatal supports are; I know that our social workers and social work agencies do their best, but they're not funded to the tune that would accommodate this;

"—parenting and family support programming, including home visiting, family literacy, and play groups"—home visiting was something completely absent in the poor, short life of Katelynn Sampson;

"—nutrition and nutrition counselling;

"—early identification and intervention resources;

"—links to special-needs treatment and community resources, including libraries, recreation and community centres, health care, family counselling, housing, language services, and employment/training services."

In fact, none of these early options are offered, and many of them, quite frankly, are threatened—I hope the government didn't plan it this way—in part because our daycares now losing their four- and five-year-olds also suffer a financial hit.

Again, I read the

article today about the Minister of Education, as did everybody, and this was raised in that article, which was otherwise quite glowing. It said, "What is the government going to do?" And the government threw this back on the daycare operators and said, "Well, maybe they'll take more younger children." But, as we know, the reality is that the younger the child, the more early childhood educators you need to run the daycare, so it changes the financial model of our daycares. That's problematic.

Coupled with that, as we all know, is the serious problem we're facing with the lack of federal funding. Toronto is looking at cutting maybe 5,000 daycare spaces because the federal funds aren't flowing. So that, coupled with this, is extremely problematic for those folk in Ontario. Remember that the stats are horrendous in this province: Only one out of 10 children currently has a child care spot, and it costs over $1,000 a month on average. I contrast that with Manitoba's $17 a day and Quebec's $7 a day. This is a problem, and this may make it worse. In fact, there are signs that it's making it worse right now.

So all I would do is caution my friends across the aisle and say, please, if we bring this in, let it not be at the expense of daycare spaces for younger children, because we need to guarantee those; in fact, we need to add to those. In fact, we need a daycare policy. And there, I know, this government always points at the federal government, as they do on so many issues, and says, "You go first." Well, where daycare is concerned, that's just not good enough; where women are concerned, that's just not good enough; where children are concerned, that's just not good enough; and certainly where Katelynn Sampson was concerned, it was far from good enough.

Let's go on. Charles Pascal also made some other recommendations. He said: "Under the systems management of municipal authorities, the direct operation of Best Start child and family centres could be provided by local or regional governments, school boards, post-secondary institutions, or non-profit agencies."

It's a good dream, but we know here, and certainly they know at the municipal level, that they simply don't have the funds to do that. So if we are to ask them to do that, in light of Dr. Pascal's recommendations, then we need to give them the funds to be able to do that.

"Non-profit and commercial providers may continue to operate licensed child care in accordance"—goes on Dr. Pascal, in recommendation number 7—"with current program standards. All service expansion would take place through Best Start child and family centres and school boards."

Unfortunately, although we tried, we didn't get a comment about this recommendation from this government. Again, I would challenge the government to give us a comment on that. What do they think of that recommendation? I mean, it's in the same report. What are they going to do about it?

The eighth recommendation: "The expectations set out in the Early Years policy framework should be operationalized through local Early Years service plans developed by municipal authorities in partnership with school boards and community partners. Outcomes and targets should be developed through provincial-municipal collaboration and funding flowed through municipal authorities and school boards to meet targets."

This is quite a substantial recommendation. This really gets to the hub of the problem with daycare in our province. Again, unfortunately, there has been no action from the government.

Really, we see here that this is a government that has done a piece of the job. It's an important piece—we'll give them that. As I said, it's not often that I stand here and give kudos to my friends across the aisle, but I am doing that today. I don't want to detract from that; I'm doing that today. But it's only the very first step. It has to be done carefully, in consultation with the daycare operators, so as to not cost these precious and rare daycare spots.

Also, and most importantly, it's not the full answer to daycare in the province of Ontario. We still need to see from this government a program so that women can go to work on equal footing with men; so that children can be protected, not just from four years old and up but from two years old and up, one and a half years old and up; so that women, finally, can get back to work on the same level playing field as men, which is absolutely not the case right now, as exemplified by this place in and of itself, Queen's Park, that is called the Pink Palace in name only but certainly isn't very pink when it comes to women's rights.

Women from all parties: We should be working together on this. This should not be a partisan issue. We should be calling on both our own caucuses and also the government of the day, which happens to be, quite frankly, yours, in the Liberal Party, to make this the first step only and to go on to a full daycare program. Don't wait for the feds. You'll wait forever. You know that. Work now to make sure that our children are protected and to make sure that all of the recommendations of Dr. Pascal are implemented, not just recommendation number 3.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate. It's great to hear the remarks from the member from Parkdale—High Park, and it's great to hear that she'll be supporting this and has added constructive suggestions. It is a bill that's worthy of support, and I think that it takes some courage sometimes to stand up and say that the government's getting something right. In this sense, for a member of the opposition to do that I think speaks to the quality of the bill.

Mr. Michael Prue: We're waiting for you to tell us you've done something wrong.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Well, the member seems quite good at telling us when we've done something wrong, so I really did appreciate it.

About 20 years ago, I was chair of the child care committee in the region of Halton. At that time, it was an unusual role for a man to take. Quite simply, I was chair of that committee because I had a son, because I was a father. I found that when my wife and I were continuing in our careers, our son was put into a fractured system—that he spent part of the morning somewhere, he got picked up by a bus and then got taken to school, then somebody came back to pick him up at noon in a bus, then he went to a child care centre and stayed there until about six.

There were still people back then, and probably still people around, that called child care glorified babysitting, something that was unnecessary and the state shouldn't involve itself in it, but I think we've evolved as a society since that time. It has led to the introduction of a bill that I think speaks to the principle of a system that's not just good for the economy but is actually good for the kids themselves. It brings together two professions we've come to rely on over the years to work in harmony in the best interests of our young children, specifically four- and five-year-olds.

It brings the teaching profession and the early childhood educators together to work in the best interests of our children. So it makes Ontario a leader.

It's something we should be supporting. I appreciate the support from the member from Parkdale—High Park, and I hope the bill receives support from all members of the House at the end of the day.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I thank the member. I spoke to her earlier this morning about her remarks—and a commendable job in Parkdale—High Park.

I think the clippings this morning are a good indication—I spoke on this issue yesterday. I like the issue here from the Brampton Expositor. I won't read this, but it says there are many questions about how the program will work: "School boards have been told they must provide before- and after-school care for these young students, but not how administration and operating costs for the after-hours service will be covered. Cash-strapped school boards also don't know who will cover extra expenses for lighting, heating, transportation and school cleaning" etc.

"and how care will be provided on non-school days, including PA days, March break and during the summer." These are really important questions about implementation. I think they should pause and get it right.

Grand Erie trustee Don Werden "called the plan to have school boards provide before- and after-school care 'a disaster waiting to happen.'" Imagine exposing our children to these risks.

Jim Wibberley, Grand Erie's director of education, "has complained that 'we are not only going to be a board of education, but a board of child care.'" From the same article: "Child care centre operators say the children in their programs for four-and five-year-olds help to subsidize the cost of space for younger children. When thousands of children move from child care centres to full-day kindergarten, the cost for spaces for babies and toddlers, who require more care, is expected to go up."

They're actually not resolving this issue. This is a legacy issue of the Premier; that's all this really is. It's not fairly implemented, and I would like to have more time to draw to the attention of the public—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to celebrate what my colleague from Parkdale—High Park had to say. Yes, we in the New Democratic Party are going to support this, but we have the opportunity, and I think we have the right, to be critical at the same time. We need to point out that although this is a good program, Dr. Pascal has made a number of recommendations, of which the government has seen fit, to this point in time, to only implement or attempt to implement one of them.

My colleague from Parkdale—High Park was impassioned and she was reasoned, and in my view she gave a really holistic approach to what has to happen. It is all well and good to give full-day kindergarten to four- and five-year-olds, but what about the other children? What about those who require daycare? What about those moms, particularly single moms who need to have subsidized daycare in order to contribute to this society and go out and work? Surely if the province of Quebec can provide daycare for $7 a day or the province of Manitoba can provide it for $17 a day, then the government of Ontario needs to look at this approach as well.

I know we might be unique in going down the road to full-day kindergarten, but we need to look at our daycare situation. It is not adequate; it has never been adequate. I don't know how many times people in the New Democratic Party have had to stand up over the years and ask for a better daycare plan. We've done it for all of the eight years I've been here, and I know they were doing it before I was here. It's not happening, and it needs to happen. If we are to be truly a progressive province, if we are truly going to help women and children, then we have to go that next step.

So although I will be supporting the legislation, I concur with my colleague from Parkdale—High Park that we need to do more. When that "more" is done, then we can truly say we are a progressive province.

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

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: It's my pleasure to join the debate. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak at length on Bill 242, but it's wonderful to be able to stand up and respond to the member from Parkdale—High Park, who spoke very well this morning. I thought I would just go back in support for the comments that she made. She began her eloquent speech this morning by saying that the government has done something right, and I thank her for that. This is the right thing to do for the children of Ontario.

In response to the first opposition yesterday, and we heard it again this morning, I must reiterate that the time is now. We saw them stall it years ago, and we never want to go back. So I thank the member from Parkdale—High Park for her comments this morning.

We also support her comments about the effect of low-income neighbourhoods. More than half of the phase one schools are in communities that do demonstrate the highest need. Approximately 60% of the phase one schools are in high-needs areas, which is according to the low-income cut-off data. So I thank her for her comments.

She also spoke at length about children and child care, and I thank her for that. On-the-ground support from someone who is out in the field every day in my riding in the Wilmot Family Resource Centre is Trisha Robinson, the executive director, who agrees. She says, "We can see that a number of children in our community will benefit from this program. Implementing it will also give increased credibility to early childhood educators in using their skills and education focused on this age group."

And finally, the member from Parkdale—High Park talked about studies that show the importance of quality early learning, and again, an on-the-ground quote from a retired principal and chair of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board, who says, "There's an old poster claiming that everything you needed to know you learned in kindergarten." There is a lot of truth in that. The government—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for Parkdale—High Park has up to two minutes for her response.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thanks to the members for Kitchener—Conestoga, Beaches—East York, Oakville, and Durham for their comments and their support.

Certainly we're coming up, in another week, to International Women's Day, to the march. I hope to see women from all political parties out there. It would be great. On that day, certainly, we're going to be hearing the same calls that we've heard every day for decades, literally decades, if not probably a century, which is for access to daycare for all women in Ontario and all women, quite frankly, across Canada. That has always been one of the demands. Does this bill meet that demand? No, of course, it doesn't, but it is a step forward, and I said as much.

What I would love to see, from taking the step forward, is a few more steps forward, that is, "Hey, we've got some momentum now. Let's start looking at the whole daycare issue. Let's start looking at what is happening to our two-year-olds, to our three-year-olds."

Let's start looking at what is happening to the women in our communities: as my friend from Beaches—East York said, single mothers, but not just single mothers, married mothers, all mothers who want to go out to work and want to work on an equal footing with their male colleagues, who don't want to have to take a huge chunk of time off in the prime of their careers simply because they can't find adequate child care. This holds women back and it holds our children back, and as I pointed out in the tragic case of Katelynn Sampson, sometimes the lack of adult oversight on our children's lives actually is harmful and terribly detrimental.

So, again, kudos on this move. We will make sure, as you know, as is our prerogative and our calling in the opposition, to hold your feet to the fire and make sure that this rolls out well. Certainly this will not be the last you hear from us, but for the time being, let's celebrate a little bit, and let's move forward from here.

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

M. Phil McNeely: Il me donne plaisir ce matin de parler sur la loi 242. À Ottawa—Orléans et à Ottawa, généralement, et à travers la province, les écoles francophones ont déjà été en avant avec les journées pleines pour le « junior kindergarten » et le « kindergarten » dans nos écoles. Ils ont déjà prouvé que c'est bon pour les enfants, c'est bon pour les parents—

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member is giving a good speech, but I don't think he's giving the speech to anyone. Is a quorum present?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I would ask the Clerk to find out if a quorum is present.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): A quorum now being present, we'll continue the debate. The honourable member for Ottawa—Orléans.

M. Phil McNeely: Comme j'ai dit, les écoles francophones à Ottawa—Orléans—à Ottawa et à travers la province—ont déjà été en avant avec les journées pleines pour les jeunes enfants dans leurs écoles. Alors, c'est déjà vu comme quelque chose qui est très bon pour les parents, c'est très bon pour les enfants, et c'est comme ça, avec la nouvelle loi, qu'on va aller avec toutes les écoles en Ontario.

I was just saying in the other official language that is very prominent in Ottawa and in my riding of Ottawa—Orléans that the francophone schools have already gone ahead with full-day junior kindergarten and kindergarten and it has proved to be excellent for the kids and the parents. Certainly, it is a head start that we have, that we know the system works; we know it's great. So I'm pleased to speak today on Bill 242, the full-day learning.

I just think it's important to read a couple of quotes that you may have heard before:

"Full-day learning for our four- and five-year-old kids will better prepare them for grade 1. That gives them a better chance of finishing high school, going on to post-secondary education and getting a good job. And that's in everyone's interest." That was Dalton McGuinty.

That all ties in to Reaching Higher and the better achievements that we've achieved throughout our school system, the better graduation rates. This just adds to what we want to do in strengthening our education system in Ontario, giving our kids more chances to get better jobs when they graduate.

"By giving more children a better start on their education, we're giving them more chances to succeed. Investing in early learning is good for children, good for parents and good for Ontario." That was our former Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynne. This is the reason we're doing it.

"Full-day learning will give children a stronger start during the early years that are so critical to their educational and social development. It's the right thing to do for the children and their families." That's Laurel Broten, Minister of Children and Youth Services.

This is a tough year to start this in, we know that, but it is the right year. It is the right year to get this full-day kindergarten going.

I would just read some of the reasons why we have chosen the first schools to do this.

We looked at available space. School boards looked at which schools had classroom space available and did not require new additions or renovations.

The impact on existing local child care was looked at.

But I think the most important thing that was looked at was that school boards considered the various needs of all the communities they serve and how early learning could meet those needs. A portion of the phase one schools will serve low-income neighbourhoods. I think that is really important. Some parents can give their children a lot of that early learning; some parents are too caught up in trying to make a living, trying to survive in these tough economic times. So in looking at where the needs were greatest, I think this was a good place to start.

I don't have that much educational background. I did go to teachers' college back in the—well, I won't say which decade, but it was a long time ago. I taught school one year. I taught a rural school, 30 kids, and seven grades. It was a different approach to education. My own first years—in grade 1, of course, we walked a couple of miles to our school.

Things are so different now. The kids are in need of a lot more attention than the parents of today can give them. I've discussed this with a good friend of my son's who is a teacher in eastern Ontario. She comes over and looks after our grandchildren sometimes, and she makes that whole activity a learning activity. She's looking forward to this. She's looking forward, as a kindergarten teacher, to working with an early childhood educator and giving these children the start they need in life, that important start that was talked about by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I thank her for all the support that she has given this program. It's not something that is easy to do. It wasn't an easy decision for this government, but it was the right decision.

Back a few years ago, that hockey player, that goalie, Ken Dryden, had a good program that was going to be excellent for this country. As things turned out, what we got was $100 a month, which is not really making any impact on helping parents to give children the right start in life and for them to keep those two jobs which are essential in most households. I've had parents come in to me and say that their alternatives weren't great. Two people working, the cost of daycare $15,000 a year for one child—these costs were just too high for them to absorb.

They would often have to make that decision—and often it would be the mother who would have to make the decision to not pursue that career. That's unfair.

This move forward by this government with the support of many people in opposition is the right move. It's going to put us in that position where our kids will get the right start. The value of those dollars invested will come back, according to some experts, sevenfold. So that's an important investment. What more important investment could one have than our children?

It's up to 35,000 four- and five-year-olds in nearly 1,400 classes around the country. At roughly 100 ridings, that means 600 schools. We will see how this support comes from the parents for these systems. We know it's there. I've only had good feedback from my community. I think that's the case with most parents. People know that these are tough economic times, that program dollars are difficult—but nobody in my riding is telling me that this is the wrong direction for us to go.

If passed, the Full Day Early Learning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010, will provide school board staff, principals, teachers and early childhood educators with a clear framework for the government's full-day learning program to provide full-day JK and K on every instructional day in every calendar year in every elementary school according to the approved model and to provide extended day care according to the approved model led by the ECE.

With the early childhood educators teaching in these classrooms, the classroom size will go up to approximately 26, but the person per child will be down to 13 to one. That's even better than the 20 to 1. It will give the kids the attention they need, the support they need and will certainly move Ontario into that situation where we've got it started and now we have to take it forward and make it across the board for every child who enters school.

These are some quotes that I've been given by people: "We are pleased to see early childhood education move forward in Ontario with the combined strength of a team of both early childhood educators and teachers.... With registered early childhood educators in the classrooms, children will get the full benefit of education during these critical early years." That's Lois Mahon, president of the council of the College of Early Childhood Educators.

"We commend the government for it's commitment to the welfare of young children. The decision took a lot of courage in today's economic environment, but it will pay a lifetime of rewards, not only for children, but for our communities and for our economy." That's Sam Hammond, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario.

"We applaud the government for its leadership and improving education opportunities and services to children and their families....

So we see there is the support throughout the system. We acknowledge that it has taken a few years to get to this, but it's an important step. It's a step that will be continued, and we'll be delivering, for our young people and for those parents that need that assistance, the right program. The parents will be able to participate in a full day, they'll be able to deliver their children early and they will be able to pick them up later. They will have to, of course, pay for that system, but also they will be receiving help where needed.

So 35,000 four- and five-year-olds are going to have this opportunity. Full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds will better prepare them for grade 1. It will give them a better chance to finish high school, go on to post-secondary education and get a good job. This is going to be so important, that we don't have to work with the children in grades 1, 2 and 3 to get them up to the right level—they're going to get an equal chance. Those children who aren't getting the attention at home and don't have that support will have an equal chance with the other children, and we will not be spending the money in later grades trying to do that.

Since 2003, the graduation rate in our high schools has risen from 68% to 74%—I'm not sure; those are the figures that I recall, but 6% or 7%. So that's important. We have to get those graduation rates up. We have to get more of our high school kids into colleges, into the technical training, into universities so that they have jobs in this very competitive economy, which just seems to be getting tougher and tougher for the young people. The ones that get left out are the ones that do not graduate from high school. So it's a process that starts very early that we're going to support and that we're going to make sure we move forward with.

From my experience as a consulting engineer—I was out last night with engineers from the University of Toronto, trying to give them advice on how to impact more in our society, how to get more involved in the political areas. You meet some wonderful people who are working very hard, who are into great research projects, their professors are excited etc. We have to give more of our kids that opportunity. Just because a young person is not in a family where they have the resources—this will certainly help them.

One of the things that we talked about with engineers last night was that they have to be able to communicate their ideas more. In my day, the engineer graduated and he became—people like myself, we spent decades in engineering, but being able to get our ideas out. Climate change is something now that I think we have to go to the young people with. Climate change is such a peril to our planet, yet the adults don't have time for it, the politicians will not make the right decisions.

So I've got something coming up with 16 high schools in Ottawa that will get the kids involved at the high school level, get them involved in how to interpret reports they get from government. We still have all these deniers of climate change out there. Why would people be denying climate change today when our Arctic Ocean, a million square kilometres of ice—the summer ice will disappear in 10 or 20 years. So I'm going out to the students in my high schools with some speakers, with my own message, trying to get them more involved.

What we have to do is make sure that that whole education system is better; the kids who are graduating are going to have all these challenges that we never faced. When I graduated back in the 1960s, it was, "Which job did you want?" They're not facing that any more. So the kids who don't get the right start in junior kindergarten and five-year-old kindergarten are the ones who are not going to be able to get into grades 1 and 2, and all the way up through the system they will have difficulties.

This is the first step. It's a good step; it's the right step. A member over here said that it was a brave thing to be doing today in this economic situation, but it's necessary. We do not have the choice to let these kids struggle through the early grades. We have to get them prepared. The way we're going to get them prepared is to give them an equal chance with the kids who are coming from homes where those supports are. There are a lot of homes where the supports aren't there.

I had three boys. We put them into French immersion, but it was difficult running a business, working 60 hours a week and giving them the time they needed, but you knew that when they got that time, they prospered as students. They learned better.

We're just trying to level the playing field here. It will take a few years to get all our young people into these supports, but it's the right direction to go. It's the way that Dryden wanted to move things three or four years ago with the federal government. Hopefully, we'll have the federal government on board, that they will start to really help our children, really help these programs. To try to fund it ourselves is difficult in these days. There are so many demands on the dollars from any provincial government, but we must do that. We must have the federal government on board.

The federal government, of course, gets involved in picking up the pieces when we don't get our kids started in the right direction.

I'm pleased to support this bill. I know that there are problems that were indicated, that this is going to happen and that is going to happen. Sure there are challenges. There are going to be big challenges getting this going right in our schools, but those challenges are worth facing. I know our teachers want to face those challenges. Our teachers realize these are important. We will see, as we move down the road, that those problems are met, those problems are dealt with and that the program grows.

The importance to our economy—when they say that a dollar invested here comes back seven times, I believe that. I believe that any of the investments that go into young people come back to us. Whether we have that dollar to make that investment now or not, I do not think that is the question. We must go in that direction. We must provide for our young people an equal chance.

I'm very pleased to have been able to speak to this bill.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I thank the member from Ottawa—Orléans for reading the notes he was provided so well. Some of the quotes were on topic and some weren't.

Nonetheless, I think there are people who support this. You can count us in as supporting early childhood learning. We did the primary work on this file with the Mustard-McCain report and the resource centres that we set up. I think those were good options that we provided for different parts of Ontario.

If the member is listening—the parliamentary assistant is here—I'm going to present three options that it would be helpful for the government to look at, starting with the premise that we have to provide resources—and how we provide them is really the question. I'm suggesting we could look at the early learning centres that exist today as well as the existing child care operators—regulated child care spaces. They already have the capital and the trained staff who are licensed and regulated as ECE people. Give them some more resources. It probably won't cost as much as $1.5 billion.

The second option is to work closely with families. Some families choose to spend that time with their children in a learning environment. You could provide supports for them in different ways, whether it be more leave time from their place of work or parent and toddler programming, resource centres, and strengthening those locations—or they could have chosen the current model that you're proposing, the larger school-based unionized program.

My sense there is that really, the issue doesn't satisfy. It's not going to address weekends, PD days or summer vacations. There are a lot of loopholes where families are going to be left stranded. You are going to decimate the daycare spaces that exist today.

It's a poorly thought out plan—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions or comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I thank the member from Ottawa—Orléans for standing up, although there was a little ramble in the middle of his dissertation about climate change that I found difficult to follow. I don't quite know what climate change has to do with full-day learning.

Nevertheless, as I said earlier, we in the New Democratic Party are absolutely in favour of full-day learning. We would just like to see full-day learning extended to all children, not just some children. Certainly the woman who has to spend $15,000 a year for child care for each child to be able to go back to work is still going to be hampered. Imagine two children: It's $30,000 net just to pay for child care.

This is a women's issue as well as a child issue, and it still exists in our province despite this forward move—and it is a forward move by the government. It still exists. Women will still be unequal under the law in the province of Ontario until there is a child care program like we see in Manitoba, $17 a day, or Quebec, $7 a day. Had we those programs, then truly we could say that women are able to go back to work on the same plane as men.

The argument that men can stay home is really fallacious. Let's face it: Women are, by and large, the ones who stay home to raise the children, and they need the supports necessary, but so do the children. The children need early learning and enrichment at an early age, not necessarily starting at four, but starting much, much earlier.

However, having said that, as I said originally, the historic moment has come to pass. I think the McGuinty government has done something good. We are supporting them and we will hold their feet to the fire to make sure that it's implemented well, evenly and fairly.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: First of all, I would agree with my colleague from Durham region that the notes were well read. I listened very carefully. We talked about the need for early childhood education, and I think all in our party and all parties in the House think that's a positive move in our education system. But one of the things that we have to look at is to prioritize what's in our education system and provide the resources that are available in the places where they will provide the greatest benefit to the children in the system.

There are many areas, such as special needs education, where the government says they don't have sufficient money to provide the attention that these children need. It seems strange to me that we would then just accept that and come up with a new program.

Having said that, I also think it's very important to recognize the positiveness of this. Giving all of these children a better start in education and a better start in life will pay dividends in the end; that's where we need to go. We heard that from the member in his presentation. But what I think is important is, because of the phasing in of this, there is a very small group of children in today's society who will benefit from this, but most children who are going to start in our education system in the next five years will not be able to avail themselves of this service.

So we're saying that it's okay to have this program—we know it benefits young children; we know it will give those children a better a start in life—but we're not going to provide it to all of them. If this is a positive move and it's going to pay benefits, as the member said in his presentation, then we have to find a way to make it available much quicker and more evenly and fairly to all the students in the province, rather than to just a few.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Why is this being done? This is a good question. Let's look at some numbers: China, 1.3 billion people; Ontario, 13 million. They outnumber us 100 to 1. India, 1.1 billion people; Ontario, 13 million. They outnumber us 85 to 1. Brazil outnumbers us 15 to 1.

All of these places are no longer backwaters or underdeveloped. They want what we have. They want the prosperity that we enjoy here in Ontario. With 13 million people, the only way that we are going to continue to be the leading-edge place that we have always been is to ensure that every Ontarian is at his or her best. We do that by starting our training young, at age four or five, in senior and junior kindergarten and with all-day learning. This is the type of program that is going to pay dividends in lower dropout rates after high school and a higher proportion of Ontarians who go on to post-secondary training.

When people come to Ontario, the raw materials they are looking for are not those that are in the ground, in the forests or on our farms. The raw material that really is going to drive value in the 21st century is the raw material people find in the brains of Ontarians, the stuff that they come to look for in our universities, and the way that we are going to continue to have the prosperity that we've always enjoyed, the high-value jobs that our province seeks, is to go out to kids at the age when they're ready to start school and ready to learn and to bring them in for all-day learning. That's what this program does.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member for Ottawa—Orléans has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I thank the members for Durham, Beaches—East York, Oxford and Mississauga—Streetsville for the comments.

To the member from Durham, I'd just like to say that we have to start. Sure, right now, almost 100% of the kids don't have that opportunity, but next year, starting next September, some of our kids will, and in five years, all of our kids will have the opportunity.

This is a major program that's being rolled out. We don't have all the physical space we need, we don't have all the early childhood educators we need, but this will come. There is a plan to roll this out in a positive way. It's better to have some of our children already benefiting from this now than none at all, so at least we are on our way. It's a four- or five- year program, but we will do it in a measured and proper manner so that it is a good program. We'll work out all the difficulties when we get there.

Again, I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for the support of this endeavour. I think generally, in this House and throughout our province, there is that acceptance that this is the right thing to do. It's a difficult time to do it, but we have to move ahead.

I did talk about climate change in my speech, but I was just talking about getting out into our high schools and talking to the kids and giving them some of the tools where they are going for this big challenge we have in the future. It all deals with education. We're going to have a better start for children, a better situation for mothers particularly, where they will have someone sharing their duties. So this is the right bill and—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to support this bill. As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park had to say, New Democrats will be supporting this bill because we believe it's the right thing to do at this time. In fact, we believe it was the right thing to have done a long time ago. I know, although I was not here at that time, that it was part of the NDP platform in the 1999 election. We do agree that Dr. Pascal has done a good job in outlining what needs to be done.

Sometimes it has been said that New Democrats are often Liberals in a hurry. I'm in a hurry in this one, too. I'm not sure that the six-year rollout is something that we ought to be doing. I just want to speak about that for a moment because as the member for Beaches—East York, I waited with anticipation to see what was going to happen when this was going to be announced. There were leaks to the press a few days in advance. I knew it was coming down the pipe. I was waiting to see what the government was going to announce and I wanted to see how it was going to affect my community.

As you all know, I represent an area in Toronto in the Beach and East York, what is now part of the megacity of Toronto. It is a highly urbanized place. Part of Beaches—East York—the Crescent Town area, the Teesdale area, Dawes Road—is considered a high-needs community. It was identified by the United Way and by Frances Lankin and people within the United Way as one of those places in Toronto—one of the 13—with the highest need for young people, children, new immigrants and the like. So I waited with some anticipation to see how this was going to unravel, how it was going to unfurl, what was going to happen in terms of all-day education for the people of my riding.

I have to say I was very disappointed when the results came out because, of the 120,000 people I represent, with all of those schools—Catholic schools, public schools and French schools, everything that is in the riding—there isn't a single school that has been identified in all of Beaches—East York, not one.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm going to get to the board in a minute. Not a single school was identified in all of Beaches—East York.

So when I looked at this, I was somewhat perplexed. Given that there is such a high-needs community at the centre of Beaches—East York, I picked up the phone. I phoned my local school trustee. Actually, I phoned two school trustees—the local public one, for whom I vote because I am a public school supporter, and then I phoned the Catholic school board trustee as well. I asked both of them why there was no identified school in all of Beaches—East York. They both told me the exact same thing.

They said that the government had set criteria that the boards had to follow in the determination of who got the school spaces in the first round. Because of the way the criteria had been set, there was no potential school in all of Beaches—East York save and except one school, which is called Presteign.

Presteign is the school in my local neighbourhood. I'm fully aware of this school, but I also know that my local neighbourhood is not a high-needs area. The homes in there sell for $700,000, $800,000 or $900,000. That's what they sell for. The people who are my neighbours are mostly professional people—they're doctors, they're lawyers, they're teachers—who earn a lot of money. The only school that was identified by the Toronto school board on both the Catholic and the public side was that school. So it was not surprising in the end that that school was rejected.

None of the schools that were identified and which met the criteria as set down by the government in the high-needs areas qualified—none of them. I have to question what the criteria were in the first place.

I'm asking the government to take a good, hard look at this because there are people who desperately need this service. There are people who desperately want their children to have the highest opportunity, particularly where the fall-down comes. The fall-down comes in those areas where there are new immigrants, where there are a lot of single parents, where the kids don't have the same kinds of opportunities they may have in more affluent neighbourhoods and communities.

I want to go on by saying that I was concerned, so I went to what was the most amazing all-day learning for preschoolers I have ever seen. It was, if not a Montessori school, at least a Montessori-inspired school on Coatsworth Crescent, in the riding of Beaches—East York. I spoke to the people who operate that school. I spoke to the people who do the all-day learning with young children. I talked about the number of subsidized spaces, of which there are pitifully few, but also about what they were able to accomplish.

It was amazing to me, a man who has no children, to watch these two- and three- and four-year-olds, what they were doing and what they were learning. I was especially entranced that the three-year-olds were writing stories; they had props and things they were given, and they had to write stories and take the stories back. Now, they weren't complex stories, but they were writing in sentences—three years old—and handing them back to the teachers. It was amazing. I was there for an hour and a half. I never heard one child cry. Nobody cried. Everybody was getting along. The teachers were doing a remarkable job.

They spoke to me, though, because they had fear. They had fear of what was going to happen to that particular institution on Coatsworth Crescent when all-day learning came in. They all support all-day learning—they all support it—but they know that it's going to be difficult to maintain the classrooms and what they're trying to do for the parents who live in Beaches—East York, because of the funding.

It costs much more to look after one- and two-year-olds. They showed me the ratio—it was very high—in the rooms with one- and two-year-olds with the early childhood educators. They showed me that the ratio was much higher than when they turned to be four and five, and the costs that were going to be borne. I asked about the cost, and it's about $1,700 or $1,800 or more a month for a child. I'm sure that child is getting the absolute best start that is possible in this entire city, in this entire country, and what I witnessed was truly remarkable to me. But they're worried about the subsidies.

They're worried about the all-day education and how it's going to change the mix. They're worried about keeping some of the people who work in their schools, because many of them will be hired by the school boards at more money. We all know that's going to happen, too. We all know that those people who do this great job are going to be hired off to make more money, because the school board will have that money to spend.

They asked me to convey that message, and they asked me, when it was my opportunity to speak, to speak about ensuring that those kinds of opportunities that parents rely on are kept. They will be kept, of course, in Beaches—East York, because the parents have nowhere else to send their children next year. Maybe in the years that follow they may, but for the conceivable future that is the only option that will be available to many of them.

I've spoken often in this Legislature about my coming from Regent Park. I remember, even to this day, the number of children who came from poor homes, who came to school and the difficulty they had to learn, because they did not have the same opportunities and the same experiences or the same expectations in their homes that people from more affluent families often had. There were not books available. In my day, most of them didn't have televisions either, which was perhaps a good thing, but there was not that method of communication that was readily available. Many of them went to school hungry, so that was a problem as well.

It seems that what the government is attempting to do is a good thing, and that is to give those children an opportunity, at an early age, to try to catch up so that when they are three or four or five years old, going to all-day kindergarten, they'll be able to learn at the same rate that one would who came from a more affluent family or whose family could afford the kind of quality daycare that I saw on Coatsworth Crescent. That is what is important, and that is what needs to be done, but it needs to be done more quickly.

With the greatest of respect, I'm waiting for the budget. I know the budget will be coming sometime towards the end of March. The budget, I'm sure, when it unfurls, will say how much money the government is planning to spend in this particular area. It may take a couple of days to comb through it—because when the minister stands up, he'll talk about education and how much money is being put into education. It'll take a few days to figure out how much of that is going into senior kindergarten and how much is going to be spent on wages and the like in order to facilitate the first phase.

But we need to make sure that that phase does not take six years. We need to make sure that subsequent budgets plan in advance so that no child is left out, and especially that no child is left out in the high-needs communities, like those in Crescent Town, that are not going to be given an opportunity in this round.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that it's about time, so I will stop now if you will allow me to continue the debate on the next occasion.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the family of my page Jullian Yapeter, sitting in the west members' gallery: his parents, Janny and Yimmy Yapeter, his grandmother Liu Lie Kian Sumarno, and his brother Jonathan.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It's certainly my pleasure to introduce the mother of page Colin Jansen, Val Millson. Welcome, Val.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Don Valley East and page Ava D'Souza, we'd like to welcome her mother, Angela D'Souza, her father, Ludovic D'Souza, and her brother Jordan D'Souza, in the members' gallery.

I'd also take this opportunity to introduce a guest who will be joining us in the Speaker's gallery, Bette Jean Crews, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Acting Premier. The PC caucus has been asking the hard questions on accountability that the Premier refuses to ask about the LHINs, or regional health bureaucracies, that he created; so has the Ombudsman. Is that why your government wants him fired?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's very important to note that there is a little bit of history here. In fact, one of the members of this House suggested that regardless of who the commissioners are, no matter how wonderful they are, they ought to go through an appropriate process of reappointment, or give others an opportunity to apply as well. That is exactly what we've selected to do.

I know that in particular the member from Welland is pleased to see that we've listened, that there is a process and that we welcome the opportunity for everyone who feels they can serve the government of Ontario and the people of Ontario. They are welcome in this place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The Premier has created a new layer of health bureaucracy to deflect blame when something goes wrong and create a haven for Liberal friends and donors. But the LHINs have not improved health care. The CEO of Toronto Central is walking away from his LHIN. Our PC caucus revealed that LHINs are handing out sweetheart deals to disgraced eHealth consultants.

The Ombudsman heard so many complaints, he said, "There is a lot of public concern about the accountability and transparency of the LHIN." This move comes just before the Ombudsman reports on the Premier's special pet project. Why is shining a light on the Liberal government's dirty secrets a firing offence, while handing out millions of dollars in untendered contracts gets you promoted?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: This member opposite will know full well, because he was part of a government that also continued to appoint or reappoint commissioners in various positions of the government. In fact, what we know is that there are five-year terms that come up for appointment, and often reappointment. So we suggested that, in listening to some of the opposition members who wanted to see a fair process so that others could also apply. That is exactly what we selected to do.

So after a five-year term—and I must say that, whether it's our Ombudsman or our Environmental Commissioner, they have done some tremendous work, not just for the government but for the people of Ontario—I would think that the member opposite would want to see a fair, transparent and open process of appointments and/or reappointments for people who frankly do stellar jobs for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: We see a clear pattern here. The Premier fires anyone who criticizes him or holds his government accountable. The Ombudsman has been a tough critic. He called the Liberal government a "colossal failure" in its handling of criminal injuries compensation. He called its decision to cut off funds for cancer therapy wrong, unreasonable and verging on cruelty, and he exposed insider wins at OLG that your government ignored.

The Liberal government would have let these scandals go on if the Ombudsman hadn't caught them. His report on LHINs will likely reveal even more about the character of the Premier and his government, but it looks like the Liberals plan to get him before he gets them. Is this the real reason they're trying to silence the Ombudsman?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I just want to point out that, for example, a number of people, including members of the opposition when they were in government, were subjected to some criticism from our privacy commissioner. Our privacy commissioner was reappointed. That is one example of people who, whether critical or not, play a vital role in assisting the government to do the right thing for the people of Ontario. There's not one person who would suggest that the Ombudsman and, in fact, the Environmental Commissioner didn't do tremendous work for the people of Ontario.

To suggest that after a five-year term we ought to have an open and transparent system of appointment or reappointment—I think it's incumbent on the government to listen to the MPP from Welland and suggest, yes, there's a process that people can be proud of and that they can see. We welcome the opportunity for a huge number of people who want to serve the people of Ontario through these terrific roles in government.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Toby Barrett: A new question for the Acting Premier: You're not only dumping the Ombudsman; you're tossing aside the Environmental Commissioner. Like the Ombudsman, he called it like it is and now you're getting even. How low will Dalton McGuinty go to duck accountability?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Back to the same question. I really find it interesting that there are examples across our government that show that people are appointed and reappointed many times. That certainly happened when the members opposite were part of the government. It was in fact the opposition members who suggested that we ought to have a fair and open process. I think it was the MPP from Welland who said they are adamant that "there should be the same process … and the process is pretty clear. You advertise the position, you see who's interested in the job, you vet them." We're listening to the MPP from Welland. In fairness, let's give the process some time and see what happens.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: The real point is that Dalton McGuinty has two standards. If you're a Liberal friend like Hugh MacLeod, Dalton McGuinty will raid hospital budgets of $325,000, meant for patients, and he'll help you sneak out the back door to avoid your record. But watch out if you're a public servant like the Environmental Commissioner. He revealed that Dalton McGuinty and his former hand-picked climate change adviser have done nothing to advance their mandate. In his annual report, the commissioner slammed this government for a "lack of vision" and not giving the tools needed to get the job done.

My question: Are you hanging him out to dry because he says your plan is no good, or is it because he says your execution is no good?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I do find it interesting that this party wants to subject this commissioner to any criticism of his job. In fact, I believe he has done a stellar job for the people of Ontario. I think it's incumbent on all of us to appreciate the long hours and the hard work that he has produced. This is the same individual who, in 2004, had his term expire. We went through a vetting process, which included ads in the Globe and Mail, and after two days of hearings and interviews, he was reappointed. We didn't hear a word from you back then. You were in opposition then; you didn't say a word then.

Today is exactly the same process as 2004. So really, let's be clear: Let's ask a decent question in question period that's of interest to the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Let's be clear: It's obvious Dalton McGuinty didn't learn from his failures in the disgraceful eHealth boondoggle. In eHealth, Liberal friends like Geoff Smith and Khalil Barsoum were allowed to make a quiet getaway out the back door. Dalton McGuinty is also protecting Karli Farrow, John Ronson, Alan Hudson and George Smitherman from further inquiry. Now he's at it again, letting Hugh MacLeod skip town without having to account for a $320,000 salary. However, the Environmental Commissioner and the Ombudsman join public servants like Kelly McDougald in being thrown under the bus.

Why does Dalton McGuinty get rid of anyone who shows any integrity but take care of Liberal friends who don't?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I don't know if the member opposite is advocating a sole-sourced contract to the value of the salary of this Environmental Commissioner.

Let me say it again. The Environmental Commissioner has served Ontario well. I think all of us in this House agree. And in 2004, when his other term expired, there was an open, fair and transparent process. There were ads in the newspapers; five interviews over the course of two days. He passed that process and he was reappointed. You, at that time, didn't ask a question.

Today, it is exactly the same process, and we are doing it again. It is a process that you asked for and that we are delivering on. So let's be clear: The Environmental Commissioner has served Ontario well and there is a process in place to have the opportunity to do that again.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Earlier this week, the revenue minister helpfully provided some sage consumer advice to Ontario families: "The price of gasoline will go up 8% on July 1. That's why so many people will be filling up on June 30."

Does the Acting Premier agree with the revenue minister that consumers should fill up before they pay up, and will he finally tell them exactly how much extra they'll shell out for gas each and every year because of his government's harmonized sales tax?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Thanks for the question, I say to the leader of the third party.

You know, this has been quite open on our side of the House since March. This is not news. Energy and services will be subjected to the HST. Fortunately for the businesses that provide that service, their cost of business is going down. We know consumers will demand the best price, but it is important for consumers to understand what those changes are. That's why I recommend people go to our website at www.ontario.ca/taxchange to get their questions answered.

We're doing this because a quarter of a million people, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs and we believe we have to do what is required to make sure that there are jobs in the 21st century for our people, for our children and our grandchildren. That is why we're moving forward and doing something that's happening in 140 other countries around the world and in four of our sister provinces; the province of British Columbia will be doing it on the same day. All because we need—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday the Acting Premier claimed he couldn't tell Ontario families how much extra they're going to be paying for gas. "Everyone's different," he said. The Ministry of Finance admits that it actually has this information, but it's a big secret. Why won't the Acting Premier reveal today what she knows and tell Ontarians just how much the new tax on gas is going to cost them each and every year?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Just for the member, I want to repeat this. It's actually quite simple when it comes to the HST. If there's no GST or PST for things like basic groceries or prescription drugs, there's no change in tax. If you're already paying 13%, you're going to keep on paying 13%, but the price of those objects, the price of those goods will go down because we're dropping the cost of business. That's happened everywhere else in the world. When it comes to the question of things where they just have GST but not PST, there's going to be an increase in the tax, but the cost of business is going down.

I find it difficult that our friends over there have decided that consumers will somehow not demand the best price. I don't know about you, but the consumers I know are pretty sharp. You have an opinion over there that somehow consumers will willingly overpay. That is not the reality that I know—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There's only one thing I would agree with in what this minister said, and from our perspective it's a very simple request that we're making. The Ministry of Finance has the information that the people of Ontario want. People have a right to know how much extra they should expect to pay when this tax is implemented on July 1. StatsCan suggests it will be at least $185 more each and every year. If the Acting Premier actually rejects this figure, why won't he provide Ontario families with his government's own estimates?

Hon. John Wilkinson: It goes back to the question that we are reforming taxes; not just sales tax, but income tax as well. So if a person wants to have a balanced approach to this and to understand the impact for the typical family or their own family, what you need to do, in my estimation, is that one would visit the website, where the whole story is there, where we're very clear about which things are going to attract new tax and, particularly, what are the tax cuts that people will enjoy, the tax relief, both permanent and temporary.

You know, for people it amounts to over $10 billion over the next three years. You would think the average consumer is going to want to know, "Well, what's my share of the $10 billion over next three years?" That's why we tell people to go to that website, because you can go there and find the information, what it means to you and to your family, and, if you own a business, what it means for your business.

So I can tell you that on this side of the House we are committed to making sure we have more jobs in this province. More jobs means that we can afford the vital public services—

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

PENSION REFORM

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. People across Ontario are increasingly concerned about their retirement. Some who worked at places like Nortel, AbitibiBowater and CanWest Global paid into a company pension plan all of their lives, only to learn that it might not be there for them when they retire. Others just don't have enough to retire on, and after putting faith in solutions like RRSPs, they're less secure than ever before.

Sixteen months have passed since Harry Arthurs tabled his recommendations for comprehensive pension reform in this province. My question is simple: Why hasn't the McGuinty government implemented any of his key recommendations?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, in fact, there's a piece of legislation before the House today that introduces the first 44 responses. The 45th response was the actuarial study that's going on right now with respect to the PBGF. And as I have indicated, we will be introducing a second piece of legislation likely this spring, later in the spring, which will respond to the balance of Mr. Arthurs' recommendations.

In addition, Premier McGuinty called for and has now seen come to pass a national summit on pensions among the provinces at the next Council of the Federation, which is an important step forward. This government participated. We actually had an entire actuarial study done with recommendations from a labour-oriented economist about this in preparation for my next meeting with the Canadian Ministers of Finance this May.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, 65% of Ontarians have no workplace pension plan. Across Canada, provincial governments are grappling with that fact; everybody's aware of it. But here in Ontario, with this government, the silence has been deafening.

Finance ministers will be meeting in late spring, I agree with this minister, to try to find a solution to the pension crisis in this country. So my question is, when he goes to the conference in the spring, will this minister go there and support the proposal that is being put forward by the Canadian Labour Congress for expansion of the Canada pension plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are a variety of proposals put forward by a variety of groups. One of the things I think all of us have to be careful of is that in the steps we take to respond to the challenges around pensions, we don't disincent employers to provide pensions. That's why a variety of people, including the economist we hired, who has a long association with the labour movement, have said that we have to proceed carefully.

There are a number of—

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No, actually; he worked for the federal government on this one.

I would say to the member opposite that I think the NDP here in Ontario put forward some very interesting proposals that merit very serious consideration in this debate, and I applaud them for that. I think as Canada moves forward, the provinces will come together, along with the federal government, to begin to address this. I applaud the effort of the third party in providing recommendations, and they will be looked at, along with a variety of others—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Since the McGuinty government seems unwilling to commit to supporting a national solution to this problem with the pension system in Canada, how about our made-in-Ontario solution? New Democrats, as the minister has indicated, have put forward a proposal already to provide Ontarians with greater economic security in an Ontario retirement plan. Our proposal has been very well received by all quarters in this province, all the way across the province, but the government really hasn't produced any ideas of its own. So, with four million Ontarians waiting, will this government support our Ontario retirement plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, I want to applaud the member and her party for putting forward a recommendation. In fact, there are some challenges to it. One of the challenges we see now is incenting savings by individuals. We have an RRSP system, which has not worked. Your plan closely resembles that, except it takes the management of pension funds and in fact puts it into sort of a centralized thing. It does merit consideration. I'm not rejecting it, and I welcome further discussion.

Nine hundred billion dollars of unused RRSP room in this country shows that we have to look very carefully at how we incent people to save. The role of government, the role of employers, the role of employees, the role of individual citizens—these are all challenging issues. They all merit serious consideration. I look forward to representing Ontario at the Ministers of Finance meeting in May, and I know Premier McGuinty will continue to lead at the Council of the Federation.

NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for Minister of Natural Resources. First of all, congratulations on your new appointment. Personally, having worked for decades in the industry directly related to MNR, I can tell you that it is the greatest ministry in government to work for.

Now that we're done with the pleasantries, Minister, I'm sure you've heard from stakeholders in the same fashion that I have regarding this industry in the province that's been decimated, that used to be the economic engine of Ontario and northern Ontario, especially, as stakeholders are saying, when your own members from places like Sault Ste. Marie, that have some resource towns, have been passed over.

Ontario families who work in the struggling resource industry want to know if your appointment by the Premier continues to treat natural resources as a social industry as opposed to an economic, job-creating industry.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I am pleased to be the Minister of Natural Resources, and I appreciate the congratulations. Thank you. I am blessed. This is a great ministry to be a part of.

Really, I think what the member was alluding to was perhaps some of the regulations we have around forestry. I have met with many stakeholders in the last few weeks to talk about the kinds of regulations we're putting forward through the Endangered Species Act. I'm pleased to say that many of the conversations I've had with our stakeholders have been very productive. We have spoken about the initiatives that we are putting forward in the ministry, and I look forward to the supplementary.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Ontario was the economic engine of Canada from Confederation until Dalton McGuinty turned it into a have-not province. The hardest hit are the resource and auto sectors. Perhaps this is because Dalton McGuinty paid $2.2 million for an economic plan from hip, urban theorist Richard Florida, whose report demeans the work of resource industries. Or maybe Harold Wilson, president of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, is right when he says that the price of hydro is twice that of Manitoba and Quebec and that the Green Energy Act will push them even higher.

If it's not up to you, then who is the champion of the resource families of Ontario, who made our province the leading economy in Canada and who are ready to do it again?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I would like to refer this to the minister of mining and forestry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are very encouraged by the discussions we've had with our stakeholders in the forestry sector. In terms of our ministry, what's important to us is that we're taking some actions that are going to bring the forest sector back to a truly competitive position.

For example, our wood supply competition: We're excited about the opportunities; 11 million cubic metres of wood is up for competition. We want to put Ontario's wood back to work. Indeed, we expect that once the proposals are put in place, we'll be making announcements soon that will bring those jobs back. This is very important to us.

Also, the review of our forest tenure policy in the province of Ontario: We see some real opportunities to make some adjustments to how we allocate licences and price our wood in the province of Ontario.

These are things that we can do, and we are very conscious of the opportunities that are there in northern Ontario, working very hard with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure to bring about some positive opportunities for the north.

FUNDRAISING

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority is a non-profit organization. It is governed by a board filled with appointees named by the provincial, federal and local municipal governments. It raises revenue from rent and airport fees collected from travellers.

Why did the Ontario Liberal Party accept $12,784.95 in donations over the past five years from this organization?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I assume that this is actually not a transportation question; this is actually a political question that this member is asking. What I would say is that we, as a party—as the third party does—follow the rules in terms of our fundraising endeavours.

It's extremely important that individuals and organizations in this province have the opportunity to take

part in the democratic process. Part of the democratic process is raising money so that we can do the work of democracy in this province—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —we collectively in this Legislature.

I would suggest that if the member has a question that pertains to transportation, I'd be happy to answer it in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I am appalled. I don't think this minister gets it. Passengers pay the GTAA fees, some of the highest in the world, every time they fly out of Pearson airport. Elections Ontario records show a long history of donations by the GTAA to the Ontario Liberal Party; for example, $1,200 to the St. Paul's by-election campaign, $2,800 to Liberal riding associations, $700 to the Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock by-election and an additional $4,200 in 2008.

Why are unsuspecting travellers subsidizing the Ontario Liberal Party? What right do you have to take their money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said earlier, we follow the rules as they are laid out. Because I know this member doesn't ask frivolous questions, I will absolutely undertake to look into the question that he has asked. I can tell you that the rules are laid out; the information is public. We have made more information public about the donations that have been given to our party. I will look into the question that he has asked.

But I return to my original point, and that is that in order for the democratic process to work, many individuals, many organizations need to be involved with the governing party and with the opposition parties. If that didn't happen, then our system would grind to a halt. I will undertake to ask questions about this specific issue.

PATIENT SAFETY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Having a sister who is currently waging her own battle against breast cancer, I was really shocked to hear about the mistaken mastectomies that were performed at Windsor. We are now hearing reports of two women and possibly more who have had unnecessary mastectomies and who were told that they had breast cancer when, in fact, they did not.

From time to time, we all worry about our own health, and clearly the confidence of my constituents in our surgeons has really been shaken. Accuracy is very important to appropriate treatment.

Minister, could you tell us what happened in the events that occurred at Windsor?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First and foremost, I know I speak for everyone in this House when I express my deepest sympathy to the patients who were affected by these errors and, of course, their family members. I want to assure you that I take this very, very seriously.

I can tell you that the hospital has taken the appropriate steps. It has launched a formal review both of the incident and of the doctor in question. The doctor has stopped performing surgeries.

I can also tell you that I have confirmed that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is investigating this issue. They have the important responsibility of investigating concerns and complaints from members of the public about doctors who are licensed to practise here in Ontario. Of course, the college must act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the public.

We take surgical safety very, very seriously. That's why we are requiring all hospitals to use a surgical safety checklist. I look forward to speaking more about—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I'm certainly relieved to hear that the hospital has launched a formal review of these incidents. I understand the importance of the role that the College of Physicians and Surgeons plays in investigating concerns regarding doctors in Ontario.

People naturally trust their physicians to act in the patient's best interests and they expect that safeguards will be in place to protect them. My family, the constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and all Ontarians would like to know what action is being taken to restore their confidence in patient safety. Minister, could you tell this House how the surgeons' checklist will improve patient safety in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have partnered with the Ontario Hospital Association and have developed a surgical safety checklist that will be required for all operations in all hospitals across the province as of April 2010. Dr. Michael Baker from the University Health Network is our lead on this initiative. The checklist includes a mandatory review of the pathology and biopsy results by the entire operating room team—that includes surgeons, the anaesthetist and nurses—before the patient is given the anaesthetic.

The results of a 2009 New England Journal of Medicine study demonstrate that a consistent use of a surgical checklist reduces the rates of death and complications that are associated with surgical care.

A province-wide education program with a comprehensive tool kit has now been developed. Yesterday morning, the OHA and ministry officials held a province-wide webcast. We are educating hospitals on how to use this tool—

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

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Attorney General. In a discovery transcript filed in the Caledonia lawsuit, a government witness acknowledges that the tract of land the illegal occupiers claim stretches all the way to downtown Kitchener.

Minister, how have you notified families in Brantford and Kitchener that what is going on in Caledonia can happen to them next?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My friend opposite outlines the nature of a very important challenge. You have a 200-year-old land claim pre-dating Confederation. The federal government has constitutional, legal and jurisdictional responsibility. So I'm sure my friend opposite will join with me in saying that the only way we can ultimately resolve this very important issue is to have an energized, creative and bold federal government at the table to work with the parties to resolve the issue for the benefit of all throughout the province of Ontario. I look forward to my colleague's support as we get the federal government energized.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Until four years ago, families in Caledonia had no reason to believe that the same things that you and I do every day—you wake up, you feed the kids, you go to work, you have a summer barbeque in the backyard—would just stop. Then barricades went up, fires were set, and a hydro substation was destroyed. People have been physically attacked, homes invaded and ransacked, and families' insurance cancelled for "acts of terrorism"—acts of terrorism in Ontario, Minister.

The only thing Dalton McGuinty has done is pay lots of money to Liberal friends Jane Stewart, Tom Molloy and David Peterson, with no plans and no results from those studies. Lives of Caledonia families have been interrupted for four years. Brantford and Kitchener could be next.

When will you give the lives of the families of Caledonia back to them, Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'm not sure why my friend doesn't want to be part of the solution in a more creative way. This government has been working very hard strengthening the relationship with all aboriginal peoples and First Nations. He is correct that we have been at the table. We've been as creative as we can be. We ask his assistance in getting an energized federal government to the table.

When he suggests that for many, many years people lived together as neighbours, worked together, played together, built communities together, he's absolutely right, which is why earlier in the week I called upon my friend and his colleagues opposite to work with us to build stronger relationships with people rather than finding ways that we cannot do that. Work with us, I say to my friend opposite. It's a brighter—

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

PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The Niagara-on-the-Lake Culinary School has become another in a long line of colleges which have left students high and dry under your ministry. These students paid as much as $18,000, and now they have nothing. The school was registered with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I add that your website says, "When a private career college closes suddenly while students are enrolled in vocational programs, the Ministry of the Training, Colleges and Universities will ensure that either training completions or refunds are provided to the students."

When are these students going to get their money back?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the question because it allows me to bring a little bit more information, because I know the honourable member would want to make sure that all the facts are on the table.

First of all, what happened in Niagara-on-the-Lake was an unfortunate situation, but I think it shows that a new, enhanced, strengthened system is working. As soon as the ministry received complaints from students at this culinary college, we acted. The complaints immediately went to our ministry's investigation unit and, over the course of a week, ministry officials worked with the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the federal government and those involved with immigration in order to execute a search. I'm pleased to say that on Friday, February 12, action was taken, a search was executed, the school's registration was suspended and fines were issued.

The honourable member talks about students, and he's right. We do have a system in place to protect students in these—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question was, "When are they going to get their money back?" We know you have a system in place. That's why we say, in the past year, the Ombudsman, who has written two reports on this—it's not an unusual situation, but a very regular situation—said that "students should be entitled to look to the ministry to ensure that their interests as education consumers are protected." He also called on the ministry to implement adequate safeguards, including active monitoring to protect students.

What steps is your ministry taking to prevent disasters like this, instead of stepping in after lives have been ruined?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very, very familiar with the Ombudsman's report, and I would recommend that the member look at some of the follow-up comments from the Ombudsman, when he has actually praised the actions that have been taken by this ministry since we brought in changes through the act. We've also introduced fines for PCCs operating illegally. They can range from $250 to $1,000 per day, to a maximum of $250,000.

But I want to speak about the situation in Niagara, and I want to talk about the training completion assurance fund, which is one of the safeguards in there to help students who find themselves in this situation. TCAF allows students to complete their training or receive a refund if a PCC suddenly closes. I'd like to inform the member that we deal with these situations on a case-by-case, student-by-student basis. We have encouraged students at the culinary institute to come forward to the ministry, and we are working with—

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

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, one of the issues that should be important to all of us is the integration of newcomers into our economy. Many people come to Canada to seek a better life for their families and more opportunity for meaningful and productive work. It is no surprise that a large proportion of Canada's newcomers come to Ontario not only to join our workforce but also to become important parts of our communities. However, just like many Ontarians, many newcomers have found themselves vulnerable as they face the hard realities of this recession.

Minister, there is no doubt we deliver much-needed programs and assistance to newcomers. How can we ensure Ontario's immigrants do not fall behind in these critical times?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would like to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for his question. There's no doubt that the recession has hit newcomers particularly hard. Between October 2008 and October 2009, the net decline in employment in Toronto was 36,300 jobs. Of those affected, most were recent or very recent newcomers.

In these challenging times, it's important that all Ontarians, including newcomers, be able to apply their skills and talents in the workplace. That's why we continue to work at changing long-standing, systemic barriers and provide newcomers with programs like language and bridge training, tailored not only to get them through this hard time but ready for long-term success.

I'm proud to report that since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested more than $700 million in programs and services to help newcomers get settled, job-ready and licensed to work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Minister, I know that much of our immigration funding and framework stems from the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement with the federal government, which is due to expire in March of this year. Especially when faced with such challenges as we have seen in this economic climate, it is imperative that all levels of government are at the table to ensure that vulnerable groups like newcomers receive the right support.

I'm surprised to learn that millions of dollars that were promised under the COIA by the federal government have been withheld. Surely this has hurt our ability to support newcomers in the province of Ontario. I know that organizations in my riding of Ottawa Centre rely on this funding, like the Catholic Immigration Centre, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization and the Chinese-Canadian services agency.

Minister, how do you propose we ensure that newcomers receive the services they need as we look towards the expiration of the COIA?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member from Ottawa Centre is correct that in spite of repeated requests from Ontario, the federal government has not lived up to its funding promises.

Over the first four years of the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, there was an underspending by the federal government of $193 million, approximately 30% of the federal commitment. That's why it's important that Ontario receives a new and fair deal with Ottawa on immigration funding, a deal which includes federal funding of settlement and language training programs flowing directly to the province.

To this end, Ontario is asking for more control of these funds to better help newcomers. BC, Manitoba and Quebec have done this already. Why shouldn't Ontario have the same ability to help our newcomers? Ontario has a closer understanding of the needs of our newcomers and is better positioned to identify and address their needs.

We are committed to helping newcomers. We know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On January 11, I wrote to the minister requesting specific information relating to the home and vehicle modification program. In that letter to the minister, I asked for specific information, such as, first, how many applications were received over the past year from my region; how many were approved; and what the criteria is on which decisions are made to either approve or reject applications.

The minister did reply to me, but I find her response totally unacceptable. She stated in her letter that she was advised by her staff that the information I requested relating to the allocation of funds is not collected—it's not collected.

I'd like to know from the minister how she can justify accepting that answer and expecting me to—

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you for the question. Home and vehicle modification is a program that is very highly subscribed to. We have been increasing that budget since we came into power. There's never enough money in that budget, but what I can say to the member today is that we will continue to look at the program and we will continue to make sure that we add to this program, because if we want people to continue to work or to continue to live in their homes, we need to make sure that these programs are available.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Under the program, more than $9 million was transferred out by this ministry over the past year.

In my letter, I also pointed out that applications for the program are vague; that there is no formal medical documentation required with the application; and that there is no formal waiting list maintained to ensure fairness and equity in terms of ascribing this multi-million-dollar program.

I'm saying this to the minister: Will she agree to ask the Auditor General to investigate how this program is being administered to ensure that the $9 million-plus are being allocated on a fair and equitable basis, and that the people responsible for administering the program are accountable to her and her ministry?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I trust those partners that administer this program. They have an excellent reputation in the community. They have been doing that work for quite some time. They themselves do their fundraising to make sure that the money is there for those who are in need of modification of their home or their vehicle. Like I said, there are more applications, and a lot of them are for senior people. We know that for them to be able to continue to live at home, they need to have their home modified. We believe in the program, and we believe in the partners that are administering this program for us.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. A renowned palliative care expert found there is a "big, big gap" when it comes to decent end-of-life care in Ottawa. He says it's putting unnecessary pressure on local Ottawa hospitals, causing cancelled surgeries and long wait times in emergency rooms. The irony is that treating palliative patients outside hospitals saves taxpayer money because it frees up vital hospital resources for patients in need of critical care.

This government had years to move forward with pragmatic cost-saving innovations like these. Can the health minister tell us why this government still refuses to act?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I very much appreciate the question. I think it's fair to say that we have more to do when it comes to end-of-life care, but we have made substantial investments in exactly the kind of initiatives that she has spoken about. Our aging-at-home strategy has put over $1 billion into communities to provide exactly the kind of supports that provide that continuum of care. We know that people get excellent care in hospitals and they get excellent care in long-term-care homes.

We know that there is excellent home care available, but we know we need to strengthen the continuum of supports available to people, whether they are at the end of their life or dealing with other health challenges that require more support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ottawa families have already been told to brace for cuts—100 hospital beds at the Ottawa Hospital alone—because this government would rather hand out consulting contracts to its friends than invest in health care. We've been reminded again today that it's not just dollars and cents that our health care system needs; it's common sense and innovation. Building palliative care capacity improves the system and saves money.

When will this government finally take the steps needed to address this important health care issue that affects all Ontario families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I completely agree that that is an area of our health care system that we need to continue to strengthen. As part of the 2008 budget, we approved over $14 million to assist 10 residential hospices that are now open. The 2007 budget announced nearly $10 million in hospices as part of that budget. That helped implement six residential hospices that had been part of an earlier announcement. We continue to invest in end-of-life care: $29 million for the end-of-life care strategy. That provides the support to CCACs to help the clients who are at the very end of their life.

Again, I say it is an area where I believe we need to do more, but we have taken some important steps forward in that direction.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. John Gerretsen: From Willowdale.

Mr. David Zimmer: From Willowdale, and a number of constituents in Willowdale have raised this issue with me.

Minister, food safety and confidence in our food system are critical for Ontario's farm system and the public, the producers and the consumers. A fundamental element of food safety is an effective food traceability system. Despite all the provincial and federal measures to promote food safety, consumer concern about food safety remains. Traceability of food products is essential for consumer confidence in the safety of Ontario's food chain. Minister, what is Ontario's strategy for the voluntary adoption of traceability in food products?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: The McGuinty government is committed to traceability. Our government understands that traceability is a sound business investment for this province's agribusiness. We believe Ontario's agri-food sectors fully understand the benefits to be realized through the implementation of a traceability initiative and will do so voluntarily.

Traceability systems provide us with the means to track the movement of food products ultimately from farm to fork. They are a key element in a strong food safety system, and they support the emergency management process. Traceability also brings benefits to the producers of Ontario's agri-food products by opening new opportunities along the value chain in the marketplace.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I know that the issue of traceability in food products was raised by you specifically at the recent federal, provincial and territorial ag ministers' meeting here in Toronto, and I know that you attended the recent Ontario forum on the agri-food traceability issue in Guelph, Ontario.

Minister, can you be specific: How are you supporting a food traceability system in Ontario, and will you commit to strengthening traceability in Ontario? Will it be a long-term commitment for Ontario's food safety?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you for this very important question. We are investing in new resources. We're creating new tools and engaging industry to advance the voluntary adaptation of traceability systems in Ontario. The McGuinty government provided $10 million in start-up funding for OnTrace to lead provincial agriculture and food traceability initiatives. The food safety and traceability initiatives were launched under the Growing Forward framework, and the program offers $25.5 million over four years to support the implementation of food safety programs and traceability systems.

In 2009, the FTP agreed to mandatory livestock traceability by 2011, supported by national regulation and funding.

Our government will continue to work with the agri-food sector to advance the implementation of traceability systems in Ontario. Traceability strengthens our agri-industry, and I just want to say the member—

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question today is to the Minister of Health. Minister, a group of local health, First Nations, industry, labour and municipal officials in Sarnia—Lambton have joined together in my riding to launch a study into whether industrial pollution is or is not harming the health of the residents of Sarnia—Lambton. Your predecessors in office promised the community health study committee and me that the ministry would consider providing up to $75,000 in funding to get this study off the ground.

The local government has stepped up and so has the local chamber of commerce, but to date, your ministry won't return our calls. Why did your ministry say it would give us an answer by February 16, when it hasn't?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member opposite for his question. What I can tell you is that this is a proposal that we are taking very seriously. We are reviewing the proposal. The health care of people across the province is important to us. We understand that people in the Sarnia area have concerns that are specific to that particular part of the province. So we'll take a very serious look at it, and we'll inform the member opposite as soon as we have made a decision on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Minister, I appreciate your promise to look into this issue; however, I regret that it has taken your ministry over two years to respond—acknowledging that you weren't in office at the time.

My community is regularly branded as a hotbed of environmental issues which have negatively affected the health of our residents. However, I'm proud to say that rather than stick our heads in the sand, the people of Sarnia—Lambton, through these committees, have decided to act and confront these possible health issues head-on. We cannot do this alone. Public health is a shared responsibility among all levels of government. To date, the county of Lambton has responded to our request for funding and our talks with the federal government seem quite promising, but the provincial government has continued to drag their feet.

Minister, why has it taken two years for the people of Sarnia—Lambton to receive a response from your ministry regarding this important issue?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me reassure the member opposite that we will look at this very carefully. Clearly, in this economy, we do take extra care when we review proposals like this. We are doing that, and I will get back to you as soon as I possibly can.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Minister, when the auto sector was in trouble, your government and your Premier, rightfully so, intervened in order to assist those communities that had the auto sector as a big part of the local economies. Why is it that the Premier, yourself and your government are not equally interested in what is happening with the closure of the refinery in Timmins by Xstrata?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. It gives me an opportunity to remind the member, because he does know this, that indeed we are very involved in the very difficult situation in Timmins with the decision by Xstrata.

I've travelled up there, and we've had many discussions with Mayor Laughren. And, as you know, Premier McGuinty has been directly involved in the discussions as well and has made an offer on behalf of the province to help the community in terms of some solutions to this situation. We remain very, very committed to working with them. There are a number of programs that are in place. I've spoken to the member about them before—certainly the significant investments we've made through the northern Ontario heritage fund and ones we hope to make in the future.

I recognize this is a very difficult situation, one that I understand the member certainly continuing to be very much a strong advocate for, and I share the opportunity. I want to work with him on this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, you know very well there haven't been any discussions with your government with Xstrata. The only discussions you've had are with the mayor of the city of Timmins, myself and others who met with you in the city of Timmins and here at Queen's Park. You are trying to focus the discussion on what we do after the refinery is closed. We don't want to get into that debate. That is a refinery that is important to the economy of Ontario, and what we're asking from you, in the north, is that you treat northern Ontario no differently than we treated Windsor, Oshawa and other communities that were in peril about a year and a half ago.

So I ask you again, what is your Premier and what are you prepared to do as the government of Ontario to engage in discussions with Xstrata to make sure that facility does not close down?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We would like nothing more than to have Xstrata change their mind and stay in the community. I have been involved in discussions with Xstrata and have made the case that indeed we would like to see them reconsider this. The fact is that there is a real challenge in terms of the decisions they make, but that does not in any way lessen the ability for us to get involved with the community. We are working with the community closely. I am working with you, as the local member. We understand indeed how devastating this decision is.

We are bringing in policies that will have a very positive impact not just for Timmins but for northern Ontario in general. Certainly, there are opportunities related to the northern Ontario growth plan. We want to be able to bring forward an economic vision that will have a positive impact. I answered a question earlier about the forest sector recovery in terms of the wood supply competition, forest tenure review. We're working on all those issues. We will continue to do that. I look forward to being in Timmins very soon again to continue those discussions.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Our government has made many environmental commitments to Ontarians. Beyond investments in clean energy and new technologies, the government has been encouraging Ontario businesses to employ methods and technologies that would ensure the long-term sustainability of our environment. Certainly, we are proud of those organizations that take a leading role in maintaining a green Ontario.

In Guelph, our new city hall, Guelph Hydro's new head office and Linamar's new training centre all have many green features included in them, and many other private sector companies around the province already utilize environmentally friendly practices.

With this kind of emphasis on environmental sustainability changing the way business in Ontario views green initiatives, could the minister please explain what the government is doing—

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

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: First of all, I would like to thank the member from Guelph for her question.

In 2007, the government launched Go Green, a climate change plan with very solid provincial targets through which the OPS has committed, first, to reducing the OPS's energy consumption by 10% by 2012; and second, to make all electricity purchases by the Ontario Legislature from 100% renewable energy. We have also designated that we will use our design standards for all new government-owned construction and major renovations, where appropriate. We continue to engage employees in building a green organizational culture through the OPS Green