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

February 19, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Feb-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 19 February 2009 Jeudi 19 février 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

GREEN POWER GENERATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MINIMUM WAGE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

DIALYSIS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

MUNICIPALITIES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HERITAGE WEEK

GÉRALD "CHUCK" CHARLEBOIS

PESTICIDES

CHILD CARE

FAMILY DAY

HEALTH CARE

SKILLS TRAINING

INTERNATIONAL

MOTHER LANGUAGE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VISUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

INACTIVE CEMETERIES

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CIMETIÈRES INACTIFS

1173931 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2009

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PETITIONS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CHILD CUSTODY

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

FIREARMS CONTROL

HEALTH CARE

POPE JOHN PAUL II

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TOM LONGBOAT

POPE JOHN PAUL II

JUSTICE SYSTEM

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

CURRICULUM

ONTARIO AWARD FOR PARAMEDIC

BRAVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE PRIX DE BRAVOURE

DES AUXILIAIRES MÉDICAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

CURRICULUM

ONTARIO AWARD FOR PARAMEDIC

BRAVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE PRIX DE BRAVOURE

DES AUXILIAIRES MÉDICAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Mr. Bentley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to certain family law matters and to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne des questions de droit de la famille et abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la protection contre la violence familiale.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It is a great privilege to be able to stand and address the members of this House, and those who will be watching, on this very important issue. The legislation we bring before the House today is legislation that all members of the House are not only interested in but have been calling for in various forms for some period of time.

I want to say at the outset, as I said when we announced and introduced this on November 24 last year, that the provisions in this bill are very much the product of comments and active lobbying of members of this House of all parties. They strike and they touch the very heart of our society: the family. They affect the soul of our society: our children. We are always working to make sure that what we can do as a Legislature will support that heart and that soul.

When families break up, when families are under severe stress, it can wrench not only those involved but affect the fabric of society. What we need and what we are addressing through this legislation are the tools to assist children who might be at risk, to assist partners in a relationship who might be under threat, to assist where the family is breaking up and to assist the fair resolution of the issues so that all parties can get on with their lives.

So we've introduced this piece of legislation that touches, as I say, a number of very important issues, and I, in these remarks, would like to address a number of those areas. It will be, if passed by this House, the most significant reform to the relevant legislation in several decades.

I want to let members of the House know that as they were actively lobbying and actively speaking about a number of the issues that have found their way into this bill, I was travelling the province and speaking to members of the judiciary, members of the bar and members of the public about our justice system generally, about our determination to make our system of justice faster, more accessible and more effective for the people we serve. And the people we serve are the people of Ontario.

We are looking and actively working to make sure our criminal justice system meets those needs, that our civil justice system meets those needs and that our family justice system meets those needs, because as I was travelling the province and speaking to, as I say, members of the judiciary, lawyers and members of the public about criminal justice or civil justice, they all wanted to return to a discussion about family law. And they had several key concerns: First, that issues that have been debated in this Legislature for a decade had still not been ultimately resolved. Key among those was the safety of partners in a relationship who were under threat from the other partner.

They had concerns about legislation that hadn't been looked at or amended in almost two decades and which, in its form, was actually causing extended stays in the courts when we should be getting to the decision points in legislation faster.

They had concerns about the family law process itself, which has been slowing down, getting increasingly costly and in some cases has in fact been making difficult times for families even more trying.

I say, on the latter score, that this piece of legislation will touch on a few of those issues, but we are now actively working as a government, and will be working with the parties opposite, on procedural and process reforms to streamline the approach to family law and make it faster and more accessible for all Ontarians.

But to the first two issues this legislation touches: One issue that has been before this Legislature for many years because of the concern of all of us that a partner in a relationship should not be under threat or fear from the other for any reason had still not been resolved.

We have within our Criminal Code certain protections that one who is being threatened by another can seek. Under

section 810 of the Criminal Code, you can seek what is commonly known as a peace bond. The challenge is that the procedure can be long–the charter affords numerous protections—so you might not get the immediate protection you need.

Under the Family Law Act,

section 46, there is the ability to provide by a judge an order restraining the threatening party from going after the fearful party. But once that order has been issued, it's not necessarily enforced as vigorously as it needs to be throughout the province, and even when it is enforced, the enforcement measures are not always up to the job.

So members of this Legislature, family law advocates and advocates of victims of violence have been calling for reform. They've been calling for reform for a decade. Indeed, we seem to be united in our need for reform, but we have not been able to come up with a means of reform that everybody can agree with. So we consulted extensively over the past year and have now introduced what is found in this legislation, and that will be the following.

Judges will continue to have the ability to control the process in their courts as they have historically had, and as has been assisted by legislation, to control the conduct of the parties. But in addition to that power, there will be the ability of a judge in a family law dispute to issue a restraining order against a party that is threatening or engaging in other conduct that makes one of the parties, usually a woman, fearful for her health, safety or the safety of her children.

That additional power in the court to issue that order will include the ability to issue it on terms, so that the party that has been engaging in threatening conduct or other unacceptable conduct will have to follow certain terms. You say, "Well, what if the party under the order breaches it? In the current state of the legislation there is an enforcement power but it's not always up to the job." Under the legislation before this House, if that order of a judge is breached then the order can be enforced under the Criminal Code as a breach of a court order.

It's subject to the arrest and bail protections that exist in the Criminal Code; it's subject to the full force of the criminal law.

We take the safety of all Ontarians very seriously. Members of the House have been calling for improvement in this area for more than a decade, as reflected in legislation that was unanimously passed by this House. The provision in this bill is addressing this House's concern for those who have been the subject of threats or might be in the future. It is essential that we provide the protection that people need when they need it.

There is an additional aspect to this: Because some of the most dangerous threats can arise quickly, because emotions in family proceedings can sometimes be so high that they have the potential to boil over, it is important that the protection that a judge can afford in these circumstances be available quickly. There is in the legislation the ability to issue that protection quickly—very quickly. So the protection can be in existence, the order can have effect, the order can be enforced and the party fearful or under threat can receive what they need.

Of course, full due process of the law will enable the other party who is the subject of the order to challenge it in the usual way, but only after the protection has been issued to the fearful partner. This part of the legislation will address what all members of this House have addressed in many different ways for more than a decade.

There is another provision of this bill which addresses the safety of our children. We are all painfully aware of the tragic death of Katelynn Sampson. Whenever there's a tragic death, we ask ourselves, "What more can we do, what more must we do to ensure the safety of our children?"—in this context, the safety of our children who might be the subject of an application to change the legal custody from one person to another. Of course, custody is exchanged on a daily basis in an informal sense. You give somebody your children to look after for the afternoon and they have responsibility.

But what we're talking about in this legislation is legal custody: getting the force of the law, the stamp of approval from the courts for the legal exchange of custody from one person to another.

The minimum requirements that exist at the moment for information to be placed before a judge are very low. The judges, of course, can inquire, and the parties can provide additional information. But the absolute requirements for background information before the application can be heard—potentially important information that relates to childhood safety—are really very minimal.

So what we're doing in this legislation is taking a different approach that begins with the safety of the child, one that says that if you want custody of a child and you want that custody application to be approved by courts, then you must provide additional information to ensure the future safety of the child. That information, for those who are not parents of the child, includes the following.

First, a background records check—the type of criminal background check you have to apply for if you want to be a playground supervisor, for example. That information must be obtained by the one seeking custody and placed before the court.

Second is a history of any proceedings that the applicant has had before the courts. We have within our courts information about different proceedings: maybe prior applications for custody, maybe other issues that might affect a court's determination about the safety of the child in that person's custody. All of that information will be made available to the judge who will be determining whether somebody seeking legal custody should be given it.

Third, of course, is information about the plan that the person seeking custody has for the child. What's the child's future to be in that person's custody? We need that information.

Fourth, has the person seeking custody had a history with the children's aid societies? The children's aid society has a statutory requirement to look after the interests of children. They have offices throughout the province and resources to do that, and they involve themselves in protection proceedings that relate to children to make sure that the children are protected.

If the applicant for custody has a history with or a history that's known to a children's aid society, we want that information to be before the court. We want the judge to know before the judge passes judgment, not after. The judge can still make the decision required by law, the decision that is in the best interests of the child, but we want to make sure that before the decision is made, the judge has all the information he or she needs to make the decision—all of it. That's why we've placed these additional requirements in the legislation.

There are some other aspects of this bill that deal with how we can help resolve family disputes quickly. Of course, our interest is, first, to assist the families in overcoming the stress or the strain, to assist the families in dealing with the stress or the strain, to assist the families in staying together.

But where it is clear that that's not possible, where the circumstances dictate that that is not to happen, where there are issues of safety, we want to make sure, from the perspective of the law, that the law does not in fact extend the period of time over which families are attempting to resolve their issues but helps to shorten it. So there are several things we have done within this piece of legislation.

One relates to the division of pensions. Now, pension law is an enormously complicated area of the law, and trying to ascertain the value of an asset such as a pension so that it can be properly divided in family proceedings has proven very, very challenging. It has been the subject of great comment by all those involved and great expenditure in terms of lawyers and experts by all those who have a pension to be divided.

The bar—lawyers involved on both sides of the dispute—has been calling for years for us to step in as a government and simplify the rules; make one rule so that everybody knows what it is. It means that the pension valuation can be conducted much quicker; it means the decision can be reached much faster. And since the pension is often the most valuable asset a couple is likely to have, the family issues can then be resolved much faster.

The law commission that was set up by my predecessor, Michael Bryant—it had been eliminated some years before—has been doing some really good work. One of the things they took a look at was division of the pension asset, and they came up with a recommendation.

We took a look at the recommendation and we took the heart of that recommendation and, working with the Ministry of Finance and with the pension law community—because we don't want to do anything that is going to upset those who administer the pensions—we are proposing within this legislation an approach to the division of pension assets that is clear, that will be consistent and that will be much simpler than the existing. No longer will both sides to the dispute have to retain experts to battle it out in an extended fight over the division of pension assets.

This will be much faster and, for the parties involved, much cheaper, meaning there are more assets to be left for the family and for the children.

There's another area we have addressed within the legislation—it's the last one I'll touch on—and that deals with the provision of financial information. If one party to a relationship has an obligation to support their children and that obligation is ordered by the court, the question always arises, "Have they got an increase in their income over the past year, and can they pay more support?" On a daily basis throughout this province, we have the party receiving support going to court essentially to find out if there's any more money to be had, if the other party has received an increase in income.

You know, there's no requirement that the party paying support actually provide that disclosure without an order—no ongoing obligation to provide that information. Why shouldn't there be? We are, after all, talking about support for your children. If your income has gone down, we want to know about it. If your income has gone up, we want to know about it. So let's make it easy.

What we've done in this piece of legislation is say, "Let's take the mystery out of it. They are your children. There's only a certain amount of income. Let's make sure both sides know what it is. We take the tension out, we take the stress out, and we make it clear and transparent." That's what this piece of legislation does. It just requires annual financial disclosure so everybody knows where they stand. That's in the best interests of the familial relationship, even if it is coming apart, and that is in the best interests of the children.

All members of this House will, of course, actively engage in a consideration of this piece of legislation. What I ask is that in looking at this legislation we support it, because what it does at the end of the day is protect the partners from threats or harm, protects our children and helps streamline the resolution of these very difficult and challenging family disputes.

At the end of the day, it addresses the issues which have been at the heart of the comment and legislative proposals by all members of this House, including the piece of legislation that it is proposed to repeal, not because it was bad at heart—because it was good; Mr. O'Toole's bill spoke to the very essence of what we're trying to get to—but because it didn't seem to be able to be applied to those that he and all members of the House wanted it to be applied to in the way that he wished.

I remember, in listening to his comments on a number of occasions when he's risen to speak to the issue, he's essentially said, "If not this, you've got to do something." He's right, all members of this House are right, and this legislation addresses that very issue.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I look forward to speaking in greater detail with respect to Bill 133 very shortly, but at the outset I would like to commend the Attorney General for bringing these important family law reforms forward. This is an area that many people do actually come up against. There are some parts of the law where there's not that much direct client contact, but there is a situation here where we're talking about many people who are not people with high incomes, not people who are in situations where they have equal bargaining power.

So I commend the Attorney General on bringing forward these reforms to deal with some of these important situations, like splitting of pension benefits, domestic violence situations and making sure that child support calculations are done fairly. One way of ensuring that certainly is by annual financial disclosure and by making sure that the people who are entrusted with the care and custody of our children are placed in safe and caring hands so that we don't have a repeat of some of the terrible situations that we've heard about fairly recently.

These are all important issues. I would like to speak to them in a bit greater detail when I have my opportunity to comment on Bill 133, because there are some things that have been pointed out to me by some people who are family law practitioners, who are far more knowledgeable in this area than I am. They have pointed out some practical difficulties involved with perhaps putting this legislation into force that I hope will come to the Attorney General's attention. We will hopefully be able to deal with that in full committee hearings as we go forward.

I would also hope that we would have the opportunity to do some travel with respect to these hearings, because in situations especially involving victims of domestic violence, they're already marginalized and in very isolated situations. So I hope to expand on that a little bit further. But generally speaking, thank you to the Attorney General for bringing this forward.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I've listened very carefully to the Attorney General. I welcome the legislation because it gives us the opportunity to engage in what I say is a very important debate. I acknowledge the efforts on the part of the government to address some very critical and current issues.

My fear is that there is a superficiality, however, to this legislation, because the problems are much deeper. Most people in matrimonial difficulties use our family courts, the provincial division. It's a smaller minority that hire high-priced lawyers, that get into Superior Court with the processes that are available to them there. Notwithstanding all the best efforts of a Legislature, there are still some fundamental, intrinsic, inherent problems in our Family Court system, including the inability of, usually, women to access lawyers when they can't afford them and have to rely upon legal aid.

Family law practitioners are loath to accept legal aid certificates because of the unrealistic caps on the number of hours they can devote.

The fact is that a process still has to be initiated in Family Court before this restraining order can be sought. That's why we have some concerns about the repeal of the Domestic Violence Protection Act, rather than its enactment and utilization of the immediacy in that legislation. We're going to hear from Ms. Elliott in her lead comments in but a few minutes.

I also regret that the debate is commencing in the early morning session, because it's a very important one, and my fear is that people who should be listening to it won't be available or won't have access to it. But we will be furthering this, and I'll be pleased to do my lead in the days to come over the course of next week.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Indeed, the issue of family law has evolved over the last four decades in the province of Ontario, and it's always been seen, in many ways, I think, as a non-partisan issue. We think of Jim Renwick, who was the NDP justice critic in the 1960s; Arthur Wishart; Ian Scott; Roy McMurtry; the member from Kenora—Rainy River when he had the privilege of being the Attorney General for the province of Ontario; they have all built consistently on the need to improve family law reform in the province of Ontario.

Indeed, a former family member of mine, the late H. Allan Leal, was dean of Osgoode Hall and chair of the first law reform commission in the province of Ontario in the early 1960s, appointed by the Honourable John Robarts. If you look at some of his writings some 45, 46 years ago, he talked about the need for family law reform in the province of Ontario; indeed, he started the building blocks. His successors, who chaired the law reform commission in the province of Ontario, certainly built on all that good work. It's always been seen as a bit of a uniter in the Ontario Legislature to make reforms and keep building to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens in the province of Ontario.

In Peterborough today, Lynn Zimmer, the executive director of the YWCA, has embarked on a capital campaign to expand the women's shelter in Peterborough. Those shelters, of course, will be used by abused women and children who often find themselves as the victims when there is a matrimonial breakup. But often that's far too late in the process. That is after the anger and the damage has been done for those individuals. Moving forward with what the Attorney General has articulated today to strengthen family law reform in the province of Ontario is a very important step to bring civility and justice in this area of our judicial system in Ontario.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: This is an extremely comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with seven different acts: the Child and Family Services Act, Children's Law Reform Act, Courts of Justice Act, Family Law Act, Change of Name Act—it's extremely comprehensive, to say the least.

I hope that when the bill goes to committee, the government will change the tactics that it's had up until this date, listen very carefully to the presenters during those hearings and during the committee discussion, and take seriously the amendments that may be put forward regarding this act. I well remember when the Premier, Mr. McGuinty, was first sworn in, in 2003, he stood in this House and made a very eloquent speech at the time.

One of the things I remember from the speech was that he said, "No one of us is smarter than all of us." In that regard, I would hope, at this juncture of his tenure, that we would listen to the amendments that are put forward. This bill is in serious need of a number of amendments and hopefully the government, during that period in committee, will listen very carefully to the presentations that will take place during that period of time.

So, with that, this is an extremely comprehensive bill, one that is badly needed in many areas and perhaps can go much further than it does in its current form. We look forward to that debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Attorney General, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I want to thank the members from Whitby—Oshawa, Welland, Peterborough and Halton for their comments and suggestions. I look forward to the debate and the recommendations.

I think you're absolutely right, I say to the member for Halton, that we do require the collective wisdom of those in the House and the people of Ontario outside the House. Indeed, when you take a look at some of the provisions of this bill, such as those dealing with restraining orders, and you acknowledge that it has been the collective wisdom of the House that we move on this area, you wonder why it has taken so long. One of the challenges in this area is that there are many, many excellent suggestions for going further or doing a little less.

It is a delicate balance coming up with the approach that can actually work and that can make sure that we afford the protections within the limits of the law that we all wish. So I look forward to the discussion.

I take the suggestions from the member for Oshawa—Whitby, and I look forward to her more extended comments shortly. I take the suggestions from the member from Welland.

Of course, there are always more issues that we can address, more issues that we should address. The legislation can address some of them. Not every brick constructs the wall, but you do need some bricks to make the wall. This is a number of the very good bricks in here that we need to put together in order to extend the protections that we all wish.

I appreciate the support from the member for Peterborough and his good advice. He obviously comes from very strong legal stock, with his family having headed the first law commission in the province of Ontario. Congratulations to him for becoming a lawyer in practice, if not in name—in a good way.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill 133,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to certain family law matters and to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000.

This is a substantive piece of legislation. It is an omnibus bill, of course, that deals with a number of different areas of family law, some of which have been crying out for reform for a number of years, some more recently. Certainly, all are very important and deserve to have a full hearing in this House.

The problem, I would suggest, however, is that the devil is in the details, and the details are still outstanding. We don't know what those details are going to be. I would hope that the Attorney General will commit to full committee hearings on this, because we in the Progressive Conservative Party do support it in principle, but we really need to have some fundamental questions answered. We also believe that it is important to be travelling on this bill, for reasons which I indicated just a few moments earlier.

There are people, particularly in northern communities and in areas where there are people who are victims of domestic violence—primarily women—who are marginalized and isolated, and we need to make sure that we give them the full opportunity to appear before the committee to give us the benefit of their views on these subjects.

I also had the opportunity during the winter break to speak to several family law practitioners in my riding, and they have expressed some preliminary concerns to me that I would like to bring out as I speak to the various sections of the act. I hope that they will be dealt with and resolved once we go before the justice committee hearings in the future.

This is, as I said, an omnibus bill, and as such, it amends eight existing statutes. But there are four main sections that I would like to address in my remarks this morning; they make amendments to the Family Law Act, the Children's Law Reform Act, the Pension Benefits Act, and the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000.

First of all, the amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act prescribe the type of information that must come before the court when dealing with cases involving custody of or access to a child.

Section 21 of the act will require that an affidavit be filed with the court that will set out the proposed custodian's plan for the care and custody of the child and their upbringing, information regarding the person's current or previous involvement in any family or criminal proceedings, and any other relevant information that the person may be privy to that should be brought before the court. This is quite sensible and straightforward, and frankly, it's a little bit surprising that it hasn't already been required—although I suspect it probably is, but perhaps just not in the prescribed format that's required by this act.

There are also additional rules set out in

section 21.1 that apply specifically to situations where a person who is not the parent of the child applies for custody of a child. These rules, I suspect, have been brought forward as a result of the Katelynn Sampson case, the horrendous case where a child died while in the care and custody of a person who was not her parent. It was a horrendous case of child abuse. The child was in the custody of someone who was a friend of her biological parent, and the alleged abuser had a previous criminal record and involvement, I believe, with the children's aid society.

section 21.1 would require the applicant to obtain a criminal record check, which is sort of a basic screening mechanism that is required for most volunteer organizations and is certainly a good thing to do. They would also be required to submit a request to certain children's aid societies to provide any information they have regarding records concerning the person applying for custody, and also the clerk of the court must provide information regarding any previous Family Court proceedings involving the person who is the applicant but not the parent of the child.

It all sounds reasonable, and I think it's important to get this information, but my discussions with counsel have raised a number of concerns that we hopefully can sort out in committee but which do suggest that perhaps there was a little undue haste in drafting these sections without full consultation with the parties involved. Some of the concerns that have been expressed to me include the following: One is that the children's aid society might not currently be keeping the kinds of records that might be required by the court under this new legislation.

My understanding is that the record-keeping varies from society to society, and they may need to make some fairly significant internal changes in order to be able to respond properly to the legislation.

There's also a concern regarding child protection files and privacy issues, particularly if some of the children's aid society or Family Court files bring up issues involving the applicant and another child, not the child who's the subject of the custody application here. So there is a great need to protect the privacy of the other parties who perhaps may be mentioned in the proceedings and who may not be the ones for whom the custody application is being sought.

The other issue, which is raised as a practical matter, is: Why should these requirements apply only with respect to someone applying who's not the biological parent of the child? Surely, if this is a good thing to do, to check on these previous children's aid society records and Family Court proceedings, it should be relevant with respect to the biological parents as well. So these are just some practical concerns that have been raised to me.

The next issue relates to the amendments to the Family Law Act, to require annual financial disclosure where child support orders exist. That is certainly a good procedure to be following because it's important to make sure, on an ongoing basis, that child support payments are fair and equitable. I believe that all of us in this House have heard from many constituents over the years who felt that that's not the case, that whenever there have been significant changes, there is no mechanism to deal with it expeditiously to make sure these things are adjusted as they need to be.

Section 33 of the new act amends the Family Law Act to add a

section that requires: "The amount payable for the support of a child under an order may be recalculated in accordance with this act and the regulations made under this act, by the child support service established by the regulations, in order to reflect updated income information." Then,

section 69 of the Family Law Act is amended to provide that the regulations may deal with the recalculation of the child support amount and may make regulations concerning:

"(

a) establishing a child support service, governing its structure and prescribing its powers, duties and functions;

"(

b) governing procedures respecting the recalculation of child support amounts;

"(

c) governing the recalculation of child support amounts by the child support service;" (

d) also provides for a review or appeal procedure, and then (

e) excludes "specified classes of provisions for child support from recalculation."

There is a very substantive issue here that is being left entirely to regulation. I have heard from the family law practitioners to whom I've spoken. They have asked me to put it to the Attorney General how strongly they feel that members of the family law bar—that there must be broad consultation before this child support adjustment service is put into place and that the regulations are not a sufficient way of dealing with that.

I would like to specifically refer to some of the comments that have been passed on to me by a family law lawyer in my area who says, with respect to the whole issue of this child support recalculation:

"I am not at all clear how this would be effected. It seems that a new bureaucracy would have to be created to do this. This would add another layer to the child support enforcement process. The most logical way to do this would be to have this new service added to the Family Responsibility Office, as the changed amount of support would have to be enforced for this to have any effect. The Family Responsibility Office is already a disastrous branch of the government. The computer system is badly antiquated and cannot properly deal with the demands currently upon it.

The staff, although doing their best, cannot properly deal with what is currently before them. The addition of this responsibility would be unwieldy at best and a complete disaster at worst."

Also, "There should be some way to ensure that only those requesting a change in child support are involved in this process.

Also, "The calculation of child support can become very complicated if there are expenses pursuant to

section 7 of the child support guidelines (proportionate sharing of daycare, medical and extraordinary extracurricular expenses.) Then, proportionate contributions by each parent must be established. The cost after income tax must be determined, and that split according to the proportions. The problem, of course, is that not all expenses are treated the same and not all have income tax deductions associated with them. There may also be other income tax benefits or deductions available to one party and not the other. This must all be factored in to determine the correct amount of support to be paid."

Additionally, "This provision does not seem to take into account that some families do not wish to have child support reviewed every year for non-legal reasons.

Finally, "There is nowhere any mention of how any adjustment will be enforced if the calculation is done on a retroactive basis. This could result in hardship to the payer."

All of which is to say that there are some significant concerns with respect to this recalculation issue. I hope that we will have the opportunity to explore it in much greater depth once we get into committee.

The third point relates to the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act and the Family Law Act. This is an issue—and I would certainly agree with the Attorney General—that has been very problematic in family law for a number of years. This is with respect to the division of pensions upon family breakdowns.

For most people, the two largest assets that they will ever have are the value of their home and the value of their pension. Certainly when you're dealing with a matrimonial breakup and how to deal with the matrimonial home, that's relatively straightforward. A value can be assigned to it, the property can then be sold and the spouses can be paid out their 50% interest less any other arrangements that are made between them. In some cases, of course, one spouse makes arrangements to buy out the other person's share. That's relatively easy to deal with.

But we certainly have been hearing from family law practitioners that pensions are much more difficult to deal with, because the valuation is, first of all, more complicated, and secondly, because most separating spouses don't have sufficient liquidity in order to pay out one spouse the value of the other spouse's pension within their pension plan.

What's proposed under this new legislation in Bill 133 is to allow for a valuation of a pension and then do a division to determine the value of the share of the person who is the pension holder and then to allow for a transfer of the other person's share into a separate account. This can already be done federally, under the Pension Benefits Division Act, so that the pensions of federal civil servants and crown agency employees can be dealt with in this way. The new system proposes similar mechanisms to allow for this type of pension splitting and to allow pensions to be divided in a fair and equitable manner.

So this is an important issue to be dealt with. Like the Attorney General, I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous work that's been done over many years by many justice partners in this area, including the Family Law Working Group of the CBAO, CATALPA, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Advocates' Society, the Law Commission of Ontario and many other individuals and organizations. This is a very important step forward in family law, and, indeed, the only concerns that have been expressed to me relate to the actual mechanics of the calculation and not to the overall concept of pension division itself.

Bill 133 amends the Pension Benefits Act by setting out several new sections that allow members of the pension plan and their spouses to apply to the administrator of their pension plan for a statement of the net family law value of the pension at a particular period in time, and then to apply for a transfer of a lump sum to a plan for the other spouse's benefit.

Again, it sounds very straightforward and very sensible. It would allow for, hopefully, a minimum of costs involved in this. But, again, I would like to reiterate directly some of the concerns that have been expressed to me by family law practitioners in this respect. I hope that this will get a full hearing in committee hearings.

So if I may quote from the letter that I received here: "This proposed amendment is seriously flawed. Pension administrators aren't qualified to determine the value of a pension. Under the Family Law Act, the value of a pension for the purposes of equalization of net family property is the amount of money that would have to be invested now to generate the amount the employee will receive from the pension at retirement. This amount changes depending on when the employee retires.

Also, the value must be based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions about indexing of the plan, actuarially accurate mortality, interest rates, and income tax liability upon retirement. When an actuary "assists" with this, he or she provides a detailed opinion of the family law value, often with different scenarios depending on when the employee retires.

"There is no certainty of what the cost of this would be to the employee if their staff complete the valuation.

Also, "There is a perceived conflict of interest or bias if the employer is providing the value of their employee's pension."

So if one person has been working for a particular company for a number of years and they have a pension and it's going to be divided by their pension administrator, I think it is reasonable for the other spouse to be concerned about how that's going to be done, upon what basis, and whether the information concerning how it's being calculated is going to be presented fully to them.

The other issue is, "If pension administrators value the pension, how does a party who disagrees with the value have the valuation critiqued or checked?

Also, "Pension administrators have no incentive to provide this information in a timely fashion. Their delay could inordinately delay the settlement of a matter entirely.

"When the Family Law Act was first proclaimed, some employers provided valuations of pensions. They weren't acceptable to the courts.

"It is unclear how the pension transfer will occur. This is a needed change to the legislation, as currently pensions are some of the largest assets to be equalized, but often parties do not have cash available to make the payment. Federally regulated pensions and pensions in some other provinces can be transferred at source, which would be beneficial to many parties. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to determine the terms under which the pension benefits remain locked in, until what date, and whether there are any circumstances under which application may be made to have them withdrawn prematurely.

"There is difficulty as pension plans may opt out of the transfer scheme, making it very difficult to deal with a pension payout. There will be difficulties getting pension administrators to co-operate with respect to a lump sum being deposited from another plan, when it can be released to the receiving party, under what terms, how its growth prior to its release is to be calculated," and so on. "There may also be taxation issues.

"Allowing the pension equalization to be left with the originating plan could cause a host of problems for the pension administrator. There must be some confidence that pensions would agree to this prior to its implementation. It could result in a huge increase in administrative work for the pension plan.

"Section 3(3) allows for restrictions to be prescribed—presumably by regulation. This is inappropriate without proper consultation and publication.

"Restricting the pension transfer to 50% of the family law value of the pension may defeat the purpose that is trying to be achieved by allowing the pension transfer. If the total equalization payment owed is greater than this percentage and there are no other assets with which to satisfy the equalization, such limitation is unduly restrictive."

So there is certainly a host of issues relating to the pension benefits division issue. While the concept itself is a great idea, I think there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out once we get into committee. So I'll leave that. Hopefully, the Attorney General will speak to his colleagues about that.

Finally, and certainly not the least, is the whole issue of domestic violence that is dealt with in Bill 133. There is a history here that I think is relevant to discuss in perhaps short order, in order to understand how we've gotten to the changes that are suggested by Bill 133.

The Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000, was originally brought forward by my predecessor, the previous member for Whitby—Oshawa. It would have allowed—

Interjection.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: You know who that would be.

That would have allowed spouses, former spouses and persons in dating relationships to apply to the court for an emergency intervention order without notice to the respondent in situations where there was an urgent concern about a risk of harm to a person.

The emergency intervention order could restrain the respondent from being near any specified person or place or from contacting any such person or engaging in any specified conduct that is threatening, annoying or harassing; require the respondent to vacate the applicant's residence; require police to escort a specified person to the applicant's residence to remove a person's belongings; and require a peace officer to seize weapons and weapons permits where the weapons were used or threatened to be used to commit domestic violence.

It is important to note that under this legislation, designnated judges or justices of the peace would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to hear these applications without notice, and that any breaches of these orders could be enforced by peace officers under the Criminal Code.

For whatever reason—and this was before my time here—this act was given royal assent in December 2000 but was never proclaimed. It was, however, essentially restated and brought forward by my friend and colleague the member for Durham in May 2007 as Bill 10, the Lori Dupont Act (Domestic Violence Protection), 2007. This bill was approved and sent to the social policy committee and never saw the light of day again. That was the bill that the Attorney General was speaking to in his comments during his leadoff speech.

Certainly, it wasn't a comprehensive answer to dealing with the issue of domestic violence, but it did go a long way toward trying to prevent domestic violence, to deal with it upfront and to try to make sure to protect people, but primarily women, from domestic violence.

Bill 133 does establish that restraining orders and breaches can be enforced under the Criminal Code. This has been lauded by all of the family law practitioners that I've spoken to. They see this as a major step forward. There is a concern that it is very difficult to get restraining orders. Often they are not fully enforceable; it's difficult to get them enforced by peace officers. This does go a long way toward establishing some regularity in that area, and hopefully all police services will be able to respond to that.

But it doesn't deal with or speak to all of the issues involved with getting a restraining order in the first place. It doesn't speak to the availability of getting emergency orders, intervention orders, 24/7. It doesn't speak to all of the issues of domestic violence that happen. It hasn't acknowledged the fact that domestic violence can happen at any time. It usually doesn't happen within normal court hours; it happens in the evenings and on weekends and so on. That is something that we would like to see dealt with as part of this bill.

I would say that in all of the efforts in Ontario—and I'm not speaking only specifically of this government—I think we are quite behind many other jurisdictions in dealing with the whole issue of domestic violence. There are some jurisdictions in the United States, some US states, that are really light-years ahead of us. The Minnesota Statute has been pointed out to me as one that is a model to take a look at because it is a stand-alone statute that deals with domestic violence. We also have some jurisdictions in Canada that have dealt with domestic violence far more comprehensively than we have in Ontario.

The Protection Against Domestic Violence Act in Alberta goes even further: It is, first of all, a stand-alone statute that recognizes the importance of dealing with domestic violence as a major issue; it also goes further to deal with dating relationships as well as elder abuse. That also comes up in the context of domestic violence, and it's another whole area that I believe needs further extensive study. It's something that we're hearing about more and more in our community office, but that's separate and apart from what we are discussing specifically here today.

I would just urge the government to take a look at this, and we would certainly be more than interested in becoming involved in that whole process as well.

I would say that we need to be more proactive with respect to domestic violence. It seems to occupy sort of a funny position. It's betwixt and between in terms of family law and criminal law. I hope that we will be able in the future, perhaps in the context of this bill, to take a wider view of the domestic violence issues.

We also need to take a look at, as my colleague the member from Welland pointed out, the fact that there is a significant issue involved with women who are in need of protection getting assistance through legal aid to resolve the many issues they have to deal with, first of all with respect to getting restraining orders, with respect to support, custody and access issues, all of which need to be looked at.

So I would urge the government to take this issue more seriously and come forward with some more comprehensive reforms with respect to domestic violence, because it's certainly not going away. We've heard from previous speakers that at least 28 women, I believe, were murdered in Ontario last year due to domestic violence, most in situations that could have been prevented. I hope we will be able to take this up more urgently and to bring something forward more comprehensively to deal with the whole issue of domestic violence.

Finally, to wrap up, I would say, with respect to all the aspects of Bill 133, that we have heard the Premier saying quite often in recent days, with respect to the budget, that it's important to take the time to get this done right. I would say that the same would apply to Bill 133. It is important to get it right. These are important issues in family law, and so I would urge the government to allocate the necessary time in committee hearings so that we can hear from all of the interested parties that we need to hear from to make sure we get this right. We don't get this opportunity very often. I would certainly urge that as we move forward. We would be happy to participate.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: It's always a delight to work with Ms. Elliott in the justice committee, and I look forward to working with her on this piece of legislation. She again highlights the fact that there are several distinct areas that are going to be of interest and perhaps even controversial.

The issue of paying out pensions: Look, I've got Atlas steelworkers down in Welland who paid out 50% of the valuation of their pension before they retired in an incident of a marital breakdown, and upon retirement received only a fraction of their defined benefit because the pension valuation is one thing one day, and as we face the demise of defined benefit pension plans and the collapse of existing ones, I'm afraid the issue of valuation of pensions has become a far more complicated matter than it was 25 and 30 years ago.

The matter of the repeal of the Domestic Violence Protection Act: That should have been, with all due respect, a stand-alone issue. Nobody's suggesting that the

section 35 proposal isn't appropriate. Of course a Family Court should be able to issue a restraining order during the course of proceedings before that court, but the reality is—go to any Family Court in this province and look at the dockets that those clerks and judges are dealing with, the backlogs in Family Court alone—getting before a judge is in itself a difficult and lengthy process.

And in the course of that waiting time, women are getting beaten—spouses, I should say rather; partners—and murdered, notwithstanding the fact that a restraining order is, in most instances, only as good as the willingness of the party named in it to abide by that order because obviously, the restraining order in and of itself doesn't prevent the murder of spouses.

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: As I listen to the debate and the talk about the splitting of pensions, I'm reminded of where we were not all that long ago on the whole issue of property rights and reminded of why I even got involved in politics and lobbying. That was in the 1970s, and it was subsequent to the Murdoch v. Murdoch ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Supreme Court ruled that Irene Murdoch's five months a year of work on her farm in haying and dehorning and quieting horses and driving equipment was the normal contribution of a wife, and she was denied her claim to the farm because of that.

That woman died a poor woman because she didn't have the right to what was her share, to what she had worked for and what contribution she had made to it.

That caused me at the time, as a young farm woman, to look at my own situation. I was fortunately married to a man who felt it was important to have my name on the title of the property, but I found out that if my husband incurred debt at the bank, I was responsible, whether I'd signed for it or not. I found out that a lot of my farm women neighbours didn't have the same understanding husband who allowed them title to a farm, so if there was a divorce, they would have to fight to get what they had contributed to.

That was in the 1970s. I look at us now and I think that we've come a long way. We still have a lot to do, and that's what we're working on with this bill now. But in the short term, from my generation to my daughter's generation, and while they struggle over child custody and support payments and pensions and those—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill. I want to congratulate my colleague from Whitby—Oshawa. I thought she did an amazing job of dissecting this piece of legislation, because it's an important one. It's one that we in the opposition feel is a move in the right direction, but we still have a lot of questions. As members opposite, and even in my own party, know, I'm an advocate for children. This piece of legislation deals with children, insofar as the Katelynn Sampson case, so we have some questions on who will receive information and who will contribute information. We also have some questions around the children's aid society.

As you know, I had Bill 130 introduced in this Legislature. I hope to debate it this spring and I hope to have all party-support for my own omnibus bill to protect children in this province. It includes more oversight on the children's aid society. It also includes more tools for parents to protect their kids, but also for law enforcement agencies to protect children.

I see two colleagues from the city of Ottawa here today. We were gripped a week and a half ago when we found out that a resident of our city was charged with child pornography and that that individual had subjected his preschool-aged child to this. This child has since been taken into custody.

A bill like this and a bill like mine and any bill that has protection of children as its number one concern needs to be addressed by this Legislature, but also requires full public hearings because those stories need to be told. Whenever a child or a woman—or any domestic violence has occurred, and I use "violence" in terms of not just physical or sexual abuse but also verbal abuse, we have to be very concerned as a Legislature and also as a province. So I encourage the—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I've been listening attentively to the speeches so far, and I appreciate very much the member from Whitby—Oshawa's dedication to reviewing the bill, bringing recommendations from whom she's hearing from to the Legislature and making sure that the concerns are raised. I appreciate very much the Attorney General's attentiveness to this and the fact that his commitment has been stated clearly to the House that the intent of the legislation, which mirrors that of previous legislation, is to improve the system.

The member from Welland advises us wisely, as always, about the nuances of the legal profession and often says—I've heard him say it, anyway, and I stand to be corrected—that lawyers have the capacity to turn the simple into the complex.

Because of that, I think it's wise for us to engage in those conversations with the people who will be practising in front of the average citizenry, who need to have faith, when they stand before the judicial system, that there's equity; that there's justice; and, most importantly, what we've learned over the decades, referencing previous members' comments about history, that women are treated equally and that the children we bring into this world are treated with the utmost sensitivity and respect and not used as pawns in adults' anger.

That being said, that would be the background behind my support for this legislation. I'm looking forward to hearing some of the concerns that are out there and doing justice to this legislation in a way that allows the public to believe that we're in it for the right reasons. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Whitby—Oshawa has up to two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank the members from Welland, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Nepean—Carleton and Brant for their very thoughtful and helpful comments. With respect to the comments made by the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex with respect to the Murdoch and Murdoch case, that was certainly a bit of a walk down memory lane for me. I remember studying that in family law in law school many years ago because it was pre-Family Law Reform Act, which is a long, long time ago, and the Family Law Reform Act, of course, followed after the Family Law Act.

I know that she has made a major contribution to achieving equality for women involved in farming as well and has really been a trailblazer in that area. I would like to acknowledge and thank her for the work she has done in that area.

But we certainly have come a long way in the last, I guess it's 30 years now, since the Family Law Reform Act was enacted, and I think that we need to continue to make the changes that reflect our current understanding of the law and changing conditions. Some of the changes that are being made by Bill 133 will certainly go a long way to achieving equality for spouses in situations, especially where domestic violence is a concern, and will also go a long way towards protecting vulnerable children.

As my colleague the member from Nepean—Carleton indicated, this has got to be our primary responsibility; we need to make sure that children are placed in safe hands, whether they're with their biological parents or with other people. The criminal record checks and the requirements that there be communication with children's aid societies and also with other family law courts to make sure that all of the relevant information is put before the court in order to make a decision are very important, because all too often there ends up being, if not miscommunication, no communication.

We need to make sure that that changes, for the safety of our children.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): This House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm pleased to welcome David Kerr, Pete Wright, Paul Johnstone, Tom O'Neill, Dave Graves, John Mearini and Richard Cunningham, all members of the OPSEU corrections bargaining team.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to introduce, on behalf of the member from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and page Reed Bell, in the west members' gallery, his father, Norm Bell, and their friend Susan Moyer. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. Premier, it has to do with your economic policy flip-flops, what some would suggest are your baffling public comments that are contradicted the next day by one of your ministers, and the increasingly obvious signals that you simply don't know how to respond to our economic challenges.

In a column in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday it was suggested that if your time as Premier will be remembered, it will be "as the Premier who fiddled and banned, banned and fiddled, until it was too late." Premier, do you recognize that your recent public musings, combined with a delayed budget, is raising real concerns about a leadership void in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the advice and the commentary that come with the privilege of serving Ontarians as the Premier. That's to be expected, and that is healthy in a democracy. It's a good thing. But I appreciate the opportunity as well to speak to Ontarians and to help them understand what we're trying to do here on this side of the House.

A couple of things with respect to the budget in particular: We know we need to respond to some of the consequences that have been visited upon Ontarians as a result of the global recession. Folks are losing their jobs. Businesses are struggling. There is a credit crunch. Those are real, and we intend to find continuing ways to speak to those through the budget.

At the same time, Ontarians expect us to keep our eye on the future and to build a stronger economy going forward. In my supplementary, I'll tell Ontarians a bit more about what we continue to do to deal with the effects of the recession right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: When you have to send the Minister of Finance out to do damage control and attempt to paper over the comments of his own Premier, I think it raises legitimate concerns about the individual responsible for steering the ship.

Premier, these are challenging times: over 70,000 jobs lost in this province last month; 137,000 since November. You've publicly admitted that your five-point plan is not working. You're at best treading water while families and communities suffer and jobs flee this province. Other provinces have acted. Why haven't you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, these are challenging times. There's no doubt about it whatsoever, but I think it's important that we keep some perspective. I just want to quote a colleague from across the way who recently said: "You'd think the world is falling apart. There are negative things that are happening today. But there's probably no better place to be than where we are."

The MPP for Simcoe North said that, and I believe my colleague the leader of the official opposition would in fact agree with that. There are some real challenges, but there's no better place to be to face those challenges.

With respect to our five-point plan, that involves significant investments in everything from business tax cuts to infrastructure and innovation, partnering with businesses and investing in the skills of our people. Those are all good things. We will continue to do those things. What I am saying, and what I will continue to say, is that now we need to go deeper and further to bring about some fundamental changes in our—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I still feel good about this province, but certainly it was much better off in the hands of the government five and a half or six years ago.

In December, the Premier suggested treading water—

Interjections.

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

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: You know, it's quite the norm for the Premier to say, "Everything is going to be okay; it's a modest contraction"—those kinds of words that he has used over the past number of years to try to supposedly deal with challenges on the economic front, especially the loss of manufacturing jobs in this province.

The reality is that other provinces in this great country have acted; Premiers leading governments in those provinces have acted. In December, New Brunswick brought in a comprehensive plan that included tax cuts, a public sector salary freeze and help for small business. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia brought in similar plans. Their premiers didn't use—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I made this comment yesterday, and I think it's worthy of repetition: My colleagues opposite are intent on observing goings-on in other provinces and other Legislatures, and I'd ask them to pay some passing interest to what is taking place here.

Back in November 2007, we began to lay out a plan to deal with this challenge. We've made significant new investments in municipal infrastructure, for example—that was a short time ago. As well, just last Friday, together with the federal government, we made an investment of $1 billion in communities of 100,000 or less. We invested in 289 more infrastructure projects. Just a couple of days ago, together with the Prime Minister, we invested half a billion dollars in new GO Transit infrastructure projects as well.

We're not waiting for our budget to do things. We will continue to do much along the way, as I would ask my friend to recognize.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. A few weeks ago, Mr. McGuinty had an epiphany—a moment of clarity, if you will. He said he had revised his thinking and admitted that his government was a brake on growth. He was finally ready to admit that red tape was choking our economy and that we needed to do more to create a competitive business environment.

Where did that guy go? Here we are, ready to tackle the big questions, and nothing is different. We're spending our days debating cosmetic surgery and housing for young offenders—important issues, to be sure, but hardly the most pressing matters facing us as a province.

Premier, when will we be discussing the big questions? When can Ontario expect some real action?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to the issue of red tape and the importance of our government, and governments generally, becoming more competitive. It may strike some as a little bit odd to think of government being competitive, but the fact is that we do compete against other governments around the world, but particularly in the US, when it comes to landing new investment here.

One of the things we've already done, for example, to welcome new investment has to do with our public transit projects. We had in place an environmental assessment process that sometimes took from 12 to 18 months. We have now put a cap on that. We said that those environmental assessments can take no longer than six months.

We're now looking to see where we might expand that further. When we do, we'll of course be looking for support from colleagues on the other side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Premier, in less than 30 days, President Obama introduced the most complex, comprehensive stimulus package that the world has ever seen. Our PC government did it in 1995, bringing in a $2.1-billion stimulus package to tackle an $11-billion deficit, and we did it in less than 30 days. But in six years, all this government gave us was a five-point plan. Are we not supposed to talk about that anymore?

The five-point plan didn't really work very well, did it, Premier? Now there's just the five-foot plan that keeps reporters at bay. You've clearly abandoned the five-point plan and are stumbling around looking for a new one. Meanwhile, the economy has gone south. Can you give us any indication of when on earth you intend to come to your senses and help Ontarians out of the economic morass that we find ourselves in because of your inaction?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll go back to the issue of red tape, because I think that's an important one. In our recent First Ministers' meeting, one of the things that I asked the Prime Minister to consider, and I'm pleased to report that he has indicated he is prepared to pursue this, was that we just have one environmental assessment per project. At present, there are many instances where an infrastructure project demands that there be both a provincial environmental assessment and a federal environmental assessment. I believe the Prime Minister is prepared to act in that regard.

There are other ideas as well, and we're open to suggestions on the part of the opposition with respect to this. But the point I'm making to Ontarians is that, just as we have to enhance the quality of our workforce and the competitiveness of our businesses, we also have to understand that government itself has a role to play in acting in a more competitive, friendly and open manner when it comes to investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: We've been giving the Premier advice for the last five years, none of which he has taken. In that period of time, he has taken Ontario from the top to the bottom, from have-lots to have-nots. We have seen so many thousands of jobs lost in manufacturing, in forestry, and even in the high-tech industry. We have a bloated bureaucracy, a high unemployment rate, a looming deficit and a backward tax regime, but all Mr. McGuinty can do is blame everyone and everything else. How can vulnerable Ontarians trust your leadership with such a track record? Why should they believe you now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's interesting that my colleague would close with a plea made on behalf of vulnerable Ontarians. Let me just offer this assurance to vulnerable Ontarians and Ontario families generally: We will not be reducing welfare rates. We will not freeze increases in the minimum wage. We will not make cuts to nurses. We will not make cuts to teachers. We will not fire water inspectors. We will do everything we can to protect the significant gains we've made with respect to public services. We will hang on to the gains that we've made in our schools. We will hang on to the gains we've made in our hospitals and in the delivery of health care in general.

Those are the kinds of assurances that I think our vulnerable Ontarians and families generally are looking for, especially at this point in time.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have a question to the Premier. With each passing day, news out of the auto sector gets worse. Reports suggest that Chrysler is considering shutting its Etobicoke casting plant. Other reports suggest that a shift at Chrysler's Windsor minivan plant could be chopped. Thousands of jobs are on the line. The other day you were musing that in the grand scheme of things, it's relatively good news. So why are you so out of touch?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've had many opportunities to speak to this issue and I don't mind speaking to this again.

As my friend would understand, the auto sector here in Ontario is part of a fully integrated North American industry that extends its reach now into Mexico as well. Our government is working very closely with the federal government, which is reaching out to decision-makers in Washington and in Detroit, to see what we can do to lend strength to the foundation of the auto sector.

It's a very difficult time for the auto sector, but more importantly, it's a difficult time for the 400,000 workers here in Ontario who depend for their livelihood on that sector. We will continue to do everything that we can to lend some strength and stability to the sector.

I know my colleague will have more questions for me in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The kinds of words you used the other day do not give people much comfort. You know that things are getting worse. General Motors is submitting a plan on Friday which may call for up to $4 billion in additional government aid. GM is shutting down its Oshawa truck plant in May. A transmission factory in Windsor will close next year. GM's pension plan is underfunded. Jobs and pensions for thousands of auto workers are at risk. Again, how could you say that in the grand scheme of things, it's relatively good news?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I said that because it's true, and I'll tell you one of the things that leads me to be somewhat optimistic in this regard.

Because of the investments that we've made with Chrysler and GM, and the new flex plants that we have in place, it makes us particularly attractive to decision-makers in Washington and Detroit with respect to the future of the industry in Ontario.

I want folks in Washington and Detroit in particular to understand that we are part of the solution. Given our track record, the productivity of our workers, the quality of our product, I want them to understand that we are there. Furthermore, working with the federal government, we're making it perfectly clear that both governments are committed to the future of this industry as well.

So, given what might have come out of the recent decisions in Washington, I think that on the whole it is good news for us.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This is how it looks to the average Ontarian: Jobs are being lost on a monthly basis in the tens of thousands; entire communities are seeing economic devastation; key sectors of the economy are in crisis.

You don't have a plan, and we're waiting another month before we see a budget. Again, you say in the grand scheme of things that things are relatively good. You just reiterated your support for that position. Good news for whom, exactly?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, given what we thought might come out of the proposals put forward in Washington, there was a possibility that Ontario would have come up dramatically short, but we did not. I know that if my colleague had followed this a little bit more closely, he would have understood what was at stake. I think folks who follow this closely understand that, in fact, we've done better than we could have.

Now I'll tell you where we are on a go-forward basis. We're now waiting for the proposals to come in from Chrysler Canada and GM Canada to the federal government and the provincial government. We're eagerly awaiting those to find out what new demands might be placed on us. We are prepared to be there on behalf of taxpayers. But, again, we place heavy obligation on the workers, on the executive, on the parts suppliers, the shareholders—everybody—to make sure that we are fully committed to the future of this sector in our province and particularly those 400,000 workers.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: It's absolutely crucial for Ontario to start making the kinds of investments that will make Ontario a leader in clean, green energy projects. Literally tens of thousands of good-paying jobs are at stake in the next five years alone. So, why, when the rest of the world has been moving ahead on this full tilt, have you been falling behind, ignoring what the reality is? Why has it taken you so long to actually recognize that there is a green energy revolution going on on this planet?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I would have thought that my honourable friend, a constituent of mine, in his travels across the breadth of the province of Ontario, might have borne witness to at least one wind turbine out there—one of the hundreds of wind turbines, representing more than 1,000 megawatts of wind turbines, representing more than $2.5 billion of investment in wind turbines—that the honourable member might have found some evidence that the revolution began here in Ontario because of the commitment of this government to get our province off of coal.

On Monday in this Legislature, we will move forward with a historic act, a green energy act, that, if passed by this Legislature, will build on the momentum that we have now and place Ontario at the forefront of North American jurisdictions on this subject. We welcome the honourable member to open his eyes and see what has already happened here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Research and Innovation.

Please continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I actually have had my eyes open. I've actually had a chance to go to Europe to see where large-scale investment in green energy is making a difference to the economy.

Here in Ontario, actions speak louder than words. In the last two weeks, you rejected 30 out of 38 proposed wind projects. We need to take the lead on investment in renewable energy. You've dropped the ball, you've been missing in action, on developments that have been happening across this planet. When are you going to take substantial action to tie into the green energy revolution?

Hon. George Smitherman: I don't know what planet that honourable member has been on that he refers to in his question, but it sure hasn't been the landscape of the province of Ontario, because if he travelled to the shores of any of our Great Lakes, whether in Sault Ste. Marie or on the shores of Lake Erie or Lake Huron, he would have borne witness to government policy that has resulted so far in more than $2.5 billion of investment in the ground and, today, producing 100 megawatts of new, clean, green energy for the people of the province of Ontario.

We agree that there are yet more opportunities. Building on the momentum that we've created, in this Legislature on Monday we will introduce a green energy act. I am quite certain that when the honourable member stops long enough to take a look at the initiatives that we've led and those that we are moving forward with, he will want to stand in his place and say, "I support this bill."

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have to say, at a minimum, I do find the minister entertaining. The simple reality, Minister, is that you are welded to a nuclear future which will cut off that opening, that future for us with green energy. Are you going to tell us right now that your green energy plan supersedes your commitment to nuclear and that you are choosing a new path for Ontario? Is that what you are going to say to us today?

Hon. George Smitherman: What I will repeat in this Legislature today and what we will show on Monday through the introduction of this bill is that because this Premier and this government had the courage to put Ontario on a path to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels in the form of coal, we have an extraordinary opportunity to continue to evolve our energy supply mix to one of the cleanest, greenest energy supply mixes to be found anywhere in the world. We have had demonstration in hundreds of different projects in the province of Ontario of the investment in green energy.

We agree that because of the momentum that has been created, we have even greater opportunities to raise the bar on our ambitions as Ontarians and move forward with the green economy to produce at least 50,000 jobs over the next three years.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, with 72,000 lost full-time jobs since the last election, it's very clear that your so-called five-point economic plan has become nothing but a five-star economic flop. People worried about their jobs, worried about paying mortgages, hear the Premier attempt to console them with bland expressions that he tries to pass off for real leadership. In response to a series of layoff announcements several months ago, the Premier said, "Trust me, folks. This too shall pass." He told the Windsor Chamber of Commerce, decimated with the highest unemployment rate in all of Canada, "We're going to be okay."

When will Premier Dad abandon this empty and patronizing rhetoric and table immediately an economic recovery plan to create jobs in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always pleased to speak to the advice offered by my well-intentioned colleagues. Let me just remind you of some of the things that we just did recently with respect to the Building Canada fund projects announced on Friday. We announced 289 separate projects in communities of 100,000 people or less.

Those include everything from the expansion of an airport in the Algonquin Highlands to a new water tower in Minden Hills township, to replacing the sewage treatment plant in Merrickville, to the Hanes Road reconstruction in Huntsville, to repaving the runway at the airport in Atikokan, and to so many other projects. Those are the kinds of things that we have done and we'll continue to do to create jobs in the short term and enhance our competitiveness in the long term.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Another favourite: One of the Premier's recent expressions is, "It is hard to understand what is happening in the economy if all you read are the headlines"—unbelievable. Look at the headlines: "Ontario's Back is to the Wall: Its Industrial Pillars Crumbling"—Globe and Mail, January 24; "Officially a 'Have-not,' Ontario Receives Funding Boost"—Globe and Mail, January 27; "Job Losses Smash Records"—Toronto Star, February 7.

Premier, beneath those headlines are some 72,000 people who have lost full-time jobs, seniors worrying about balancing between paying their hydro bills or affording groceries, working families concerned about paying off their mortgage, and they get these kind of bland statements from the Premier in the guise of leadership.

All we've heard this week, Premier—we've asked for action—is what you're not going to do. I'm coming to think that your decision about deep thinking and new ideas is actually going to be much ado about nothing and a return to your tax—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't understand what my friend doesn't understand. I've been talking all day today and yesterday about the kinds of projects that we continue to invest in. This year, for example, we have committed, so far, to over $8 billion in infrastructure projects. Last year it was $10 billion. My friend has come to the understanding just of late that investing in infrastructure and stimulating the economy on an ongoing basis is something worthwhile. We have over 100 major construction projects under way right now. That's something we've been doing for a long time now.

We will continue to build on the strengths of our five-point plan. Practically speaking, that means we're going to continue to invest in innovation, infrastructure, skills development and business tax cuts and in partnerships with our businesses. Those are working for us. We will continue to do more on a go-forward basis.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The question is to the Premier. The education Premier himself has repeatedly said that the economic recovery of this province is tied to the knowledge economy. When the University of Western Ontario is talking about early retirements, job cuts and tuition fee hikes to cope with a $41-million revenue shortfall, it's puzzling. Your economic plan hinges on the health of the post-secondary education system, yet the University of Western Ontario is talking about revenue shortfalls. What are you going to do to stop the cuts and tuition fee hikes at the University of Western Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the honourable member's question. I think all of us recognize that with the current economic downturn we're seeing a number of public institutions that are under pressure, but at the same time I don't think the honourable member can ignore the fact of a $6.2-billion investment made by this government in our post-secondary education. Under the Reaching Higher plan, in 2008-09 the government will allocate $3.019 billion in total operating transfer payments to universities.

That's a 58% increase since we took office, and the results have been 100,000 more students in our colleges and universities and one of the highest rates of post-secondary education participation in the western world.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The minister forgets to tell us that we are number 10 in per capita funding, and with these cuts, it's going to get worse. Fanshawe College is looking at layoffs to address a budget shortfall of $6.5 million, and Brock University is forecasting a budget shortfall of $17 million and budget cuts of 7% across the board, all of which add up to fewer full-time faculty, higher class sizes and more debt for students. It is when the economy is sliding that you are supposed to be making strategic investments for the future. That's what the Premier is saying. But how are these dramatic cuts fulfilling his and your promises?

Hon.

John Milloy: I disagree with the honourable member when he talks about, "Now is the time to make strategic investments." The fact is, we made those strategic investments to allow Ontario to weather this current economic storm, and the results have been impressive: 100,000 more students in post-secondary studies, and graduation rates have gone up 8% in colleges and 3% at universities; last year, Ontario's universities hired approximately 1,800 new faculty, about half of them full-time; last year, over 37,000 students from around the world chose Ontario's universities, which I think demonstrates the faith that the world has in one of the finest post-secondary education systems on Earth.

Coming from a member who is part of a government that cut funding to post-secondary education, eliminated up-front grants to students and allowed tuition to skyrocket, I find it a little rich.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of International Trade and Investment. During the last six months, the unprecedented turmoil in the global economic system has had a significant impact on our families and in our communities here in Ontario. Although our province has done many things prudently to be able to meet the serious economic challenges, we feel the effects of a global economic crisis. Falling commodity prices have caused the Canadian dollar to fall against other world currencies.

Tightening credit markets and a declining US economy have caused export revenues to fall for many Ontario companies. Despite all this, your ministry has promoted Ontario and brought new investments to the province.

How are you enhancing Ontario's ability to compete with other jurisdictions, and how is our province attracting new investments, new jobs, and innovative opportunities here to Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very happy to receive the question from our MPP Delaney.

These are unprecedented economic times, and I think it's important, now more than ever, that the message of Ontario gets out around the world. So we are stepping up a very aggressive plan to get the Ontario message out to the world.

We have a tremendous amount to offer. In particular, the markets that we're chasing—we are lining that up with Ontario's climate change agenda. In the middle of January, for example, Ontario announced its partnership with a company out of California, Better Place, which is a leading-edge, innovation-type company developing electrical infrastructure for the electric car, which lines up very nicely with Ontario's skill set as the largest manufacturer of cars in North America.

It's important that we look ahead to what Ontario can offer international companies that can do business in Ontario. Even in these challenging times, we will be more aggressive than ever.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, I'd like to focus on your comments about Ontario's investment in green technology.

With the rapid increase in the world price of oil, consumer demand has quickly shifted toward cleaner and greener vehicles. Ontario's auto sector is one of the major drivers of our economy—pun intended. This partnership with Better Place is a major step toward sustainable transportation. Electric vehicles and a related battery-charging infrastructure will create jobs, economic growth and benefit the environment. For every 10,000 electric vehicles on the road, Ontario will offset an estimated 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. This technology of tomorrow will fundamentally shape the future of the global automotive industry.

What role might other local renewable energy sources play in this interesting initiative? And in addition to a head office—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Thank you so much to this member from Mississauga—Streetsville.

It's really important in our relationship with Better Place out of California that they are linking up with Bullfrog, so that all of the energy they'll be plugging into will in fact be green energy. It is very much a part of Ontario's larger, smart-grid approach to how Ontario will be clean and green, and that's the message that we're taking out to the world.

Our opportunity with Better Place means that we, as a government, can now consider—which we're in the midst of—the kind of good public policy that can lead the consumer to adopt the electric car—a very important initiative.

A large jurisdiction like Ontario will lead North America where every major car company is going, with every one of them with an electric car program. That's what Ontario's name will be around the world, and that's why so many around the world are now looking to Ontario as their place to invest.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that today the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has sent an open letter to him. In recent weeks, the CFIB has been flooded with calls from their members, who are worried about the upcoming increase in the minimum wage. Already struggling to weather the current economic slowdown, the last thing these small companies need is another increase in the cost of doing business in Ontario.

I have heard from my chamber of commerce loud and clear that businesses in Sarnia—Lambton, particularly in the hospitality industry, are working hard to see that they don't need to lay off people, but any increase in their labour costs will cause layoffs. Accordingly, the CFIB is asking you to freeze the minimum wage at $8.75. Already, at $8.75, it is the highest minimum wage in Canada.

Minister, did you receive this letter dated February 19, and what is your response to the small businesses of Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the honourable member for the opportunity to talk about our commitment to the minimum wage.

After nine long years of having the minimum wage frozen in this province, this government has taken a prudent and responsible measure to increasing that minimum wage. We've done that every year. The minimum wage will be going up to $9.50 on March 31.

The minimum wage is part of something that we feel very proud of on this side of the aisle, and that's our poverty reduction strategy, helping those vulnerable workers. We want to ensure that those vulnerable workers work with dignity and respect and are provided a minimum wage that has kept pace. Unlike the previous government, we keep in touch with all workers in this province. We want to ensure that there is that safety net, there is that—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Minister, even studies commissioned by your own government have warned about the implications of minimum wage increases. In a 2007 report prepared for your Minister of Finance, Morley Gunderson found that increasing the minimum wage leads to slower growth in employment, that a higher minimum wage in Ontario relative to other provinces would likely exacerbate the adverse employment effects, and that the increase in payroll costs is almost three times as high for small firms as large companies. The minimum wage is a blunt instrument to curb poverty, with little or no effect on reducing overall poverty rates.

The chamber also recommends considering mandatory and regular minimum wage reviews that include an economic impact assessment on the provincial economy.

Minister, will you at least agree to examine the impact of this planned minimum wage increase on the provincial economy, which is already suffering under your government's watch?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member that, yes, of course we will work with all our partners—with the CFIB, with small business, with employers, with trade unions—to look at the economy holistically. We've taken a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker, unlike that party, where they just froze the minimum wage for nine years, or the NDP, which has looked at an irresponsible approach to increasing the minimum wage by a huge number that would impact businesses and where there would be job losses.

We feel that we've moved in a responsible way, listening to stakeholders in a balanced approach to ensuring that we are addressing those vulnerable workers and working with small business. So I will look at anything that is sent to my office. We have met with many small business owners and look at continuing this balanced response—

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

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. When is the minister going to improve the very stressful, overcrowded, dangerous and deteriorating working conditions faced each and every day by more than 5,000 of Ontario's corrections workers?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: While I appreciate the question, we'll do a little comparison here. We are improving those conditions. We're building new facilities: the Toronto South Detention Centre; the South West Detention Centre. When they were the government, they said no to new facilities. We're increasing bed capacity; in excess of 1,200 new beds will be used. When they were in government, they said no to increased capacity. We're leading a Canadian study on the changing face of correctional services. When they were in government, they isolated themselves from everyone.

Yes, we understand there are some challenges. Yes, we are addressing those challenges, unlike what they did when they were the NDP government in Ontario.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Listen, I say to the minister, I'm no fan of Bob Rae either. Look—

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Colle: —hiding in the washroom for five years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps the member from Eglinton—Lawrence wants to be sent there.

Please continue.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Look, corrections workers do a job that very few of us could handle, and they do it under atrocious circumstances. This government has ignored the problem and now decides that the best solution is to punish those workers by slashing sick-day provisions. The union is willing to work with the government in addressing absenteeism. Why won't this government stop the attack on corrections workers and address the working conditions that are at the heart of this public safety issue?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Nothing could be further from the truth, to be perfectly honest. We respect our correctional officers. We certainly hope that they will, in conjunction with government services, come to some agreement.

But let's talk about respecting workers. Let's talk about really, really understanding the importance of these correctional officers. They did: They imposed the social contract, which cost them jobs, which gave them horrible working conditions, and yet they purport to stand up for the working men and women in Ontario. They have no credibility when it comes to supporting the working people of Ontario, including correctional services officers.

DIALYSIS

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. People with chronic kidney disease often depend on regular dialysis treatment or a kidney transplant to survive. Due to Ontario's aging population and the growing number of people with diabetes and high blood pressure, the demand for kidney dialysis has been increasing by more than 7% every year. Some residents of my riding and York region depend on these crucial dialysis services. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care tell the House how he plans to expand access to dialysis services in Vaughan and York region? How is he helping local residents who are suffering from chronic kidney disease?

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member from Richmond Hill for his question and for his continued advocacy for the people of York region.

On February 5 I joined the member from Richmond Hill and the member from Vaughan, where we announced a new dialysis satellite unit and outpatient clinic at the York Central Hospital. When the satellite unit opens later this year, it will have 24 new dialysis stations.

Increasing access to kidney dialysis service is part of the Ontario government's four-year, $741-million diabetes strategy. Creating satellite units such as the one in Vaughan enables people to receive dialysis treatment closer to home. The government is deeply committed to improving the quality of life for those living with chronic conditions like kidney disease, and that's one of my top priorities. This new dialysis unit is just one of the many ways in which the government is increasing access to health care in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the minister for his answer and for responding to a clear need for more services in the greater York region community.

Residents of my riding are thankful that this dialysis unit will help more of their neighbours and family members get treatment closer to home. My constituents will truly benefit from this latest investment.

But I am wondering whether the benefits of this investment will extend beyond the borders of Vaughan and York region. I'm wondering whether it will help the health care system as a whole. I ask the Minister of Health: How does adding more dialysis units in Vaughan and opening the satellite clinic help improve the overall health care system today? How will it help growing communities like Vaughan to ensure that its residents will have quality health care for years to come?

Hon. David Caplan: When it comes to health care, this government is doing what previous governments failed to do. Simply, we are planning for the long-term needs of the people of this province. The member is quite correct: York region is growing rapidly, and that's why we are investing in resources and infrastructure like this dialysis unit today, because we want to be able to meet future demands. When fully operational, the dialysis unit will have 33 stations. It will have the capacity to provide treatment to over 30,000 additional dialysis treatments per year. That equals to upward of 5,000 visits for 200 patients annually.

I recognize that in order to bring down wait times, we need to keep Ontarians out of emergency rooms. That starts with bringing health care closer to patients' homes. This helps people to better manage their chronic diseases like kidney disease. Chronic disease management is a big priority for me and for this government.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. York regional council is meeting today. They'll be voting on a budget measure that will add $12 million to the backs of York region taxpayers for the purpose of funding the shortfall of health care funding for capital costs for the three hospitals in York region.

My question to the Premier is this: Why is his government downloading the cost of capital funding for our hospitals onto municipalities and ultimately onto the backs of property taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I view the actions taken by York region council as actions that should be applauded. If we look at the history of capital funding for hospitals in the province of Ontario over decades, it used to be the case, actually, that local communities paid the entire bill. Over time, that has transitioned in exactly the opposite direction, where the government of Ontario today is providing the highest rate—90%—of the hard infrastructure costs associated with the projects.

We recognize, of course, that people are sensitive about costs associated with tax increases. But at the same time, we have noticed an extraordinarily strong degree of support for the ongoing construction and investment in infrastructure in hospitals, and it's very, very much in keeping with that that a community contribution coming through York region should be moved forward.

This is not a precedent in York region; this is done in many, many communities across the province of Ontario. We applaud the leadership of the politicians in York region.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The Minister of Energy and Infrastructure may applaud the politicians in York region; they are not applauding him, they are not applauding the Minister of Health and they are not applauding the Premier for forcing them to put onto the backs of their taxpayers, on the property tax bill, a bill that is rightfully to be paid by the provincial government.

The Minister of Health clearly said that York region is a rapidly growing community: 35,000 new people a year go into that region. It's very clear that this government is not coming to the table with adequate provincial health care dollars. I'm calling on the Premier to reconsider his policy about how they are funding health care. Essentially, they are downloading the responsibility that has always been the province's onto the municipalities. Will he consider changing his policy?

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm not sure what the honourable member is up to—I'm not sure why he's getting this spot in the lineup—because his comments today stand in contradiction with members in that party who have encouraged and supported their local communities that are participating in paying the community share toward massive investment in hospital infrastructure.

Look at the York region picture: Southlake hospital in the last five years has grown from a very small hospital to one of our most important hospitals in the province of Ontario; Markham-Stouffville will soon move forward with a very, very substantial investment; at the Richmond Hill hospital, we have under way right now a very substantial project toward new development; and in Vaughan, there is a very, very strenuous demand on the part of that community to move forward with a hospital.

All across the province of Ontario, municipalities have determined that in order to leverage billions of dollars in government investment in new hospital infrastructure, they should make a contribution totalling up to 10%. Therefore—

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

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

With more and more Ontarians facing the prospect—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I apologize. I'm trying to listen to a question that's being asked of a minister, and there are continuing conversations going on across the floor. I would encourage you to take those conversations outside, and let's listen to the member from Hamilton East.

Please continue.

Mr. Paul Miller: Getting on, the last one was $500-a-night rooms at the five-star Taj Mahal hotels in New Delhi and Mumbai.

With more and more Ontarians facing the prospect of losing their jobs, Premier, tell us what value was derived from this extravagant spending.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of International Trade and Investment.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I can tell you this: The plan for the Ontario government is to be even more aggressive on the world stage and put Ontario out there as a place to invest. I find it very interesting that this member purports to speak on behalf of working people. When he decided to send a letter to my riding with this kind of information, he received a phone call from labour leader Gary Parent, but this particular member decided not to return his call, because what he would have said is that the labour leaders in my own hometown agree that this Ontario government needs to be on the world stage.

We need to be out there with our message. We need to attract investment. That is my job and I will continue to do that, and I hope that I do that well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Didn't get a letter; didn't hear anything about it. That's news.

Windsor, the Minister of Trade's hometown—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Sorry; thanks for listening.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me just say at the outset that the information that this member wants to present to this House is inaccurate. I have been more than forthcoming with my information about my expenses and I'm happy to offer them to whoever would like to see them.

Let me tell you that in just this past year we have brought in seven applications from international companies that I have met with, who've since applied to our programs and are landing investment in Ontario; that just this year alone we have closed 25 investment deals representing 3,000 jobs and tens of millions of dollars. I appreciate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the member from Hamilton East that you had just asked the question. You should have at least had the courtesy to listen to the response.

New question.

Mr. Paul Miller: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, point of order—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I am not going to recognize the point of order. We've got a custom within this chamber that we do not allow for points of order during question period. If you want to raise a point of order, raise it at the end of question period.

New question.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the member—and I'm letting the clock run because, unfortunately, the official opposition will be penalized as well—that we have a practice within this chamber of trying to maintain parliamentary language. You're not helping with comments that you're making like that.

Member from Eglinton—Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and I think it's very opportune today, with the students who are here visiting us in this chamber. My question is about the importance of Black History Month, February.

As you know, every year in February we take time out to honour this incredibly important history in Ontario, the contributions black Ontarians have made to this province going back 200 years. What I would like to ask you is—as we recognize Black History Month, I would like to know some of the specific undertakings that you, as minister, have taken to honour and respect the contributions that black Ontarians have made to this province.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank my honourable colleague for the question. The government is very proud to honour the significant contributions of Ontario's black community by celebrating Black History Month. Black History Month has given all of us an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of black Ontarians, who are renowned as politicians, athletes, artists and authors throughout this province.

Earlier this month I joined my colleague Bruce Crozier, who is the member from Essex, and together we launched Black History Month at the North American Black Historical Museum in Amherstburg. Our government is marking this occasion through a number of cultural events across Ontario, and I do encourage all Ontarians to participate in the celebrations as we honour this great community, their people and their achievements.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: I'm sure that many members in our constituencies across the province have had Black History Month events take place in our communities.

In my own riding of Eglinton—Lawrence, I was honoured to meet two descendants of slaves who escaped from the United States into Canada and formed the incredible community of North Buxton. They are the curators of the Buxton historical museum. That night in my riding, people came from all over west Toronto to honour these two important people, Shannon and Bryan Prince.

What I would also like to ask is, are we doing anything else to preserve this great history—which we might lose if we don't pay attention to it—and to promote it, especially amongst our young people, who should never forget the lessons to be learned, especially from the 400 years of slavery that were inflicted on innocent people?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank my honourable colleague, because those kinds of celebrations that took place in his riding this weekend, commemorating two exceptional Ontarians, are exactly the kinds of events that we see happening throughout the province.

We are indeed proud of the heritage and the history, and as a result we have made 18 commemorative plaques, which have been created by the Ontario Heritage Trust. These heritage plaques trace the very perilous path of former black slaves on their journey to freedom through that very famous Underground Railroad. Each one of those plaques tells an inspirational story about some very remarkable people.

While that seems very long ago, today we have President Obama arriving to visit us here in Canada. I cannot think of anybody who can make black Ontarians feel—

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

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, in 2004 you were quoted in various media in response to the news that your high-roller seatmate from Windsor and four of his staff were spending more than $5,500 a day on a European jaunt that included a $789 steak lunch. Your quote: "There's an appearance here, which I will assure we avoid in the future." Four and a half years later, we learn that the other minister representing Windsor—we wonder if there's something in the water there—ran up a staggering, taxpayer-paid travel tab of over $128,000 in just one year.

Premier, were your 2004 assurances to the public, to the taxpayers, just another broken promise?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will spare my colleague the response coming from the minister herself. She's feeling her oats today; I can tell.

What I will say is that we feel a heavy responsibility, obviously, on a couple of counts. One is to act responsibly when using taxpayer dollars. At the same time, we have a responsibility to get out there and hustle business for Ontario, and there are some costs associated with travel. There are some costs associated with accommodation. There are some costs associated with having meals. That's part and parcel of doing business. Some of the travel takes us to expensive parts of the world, and there are necessarily higher costs there than we might incur here in Ontario, for example.

But my ministers well understand both responsibilities: Get out there and do the best you can to bring jobs home to Ontario, and act responsibly with taxpayer—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess it only takes 20 feet to radically change someone's views on what is appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: —Bacardi rum tour.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In 2002, the now Minister Pupatello—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister, you can have that discussion with him following question period. Please continue.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In 2002, the now minister criticized the minister of the day for expenses totalling $103,000 in 48 months—two years. Her comments at the time, and I'm quoting: "Everyone in this House is embarrassed by the fact that you look like you're living a gluttonous lifestyle on the back of the taxpayer."

Premier, are you embarrassed that the same member has spent twice as much in half the time, while many of her constituents are struggling to survive? How can you allow this jet-set lifestyle when jobs are fleeing and families are suffering?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the minister.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me tell you what the difference is. In that previous government, a Toronto minister, who is not the—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Here's the difference: We had Minister Jackson, an MPP from Burlington, we all recall, staying in Toronto hotels. That's the difference between us going around the world to sell Ontario for business.

I will not apologize for selling Ontario. It is not a Bacardi rum tour with the chair of the LCBO, as that particular member might remember from his trips abroad. It is hard work, and I will continue to do that for the people of Ontario, especially the people from my hometown.

MUNICIPALITIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Kawartha Lakes staff are forecasting a 10% increase in Ontario Works caseloads. Unemployment there is 8.5% and rising. Ballooning social services costs are straining the city's budget. Property taxes are going up by 3.9%. NDP candidate Lyn Edwards is hearing from hard-hit constituents who face the prospect of losing jobs and paying even higher property taxes.

Minister, a 10-year upload is not going to help recession-weary Kawartha Lakes. Why won't this minister agree right now to cut down the download process to two years from 10 and help struggling municipalities in this province that can't afford to pay for your social services costs?

Hon. Jim Watson: I had the pleasure of being in that community yesterday. I had the opportunity to speak to the mayor, who was very appreciative of the efforts of the McGuinty government to invest in municipalities like Kawartha Lakes.

I also had the opportunity to meet the next MPP for that area, Rick Johnson, who's going to be a strong and effective voice for the people of Kawartha Lakes. Unlike the Tory candidate in that riding, Rick Johnson doesn't need a GPS to get around the riding.

Let me just tell you what the good people of Kawartha Lakes have received from the McGuinty government: $7.1 million from the Investing in Ontario Act; $656,000 last year in gas tax for transit; rural infrastructure money of $900,000; and roads and bridges money, last year alone, of $6 million.

We're proud of our—

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent, on behalf of this Legislature and the people of Ontario, to officially welcome President Obama on his visit to Canada and Ontario, and to have an official welcome on behalf of this Legislature to President Obama.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? I heard a no.

There being no deferred votes today, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1133 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HERITAGE WEEK

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm very pleased to acknowledge Heritage Week in Ontario. Everyone recognizes how important heritage is to our culture and our sense of identity. Our understanding of the past is vital. It is through the preservation of our heritage that we maintain our identity and present ourselves to Canada and the world.

Unfortunately, the McGuinty government is failing Ontario on heritage. While the federal government is spending millions preserving sites from the War of 1812, this government has only given a few thousand dollars. They have no plan to recognize the bicentennial of this seminal event. They seem to have no interest in the history of Ontario and the lives of our ancestors.

They do not care about built heritage either. In 2005, this government gave itself the power to designate heritage buildings at risk. So far they have not designated a single building in Ontario. If this government cares about Ontario's heritage, it needs to start taking action to prove it.

I encourage everyone in Ontario to take

part in events marking Heritage Week, and I thank all of the volunteers and staff at our museums, historical sites and community events who work to preserve our heritage all year round.

GÉRALD "CHUCK" CHARLEBOIS

Mr. Jim Brownell: A community's greatest strength is in its people. With the right minds, ideas and dedication, anything is possible. This is certainly true for the city of Cornwall in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. This city has produced many dedicated, creative people who have made a positive difference in their community.

One of those individuals is Gérald Charlebois, known to all of us as "Chuck." Born and raised in the Le Village area of the city, Chuck has worn many hats over the years: local businessman, city councillor and innovator among them. Perhaps his greatest legacy, however, will be with Groupe Renaissance Group. This project, started by Chuck more than a decade ago, has had a hand in at least 350 community renovation and construction projects in Cornwall and throughout the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Through every phase of his career, Chuck has made a difference in his community, one that will benefit the people of Cornwall, and in particular Le Village, for decades to come. He has motivated many. He has personally achieved. He has left his mark on so many projects