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

April 20, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Apr-20 (PDF)

L112 - Wed 20 Apr 2011 / Mer 20 avr 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 April 2011 Mercredi 20 avril 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ENERGY POLICIES

STOCK EXCHANGE

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

CLIMATE CHANGE

ENERGY POLICIES

FIREFIGHTERS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION /

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MAKE-A-WISH CANADA

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

CO-OPERATIVES

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

DUTY-FREE STORES

ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM

OTTAWA MUSLIM WOMEN’S ORGANIZATION

PASSOVER

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BRITISH HOME CHILD DAY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE JOUR DES PETITS

IMMIGRÉS BRITANNIQUES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

JOUR DE LA TERRE /

EARTH DAY

COMMUNITY HEALTH WEEK

PETITIONS

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

DOG OWNERSHIP

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES /

SERVICES DIAGNOSTIQUES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PARAMEDICS

WIND TURBINES

KIDNEY DISEASE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

KIDNEY DISEASE

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

OPPOSITION DAY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 19, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 179,

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

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

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very pleased to rise today for second reading debate on the Building Families and Supporting Youth to Be Successful Act. This legislation is the next step in our improvements to Ontario’s adoption system and will, if passed, allow thousands more kids the opportunity to live happy lives in stable, loving, permanent families.

We know that 7,000 crown wards currently have access orders which prevent them from being eligible for adoption. This legislation proposes to remove those barriers. This legislation will also help build a brighter future for Ontario’s crown wards. These changes would allow youth whose care arrangements ended at age 16 or 17 to return to their CAS to receive supports until age 21. We need to ensure that the door is wide open for Ontario’s most vulnerable children and youth, so they have the tools they need to succeed.

Yesterday my parliamentary assistant, Mike Colle, introduced second reading of this important piece of legislation. I want to thank him; the member for Nipissing, Ms. Smith; and the member from Peterborough, Mr. Leal, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the House, for rising to speak to this bill.

I understand how personal and touching the issue of adoption is for so many people. I thank all of my colleagues for speaking to this legislation, and many of them for highlighting how this legislation, if passed, will improve our current adoption system. Ms. Smith and the member from Dufferin–Caledon both spoke about how their own families have been touched by and shaped through adoption.

I’m hopeful that in this particular debate, as we stand to speak to this bill, raise questions and discuss its principles, we continue to keep one thing in mind; that is, the kids and the families who will be affected by these important measures. We don’t always have the opportunity to put politics aside in this House, but this particular legislation deserves our best efforts in this regard.

Yesterday I truly wanted to be in this House with my colleagues; however, over the last few days I’ve been hosting the first aboriginal child welfare summit in Ontario, which was held at Fort William First Nation. The summit brought together approximately 200 representatives from political-territorial organizations, independent First Nations, aboriginal service delivery organizations and so many others to continue the conversation about how we can best meet the unique needs of aboriginal children and their families.

It was an incredible opportunity to learn about successful practices and innovative approaches that will help us work together to transform the future for aboriginal kids and their families.

The traditional model of foster care or adoption is not necessarily the right path to permanency for these children. That is why the Child and Family Services Act also recognizes customary care as a way for children to find permanent homes. Customary care is the care and supervision of an aboriginal child by a person who is not the child’s parent, according to the customs of the child’s band or native community.

Each community defines its own traditions, and discussions at the aboriginal child welfare summit solidified our commitment to work with CASs and First Nations to increase the use of these arrangements so that more aboriginal children and youth are able to stay connected to their communities, cultures and traditions, and in permanent homes.

I understand that the need to respect the aboriginal models of care was raised in debate yesterday, and I’m pleased to hear that. Also discussed within the context of yesterday’s debate were some questions with respect to openness orders, notice provisions, the implementation of subsidies, supporting our kids with special needs and other work that needs to be done to modernize the child welfare sector. I’m pleased to hear that these thoughtful questions were raised on the floor of this Legislature, and I’m very happy to speak to some of them this morning.

In developing this legislation, we sought to ensure that it reflected a balanced approach for all parties, while keeping in mind one goal: our drive to find permanent homes for waiting kids. The proposed legislation is very child-focused. It allows for contact with birth families while still respecting the expectations of prospective parents. The proposed legislation strikes the right balance, because it is focused on what is best for the child.

In so many instances across the province, I have been told that an access order may exist yet no one is actively making use of that access. We don’t want to limit a child’s potential for a permanent family because of this. On the other hand, in cases where it would be in the child’s best interest to maintain some contact with their birth family, the court can make an openness order under these new provisions.

At the same time, we must also keep in mind the wishes of those prospective parents who want to understand the nature of the relationship between the child and the people who may have access for openness orders. To balance this, the proposed legislation requires the judge who may be granting an openness order to consider the ability of the prospective parents to fulfill those terms. Again, all of these provisions have a common goal when trying to achieve this balance: What is in the best interest of the child.

I want to spend a few moments with respect to notice within the legislation. When a children’s aid society intends to place a child for adoption, prior to placing the child in the adoptive home, the society must provide notice to any individual who has an access order with respect to the child. The notice will contain the following information: that the CAS intends to place the child for adoption, that the access order that person has will automatically end when the child is placed for adoption, and that the person whose access will terminate upon adoption may apply to the court for an openness order.

A 30-day notice period to bring an application for an openness order is consistent with many notice periods in the Family Law Act and is intended to balance the need to minimize the length of time before a child can be placed with an adoptive family and, at the same time, provide sufficient time for the person whose access will terminate to apply to the court for the openness order.

The package of reforms announced last week was not the first improvements we’ve made to our adoption system. Since establishing the expert panel, our government has taken a number of steps to increase the number of kids who have the opportunity to grow up in healthy, stable and permanent homes, while reducing the number of kids who come into CAS care. Last year alone, we increased the number of adoptions by 21%.

We made important changes to the funding model, which provided an 8% increase to CAS adoption funding. We established standardized home study and parent training programs. We asked the Commission to Promote Sustainable Child Welfare to look at ways to strengthen and build on our successes in permanency, including adoption, to improve our child welfare system and achieve the best outcomes for kids.

In 2006, we did make some changes that allowed for judges to use openness orders as another tool to increase permanency. An effective government takes action, waits for results, assesses those results and then takes further action if the attendant results are not being achieved. While we did introduce the openness order as a tool in 2006, we have not seen the level of uptake we would consider to be significant, and that is why we are proposing this legislation, which would fully remove a barrier to permanency for over 7,000 crown wards.

In addition to this, we will implement an education strategy targeted to the family law bench and bar, as well as CASs, to increase the use of existing openness mechanisms. We will do so because we are committed to ensuring that these changes deliver measurable results for thousands of Ontario kids and families.

Yesterday, the Legislature heard about the work our government is doing to modernize the child welfare system. It’s important to note that funding for CASs has increased by over 30% since 2003. In the last decade, funding has gone from $500 million to over $1.5 billion, and this year 72% of CASs are receiving more funding than last year.

Our government knows that our child welfare system must be modernized, and that is why we established the Commission to Promote Sustainable Child Welfare. The commission has made recommendations to reduce administrative burden and has taken the first steps to initiate the amalgamation of some CASs so they become more sustainable. As part of their work, there will also be advice given with respect to the current funding formula, and the priorities described within our package of adoption reforms will be of paramount consideration during those deliberations.

It is very important to be clear on the issue of subsidies, as it seems there may have been some concern that this is not mapped out in the legislation. We know that many CASs are already providing targeted subsidies to make it possible for families to adopt children in care, and for this, no legislative amendments are required. We know that 46 CASs are currently administering over 2,000 subsidy agreements across the province, and we need to understand what that looks like on the ground. Our first step will be to seek their advice and that of other experts and better understand how we can build on these experiences across the province.

Another important subject that was raised during debate yesterday was kids in care who have special needs. We know that 82% of crown wards have special needs, and it goes without saying that our package of legislative and policy reforms will connect directly with those kids who need our supports the most.

Our government is confident that our package of legislative changes and other supports will help young people in the care of children’s aid societies and prospective adoptive parents build the lives they’ve always dreamed of.

I am heartened that Ontario’s adoption and child protection stakeholders share our confidence. I have received many letters of support from Ontarians over the last week. One prospective adoptive mom wrote, “Thank you on behalf of all of us adoptive parents and all those children who don’t have a voice.” A mentor to a former crown ward wrote, “Thank you ... how much better the lives of many children would be with stable families who could give them security and help them rebuild trust in people.” This is incredibly encouraging.

But the greatest encouragement I take comes in knowing that the young people who stand to benefit the most have thanked us for the important steps we are taking. They have told us that every kid in Ontario deserves a family and that nothing compares to the love and support that a permanent family can provide.

One week ago today, we introduced our exciting package of adoption and crown ward support reforms. Attending that announcement was Oakville author Deborah Brennan. Ms. Brennan is a member of the Adoption Council of Canada and has written and published a book entitled Labours of Love. It chronicles the journeys of Canadians who have opened their hearts and their lives to give a child a forever family.

Ms. Brennan gave me a copy of her book when she was here last week, and I want to leave you with a quote from the book. “Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family. Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.” And so today I call on all members to support this important legislation, which will give that gift of a forever family to thousands of waiting kids across the province.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: This is an important subject. In fact, I thought yesterday our critic made some very supportive remarks which, and in that sense, would imply to us that our caucus is supportive of this.

I think putting kids in care at the very centre of this whole discussion is a very important position to take. Just a couple of things: You’re saying that the subsidies could be targeted by, as you said in your remarks, the 46 children’s aid societies that are in fact exercising 2,000 of those subsidy agreements. That’s important. I think that, for instance, grandparents or other members of the child’s immediate relatives have first right, I believe, and they may need support. In the case of grandparents being the adoptive parents, in the case of where the child’s parents have separated and all these things weren’t resolvable, I’d be supportive of that.

In the case of grandparents—I am a grandparent. I want to put on the record here, with a little diversion, if I can, that last Friday, April 15, at about 7 o’clock in the evening, my son Andrew and his wife, Alison, had a little baby girl. They’ve named her Alexandra Lee. She was seven pounds, six ounces. She was born in Cobourg, and the proud grandparents now are Ed and Brenda Wielgos, who live in Whitby, and my wife, Peggy, and I. That’s really putting important priorities first. That’s just my own public service announcement.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Congratulations.

Mr. John O’Toole: I promised them I’d get it on the Hansard record. But it just shows how important grandparents are, because we were all there Friday night at the Cobourg hospital. This is an important way of recognizing that in the adoption arena it’s just as important to grandparents in this overall equation to look at it and make sure they have the supports in place, so I’d be supportive of that provision.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: A Chatham grandmother, Wendy O’Riley, wonders how many more grandparents caring for their grandchildren will have their financial support terminated by this government and local welfare officials. She had to go to a tribunal to get reinstated. She makes $15,000 a year and has brought up her 13-year-old granddaughter off and on since she was three years old.

This government still hasn’t changed the directives on the temporary care assistance. I brought a bill forward to change it so that these grandparents wouldn’t have to struggle on fixed incomes and wouldn’t have to come to Toronto to tribunals and wouldn’t have extreme problems when they are cut off.

The government will give away billions and billions of dollars to big business, but they’ll cut off a grandmother of $262 a month to bring up her grandchild. Then they’ve got the nerve and audacity to tell them to go on to foster care, which costs the government $900 to $1,100 per month per child, and here is a grandmother trying to bring up her grandchild and keep the family together for $260; and I think it’s $186 for every additional child.

I’ve got grandmothers in Hamilton who are bringing up two or three of their grandchildren for various reasons, and they’re getting less than $700 a month. If they were in the system, those kids would be covered for almost $4,000 to $5,000, counting their dental and glasses. It doesn’t make sense from a fiscal point of view; it doesn’t make sense as a moral situation. This government, to date, has not changed the directives. My bill would have changed the directives to support these grandparents who are doing yeoman service for our province and are being neglected by this government.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to again commend the minister for going up to Thunder Bay with the First Nations who are concerned about the accommodation of their special needs in this new legislation. I think it was critically important to be there, because they have special challenges, and this legislation recognizes that.

The other thing is that this is about removing barriers to adoption. Right now, 75% of the children who are crown wards cannot be adopted because there are these technical access orders that prevent adoption. The CASs can’t even contemplate adoption, because these access orders are in place. This legislation removes that barrier.

I also want to say that this also starts to remind people of how critically vital these adoptive families are.

Those of us who have children, grandchildren, know how challenging it is to raise the family, to pay the bills, to nurture children, to be there at the hospital—as the member for Durham said—when your grandchildren are sick. But I really think it’s about time we started to take our hats off to parents who have the courage and the determination to adopt children.

These people are heroes, because we know how difficult it is already with your natural birth children, but as for Ontarians who will come forward and adopt children, we should recognize the critical role they play, especially children that, in many cases—as the minister said, 80% of the children who are crown wards have some special-needs requirements. Whatever we can do to encourage, remove barriers and to support adoptive parents so they can create this new family for these children is something that is very, very worthwhile.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to see that in the minister’s comments, she reacted to a number of the questions that I talked about in my speech yesterday. I’ll focus on the 82% of kids in care who have special needs. I think it’s very important that we start to try to deal with offering the supports and services and, quite frankly, the continuity that parents need who wish to adopt and bring children with special needs into their family.

I raised, very briefly, during my comments that one particular family is trying to deal with the right hand and the left hand arguing over whether they should get assistance for children with severe disabilities, which is a program operated out of children and youth services, which the minister would know, and the two different children’s aid societies that have been offering a permanency funding subsidy for three adoptive children that the parents have brought into their family. They’re now in a situation where, a year after the permanency funding has been pulled, they have to go to a tribunal.

They’ve been getting this funding for 12 years. The children’s aid societies understand the importance of the funding, and yet we have a case where the children’s aid society is essentially fighting with children and youth services. I would really like to see, perhaps in committee, perhaps with amendments, some way to deal with those families and those situations, because it is simply unacceptable for the family to have to deal with those challenges when they are already trying to deal with other challenges of children with special needs.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The Minister for Children and Youth Services has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to acknowledge the members for Durham, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Eglinton–Lawrence and Dufferin–Caledon for their comments. The thread through all of those comments was very much the importance of family. I congratulate the member from Durham on the new addition to his family. The kick-off of his comments on this piece of legislation, I think, brings to focus for all of us why this legislation is so important: because it is the opening of a pathway to the creation of a family, a forever family for so many youths and young people in our province.

For me, one of the critical pieces was, from seeking the advice of some of the experts in the field, knowing that we would be making a difference. I just want to comment on someone like Cheryl Appell. She’s the co-chair of the adoption working group on the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption and a well-known counsel in the city of Toronto who has expertise in these areas. She said, “These changes have been advocated for many years, and it is wonderful to see that, finally, there has been the courage to put this plan forward.

This legislative change will be a powerful and welcomed tool in the hands of children’s aid societies, who bear responsibility for finding a permanent home for children who cannot return to their family of origin, and it introduces new judicial responsibility, which I believe will also be welcomed.”

When individuals with the knowledge and expertise, such as Cheryl Appell, make those kinds of comments, it really gives me a lot of hope that we will make significant change, and we’re committed to doing that. We have continued to make efforts and build on the work that we’ve done.

In the last remaining seconds that I have in this response, I’ll continue to advance my call to all Ontario families to look within their homes and their hearts and make a determination of whether they might be able to be the forever family for one of these young people in our province. When these legislative changes come through, we will have removed that barrier for 7,000 kids, and we will have 7,000 kids waiting for forever families. I hope that Ontarians will meet that call.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to rise today and speak on this bill.

There are two things that I first of all want to focus on, and they are what I consider to be the essence of the bill: the question of access orders and the opportunities for 16- to 18-year-olds under this piece of proposed legislation.

Access orders, I think, have to be understood in the greater context of what has historically been the challenge for those children who found themselves as crown wards. In the preceding piece of legislation and prior to that, the issue of being a crown ward was that it signified that there was still a relationship with either a birth parent, a family member or some designated person, and that created a blockage in the ability of people to go ahead with adoption procedures.

I think of some of my friends and neighbours who have been foster parents and, for them, the frustration of seeing children passed from one place to another in the foster care process because they had, through no fault of their own, a sort of stigma in being a crown ward. I know that in more than one case, people—the foster parents, that is—would have entertained the idea of being the adopting parents but for those legal restrictions. So I can’t say enough about the importance of this process of access orders and putting a time limit on them.

One is always caught in the balance of being fair. I think that previously, with court orders in place, people thought that this was the most fair way to deal with it. But when you look at the experience that children have in the foster system as crown wards, they’re just sitting there, waiting. They’re in limbo. While I don’t want to take away at all from the good work done by foster parents, everyone knows that the permanency is missing. So to be able to bring a conclusion to this limbo process of being a crown ward, I think, is a very, very important step that is encompassed in this bill.

The second area that I think is also very, very important is the question of recognizing the ability of 16- to 18-year-olds to make a decision and then reverse it, and have the opportunity to remain in the system until the age of 21.

I remember very vividly a phone call that I received a few years ago from a young constituent of mine who had, for the first time in his life, in his own words, stability and support—emotional, physical and intellectual support—in the home that he was in. He was someone who, through the instability of his own life, had been definitely in the category of a difficult person to foster. This couple who had him had obviously accomplished miracles, in the words of my young constituent, who saw that these people were able to change his life.

It was just heartbreaking to have to talk to him and hear his story and know that I had no tools to be able to do anything. There was nothing that I or anyone else at that point could do. I did, of course, talk to his caseworker, but the facts were the facts.

I think that this was a particularly vulnerable part of the age group of crown wards. It’s worth it when you know that you are successful. You know you can’t be successful in every instance, but one is one too many, so I think that providing this kind of opportunity for the 16- to 18-year-olds is extremely important.

I also want to talk about the children’s aid society realities as I see them. I’m constantly drawn to the fact that they have a mandated responsibility, mandated obligations, but their financial support is not sustainable; it does not cover in an appropriate way that for which they are mandated.

As a member for York region, I’m acutely conscious of the underfunding, both historic and otherwise, for social services in York region, including, obviously, the children’s aid. One of my friends was one of those people who had to be laid off last year. I think it’s just wrong on so many levels, wrong because the young people, the children who are the clients, if we might use that term, are the people who are most affected by those kinds of changes, redirections, new people and things like that.

We know from the conversations that have taken place already, from the debate that has taken place already with this bill, that home study only accounts for 2% of the budget. Certainly, I’ve had conversations with people on waiting and waiting and waiting and then the waiting list gets so long that they’re the people who don’t get on a waiting list. They’re the people who pay for their own home studies. Clearly, this in itself is an impediment to being able to have a better flow of people from crown wardship to adoption. There are some of these systemic issues which, obviously, the bill does not reflect.

I also want to take observers back to Bill 210. At the time, I was the critic for the children and youth file, so there are some things I remember about this bill and the kinds of discussions and issues that were raised at the time.

I want to quote from two parts; one is where I’m speaking on second reading, and the second is where I’m speaking on third reading. The first quote, then, is from my remarks with regard to second reading. Here I’m discussing the importance of the openness agreements:

“I think we just have to make sure that those options are understood and that we are going to ensure that the process does what its stated goal is, and that, of course, is to increase the number of adoptions.

“The other interesting thing about the openness agreements is that when you look at the part of the bill that deals with them, they are done primarily through the courts. So I would just point out that they revert to a court process. Again I have to say rhetorically, does this create issues around timeliness and cost if openness orders are going to be done by the courts?

“I think it’s clear that we, as a group of legislators, are very conscious of the need to be able to provide ongoing support for the agencies that are providing the service and child protection, and we have to be able to find the best methods for children, because the goal is clearly to make a process where a child’s life is ... better.”

I go on to mention that since the courts are a very expensive part of the process that children’s aid deals with, obviously my concern then is captured here, where I say, “... ensure that not only is there going to be the process that will work in the best interest, but also that we’re not going to be looking at the cost being a driver of the whole process.”

As a result of the passage of the bill, we had the opportunity to hear a number of experts in the public hearings. I have two that I would like to refer to. The first one is Dr. Brenda Nutter of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. She made what I think is a comment that should be an echo at this point, and that is that “this legislation will require a substantial commitment by the government to the education of the public and of those in the field who will be charged with the implementation of Bill 210.” She goes on: “It changes the face of public adoption.

It is true that more children will receive better service through permanency initiatives. In addition, in-care costs will be reduced. But as this process moves ahead, it is important that the needs of adoptive families be recognized and fully supported as they manage the everchanging needs of their older and special-needs children. In the public sector, we believe that the expansion of post-adoption services is a critical part of the infrastructure that will allow the openness provisions of Bill 210 to be successfully implemented.”

James Dubray of the Durham Children’s Aid Society told the committee about that children’s aid society’s experience with openness, as follows: “In the past year, we have been piloting open adoptions. Our experiences generally have not been positive. We have learned that in the making of and having agreements in place for adoption placement, the natural family sometimes have changed their minds with regard to the adoption placement, and have sought to have it overturned by using the provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act.”

I want to finish my comments on Bill 210 with one final comment from my third reading speech in 2006. “In committee, in clause-by-clause, I offered an amendment that would have required the government and the societies to be accountable for increasing the rate of adoption.

“My amendment would have required a three-year review of the effectiveness of openness agreements and whether or not the rates of adoption have increased. Unfortunately, the government members chose to vote down my amendment.

“Obviously, I wish they had accepted it, as it would have mandated this specific area of accountability for increasing the adoption of crown wards.

“As we know, there is a process for a five-year review, but when you’re looking at stepping into what in many ways are uncharted waters, I think it’s important that the government look at specifically how effective this process has been.”

Just think: If the Liberal members had voted through our PC amendment five years ago, we could have reviewed this legislation two years ago and made a change. I have to wonder how many crown wards have lost out at a chance of a loving adoptive family over the last five years because of the failure of Bill 210.

I would just like to finish with a few comments going back to Bill 179. It’s very clear from this debate and from the comments made by many others that there is much more to do. Obviously, the fact that we know that 82% of all crown wards are special-needs children cries out for some recognition, particularly from the results of the all-party standing committee recommendations. The other problem that I think is not being addressed here and that the bill is obviously silent on is the fact that as children are crown wards, they have access to more programming that is paid for than those who are adopted.

Again, I go back to one of my friends who had fostered three children. The most heart-wrenching part of the process for her was giving up these children. She had to give them up because she couldn’t afford to raise them. It’s that simple. When you are talking about the need for obviously those kinds of unique people in our community who are prepared to open their homes to be foster parents, I think that at the same time we need to be looking at how we are going to encourage and support—one of the deputants on Bill 210 referred to post-adoption support.

I think, probably, that would fit with my concern about the fact that there is a huge problem when you have, on the one hand, 82% of crown wards who are special-needs children. You want to encourage adoption, and yet, literally, the buck stops. I think that that will continue to be a huge obstacle for many, many families who would be able to otherwise, as the minister said, open their hearts. They will also have to open their wallets.

I just want to finish on a quote that my daughter actually sent to me. It says—and I think it encompasses the spirit in which we ultimately find ourselves in supporting the bill: “Not born of my mother’s tummy but from her heart.”

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you to the member from York–Simcoe. She has done her research, and it was a good presentation.

The expert panel reports that the problems in the system are well documented and the impacts of these problems are staggering. The expert panel reported, “Former crown wards who age out of the system are less likely to finish high school, more likely to become parents themselves at a young age, more likely to be users of the mental health system, more likely to require social assistance, more likely to rely on homeless shelters, to experience poverty as adults and more likely to be in conflict with the law. The long-term costs to society when children do not have permanent homes are staggering. The human costs, in terms of personal suffering and unfulfilled potential, are heartbreaking.”

It seems that this bill is taking a step forward in terms of increasing the number of crown wards who could be eligible for adoption. This is good and positive, but does it do enough? Will it address the underlying issues, and perhaps, most fundamentally, will it increase the likeliness that these children and youth are adopted?

There is nothing in the bill to increase the number of prospective adoptive parents. This is one step of many that experts, practitioners, parents and children have called for when it comes to improving adoption in our province. Even more so, why such a small step when the government has had ample opportunity to move forward on easy-to-implement and cost-neutral solutions?

The other question, which surely we will be better equipped to answer following committee hearings: Are we balancing the rights of all the parties involved correctly? Are the rights of the children, birth parents and adoptive parents, as well as aboriginal communities, being treated fairly?—frustrating for the NDP and surely for the stakeholders who have given countless hours of work to reforming Ontario’s adoption system. The expert panel report is evidence of this. We see well-articulated and well-reasoned suggestions that are nowhere to be found in this bill. However, we congratulate the members of the expert panel who have worked hard to get us where we are today.

It is worth taking some time to review what is missing from this bill.

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for York–Simcoe for her comments and, in particular, for the lovely last quote that she ended her submission with.

I want to spend just a couple of minutes talking about how the provisions in this legislation are a new approach and do add to the previous provisions with respect to openness. It is absolutely critical, yes, that we will undertake an education campaign for the judiciary, for children’s aid societies and for lawyers to understand what is changing, because the removal of a provision that has, for more than 30 years, prevented a child with any kind of access order from even being eligible for adoption, who couldn’t plan for adoption, is a very big change in the adoption world.

I want to spend a couple of moments, if I can, providing some information with respect to the detail of the test that will be used by the court in determining whether this new type of openness order should be issued on application. The first thing will be: Is it in the best interests of the child? The second thing will be that, if the child is 12 years of age or older, they will have to consent to that order, and that will be a determining factor in whether they want a continued relationship or whether they do have a relationship.

The courts will also have to consider two other factors in deciding whether to make an openness order: whether the order would permit the continuation of a relationship with a person that is beneficial and meaningful to the child—and again, our focus is always on what is best for the child; is it an important and meaningful relationship to them?—and secondly, the ability of the prospective adoptive parents to comply with that arrangement after the adoption order, because they will be the family of the child at that point.

We want to make sure that those adoptive families who come forward, who open their hearts and homes to children, would be able to comply with the provisions, always focusing on the best interests of the child.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to respond to the comments made by my caucus colleague from York–Simcoe. I found it very helpful that she spent a good deal of her time talking about the previous legislation from five years ago—Bill 210, I believe it was. I was not a member here at the time, so I appreciate her bringing her expertise and history to that debate.

I think she raised some excellent points about how we are in fact reviewing and trying to improve what initially was attempted to be solved five years ago. To me, it reinforces the value of a sunshine review act, something where we can reflect on what we have brought forward: Is it passing what we attempted to solve? Is it making positive changes for Ontario families and Ontario children? To me, this is a beautiful example of the importance of those reviews, whether it’s legislation or policies that we bring forward collectively.

As the member from York–Simcoe pointed out, if her amendment from Bill 210 had been passed, then we would have been having this discussion two years ago and trying to solve some of the issues for more adoptions and encouraging more adoptions instead of having to wait five years. So I’m pleased that she was able to bring those issues forward with her discussions of Bill 179, and I’ll have to discuss it further with her, because it sounds like it’s a good amendment to bring forward for Bill 179 as well.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is very close to home for me, because I’m both adopted—when I was about two years old, I was very fortunate to find a home at a point in my life when I didn’t think I was going to—and I’m also an adoptive parent, which was a very hard struggle for me, because for most of my life, being gay in Canada made it impossible. You couldn’t pass the threshold. Partly because I valued my family so much—because I almost went through my life without one, and have often thought of the consequences of what my life would have been like had I not done that.

Some of the human characteristics that God gave me when I came into this world made my relationship with my parents particularly challenging as I discovered this.

My son, whom I fostered after several years—it was extremely difficult. I remember the political fights. One of the reasons I became a Liberal was because the Liberal Party was the most accepting party of my family. I had some rather long, protracted fights with politicians from other parties who were very opposed to people like me being parents, and who also wanted to criminalize my child, who has fetal alcohol syndrome. If you’ve ever worked with or raised children who have FAS, it’s extremely challenging, because these children don’t have a lot of restraint and are easily suggestible.

I always get a little nervous when I hear about law and order and treating children in adult court, because when I worked on the streets with kids, 80% of the kids that I met were abused by their parents or by other family members, which is what led to that, which is why I think the screening process and the exchanges are important.

I also had a very clean start with my new family, so I think that removing the access orders in allowing children to be adopted is critical.

To me, this may be one of the most important pieces of legislation I get to vote on, and I want to thank the minister and other members who have spoken so positively.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. The member from York Simcoe has up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I wish to thank the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the Minister of Research and Innovation, and the member for Dufferin–Caledon.

I appreciate the comments that have been made. I would agree with the minister that this is a big change, and I think that’s why people on all sides of the House take it very seriously.

I think, in responding to the Minister of Research and Innovation, there aren’t many of us who haven’t been touched one way or the other by friends, immediate family—I think most people have some experience with this and understand, therefore, the fragility of the relationships and the importance of those relationships.

The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek talked about the details around the stats for children who age out. I think about it, as a parent myself, and think about how important the role is, to be able to provide the appropriate supports and stability for children growing up. Even when they’re 18, you discover that your job really isn’t over. That’s when you think you’ve become the empty nester, and then, in a few years, boom, they’re back.

Mr. Paul Miller: With friends.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Yeah, with friends. We can joke about that, but what we’re really saying is that there are those children who never have had that opportunity. That is what verges on criminal, and that is why I think we all agree that we have to do a better job.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It is a pleasure to speak to Bill 179. I want to say from the outset how much I enjoyed the comments from the members from Dufferin–Caledon and York–Simcoe, because their remarks are very sincere and they are trying, as indeed all members here are trying, to help with this legislation, help to improve it and do the best that we can to make adoption easier and to make it easier for foster parents to do that.

I was particularly struck by the member from Toronto Centre and the description of his situation and the adoption of his child who has fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That’s a tough one. Most people don’t know how complicated that is. Teachers understand the problems, but they don’t understand how to identify the problem, because even doctors don’t know how to identify that particular problem. So you’re suffering with a particular issue, and the adoptive parents don’t quite understand what it is, don’t quite know what to do, until finally a diagnosis is given that allows adoptive parents to deal with it.

It’s really intense and it’s complicated, and I say God bless those foster parents who take that job on, because it is a full-time emotional and economic responsibility. Many of us would take on that job, but with a great deal of thought, would take it on with much pain, and most of us don’t take it on. So those that do, I have a great deal of respect for them.

I think the minister is genuinely trying to improve the system, and I support the efforts.

The two points—the member from Dufferin–Caledon and our member from Beaches–East York raised these issues as well. The two efforts are that Bill 179 amends the Child and Family Services Act to state that a society can plan for adoption of a crown ward who has an access order. We know that currently less than 10% of Ontario’s approximately 9,000 crown wards are adopted every year, and of those, 7,000 of them have a special need, as has been mentioned by many.

If they have that kind of a special need, we as a state have to worry about how we facilitate the adoption so that it can happen and how we facilitate it so that the adoptive parents can indeed take that on with supports, because if we don’t provide the supports, I’m not sure that adoption, no matter how much easier we’re making it, will happen.

The member from Dufferin–Caledon, as did our member from Beaches–East York, raised this yesterday: where we say that we have a perverse incentive in the system. If you are a foster parent, you have access to funding that will ensure that the child in care has access to the services they need, but upon adoption, you lose access to that, and that doesn’t seem to make any sense. If we’re indeed trying to encourage people to adopt, but we give very few incentives, we’re not going to enable adoption, we’re not going to facilitate it, and it’s likely not to happen.

Our adoption process has flatlined, in spite of the changes the government has made, for the last four years, and so the question to us as legislators is, can we make that better, and if we can, why aren’t we doing it? If we’re not doing it, well, it’s not going to make the job easier. We hope that these changes will make it easier, but I don’t know.

The other thing that is major here, and which I support, is the number of changes that help to support crown wards, including the ability of crown wards who leave care at or above the age of 16 but under 18 to return to the care. We think this is good. We thought it illogical and not reasonable that someone who leaves the care of a children’s aid society at 16 loses supports. We are happy that the government is dealing with that particular problem, because these young men and women need help and need support.

These are the two main measures that are included in this bill that we think are good. They will help; there’s no doubt about it.

We know that the minister talked about aboriginal people and issues connected to adoption as it relates to aboriginal people. I know that she had a meeting with them. I’m not sure that the meeting was talking about adoption. It may have happened; I’m not sure. I know it was about something else, but hopefully aboriginal people raised these issues.

I don’t know whether the minister and/or the ministry consulted with aboriginal people, and if they haven’t, that would be a serious, serious oversight, given the history of residential schools and the removal of aboriginal kids from their homes—taken away in such a brutal manner that caused devastation in those communities for a long, long time. This is something that we need to be careful about, and this is something that we need to move carefully on.

So I am hoping that the minister has indeed done consultations with aboriginal people, and if not, before the passage of this bill, I’m hoping that she does that, so that as we move this bill into committee, we will hopefully get their point of view and hopefully get amendments that they believe might be needed in order to make this bill reflect aboriginal communities in particular.

We know that children’s aid societies have struggled to stay afloat for a long time, that they have not managed to manage their responsibilities with the shortage of funding that they have experienced over the years. We know the government has made an effort to deal with that; whether it solved the problem, I really don’t know. But we know that historically there have been funding issues and funding problems that I suspect have not been fully addressed. That’s something to deal with.

We want to thank the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption, the Raising Expectations group that has dealt with this. We know that they have made many recommendations that are not in this bill. I suppose, and I suspect the government has reasons for not dealing with them; I don’t know why. But when I read from their report in terms of what they recommend, it seems reasonable. Given that the minister is here today and she’s answering a lot of questions, I’m hoping that she will deal with it.

One of the recommendations the panel made is in the

section on system standardization and coordination. It says: “The central problem is the current ‘patchwork quilt’ nature of adoption services in Ontario. Services are not structured in a way that makes sense for children or families—or even service providers. In fact, there is really no ‘system’ at all. Service providers tend to operate in relative isolation, often with few connections between them.

Adoption policies, legislation, guidelines and standards are not based on current research or best practices, are inconsistent across services and, in many cases, do not reflect the current realities of adoption—or the diversity of this province. Furthermore, insufficient information is collected about services and outcomes for children and families. Without evidence-based research, it is difficult to plan a comprehensive range of adoption services that anticipate and fully respond to children’s, families’ and service providers’ needs.”

The expert panel recommends the creation of a provincial adoption agency. I’m not sure whether the minister might want to comment as to why it is they haven’t thought about implementing that. The panel provides necessary details of what this would look like, and they say, “Create a provincial adoption agency.”

“We urge the government to create a new, centralized provincial adoption agency … with a local service presence to:

“—provide all interested families with the information they need to explore their potential to adopt;

“—work with CASs to make appropriate and timely adoption plans for children in care;

“—focus on finding families for older crown wards and crown wards with special needs;

“—match and place crown wards with families;

“—provide birth families and adoptive families support to negotiate and maintain openness when in the best interests of the child;

“—support families throughout the public adoption process and help families after the adoption is finalized.”

Of all these recommendations, what is the government moving on? And if not, why haven’t they adopted some of these very reasonable recommendations that I think all three political parties would support? We can see that virtually nothing recommended in terms of coordinating adoption services is in the bill. There is, and there will continue to be, a serious problem in terms of finding enough families to be adoptive parents to all of the children needing adoption in Ontario. We know that there are, I think, 1,500 parents who are ready to adopt. We need to deal with that.

We need to find a way to increase that number; otherwise, the majority of these children that we are hoping would be adopted may not be adopted.

It seems to me that if we want more children to be adopted, particularly the 82% who have special needs, we’re going to have to do something more than what the minister recommends in Bill 179.

We don’t want to be critical of the efforts the minister is making; we want to talk about how we make it better. Because otherwise, the lives of these 9,000 young men and women who are in crown wards—they may not be adopted, and they may continue to suffer the problem as adults, in addition to having been in crown wards for a long, long time and/or in foster homes for a long, long time, and face perpetual problems that can never be dealt with.

Clearly, we want to support you, Minister. Whatever it is that you want to make by way of amendments based on what the expert panel has identified, I think all three political parties, particularly the opposition parties, are willing to help you. If you are ready to move on some other amendments, we say God bless. We want to help.

The whole point of having hearings—and I know you wanted to rush this, because there is some urgency on the one hand. On the other hand, because there is so much to be done and because so much has been recommended by way of what ought to be done, we want to make sure that there are enough hearings that we can get the best possible recommendations and suggestions that can be made by a range of people, to make sure that improvements are made.

I know, Minister, that there are a few other points that the member from Toronto–Danforth made yesterday, and you may have covered some. But you might want to respond to some of these other issues that I don’t think you’ve had an opportunity to speak to. I hope that, in your two minutes, you might just do that.

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I do thank the member for Trinity–Spadina for his comments, and I will try to speak to a few of the issues that he raised.

I’ll certainly start with the first one, which is with respect to the two-day summit that was held in Fort William First Nation over the last couple of days. The focus of that summit was a variety of issues, but the heart of it was about customary care, which is the model and the pathway to permanency for aboriginal children and youth. We look to that as the pathway for children to remain connected with their communities, connected with their family and connected with their traditions.

This piece of legislation is a parallel pathway to permanency—and we are talking about adoptions and customary care as a pathway—and those provisions are already within the context of the Child and Family Services Act.

I do want to also speak to the issue of subsidies. As the member from Trinity–Spadina said, there are 2,000 active subsidy agreements being administered by CASs right across the province. The funding for the child welfare envelope has increased to almost $1.5 billion annually. Each year, we determine how best to focus our efforts on improvements to the system. I would suggest to him that in the conversation that we’re having here and in the context of this legislation, subsidies are one of those priorities.

These supports can be targeted, and in some instances they are, for a family adopting a child with special needs. We know that 82% of crown wards have special needs and may require enhanced support. Our interest is in developing a system-wide approach that’s best for kids and is the best use of public dollars. That ties to the work under way by the commission to promote sustainable child welfare and its focus on outcomes, children and permanency for children.

We know that subsidies will increase the number of children and youth who can be adopted, and we look to doing that work in the weeks ahead.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to respond to the comments made by the member from Trinity–Spadina. We started talking about the children’s aid society’s funding issues, and the minister very briefly talked in her response about the fact that there are some subsidies out there.

I think this is the challenge. They are a patchwork. There is no line item in children’s aid societies’ budgets that says, “This is available to you to assist families who wish to adopt children, who wish to take on the additional challenges of children with special needs,” and that is raised in no way in Bill 179, although it was certainly raised in the recommendations made by the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption. That report, as we all know, is almost two years old.

It was led by our now Governor General, David Johnston, and even when he accepted the role of Governor General, in his first public speaking as the GG he talked about the challenges of families and the desire to have more families have the ability to adopt children within their families. Yet we see nothing in Bill 179 that talks about this.

I understand that in the minister’s press conference she was asked about it, and she said that she hopes the discussion continues. I guess my comment would be that after 23 months, we’re probably past the point of discussion. That should have been happening as Bill 179 was being drafted and being discussed, and I think it actually is a glaring error—or omission. I take back “error”; it’s an omission in what we have before us in Bill 179.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank my colleague from Trinity–Spadina for his informed presentation.

The government knows that there are problems in encouraging adoption. The expert panel stated, “And we repeatedly heard from families pursuing public adoption that, instead of being treated as a valued resource for waiting children, agencies worked to screen them out of—rather than into—the adoption process. Many families told us they that were not welcomed nor provided with the opportunity to explore whether or not public adoption was the right choice for them.

This approach could be due to a lack of resources within the CASs to embrace all prospective adoptive families and it could also be because many families initially inquire about adopting healthy infants. Some CASs told us that, at first contact with prospective adoptive families, they try to describe the realities of the needs of many of the children in their care.

“This may well have the unintended result of ‘scaring off’ families calling about healthy infants but who, with more complete information, might be more than willing to adopt a toddler, an older child or a child with special needs. The ‘screening out’ approach might be a natural outcome of the child protection orientation: approaching adoption using a child protection lens is completely understandable given how much child protection work CASs are engaged in on a daily basis.”

The above quote raises some very big concerns, and none of that has figured into the bill we see in front of us today. Why?

The expert panel says this: “Despite this trend” of openness in adoption, “we learned that openness and how it may be implemented is not yet widely understood by some adoption workers and many adoptive families. We have heard that many CASs find the current tools, including openness orders and agreements, to be very complex—so complex, in fact, that some have established a policy not to use them. The complicated tools, coupled with concern about safety for children and fears about how openness may infringe on the ‘right to parent,’ make some CASs and adoptive families reluctant to consider openness in public adoptions.” This certainly has to be addressed.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning to pass comment on the member from Trinity–Spadina’s comments, which I think for the most part were constructive, as they relate to Bill 179.

It’s interesting, some of the things that bring us to this place. We come from a variety of backgrounds. I spent 12 years as a board member with the Halton Children’s Aid Society, and three of those years as president of the society. Certainly, there were times that you saw where the legislation was getting in the way of doing the right thing. That’s not unusual, I don’t think. Unfortunately, you could look at a number of jurisdictions and legislation that was put in place in the past for the very best of reasons but often ends up not doing the right thing.

I think that when you see those things, when an expert panel brings forward that information to you, it’s incumbent upon us as legislators to make the changes that are being recommended.

My thanks to the expert panel. I think Bill 179 is a good step forward. I get advice in my own community from a number of people—certainly from the adoption council. I’ve got a wonderful constituent by the name of Deborah Brennan. Deborah wrote a great book called Labours of Love, which outlines some of the personal stories of some fairly high-profile people and some ordinary people as well who have been through the adoption process, and what it has meant to them. It really paints a human face on the issue.

I also, from time to time, bump into Les Horne. I served with Les on the board of the children’s aid society for a number of years. Les is a strong advocate for children in general but especially for those children who find themselves in vulnerable situations. He was the first child advocate for the province of Ontario, and I know that Les would see Bill 179 as a constructive step forward. Is it everything that everybody wants? Probably not; most bills aren’t. Is it a good step forward for the province of Ontario and its kids? I think it is, and we should support it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member for Trinity–Spadina has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I appreciate the comments made by all members. I particularly want to focus on the comments made by the member from Dufferin–Caledon, because while the minister talked generally about all the money that she is putting into this sector, unless we specifically address the issue of 82% of the kids who have serious special-needs problems, if we don’t find a way—the member from Dufferin–Caledon talked about a dedicated line that just addresses that.

If we do not do that, my sense is that we’re not going to get many parents who are willing to adopt, particularly when and if they know that the kids they’re adopting have these special needs that bring on incredible emotional problems for the family that adopts and bring on incredible economic burdens that some cannot afford. If we don’t deal with that, we’ve got a problem. I know that it costs money, but it costs more money not to deal with it. It costs more money for society in general and the individual in particular if we don’t address it when we can.

If we don’t set aside sufficient funds to deal with this specific issue, I think that we are not going to get a whole number of parents who are willing to adopt. That’s what I want to encourage the minister to look at, including moving in on some of the recommendations made by the expert panel that I believe we could adopt today instead of waiting for another election.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): It being just past 10:15, I declare that this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. Rick Johnson: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear pins in recognition of the Make-A-Wish Foundation’s World Wish Day.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to introduce Mr. Jeff Mole. He’s the founder of Ontario’s first public benefit community power co-operative. He’s in the east members’ gallery. I also remind people that there is an Ontario co-op reception this afternoon between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. in room 228. Please welcome Jeff.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome to Queen’s Park today Mr. and Mrs. Russell and Audrey Moore from the great riding of Peterborough.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to recognize Jack Graves from the great town of Tillsonburg in the riding of Oxford county. I’d like to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s a delight for me to introduce two guests in the east members’ gallery: David and Nancy Nichols, from, interesting enough, the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. But something more: Over the years, Mr. Nichols, of course, has been listed in Canada’s business directory of Canada’s Who’s Who, a former president of DeLaval Canada and a former president of DeLaval North America, a very distinguished businessman from our area.

Mr. Frank Klees: I would like to welcome Mr. Dalton Hicks, who, among many other things, is a successful entrepreneur, the owner of Cardinal Golf Club and country club. He’s here today to talk to us about golf. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. David Zimmer: I’d like to introduce three guests from Willowdale: Christina Yoo and her two nieces Katarina Yoo and Ariana Yoo.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Today we are very blessed to have many people who are served by our community health centres joining us in the Legislature. We’ve got representatives from the Anne Johnston Health Station in Toronto, the Rexdale Community Health Centre, the Youth Centre in Ajax, the Black Creek Community Health Centre and LAMP Community Health Centre. They’re all here today to help celebrate Community Health Week, which starts next week.

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

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of page Devon Jones and the MPP from Don Valley East, to welcome her mother, Cindy Ewins, her father, Terry Jones, her grandmother, Barbara Ewins, and her uncle, Fred Ewins. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, Ontario families are shocked to learn that hospitals have received legal advice to shred certain records before the public gets the right, in January, to ask for them. When did you learn that hospitals are looking to shred records to avoid embarrassing themselves and you?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First of all, I thank the member for the question. I want to make very clear: We passed legislation to bring hospitals under freedom of information because we think the public has the right to know what’s going on in our hospitals. I fully expect hospitals to abide not only by the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well. The spirit of the law includes giving the public access to information, information that the public has in fact paid for. So I in no way condone this initiative or this recommendation from lawyers. I know hospitals are going to abide both by the spirit and the letter of the law.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The advice that has been given goes against any so-called attempts at transparency in this respect. Minister, you’re supposed to be in charge. What exactly have you done with respect to this issue? Have you ordered the hospitals to stop following this advice and to immediately avoid any attempts at shredding of any hospital records?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What have we done? We have brought hospitals under freedom of information. This is a big step forward and a step that the party opposite, when they had the chance, refused to take. We do believe in transparency. We do think the public has the right to know. That’s why we’re bringing hospitals under freedom of information.

I said in the first question that hospitals will embrace the spirit and the letter of this law. I look forward to hospitals being under the kind of scrutiny that we think they should be under. We have a responsibility to our health care system. We think the public has a right to know, and that’s why we’ve introduced this legislation.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: You can’t just hope that hospitals are going to follow this legislation; you actually have to do something to ensure that they do.

This is a very serious matter, and we’re not the only ones saying this. Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, had this to say: “I was astounded at the language. Just using the word ‘cleansing’ is highly inappropriate. It suggests shredding, eliminating, hiding—getting rid of material before the end of the year.”

Minister, you’re supposed to be in charge. You’re supposed to be about transparency. This suggests exactly the opposite. When did you first learn about this advice being given to hospitals? What investigations have you conducted into this? What determinations have you attempted to make to see whether any material has, in fact, been shredded to date?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I was very, very pleased yesterday that Tom Closson, the president of the Ontario Hospital Association, released a statement on this very issue. What he said was, “The first principle for the OHA and for the law firms that are actually assisting us in preparing hospitals for FIPPA—is that the spirit and the letter of FIPPA be adhered to at all times, period. To do otherwise would undermine public confidence in hospitals and our health care system.”

I completely agree with Tom Closson.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. At a time when Ontario families have to pay Michigan, New York and Quebec to take power off our hands, the hydro rates that Ontario families pay for their own power are going up again to pay for your expensive green energy experiments with Samsung and the like. Rates have gone up 150% since you took office. You can stop signing these unaffordable contracts that force Ontario families to pay 80 cents for five-cent power. Why won’t you stop signing these unaffordable, expensive energy experiments that are driving up Ontario families’ hydro bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m delighted to take the question from my honourable colleague. I’m not sure where his figures come from, but there are, from time to time, reliable figures that are made available to us. I would recommend to my honourable colleague the information produced yesterday by the Ontario Energy Board, which compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, a typical household bill, comparing May of last year to May of this year. It shows, by and large, that it’s a wash.

It shows, by and large, that the overall bill is not changing much at all, and that speaks to the fact that, for one thing, we’ve put in place a new clean energy benefit which is reducing the bill, overall, by 10% over the course of the next five years.

So I would recommend to my honourable colleague opposite that, rather than pulling those numbers out of the air, he actually make reference to the information produced yesterday by the Ontario Energy Board.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: If you think that Ontario families think their hydro bills were pleasing them last May, you’d be sorely mistaken.

Here’s what the Ontario Energy Board actually says. Paul Crawford, an executive at the OEB, says that the reason Ontario families are paying 150% more for hydro since you took office is that “electricity is costing more to produce. How we’re producing it and the types of generation we’re using are costing more.” He’s talking about your expensive energy experiments.

You can do something here and now. You can stop signing these unaffordable contracts that drive up the cost of hydro bills for Ontario families. You can stop making Ontario families pay for generous subsidies to Samsung. Premier, they’re asking you: Why won’t you stop?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Energy Board has confirmed that, indeed, the Ontario clean energy benefit is keeping prices flat for Ontario families. That’s good news for Ontario families, but it’s bad news for the opposition, because they can’t keep making it up anymore. Soon enough, Ontario families will indeed have to choose between the PC plan, which they’re afraid to show Ontario families, and our plan.

A lot is at stake: a choice between dirty coal and cleaner air; a choice between a legacy of increased respiratory illnesses for future generations and a clean, healthy future for our kids; a choice between a neglected and failing energy infrastructure and a modern, upgraded energy infrastructure.

I am confident that Ontario families are going to see right through that party opposite. They’re going to—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: When the Premier came to office, energy rates were 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. They’re now as high as 10.7. Perhaps the Premier hasn’t seen a hydro bill lately.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Ministers. Member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If you think bills are the same this year as last, you would be the CEO of fantasyland. You’ve grown that much out of touch.

At a time when Ontario families pay millions of dollars to keep the lights on in New York and Quebec, here in Ontario, hydro bills are going through the roof because of your expensive energy experiments. You said that Ontario families would pay only 1% more per year because of your Green Energy Act. Then you conceded that it’s actually now up to 46% more. We always knew that you were not being straight with Ontarians. How much more will they have to pay to pay for your expensive energy experiments? How much more, Premier? Tell us, how much more?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I said earlier, there’s no question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Dufferin–Caledon should be in her seat. Member from Leeds.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I said earlier, there’s no question that the Ontario Energy Board’s regulated price plan released yesterday is bad news for the opposition, because they just can’t keep making it up anymore like they’re doing again today. The facts are now in, and the opposition can’t do that anymore.

The Ontario Energy Board released the regulated price plan yesterday, and it confirms what we’ve been saying for many months now: The Ontario clean energy benefit is having the intended effect of saving families money and keeping bills flat.

But if the member opposite doesn’t want to believe what I’m saying today, then let me quote directly from the Ontario Energy Board. They’re the province’s independent regulator. This is what they said: “A comparison of May 2010 and May 2011 shows overall the total bill has remained relatively flat as a result of the introduction of the Ontario clean”—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians are already feeling the hydro bill pinch, but it’s about to get even more painful. With so many Ontario families having trouble making ends meet, why is this government just sitting back and allowing hydro rates to go up another 3.8%, effective May 1?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’m pleased to take the question, and I want to recommend to my honourable colleague the leader of the NDP the information provided by the Ontario Energy Board just yesterday. It is independent, it is articulate, it is authoritative and it stands out like a bright light in the context of a lot of misinformation that’s been kind of floating around out there.

It’s telling us that, year over year, Ontario electricity bills have basically flatlined. That’s what they’re telling us. It also confirms that the clean energy benefit that we have put in place, specifically designed to lend support to our families, our small businesses and our farmers, is having the intended effect. It’s taking 10% off the electricity bills and it’s making sure that, year over year, they’re paying about the same thing. We think that’s pretty good news.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everywhere I travel across Ontario, I hear the same thing. At a seniors’ event in west Toronto just earlier this week, participants were telling me about their crushing bills. They simply cannot keep up with increase after increase.

How can the Premier allow this to continue? How can he and his government allow yet another hydro increase?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the problem for the leader of the third party is that the facts, as released by the Ontario Energy Board yesterday, are now getting in the way of her story. The Ontario Energy Board has confirmed that, when compared to last year, energy bills in Ontario have stabilized and are flat as a result of our clean energy benefit. The NDP can try to spin and torque that report any way it wants, but the facts are the facts, and bills are now stable in the province of Ontario.

What Ontario families deserve to know, though, is where the NDP stands on the important energy choices that we need to make. We’re for replacing dirty coal with clean energy. Is she with us or is she against us? We’re for moving forward with North America-leading targets for conservation. Is she with us or is she against us? We’re for making Ontario a global clean energy leader. Are the NDP with us—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier and his minister can try to skirt around the issue, but the decisions he and his government have made are what are actually directly leading to the price increases in hydro. They are the ones who have blown more than $1 billion on not-so-smart meters, and they’re about to blow tens of billions of dollars more on nuclear expansion instead of on conservation.

How much more in increases can Ontarians expect because of this government’s disastrous hydro policies?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Frankly, I think we’ve been giving the NDP a free ride on this issue for way too long. We’ve focused on the Tories’ fear of sharing their energy plan with Ontario families and we’ve been letting the NDP off the hook.

We’ve noted that the Leader of the Opposition has been in his place for 660 days, and to date, he’s still hiding his plan from Ontario families. But the leader of the NDP has been leader of her party now for 770 days, and this is all we know: She has opposed investments that we’re making to improve our transmission system; she has opposed investments we’re making to replace dirty coal with renewable energy; she has opposed investments we’ve made in conservation; she has opposed investments we’re making in modernizing our energy system—and, judging by her question, she remains opposed to that. They appear to be opposed to everything and in favour of nothing.

Ontario families really deserve to know where—

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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can tell you that I’m opposed to a government that cripples people with bills that they can’t afford.

My question is to the Premier. Maybe the Premier’s bubble prevents him from seeing what Ontarians are seeing. The cost of just about everything is going up. The latest consumer price index came out yesterday: In Ontario, prices rose by 3.6%. A significant portion of that increase can be attributed to rising energy prices.

How is the latest hydro rate increase going to make things any better for Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to impress upon my honourable colleague that, in fact, bills have flatlined year over year. I recommend that she actually sit down and read the Ontario Energy Board report, which speaks to that specifically.

I think a really important question that we need to answer is, why is it that we are making such tremendous efforts to restore vitality to our electricity system? I want to remind you of what the IESO—that’s the Independent Electricity System Operator—said back in 2002: There are “significant strains on the power system. A large amount of electricity is being imported, but we still face possible shortages. Unless there is an immediate drop in consumption, we may be required to take protective actions, which could include voltage reductions, or rotating cuts to supply without any additional notice.”

That was the state of affairs we found ourselves in. Obviously, that was intolerable; it was unacceptable. We are working together with Ontarians to rebuild our electricity systems so we have all the power we need to power our schools and our homes—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier just doesn’t get it. He’s been trapped in his bubble for far too long. Meanwhile, Ontarians have reached their breaking point. They’re being forced to shell out more for daily essentials like hydro while big corporations get hefty tax giveaways and public sector executives get fat salaries. How is it that, under this Premier’s watch, things in Ontario have gotten so far out of whack?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We talked a little bit about where we were originally with respect to the lack of electricity capacity we had in the province. Let’s take a look at where we’ve come.

This is what the IESO said in November of just last year: “Our short-term supply picture is very positive … in fact, I can’t recall it ever being this good. To date this year, Ontario has been self-sufficient in meeting its own needs even with demands ... that were higher than they had been in three years. We met those demands without the need for imports, a far cry from a few years ago when we were reliant on neighbours.”

So we’ve gotten into a position now where we have a reliable electricity system. On top of that, we’re cleaning up our air and we’ve created over 20,000 new jobs. If nothing else, I thought the leader of the NDP would be in support of those 20,000 new clean energy jobs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We need to restore some balance here. That means giving Ontario families a break with a permanent HST exemption on hydro and home heating. It also means ending the corporate tax giveaways and reining in bloated public sector salaries for executives. That’s my plan—a plan that puts people and families first. Why does this Premier stick to a plan that puts them last?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In addition to the fact that we’ve now stabilized electricity prices and the fact that we’ve introduced income tax cuts—$355 for the average Ontario family—we are also delivering, I would argue, some of the best public education anywhere on the planet. We are delivering some of the best publicly funded, universally accessible health care anywhere in the world. We’ve got some of the strongest environmental protections anywhere in the world.

I would put our whole picture up against any other place in the world in terms of how far we’ve come together in our schools, in our health care and in environmental protection, and now we are exploiting great new opportunities when it comes to energy from renewables. I’m proud of the accomplishments that we’ve achieved on behalf of Ontario families, and we look forward to doing so much more.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also to the Premier. There is something very wrong with a government that makes Ontario families pay 150% more to turn on their lights. What’s even worse, you make them pay more when they don’t turn on their lights. You say bills have flatlined? I opened mine and I flatlined.

Now your high-priced energy experiments are being exported to Michigan and New York and Quebec. Let’s face it, Premier: Ontario families can’t use power as fast as your expensive wind turbine experiments produce it. Because of the contracts you signed, some have estimated that Ontario families paid $4 million in subsidies over 36 hours for power they never used. How much more did Ontario families pay in subsidies for families in Michigan, New York and Ontario to take that expensive power off your hands?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I said earlier, the report—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d remind the honourable members that your member just asked a question. I know he wants to hear an answer, and the moment the minister stood up, you started to interject. I would just ask that you would be considerate to your member from Thornhill.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I know the opposition don’t want to hear this. I know the opposition don’t want to hear what the Ontario Energy Board said yesterday, because it gets in the way of their story. But it’s the facts, and Ontario families deserve to know the facts. They deserve to know what’s happened to their energy bills year over year, from last May to this May.

This is not just what we’re saying. This is what the Ontario Energy Board said yesterday, and I’m going to quote them directly: “A comparison of May 2010 and May 2011 shows overall the total bill has remained ... flat as a result of the introduction of the Ontario clean energy benefit.”

I don’t know why the opposition don’t want to accept that. Actually, I do: It gets in the way of their story. I’m sorry if the facts get in the way of your story, but—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: The facts are that Premier McGuinty has made a mess of Ontario’s energy system—and by the way, you paid $1.4 million to ship that power out of the province.

Ontario families are paying more for the power they use: $75 more this year, and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters say it will go up $732 more over the next five years. Ontario families pay more when they don’t use power, and it’s exported to our neighbours.

Ontario’s manufacturers cannot afford to keep up with your expensive energy experiments and massive subsidies to Samsung. Many of them have closed their doors, taking about 300,000 jobs with them. I recently met with a heavy industry manufacturer, and they alluded to the fact that, as a 7/24 energy consumer, your high energy prices could be a make-or-break for them in Ontario.

Why can’t you stop yourself from—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Energy Board has confirmed that, indeed, our Ontario clean energy benefit is having the desired effect, which is: keeping prices flat for Ontario families. I know you don’t want to believe that, I know you don’t want to accept it, but that comes from the Ontario Energy Board. They’re the independent regulator of energy prices in this province.

But soon enough, Ontario families will have to choose between their approach and our approach. Pretty soon, they’re going to have to choose between dirty coal and cleaner air. Pretty soon, they’re going to have to choose between a legacy of increased respiratory illness in the province of Ontario and a clean and healthy future for their kids. Pretty soon, they’re going to have to choose between price uncertainty over there and moderated, stabilized prices here.

Pretty soon, they’re going to have important choices to make. I’m confident they’re going—

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

STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. We know that the London Stock Exchange wants to merge into the Toronto Stock Exchange—I should say that it’s a takeover—and what’s interesting is that your finance minister, at the beginning of this whole episode, was opposed. He was concerned that “it will lead to a loss of influence for Canada, and a loss of control over the country’s capital markets.” But recently, the minister seems to have changed his mind. He seems to be stuck on, does he have the authority and does your government have the authority to be able to stop this deal, if they so choose?

I remind you that you’re the government of Ontario, and there’s a bill that’s called the Ontario Securities Act. It clearly says in

section 16, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation relating to any matter governed by Ontario securities law, despite any other provision of this act.”

My question is, what happened on the road to Damascus? Why did he change his mind? And why do you think you don’t have the authority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, I want to thank the select committee of the Legislature for their outstanding work.

When news of the proposed deal first broke, what I said, very publicly, was that there were a number of serious questions that needed to be responded to. I’m pleased that the legislative committee, again, reinforced those challenges and came up with some very specific recommendations.

I would further add that I did not say yesterday that the cabinet did not have the authority; what I said was that we have had conflicting legal advice. A former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission says that cabinet does, in fact, have that. We have had conflicting advice.

What this government will do is continue to work to ensure the best interests of all Canadians as we move forward in a rapidly evolving world. I thank the committee for its work. It will form part of the body of evidence—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, it is clear that the government of Ontario has the authority, legislatively, to deal with it through the Ontario Securities Act.

I suggest the following has happened: The reason that the minister has decided to soften his approach on this whole issue is that it conflicts with the Open Ontario aspect of this government bringing forward this initiative. All that they’re trying to do is to punt the ball from the provincial arena to the federal government, and let them take the ball.

I say to you, Minister: You’re the Minister of Finance, you’re the government in charge of the Ontario Securities Commission. The fact that you’re trying to punt the ball off to the federal government says that you should not be the government of Ontario.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: One government appointed a select committee to look at this matter: It was this government. One government has met with and has spoken with all the key stakeholders: It was this government. One government has raised serious questions about the deal that deserve an answer: It is this government. One government has given the public an opportunity to have a say in these matters: It was this government.

Now, if the member opposite is suggesting that Investment Canada doesn’t have a role to play, I think he’s crazy. Investment Canada has an important role—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. This is directed at all of you. I remind all members that, yes, I realize in the heat of debate, in the cut and thrust of debate, comments can get made, but far too often things get brought to a personal level. I would just ask all members to be cognizant of that, and I will ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw the comment.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I will withdraw and apologize to my colleague for that comment.

To conclude, he’s misguided in his view that Investment Canada ought not to have a role to play in this. In fact, it is important legislation. It is one of a number of authorities that will be asked for their position. Ontario will make a full submission to Investment Canada. The Ontario Securities Commission will have something to say on the regulatory basket of issues, and this government will continue to protect the best interests of all Canadians.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, community health centres play a very significant role in providing primary care and outreach services in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. In many instances, the CHC provides services to hard-to-reach populations, including health-related services on an outreach basis to communities as far away as Shebandowan—60 miles away—for people who might not otherwise be able to get into Thunder Bay for regular primary care.

Minister, you know next week is Community Health Week, and we will recognize the importance that these centres play in Ontario’s health care system. Can you please tell the House why health centres are an integral part of the health care system in many of Ontario’s communities, especially those in rural and northern Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the great member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for that question.

Community health centres are non-profit organizations. They’re made up of teams. They’ve got doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, counsellors, community workers and dietitians. They provide excellent care, and I’m delighted that we’re joined today by so many people who benefit from the work of community health centres. They are now serving over 300,000 Ontarians across the province—101 centres and satellites, especially in northern, rural and underserviced areas.

We have a duty to ensure that every Ontarian has access to the best possible health care, no matter where they live. That’s why we have embarked on the largest-ever expansion of community health centres to provide even more care to more people.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Many of the health services and programs at community health centres are based on community input and need. I’m aware of the great work done by my NorWest Community Health Centres under the leadership of their executive director, Wendy Talbot. Many of the programs at her CHC directly respond to the needs of our community.

These community-based services are planned for by the local health integration network in collaboration with local community health centres in a way that fits the local need. It’s unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition continues to talk about dismantling LHINs because, apparently, Toronto knows best what’s better for northern Ontario and Thunder Bay than the LHIN.

Can the minister explain how local health integration networks are involved in the planning and delivering of these community centres instead of recentralizing that decision-making back here in Toronto?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The local health integration networks, the LHINs, are responsible for funding, planning and integrating health care at the community level. This includes guiding the programs that the community health centres offer. The planning means that health care is responsive to the needs of the community. Ontario is a wonderfully diverse place. The needs in different communities are different, and the LHINs respond to that.

We know that healthy, strong communities are at the heart of a healthy, strong Ontario. I’ve had the privilege of visiting many community health centres across the province. Each one is different. Each one responds to the needs of the community. I look forward to continuing to support the remarkable work that goes on in community health centres.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, when you first announced the closure of the Sarnia jail in your budget, you said that it was because it was underutilized. In fact, that jail is actually at 105% capacity. Then you said that it made economic sense to close the Sarnia jail, but Sarnia is the only jail in the province that actually runs on a balanced budget. Now, the latest news is your scheme to ship prisoners to a super-jail in your riding at a cost of $500,000 a year, according to the paper this morning.

Minister, when will you come clean and admit that the reason to ship those prisoners and jobs from Sarnia to Windsor is because of your seat-saver program?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, because I’ve heard some comments from this side about this as well. We need to be conscious within this House of imputing motives and alleging that certain actions were taken in exchange for some sort of gain. I have to admit that I’m increasingly uncomfortable with this “seat-saver” comment that is being made. I’m going to ask members to refrain from using that term, because, in my mind, it is imputing a motive. I will be interjecting when that term is used.

Minister?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member will know that the officials in the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services did an analysis of a number of institutions in the province to determine whether money could be saved by closing some of these institutions, just as your government closed, I think, about 25 institutions in the province. No doubt there were people on this side who would have opposed it at that time. I know what the role of the opposition is and I know the role of the member. But I can tell you that the decision was based on—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: No, you were busy closing 28 hospitals. That’s what you were doing. This is jails; it’s not hospitals we’re talking about now.

What I say to the member is that we took into consideration all of the information provided by ministry officials and acted—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Minister of Finance: When asked by the media and others why you were shutting down the Sarnia jail, you said the decision was made over three years ago. That was in the media this morning—the Toronto Sun. Your decision would make Sarnia the only major border community in Ontario without a jail. We know that your decision was made without consulting the RCMP, the OPP, the legal community, the judiciary, Mayor Bradley from Sarnia or the local police services.

Did you at least speak to Canada Border Services to tell them that they would now be responsible for transferring prisoners nearly three hours away to the new super-jail? Or was this pork-barrelling patronage program too important to allow for community consultations?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Agriculture, that’s not helpful. Comments from the member from Sarnia–Lambton are not helpful. Comments from the member from Cambridge aren’t helpful. Comments from the Minister of Community Safety, leading off in other directions when answering a question, are not helpful.

I recognize that members are eagerly watching a calendar with 17 question periods left in it, and I would just say to all members that it is helpful to the proceedings within this House that we uphold the decorum that I know you are all able to demonstrate to the people of Ontario.

Minister of Community Safety?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The decision was based on the information provided by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to those who had to make the final decisions. As you know, there were four different sites that would be closed, two of which were in government ridings and two in opposition ridings, so that wasn’t a consideration.

I think that when the comment was made generally, we said that some of the buildings were very old buildings and some would be under capacity, and for others, it was because of the age of the building and whether there would have to be capital works undertaken at those particular buildings. They took into consideration all the costs and all the savings.

I know that in the first half of question period, people over there ask us to save money. When we find a way to save money, you say you don’t want us to save money. You cannot have it both ways. It’s a difficult decision, but you cannot have it both ways.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. In 2008, the McGuinty government announced the launch of cap-and-trade agreements. Cap-and-trade was supposed to be in place by 2010. Then it was delayed to 2012. Now the Minister of the Environment says that it won’t even meet its 2012 target. Why has the Ontario government lost all sense of urgency on climate change?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question. The McGuinty government is committed to cap-and-trade, and we are a proud partner in the western climate change initiative with the state of California, the province of British Columbia, the province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec. But it is important that, if we have cap-and-trade, we get it right, and we have to get it right for the environment and for our economy.

A cap-and-trade system means that we have to have robust data in regard to the emissions of carbon dioxide by our major emitters. I’m pleased to announce to the House that because of a regulation that was passed by this government, companies, for the first time, are reporting that data starting this month. That information will be coming in over the next few months. By next year, that information will be audited and verified. That will form the basis for us to make the appropriate allocations so that we can cap our emissions of carbon dioxide and reduce—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I would have thought the minister would have known that in 2008. The Premier once called climate change the defining challenge of our time. Now climate change has fallen off this government’s agenda. Ontario’s environment commissioner says, “Any delay in the implementation of a cap-and-trade regime will likely further hinder the government’s ability to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas agreements.” Is that why the government is almost six months late releasing its annual progress report on climate change—because it now has no hope whatsoever of meeting its 2012 and 2020 climate change targets?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I look forward eagerly to the release of our annual report in regard to climate change, and I can tell the member that we are well on our way to meeting all of our targets. I know that we’re looking forward to announcing our very first government-wide climate change adaptation report: the strategy and the plan that now will guide all of the efforts of our government and again lead in North America in regard to that.

I wonder why the member of the NDP is asking us about climate change when at every opportunity they block our efforts at energy conservation and at every opportunity they block our efforts as we reduce our reliance on dirty coal-fired generation. You can’t have it both ways in this place. It’s important for the NDP to come clean. You’re either for energy conservation and cleaner sources of energy or you’re not.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. With Ontario’s economy turning the corner, the NDP’s energy plan, which involves massively increasing taxes on northern Ontario’s employers, is something that recklessly puts tens of thousands of jobs at risk across the north. The government’s long-term energy plan indicates that industrial electricity prices are expected to increase about 2.7% each year over 20 years.

While electricity is certainly not the only commodity whose price is increasing around the world, northern Ontario’s employers can use any advantage to stay competitive and to continue investing in good northern jobs. While the NDP plans to raise taxes on the north’s employers, can those industries count on the government’s continued support through its long-term energy plan?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I really want to thank the member for Algoma–Manitoulin for that question. He is indeed absolutely right: We’re helping large employers in the north stay competitive through our northern industrial electricity rate program. That’s taking 25% off their costs of power. That’s very, very significant. Our industrial conservation initiative, which came into effect January 1—and incidentally was something that industry brought forward to us as a better way to do energy for industry in northern Ontario and across this province—is helping those companies cut their costs by millions and reinvest in their operations. Plain and simple, that’s great news for workers in the north.

Let me give you an example. A recent RBC Capital Markets research memo noted, “The future of” Tembec’s “newsprint mill is looking brighter with a change in Ontario’s electricity rules....” Tembec’s Kapuskasing operations involve 1,000 direct jobs that are benefiting from this—

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: It’s reassuring to know that our plan is working and that employers across the north are benefiting from this government’s energy plan.

There is no doubt that in terms of energy policy and investment, northern Ontario has been given the attention it lacked. For example, the $2.6-billion Lower Mattagami hydroelectric project has been the largest hydro project in the north for many, many years. It will supply clean, green energy to the north and is a shining example of the government’s commitment to northern investment and co-operation with First Nations.

Will the government commit to supporting this kind of investment and energy infrastructure renewal that create and sustain jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Without a doubt, this entire government is exceptionally proud of the progress we’ve made on the energy file in the north. The member mentioned the Lower Mattagami hydro project. That’s just another great example of that.

I think the Lower Mattagami project is a great example of what we can achieve together, working with northern partners, First Nations, and having the fortitude to see these big clean energy projects through. We announced the conversions of the Thunder Bay coal generating station that’s now going to be powered by natural gas, and Atikokan generating station, to be powered by biomass.

Two of our major priority transmission lines, the east-west tie north of Lake Superior and the new line to Pickle Lake, are perfect examples of how our energy plan invests in the north’s future by moving forward on investments—important infrastructure today that is creating jobs in the north, today and well into the future.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Labour. As you know, prior to the last election, this House unanimously supported and passed presumptive legislation for professional firefighters. Last year, after constant questioning from the PC caucus, your previous minister finally agreed to add a regulation that now includes volunteer firefighters.

These firefighters are all employees of our municipalities. However, to this day, our own Ministry of Natural Resources forestry firefighters are not included in the presumptive legislation. When can we expect you to take the appropriate steps to make sure that our dedicated forestry firefighters are treated as equals?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Firefighters, including our volunteers, are indeed vital to our communities in doing what they do in life-threatening situations. We appreciate and respect all the work they do. Our government recognizes the very important, life-threatening work they do, and that’s why we’ve made it easier for all firefighters, fire investigators and volunteer firefighters who suffer from fire-related illnesses to qualify for workplace insurance benefits with regard to presumption issues. We want to ensure that their families are treated fairly and receive the respect that they deserve during those times of personal crisis.

Our regulations now presume that eight types of cancer, as well as certain heart injuries, are included when suffering from work-related—otherwise proven. We can appreciate the work they do, and I’ll continue to look into the matters as they proceed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, with us in the members’ gallery today is Mrs. Kim Leblanc and her brother, Rowley Ramey. Mrs. Leblanc’s husband passed away last October with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Tom had served this province for over 30 years as a forestry firefighter and, in fact, had fought forest fires all over North America on behalf of our Ministry of Natural Resources. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a form of cancer and is included as a disease covered under the legislation.

Can you tell Kim today when she can expect the same benefits, as the widow of an Ontario MNR employee, as those families who have lost a loved one who was a firefighter with a municipality in Ontario? When can she be treated as an equal in this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me express our deep sympathy to the family as it relates to the passing of your loved ones. Certainly, all of us in this House appreciate the tremendous work that our volunteers have done.

As I’ve mentioned, we’ve lifted the burden of proof off the backs of those hard-working firefighters and their families. While we’ve taken steps, we want to ensure that all firefighters and their families are treated with dignity and compassion in the event of these illnesses and, even worse, their deaths.

Our government values that work. We believe firefighters should be afforded this level of protection in our workplace safety and insurance system. Our system wants to treat all firefighters and their families fairly.

I’ll undertake to speak with the families after this question period. Thank you for the question.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontario hospitals such as London Health Sciences Centre are receiving legal advice to shred anything that might be embarrassing to the government. The health minister claims to be alarmed, stating she doesn’t “condone that approach at all” and expects hospitals “to embrace the spirit of the legislation.” Will the Premier immediately order hospitals to cease shredding any documents?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I don’t know what I can add to what I said earlier. This is completely unacceptable. The Ontario Hospital Association and the government of Ontario are in complete agreement that hospitals must comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Bringing hospitals under freedom of information was, I think, a pretty bold move, a courageous move, on the part of government. We know that whenever we open organizations to freedom of information, we find things that might be embarrassing at the moment. However, it does result in better governance over time.

It was an important step we took. I am very pleased that the hospitals are embracing both the spirit and the letter. I cannot speak to legal advice that may or may not—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government has no intention of ensuring transparency and accountability. Instead, they’re more concerned with covering up potential scandals like the eHealth fiasco. The Premier can—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the member to withdraw the comment she just made.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw.

Instead, they’re more concerned with avoiding scandals like the eHealth fiasco. The Premier can claim shock at what’s going on; the health minister can claim shock at what’s going on. But the reality is that the government buried an amendment in the budget bill that blocks public access to freedom-of-information requests in hospitals. That’s the bare fact. How can they expect hospitals to be transparent and accountable when it’s clear that this government is prepared to do just about everything to prevent that from actually happening?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: With the greatest respect, that is just an absurd allegation. We are bringing hospitals under freedom of information. That’s a big deal and a big change. The amendment that the member opposite speaks about is one that we carefully considered.

Our highest priority in our hospital sector now is improving quality of care. It is vitally important for the future of our health care system that quality in our hospitals continues to improve. Under our Excellent Care for All legislation, hospitals are now required to publicly report on quality indicators and quality improvement plans.

Part of the work of improving quality requires an open, frank discussion within a hospital about why quality is not as high as it could and should be. We listened to advice. We found a middle ground—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. As this government knows, the forest industry is of crucial importance to the economic viability of northern Ontario. More than 260 communities throughout Ontario rely on the forest industry to sustain their economies.

This government continues to do everything it can to help revive this industry after it was hit so hard by the recession, most recently with the wood supply competition that was able to return jobs to the north, as well as some newly introduced legislation which proposes to modernize the forest tenure and pricing system.

Could the minister please explain why it is so important to modernize our system and how we have listened to what representatives from the north have had to say about the proposed legislation thus far?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question from the member. I know how important forestry is to his riding.

Certainly, our government is very conscious of the challenges facing the forestry sector, which is why we’re so proud to bring forward a number of programs, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in support. But we also recognize how important it was to take a longer-term view of how we can revitalize the industry. We came forward with a modernization of our forest tenure system, the forest pricing and allocation process, and brought that forward to northerners.

In 2009, when we started this process, we thought we’d travel, and we travelled across the province—not just the north, but everywhere forestry was important. One hundred and sixteen consultations later, with community leaders, representatives of the forest industry as well as aboriginal communities, we drafted our legislation, which we brought forward to the House, bringing forward two new governance models: pilot local forest management corporations and enhanced shareholder sustainable forest licences, which industry is supporting. We look forward to the—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: Minister, it sounds like tenure modernization will make the licensing of crown forests more efficient by opening them up to new business and generating fresh investment in Ontario’s forestry industry.

Aside from the northern local input that you have re-ceived on the legislation, be it in the consultations throughout the north, the industry working group or the public hearings at committee, you structured the proposed legislation to nurture local input.

Could the minister please explain how he plans to continue including northerners in improving the forest tenure modernization and pricing system?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Indeed, we carried our consultation process all the way up through the public hearings that have taken place. We are now at clause-by-clause in the committee, and we have tabled some amendments that we know will address some of the concerns that have been expressed that we’ve been listening to, amendments related to the two pilot local forest management corporations. We want to set up an amendment that will ensure that there is a review before we move into more of those local forest management corporations.

We also want to have an amendment that supports the holders of the enhanced shareholder SFLs, who use their wood in a consistent and an optimal manner. We recognize there are some concerns relating to providing ample notification and communication when we are reviewing a licensee’s use of wood. Other amendments are coming forward.

The long and the short is, this is going to allow for far more local, regional and aboriginal participation in our forestry sector, something that everybody in this House has been calling for—

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

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In Oshawa, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology is attempting to split the facilities and IT departments, as of July 1, from Durham College. Minister, what would this mean to the staff and students at Durham College and UOIT?

Hon. John Milloy: We very much appreciate the good work that goes on between UOIT and Durham College, and we certainly appreciate the fact that UOIT has faced some financial challenges. The government has taken steps to help put UOIT on a solid financial footing by providing additional financial support towards repayment of UOIT’s debentures.

Starting this year, the government will be providing UOIT with a new debenture grant totalling $13.5 million annually. A condition of the debenture funding is that UOIT and Durham College reach a shared services agreement, as required by UOIT’s legislation, and I want to assure the member that the government is working closely with both institutions to ensure an agreement is met.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, the land that the college and university are situated on was originally owned by Durham College; it is now shared by both, as everyone would know. Many of the services, such as the athletic facilities, dorms, residences, libraries, cafeterias, parking and even the classrooms, are also jointly shared by Durham College and UOIT and mandated through legislation, as you mentioned.

What exactly would a split mean to the governance of UOIT and Durham College and to these facilities