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

October 6, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 October 2009 Mardi 6 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SALARY DISCLOSURE

AGENCY SPENDING

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

JOB CREATION

MANUFACTURING AND FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

AIR-RAIL LINK

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PENSION REFORM

MCVEAN FARM

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

ESSEX COUNTY

STROKE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION

GENERATING STATION

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

VIETNAM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE JOUR DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SANTÉ MENTALE

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

BLACK HISTORY MONTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE MOIS

DE L'HISTOIRE DES NOIRS

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

DENTAL CARE

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

SALE OF DOMESTIC

WINES AND BEERS

TAXATION

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mr. Takhar moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector / Projet de loi 201, Loi prévoyant l'examen des dépenses dans le secteur public.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: The Public Sector Expenses Review Act, 2009, which our government would like to enshrine in law as soon as possible, if the bill is passed in the Legislature, would empower the Integrity Commissioner of the Legislature to review the expense claims of senior officials at 22 of Ontario's largest public agencies, boards and commissions.

The new legislation, which builds upon the record of transparency of this government, would require senior officials in these 22 public agencies to abide by the same level of accountability that cabinet ministers and political staff currently must follow under the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expenses Review and Accountability Act. If the Integrity Commissioner determines that all or part of an expense is not proper, senior officials in these 22 agencies would be required to pay back that improper expense. In special cases, the Integrity Commissioner could also recommend other remedial actions if she determines that it is warranted.

This government has moved on Bill 201 quickly, and it would apply to expenses that were incurred on or after September 1 of this year. Because this government believes in transparency and has taken many steps in law to improve the public's ability to look into the workings of government in Ontario, an annual report would be prepared by the Integrity Commissioner as part of the new legislation. That report would be made public.

This government has taken steps earlier to make the workings of government in this province more open and understandable to the public. In 2007, this government moved to require that all Ontario governments report on the province's finances before elections are held. So everybody–all the parties or anybody who is in the government—is expected to make the finances public before the elections are held.

From 2004 to 2006, Ontario's freedom-of-information laws were amended to include a requirement that Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and the province's public universities and public utilities are subject to FOI requests. This government passed the Audit Statute Law Amendment Act in 2004, which broadens the powers of the Auditor General to review public sector organizations. The Auditor General has a very important role to play as an auditor of government actions and policies, and his report strongly influences what measures the government takes to improve its functions.

The government is well aware that Ontario is facing many new economic challenges these days and that every tax dollar counts and should be spent and used wisely. I would like to point out that my background is in finance and that I had the privilege to work with large private and public corporations as chief financial officer and a senior executive. Based on my experience, I can tell you that it's a good business practice that anytime you find there's room to improve internal controls, you take action and improve the internal controls and their effectiveness.

We are proposing wide-ranging improvements in employee education about expenses and accountability with Bill 201. This government has always required its public servants, whether they are elected, hired or appointed, to act responsibly with the public money that is entrusted to them. New requirements will clarify the rules and help all public servants to better adhere to the rules. Expenses for senior management in the Ontario public service, cabinet ministers, political staff and senior executives at Ontario's 22 largest agencies will be posted on a website. Ontarians will be able to draw their own conclusions about these expenses.

Also, the number of random audits of expense claims that are currently conducted will be increased. The external and internal auditors who examine the books of Ontario's agencies, boards and commissions will be required to also determine whether or not good controls are in place at these agencies, boards and commissions. In addition, to further education in this important area, the government will develop online training for all Ontario public service employees and staff at the 22 agencies to show them how to file expense claims properly. This training will be mandatory.

The Integrity Commissioner has graciously and enthusiastically taken up the new duties that are explained in Bill 201. I had the chance to meet with the Integrity Commissioner, and I can tell you that she feels that she is fully equipped—might need a few more resources but is very willing and able to take on these duties. The Integrity Commissioner would review and approve expenses for senior executives at each of the government's 22 identified largest agencies. As I said, this may increase the workload of the Integrity Commissioner, but she has indicated that her office is up to the task.

The Integrity Commissioner's office has been reviewing the expenses of cabinet ministers, opposition leaders and political staff since 2001, so they are well versed. They know how to deal with these expenses.

I would like to take a moment to point out that the majority of Ontarians who are employed in the public service act responsibly with regard to their own work-related expenses, and the Ontario public service is highly regarded and has won awards for excellence. But there's always room for improvement, and this act is actually a step in that direction.

The steps outlined in Bill 201 will help the agencies that act for the Ontario government to improve their control over expenses and increase the transparency of their operations.

The steps the government is taking are designed to uncover any inappropriate expenses so that Ontarians will know who exactly is spending and what exactly they are spending on. The steps that we are taking will make it easier for anyone to know what the rules are for claiming expenses. It will also be harder for anyone to break these rules. Each person who works for the taxpayers of Ontario must take responsibility for knowing the rules and also must take responsibility for following the rules. This government will continue to take responsibility for improving and enforcing its rules and regulations.

But we will also strive to increase our enforcement of internal controls as well. These are proven methods employed by large business organizations to improve their internal controls and their effectiveness.

I am very excited about this bill, and I encourage everyone on all sides to move ahead quickly with this bill so that we can enforce the rules and regulations.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: Just picking up on the last words that the minister in charge of this bill says—let's move along quickly—I'm wondering what the rush is? Is this some sort of deal where they're trying to sweep this out of the headlines? That's clearly what's happened here, because first they time-allocated this legislation. Why? What does that mean to the people of Ontario? Time allocation is really an anti-democratic move where they cease and halt and suppress debate on a bill that's really supposed to bring openness and accountability to the scandal. It's the summer of the scandal.

It was all about the egregious spending of public money. We've heard every day for the last two weeks of hundreds of millions of dollars literally being spent on the signature of the Premier of the province, without any oversight to any extent—$30 million dollars to IBM yesterday seems to have been the question—and we're looking forward to the auditor's report.

That's what this is about. It's about the transparency that the McGuinty government promised during the election—accountable, transparent, open, blah, blah, and all that stuff. It's everything but that. What they're doing here is moving anyone who's spending money on wine and booze and high-priced consultants—they're going to sweep that over to the Integrity Commissioner's office, and the poor Integrity Commissioner has six people. It's going to be reviewing the expense accounts of all of these senior executives.

And I read this morning that the Deputy Minister of Health is $500,000 dollars, and you can't find his salary in the public salary disclosure thing until you find it in a labyrinth of caves and turns and twists into Hamilton Health Sciences. The reason it's there is because he has a better pension—it's just scandalous, Madam Speaker. I'm sure you feel as passionate as I do about it.

I'm even more concerned. A very good friend of mine, the member from Thornhill—last Thursday, when Bill 201 was forced into committee to rapidly make a couple of amendments, we in sincerity tried to support it. We submitted several amendments. Between our caucus and our leader, Mr. Hudak, we reviewed this bill with the intent of trying to improve it in the long run, outside of this treachery and rushing it into committee and then rushing it back here this morning. And as he said in his last remarks, the minister, the person who is responsible for this—well, he's not really responsible.

Really, in fairness to him, the Premier is responsible. The buck stops with the Premier if there are misdoings here—and the

article in the paper this morning let the Premier off again. What's going on here in this province? Nobody is holding anyone accountable anymore.

You know, it's tragic. Look at this. There are a couple articles this morning that would just blow you away, and this one here says, "McGuinty Maintains Teflon Image." That's exactly what the people of Ontario should be afraid of. Hold him accountable. It's not the politics; it's the accountability. This is public money. There is a recession on. There are 330,000 families who don't have a paycheque coming into their homes. They're going to raise the taxes on the HST. Start paying attention or you're going to get the government you deserve.

This bill is only one part of that treachery of moving all of this accountability into third party oversight. The Integrity Commissioner has about six employees to audit all these financial misdoings. I don't really know where to start. We moved a number of amendments, well intended, on Bill 201. What did they do? This was strictly a charade. They voted every single one of them down. What are they? I'm going to put a few of them on the record so we see that we weren't playing games. We were trying to make this bill at least palatable and better.

The member from Thornhill, on behalf of our leader, Tim Hudak, moved them. One of the amendments here was to list within the body of the legislation the agencies, 22 of them—in fact, 22 that the Premier himself had said he was going to specifically focus on. They wouldn't accept it. They voted down those amendments.

Why wouldn't they have at least acquiesced and given us one piece of ownership in that bill? No, they slammed the door on every single amendment. I think it was purely arrogance, because they were well-intended amendments. There was nothing spiteful or malicious at all about them.

The following one is another one.

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector—we're for accountability in the public sector. Each one of us is here at the will of the people of Ontario, regardless of the party. The opposition has the right to be heard. We are being shut out. In the media we're being shut out, in fairness.

This one here, this is the part about if they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar; it could be the wine jar or the alcohol jar—misspending. Here's what it says:

"If the amount is not repaid or remedial action that the commissioner considers appropriate not taken on or before the specified date, the commissioner,

"(

a) shall advise the minister responsible for the public entity in question and the Premier of Ontario"—what's wrong with that? Just let the Premier in on it; as if he didn't know anyway.

"(

c) may advise such persons as the commissioner considers appropriate in the circumstances."

It was just to bring openness and disclosure, and that was voted down.

There's just no forgiveness on our side on this bill, and we will be seriously voting against it. They brought it in, they sloughed it off to a junior minister when it's a top priority; then they time-allocated it, rushed it through committee and voted down every possible amendment. Now, this morning, almost before most people are up, this bill is going to be history.

Are the people of Ontario paying attention? You're being hoodwinked. This isn't about politics; this is about accountability. It simply isn't here.

Even this morning they're trying to get this done, I think—if I may, tomorrow, we're anticipating the Auditor General's report. Some of it's been leaked. How can it be leaked? I trust the Auditor General. I think the Premier has this thing, and I think he has it under wraps. They're going to get this thing through today, jam it through, slam it down. Then the auditor's report will be released tomorrow, and they'll see even more red ink rolling down the staircases here at Queen's Park.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Yes, and the bill only starts in September.

Mr. John O'Toole: Exactly. Again, there's another amendment there. We tried to make this openness and transparency accountable for the whole fiscal year, because we know now that Sarah Kramer and others—Ms. McDougald from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.—got charged, and some of them were fired for oversight. Maybe they didn't spend the money on alcohol and various things like that, public money on alcohol and misspending on high-priced consultants who did nothing. They were friends of friends of friends, mostly friends, by the way, of the current government. It's just in the papers. I'm not making this up.

But it's almost like, what's his name? Brown's books. What's the name of that book? There's a new one out now.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Dan Brown.

Mr. John O'Toole: Dan Brown's books, you have to follow them, this treacherous little—Hansel and Gretel following the beads in the forest.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Angels and Demons.

Mr. John O'Toole: Angels and Demons, whatever.

My point is this: Let's not trivialize this for a moment. All I'm saying is it's like solving a mystery. Why are we trying to solve a mystery? Those persons should be called right here into the Legislature, but we can't call them. We can call the Premier.

All of the answers are "We can't deal with it; it's before the courts. We can't do this. We can't do that." What can you do? The province is sliding down the hill like a toboggan in a snowstorm, as fast as a car can travel, downhill. The economy is going south. Of course, the people, the families, the individuals, the young people of this province are going to be paying for this debt that's being accumulated. It's $200 billion, I think—isn't it?—the provincial debt, the accumulated debt and the interest on that. The pages here today should be paying attention. That debt—do you know what that is? That's future taxes on you.

You have to ask yourself, "Are the senior citizens being well taken care of in this province?" No. Long-term care—serious problems in my riding. They're changing the case mix index in long-term care so that they are cutting out nurses. They're cutting out front-line personal support workers to vulnerable families. I have hundreds of e-mails and letters in my office from my riding in Durham. Our hospitals don't have enough money. We're short about $10 million in our hospital, and they passed Bill 8 years ago, which forces hospitals to balance the budget. How do they balance the budget? They lay off nurses.

They can look back to six and seven years ago. That's fine. Do it. They're spending $2.1 million an hour more than they're taking in as revenue, and that's debt against the young people in this province. That's future taxes. I'm telling you that this thing is out of control.

I remember back in 1994, when I was chair of budget in the municipality of Clarington in Durham region, I met with Floyd Laughren and Ed Philip. They had a program that was called the expenditure reduction plan. That was to encourage municipalities to reduce their spending by 10% to 15%, which meant they should—for municipalities, all government services, their budget is payroll. Basically, 85% of their budget is payroll. That means they had to lay people off. Well, no municipality would agree with it. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, disagreed with it.

Eventually, AMO got together and had a meeting with Ed Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and Floyd Laughren. At that time, it was Bob Rae. He's a Liberal now—he's going downhill, too. But the only thing there is that they disagreed.

So what happened? The government brought in the social contract. Some of you may have heard about that. When they brought in the social contract, what they really did is they opened up every public sector contract and took out 10 days' pay. Bingo. They just took it right out—10 days' pay. Say, $200—that's $2,000, roughly, from each person, or more. That's how they balanced their budget. But it was called the social contract, and it cost them the government.

I put to you today, if you're keeping an eye on this, if the economy does not recover, and I hope it does—and certainly what they're doing with the harmonized tax is they're increasing taxes. The health tax, WSIB is going up, employment insurance, payroll taxes are going up and red tape is going up. They're crippling the economy, and they're going to find out now—they started out with a $6-billion deficit, and now I understand it's $18 billion. By the time they get done—as I said, they're spending $2 million an hour more than they're taking in in revenue.

On what I don't know—on lunches for all these people in this bill. Yet hospitals are short of money. Schools are having problems—not just the pools in Toronto, but just regular schools in rural Ontario. School bus operators are having problems getting the kids to school safely. Long-term care is having a problem. These are the early signs of a catastrophe that's going to occur. We've got to remember to point directly at the one person you can get to: Premier McGuinty. Your time is coming to an end.

Let's decide. It's actually two years from today when the next provincial election is—two years from today, October 6, 2011. The people of Ontario—this is not threatening. You should hold every single member—your member in your riding—accountable. Phone them and ask whatever questions you have, and they owe you at least an explanation. We try that every day here to hold the cabinet accountable. They all hide behind the Premier, and where is he? He's not to be heard from. They don't answer the questions, and I am just shocked. Then, if I want to get down into the reality here, the real nuts and bolts of Bill 201—I want to just look at a couple of expenditures here.

First, and the most egregious one, was—this speech, by the way, my staff and myself prepared it, okay? It cost something, of course—the time. I'm passionate. I'm just trying to be straightforward and honest. I'm speaking mainly to the Speaker and to the pages here.

One of these organizations under the McGuinty government spent $25,000 for a speech. I've never seen it or heard it. In fact, that person was fired. They didn't get what they paid for; $25,000, that's unbelievable.

Mr. Paul Miller: That's a good speech.

Mr. John O'Toole: That is a high-priced speech, but that doesn't make it good. That's like buying a pair of shoes that are too big for you. They may look good, but they don't fit you. That's the same with the speech.

It was a failed concept. The government was trying to hoodwink—this speech, I understand, was delivered to kind of legitimize her role. Where did she come from? Was she a doctor? Did she have a PhD? We have doctors here who aren't even practising medicine. There are capable people here; I'm not disparaging people. But I'm saying she's not a doctor. As far as I'm concerned, she worked for Cancer Care Ontario. The person who hired her was the head of Cancer Care Ontario, Dr. Hudson, and quite honestly, a highly regarded individual at that time. I think he just got on a bit of a breakaway.

He thought Sarah Kramer worked for him, and he put her in charge of eHealth. The next thing you know, he had to legitimize her presence, so they wrote this spectacular speech, hand-picked every single word and crafted it in such a way that she would appear to be quite legitimate in this role as the head honcho making $400,000 a year. Imagine that, $400,000 a year.

Paying people the appropriate amount of money is not—I want the appropriate person and I want the appropriate deliverables. What are the deliverables? It's like if you pay Mats Sundin $10 million a year, I want a goal in every hockey game. What did Sarah Kramer do? She spent a lot of money, and we got nothing for it. In fact, a Toronto Star article, I think, summed it up. What was that article? It was outlandish. It said $1 billion for nothing. The Toronto Star is basically the briefing notes for the Liberal Party. Here it is here: "eHealth Operation Bled $1 Billion." That's what we got.

I'm reading the title from the Toronto Star, which is quite friendly to the Liberal Party, no question about that. "Auditor's report slams Ontario's bungled push for e-records and cash it threw at the problem." That's not me saying it.

I'm telling the people of Ontario, get with it. Start paying attention. Two years from today, if you repeat the errors of the past, you're bound to live with them for the future. You're learning here, not from me. Stay tuned. Pay attention. Watch question period. See what the answers—Mr. Caplan, I'm sure his mother, who used to be the Minister of Health, is ashamed of him. He should resign. Imagine. That's tragic. I'm sure she is home watching today.

Look, I remember meeting Minister Caplan one time when she was the Minister of Health, and she came out to Oshawa. I think she cut the ribbon for the expansion of the hospital in Oshawa when she was the minister. She went on to become a federal minister as well—two pensions.

My point is this: that they never built the hospital either. The hospital never got built. That was under the Peterson government. Bob Rae came in, made the same announcement, and it was Frances Lankin who was there cutting the ribbon. They never built it. I was there with Tony Clement.

I'm saying this thing about accountability and transparency, not to become individual—but I believe the buck has to stop. I think the Premier, if he really wanted to solve this and have a cleansing—let's put it that way—either one of two people have to go. George could be let go easily because he's going to run for mayor—Smitherman. A clever guy, he's the most clever politician in this House; there's no question about that. But a politician needs to have integrity, and that's what is missing in this equation I'm talking about. The other one—who hasn't got near the ability of Smitherman, by the way—is Caplan. Caplan should go. He could be sacrificed, thrown under the bus.

Now, I don't mean to be malicious, but honestly, I think Bill 201 is being rammed through. What it's all about is integrity and accountability, and there's anything but integrity and accountability.

All of our amendments that attempted to improve this bill were voted down. I'm putting it on the record here today: This doesn't address the issue. The issue is systemic. We need to have some actions taken by the Premier, and this just doesn't cut it. Real integrity begins with the leader. He sets the pace and sets the examples. The

article this morning said it all: He's Teflon.

If Ontario has come to this low point under this leadership, the hope and the future are in question. Really, this bill is all about that. It's sweeping it under the carpet to the Integrity Commissioner with eight employees to audit when cabinet responsibility is what is required here. Ministerial responsibility, that's the tradition of this place, not trying to move it off to some out-of-camera-range audit oversight.

We cannot support this bill, we will not support this bill, and we should not support this bill because real accountability belongs to the Premier of this province, and he's not up to the job as far as this particular issue goes. I say to the minister, if you did the right thing yourself, you'd set the example and step aside in honour of your own integrity.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to start off by saying that my frustration begins at committee level. I remember when I first came to this House, the Premier stood up and said, "I welcome all members of this House, the opposition, the third party. We're going to work together to better Ontario and better the lives of Ontarians." Frankly, that's not true. Every suggestion, every amendment—at least in the committees I've sat on—in two years, every one from the third party and the official opposition was turned down. They steamrolled ahead like robots with their plan, their agenda.

The member from Thornhill and I sat in a committee the other day, and we brought forth really useful, constructive amendments to this bill. They were not only not dealt with, I doubt if they were even read. It's absolutely disgraceful.

Another member said, "Well, get used to it. That's the way it is." You know what? If that's the way it is, I don't want to be that way. I'd like to work together and actually accept other people's ideas. I can safely say I walk the talk. You know what it is? I have voted, since I've been here, for 22 bills that the Liberals have brought forward. They haven't done one for us—not one—probably a couple of amendments for cigarillos or something, some insignificant little matter. It's absolutely disgraceful.

We don't work together in here. Don't let the Premier kid you out there in the public. If it isn't their idea, they don't run with it. And if it is a good idea, it'll appear about a year and a half later in one of their bills, which they've taken from us. Instead of dealing with it at the time, it'll appear a year and a half later and it will be softened. It won't be in its original form, but, "Gee, that looks familiar. Where did that come from? I think we might have thought of that." I don't care who thinks of it, as long as it gets brought forward and gets done, and that's not the case in here. That's why this government, in my humble opinion, is dysfunctional.

The bill gives the Integrity Commissioner the responsibility to review expense claims at government agencies designated by the cabinet. Designated by the cabinet, that could be kind of a conflict, that kind of control. Why only the cabinet? There are 182 agencies in this province that should be under scrutiny, accountable to the people and taxpayers of this province—182, and they've picked 22 of them.

You pick 22; that sure doesn't red flag the other 160. Why couldn't they have rotating investigations? I'm not saying that the resources are there, the people and the investigators are there, to do all 182 every year or two years, but you certainly could pick them. They could be random, and the agency wouldn't know who they're going to pick ahead of time so they can prepare. You catch them with what's going on. If they're doing the right thing, there's no problem. If there are accountability problems, you're going to nail them, and they should be exposed.

The people of this province and their tax dollars deserve that treatment, not to have to dig it up or wait until they get caught with their whole arm in the cookie jar, not just their hands.

I'll take one, just one agency: the WSIB. I've sat here for two years and asked for Mahoney's resignation at least five, six times in this House for the unbelievable things that have gone on. Here's a guy working part-time, making $140,000 a year; $1,000 suits, eating in a steakhouse in Ottawa, 35 Liberal buddies. What's he done since I've been here? Nothing. Nothing. How about experience rating? How about deeming? How about all the things that are important to injured workers? Nothing.

They stand out here on University Avenue every year, the minister and all the injured workers in front of him, a couple hundred of them, looking for some kind of help, something—you know, dribbles. And they promise and say, "Oh, we're going to look into it. We're going to fix it." Well, they've been going there for 25 years. Every year, they're back with even the same requests that are just scarcely dealt with, to put it mildly.

When you look at the WSIB and some of the people—here's another example. Over the spring and summer, we heard about the gross abuse of public money by the expensing of items such as tea at Tim Hortons, $1.65, by a consultant who's being paid thousands of dollars a day; $3.99 for Choco Bites; a $30 car wash; child care expenses—he doesn't have enough money to pay for his own daycare; he's got to have us do it; a speech that cost, as they mentioned earlier, $25,000. I think Bill Clinton might get that, $25,000 or $50,000 for a speech.

The worst part about this, the alarming fact is that these consultants were being paid $3,000 a day. Do you know how many families could live in affordable housing for that money, how many children would go to school with breakfast in their tummies for that kind of money? Do you know how many grandparents raising their grandchildren would be able to provide the education, recreation and medical programs that those children desperately need for that amount of money? It's absolutely ridiculous. At the rate of $3,000 per day, it would take 20 days to reach the average annual household income in Ontario.

In 20 days, that guy made as much as—in fact, if you look at my riding, he probably made as much in 20 days as some of the people get in a whole year, because 20% of the people in my riding live below the poverty level. This guy made it in 20 days. What's going on? It's obscene. It's absolutely obscene what's going on.

Why don't they bring the work in-house? With that kind of money, you could probably hire a few full-time workers to govern these types of agencies and govern this. We've got a lot of bureaucrats now, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay one guy $3,000 a day.

You know what, the funny part about it? Nothing really changed. eHealth was a scam, the OLG is a scam, the WSIB is in confusion—and these guys are getting $3,000 a day? They should be shipped out. They're absolutely useless. This should have been corrected within months. Two years later, and they still don't have a system in Ontario for e-health scanning? Two years, and that woman got fired? So she should be fired, and there should be a lot more behind her.

I'll give you another example of the outrageous. How do you explain this outrageous spending to average Ontarians? A vice-president at OLG spent $3,713.77 on one meal. Well, that's about four months' rent for an average family in Ontario. Another OLG executive was reimbursed for the $1,000 he put towards renting a Florida condominium. He must have been stressed out. He needed a rest. Some people are lucky if they can put enough toys in front of their Christmas tree or food at Christmastime. This guy is stressed out; he needed a rest down in Florida in his condo—paid for by the taxpayers, or at least the rent put forward.

How about grandparents raising grandkids? This government gives them $251 for the first child and $188 a month for grandparents raising grandkids—$400 a month, $600 a month.

Here's another one: Three executives charged $250 for the gym fees to the crown corporation. You've got to stay in shape when you're milking the system; you've got to be sharp; you've got to be in top fitness. That $250 would pay for the recreation program for at-risk children. It's more than the full monthly income for grandchildren raised by their grandparents. That's more than they give to the grandparents raising their grandkids.

Valet parking: $30. Wow, get a grip; $30 to park my car and I'm making $3,000 a day. I can park my own car. I can wash my own car.

Here's a classic: luggage replacement—$615. The Ontario government is now acting as an insurance company for employees who lose their personal property. That's special; very special.

This just goes on and on. How about an account manager who claims $7.70 for a pen refill and $1.12 for a cloth grocery bag? This is obscene beyond words. These people are making six figures or more and he charges $1.12 for a cloth bag for groceries. Wow. At least he's being environmental; it wasn't plastic.

At eHealth, a well-paid consultant charged $5.64 for a cup of coffee and a chocolate chip cookie—you got to have a cookie with that—and charged the taxpayers. How do they have the nerve to make $3,000 a day and then charge the taxpayers for a cookie and a coffee? I can't believe these people. They should have had milk, because they're milking the system, they're milking the taxpayers and they're certainly making a sham of this place with this kind of behaviour.

Here we go with the $5 million of untendered contracts—conflicts of interest, anger over high-priced—and all the people involved in these situations are connected somehow. A consultant agency used to work with this person five years ago and all of a sudden they appear and are making six figures. A lot of them are Liberals; I don't know if all of them are, but a good chunk of them. They're all related: second cousins, uncle, nephew; it's amazing how this works.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: It's like Tennessee.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yeah.

What about this predecessor: Smart Systems? Another boondoggle that has cost Ontarians hundreds of thousands of their hard-earned tax dollars. Inside friends of McGuinty Liberals must salivate when they get a call for an ABC appointment. They know that they won't have to open their chequebook for a long time and can live off the taxpayers of this province. Before there was eHealth there was the Smart Systems for Health Agency. It went to work in 2003 with a goal of making a "secure, integrated, province-wide information infrastructure" to allow electronic communication among health care providers.

But three years into operations, Smart Systems had little to show—three years, and little to show. With any private company, you'd be fired in the first six months if you didn't show progress. Why aren't there any progress reports? Why aren't there people monitoring the situation to see what kind of results the taxpayers are getting for their money? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Privacy policies are "incomplete and not widely understood." This is an organization that is tasked with ensuring the privacy of each and every person in Ontario is protected. That's a bit of a joke.

Now this government has decided, "We're going to put the hammer down on 22 agencies that we've hand-picked." And they'll all be—I'm sure—told beforehand that the hammer is coming down before the investigations starts. It will slip out; I don't know how that happens, but it does. They'll be well-prepared. Then they want to use their own financial people in each agency to deal with the Integrity Commissioner. That's like asking a fox to guard their henhouse. So if we made mistakes we can cover it up before we go see the Integrity Commissioner—straighten it all out.

Why isn't there an independent body, an auditor, investigating it? Why are they told ahead of time? They should be told two weeks before, "Get your papers in here. We want to look at them. We want to look at the documents. We want to see where the agency is. We want to see what's going on. We want to see your consultants and how much you pay, where the money goes and what they're spending it on." Don't alert them; don't warn them before. It should cover 182 agencies, not 22 hand-picked ones, because it's very easy to make things disappear in big organizations, easier than it is in the smaller ones, as well.

Accountability: That's quite a word. The only way this will work is if every agency under this government is under the umbrella, that they know that at any given time their call could come: "You be in here next week with your papers for last year. We want to look at it." But, no, they'll just pick certain ones that they feel will be able to deal with this, because they have enough bureaucrats to handle the paperwork.

They're saying that it won't add to the Integrity Commissioner's workload? It's going to quadruple—but it should. If necessary, the Integrity Commissioner should hire people. If she hires more people, they're going to save us and the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars a year that will more than pay for the four or five people she has to hire to cover all these other new agencies that weren't covered before.

In late 2008, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals decided to scrap Smart Systems and start over this new agency. What did this disaster cost us? Will this legislation come even close to providing the answers to those costs? What kinds of nudge, nudge, wink, wink handshake payouts did those government appointees walk away with? Plenty. We probably could have hired five people full-time for some of these payouts.

Days after the creation of eHealth on September 29, 2008, Mr. McGuinty placed one of his key healthcare problem solvers, Dr. Alan Hudson, in one of the lead eHealth roles. When Dr. Hudson resigned less than a year later, he was publicly quoted as saying that he wished the agency had moved at a slower pace—slower pace—in its attempt to finish an enormous task. Slower pace. So would that have been that they were overlooking stuff, they weren't doing their job, or did he want to stretch it out so he could be there longer? I don't know.

He suggested that they look at the diabetes registry, eHealth portal and issuing prescriptions electronically. Well, we've heard that, and that hasn't been too successful. Somebody was after it for two years and didn't get it done.

And Sarah Kramer: She got let go, and she got a $114,000 bonus for being a screw-up. That's great. Her salary was $380,000 a year and she got $114,000 going out the door. "Thank you for screwing up. Here's a little bonus on the way out the door. Have a nice trip to Europe." Ten months later—was it? Kramer was shown the door on June 7 amidst the battling of the scandal and she walked away with a severance package: Oh, here we go, extra severance, another $317,000. That ought to buy her a nice house.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Not in Toronto.

Mr. Paul Miller: Sweetheart deal. That would buy a mansion down by our way. Sweetheart deal; I'd say so.

Courtyard Group: You should put a microscope on that baby, because I'm sure there's going to be more and more coming out as the months go on. Mismanagement, nepotism, favouritism, appointments, special Liberals—absolutely disgusting.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line here is that the people of Ontario deserve better, and the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that are being wasted day in and day out need to be scrutinized and accountable. The only way to do it is to include every agency. Every government ministry involved should be taken under the microscope to show the problems and the insufficiencies. I don't think this bill goes anywhere near where it should. I think it's just to placate and keep the public happy: Rush another bill through. Time-allocate it, run it through, and then hopefully they'll go away.

"We did something," they'll say. You did nothing, absolutely nothing. It's another box with a ribbon on it and with nothing in it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further debate?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his comments. I will touch on those a little later on, but I want to say to him that at the very start of his discussion he said he wants to work together. So I will really encourage him to vote in favour of this bill. That will be a good start.

The other member, from Durham, said that we really didn't take into account some of the suggestions that were put forward by the PC caucus.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You didn't even listen.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Yes. If you listened for a while, it might be a good change. This junior critic of mine from the PC Party made a suggestion that we didn't listen to him. Let me talk about some of the suggestions that they put forward and how ridiculous they are.

One of the suggestions they put forward was a motion to make 22 named agencies subject to the act. Naming public entities subject to the act in regulation is a common approach. Putting them into the act, which means if ever a name changes, then you will have to amend the act, doesn't really make any sense at all. This suggestion actually makes no sense.

Then, the second suggestion was a motion to require the government to make draft—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The time has expired.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I actually had 12 minutes, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I was just working with the clock here. Further debate?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 30, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Takhar has moved third reading of Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those against?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote is deferred until following question period this morning.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move for recess until question period.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The House is recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0952 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac: It's my pleasure to rise this morning to recognize the members of the delegation from the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, COCA, here in the Legislature as part of their first-ever Construction Day at Queen's Park. COCA is an advocacy body for Ontario's institutional, commercial, industrial and heavy civil construction industry.

With us in the east gallery is Dan Lancia, the chair of Holaco; Jim Coates, the past chair of Cobrelco; Dave Kueneman, the CLA committee chair; Robert LeChien, the executive director; Ron Johnson, a former member of this place, the deputy director and former riding member for Brant; Martha George, the executive director; Derek Smith, executive director; Harold Lindstrom, the executive director; Don Gosen, the second vice-president; Jim Lyons; Dominic Mattina; Ian Cunningham; David Zurawel; and Sue Ramsay.

They're all part of the delegation to talk to us today about their needs. Welcome, and thank you for being here with us.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome His Holiness Swami Ramdevji Maharaj to the Legislature today. His Holiness has raised awareness worldwide about the importance of balanced and healthy living based on yoga and Ayurvedic principles. His program is watched all over the world.

I also would like to take the opportunity to introduce other guests as well: Mr. Rai Sahi, Mrs. Sudershan Sahi, Gagan Bhalla, Anil Bhasin, Bhagwan Gambhir, Sarwan Poddar, Raj Pahuja, Sanjeev Sethi, Gary Singh and Mohinder Singh. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House a group of grade 10 students from George Harvey Collegiate Institute in my riding of York South—Weston. They are here for a tour with their teachers, so welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Dave Levac: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity. From the riding of Brant, our page Elizabeth—Beth—is here with some guests: her mom, Susan Stulen; and the French exchange student that I referenced previously, Joseph, in the public gallery. We welcome them and welcome especially our French exchange student, Joseph.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Guelph and page Kaitlin Wagner, we'd like to welcome her mother, Johanna Wagner, to Queen's Park today.

We have with us in the Speaker's gallery David Warner, former member from Scarborough—Ellesmere in the 30th, 31st, 33rd and 35th Parliaments, and the Speaker from the 35th Parliament, from 1990 to 1995—welcome back, Mr. Speaker—along with his daughter, Barbara Warner, and their guests visiting from Sydney, Australia: Tristan and Alexis Conn. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Seated as well in the Speaker's gallery, from my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I'd like to welcome a former summer student in my constituency office, Kirk Perrin, and his friend Kyle MacDonald. Welcome to Queen's Park.

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table the 2008-09 annual report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Deputy Premier: Ontario families are struggling to get ahead because they can't find good jobs. Premier McGuinty has not created any of the 146,000 jobs he said he would in budget 2009. In fact, 74,000 people have lost full-time jobs across Ontario since he made that promise. But this hasn't stopped the Premier from making new promises, this time of 50,000 so-called green jobs. To the minister: Can you guarantee that all 50,000 so-called green jobs will be permanent, full-time, private sector jobs?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank my honourable friend for the question and I want to correct one thing he has said and then do my best to answer his question. The 146,000-job figure that was in our government's budget was directly related to the investments that we're making in infrastructure. All across the landscape is evidence of some of the largest levels of investment in infrastructure ever seen in the history of the province of Ontario, providing necessary investment in communities and very helpful job opportunities for people alongside that.

With respect to green energy, I think there's ample evidence in communities all across the province of Ontario that green energy is coming to life and enhancing employment for individuals. I'll be happy, by way of supplementary, to talk more about where those jobs are occurring and likely to occur.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: That's far from an answer on where those jobs are going to be. Sadly, a pattern is developing when Dalton McGuinty will say just about anything. Their so-called plan for green jobs simply is incredible.

London Economics International, a global economics strategy firm that specializes in energy and infrastructure, took a look at your numbers. They say, "Claims of potential job gains in excess of 50,000 are unsubstantiated; for comparison, the entire motor vehicle ... industry employed 38,000 people in Ontario in 2008."

To the minister: Why is Premier McGuinty making even more job promises that he knows he will not keep?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, I think it would have been far more appropriate for the honourable member to acknowledge that the company that he quotes is usually the paid contractor to the PC caucus; I don't know about in this case, but certainly in very recent history on the issue of green energy. I think it's important that you should acknowledge when you hire a consultant to write a report that you're using your caucus resources to do that.

Secondly, with respect to the kind of jobs that are created, I urge the honourable member to take a look at a company called WindTronics. They've recently established in Essex county as a manufacturer of what is referred to as a turbine in a box. It's going to be a very popular product. They're employing 172 people. They weren't employing these people a month or two ago. This is a very tangible example of the emerging green economy in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty is promising 50,000 theoretical, so-called green jobs, but theoretical jobs don't pay the bills. They don't put dinner on the table. Sadly, since Dalton McGuinty came to office, Ontario families have lost 330,000 real full-time jobs, and a third of those jobs were lost in the year prior to the global financial crisis hitting the province.

It's time the McGuinty Liberals stopped using the financial crisis as a crutch. Minister, why should unemployed workers in Ontario believe your rhetoric or your dismal record?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that Ontarians looking in at this question period in its early moments will want to know why it is that the Leader of the Opposition, with one full minute of opportunity, did not rebut in any way my suggestion that the report he was quoting earlier in question period was in fact a report commissioned and paid for by his caucus. It was a consulting firm. Why was he silent on that point? Why did he refuse to acknowledge that WindTronics is now employing 172 people in Essex county, which, until a few weeks ago, it was not?

A further example of the tangible opportunities related to green energy is to be found in the investments that we're making in additional transmission capacity in the province of Ontario that will employ many people in its development and will allow opportunities for more investment in green energy, creating even more opportunities in installation and manufacturing.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: What is clear is that Ontario families may not be getting jobs but the Liberal family sure is.

Back to the minister: Freedom-of-information requests have revealed that on the same day, Liberal-connected Anzen Consulting submitted two separate bids for an eHealth contract. Anzen's bids were identical in every way except that one was for $3.1 million and the other was for $738,000.

Minister, why is it that even when contracts are put to tender, the process is fixed to benefit Liberal friends?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member, first and foremost, it was passing strange that he used the word "family" in the question. Why didn't he stand in his place when he was a member of the government and protest that Gord Haugh was offered a contract at more than $300,000 a year to provide consulting services in the Ministry of Health? Why, when he witnessed people—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Answer the question.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That's the most intelligent thing he's said.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I appreciate the armchair Speakers. Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: Why, when we saw the high-ranking political staffers of that government being distributed to high-paying jobs in government agencies, was he silent? Where was his voice on those days, we wonder.

We look forward to the opportunities that the auditor's report will provide to do better moving forward. We have abandoned long-standing practices associated with sole-sourcing that had been in practice across governments here in the province of Ontario—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess it's no surprise that a minister who is closely connected with Liberal-friendly Courtyard Group and Liberal-friendly Anzen group would not even try to answer my question. Without any response from the minister, it certainly appears that Liberal-friendly Anzen got an inside tip. What happened? They lowered their bid and then the Liberal-friendly firm got the job. One would certainly expect that during an honest and competitive bidding process, a firm entering two simultaneous bids would be instantly disqualified.

To the minister: Why do you have special rules for Liberal friends and another set for everybody else?

Hon. George Smitherman: First I would say to the honourable member that it's interesting, isn't it, that for quite a while around here he has been talking about the issue of sole-sourcing of contracts. He never once acknowledged that it was the long-standing practice while their party was the government in the province of Ontario. Today, apparently, his complaint is that there were too many bidders. The honourable member is not offering consistency on this point. If he has specific questions and allegations to raise, those need to be examined.

At the heart of it, with respect to the work that the auditor has been doing, we look forward to tomorrow's presentation on that and we especially look forward to continuing to improve standards around this place. Sole-sourcing has been eliminated. That was the practice here across many decades. All parties in this Legislature who were the government used those practices. Those practices have been abandoned and if additional efforts are necessary, as the auditor may suggest, our government will undertake those with vigour.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think the minister is missing the point. It doesn't matter how many bidders there were, the Liberal-friendly firm always gets the job under Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty is also paying hand-picked senior bureaucrats eye-popping salaries through hospital budgets. Hugh MacLeod, the Premier's hand-picked climate adviser, earned over $320,000, while Ron Sapsford, the health DM, earns half a million dollars.

Steve Mahoney's $140,000 part-time job makes sense. By McGuinty Liberal standards, $140,000 is a part-time job. Salaries that high don't happen without ministerial sign-off.

To the minister: Why are Liberal-friendly consultants and hand-picked officials doing so well while Ontario families get left behind?

Hon. George Smitherman: I see a couple of former Ministers of Health in that party's government clapping at the honourable member's question. Apparently they haven't taken the time to inform him that the practices associated with the compensation for some of the senior bureaucrats at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care predate us by more than a decade. Look at Jeff Lozon as an example, who was the deputy minister under the watch of this party, and take a look at the salary disclosure associated with that.

I think it's important as well to note that some people use the word—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: This has been a practice that the New Democratic Party used when Michael Decter was the Deputy Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. It's a practice that was in play under the watch of my predecessor Ministers of Health who are in the caucus today. It reflects the sophistication of the roles associated with giving leadership to a ministry that large, where the matters at hand are so important.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Over the last several months, Ontarians have watched story after story that lays out the waste of scarce health care dollars in this province. Contracts worth millions were awarded without any bidding process at all, well-connected insiders were told how to place successful bids with a nudge-nudge and a wink-wink, and consultants billed $3,000 a day while expensing everything from Choco Bites to nightcaps, yet the McGuinty government preaches spending restraint and belt-tightening.

My question is this: Does this minister honestly believe his government has any credibility left at all?

Hon. George Smitherman: I wonder where the honourable member thinks that her credibility comes from, when some of the practices that she stands to criticize today are practices that had been in place in this government no matter which political party was involved. Why don't we see some candour on the point and recognition that we have raised the bar and eliminated the potential for sole sourcing? Yet we hear no candour from opposition parties in the acknowledgment that these policies were long-standing, that these policies were in place and that these policies were utilized when they were the government in the province of Ontario.

On the issue of some of the expenses that the honourable member focused on, it is as if she does not know that we have moved forward with legislation that dramatically enhances the transparency and accountability associated with payments by individuals and agencies. We are making progress on matters where the bar has been raised in terms of conduct, and we will continue to pursue these opportunities with vigour on behalf of the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Waits for long-term care have doubled in the past two years. Eye exams and other health services have been delisted from OHIP. Local emergency rooms are closing. People are told there is just not enough money for the health services that they need to rely on in this province. But then they see well-connected insiders being told how to bid on contracts worth more than these people will ever earn in their entire lifetimes. To an Ontarian waiting for care, how is that fair?

Hon. George Smitherman: The fact of the matter is that since our party came to office and formed government in 2003, the issue of people waiting for care has diminished in this province. It's not to pretend that there are not areas where there is need for greater improvement, but the wait times reductions, which have been proven, and the fact that something close to 800,000 additional people now have access to family care in their communities, this is tangible evidence of progress for people with respect to health care.

There are many challenges. We will continue to confront those as our population ages, but we have been a government dedicated to providing resources to expand access to daycare and to reduce wait times. We have the facts and the evidence to back up the tangible progress that has occurred on our watch.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When it comes to health care, the people of Ontario see two different worlds. They live in an Ontario of hospital cuts, delisted services and growing waits for long-term care, but every night on the news they learn about another Ontario, where well-connected insiders live in posh hotels and get three thousand precious health care dollars every day.

If this government truly believes that this is unacceptable, why has no minister been held accountable?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's as if the honourable member hasn't been a contestant in any recent election opportunities in Ontario, where the people were given the opportunity to vote in terms of how they were feeling about the way things were going.

Their rhetoric never matched their vote totals, and the member's rhetoric today does not match reality: some 1.69 million new procedures; reduced wait times: 30% for cancer, 62% for angiography, 43% for angioplasty, 52% for hip replacement; 907,000 more Ontarians have access to family care; 14 more MRIs; 1,794 more practising doctors; a 23% increase in medical school spaces, 150 family health teams, 10,000 new nurses, increased hospital funding by $3.5 billion, 100 infrastructure projects and nurse-practitioner-led clinics—all more access for people in Ontario.

SALARY DISCLOSURE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. It's not just eHealth where Ontario families are seeing precious health care dollars go to waste. Today, we learned that in an effort to get around their own rules, the salaries of some senior health bureaucrats are being paid through hospital budgets.

The Acting Premier was the Minister of Health who hired Deputy Minister Sapsford. Was the Acting Premier aware of the elaborate scheme that involved Hamilton Health Sciences paying Mr. Sapsford a half-a-million-dollar salary?

Hon. George Smitherman: The smoking gun of the honourable member's allegation of this big scheme is to be found in Ontario's salary disclosure law. The honourable member wishes to give evidence of some scheme, yet the reality is, emanating from the 1991 to 1993 period when for Michael Decter, a very accomplished individual, a similar mechanism was used. It reflects the fact that in some certain circumstances, senior officials associated with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care are associated with the health care sector and with hospitals.

But this is information that is publicly available online and accessible to people and that reflects the reality that in leadership roles in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, we need to have seasoned individuals who have the confidence of the health care sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Half a million dollars is a heck of a lot of money. It would pay for eight nurses or six physiotherapists or provide 3,000 Ontarians with primary care for a full year.

A hidden salary for a top bureaucrat or health care for Ontarians who really need it—where does this minister think the money should go?

Hon. George Smitherman: We stand accused by the leader of the party that instituted the practice in the first place of hiding said information. We are accused of hiding such information in the sunshine list. This is the accusation that they make.

We agree it is a substantial amount of money. It reflects the fact that this individual, as Deputy Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, is responsible for overseeing a sector which has about $43 billion worth of expenditures and something in the neighbourhood of 400,000 employees who look to that ministry for leadership. I think it's incredibly important that the people who give guidance and leadership to the health care sector be demonstrated leaders with this kind of capacity.

That is the circumstance associated with this model first brought to bear by that honourable member's party.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister can deflect and dance and huff and puff all he wants, but this is a scandalous abuse of health care dollars, and Ontarians are being fleeced.

The Acting Premier let it happen on his watch. How can he possibly claim the McGuinty Liberals are accountable for precious health care dollars when all of the evidence we see suggests that the government is using clever accounting schemes to hide from and skirt their own salary guidelines?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member is at it again. She's at it again. She continues to insist that in the salary disclosure law, which produces annually an event in this environment much considered and with excitement much covered, we have hidden this circumstance.

No. The information is plainly available. It reflects the fact that, in a very limited number of circumstances, those people who give leadership to the government's biggest ministry and the people's most precious area of public service, we hire good-quality people, and we compensate them on par with what their value is in the broader health care system. It is done in a transparent form at all times.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Yesterday I was asking the tourism minister about the untendered 25-year contract deal the McGuinty Liberals are handing out to the Maid of the Mist, and the minister took special efforts to clarify that the contract with the Maid of the Mist was "a lease and not a contract."

During the summer of scandal, the Premier made a rather large announcement where he said he was putting an end to untendered contracts. Does the McGuinty government have a special second set of rules for untendered leases?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Yesterday in the House I was just trying to clarify that it is in fact a lease renewal. In fact, the member opposite, outside of this House, indicated that he understood some sympathy for the company because they've been in place with the parks commission for many, many years. The Maid of the Mist has had a lease agreement with the Niagara Parks Commission for over 100 years and has been providing that service in that area for over 100 years. They have a lease that expires this year, they entered into negotiations on a lease renewal, and that was the clarification I was trying to make for the member.

I would also note that there is a part of the property that is on the American side, and that on the New York state side, the Maid of the Mist organization has entered into a lease of 40 years, which was signed in 2002 with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, that sounded like an endorsement of a breach of the Premier's edict.

Back to the minister: You also said, "No decision has been made; no proposal has been made to cabinet as of this date." But the parks commission says that it has reviewed its original decision and is recommending this untendered 25-year deal. CTV reports that another potential bidder says that he is willing to offer $100 million more than the $650 million in the untendered deal.

Why hasn't the minister complied with Premier McGuinty's edict on untendered deals and put this to a competitive bidding process?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would just remind the member in this House, as I did yesterday, that the Integrity Commissioner was asked to review the decision of the board, and found that no wrongdoing occurred in this case.

She made two recommendations, the second of which was "to instill public confidence in the board and to dispel any notion that the decision to renew the lease was one made without full information or due process, it is my recommendation that in the course of the ministry review of the lease renewal, the ministry provide the board the opportunity to review its decision with the benefit of knowing the government's expectations regarding revenue generating opportunities and sound agency governance and with full knowledge of all the expressions of interest received in relation to the boat-related tourist attraction in Niagara Falls." I would note that she footnoted that recommendation and said, "In making this recommendation I am not saying, and I do not wish to be interpreted as saying, that all expressions of interest, of any degree of sophistication must be passed on to a board or a crown"—

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

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Deputy Premier: In his annual report released today, Ontario's Environmental Commissioner says that the province's planning system is "hugely weighted" in favour of the development industry, leading to decisions which harm communities and the environment. To rebalance the playing field, the commissioner calls on this government to prevent developers from threatening citizens groups with lawsuits—SLAPP suits. SLAPP suits deter democratic participation by threatening concerned citizens with bankruptcy. Our party has put forward a private member's bill on this very issue.

Why is the government doing nothing to address this threat to public participation and our environment?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member for the question. I'd like to publicly thank the Environmental Commissioner, Mr. Miller, for the good work that he continues to do on behalf of the people of Ontario, and specifically, for his comments with respect to the provincial policy statement. As you know, and certainly the honourable member knows, the PPS sets out the ground rules for planning in the province of Ontario.

With respect to anti-SLAPP legislation, the honourable member may be aware that no other province, in fact, in this country has anti-SLAPP legislation: BC revoked their legislation; Quebec is looking into it, but has not passed legislation. We have not taken a position that there is a need for anti-SLAPP legislation because the OMB has been very judicious in awarding costs for those things that would be considered frivolous and vexatious.

We're quite confident that the OMB uses its powers and decision-making authority wisely, and we're not planning—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Greater respect would be shown for the Environmental Commissioner if in fact his recommendations were acted on.

At the Big Bay Point hearings at the OMB, lawyers from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing stood silently while Geranium Corp. sought an unprecedented $3.2 million in costs from Innisfil community members. Then it signed a secret land deal with Geranium to allow a 1,000-slip marina on the Lake Simcoe shore.

The government is clearly on the side of these developers. The minister has said, last week and now, no plans to legislate an end to these intimidating lawsuits directed at citizens. The Environmental Commissioner has spoken. He has made a clear recommendation. Are you going to be acting on it?

Hon. Jim Watson: Again, the honourable member answered his own question when he indicated on the Big Bay Point case that costs were not awarded. The OMB looked at the situation and threw out the application by the developer to award costs from those individuals who were opposed to that particular site. That is once again another example of how the system is working. There are very few occasions when the OMB does in fact award costs, and it is for those things that would be considered frivolous by the OMB or with respect to the Planning Act.

We look forward to reviewing the Environmental Commissioner's report that was tabled today, but as I said, we have no intention of bringing forward anti-SLAPP legislation because we believe the OMB is in fact in this case doing the right thing and not awarding costs to scare people off from appearing before the OMB and bringing matters before the OMB.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, over the summer the bankruptcy of the international adoption agency Imagine Adoption left hundreds of families devastated when they found out that their hopes for adoption were at risk due to financial failure at this company.

There were more than 300 families working with the agency to adopt. Many of these families are trying to recover the adoptions that were already under way.

Over the summer, two of my constituents, Alex and Meredith, contacted me with concerns that their brother and sister-in-law would no longer be able to adopt. Minister, my question to you is, what is our government doing to assist these families who were involved with Imagine Adoption before the company declared bankruptcy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for Mississauga—Brampton South. The bankruptcy of Imagine Adoption has been a very difficult situation, especially for the families involved. However, I'm very happy to report that as of last Sunday, all of the children who were matched with Canadian families and living in the transition homes in Ethiopia have arrived home. In addition, the restructuring of Imagine Adoption is well under way so that other adoptions can proceed.

This would not have been possible without the dedication, commitment and passion of many, many people. I want to say thanks to my ministry for their extraordinary and compassionate work on this file, especially Sally McGowan and her team.

The success was also possible thanks to federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Susan Taves, the trustee at BDO Dunwoody, who understood that this was not a regular bankruptcy process—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Minister. I'm pleased to hear about the measures being taken by our government to aid the families affected by the collapse of Imagine Adoption. However, the collapse of Imagine Adoption has created uncertainty for prospective adopters.

Minister, I believe that the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of Imagine Adoption are unacceptable and should never happen again. What is the government doing to ensure that Ontario families and prospective children in Africa and other sending countries are better protected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As you know, Ontario has some of the most comprehensive international adoption licensing requirements in Canada. The recent bankruptcy of Imagine Adoption, however, highlighted the need to strengthen the system. Of course, until various processes such as the police fraud investigation are complete, we cannot be certain about what would have prevented the bankruptcy of Imagine.

What we can do and we have done is listen to the families affected. That's why we're taking steps to ensure that prospective clients are better informed and better protected. Effective immediately, as part of the annual licence renewal process, we're requiring agencies to provide an audited financial statement and a report from the board of directors that outlines the agency's operations and activities to the ministry. They will also be required to make an annual report available to the public.

We know that adoption, including international adoption, is already a lengthy, uncertain and emotional process. With these changes—

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

JOB CREATION

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Deputy Premier. In budget 2009, Premier McGuinty promised 100,000 jobs for students this year. That was supposed to be in addition to the 146,000 full-time jobs he promised in the budget and the 50,000 green jobs he promised just last week. Both promises meant something to students in training and apprenticeship programs. But Stats Canada confirms that the unemployment rate for students in Ontario in fact shot up to 19.3% this summer, well above the national average. Students are leaving the province because of the McGuinty government's broken promises.

Why did the McGuinty Liberals fail students so terribly?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member is right: We did provide the funding to create 100,000 student jobs, and he voted against it. Those jobs are being created. The member is absolutely right: We have committed to creating 50,000 jobs in green energy, and that member and his party would rather keep coal-fired plants open and voted against it.

What we also said in the budget, if the member looks very carefully at the budget, he will see—I imagine they realize there has been an enormous downturn in the world economy, and our government's undertaking was to create these jobs recognizing the challenges in the economy. I regret that he and his party voted against jobs for kids, voted against green jobs, voted against jobs for Ontarians and now want to close casinos in Windsor and Niagara Falls. It is a shameful record on their part. We'll continue to invest—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I don't regret any votes that I've taken on this side of the House. On that litany of failure that he recited, I'll let the public make the decision.

Again to the Deputy Premier: It's reaching the point where budget 2009 can be found in the fiction aisle of the local libraries. The only jobs being created in Ontario today are jobs for Liberal fundraisers, friends and hand-picked officials. Ontario families and students in trades and training are struggling to make ends meet while the Liberal family is cashing in and taking its winnings to the bank. When can Ontario families expect their share of this pot?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I say the member opposite ought to be ashamed that he voted against funding for summer companies, hands-on business training and mentoring and up to $3,000 in awards to help enterprising students aged 15 to 29 start up and run their own businesses. He ought to be ashamed that he voted against another program to create 600 summer companies, a record-setting year in 2009.

There's no doubt that far too many people in Canada and around the western world are unemployed. That challenge extends to this province. We've laid out a plan: 300,000 jobs over two years in infrastructure: You, sir, voted against it. Fifty thousand jobs in green energy: You, sir, voted against it. Jobs for students: You, sir, and your party voted against it.

The time is to take action. We're taking that action, knowing that the problem is great and knowing we can't fix every problem, but that party wants to put its head in the sand and pretend there's no problem. It has voted against every form of—

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

MANUFACTURING AND FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. You know last week, Minister Cansfield, the former minister responsible for forestry, said in the House that if there was a proposal put in front of them for wood allocation from Smooth Rock Falls, wood allocation would not be a problem. Further, she said the regional director indicated at the time that if there was a proposal put in front of the ministry, wood allocation would not be a problem and denies that there has been any application put.

I'm sending over to you right now two documents, along with the business plans that have been put together by the proponents in order to get wood allocation.

My question, simply, is this: If these documents have been before the ministry for the past year, why are you not giving a wood allocation?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the member for the question. Indeed, last week I had an opportunity, with the member, to meet with Mayor Somer, and we are meeting this afternoon to have a further discussion about this issue. There has been a proposal that has been put forward; also, I think a request for expressions of interest on our staged wood supplies, as well as a request put forward under that stage one process. Certainly we want to continue to work with Mayor Somer. I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to speak with him this afternoon about the application that's done.

There's no question that there is an issue related to the challenge of wood supply, and there are other issues as well that make it challenging. But again, our staff are working with the mayor and with the community, and I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to speak with Mayor Somer this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You can rest assured that Mayor Somer and others who will be meeting with you are going to talk about their frustration, because they have put before your ministry, time after time, a demand for wood. They've put in front of you a business plan. They've been frustrated all the way through. We come here to the Legislature and my leader, Andrea Horwath, asks the question; she's told squarely by the minister, "We've never seen the application. We haven't worked with them." What is going on over there?

We have a community that has been severely affected by the closure of the only employer in town. They've done their homework. They've put in front of you the applications for fibre, they've put in front of you the financial plans, and they've also got the dollars in place in order to make this go forward. What I want from you now: Will you give a wood allocation to this community, yes or no?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you again to the member. I understand what an important issue this is for the community of Smooth Rock Falls. Unfortunately, the reality is that much of the wood supply is licensed and allocated to another company, which is also fighting to survive in Ontario, and there are some challenges related to that.

What I can tell you is that I am looking forward to having an opportunity to meet with Mayor Somer and other officials from Smooth Rock Falls this afternoon. We want to find a way to move forward. There's no question that this is a project that requires some significant work.

Again, I'm glad I had the chance to see Mayor Somer last week, and I'm looking forward to having the opportunity to speak with him and others this afternoon. We'll continue to work the best we can with our staff to find the best way forward in terms of this project.

TAXATION

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. In the north we are fortunate to have a number of important natural resource industries, including mining, forestry and various types of agriculture. Companies in these sectors, such as St. Marys Paper, Essar Steel and Flakeboard, provide good jobs to residents in my community of Sault Ste. Marie. These jobs allow them to provide for their families and contribute to our community as well as to our local economy.

While our government has made numerous investments to support primary industries in northern Ontario, including creating the forest sector prosperity fund and the mining centre of excellence, industry representatives and those who rely on these jobs to provide for their families have come to me with concerns around HST. What will HST mean for these industries in northern Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. Ontario's a jurisdiction where some 80% of what we make in this province we export outside of this province, and we know that in the north, of course, it is particularly important that we have a vibrant export market for our goods and services, for the mining industry and the forestry industry. Under our tax reform, those industries will benefit.

For example, Ontario's mining, utilities, oil and gas extraction services sector will save roughly $95 million net per year as a result of our tax reforms. That is money that is bankable, that will help that industry. I know that the forestry and agriculture sectors also will be saving some $25 million net a year.

What we need in this province is more jobs. We need our exporters to be part of a vibrant economy. We are doing the single most important thing we can to give them a new competitive advantage as they compete around the world—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: The people in my community and throughout northern Ontario face enough challenges as it is; now they're having to deal with fearmongering from those who are only telling half the story on HST. I recognize that we are taking steps to get people back to work—and it's true that prices on some items are going to increase—but the majority of items, 80%, will see no tax change at all, and TD Bank estimates that prices before taxes will fall by about 1%. Organizations like the Ontario Road Builders' Association and the Ontario Trucking Association support the HST.

Minister, will the HST create jobs? Who are we to believe on this—those who are fearmongering or those who are working to build Ontario's economy and support Ontarians?

Hon. John Wilkinson: It's important, when we have a public debate like that, that we look to third parties who have commented on that, and more and more are commenting on our tax reform package—the largest single tax reform in this province in over 40 years. Increasingly, what we see is that people are coming to the conclusion, as have competitive countries around the world, that this tax reform leads to more jobs. We look at the report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce: very clear that this will create more jobs. We look at the TD Economics report: very clear that it will create jobs.

But beyond that, there is a building coalition in this province: the Daily Bread Food Bank, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, TD—many are joining the movement to understand that this massive tax reform is going to be a benefit to our economy. That's exactly why we're doing it. We need to help people get back to work and we need to be competitive, and that is the thing that we are doing by doing our job here on—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Over the last six months, the picture has become more clear. What started out in May as $5 million in untendered contracts given by eHealth to Liberal-friendly firms has since ballooned to $16 million in untendered deals. That doesn't even include the $30-million untendered contract handed out by Management Board to IBM. It's time for the McGuinty Liberals to do the right thing. Will you save yourselves some embarrassment and show the Minister of Health the door today?

Hon. George Smitherman: I rather suspect that the question sends shivers down the spine of the two former health ministers in the front row of the honourable member's current caucus group, who also had opportunities and took advantage of such opportunities to sole-source technology contracts related to health informatics infrastructure.

We've raised the bar. We've set a new standard. We've eliminated the prospect for sole-sourcing. They did it. We've done it. It has been the pattern, but it has been changed. We've raised the bar on that activity. Tomorrow, the auditor will provide a report that will obviously further stimulate action on our part to pursue, with the greatest vigour possible, the necessary defence of the taxpayer's dollar. If lessons are learned, then they will be applied, and we look forward to the auditor's presentations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I'm sure the auditor's report is going to stimulate a lot of activity, but the Ontario Liberal Party's fingerprints are all over this. We've got companies involved—Courtyard, Anzen, IBM—and a cast of characters, starting with Sarah Kramer, Will Falk, Alan Hudson, John Ronson, Jeff Smith, Karli Farrow, and the list goes on, all tied up in this mess. We've got millions of dollars in untendered contracts, even a tendered deal that's very suspicious. Sarah Kramer was shown the door, Alan Hudson resigned and your executive has vanished. But this all lands at the feet of Management Board.

A full review of the ministers involved in this needs to be done. Will you start the ball rolling by showing Minister Caplan the door today?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member has taken the task of just listing a bunch of people who, by coincidence of being in the same city and in the same work environment, also know each other. Then the honourable member went further. She turned IBM, which I think most people would agree is one of the great companies of the world, into some lackey, some toady, of government. In fact, I think it is the honourable member who reaches too far. Tomorrow the auditor will give advice, no doubt, about areas where improvements need to be made, and we will pursue those with vigour.

But we do so knowing that we have eliminated sole-source contracting in the province of Ontario, a practice that was done regularly under that party when they were in government, and that party, too.

AIR-RAIL LINK

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Here's a headline on a news release dated June 15, 2007: "McGuinty Liberals Sink Unpopular High-Speed Rail Project." The release says, "The McGuinty Liberals struck a fatal blow to the unpopular high-speed rail link through York South—Weston." The release was put out by the Liberal MPP of York South—Weston.

Yesterday, this minister announced the exact opposite. The air-rail link, Blue 22, has been given the green light to proceed. How does the minister explain this hypocrisy?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

How does the minister explain this discrepancy?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, first of all, let me say that this party and this government is in favour of transit. That's why we are investing billions of dollars in transit to get cars off the road, and that party voted against every transit initiative that this government has come up with over the last five years.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you, Speaker. We took a tough decision yesterday and put 18 tough—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask honourable members that—we had some silence, and the moment I sat down, I could hear some interjections across the floor. I really don't want to get to the point of naming members for interjections. I think that the interjections do play a role, but the constant interjections by certain individuals start to wear on the Speaker, so I just ask members to be cautious.

Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We've imposed 18 tough conditions on Metrolinx in order to build this transit system. It will include a tier 4 diesel technology that is currently in development and will be available on the market in 2015. That will, in effect, reduce emissions with respect to particulate matter by 90%. It will reduce nitrogen oxides by 80%. It will be the most modern diesel technology available.

We think that transit is good for the people of Ontario. We want to get cars off the road so that the people of Ontario can breathe the best air quality possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the Liberal Party is in favour of is one thing before an election—one thing to get elected—and something else totally once they get into power. That's what that Liberal Party stands for.

Residents in York South—Weston and elsewhere along the Georgetown south rail corridor are feeling betrayed this morning, and rightly so. They do not want dirty, private diesel trains polluting their neighbourhoods. They support real public transit, transit that improves the community they call home.

Why were they told one thing before the last election but now are being forced to accept quite something else altogether?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, as the member well knows, the project has changed quite substantially since 2007. For example, there will be a number of stops along this transit system, which is what the people of that area wanted. There will also be the retaining connections of the neighbourhoods there that the people are very concerned about.

We are absolutely convinced that the 18 tough conditions that we have imposed upon this particular project will make for a better project, will deal with the air-quality standards that everyone is concerned about and will take more cars off the road so that transit will become a greater reality for the people of Ontario and for the people of the GTA.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and it's in relation to an

article from the Ottawa Citizen over the weekend. Its title reads "Ottawa is Healthy and Vibrant—Unless You're a Have-Not." The

article goes on to talk about the Vital Signs report for Ottawa that is out today. Although the

article hails Ottawa for being a fundamentally secure and thriving community, it also highlights the dire circumstances new immigrants face. The

article talks about folks not earning enough to take care of their families. It then goes on to say, "It is worse for new immigrants." Clearly, we all have a responsibility here to ensure that these families are receiving the necessary support from governments.

What does the minister intend to do to ensure immigrant families living in Ottawa are receiving the support they deserve and need?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Ottawa—Orléans for the question.

We are proud of our record in supporting newcomers in the Ottawa area. Allow me to provide you with some numbers. We are proud of the investment of over $8 million in bridge training programs so that individuals can utilize their skills and find employment. We are proud of our investment of over $2 million in settlement services so that newcomers have the right tools to start a new beginning. We're also proud of our investment of over $29 million in language training so that individuals are ready for life in Ontario—ready for the workforce and ready to support their families.

We can see this high level of commitment all across Ontario from our government and we know newcomers are benefiting from our actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: The numbers are startling. The

article cites a 2006 figure. The unemployment rate for immigrants who have been in the country for five years or less is 13.5%, double that of non-immigrants. The numbers could have only become bleaker since that time.

I'm pleased to hear about the investments in Ottawa in a time of need. Such funding and services make a big difference in the lives of these families, but there must be more we can do. Supporting these families will help us build strong and prosperous communities across Ontario. The success of these families will ensure that children in these families also have a fair shot at reaching their highest potential.

Support has to go to the next level. There's a clear need for it. What will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration do to ensure that the support is taken to the next level?

Hon. Michael Chan: As of March 31, 2009, the federal government has underspent by $193 million from the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement signed in 2005. Four years have passed but less than half of the fund has been spent. We are taking this to the next level. We are asking the federal government for a new deal—namely, devolution of the COIA funding; a new deal where the federal government's portion of responsibility is transferred to the province; a new deal where Ontario will be treated the same as British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec.

A new deal for Ontario will mean that we will be able to provide a comprehensive set of services and programs. These steps will ensure that Ontario's newcomers are supported in a more viable and effective manner.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County finds itself in a terrible economic situation. They are projecting a $5-million deficit this year. In fact, 36 of Ontario's 51 CASs have applied under

section 14 for review, by far the most in our province's history.

In Simcoe county they are doing everything humanly possible to carry out the mandatory programs that your ministry oversees. While Liberal fat-cat consultants are at the trough with untendered contracts on a daily basis, the most marginalized, vulnerable and disadvantaged children in our province are being neglected by the McGuinty Liberals and are at risk of having their lives devastated even further.

When will you, Minister, provide leadership and stand up for the most vulnerable children in our society?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate having a question regarding the well-being of children from the party opposite. Thank you for the question. But I must say I find it a bit ironic that on one hand we're being encouraged not to spend and, in this particular case, we're being encouraged to spend.

There is nothing more important than the well-being of kids who are in the care of the children's aid society. We are not cutting funding across the sector; we are in fact spending $30 million more this year than we budgeted last year.

What we are doing this year, though, is being very clear with children's aid societies that we will not be able to support them in the year-end funding that they have become used to receiving over the past many years. We are very committed to better outcomes for kids in care. We're working closely with children's aid societies so they can continue to provide the support these kids need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, you're going to have to do more. The costs to operate the Simcoe county CAS are similar to the costs to operate the other CASs in the GTA. The GTA average daycare rate is $103.41, and the Simcoe county average daycare rate is $73.54, a difference of $30 per day, per child.

Will you commit to this House today that you will help the most vulnerable children in Simcoe county and increase their funding to the GTA average?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are moving forward with a commission to promote sustainable children's aid societies because we acknowledge that there are problems within the children's aid sector. We're moving forward working with children's aid societies. We're committed to a sustainable system. We are spending a billion dollars more now on CASs than we were 10 years ago. It's gone from about $500 million to $1.4 billion. That is unsustainable growth. We have hard work ahead of us, and we'll work in partnership with the CASs to get to where we need to go to have the right services in place for the kids.

AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones. La semaine dernière, en lisant Le Voyageur, j'étais amèrement déçue, renversée, époustouflée, étonnée, sidérée et en fin de compte, fâchée de lire que le Prix jeunesse de la francophonie de l'Ontario a été créé sans consulter l'organisme qui représente la jeunesse franco-ontarienne.

Ma question est simple : pourquoi la Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne a-t-elle été tenue à l'écart de ce projet?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je suis très heureuse d'avoir une question au sujet de la francophonie. Ce gouvernement ici est très fier de la création de ce Prix jeunesse parce que les jeunes sont souvent laissés à part, et ils accomplissent des choses exceptionnelles en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ma question : pourquoi les francophones comptent-ils si peu pour le gouvernement McGuinty?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: C'est très riche, une question de la sorte qui vient du gouvernement néo-démocratique, qui a coupé le nombre d'individus travaillant à l'Office des affaires francophones et qui a réduit son budget d'une façon exceptionnelle. Alors, je trouve ça très riche, venant de ce parti-là.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. As we know, the global chemical industry is one of the largest manufacturing industries in the world, with an annual revenue of over $3 trillion and revenues in Canada of over $47 billion. The global challenges of sustainability and climate change are driving the growing demand for green industry products and processes. Bio-based and green-chemistry-derived products represent a growing part of a worldwide chemical industry, and demand is rising rapidly.

Ontario is in a unique position to capitalize on this new market while delivering high-value jobs, particularly in the riding of Brant, as we're seeking to be the green hub—and a healthier environment for all Ontarians.

Can the minister tell us what he's doing to get those supports for green jobs? We're in the race, and we want to know if we're going to come first. I ask the minister, what are we doing to get—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very pleased to inform the House that this has been one of the great priorities of the Ministry of Research and Innovation, investing in green technologies. Since its inception, MRI has invested more than $146 million towards almost 200 projects that focus on research projects and companies working on green technologies and initiatives.

If I can share with the House just one example: A couple of weeks ago, the Minister of the Environment announced a $13.6-million investment in GreenCentre Canada, located at Queen's University in Kingston. The centre, which will be operated by Parteq Innovations, will connect green chemistry discoveries in Ontario universities with companies to develop alternatives to toxic chemicals and get them to the marketplace faster.

In its first five years, the centre expects to create several start-up companies and at least 250 jobs while strengthening the global competitiveness of Ontario's—

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

I'd just remind members of the Speaker's Taste of the Greenbelt reception in 228 and 230, this afternoon from 5 to 7. All members and staff are welcome.

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd also just ask the members to join me in congratulating—today's the 40th anniversary of Minister Bradley entering into political life. Forty years ago today, October 6, 1969, Minister Bradley entered the world of politics.

Happy 40th anniversary.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion 139 on allocation of time on Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

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

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

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): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 30.

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

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We now have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 201. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1145 to 1146.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Takhar has moved third reading of Bill 201. 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 58; the nays are 21.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1149 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today Erin Boudreau from Children's Mental Health Ontario, as well as Chelsey Henderson, a grade 11 student from Waterdown District High School and her parents, Bruce and Sharlene Henderson. They're here today to witness the introduction of her bill.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: J'aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres du conseil de la ville de Hawkesbury : M me la maire, Jeanne Charlebois; conseillers André Chamaillard, Gilbert Cyr et Gilles Tessier; ainsi que la greffière, Christine Groulx. Welcome to Queen's Park this afternoon.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I rise today to bring members' attention to a demonstration which will be occurring here at Queen's Park tomorrow. Pension plan members from the automakers and Nortel will be here to demand this government's help in protecting their pension plans. Our pension system desperately needs reform. Presumably, that is why this government set up the Expert Commission on Pensions. Unfortunately, it has been 11 months since the Arthurs report was released, yet we have not seen any move by this government to fix the pension system.

If the Minister of Finance is not ready to introduce full-scale pension reform, I ask him to change one thing immediately. I raised this issue with the Minister of Finance in estimates committee in July. The current legislation requires that when a company ceases to exist, FSCO, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, must wind up the pension plan, requiring plan members to purchase an annuity. That's the only option they have at the present time. With interest rates at an historic low, an annuity purchase today would only pay between 25% and 50% of what the pension pays.

The minister could ensure these people a much brighter retirement if he would either postpone the winding up of the pension plan or allow them to move their share of the pension plan into an RRSP rather than purchase an annuity. Time is of the essence. Nortel's pension plan is going to be wound up. The minister needs to do something now.

MCVEAN FARM

Mr. Kuldip Kular: I would like to share with my colleagues news of an exciting project in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton. The McVean Farm recently received a grant through the Trillium fund that will help grow a new generation of farmers in our province. The McVean Farm is a place where urban Ontarians and newcomers explore opportunities in agriculture and agribusiness. A grant of $318,000 over three years will fund a new incubator facility and encourage farmers to meld traditional wisdom with modern science and research to develop fresh, local, marketable products for consumers.

As a farm in an urban landscape, the McVean Farm is an example of sustainable development at work, a viable alternative to conventional land use in an urban setting. It celebrates the pioneering spirit of Ontario's growers and contributing to the future of Ontario's farming industry.

I trust my colleagues will join me in congratulating the McVean Farm and its partners and offering best wishes for future success.

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

Mr. Peter Shurman: On September 26, Tropical Storm Ketsana hit the city of Manila and surrounding provinces in the Philippines. This was the biggest and most devastating storm that the region has seen in over 40 years, with 1.9 million people affected by this disaster. The death toll rose to 280 and more than half a million people are left without their homes

This past Sunday, I participated in the efforts of Thornhill's Filipino community, led by Erlinda Insigne, who gathered at the Patricia Kemp Community Centre to organize donations of clothing, blankets and food for a much-needed relief shipment.

The hard work and dedication by the Filipino-Canadian Charitable Association of Vaughan, the Philippine Heritage Band and the Leyteno Association of Ontario and the generosity of the people who dedicated hours of their time to help those in need overseas is one of the reasons that I am very proud to represent the riding of Thornhill.

It is especially in such tragic and difficult circumstances that a community's strength is revealed, and I am proud to say that this strength shone especially bright on Sunday as the Filipino community gathered for a common cause.

On behalf of the residents of Thornhill, I wish to also express my sincere condolences to the families and friends of those lost in this disaster and wish a speedy recovery to the many injured residents in Manila and surrounding regions.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to put on the record some comments made by Jonathan Scott, who wrote a discussion paper for the Ontario Student Trustees' Association. He says the following:

"Extracurricular activity fees can include everything from sports teams, drama productions, club membership and social events. Extracurricular activities are the main mechanism for effective instruction in leadership, sports, art and drama by way of experiential learning. In our education system, separating extracurricular activities from the scope of learning is not only difficult but wrong-headed."

He says, "Among the findings:

"—some 77% of secondary schools charge fees, sometimes as high as $500;

"—student activity fees have increased by over 50% since 2001; and

"—in an average-sized board, start-of-term fees ranged from $10 to $55.

"Increasingly, the reality of public education is one of dichotomy between the rich and the poor. A substantial part of education is neither free nor equitable. The rich receive the benefit of experience while the poor receive a no-frills education. The wealthy can afford to participate in extracurricular activities while the poor cannot....

"The issue discussed in this paper confronts the government's goals of equity and poverty reduction," and says to the minister, "You've got to deal with this."

I hope she does.

ESSEX COUNTY

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you and my colleagues today some good things about Essex county. As my wife, Joan, and I often do, we were taking a leisurely drive around the county last Sunday, and I got to thinking about how great it is to live in this part of the country—in southwestern Ontario but particularly Essex county.

Where else in the first week of October can you still get sweet corn? Essex county. Where else in the province of Ontario in the first week of October can you still get field tomatoes?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Let me guess.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: In Essex—you got it? In Essex county. Where else can you get all the pumpkins and gourds and sheaves of corn that we need for Halloween?

Interjections.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Essex county. You got it. It's a great place to live.

In addition to that—I suggest you take the trolley around the county for this one—we have 13 wineries. So you can take a great fall wine tour, driven by the trolley, and just enjoy yourself and enjoy the outdoor atmosphere in Essex county.

I know you all live in great places in this province, but there is none greater than Essex county.

STROKE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I'm proud to rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Cambridge district

chapter of the Stroke Recovery Association. Founded in 1979, the Stroke Recovery Association assists stroke victims and their families through support, information, education and social events.

Over the years, countless people have expressed appreciation for the program and the peer support offered by the volunteer-run association. I commend the association's coordinator, Norma Rudy, and many of the other volunteers for their hard work and commitment to assisting victims of stroke.

Tomorrow evening the Stroke Recovery Association members will gather at the Preston Mennonite Church for a celebration dinner. Thirty years serving stroke victims and their families is a record to be proud of.

I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the many volunteers for their support, dedication and motivation. Our community relies on the excellent work of the Stroke Recovery Association. The support you provide to stroke victims and their families is a valued resource in our community. Congratulations to all on this important occasion.

GENERATING STATION

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Last week, my community learned that TransCanada was awarded a contract by the Ontario Power Authority, the OPA, to build a new power generating facility on Ford's property in the town of Oakville. The decision was met with shock and disappointment by myself and all the members in my community. My constituents have raised the question: How can the OPA proceed and build a facility near a residential neighbourhood with an already stressed airshed?

I will support all efforts to ensure that the Clarkson airshed achieves improved air quality. I'm fully supportive of the efforts of the elected officials at the town of Oakville, which recently introduced an interim control bylaw to review approval of sites just like the one we're discussing now. I understand, though, that this bylaw, which was introduced by Oakville's duly elected officials, will be challenged next week at the Ontario Municipal Board by Ford of Canada and by TransCanada.

In the coming days I hope to be speaking with the representatives of ratepayers' organizations in the town of Oakville. Along with Mayor Burton and town council, they have protested this facility over the past few months. I look forward to working with all to develop the most favourable and the most successful course of action to protect my community.

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

Mr. Mike Colle: I join my colleague from Thornhill in asking all of us in Ontario to support our Filipino brothers and sisters who are trying desperately to help the victims of not one but two typhoons that have hit the city of Manila. Last Sunday, I attended a special service at Our Lady of the Assumption Church in my riding in aid of the victims of this massive devastation. Hundreds of people came to collect food, clothing, medical supplies, anything that they could, to donate to the victims of the typhoons, who have lost almost everything.

These typhoons have affected their brothers, their sisters, their mothers and fathers back in Manila. Hundreds have perished; hundreds are still trapped and feared dead. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced out of their homes. They're trudging through sludge, high water—lack of clean water is also a problem—and they've lost their homes.

Members of the Filipino community across Ontario and Canada are bravely trying to do whatever they can to help their loved ones back home. I hope that all of us will join together with our fellow Filipino-Canadians in being generous and helping them to fill these containers with food and medical supplies so that we can help our brothers and sisters who are affected by this horrible climatic change in the Philippines. Please do what you can in supporting our fellow Filipino-Canadians in this time of great need.

VIETNAM

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: On behalf of Premier McGuinty and the government of Ontario, I'm delighted to introduce to you the trade and government delegation from Vietnam. They're visiting our Legislature today to meet with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and Premier McGuinty.

When Canadians think about Vietnam, it is inevitable that they think of conflict, of war, of poverty, rice paddies, thick jungles and so on, and these images are hard to change. But the Vietnam of today is totally different, and we have to change our image. The country has joined the World Trade Organization. Over 60% of its citizens between 18 and 25 are motorized. Building cranes are everywhere. Export is increasing, and the whole country seems to be on the move.

It is very clear that one could see what can be done when weapons of war are turned into ploughshares: we saw tremendous economic growth and development. Living standards are, of course, rising, and generally the quality of life is improving.

What truly amazed me when I visited Vietnam was the fact that every provincial Premier we met read from the same script: encourage foreign trade, encourage foreign investment, expand the market share of your products and educate and train the workforce. That too is our goal in Ontario. That's why we welcome especially this trade delegation from Vietnam, because we think that our equipment here and the way we move in Ontario could be very helpful to those in Vietnam as well, and consequently, we want to encourage trade and our friendship with them.

Today in the delegation we have the People's Committee of Kien Giang province, and in fact the President is here—his name is Bui Ngoc Suong—and Luu Phuoc Luong, who is the Lieutenant General of the southwest steering committee.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE JOUR DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Ms. Aggelonitis moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 205,

An Act to proclaim Mental Health Awareness Day / Projet de loi 205, Loi proclamant le Jour de la sensibilisation à la santé mentale.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Before I begin I'd like to recognize Chelsey Henderson, a grade 11 student at Waterdown District High School, who's joining us here today with her parents. Chelsey's teacher, Mr. Nathan Tidridge, challenged his class to draft a private member's bill to be introduced to the House, and this is Chelsey's bill.

I'd also like to take an opportunity to thank the representatives of Children's Mental Health Ontario for being here today to support this bill.

Mental health affects all of us. One in five Canadians will experience a mental illness in his or her lifetime, and the remaining four will have a friend, family member or colleague who experiences mental illness. Recognizing the continued need to remain aware and informed on mental health issues, this bill would proclaim the last day of Mental Health Week in every year as Mental Health Awareness Day.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

M me Gélinas moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 206,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 / Projet de