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

September 30, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 September 2009 Mercredi 30 septembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR ST. PAUL'S

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

DISASTER RELIEF

TENANT PROTECTION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

TENANT PROTECTION

ROAD SAFETY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

AUTISM TREATMENT

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

VICTIMS OF CRIME

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

TOBACCO CONTROL

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

APOLOGY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

EVENTS IN OAK RIDGES–MARKHAM

FOOD BANKS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

GANARASKA FOREST CENTRE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

STUDENT LITERACY

TAXATION

PATRICK LORMAND

REPORT, OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT

PETITIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

OPPOSITION DAY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 16, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to student achievement, school board governance and certain other matters / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne le rendement des élèves, la gouvernance des conseils scolaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The honourable member for Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I recall, I had the floor when this was last being addressed. We've got Mr. Prue and Ms. DiNovo here to speak to it as well this morning, along with, I'm sure, some Conservatives.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I can't hear you, Peter.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Then listen; stop chatting with your neighbour if you can't hear me. Don't sit there reading your newspaper and writing love notes. And if push comes to shove, put your earpiece in.

You'll recall that I queried whether this was the Christine Nunziata bill: crazy Christine, buying lingerie on the taxpayers' tab as a school trustee—and sexy, mind you. God bless her, it was sexy lingerie.

Mr. Michael Prue: Well, yes, she was on her honeymoon, you know.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. Prue notes.

Buying sexy lingerie on the taxpayers' tab with her apparently school-board-issued credit card. However, it was Josh Matlow who had the audacity to criticize what he considered an ill-advised judgment by his board.

I've spoken to board trustees over the course of many, many years who have called me, even as a lawyer many years ago; good trustees, newly elected trustees, full of vim and vinegar, wanting to make a difference, who called me to say, "I was told by the director/superintendent/chair that I couldn't do (a), (

b) or (c). They brought in the board solicitor, who read the riot act to me."

Hon. John Gerretsen: To you?

Mr. Peter Kormos: No, to that particular trustee. These trustees, mostly young novices to politics, said, "What can I do?" I said, "You can do anything you want, as long as it isn't illegal. Use your judgment. Use your conscience. If you think you have to do something in particular to advance the interests of a student or a school in your ward, in your bailiwick, or to address the concerns of a family about a particular problem in a particular school, you do what you think you should." "Well, what can they do to me?" "They can't do anything to you. It's the voters who will decide in three years' time," as it was then, "whether or not you did the right thing. You can't do anything illegal."

Obviously, after this legislation is passed you can't say that anymore, can you? The best-meaning trustee who offends his or her colleagues on the board can find themselves censured, gagged, forfeiting pay and excluded from meetings. I've got to go across the way and knock somebody out before I can be excluded from a meeting. You've got to effectively commit a criminal offence in this chamber before you can be excluded from the chamber. There are the powers of the Speaker to exclude somebody who doesn't comply with the orders, usually when it comes down to withdrawing a statement and being obstreperous in that regard, but that's for one day.

This is very frightening stuff. I've come across board trustee after board trustee who explains to me—I'm not talking about any particular board, and they tend to be smaller town boards. Understand that all the world isn't Toronto, where board politics have a reasonably high profile and there's media coverage of them. Down in small-town Ontario, they tend to be little cliques, as often as not—some backroom boying. If you tend to be the voice of dissent, they use every effort to shut you down. This government legislation will formalize that and legitimize it.

It will not only allow boards, rightly so, to be compelled to set up codes of conduct, but it provides powers for boards that are undemocratic and unacceptable in elected institutions, elected bodies. There's no recourse, as I read Bill 177, to appeal a code of conduct that is overly restrictive. Again, these same small-town boards, I'm sorry to tell you, tend to be run by the director or the superintendent, who develops a close rapport, if you will, whether it's expensed or not, that's nurtured by more than a little bit of wining and dining from time to time with the chairman of the board.

They like that control, and they exercise it. I've seen boards that restrict and even exclude public access: boards that will engage in the most acute pettifoggery to prevent a parent or group of parents from making a presentation to the board if it's around an issue that might embarrass the board, or if it's around an issue of a particular school about which there are particular concerns.

This government can't have it both ways. It either believes in local and community-based democracy and control or it doesn't. This is a very subtle way of effectively eliminating boards of education without going through the political strife of saying you are going to abolish boards of trustees. I've been a long-time advocate of elected hospital governors. LHINs? Oh, to heck with LHINs. Abolish them. They're useless; they're dangerous; they're government tools. How can a LHIN, that's government appointed, government hacks—Mr. Levac, maybe you want to tell us about your experience with that Niagara Hamilton LHIN.

Mr. Dave Levac: Wonderful people.

Mr. Peter Kormos: They're a bunch of unelected, unaccountable people. The Niagara Hamilton LHIN covers Niagara, Haldimand, Hamilton and Brantford—am I correct, Mr. Levac? Lord thundering Jesus, how can that board purport to understand the unique needs—

Mr. Dave Levac: I have two members from my riding, Peter.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, Mr. Levac says he has two members from his riding. Whoop-de-do. A lot of good it does you.

Mr. Dave Levac: It does a lot of good.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. Levac is suggesting that there's some political patronage going on here. And that there's payoff. Who was that Conservative candidate who just got bumped because he had the nerve to suggest that if you didn't elect a Tory you weren't going to get any grease? Now I understand. Liberal-appointed boards prefer Liberal communities. I'm talking LHINs.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's Mr. Levac's accusation; I didn't say it.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, that underscores my point, doesn't it? That underscores my point. We don't need unelected bodies—and when we have elected bodies, we've got to give them the authority to do what they were designed to do. We've got to give individual members of those bodies the power to perform their individual roles.

Bill 177 turns boards of education, turns school board trustees into rubber-stampers. If you dare to speak out against the party line, you can be shut down with a code of conduct. And there's no terms of reference for what that code of conduct should consist of. There's no guidelines, there's no controls, there's no limits. In fact, the legislation does say that a board member shall support the decision of a board once it's made. That's like telling John Yakabuski that once the government passes a particular bill, he has to support it.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Nonsense. That's not what democratically elected bodies are designed to do. That's what the politburo does.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's on the second floor, right in the corner.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. Yakabuski notes—and he's quite right. So we've got Soviet—style central democracy, democratic centralism—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Stalinism.

Mr. Peter Kormos: —Stalinism, as Ms. DiNovo notes, being imposed on boards of trustees, school boards, that have already been hammered. Look, the first attack on them was capping their salaries. Let's understand where things like Christine Nunziata's credit cards come from. My, dare I say, inference, is that when you have a board that isn't allowed to pay fair salaries, they compensate in other ways. They give their members credit cards. Is that reasonable? And wink—wink, nudge—nudge, they suggest to those members, "You might want to offset the discomfort of your substandard salary by, ahem, indulging from time to time."

New Democrats aren't happy with this legislation. We are not enthusiastic about it. We aren't committed to it in any way, shape or form. We think it does great damage to boards. We think it's the beginning of the end for elected boards of education—elected trustees. It's certainly far from the beginning of the end—a very major part of the process of the end—of local decision-making when it comes to designing education.

Folks here in Toronto who think Ontario begins and ends at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor don't understand that communities in northern Ontario are far different from downtown Toronto and that communities in rural Niagara and rural southern Ontario are far different and that the isolated communities of the far, far north are far different from downtown Toronto. They're confirming that with this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I must preface my remarks by stating that I wish I had been here for the first eight minutes, because if the last 12 minutes of his speech were anything to go by, it was extremely entertaining.

Just a couple of points that my friend from Welland had talked about: He talked about the poor school trustee coming in to a meeting and being told that he or she could not act upon a certain thing, and then the lawyer comes in and reads the Riot Act. I remember that the Riot Act can only be read by a mayor or a reeve, because one of the things that the lawyer came and told me, upon my appointment as mayor in the borough of East York—he brought out a copy of the Riot Act and explained to me how a mayor can go to the front step and read the Riot Act, and everyone had to disperse.

Hon. John Gerretsen: How often did you do it, Mike?

Mr. Michael Prue: So the reading of the Riot Act became central to my job as mayor. Fortunately, I never had an opportunity to read it, and I wonder whether my colleague Mr. Gerretsen, as mayor of Kingston, ever had to read the Riot Act, particularly after a Queen's party some evening.

In any event, my colleague from Welland also talked about the voices of dissent and the fact that trustees will now be shut down, those who have the unmitigated gall, the temerity, to challenge the Minister of Education, to challenge the government, to challenge any kind of decision that may see schools shut down or be inadequately funded, to stand up and talk about that, and whether or not that dissent is going to continue.

I agree with my colleague from Welland when he said that this is the beginning of the end of school boards. When I get an opportunity to speak later today, I'm going to talk about the slow decline of the trustee, or the position of trustee, what they are allowed to do, what they are allowed to say, what they are allowed to influence, because I see this as one of the final nails in the coffin of that position.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I think everyone listened to the member from Welland and his humorous portrayal of some odd circumstance, whether it's addressing Bill 177 or other comments. But I have to say that if you look at the overall thrust of this thing, it's in response to some Toronto school boards' misuse of resources and their continual crying to the current minister about not having enough money, and yet even in the media today there are reports that say that things should be brought under better control.

I recall, in my time as a school trustee—I have to say it was some time ago. It was, I think, 1980 or 1982, somewhere in that time frame. When I was first elected as a school trustee, I felt very honoured because I had three children in the school system at that time. I was there as a parent-teacher association member and then as a school trustee. I felt it was an honour, but I didn't realize you even got paid for it. When I was first elected, I was surprised, because it was a bit of an honoured position, that they gave me a cheque for I think it was $250 at that time, per month. I think when I left, it was about $400 a month.

I think the issue here—the trustee's role has certainly come under the threatening glare of Minister Wynne trying to silence the trustees in this difficult time where she's insufficiently addressing the needs of the students in many cases. I am interested in the debate this morning. I know that the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will be speaking, and at that time we'll certainly hear some of the real truth about what's happening on the street in education.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Let's be very clear about what this bill is. This bill is an attempt by this government to muzzle and make irrelevant school trustees. That's the intent of this bill. It's interesting that, presumably, from the government's spin, it's about transparency and accountability. What's interesting is, we're talking about trustees who make about $25,000 a year, when this is the government, let me remind you, that oversaw the eHealth scandal to $1 billion, not to mention the salary of Ms. Wynne herself. I assume it's around $160,000, something like that, with expenses.

We don't go over her expenses with a fine-toothed comb except, of course, for the Integrity Commissioner. I assume she's not spending money over and above her salary on lingerie or trips to the Bahamas. But really, would she have to with that kind of income?

We're talking about people, one of which, interestingly enough, Ms. Wynne used to be. She used to be one of the radical trustees who call the government into question. Now that she's in a position of power, wow: Power corrupts, blah, blah, blah. Now she's going to turn around and censure exactly those trustees who want to do what she used to do.

This is a Harrisesque bill. There's no question about it, and trustees know this. Trustees are elected bodies. They are there to represent the people who elect them, that is, the parents. They are not there to kowtow to a government. They're not there to answer to the government; they're there to answer to the electorate. This bill changes that fundamentally. This is, in its nature, an anti-democratic bill. We'll say more.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I might remind the members that questions and comments are intended not to debate the bill but to refer to the debate that the previous speaker had given to the House. Just keep that in mind.

The member for Welland has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I appreciate your direction with respect to what questions and comments should consist of, which is why I make every effort to be as free-wheeling and broad-based as I can when I make comments during a 20-minute period, so people have that much more leeway in their questions and comments.

I appreciate the people who had the patience to listen to the 15 or so minutes that I had here today. This is serious business. Out there with the public it may not have a lot of traction, as they say in the back rooms of political spinsters, spin doctors. But it's so horribly important. As it is now, school board trustees tend to be anonymous. Go to any number of communities and ask them who their own trustees are, if it's a ward system, and most people can't tell you. Most people, if they have a problem with the school, simply grin and bear it or simply suffer it. They don't know that you should call a trustee.

The problem is, once this bill passes, even if you do know who your trustee is, and even if you do know where you can contact him or her, and even if you do call him or her, the purpose of this bill is to eunuch that person, to neuter them, to render them impotent, to make it impossible for them to do anything for you. All they're going to be able to do is cite the board's code of conduct, for instance, that says, "No board member shall"—effectively no board member shall not support a policy of the board.

The poor board trustee who campaigned saying, "I want to represent you," is going to have to say, "Well, that's the policy of the board, and I can't speak against it." That's not very pretty, is it?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I had to get ahead of the member for East York because I was courteously watching the government side of the House to see who was going to speak to this bill. I understand, if they're supporting the bill—it's a bill from their minister—that they would be anxious and eager to stand in support of not only that minister but of their government. But I do see some cracks in the armour, some weaknesses there. Probably the genesis of this bill is part of that.

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Welland. He's always insightful, and I can say that in two different ways: He's insightful and inciteful in the way that he goes about debate in this chamber. It's wonderful to be able to participate alongside him many times. He talked about the fact that this is painting the entire body of provincial school trustees with the same brush for the wrong reasons, and I'll get back to that a little later.

Let's talk about what I see as the reason that this government is bringing in the bill for second reading at this time: It's because they're under the gun. They are purporting this bill to be about accountability at the very time when the accountability of this government is being brought into question by people across the province of Ontario. Each day we find more reasons and more evidence of why people are asking those questions about the accountability of this government.

When you look at this bill, and it's being touted and sold as one that brings accountability to school boards across the province of Ontario, you do have to ask yourself, what is the true motivation of the government? Because this government has been masterful—masterful, I say—in their six years here at managing to change the channels at the appropriate time.

We have important issues going on in this province at this time, some of the most difficult economic circumstances that we've been in for some time. Yet today I see the Attorney General on the television, changing the channel once again because he doesn't want to talk about the Marshall situation. He's on the television this morning talking about suing Big Tobacco for $50 billion in the province of Ontario for health care costs. We allow illegal tobacco to now account for almost 50% of the tobacco sold in this province, but they're going to have this lawsuit against Big Tobacco.

When you ask him a question on the Marshall incident, "Well, I cannot speak to some of that." Or if you ask the finance minister with regard to issues surrounding the Windsor Energy Centre, "I cannot speak to that."

And I cannot speak to that either, by the looks of the Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That's correct. Let's stick to Bill 177.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, yes, back to Bill 177. That's what I like about you, Speaker, and I say that in the most cordial sense, the way that—from time to time I'm a bit of a wanderer, because I come from a rural riding. As you know, it's a big riding; it covers a whole lot of area. And sometimes when I'm actually going directly to an event—and I am working back to the bill—because of the vastness of my riding, it would be inappropriate for me to ignore the trip.

So if I have to go to, let's say, Pembroke for some reason, it would be inappropriate for me to not stop in Golden Lake and say hello to a few people or something. So that's the kind of way that we've become accustomed to in my riding. But I am getting back—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I get the point of your lecture. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, yes. I'm getting back to it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Just keep speeding when you go through Peterborough.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I must respond to the member from Peterborough, of course, as we generally do in this House, because it's the courteous thing to do when a member from the other side says something. I often stop in Peterborough on my way home. And I say to the member that—

Mr. Jeff Leal: We had sightings of you shopping at Zellers.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I don't know if you would have had sightings of me—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Peterborough.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'm not going to pick on one particular business or another. But I do stop in Peterborough from time to time for a bite to eat because it's kind of halfway between my residence in Barry's Bay and the Legislature here. So from time to time I do stop there.

But let's get back to the bill, because I know what he's trying to do: He's trying to take me off my intention, which is always to speak directly to the matter before the House. And the matter before the House this morning, as you know—and I know it's not a prop when you hold up a bill—is Bill 177.

The concern I have—I share so many of those concerns with the member from Welland about the real intention of this bill. We had a significant problem in Toronto. Is it always that the world revolves around Toronto and that trustees in my riding, or the ridings of my friends from Durham or Parry Sound—Muskoka, are going to be sort of painted with the same brush by this bill? There's an accountability issue, and there has—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I look around this chamber and I see very few government members here. I'd like to have a quorum call.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is there a quorum?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): A quorum is present. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I too was wondering about those numbers, but they did seem to appear very quickly when a quorum was called. The member from Parkdale—High Park certainly has that effect on the government side of the House: They're in, they're out, they're in sort of thing. Anyway, where was I?

Trustees throughout the province are feeling like they are being somewhat attacked or their integrity is being attacked somewhat as a result of this bill and the fact that the government is advancing it at this time. We all read numerous news clippings back in 2008, I guess it was, with respect to the egregious lack of accountability back in the first part of 2008 where trustees in Toronto were clearly abusing the trust that was placed in them regarding legitimate or illegitimate expenses.

My colleague from Welland articulated very well when he said it almost appeared like there was an encouragement for the fact that, you know, these trustees complained that they don't get paid enough—although they should perhaps work under the remuneration conditions that trustees in my riding would get—but because of the fact that they weren't happy with the pay scale, it was almost like, "Well, here. It's very important that you, as a trustee, have a credit card."

Now, I don't quite understand that. We all have the right to apply to be compensated or reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of our employer. As members of the Legislature, if we go on an assembly trip, we pay for that and then we apply—when I say a trip, if we have to go to another riding for meetings or another part of the province for meetings and we have to spend the night in a hotel room or whatever, we pay for that out of our pocket and then we apply for reimbursement, and that's the best way that the assembly itself can see the accountability for those expenditures.

They see that they are legitimate; they can be assured that the member was, in fact, there and it was on assembly business. But they don't give us credit cards where you just swipe, and there goes the statement at the end of the month. That's probably partially what led to the fact that these things were going on. It's far less likely that someone is going to be checking things closely, because there's simply a bill that comes in to the board, paid by someone on staff, as opposed to a claim from an individual trustee who says, "Okay, I'm out this money.

My family has the right to receive that money back as quickly as possible." So the accounting people would look at it and legitimize it and reimburse the individual trustee.

But when you give somebody that credit card, boy—we do it with our own credit cards sometimes, where you just don't think sometimes and don't realize how fast that balance can creep up. I don't think it's a very good way of allowing people to run up expenditures when there is a better way, which is reimbursement.

At the same time, there were a lot of wrong things—illegitimate, illegal, possibly illegal; I'm not the lawyer in the House here. But when those things were going on, of course, they drew a lot of attention to that issue in the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post. All the papers printed here out of Toronto paid very close attention. And some of the things were, like the member said, lingerie. What in the Sam Hill has lingerie got to do with doing your job as a trustee for the Toronto school board? I don't know. I want to get an invitation to some of those meetings, though.

They must be exciting: lingerie and Caribbean vacations. I guess it's very important—perhaps you think better under the warm climate of St. Maarten or the Virgin Islands or something; I don't know. Perhaps there's a better thought process or you come up with better ideas. Maybe, when you put all of those things together—a Caribbean vacation and wearing lingerie—you're bound to come up with the best possible solution for Toronto's school boards.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It would be a little chilly in our parts.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, it is sometimes chilly. Some of the responses I get from the other side of the House are rather chilly too sometimes, but I try to warm them up from time to time.

What I don't like about this is the fact that it paints all the hard-working, very minimally remunerated trustees from ridings like my own—the Renfrew County District School Board or the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

If we keep telling these people, "You're not trustworthy; we have to keep the hammer down on you because of what happened somewhere else"—you look at this bill and it takes away really the autonomy of those people—sooner or later, people are going to ask themselves, "Am I relevant at all as a school board trustee?" Or is the trustee of the past and the minister of the present—she wanted to run the education system when she was a trustee, and now she really wants to run it as the minister. She thought the trustees were the key to the system when she was a trustee.

Now she's the minister, and she wants to render those trustees irrelevant and take over the whole ministry herself.

They must be asking themselves, quite frankly, "Wasn't she one of us at one time? Wow, how power seems to change people." But those people are going to start asking, "If I've been rendered irrelevant, why do we even take these jobs?" You know, in small communities and—

Mr. Michael Prue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether a quorum is present to hear this wonderful speech.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is a quorum present?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): A quorum is present. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much.

I really have to speak to this quorum issue for a moment. I appreciate the fact that my friend from Beaches—East York was counting the numbers and determined that there were not sufficient members in this House to form a quorum. I'm kind of disappointed, in a way, that he drew attention to that, because it says something about—I'm concerned, and I'm probably going to go back to my office a little later and do a little practising, because I used to be able to draw a reasonable crowd in this chamber.

This is the first time that quorum has ever been called while I've been speaking, and I'm really, really disappointed in that. It's funny, because when I get really, really worked up, the Liberals seem to pay attention. Maybe I haven't been clear enough about what I see as some of the problems in this bill.

Mr. Dave Levac: Loud enough.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Loud enough. Okay. Well, you know, sometimes you just have to save that throat a little bit, too. You may have an engagement of another kind—

Hon. James J. Bradley: For question period.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, for later in the day.

My colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo, Liz Witmer, is the critic for education and a former trustee herself, so she understands the—

Mr. John O'Toole: She's a former high school teacher.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She was a high school teacher as well. She has seen the education system from all directions and all angles and understands it very well. She was the Minister of Education, as well, in our government. So there's probably not a more knowledgeable person in this House when it comes to the education system in the province of Ontario, with her background, and she too has raised serious concerns with respect to the autonomy of local school boards.

Again, I'd go back to my original point, just briefly, about how we understand why the government brought in this bill at this time: because they're under the gun. They're under the gun for the lack of accountability that they have shown here in the province of Ontario, in education as well. It took the minister forever and a day to react to what she knew was going on within the Toronto Catholic District School Board and she kind of turned a blind eye to it for quite a while.

It's symptomatic of the way that they go about accountability issues: First they try to deny them, then they try to do nothing to see if they'll go away, and then they come in with a response that is either inadequate or misdirected. In this case, it actually fills both categories: inadequate and misdirected—certainly, misdirected from the point of view that it tars all of those well-meaning trustees with the same brush.

My colleague from Welland brought in a very interesting dimension to it, with respect to the code of conduct and what you must adhere to and how you could be frozen out as a trustee by your colleagues. We don't have the regs. The devil is always in the details. Presumably it could be that you don't sit on the same side of an issue as your colleagues and you could be censured. He likened that to the politburo in the Soviet Union.

Sometimes I wonder if it doesn't actually operate in a similar fashion here, because I can tell by some of the things that are said in this House, some of the questions that are asked, some of the statements that are made by members of the government, that there's clearly a concern on the part of members of that party that if you're not doing as you're told, you could find yourself on the gulag.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Oh, come on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know that upsets people over there. But if you look at the pattern here, even the Speaker—not you, Mr. Speaker, but the Honourable Mr. Peters—has cautioned the government recently about this practice of having its members just get up and make statements on behalf of the minister so that the minister can respond on behalf of the minister again. So you really have to wonder if that's the kind of thing they're thinking of here. Are we going to have school boards saying, "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full"—or you could be sitting on the outside looking in.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to this speech because, as always, my friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke speaks passionately but he speaks with a lot of humour and it is a pleasure to hear him. So when I stood on a point of order to question whether or not there was a quorum, it was not to stop him, but because I believe that there should be more people in this chamber to hear such eloquence, to hear the entertaining value. I want to assure him, because I think he felt a little bit taken aback that there weren't more people present, and this is the first time it has ever happened to him.

I want to say that I meant no umbrage; I just really, really believe that more people who were sitting outside, who were in close proximity, should be brought in to hear the speech.

He spoke with some eloquence. He talked about the problems inherent in some of the school boards, particularly the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and the reason that the public is expecting far more from boards. But he also said, I think quite correctly, that this is a bit of a sledgehammer, this bill. It's a bit of a sledgehammer that will take away the rights of duly, democratically elected people, and I would surmise from what he had to say that he will be in opposition to this bill when it is called for second reading, because I believe that's—

Mr. Dave Levac: He's had an epiphany.

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, I think perhaps he has had an epiphany on this entire issue. I trust that's where he's coming from.

I would just like to again commend him for what he had to say and for, as always, providing good entertainment value while he discussed a very serious issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: As has been said, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke did take us on a long kind of journey around his riding. He also made some very good points that I think were most relevant. He was talking about his riding, which is to a large extent a very large riding, primarily rural but made up of very tight, small communities. I'm concerned about the same thing in my riding: Small, rural schools are being threatened. This is part of the governance issue within this, with the ministers—the whole government, for that matter—centralizing everything, whether it's in health care or education. Small, rural schools are threatened.

I just want to put on the record that his remarks are similar to the remarks that I might make, if I have a chance. The trustees themselves are generally highly regarded citizens of the riding or the community that they represent. They're very strong defenders of their rural schools, the small schools that maybe don't have swimming pools and gymnasiums and all the resources. But they have dedicated staff and the trustees try to work with them to make sure they can free up all the resources that are available.

But this bill really does quite the opposite. In fact, if you look at the online public website—this is an

article by the OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It says here: "OSSTF does not support Bill 177, in its current form, as this is clearly not the case. OSSTF calls upon the government to delay final reading of Bill 177 and move to real public consultation on the legislation and its impact upon school board governance, student achievement and credit integrity." I'd say that that pretty well sums up our position on this, which is that the minister, from her office, will be running the whole education system in the province of Ontario, and I'm concerned about small, rural schools in Ontario not getting the resources they need.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I second what my colleagues have said about the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. He's always entertaining. Certainly, I know from sitting in the Chair that he always keeps me awake, which is a good thing.

He touched on what is important about this bill, and that is that really it is a kind of muzzle bill on trustees' actions. Ostensibly, it is to correct egregious spending, but it really goes way beyond that. We know it goes way beyond that because we're not talking about an overpaid group of bureaucrats like those who maybe exist at eHealth or the OLG; we're talking about people who are paid $25,000 a year to do a really important elected job.

They are directly responsible to parents, and we want to keep them directly responsible to parents, but what this bill does is shift that to make them directly responsible to the Minister of Education. That we simply can't buy. That really is a strike at democracy.

I appreciated his comments about the politburo being located on the second floor of this building and references to the gulag etc. Clearly, perhaps a little exaggerated, but then again it's a slippery slope, and when we're talking about representative democracy, we're talking about the institution of parliamentary democracy and those who are elected to elected positions representing their constituency. It's always a sad day when the government steps in and really cuts that off at the knees, which is what this bill would do for trustees across the province.

We all know that trustees have played a gadfly role, a significant one, even in the days of the so-called education Premier. Think about the school pools issue, the role that trustees played on the front lawn of this building to force the Minister of Education to look at that issue again. We want that kind of role to be continued. It won't be continued with this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from my friends from Beaches—East York, Durham and Parkdale—High Park on my short speech.

I'm disappointed that members of the government side, particularly, I believe, the member from Brant, who has a career background in education, would not have commented on my speech as well.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But, you know, again, orders from headquarters.

One thing I didn't have the chance to speak on—I don't get more time after this, do I?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): No.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Another part that they've rolled into this bill, along with the accountability, is also the governance side of things. One of the concerns I really have is that they're telling boards that they have to achieve standards, but they are not giving them the financial tools in order to reach those standards. My boards are being forced to rob Peter to pay Paul continuously within their budgets. We have tremendous challenges in transportation. We're being forced to go to staggered bell systems in a vast rural riding that simply is going to cause tremendous problems for teachers, parents, students and families in my riding.

The ministry continues to want to set the standards, dictate that the boards must adhere to them, but allow no autonomy for the boards to actually make decisions that would be in the best interest of the people in their riding. You cannot take the cookie-cutter approach where you say, "Well, this is what we're doing in Toronto." I know it always sounds like I'm harping on Toronto and that's not the case; it's just the best comparison. You just can't say that because something is workable or functional in Toronto it's going to work in rural Ontario. It doesn't, Mr. Speaker. You know that and everybody here knows that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: In preparation for the debate, of course, you have to start to read the legislation; you have to look at it. As I was reading it, looking at it, studying it, the thing that first came to my mind were the immortal words of John Donne. I'm going to paraphrase because I have to add one extra word. He is one of the greatest reformist poets in the 17th or 18th century. He wrote brilliant poems. Two of his most famous lines, paraphrased by me: "Never seek to know for whom the school bell tolls; it tolls for thee." I think any trustee who is looking at this knows that this bell is tolling.

It's about to announce the death of the school boards. It's about to announce the death of those positions and it's about to put an end to more than 100 years of active school boards in the province of Ontario. I'm not trying to speak with hyperbole or anything else, because the key

section of this bill, Bill 177, will allow the provincial government to "make regulations governing the roles, responsibilities, powers and duties of boards, directors of education and board members, including chairs of boards."

I think back over the years about the school boards across this province and the brave stance that they have taken against governments. I think back to my friend and colleague Gail Nyberg, who was the chair of the Toronto school board during much of the Harris years, in which the monies were cut, where school board trustees earned $5,000 a year. She kept that job. She kept working and fighting for the students and the families in Toronto against huge school cutbacks.

I think with some admiration of what she did and how hard she worked in order to try to maintain the education system within the Toronto board and I guess throughout the province of Ontario. I think how little remuneration she got and of how many times governments, especially that government of that day, wanted to shut her down but didn't do so—did not take the opportunity and did not even, in the deepest and darkest days of Mike Harris, act on school boards the same way that is being acted on here today.

I think about my friend and colleague in Beaches—East York, Sheila Cary—Meagher, who is the trustee for the combined ward 31 and ward 32 of Beaches—East York, in the city of Toronto, and the very difficult job she has—how she maintained and continued to go to work at $5,000 a year, later $10,000 a year and now all the way up to $25,000, and how she fights and does the best she can for the students of our ward; when I go around to the schools and I see her talking to parents and advocating on behalf of education, the amazing job that she does, and how she is willing to stick her neck out and take a lot of public flak.

Whether you agree or disagree with her, she was one of the key voices that talked about Africentric schools. She was one of the key voices that came out and said, "We need to do something to ensure that young black children do not drop out of school." She put her neck on the line during that time, and I know it was a difficult time for her and for others in the school board who advocated for that move. Again, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, it showed the kind of leadership she was willing to give and that she gives. I can see this bill trying to muzzle that kind of leadership.

I can see that the roles and responsibilities that duly elected caring people took on is perhaps a thing of the past.

I look over into the next ward at a relatively new member of the Toronto school board, Cathy Dandy, and I've known her for some years. She came here to the Legislature many, many times on education bills to speak in committee and to voice the concern of parents and educators and people who were worried about what was happening to the school system in Toronto. I have followed with some interest what she has said as a new school trustee for the last two and a half years or so and the amazing job she is doing at the Toronto school board.

We cannot forget Irene Atkinson. There is a woman who has spent her entire life advocating for parents and children in the school board. Is she to be silenced too? I know what this is all about—and I ought not to forget my colleague and friend from the Catholic school board, Angela Kennedy. She has a very difficult job, and it has been made impossible because that board has been taken over by the education ministry, and it does not appear likely that in the entire term it will be allowed to meet again. It's a very difficult job that she has.

She is a caring person who believes very strongly in Catholic education and has done her utmost in order to try to deliver that kind of education for the children in the east end of the city of Toronto, and I think throughout the entire area of Toronto. She has twice put her name forward to run as an MPP and, although not successful, she did run credible campaigns. She was for the Conservatives. I don't want you to think I'm speaking about New Democrats, totally and alone.

She is a voice that should be listened to, but unfortunately she is not being listened to, nor are any of the Catholic school board trustees at this time.

Here we have a circumstance where the school boards in the province of Ontario are increasingly becoming irrelevant, not because they don't want to do a good job, not because they don't have good people who are doing the job, not because these people fail to listen to the parents or the students or to act in the best needs of the community, but because this government—as did the previous government—sees ways of cutting down the influence of the school boards so that the entire decision-making process now takes place here at Queen's Park.

And we've seen boards across the province taken over because they have refused to kowtow—which is a good Chinese word—to the government. They refuse to bend down, they refuse to back up and back off, and we're seeing this. We're seeing what is happening to school boards which once had the power to tax. They no longer have the power to tax. That has all been taken away in the last number of years. The boards across Ontario once had the power to set curriculum; they no longer have that power. They once had the power to set testing, to make sure that teachers, principals and superintendents were doing a good job.

That power has all been taken away and now rests with Queen's Park. They had the power of the community to make changes in terms of the structure of the boards. And all of that does not happen. The only thing they're going to be left with is the power to shut down schools. They're going to have the authority to shut down schools in order to make their budgets match. That's a power I don't think they want. That's a power that the government gladly should be taking over.

But the government, though, is very smart, because they know that if they came in and shut down the school, they would be answerable to the electors, the parents and the angry citizens of whatever locale in which the school was shut down. So they're leaving that power with the school board. The poor school board trustees are going to have to take all of the flack. And we know what's happening with declining enrolment. We know what's happening with EQAO. We know what's happening with the inability of the schools to manage the funds, because the funding formula is so badly broken.

We know that this minister came to power and talked about the broken funding formula. I remember this minister when she was a school board trustee. I remember the firebrand that she was in those days. I remember her standing up to a broken funding formula and arguing with huge passion about how that funding formula needed to be reversed and how it had to be made to work for the students, and then I watched this minister leaving the funding formula in place, a funding formula that is strangling the school boards—and now legislation which will make them largely redundant.

Mr. Dave Levac: No changes, Mike?

Mr. Michael Prue: No changes.

Mr. Dave Levac: Oh, come on.

Mr. Michael Prue: My friend over there thinks there's been some great changes to the funding formula. I would invite him, if he thinks there are great changes to the funding formula and as a former principal, to stand up and speak to the issue, because I haven't heard any Liberals speak to this issue in days.

Mr. Dave Levac: We're just listening—

Mr. Michael Prue: Okay, they're just listening. If they have something to say, I think they should stand up and say it, because it is disappointing to me to have only opposition members stand up and speak to this bill today.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Be factual.

Mr. Michael Prue: Be factual? I am being factual. I'm being absolutely factual, and if the government has any other facts I invite them to stand up and speak, because this Legislature is supposed to be a forum for debate, and the debate cannot be one-sided and the debate ought not to be one-sided. I will gladly be persuaded. To quote Socrates, I would gladly be persuaded by you, sir, but not against my better judgment and certainly not in the absence of anything that you have to say, because you're not saying anything at all. You can taunt as best you want.

The member can taunt as best he wants, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing attention to the fact that I should be speaking to you, but in the absence of him having the guts to stand up and actually say something on his own, then I think what he is taunting largely remains irrelevant.

We know what is happening in Ontario and what is likely to happen in the months and years ahead. The first thing is the whole concept and the whole reality of declining enrolment. Closing schools offers a tempting, unimaginative, short-term approach to declining enrolment which will provide immediate, limited cost savings and nothing more. I think that's what the government is looking at here: the ability to muzzle those who have stood up in the past against the closing of schools—the trustees—to try to muzzle them and put them in line as best they can.

A trustee who opposes the closing of a school will now, after the decision is made to close it, have to shut up and support the board. That's what the bill says.

I have to agree with my colleague from Welland: This is a very strange thing to ask of a democratically elected body. I cannot stand up and support every government bill. I do support some from time to time because I think they're right. When I think they are wrong, I oppose them. Even when they pass in this House, I do tell people why I did not vote for it, why I think it's wrong and why I think it needs to be changed.

I wonder whether trustees are going to be allowed to do this anymore. I would welcome any member across there to stand up and assuage my fears, assuage them as to whether the bill doesn't do that, because it says it does. It says it does.

I question all of the schools that are potentially going to be shut down. I know that enrolment is declining in Toronto. It's declining not as much in the GTA, but it's declining in small-town Ontario and it's declining in northern Ontario. There is perhaps an overabundant use of space for schools in many communities. But we have to question what is going to happen to those schools, because this is all cyclical. Depending on birth rates, depending on immigration, depending on the flow of jobs from one area to another, families are forced to move, and the schools have to be available.

They have to be available sometimes on fairly short notice and sometimes for longer periods of time to look. I'm questioning whether or not these schools should be shut down. I'm questioning whether or not the trustees may be empowered to find imaginative uses, whether they be daycare centres, whether they be homes for the aged or whether some of them may be allowed to be parkland or be used for community use. There is a whole bunch of things that trustees could and should be involved in, and I'm not sure that their role will allow that any more.

Mr. Dave Levac: Did you read my report?

Mr. Michael Prue: Perhaps the member from Brant over there, if he wishes to speak—I would invite you. You can use some of my time if you want it. I don't know, Mr. Speaker. All I get is catcalls over there from a man who hasn't got the bravery to stand up and speak himself.

Laughter.

Mr. Michael Prue: There it is. But he knows how to laugh. Okay.

We are concerned that the report of the governance review—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Brant, come to order.

Mr. Michael Prue: The report of the governance review committee on Bill 177 does not fully acknowledge the duties of trustees as elected representatives. I think, first and foremost, that's what has to happen. The bill has to acknowledge that they are duly elected, they have constituencies, they have the right to speak out on behalf of those constituents, and they have the right to make the decisions that are necessary. The report makes them sound like they are ministry employees. Quite frankly, I think that is the attempt that is being made here: to muzzle them and to treat them like ministry employees.

Like so many bureaucrats, they are told what to do, what to think and what to say. In the end, they are told that they have to support whatever decision is being made.

But I have to question, do they not have, and should they not have in the future, a duty to the parents who elected them? That's what the parents expect. They expect that when something is going wrong at the school, they can pick up the phone, call the trustee and have a resolution to their grievance.

Certainly, every year around the first of September, I get many phone calls in my office asking what they can do to move a child from one school to another because of the areas and the artificial lines that are drawn to say students in this catchment area can go to this school, and children outside that catchment area must go to another school, save and except if there is room in the original school that the parents want. I get a lot of calls about that. I refer them to the trustees because, in fact, that has been and is their job: to consult with the parents and to do the right thing.

I'm wondering whether or not that is going to continue in the future and whether they're going to have that authority to set those lines and to deviate from those lines. I have to question, do the trustees have a right to represent the communities which elected them in the face of inadequate government funding? Will trustees have the right to stand up in public fora and talk about the funding formula? Will they have a right to talk about the inadequacy of the funds they have for the programs that they need to meet? Or are they simply going to be told by the ministry what they have to cut, where they have to cut and how they have to cut it?

I'm very worried about that. I think the members opposite should be worried about that, too, because if that is the eventual intent, then the government should just stand up and tell the people of Ontario that there is no longer a role for trustees. There is no longer a role for democratically elected people to manage the school boards, be they public, Catholic, French public or French Catholic boards. We need to hear that because to do this by subterfuge, I would suggest, is not correct.

The trustees need and welcome guidance in fiscal matters, but they are not part of a master-servant relationship. I would be the first to acknowledge the egregious actions of certain members of the Toronto Catholic District School Board and the funding and the expenditures that they made which were improper. They were improper, and they have been duly chastised. That board has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. Even though the members want to hold meetings and discuss with parents some of the aspects of Catholic education in Toronto, they are forbidden by the supervisor to do so.

They have, for all intents and purposes, become irrelevant, and there is no movement by this government or by this minister to reinstate powers to those trustees. I understand the chastising was necessary, and I understand that a certain period of time had to take place for the supervisor to get it in order, but it appears now unlikely that that board will meet again until after the next election—if, in fact, the elections are allowed to proceed at all.

I think that any legislation must leave the boards free to ask questions for the voters who elected them, in all cases, exactly the same voters who elect us. They're exactly the same. I do acknowledge that 45% or so vote in provincial elections, and only 30% or 35% or so vote in municipal and school board elections, but they are, by and large, exactly the same voters. The voters have to be, and in all likelihood are, perplexed why this government and this bill are changing the relationship that they have had for 140 years with elected school boards across the province of Ontario.

I am asking the government to think long and hard about what they are doing. If you truly believe in democracy at the school board level, then let it exist. If you truly believe that it ought not to exist, do not hide away by simply limiting the powers as it shrivels, but come out and tell the people and run on that issue in the next election.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR ST. PAUL'S

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Electoral Officer and laid upon the table a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of St. Paul's.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): I received a letter addressed as follows:

"Mrs. Deborah Deller

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104

"Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2

"Dear Mrs. Deller:

"A writ of election dated the 19th day of August 2009 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Lynn Morrow, returning officer for the electoral district of St. Paul's, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of St. Paul's in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Michael Bryant who, since his election as a representative of the said electoral district of St. Paul's, has resigned his seat. This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in St.

Paul's on the 17th day of September 2009, Eric Hoskins has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated the 25th day of September 2009, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"Greg Essensa

"Chief Electoral Officer

"Toronto, September 28, 2009."

Mr. Hoskins was escorted into the chamber by Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Duguid.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Eric Hoskins, member-elect for the electoral district of St. Paul's, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Let the honourable member take his seat.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Kormos: Frank Klees and I want to welcome a visitor to this chamber: Greg Sorbara, the member from Vaughan.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to introduce some constituents from my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham: Sue Sherban, the former mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and Miranda Hussey. Also, in the public galleries, a number of grade 10 students from St. Augustine Catholic High School in Markham.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to welcome today Shirley Connor, the mother of our page Connor, who is here to witness her son at proceedings today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introductions?

I would like to just remind all the honourable guests who are joining us today that we welcome your observance of the proceedings, but ask that you not participate in any way.

And to the honourable member from Vaughan: That was not out of order because he didn't make reference to somebody being absent.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for Premier: Why did the Premier pick Minister Takhar to serve as his integrity czar by making him responsible for the Public Sector Expenses Review Act?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I look forward to more specifics in the supplementaries, but I can say I have every confidence in Minister Takhar to not only duly and responsibly carry out his responsibilities as minister, but also to, every single day, together with every member of our government, do everything we can to uphold the interests of taxpayers. Ontarians work hard for their money and we have a special responsibility, those of us who are privileged to serve them in government, to respect their tax dollars, to use them wisely and prudently.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again to the Premier. I will be more specific: Minister Takhar is the only minister in Ontario's history to be found in breach of the Members' Integrity Act by the Integrity Commissioner. The Premier could have chosen from 25 other cabinet ministers who didn't have their integrity censured by the Integrity Commissioner. So why, Premier, did you pick a minister whose integrity has been found to be lacking to be responsible for this important process?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Integrity Commissioner did make some findings with respect to Minister Takhar in the past. That is a matter that has been dealt with, and anything that flowed from that that needed to be done was done. I have every confidence in Minister Takhar and in his capacity to carry out his responsibilities.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Dealt with, but far from satisfactorily. At the end of the summer of scandal, the Premier lost confidence in his ministers to oversee the conduct of agencies in their portfolios. At a hastily arranged press conference, he said, "You must lead by example," before dumping accountability for expenses onto the Integrity Commissioner.

Integrity czar Takhar has certainly set an example. Is Minister Takhar truly the best minister you could have found for this position, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, this was a matter that was addressed by the Integrity Commissioner. There were, as I recall—I'm reaching back now—some specific recommendations made by the Integrity Commissioner. Those have been put in place; they've been adopted and they're certainly being followed by Minister Takhar. I think that was the right thing to do in the circumstances on everybody's part and I continue to have complete confidence in Minister Takhar.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier as well. A troubling pattern is developing. The opposition files a freedom-of-information request, and you obstruct it, and then you try to manipulate the information in order to perform pre-emptive damage control.

On June 9, the Progressive Conservative caucus submitted an FOI on untendered contracts between eHealth and IBM. We were promised an answer within 30 days. It has now been 113 days; we're being told we have to wait 30 more. Premier, who are you trying to protect?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would argue that on our watch we've come a long way when it comes to enhancing transparency and increasing accountability, and I'll just list a few examples of that. One of the first things that we did was to increase the ambit of the freedom-of-information legislation to bring back in OPG and Hydro One, companies that had been excluded by the Conservative government. We then provided new authority to the auditor to take a look at, for the first time, universities, schools and hospitals.

We then gave new authority to the auditor—in fact, a mandate—to review government expenditures before we go into an election so there are no surprise deficits that come out on the other side of an election. Beyond that, we've also taken additional steps, and I'll be pleased to speak to those in the supplementaries.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Management decisions at eHealth weren't as arm's length as the Premier would have us believe. Today there are media reports confirming that not only did eHealth hand out a $30-million untendered contract to IBM, but that this contract was also approved by the cabinet ministers serving on Management Board of Cabinet.

Premier, were Dwight Duncan, Gerry Phillips, George Smitherman, Michael Chan, Monique Smith, Ted McMeekin and Harinder Takhar at the table when this $30-million untendered contract was approved?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are maybe three things I'd like to say in this regard. Number one, I think we owe the auditor the courtesy of allowing him to complete his work. We invited him to do that. I think we owe him the courtesy to give him the time to complete it and present it to the people of Ontario all at once. So I won't speculate on what's in or outside of a report when we haven't seen it yet.

Secondly, I think it's important that we recollect now that we put in place a new rule. There was an old rule that was in place under the Conservative government, the NDP government and a previous Liberal government, and we've changed that now. We've changed that to prohibit the letting of untendered contracts. We are now saying there has to be a competitive bidding process. We think that's appropriate, we think that's in keeping with taxpayer expectations, and that's why we took that step and changed a process that had been in place for decades.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Maybe this explains why the Premier is protecting his Minister of Health, Mr. Caplan. Maybe it's because almost half his cabinet is implicated in the rot at eHealth.

In the past, the Premier told us, "The buck stops with me." That's his quote. Certainly, major cabinet decisions do stop with him.

Premier, this IBM contract was considered at your cabinet committee table before your ministers approved it. Premier, did you know about the untendered IBM contract before it was approved?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think the appropriate thing to do is to wait for the auditor's report.

The step that we took—and I gather I have the support of my honourable colleague in this regard—is to change a practice that had been in place under the Conservative government and the NDP government, which prohibits the letting of untendered contracts now to consultants. As I said, that had been a practice that had been in place for decades. We think it's no longer in keeping with modern-day taxpayer expectations, so we have changed that, and we now require that there be a competitive bidding process. We think that's a step in the right direction.

If there are more steps that we need to take that flow from the auditor's report, then we look forward to receiving those recommendations and we will take those steps.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty Liberals said that they were cleaning up the previous government's eHealth mess. A new story today, however, based on leaked information from the upcoming Auditor General's report, says that, in fact, that is untrue. It turns out that the McGuinty Liberals helped flush a startling $1 billion down the drain on two electronic health system programs with very little to show for it.

How can Ontarians possibly believe the Premier's promise to fix eHealth when those very promises were made while a billion precious health care dollars were being squandered?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can only offer the same response to my honourable colleague the leader of the NDP that I offered to the representative from the official opposition, which is that I think we owe it to the auditor to give him the chance to complete his work and to present that to the people of Ontario all at once.

I want to remind my honourable colleague that it was our government that invited the auditor to take a look at eHealth. We placed no limits whatsoever; there was no circumscription of the mandate that we gave to the auditor. We said, "Take a look at whatever you want. We assure you of our wholehearted co-operation. Please come forward with your findings, be as candid as possible, and come up with recommendations. We look forward to receiving those." That's where we find ourselves at this point in time. I know there's impatience on the part of many, including ourselves, to have that report produced.

When it's produced, it will be given to all of us at the same time, and we will respond accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: One billion dollars lost into the abyss of mismanagement, and Ontario still doesn't have an eHealth system. Meanwhile, 1,200 nursing positions have been axed, local emergency wards have closed, children's aid society budgets are being slashed, and the Premier says even more cuts are on the way.

Why should Ontarians believe the Premier's pledge to fix eHealth when he has wasted millions upon millions of health care dollars while cutting services for people?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Actually, we've made some pretty dramatic new investments in health care, and we've seen some pretty dramatic positive results as a result of those investments, whether you're talking about the reduction of health care wait times, whether you're talking about the thousands of new nurses who are on the job or whether you're talking about getting access to doctors. Eight hundred thousand more Ontarians now have a family doctor or are associated with family health care. We have 14 new MRI machines, increased medical school spaces and the like. There have been dramatic new levels of investment in health care and dramatically new and better levels of service for Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The health minister stood up in this House in the spring and lectured the Conservative health critic, saying "I'll take no such lectures from the member, given such a sorry track record as we've seen in the past. Our record on electronic health in fact is to correct her errors." The McGuinty Liberals didn't correct her errors; they just picked up where the previous government left off: wasting precious health care dollars. The McGuinty Liberals inherited a mess, there's no doubt about it. They scrapped an old agency and replaced it with one that only made things worse.

Why should Ontarians believe the Premier's claim that he'll make things better when his record so clearly suggests otherwise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would ask Ontarians to take some of the following into consideration as they pass judgment, as they have every right to do every day, on their government. We encountered some problems at eHealth. We have acted on those. We have put in place new measures, including, for the first time in decades, bringing an end to a practice which allowed for the letting of untendered contracts; there now must be a competitive bidding process.

It was our government that invited the auditor to take a look at eHealth to tell us specifically what he thinks is worthy of being brought to light and to put forward recommendations so we can build on the changes we have put in place. That's what I would ask Ontarians to take into consideration as they consider the effectiveness of the activities of their government.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question, again, is to the Premier. The Minister of Health was quite proud of himself last spring. On April 2 he said, "It was the actions of myself and this government which have eliminated or quashed Smart Systems for Health and formed eHealth Ontario.... That's why I came along, along with my predecessor, to be able to re-form this agency, eHealth Ontario." Nothing more than empty words, it turns out. Given how miserably the minister has failed, why does the Premier keep him around?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think if you take a look at what has happened to health care in Ontario during the course of the past six years, and the combined efforts and the cumulative impact of those efforts for Ontarians, the efforts made by Minister Smitherman and Minister Caplan, I would argue that they have been the two most successful ministers of health who have worked together, hand in hand, to improve the quality of health care for Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A senior health bureaucrat involved in both Smart Systems and eHealth is quoted in the news report questioning the McGuinty Liberals' underlying argument that eHealth was brought in to replace Smart Systems. She said that they were completely different programs, with separate roles. The Premier said he brought in eHealth to replace Smart Systems. My question is simple: Who is telling the truth?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There has been an effort, and it's been an effort that has been engaged in by our government and the previous government as well. It's based on a pretty profound understanding that we've got to find a way to move toward electronic health records in the province of Ontario. We also understand that getting there is not easy. It takes time. There are costs associated with that. We have made some significant progress, but we're not satisfied with the progress that we have made to date and we're going to keep moving forward.

I know that Ontarians have seen changes when it comes to their health care wait times. They can see changes in the new hospitals that we are building, they can see changes in the number of doctors they now have access to, and they also know that they continue to have a healthy appetite for more progress when it comes to electronic health records. We will not rest until we have a good system in place, a good, affordable and effective system for Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While the Premier pats his health ministers on the back, the people of this province who desperately want health investment look at his government and see a big, ugly mess. The minister said he'd fix the Smart Systems disaster; instead, he made it worse. The minister said he had a plan but bureaucrats contradict him. Is anyone on that side of the House actually responsible for anything at any time, or does the Premier think his job is simply to lurch from crisis to crisis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's not possible. I always appreciate these creative interventions. They are nothing if not invigorating. I know that my honourable colleague and the opposition generally have brought a great deal of attention to bear on the matter of eHealth, and I would argue that is in part their responsibility. But we will continue to do more than just do right by Ontarians and their eHealth system. We are also going to continue to work hard to get wait times down.

We not only have done that when it comes to cancer surgeries, angiographies, angioplasties, hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts and pediatric surgeries, but we are now moving forward, when it comes to wait times, in our emergency rooms. That's not the kind of thing the opposition is interested in, but I can tell you our families are—

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

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. Through Bill 201, the Premier appointed a minister who has been found in breach of the integrity act as the new integrity czar, and this just after we learned that no fewer than six of his own cabinet ministers, including the current Minister of Health, had a hand in untendered contracts at eHealth. If the pattern of accountability that we've already seen continues it will be bureaucrats, not ministers, whose heads will roll when his Liberal government fails, and that's not good enough.

A minister has to be held accountable for his or her actions and that's their responsibility to Ontario's taxpayers. Will the Premier lead by example and fire minister Caplan and any other minister who fails to take their responsibility seriously?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Reference has been made to Minister Takhar. I didn't have the necessary paperwork at hand at the time. That's just the way it works in question period and I understand that; and I took advantage of that when I was on that side of the House. But I do have some paper here now.

I think it's important to remind Ontarians about the Integrity Commissioner's findings at the time because Minister Takhar's reputation has been brought into question by the opposition. Here are the findings, the last page of the report: "I have to recognize that the minister did not go about intentionally trying to short-circuit the system. I accept his statement that had he realized that his arm's-length relationship ... was compromised, he would have taken steps through this office to straighten things up.... I think it would be unfair to sanction the minister beyond issuing a reprimand...."

I think it's important to set the record straight and I think it's incumbent upon my honourable colleagues to do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I have some facts of my own: $25,000 for a speech is unacceptable, and the waste and mismanagement at eHealth and OLG are unacceptable. In the case of Minister Caplan, he ought to be held accountable. The fact that Minister Takhar is your integrity czar and Minister Caplan is still in charge at eHealth—you are making a mockery out of every single promise you have ever made about accountability to the people of this province.

Premier, will you fire Minister Caplan and make ministerial accountability something that we can say is worth something again?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague about some of the steps that we have taken to improve the quality of government. These are steps that were taken beyond those ever put in place by previous governments. As I've said a number of times already today, we have banned sole-source contracts for consultants in Ontario through our government. We've introduced a bill in this Legislature that will have the Integrity Commissioner review the expenses of our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions.

We've put in place mandatory training when it comes to the matter of expense claims for people who work in the government in our agencies. We're also going to mandate for the very first time—I think we're the first province to do this—the posting online of expenses for the senior OPS, for the biggest agencies, boards and commissions, and for cabinet. I think that is progress.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The McGuinty government is refusing to help thousands of Hamilton homeowners whose basements were severely damaged during an extremely intense rainstorm in July. The city of Hamilton estimated that homeowners are facing uninsured damages totalling $20 million to $40 million.

The Ontario disaster relief program is designed precisely for this: to help residents pay for uninsured damages arising from catastrophic events. It has helped residents in dozens of communities across Ontario. Will this minister explain to the people of Hamilton and the homeowners why they are being left out of this program?

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me begin by thanking the officials in the city of Hamilton for the work they have done and for neighbour helping neighbour. I know this is a very difficult time for the residents who had their basements flooded, and we've seen that in other jurisdictions across the province of Ontario.

ODRAP, the Ontario disaster relief assistance program, which has been in effect for many, many years, has a formula that we have to follow. It requires us to look at the ability of the particular municipality to pay and help with a particular natural disaster. In the case of Hamilton, the financial information returns that the city is in good financial health with its own-purpose taxation of $636 million in 2008. Therefore, regrettably, the program would not apply to the city of Hamilton, and that was why we were in contact with Mayor Eisenberger just a short time ago, to let him know that.

Mr. Paul Miller: I don't know what city he's talking about; it sure isn't mine.

The minister is quoted in today's Hamilton Spectator as saying that the uninsured claims are not of a sufficient magnitude to warrant support. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars here. We're talking about families who are struggling to meet mortgage payments and can't even put food on the table. Twenty per cent of the people in my riding are living below the poverty level. There is no other program that these people can turn to. Why is this minister intent on hanging Hamilton's flooding victims out to dry?

Hon. Jim Watson: It's regrettable the honourable member is using that language. We're doing nothing of the sort. This government has been a good friend of the city and the people of Hamilton since we had the honour of forming government in 2003.

Let me just tell you some of the funds that have flowed to Hamilton as a result of this government's investment: the Investing in Ontario Act, $48 million; the MIII program, $14 million; infrastructure stimulus funds for things like sewers and water pipes, $61 million; and roads and bridges since 2003, $136 million. The city also received significant grant funding in the amount of $53 million in unconditional grants that the city is able to use on sewers, preventive measures and the like.

Our caucus members from Hamilton—Hamilton Mountain and the Minister of Consumer Services—are always there to stand up for Hamilton. We have delivered for that city and will continue to do so.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Eric Hoskins: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, in my riding of St. Paul's I've had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of renters who are concerned about the cost of living. With rising gas prices and a challenging economic outlook, they want to know that they will be protected.

According to the most recent Statistics Canada data, nearly half of households in the city of Toronto are renters, many of whom live and work in St. Paul's. My constituents are working hard and playing by the rules. They want their government to be working hard for them.

Minister, under the previous government, the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal was known as an eviction machine that had no concern for tenants. I know this government passed the Residential Tenancies Act in 2006, but rents are still going up. Would the minister tell us how the Residential Tenancies Act has helped tenants? In addition, will the new HST coming into effect next July apply to rents?

Hon. Jim Watson: It's a real honour to receive the inaugural question from the honourable member. I congratulate him and welcome him to this Legislature. I know he's going to have a long and very productive future in Ontario politics.

The new Residential Tenancies Act offers fair and balanced protection between the rights of tenants and landlords. It's been in effect for over two years and I'm pleased to report that there is no backlog of cases. Every tenant facing an eviction now is afforded the benefit of a hearing, which is something new. Landlords can evict problem tenants with more ease, and tenants in buildings with serious maintenance problems may apply for a freeze on rent increases. Also, municipalities such as the city of Toronto do have the power to licence landlords.

I also want to note that the HST will not apply to rent. Despite misinformation that we heard in the member's by-election, the HST will not apply to rent. We're proud of the—

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

Mr. Eric Hoskins: These changes will no doubt benefit renters in my riding, but the reality is that the majority of tenants and landlords never have to go to the Landlord and Tenant Board. Most tenants pay their rent and most landlords take care of their properties.

My concern is that rent continues to go up. I've been talking with young families and students who live on tight budgets. They rely on predictable expenses from year to year so that they can maintain their standard of living. With the price of gas and home heating fuels on the rise, my constituents are paying more attention than ever to their bottom line. The NDP wants to cap rent for two years to ensure that rent remains affordable.

I want to know what the Residential Tenancies Act does to ensure rent does not skyrocket. Is a rent cap the best way to ensure affordable rents?

Hon. Jim Watson: Clearly a rent cap would have a negative impact on the supply of rental properties. Individuals who want to build rental properties would be discouraged to do so.

We have brought a much more balanced approach, which so far has kept rent increases low and vacancy rates healthy. The annual rent increase is now tied to the consumer price index. It's fair, it's transparent, and the 2010 guideline of 2.1% protects tenants from rent increases above the rate of inflation while allowing landlords to recover increasing costs.

Let's take a look at the record and go back in history: under the NDP, when they were in office, a 27% increase in rents; under the Conservatives, 23.9%; under the McGuinty Liberal government, 14.4%.

We will continue to take a balanced, practical approach to landlord and tenant relations. I know we have a great new defender of tenants in the honourable member from St. Paul's, and we welcome him to this House.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Despite the efforts of the Minister of Finance, we have finally learned that the Windsor Energy Centre has cost Ontario taxpayers $80 million. We have yet to hear why this power plant was needed or a reason why the lottery corporation is in the electricity business in the first place. The coffers of the province of Ontario are not for the private use of government ministers. The Minister of Finance must stop hiding behind lawsuits and explain why he approved this ridiculous use of taxpayer dollars.

Minister, why exactly is it necessary for the OLG to own a power plant and why are taxpayers on the hook for it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think the member asks some very valid questions, and we have put in place a new board. We have put in an acting CEO to look at this matter, among others. I do think those are very legitimate questions. We will continue to pursue this. As I've indicated to the member opposite, those are very good questions. They're precisely the kinds of questions that we are looking at at the moment.

I remind the member, with respect to the lawsuit that's outstanding, that there's a further dispute with respect to ownership. That makes it difficult to respond, but, indeed, these are among the questions that we have asked and at the appropriate time we'll be able to respond.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Not for the first time we find ourselves disappointed with the minister's answers. We now know that the power plant was essential to the casino expansion, and no one had figured out that that was the case until well into the construction of the casino. That's right: These geniuses didn't know that the Windsor grid couldn't handle the casino.

Minister, you're a former Minister of Energy, you are the current Minister of Finance and you are the local MPP. It's your mess. Please tell the House how many millions of taxpayer dollars you had sunk into your brand-spanking-new, over-budget, half-billion-dollar casino before you figured out you lacked the electricity to turn on the lights?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, that investment, which is helping tourism and employing 2,000 people in Windsor today—the community with the highest unemployment rate in the country—was in fact an appropriate investment and the right investment at the time. The Windsor Energy Centre that the member has referenced was in fact a separate project, as he's looked at the public accounts. He's right—it is unacceptable that a budget item of that magnitude goes from $40 million to $80 million.

We have taken steps to address that in the context of the lawsuit that the operator has filed against the former board and the former chair. We will continue to take appropriate steps in that context, but I want to stress that this—

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

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, today in the audience are representatives of 2 Secord Avenue. You will remember that apartment building—an explosion where the tenants were forced out of their homes for months. Today they are here because their landlord and the sub-metering companies are taking action against them, and the government is turning a blind eye while some landlords, including this one, are trying to offload the cost of hydro on these vulnerable tenants.

The Ontario Energy Board has issued a strong indictment on this government's inaction, ruling the spread of sub-metering was unlawful, required some basic protecttion for tenants and asked that the government act. Since the two ministers responsible for tenant protection and electricity have failed to do their job, will the Premier commit today to take action to protect tenants?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, I want to say to the honourable member, to the tenants here and to tenants generally, that with respect to sub-metering, if the Ontario Energy Board has been involved in anything, it's a recognition that this government seeks to ensure that tenants are well-protected even as we support the implementation of sub-metering. We think it's a good policy, but that it needs to be done in a fashion that is very conscious of the necessity of protecting tenants.

What I would like to tell the honourable member is that, through the auspices of your office, I would be very much interested in sitting down with these tenants and trying to work through the issues particular to 2 Secord and to get any assistance from the honourable member, generally, on the matter related to sub-metering of multi-unit residential.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the minister for that commitment. The truth of the matter, though, is that the inaction of this government to date has lined the pockets of landlords at the expense of tenants. Tenants such as those at 2 Secord and hundreds and thousands of others are out thousands of dollars paying for inefficient appliances, electric heat and poorly insulated buildings. Saving the landlords money and forcing tenants to pay huge bills is not my idea of an energy conservation plan.

If this government really wants to stand up for tenants, you shouldn't be making them fight for their money back in the courts or the Landlord and Tenant Board. Stand up for them now and tell them that they're going to get their money back.

What will this government do to ensure that landlords who profited by this illegal scheme pay back every nickel they took from the tenants?

Hon. George Smitherman: I've already told the honourable member that I'd be happy to sit with him and a group from this particular building that he speaks of. His broad characterizations of sub-metering miss the mark substantially, on two points, essentially. Firstly, the number of units that have moved forward with respect to sub-metering is a very, very small number of units. Of those, the majority had sign-off by tenants. So the member's characterization is somewhat off the mark, but with respect to Secord, I would be very, very happy to sit with the member and a representative group of the tenants and see what we might be able to do to work through this important matter.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I'm sharing this question with the member from Willowdale. The question is to the Minister of Transportation. In 2006, I introduced a private member's bill that looked at distracted driving and novice drivers. I was pleased to see the minister introduce legislation that has taken this concept one step further, addressing hand-held electronic devices for all Ontario drivers. The Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act passed with all-party support earlier this spring.

Since then, my office has received a lot of correspondence on the issue. My constituents are pleased to see us moving in this direction, but a number still have questions. When will the law come into place? How will it be enforced? What exactly will be allowed? I've seen a lot of media outlets reporting on it as well. I'm hoping the minister today will be able to share with this House what his announcement meant for drivers across this province.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That's a very good question. The member for Oakville is correct. Today we announced that Ontario's ban on use of cellphones and other hand-held devices while driving will take place on October 26—next month. This is about keeping our roads safe. Drivers need to focus on the task at hand: Keep your eyes on the road, hands on the wheel—it reminds me of a song.

What we will see prohibited while driving includes the use of hand-held cellphones, BlackBerrys, text messaging and e-mailing. What will still be allowed includes hands-free wireless devices such as an earpiece or a Bluetooth device. There will be a warning period for three months, until February 1, 2010, at which point tickets will begin to be handed out.

The member for Oakville along with the member from Durham have been advocates on this issue, and the work they did in the private member's bills helped to contribute to this legislation which is a product of this entire—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: I applaud the minister for Bill 118 and its commitment to safe driving in Ontario. Minister, some of the correspondence that I've received from my constituents includes several questions surrounding the compliance with and enforcement of this legislation. I would like to raise a concern on behalf of my constituents about how the ban will be enforced. Minister, as I understand it, there were extensive consultations with various law enforcement agencies, and all of those agencies are on board in support of the legislation.

But I also understand that demerit points will not be applied to convictions under this bill and for these offences. Minister, without the application of demerit points for this offence, can you tell this House how the new law will be enforced? Secondly, Minister, can you share with us how the—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to tell the member, first of all, that we're not leading in this case. We're following Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Similar legislation in Manitoba is expected to be proclaimed soon, and legislation is expected in Saskatchewan this fall.

Drivers who text, type, e-mail, dial or chat using a hand-held device will face a fine of up to $500 upon conviction. It's important to remember that anyone who chooses to put others at risk by driving while distracted can also be charged with careless driving or dangerous driving, both of which carry severe fines and could lead to jail time and demerit point penalties.

I want to say this bill is a product of the work of all members of this House, both in committee and the House, and I would like to lead in the applause of all those members—

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, the public accounts were released last week, as you're aware, and the accounts reveal that in 2009 your ministry spent a total of $864,000 in hotel and conference expenses. That's an increase of 45% in one year.

Minister, in view of the scandals at eHealth and OLG, Ontario has every right to be concerned over just how far your government is going in misspending government money.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Our government understands the importance of using hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. Let me just say that my ministry is responsible for all bargaining that happens in this province, and out of this, roughly half a million dollars is used to support labour negotiations and several public sector bargaining agents. It is a common practice to use neutral locations to conduct labour negotiations and for the employer to pay for the facilities. That was the major part of the expenses that the member is referring to.

It is important that we hold these negotiations, and we have signed almost all labour agreements last year, which is about eight or nine of them. Those negotiations have been done outside in a neutral place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: Minister, that doesn't explain a 45% increase. We all know that the government already has meeting rooms and conference space available free of charge, paid for by the taxpayers.

Minister, this House knows that the McGuinty government is expecting a deficit of $18.5 billion in this fiscal year. This follows a shortfall which now stands at $6.4 billion for 2008-09. In fact, every hour, your government is spending $2.1 million more than it receives in revenue. With your government's proposed increase in the provincial goods and services tax, citizens expect to pay much more and they're not happy.

Minister, to ensure you are being accountable, as you propose you are, to the taxpayers, I would ask you to provide a detailed explanation of how much your ministry spent on hotels and conference space in this past fiscal year and make that available to members of the Legislature.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I'm sure the member knows that, first of all, we make every attempt to use government facilities. In general, we only use hotels when the government facilities are not available or when we are doing bargaining and need to use a neutral place. We have actually decreased these expenses over the last several years, and we make every attempt to make sure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively. We use these facilities only when they are absolutely necessary to conduct government business.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. My constituent Maryna Bunda is on day 55 of her protest here at Queen's Park over the McGuinty government's denial of autism therapy to her 6-year-old son, Sebastian, who was diagnosed with severe autism when he was two years old. Sebastian was on a two-year waiting list but eventually received some ABA therapy, and he was making good progress. Now the government is terminating Sebastian's therapy and forcing him into a school setting for which he is completely unprepared.

Will the minister commit to reviewing this callous decision and making sure, in the meanwhile, that Sebastian gets the ABA that he needs?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm sure you understand I cannot speak to this specific case, other than to say I have spoken with the mother who has been outside the Legislature. What I can tell you, though, is that when it comes to autism and services for kids with autism, we are moving ahead with providing better supports for kids with autism in schools. The Minister of Education and I are working very closely together to really support families as they make what is clearly a difficult transition from IBI therapy into the school system. This is the direction that we're committed to going in.

I will refer the supplementary to the Minister of Education, because she and I are very much working on this important initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Across the province, families like Maryna's are languishing and frustrated over the government's autism crisis. The number of children with autism is growing in this province. The waiting period for autism therapy has doubled from two years to four years. When the therapy is denied, children like Sebastian are being denied an opportunity to reach their full potential. Both of these ministers know that very clearly.

Will the minister order an independent review of Sebastian's case to ensure that his ABA therapy in fact continues?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that I'm not going to comment on a specific student's needs. But what I do want to say is to reinforce what the Minister of Children and Youth Services said. It is extremely important for our two ministries to be working together because the reality is that parents want their children to be in school, in a social setting, with the services that they need. That's why we've put $24 million into training. We've trained more than 13,000 educators in applied behaviour analysis because we know that in the school setting we have to have adults who understand how to meet the needs of kids.

This fall, there are 16 boards out of the 72 that have a program in place called Connections. It's a coordination of services so that students who are in need of service when they come into the school system have people in the school system who are working with folks in the community who have been delivering therapy to—

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

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. There's no doubt our economy is transitioning toward jobs that emphasize analytical skills and innovative thinking. These are the sort of skills you develop when kids stay in school, when people reach higher through apprenticeships and co-op training right through to post-secondary education. We know that this new knowledge leads to new products, new companies and new jobs. Governments must continue to invest strategically in high-growth industries where Ontario companies can compete and win.

Investing today in the jobs of the future is what will create and keep high-paying, highly skilled jobs here in Ontario and accelerate our economic recovery.

Can the minister tell us how the Ministry of Research and Innovation is going to move our province forward and accelerate our economic recovery?

Hon. John Milloy: The member raises a very good point. As we go through this economic turmoil, we have to have an eye on the future and how we're going to be dealing with new technologies, approaches and innovations, and ensuring that they create the jobs of tomorrow.

I'd like to share with members of the Legislature one example from the member's hometown. Through the Ontario investment accelerator fund, we invested $500,000 in a company called C2C Link in Hamilton. C2C Link has developed the only cost-effective way to create optical crystal chips that can efficiently convert laser light from one colour to another. Two hundred and forty three million TVs are expected to ship worldwide in 2011. C2C's chips will become the driving engine for a new generation of laser-based displays that are expected to dominate the display industry, just one example—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: In my community, researchers at McMaster University and Mohawk College are leading the way with some exciting new discoveries. For instance, Dr. Duncan O'Dell is using quantum mechanics to revolutionize computing and communication technologies.

Research in Hamilton is also helping to save lives. Dr. Sarah Elizabeth Dickson's research will provide government regulators with better science to guide water protection legislation. This will ultimately protect the public health of Ontarians who rely on groundwater for their drinking supply.

All of this exciting work and more is happening in Hamilton, and while it is great news for my community, it's also great news for Ontario. Harnessing the research at our universities develops businesses and creates jobs.

Minister, can you tell us how your ministry is helping to turn ideas and knowledge into jobs?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question, and she's right: There's a lot of outstanding work and research going on in Hamilton that I've had a chance to witness first-hand.

When it comes to the Ministry of Research and Innovation, our goal is to first of all develop the research, develop the talented people and see them transform into companies and then encourage the growth of those companies.

If I can share with members just one other company, Sentinelle Medical, MRI invested $200,000 in the company through the 2008 Premier's Catalyst Award and another $1,000 in August of 2009. Sentinelle has developed the world's first MRI coil specifically designed to image women who have had a mastectomy. Starting with four employees, Sentinelle now has 110 employees, and over 100 of North America's leading breast cancer and imaging centres actively use Sentinelle's technology. Good—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I'd just ask the honourable member from Welland to please take his seat.

New question.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Attorney General, and again it pertains to the Marshall family situation.

Your apparent insistence that the crown acted correctly when they withdrew the charge of criminal harassment against the young man who was caught masturbating while looking in the neighbour's window is not acceptable—not to the Marshall family and not to the people of Ontario.

You have said "I understand" the Marshall family situation but, with respect, your response indicates that you don't understand. The Marshall family feels abandoned by you, by the ministry and by the justice system. But, Attorney General, you do have a way to truly help this family. Will you relay this charge to ensure that the Marshall family receives the protection of our justice system that all Ontarians deserve?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I do appreciate the question, and we're all very concerned about the safety and security of any family, and the Marshall family in particular.

I indicated before, and I do repeat, that the crown is very sorry for the fact that they were not contacted before the matter was concluded. He did review it extensively. He did review the elements of the charge that had been laid and what could be proven.

Now, we want to make sure—we all do—that the Marshall family has the protection that they deserve and need, and I know the police will be working with the family and with others to make sure that happens.

As my friend would know and should know, I have no power to relay a charge that has already been dealt with in court.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Why does the Attorney General continue to defend the indefensible? There are options available to this Attorney General, and working with the police is simply not necessary. This is a matter of significant public interest, not to mention the grief and hardship it's causing to this family.

I would respectfully suggest that the Attorney General does have an option to relay the charge in this situation. Again I'm asking you, on behalf of the Marshall family, will you commit to working with this family and relaying this charge so that justice can be done?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: If I heard the phrase "Don't work with the police"—that's just not an option. In fact, the safety and security—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to be able to hear the answer, and when members are interjecting, it makes it difficult to hear the answer and sometimes for ministers to hear what is being said. Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We're all concerned about the safety and security of—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Cambridge, please come to order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: —very concerned about the safety and security of the family. The police are very concerned. They are on the ground. I encourage the family to work with the police.

The member is not correct. Once the charge has been disposed of in court, I do not have the power to relay it.

Interjections.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I do not have the power to relay it. Thank you.

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Yesterday my leader, Andrea Horwath, asked you a question in regard to the situation in Smooth Rock Falls. As you know, they raised $55 million, ready to go for an investment to get a new plant in that community. What was lacking was a directive by the ministry in order to give a wood allocation to that project so they can go forward.

You said in the House yesterday, and I quote from Hansard, "Timber allocation was not an issue, from my understanding, as we worked with them, as we moved forward. Smooth Rock Falls, in fact, determined that they themselves would withdraw from the project."

Mayor Kevin Somer is so upset, he has driven down from Smooth Rock Falls. He's in the galleries. He calls that a falsehood. Are you prepared to recant what you said yesterday and give them that allocation?

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Withdrawn.

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the member. As I indicated, in fact we had been working with the Smooth Rock Falls folks, along with the mayor and council members. We met with them. Tembec has had some negotiations with them.

We were very clear: If they would put a proposal in front of us, wood allocation would not be a problem. We have not had that proposal in front of us.

Members from the Ministry of Natural Resources were attending the meeting. The regional director indicated at the same time that if there was a proposal put in front of the ministry, then wood allocation would not be a problem.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The question then becomes, why is it not done? The mayor tells me, Robert Manseau tells me, the CDC tells me, Rick Isaacson tells me, everybody who is involved has been saying they put a proposal before you, they've been asking for wood allocation, they're ready to go. Now, because you have not given the allocation, and made it very clear that you would not do so at that meeting in Sault Ste. Marie, the investors have walked away and taken the money off the table. So who tells the truth, you or the community?

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, please clarify who—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I did withdraw. I withdraw again.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: If we have a proposal in front of us—I now know that this goes to Minister Gravelle. We'd be more than pleased to work with Smooth Rock Falls if there was a proposal in front of us. The regional manager for the northeast has indicated this, and we're more than pleased to do that.

I realize and understand that there were negotiations that were going on between Smooth Rock Falls and Tembec, and that rests between those two jurisdictions. But when it comes to the issue around a proposal being placed in front of us—now it would go to Minister Gravelle—we'd be more than pleased to review that proposal and look at those wood allocations.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Climate change is a huge issue facing both Ontarians and the world as a whole. Many people suspect that global warming causes extreme weather conditions.

In Ontario we had one of the wettest summers on record; in British Columbia they had one of the driest. This led to the worst forest fire season ever in that province's history.

I understand that the MNR contributes to efforts to combat those raging fires. Minister, can you state exactly what resources the MNR provided for our friends and neighbours in the great province of British Columbia?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm more than pleased to speak to how we were able to be of support to the government in British Columbia.

We're very fortunate to have, without a doubt, the finest fire crews in North America. Working with the BC crews that were fighting along with other jurisdictions from as far away as New Zealand, some thousand personnel from Ontario from our aviation and forest fire management were sent to work with the BC government to help them deal with their very extraordinary year of forest fires. This year, we had very few forest fires due to the very wet conditions, but what we were able to do was to take our expertise and share it.

We have received recommendations and commendations for the work that our folks have been doing in British Columbia. On behalf of everyone in this House, I'd like to say thank you to each and every one of them who took time out of their lives to go and help someone else in need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Minister, thank you very much for that detailed response. We certainly welcome your leadership and the leadership of MNR employees. We have one of their offices in Peterborough and many of them are friends of mine.

I'm proud to hear that Ontario steps up whenever Canadians are in need. Many communities in British Columbia's interior are extremely remote. Sometimes it's called cowboy country; the area is populated by ranches that are separated by thousands of kilometres but still need other provinces to help them when they have extreme problems.

How did the fire crews manage to keep BC residents safe in spite of the challenges that the remoteness of the location posed, and how did your MNR staff respond, in great detail?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Many of the MNR fire crews and support staff were actually deployed to the Lava Canyon. This is a 66,000-hectare fire.

It's an interesting area. There is no cell coverage, so the MNR folks actually drove from home to home to work with those communities in terms of the fire attention. Several communities were kept on evacuation alert and many of them were informed by regular community meetings.

It's an example of how our firefighters worked with the BC firefighters in a remote region to help them in this very difficult time. Those in the BC forest fire support effort made a tremendous impact. That's part of working together. When we're in need, they come and work with us; when they're in need, we go and work with them. It's a tribute to the firefighters in the Ministry of Natural Resources and the work they're prepared to do to help anyone who is in need.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Premier. Contraband cigarettes are killing small businesses and threatening the livelihood of thousands of convenience store owners. These contraband cigarettes, which are being smuggled throughout Canada in record numbers, now represent one out of every three cigarettes purchased.

How does this fit in with your overall plan for economic growth and jobs in Ontario? You say you are concerned, but why won't you take action on illegal tobacco?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It's a very important question. It's a very timely question. Listen, the federal government and the RCMP will tell you that 90% of illegal cigarettes are contraband cigarettes that come from across the border. So, as the member suggested in her question, it is very important that we come together, the different police services, to ensure that we are very aggressive at not only finding that contraband but prosecuting that contraband. That has to be done on an ongoing basis. But I have to tell you: I await the federal government's plan with regard to contraband tobacco.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion 138 on allocation of time on Bill 201,

An Act to provide for the review of expenses in the public sector.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 50; the nays are 23.

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

Motion agreed to.

APOLOGY

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It appears I caused some offence to some people when I displayed my friendship with the member for Hamilton Mountain, who comes from the same community I come from, whose parents I know well and whom I've known as a friend for many, many years. I gave her a friendly embrace. I want to say that I cause no offence to anybody. I have embraced Liberals; I've embraced New Democrats; I've embraced Conservatives. In fact, one of the last Conservatives I embrace