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

April 12, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-12 (PDF)

L013 - Mon 12 Apr 2010 / Lun 12 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 12 April 2010 Lundi 12 avril 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

POLISH COMMUNITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

LONG-TERM CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

RENEWABLE ENERGY

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TVONTARIO

TOURISM

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BETH DONOVAN

EVENTS IN STONEY CREEK

EPILEPSY

POLISH COMMUNITY

OPEN ONTARIO

RENEWABLE ENERGY

PHIL HARTMAN

MEMBERS OF PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT

POVERTY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(RENEWABLE ENERGY

UNDERTAKINGS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE (ENTREPRISES

D’ÉNERGIE RENOUVELABLE)

EHEALTH ONTARIO SPENDING

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

DE CYBERSANTÉ ONTARIO

PETITIONS

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

ENERGY CONSERVATION

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

POWER PLANT

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

ENERGY CONSERVATION

WATER QUALITY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

PUBLIC TRANSIT

WATER QUALITY

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2010 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L’ONTARIO DE 2010

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m pleased to introduce Al Strathdee, who is a very proud father from my riding. He is visiting his daughter Andrea today, who is one of our new pages from the great riding of Perth–Wellington.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m pleased to welcome Keith Pacey, a friend of mine from the city of North Bay and a retired teacher. We’re delighted to have him here today for the opening day of the Blue Jays.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to ask my colleagues to welcome Miss Louissa Barnes, a grade 10 student from Lorne Park Secondary School in Mississauga, and her mother, Pauline Barnes. Louissa’s essay on her wish to job-shadow a provincial minister was selected as one of two winning submissions from over 200 female students from across the GTA and Niagara peninsula in Youth in Motion’s Women in Politics and Government career learning day. Welcome, Louissa.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my privilege to introduce students from St. Marcellinus Secondary School. They are visiting Queen’s Park today, and they are a grade 12 politics class. They are in the visitors’ gallery. I would like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the family of page Owen Singer to Queen’s Park. Joining us today from my riding of St. Paul’s are Owen’s mother, Tina; his grandmothers Sandy and Rochelle; and his grandfather Morty. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the Consul General from the Republic of Chile here in Toronto, Mr. Patricio Powell. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

POLISH COMMUNITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Before I put my question to the Acting Premier, I wish to take this moment to express the condolences of the Ontario PC caucus to the family of President Kaczynski, the Polish people and the great Polish-Canadian community on this tragic loss.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I think the honourable member raises a good point. The Polish people have lost a number of highly esteemed individuals, including their Deputy Speaker as well. I would ask all members, if they would, to please rise and join me as we observe a moment of silence to those individuals who tragically lost their lives.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Our condolences go out to the Polish community here in Toronto, and those in Poland as well.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker. I think it’s very appropriate for us to share that moment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the Acting Premier: Premier McGuinty promised that he would stop making hospitals pay for bureaucrats seconded to his pet projects. Why did Premier McGuinty break that promise?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government believes in transparency and accountability at all levels. As a result of suggestions last year, we in fact revealed, at the back of the lists that we published, all of those officials across all ministries and departments who have been seconded and whose pay is captured in different places, to ensure that that accountability and transparency is there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: That’s certainly not what the PC caucus heard and not what Ontario families concerned about this ongoing abuse heard. We heard the Premier say, “We’re going to change it.” We feel it is inappropriate to take money that is supposed to go to front-line care in hospitals to pay bureaucrats who are not even working at those hospitals but seconded to the Premier’s pet projects. When we look through this year’s sunshine list, we see that the McGuinty Liberals are still paying for special bureaucrats at the pet projects through hospital budgets.

This wasn’t meant to be tucked away as some kind of endnote to the back of the sunshine list. The Premier said he was going to end it. Why did Dalton McGuinty break yet another promise to Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The list is separate, published within the sunshine list; it’s there. It’s, I believe, in alphabetical order. I don’t have it right in front of me. It’s there for everyone to see. They can see that.

Do you know what they couldn’t see? They couldn’t see Hydro One’s salaries when the Tories were in office. They couldn’t see OPG when that government was in power. That was deliberately left out of the sunshine list. In fact, we said we would separate out that list; we did. It’s published; everyone can see it. It’s about accountability and transparency. We even corrected the accountability and transparency overlaps of the previous government.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, Dalton McGuinty entered into office by famously breaking his promise not to raise taxes on families and now still, six years later, this Premier says one thing and does the opposite. Minister, I’ll remind you, in this very House on October 19, the Premier said, “I disagree with that practice and that’s why we’re going to change it.” Yet still we see money meant for hospitals, for front-line patient care, being diverted to seconded bureaucrats for the Premier’s pet projects. Some kind of endnotes buried away at the end of the list are not good enough. You said you would change this practice.

I ask the minister, why is Dalton McGuinty still breaking promises to Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve provided for appropriate accountability and transparency. The list of those secondments—and I would remind the member opposite that secondments of this nature have been happening for many, many years across governments of all three political parties—has been provided for. It is on a separate page in the sunshine report. I don’t have it in front of me. My recollection is that it’s near the back. It’s in alphabetical order. It shows individual employees and who’s being paid what. It’s apparent; it’s accountable; it’s transparent. That’s what we said we would do, that’s what we’re doing, and that’s what this government and this party are all about.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, Minister, burying some sheet with some kind of asterisk next to it at the bottom of thousands and thousands of pages is a far cry from ending the practice and is yet another broken promise by this Premier.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: The sunshine list reports that a Gloria Whitson-Shea was paid $227,000 by the Grand River Hospital, but the Waterloo Record reports that she left there in August 2008. She does not appear in these so-called endnotes the minister speaks about. So, Minister, can you explain to patients in Kitchener–Waterloo why $227,000 meant for front-line care was diverted from the local hospital to someone that you don’t even list on your so-called endnotes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: If I may, here is the list. I will indicate to the member that it is in alphabetical order, as I said. It’s one full page. It lists taxable benefits, salaries paid, the seconded position, the position, the ministry that the position was seconded to. There it is, right what we said we would do. It’s clear; it’s accountable; it’s transparent. So when the Leader of the Opposition says we didn’t do it, I ask the people of Ontario to cast your judgment. There’s the list, in alphabetical order, by ministry, by salary and where they’re seconded to. That’s what we said we would do; that’s what we did.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: No, that’s not what Dalton McGuinty promised. He said he would end the practice.

I notice that the minister does not tell us what page Gloria Whitson-Shea is listed upon. In fact, she is working for the Waterloo Wellington LHIN. And she is not the only bureaucrat working at the LHINs who is being paid out of hospital budgets. In fact, you’re making Bluewater Health pay Antoinette Adey six figures to be the director of community relations for the Bluewater area LHIN, and that’s over and above the six figures she is paid by the LHIN.

Minister, are you burying salaries of executives at your high-cost LHINs because you want to skirt salary guidelines, or are you trying to hide the ballooning numbers of your runaway regional bureaucracies?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has the numbers, the figures, the names, what organization they’re part of. They’re not hidden. They’re there for the public to see. The fact that he has them is indication of that.

I’ll tell you what we are doing. We are shortening wait times for key surgical procedures. We are making our health care system better for all Ontarians. We are building hospitals. We’ve added hospital beds. We’ve stopped the practice of the previous government of firing nurses, of laying people off indiscriminately in favour of poor public policy choices.

There’s no doubt there are difficult choices in the health care system. Premier McGuinty and his government will ensure that Ontario has the best public health care system in the world.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: First Premier McGuinty says he’s going to end the practice, and he does not. Now the finance minister says they’re all listed when they’re not. Clearly, after six years these guys are still the same gang that says one thing to Ontario families to their face and does something totally different behind closed doors. It’s just not only the Waterloo Wellington LHIN, Minister. You’re making the Royal Victoria Hospital pay Sandra Easson-Bruno to work for the North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN; the Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital pays Paul Audet to work for the Erie St. Clair LHIN; and Hamilton Health Sciences pays Jennifer Everson to work for the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN.

Minister, why are these expensive LHIN bureaucracy salaries buried so deep that you can’t even find them on your sunshine list endnotes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Tory research was able to find them. If Tory research can find them, I think just about anybody can.

This is all about better health care for Ontarians. It’s about a better delivery of service, it’s about reducing wait times, improving front-line services, and making sure that Ontarians have access to the best health care system in the world. This government is all about accountability and transparency. The member has the numbers. The public has the numbers. The member knows where they’ve been seconded to and from. That’s because we are providing that information. The people of Ontario know that, and the people of Ontario know that this government continues to work hard to improve the level and quality of public services available to all Ontarians.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. When seniors can no longer fully care for themselves and need to move to long-term care, should they be forced to live far from family and friends and slapped with fines if they refuse?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that we are absolutely committed to providing the best possible care for our seniors. That includes seniors who are at the point in their life when it is time to move into a long-term-care home. We’re also committed to providing that care as close to home as possible. I cannot tell you how meaningful it is for us to see those new long-term-care homes open in our communities, to see the homes that were frankly in a state that didn’t meet the standards of any caring—people in this community being upgraded to quite wonderful new homes. We’re committed to improving care for those in our long-term-care homes, and we will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Seniors who have worked hard all of their lives and now need some help as they grow older are being told in communities across Ontario that they must move to long-term-care homes hundreds and hundreds of kilometres or more from their families. Would this minister accept this for her own family?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I agree with the member opposite that we need to continue the work we’re doing when it comes to providing the right supports for seniors. But in fairness, we have increased funding in the long-term-care home sector by over $1 billion. That’s a 55% increase in funding since we were elected in 2003. We’ve got 6,100 new full-time staff, including 2,300 nurses, who are delivering 12 million more hours of care for our seniors. We are continuing to improve long-term care. We are building new homes. We are opening new homes so that we can provide the very best care for people who need that level of care.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hospitals are telling patients that they must take the first open bed, regardless of whether it’s hundreds of kilometres away, or they have to pay a penalty out of their own pocket. Experts at the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly say what’s going on is “often illegal.”

Will the McGuinty government enforce its own law, put an end to this practice and commit to making sure that families have access to long-term-care beds close to home?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said, we are absolutely committed to improving long-term care in this province. Our record speaks for itself. We’re spending more than $1 billion more now than in 2003.

Another way we can help seniors in this province is by reducing the cost of generic drugs. I made an announcement last week that will cut in half the cost of generic drugs for seniors in this province. I have not yet heard from the leader of the third party what her position is. I hope that she would inform us of that position.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is again to the Acting Premier. Getting people out of overwhelmed hospital and emergency rooms and into home care and long-term-care facilities makes life better for patients and for their families, but not when seniors are shipped away hundreds of kilometres from their homes and their loved ones. When will the McGuinty government put a stop to this heart-wrenching practice?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, the member is correct: We still have work to do when it comes to improving long-term care in this province. But the improvements we’ve made are quite remarkable.

I think the member opposite is talking about the importance of making sure the people who are in our hospitals are people who need the care that only a hospital can provide, and that those who can have their needs met and in fact get better care elsewhere actually have that opportunity to move elsewhere.

We are focusing on our alternate-level-of-care patients. Approximately 17% of the people who are in our hospitals actually could be better served outside the hospital. We’re working very hard to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For people already struggling with tough times, this is another cruel challenge that they’re being forced to face. A family in Sudbury is told that an aging parent must move to a long-term-care facility in Parry Sound. That’s a four-hour round trip every single time they visit. For too many working people, that’s simply impossible to do regularly. Why is this government forcing this hardship on seniors when they need their families the most?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am in complete agreement with the member opposite that having long-term care as close to family as possible is a very high priority for us. That’s why we’ve opened 8,000 new long-term-care beds in this province. We’re adding another 2,000 long-term-care beds in this province. This is a challenge for us, not just for today but for coming years and coming generations. It’s very important that we get people the care they need as close to home as possible. We remain committed to doing that.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m pleased that the minister agrees, but the problem seems to only be getting worse in the province. In hospitals across the province, beds are being filled by people who could be and should be recuperating in long-term care or at home. Despite six years of promises, those beds still aren’t there and our home care system is broken. Now seniors who have earned the right to some dignity in their later years are being ordered out of their beds and shipped far from family. Would the minister accept this if it was her own family? Why does she think it’s fair to subject families to this emotional strain?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am more than prepared to look into the case she has raised. As I say, I agree with her that care closest to home is the best care, and I will happily look at that particular case. The LHINs are working hard to create the right environment for people in care.

I do want to ask the member opposite, though, about her concern for seniors as it relates to the cost of drugs. This is an important initiative. I am very hopeful that the member opposite will support our initiatives to lower the cost of drugs for seniors and others in this province.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Acting Premier. If one of the LHIN bureaucrats you make hospitals pay for closes the hospital that pays his or her salary, does the LHIN bureaucrat lose their job too? Do they collect severance, or do you just bury the salary in another hospital budget?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The campaign against community-based health decision-making continues. We have given the local community a voice in making health care decisions that are right for their communities.

The local health integration networks are providing extraordinary integration at the local level. They are tying together the care from the perspective of the patient. That is the right thing to do. For too long, we have had a health care system that has been stuck in silos, and the local health integration networks are working with their community members to break down those silos and provide care that is right and best for the people.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Premier McGuinty does an end run around accountability when the hospitals who pay the salaries of LHIN bureaucrats have no say in the work they do or how money is being diverted from front-line care. It’s also an end run around accountability when he leads Ontario families to believe that the $17 million reported in the sunshine list last week accounts for all LHIN bureaucrats earning six-figure salaries. Now he’s taking an end run around transparency too, hiding at least $1.5 million of secret LHIN bureaucrat salaries in hospital budgets. These bureaucrats are not independent of the hospitals who pay them.

The Premier has created a conflict of interest here. Deputy Premier, why didn’t you disclose the details of LHIN bureaucrats who are being paid out of hospital budgets?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These salaries that we have hidden are in the report; they are publicly available. That’s how the member opposite has them. This is just another attack on community decision-making when it comes to health care in this province.

I implore the member opposite to actually learn what the LHIN is doing in her community. Take the time and understand that integration that is happening. I think that the Central East LHIN has done a very, very good job in driving that integration in their communities. They’ve worked with nine hospitals so that each one of them has a balanced budget plan. They’re allocating the aging-at-home dollars; we’re spending over a billion dollars on aging at home. That is all being directed through the LHINs, using the community organizations that are there so people can stay in their homes longer.

The LHINs are the future of health care, and I think the member opposite should take the time to learn what’s happening in her community.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Acting Premier: The Rahim Jaffer case just won’t go away. With a sordid trail of hookers, bikers and sleazy business deals, it has even cost a federal cabinet minister her job. Jaffer was caught driving drunk with cocaine in his vehicle, yet got off with barely a slap on the wrist. Who was involved in cutting this sweetheart plea deal?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite knows that this is a matter that was before the courts and before the police and was resolved through the due process of our legal system. Accordingly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to speak beyond that, but again, I would say to the member opposite that these issues are a matter of due process within the legal system. The member opposite knows and understands that, I think.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: That’s the problem. The matter isn’t before the courts anymore. The optics here reek. The OPP officers involved were experienced and very diligent. According to the Toronto Star, the police were surprised at Jaffer’s sweetheart deal, a deal that demonstrates that there’s one set of rules for some people and another for everyone else. Why would the Attorney General’s office cut this deal—holding a drunk driving charge and a possession of cocaine charge—when this government purports to be tough on drunk drivers and, I presume, stoned drivers as well?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite knows that crown attorneys are independent and make their decisions. The crown—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the member from Durham to keep his comments to himself. If he has an issue with another member in this House, have that discussion with an honourable member outside.

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No.

Please continue.

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, I’m not accepting—stop the clock. No, leave the clock running; pardon me. I would just ask the honourable member that if he has an issue with another member in this chamber, to have those discussions outside. I don’t need to hear it going back and forth. It’s not helpful to any of us in this House.

Deputy.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member knows—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful either, Minister of Finance.

Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member knows that crown attorneys are independent and make their decisions. The crown stated on the record that these were issues related to the evidence. We have to abide by that and respect the independence of the crown attorneys’ office so that, in fact, justice and due process can proceed as intended.

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. My constituents want assured access to both low-cost prescription drugs and to a pharmacist. Both are important to them. There are plans in the works to reform the drug system, and part of the plan is to remove professional allowances. Those are the rebates that are paid to pharmacies by generic drug companies to stock their products on their shelves.

Pharmacy stores like Shoppers Drug Mart oppose the changes. They say, “Look, it will hurt our bottom line and affect services we provide.” But on the other hand, groups like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons praised the changes. They say they will improve access to drugs.

Minister, what’s the real story on drug reform? Who do we believe? What are the facts?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Compared to other jurisdictions, other OECD countries, Ontarians are paying far too much for generic drugs. The biggest reason is these so-called professional allowance payments from generic companies to the companies that own the pharmacies in exchange for stocking their products; 70% of these payments, which are supposed to be used for patient care, are actually being spent on salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits, and, yes, to boost their profits.

Our proposed reforms would make our system more transparent by removing these allowances. Instead, we’ll be paying pharmacies for the vital services they provide as well as supporting pharmacies in rural and underserved areas. This will allow us to cut the price by at least half that Ontarians are paying for these—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: My constituents in Willowdale get really ticked off when they read that in Ontario, we pay as much as four times more for most of the popular generic drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure and other common health problems as they do in the United States. To hear that the cause of these inflated prices is the abuse of the rebate system really makes people’s blood boil.

Minister, in fact, how are the allowances being abused and what proof do you have that the allowances are being abused?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I believe that we do have a responsibility to take action on this issue. We cannot stand by as the prices that government pays, that individuals pay and that health plans pay are inflated because of allowances that are being abused.

Of the 206 on-site inspections conducted at pharmacies in 2008-09, there were violations in 100% of inspections. In all cases, pharmacies were required to repay the money to the government and to taxpayers. In some cases, legal action was pursued.

In April 2009, we uncovered a drug-recycling scheme. We laid 22 provincial offence charges for providing false or incomplete information or obstructing an inspection. We issued 12 rebate penalty orders and filed five complaints with the Ontario—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Acting Premier. We’re 80 days away now from your government’s greedy HST tax grab kicking in. Already, a senior McGuinty Liberal is softening the ground for you to increase the HST from 13% to 15%. Dalton McGuinty’s former strategic adviser Andrew Steele praises the NDP in Nova Scotia for hiking the HST by 2%, calling it “fiscally prudent.”

We always knew you were addicted to increasing taxes, but when were you going to tell Ontario families of your secret plan to hike the HST?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am pleased that on January 1, personal taxes in Ontario were cut. I am pleased that on July 1 of this year, the capital tax will be eliminated. I am pleased that on July 1 of this year, the tax on manufacturers and processors will be cut from 12% to 10%. I am pleased that the general corporate tax rate will be cut from some 14% to 10% by 2013. I am pleased that the Conservatives’ leading expert at last year’s budget hearings said that our policy will create 600,000 jobs in the next 10 years.

I can’t account for why the NDP would raise the HST—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’m just counting all those jobs, Minister.

Even if the minister says he won’t hike the HST, you’ve got to read the fine print, because the one-time director of strategic research and policy for that party is already out there floating the idea of an HST rate hike. The McGuinty Liberals’ adviser calls Nova Scotia’s NDP Premier “smart” for running a deficit, raising taxes and cutting government.

You’re going to increase the HST to 15%, aren’t you, Acting Premier? Are you raising the HST (

a) to be able to pay secret salaries of LHIN bureaucrats, (

b) so you don’t have to get control over runaway spending on eHealth and LHIN consultants, (

c) so you can keep subsidizing foreign countries, or all of the above?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Why won’t the Tories commit to undoing the HST? I think that’s the mystery question that all Ontarians ask. What is your position? Are you going to leave it in place? I think they are, Mr. Speaker, because they haven’t said anything to the contrary.

Look, I can’t account for why the NDP would raise the HST in Nova Scotia. I don’t understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The members were doing extremely well through the first half of question period, but the noise level has accelerated, and I would just like it decreased. Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Tories won’t say what they will do. Their federal brethren are voting for it; they gave us $4 billion to do it. Their expert says it’s the right tax policy. They said it was the right tax policy before we did it. We’ve laid out a plan. We’ve seen 100,000 net new jobs since last May and 1.6% growth in GDP in the fourth quarter. Things are getting—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In its recent budget, the McGuinty government took the drastic measure of reducing funding for new transit lines in Toronto by $4 billion—almost half the money promised over the next five years.

One would hope that the McGuinty government did a careful assessment of the impacts of this decision. Would the minister please share with Ontarians the impact of the cut to transit in terms of lost jobs, increased pollution and lost economic productivity?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I need to correct the member opposite. This is not a cut of the funding. What we have said is we are going to delay the cash flow for the first five years. The commitment—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The party opposite can deride the answer, but the answer is the answer. The $11.5 billion is in place. You’ve heard that from the finance minister, you’ve heard it from the Premier and you’ve heard it from me. What we have had to do, because of the economic downturn and because of the fact that we do have a deficit in this province, is slow down the cash flow. But I’m working with Metrolinx, and Metrolinx is going to be bringing forward a plan to keep all of those projects on track. They will be completed—a little bit slower, but they will be completed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The McGuinty transit cuts will undermine hundreds of good jobs in Thunder Bay building streetcars. The McGuinty transit cuts will worsen Toronto gridlock, which already costs $5 billion a year. The McGuinty transit cuts will worsen smog, which costs Ontario $1 billion a year in health care costs. The McGuinty transit cuts will worsen poverty, which costs Ontario $30 billion a year. The McGuinty transit cuts will hasten climate change, which is already costing Ontarians billions of dollars in drought, storms and heat waves.

I ask again, why won’t the McGuinty government admit that the real costs of cutting transit funding for Ontarians far outweigh any short-term savings?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have to say that it is a bit rich coming from this member, questioning the transit build. This member is the single member in this House who has opposed the building of the air-rail link, has opposed the work that’s been going on in the west end of Toronto, and has been stirring up opposition to building good transit in this city for months.

The reality is, we are going to build transit in Toronto; we are going to keep those five projects on track. Metrolinx will be bringing forward a plan to make sure that those projects continue. It would be wonderful if the member opposite would work with us in her community to make sure that the transit gets built.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Last week, green businesses throughout our province got some good news. It is clear now that Ontario is serious about becoming a leader in clean and renewable energy. Last week, the minister, at Durham College in Oshawa, announced the awarding of 184 contracts to large-scale renewable energy projects. There is no doubt these contracts will change the landscape of Ontario’s green economy.

Our feed-in-tariff program is already attracting international attention and praise. The $7 billion of investment by Samsung in Ontario is a prime example of this. But too much international interest could mean that Ontario’s own green businesses get left behind on home turf. Would the minister please elaborate on how these feed-in-tariff contracts are making Ontario a destination for green energy development while still looking out for the interests of our own—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question. The announcement last week made at Durham College signalled a great day for green energy in this province. These 184 projects will generate 2,500 megawatts of renewable energy. That’s enough to power 600,000 homes in Ontario. These projects will include 76 ground-mounted solar panels, 47 onshore wind projects, 46 water power projects and seven biogas projects, among others.

Combined with the 510 medium-scale feed-in-tariff contracts, Ontario will see 20,000 jobs created, which will generate $9 billion in investments in this province, something that the people of Ontario are looking forward to. I can tell you that those students at Durham College who will receive these new-generation jobs are very excited about this announcement.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It is clear that these FIT contracts are truly a landmark initiative for the province. I can say without any hesitation that the people who live in my community of Ottawa Centre are passionate and eager to see Ontario leading in green energy. Better still, beyond the desire for cleaner sources of power, my constituents see the value to our economy in green energy investments.

I understand that 694 medium- and large-scale contracts were awarded province-wide. I’m sure there are many members in this House whose constituents will likewise benefit. They are counting on this government to make sure the Green Energy Act lives up to its full potential. Will the minister ensure that Ontarians are not disappointed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can tell you, we’re absolutely determined to ensure that our Green Energy Act lives up to its full potential. Ontarians definitely will not be disappointed, nor will the people in the member’s own community in Ottawa, who I believe received six of these very important contracts. His community is going to fare very well as a result.

Last week’s announcement was really an indication that our government is showing that we are very serious about green energy here in this province. The impacts of the FIT contracts stretch well beyond the economic benefits and reach all corners of this province. Through the Green Energy Act, the FIT program will help us in our goal to eliminate coal-fired generation from our energy mix by the year 2014. By eliminating dirty energy from coal, we’re working to ensure that we’re protecting the health of all Ontarians. This will be something that future generations will be grateful that we took the tough decisions today to ensure—

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

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Health. The McGuinty government continues to waste money intended for front-line health care through slush funds, the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle and unelected, unaccountable LHINs. Now, rural pharmacies will have to close because they choose consultants over trusted, front-line health care providers.

Why are you cutting front-line services in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke in favour of your Liberal-friendly health care consultants?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me begin by offering the member opposite a briefing on exactly what is included in our plan to bring down the cost of drugs in this province. We are concerned about the access that people in rural Ontario have to pharmacies. That is why we are actually increasing the dispensing fee in rural Ontario. This is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do for patients in Ontario and for Ontarians who are paying too much for generic drugs. It’s the right thing to do for taxpayers.

We are committed to enhancing the role of pharmacists by paying them directly for the vital services they provide. We will pay pharmacists directly for things like managing multiple medications, for helping people manage chronic diseases. In rural Ontario, we will be paying a higher dispensing fee.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’ve seen emergency rooms shut down in Fort Erie and Port Colborne. You are closing acute care beds at the Brockville hospital and nurses are being laid off in Ottawa. Money for front-line health care is being wasted on consultants, and more and more rural communities will have to deal with the fallout. I know the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock won’t ask this question on behalf of his constituents, so I will: Where will the residents of Lindsay, Haliburton and Minden go for front-line health care when their pharmacists are forced to close shop because of your drug reforms?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me reiterate my offer to educate the member opposite on what our reforms entail. What the member opposite is essentially saying is that it’s okay that we are spending money that is going to services that do not improve health care in this province. Rather, he is on the side of pharmacy on this. We are on the side of cancer patients; we are on the side of CARP; we are on the side of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I’m surprised that the member opposite is taking the position that he is taking.

This is an important reform. It’s important for all of us in Ontario. It is particularly important for those who need those drugs to get the health care they deserve. I again implore the member opposite to educate himself on what we are reforming here.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week I was in Niagara Falls, where I hosted a local town hall meeting about health care. People were angry and frustrated, and shared gut-wrenching stories about the impact of ER closures in Port Colborne and Fort Erie. Nancy Beam from Stevensville said, “We’ve got to get our nurses back. We’ve got to get our doctors back. They do the best they can, but they need help and the government has to step up.” Will the McGuinty government step up and reopen these emergency rooms?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think that the investments that we have made in health care indicate our commitment to improving health care in this province. We have made substantial new investments in health care and we are seeing the results. We have over 900,000 more Ontarians attached to primary health care than when we were elected. Many of those are in the Hamilton-Niagara area. We have been able to bring down wait times for key procedures dramatically. We post those wait times and people can see for themselves.

We have invested in home care. We have invested in long-term care. We’re committed to improving health care in this province, and that includes all parts of the province, including the Hamilton area.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have a story about wait times to tell this minister, because shutting down the local emergency rooms has swamped neighbouring ERs. Melanie Cooper took her badly injured teenage son to St. Catharines and waited four and a half hours in the ER for treatment before she finally gave up, put her son in the car and drove him to an entirely different community down the QEW, where he was seen promptly, after waiting four and a half hours—there’s a wait time for you, Minister—with a head injury. Will the minister stop hiding behind her LHINs, take responsibility and reopen Niagara region’s local emergency rooms?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am concerned when I hear stories about people who are not getting the health care they deserve in this province. That’s why we’re making the investments that we are making and that’s why we are focusing a lot of attention on bringing down wait times in our emergency departments. It’s important that people get the care they need as quickly as possible. We are working with our hospitals and, yes, with our LHINs to bring down those wait times.

The Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN has really done exceptional work when it comes to wait times on a number of procedures. I know they are working on bringing down those emergency department wait times.

There is still work to do, and we are committed to doing the work and making the tough decisions that need to be made in—

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

M. Phil McNeely: Ma question s’adresse à la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones. Mes commettants francophones m’ont fait part de leurs préoccupations en ce qui concerne le budget que le gouvernement a annoncé le 25 mars dernier.

Madame la Ministre, que répondez-vous au commissaire et à mes commettants?

Le budget de 2010 s’engage à maintenir le budget du commissaire au niveau où il était, tout comme le budget de l’Office des affaires francophones. Bien sûr, s’il y avait plus d’argent, nous aurions été très heureux d’ajouter au budget du commissaire, mais vu le contexte économique, nous ne pouvions pas.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M. Phil McNeely: Je vous remercie pour votre engagement à l’égard des francophones. Comme tous les autres membres de cette Assemblée, j’ai lu le budget avec beaucoup d’attention, mais je n’ai pas vu de mesures spécialement dédiées aux francophones. Pouvez-vous me dire ce que vous faites pour les francophones cette année?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Merci pour cette question. J’aimerais faire remarquer que le gouvernement est le gouvernement pour tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes. Alors, notre gouvernement est inclusif. Ce n’est pas parce que je suis la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones que mes autres collègues ne s’occupent pas des affaires francophones dans leur ministère respectif. Il n’y a pas de budget spécifique pour les francophones.

Les francophones, comme tout le reste de la population, vont profiter des mesures contenues dans le budget, comme les réductions d’impôts et les dépenses en infrastructure et en éducation. Mais surtout, les mesures annoncées dans le cadre du plan Ontario ouvert sur le monde, particulièrement ciblées vers les résidents du nord de la province et vers les étudiants, vont profiter aussi aux francophones.

Pour conclure, j’aimerais ajouter que la récente présentation de la

loi sur la journée franco-ontarienne devant l’Assemblée démontre la volonté de notre—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the minister responsible for infrastructure. After awarding a multi-million-dollar contract for the development, construction and management of 400-series highway service centres under a very questionable bidding process, the ministries of transportation and infrastructure agreed to an undisclosed settlement to Carillion Canada Inc. The settlement agreement contains a gag order that forbids the reasons for the settlement and the amount to be made public.

Can the minister tell us, is he aware of this secret agreement, and how can the government justify making this secret deal and sealing it with a gag order?

Hon. Brad Duguid: No, I’m not aware of what the member is referring to, but what I can tell you is that we’re very, very proud of the investment we are making in Ontario’s roads. They’re important investments. They’re all part of our $32.5-billion investment that we’re making. We’re now halfway through that two-year period of time—a record amount of investment, more invested in infrastructure than ever before. It’s something that we’re very proud of and something that’s creating thousands of jobs across this province at a time when we really need it.

When we look at the jobs being created here, these aren’t just our figures that are rolling out. The Conference Board of Canada has indeed brought forward figures of their own which indicate that our figures very much jibe with theirs. In fact, ours may be a little bit conservative. But I’d be happy to look into the issue the member is raising—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: We have it on good authority that the reason for this secret payment is that the government was once again caught red-handed mishandling the bidding process. What started out as a public tender ended up as essentially an exclusive invitation to only two companies to bid. When the contract was awarded, there was no firm pricing and a lengthy list of conditions yet to be negotiated, with the result that the final contract could be inflated by millions of dollars—essentially an open-ended contract coupled with this undisclosed secret payment to the losing bidder.

Will the minister agree to table the settlement agreement with Carillion Canada Inc. with full disclosure of the reasons the government agreed to this secret payment?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m going to refer this to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite, who was a Minister of Transportation himself, understands that the 23 service centres along Highway 401 needed to be upgraded, and that’s what we’re talking about. Host Kilmer Service Centres Inc. is confirmed as the new service provided for Ontario’s service centres. The government selected Host Kilmer Service through an open, transparent and competitive procurement process. There was an independent fairness adviser who closely scrutinized everything we did, and they agreed that this contract was awarded following a fair and transparent procurement process.

What’s important is that we need these service centres upgraded. They are in the process of being upgraded. They will have tourist information—

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

TVONTARIO

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, given the ongoing decline of TVO in-house production, given that we have capable film and television people working at TVO who can produce good, revenue-generating content, what assurances will you give that Ontarians will see more actual television that reflects their lives and more of their stories produced by TVO itself?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Speaker, I’m sorry, but I think that I’m going to have to ask for some clarification with the supplementary.

Our government remains committed to providing resources to public education television through TVO and TFO in both of our official languages. That has been our commitment. There’s no question that there have always been challenges, but because we respect and recognize the education component of TVO, we continue to work with those who play a very important and key role in ensuring the quality programs that it delivers for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In Ontario, we can produce good, quality television that can be sold to generate revenue and put people to work. Can you tell us, Minister, how many hours of increased television production Ontarians can look forward to as a result of their support of TVO?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, our government is committed to providing quality public education television to the people of Ontario. I’ve just recently had information from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who would say that because of the tax credits that we have provided in the film industry, that has generated a good deal more of quality product for public education television.

We have recognized that TVO is a very important vehicle. We will continue to work with our partners in that industry.

Interjection.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: My colleagues here are identifying many excellent programs that are enjoyed by the people of Ontario—

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

TOURISM

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. As you know, small businesses are the lifeline of Ontario’s economy. They support, stimulate and strengthen our province. The tourism industry is very important in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, including along the beaches of Lambton Shores and in small communities like Dresden, which is the home of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Thousands of small businesses from one end of the province to the other rely solely on the revenue that the tourism industry brings into Ontario. The number of visitors we attract to Ontario has a direct impact on the success of these businesses. These businesses need to lower their costs and boost their savings.

The world and the industry have changed since the recession, and so should our approach. To the Minister: How are we helping Ontario’s tourism-based industries work through these tough economic times?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about tourism in Ontario. The global economy has indeed changed. At times it is quite challenging, but we are committed to remaining competitive. Since 2003, we have invested almost $700 million in our tourism agencies. Tourism businesses across the province will also benefit from the single-sales-tax reform. This is the single most important step we can take. It will mean tax cuts and tax credits for tourism businesses. Over the next 10 years the tax reform will result in $47 billion in new investment as well, creating 600,000 jobs.

We are on track to strengthen tourism—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Tax cuts do provide significant benefits, but we must go further to strengthen the tourism industry and the businesses that rely on it.

The global market continues to grow. It’s even more competitive and at times rather volatile. As such, we need to re-evaluate the way we market and brand Ontario to local, national and international visitors. In a vast province like Ontario, we really need greater efficiencies and coordination in the way we reach out and showcase this province’s beauty and natural resources.

What steps will the minister take to ensure that this government is on the right track to creating a stronger and more competitive industry for years to come?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. We are committed to attracting more jobs and investment to Ontario. This is why we are moving forward with the implementation of 13 new tourism regions. These new regions will help improve and coordinate tourism, attract more visitors and generate more economic impact. We are also investing $65 million annually over the next two years to support this implementation.

We are going further: Our government has introduced the Open Ontario plan, a plan that will support Ontario to better compete on the international stage.

There will always be more to do, but our government is on the right track. Our tourism industry will be stronger and more viable well into the future.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the minister responsible for infrastructure: The minister did not answer my question as to whether he would look into this matter and table the settlement—the secret agreement, the secret settlement—with Carillion Canada and to provide the House with a full disclosure of the reason for that secret deal.

I want to make it very clear that we are not questioning the need for the redevelopment and construction of these service centres. Neither are we calling into question the integrity of Host Kilmer, the company that was awarded the contract. We are calling into question the process that the government followed in awarding this contract. So I ask once again the minister responsible: Will he agree to table that secret deal and let us know how much money was paid and why a gag order was placed on—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll refer this to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the member opposite is asking serious questions about a serious issue, and I’m happy to have that conversation with him if he would like to get whatever details that are available. But the point is, we did follow the rules. There was an independent financial adviser who looked at everything that we did, said that the whole process was above board and was absolutely acceptable.

I come back to the reality that what we need to do is revitalize those service centres along the highway. They are necessary for the people who travel that highway every day.

As I said, I’m willing to talk with the member opposite if there are other details he’s looking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I am not looking for a conversation with the Minister of Transportation on this issue. I made it very clear that, on behalf of all members of Legislature, we believe we are entitled to know what that secret agreement was, how much was paid to Carillion Canada and why it was paid, because we do know that they challenged the government over the bidding process. So once again, back to the Minister of Transportation: Will she agree to table that secret deal with Carillion and let the public know how much was involved and why they engaged in a gag order around this agreement to begin with?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I have said to the member opposite is that I am willing to have a conversation with him to provide him with whatever details are available. Obviously, if there are details that a particular company has that I don’t have, then I can’t give him that information, but I am absolutely willing to have that conversation with him.

But I have to say that Host Kilmer was confirmed as the new service provider. An independent financial adviser looked at the process and said that it was open, that it was transparent and that everything that needed to be in place was in place. I’m happy to have the follow-up conversation with the member opposite, but I am absolutely confident that the process that was put in place was one that will withstand any scrutiny that the member opposite might want to bring to it.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Deputy Premier: As you know, your climate plan won’t even meet its current targets. The cuts to Transit City will further weaken your efforts. How do you plan to make up the loss of Transit City cuts to greenhouse gas emissions? How will you make good on your plan with this reduction in investment?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I reiterate what the Minister of Transportation said earlier in question period: There are no cuts. That’s patently wrong.

But let’s talk about green action plans and let’s talk about carbon reduction and about the first government in North America that’s closing its coal plants. That is more than any other jurisdiction anywhere in North America. While other governments are wrestling with how to price carbon, this government is wrestling with how to close coal. It has not been easy. It does involve renewable energy, and I congratulate my colleague for his outstanding announcement last week. It involves substantial investments in public transit, which we have made—billions of dollars—and I’ll remind that member and his party that they were against buying streetcars in Thunder Bay to extend the subway system.

This government has done more on the climate change file to lower greenhouse gas emissions than any other in North America. We need no lecture—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has ended.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I believe I misspoke in my answer to the member opposite. At one point, I said that an independent fairness adviser—that’s what I intended to say. I think I said “independent financial adviser.” It was an independent fairness adviser.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Norm Miller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege for which I gave notice to you and to House leaders on Thursday, April 1. The question of privilege relates to interference with the freedom of members of this assembly to move within the legislative precinct. I raise this matter at the earliest opportunity. Because the breach of privilege was committed against me and several members of the loyal opposition, it took time to investigate the facts and confirm the details that I will be referring to you in this submission.

In brief, I, along with the leader of the official opposition and the members for Oxford, Sarnia–Lambton, Haldimand–Norfolk, Halton, Simcoe North, Whitby–Oshawa, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Dufferin–Caledon, Nepean–Carleton, York Simcoe, Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Durham, Leeds–Grenville, Thornhill, Simcoe–Grey and Kitchener–Waterloo, was obstructed by the government or its security staff after our briefing on budget day.

You may recall, and Hansard records from March 25 will show, that several members of the opposition were not in the House when the finance minister tabled the budget. We might not have been in the House for the minister’s budget address were it not for the timely intervention of the opposition House leader and the member for Wellington–Halton Hills.

It was not by choice that we were not present in the House for the beginning of the government’s announcement that its planning had produced a record $21-billion deficit or the minister’s explanation of what that will mean for our constituents. We were prevented from being in the House for the beginning of this important debate. Government security staff detained us at the briefing room, even though the budget briefing was over and the finance minister was tabling the budget.

The privilege of members to move freely within the legislative precinct is well established. The privilege is protected so that a member may act on his or her constituents’ behalf, as the member sees fit. In our democracy, our constituents hold us accountable for the decisions we make on how to participate in debates.

In this regard, the government’s interference with my ability to be in the legislative chamber at the time the budget was tabled also interfered with the fundamental relationship that exists between me and my constituents. While breaches of this privilege are rare, they are not without precedent. Speaker, I will refer relevant parliamentary authorities and precedents to you in a moment. These precedents show that Speakers found that a prima face breach of privilege was established in similar circumstances.

But before I do, I should add that the obstruction of me and my colleagues comes despite the finance minister having turned his mind to what ought to have happened at the end of the budget briefing.

On March 19, Tim Shortill, chief of staff to Minister Duncan, sent an email correspondence that set out a rollout plan for the budget briefing. The briefing, as is customary, was subject to lock-up. This means that members and staff who attend the briefing agree to remain in the briefing room and not to communicate the information provided to them until they are released.

What is significant in the correspondence of the Minister of Finance’s office is that it communicated a plan for how we would be released and able to be in the legislative chamber in time for the budget being tabled. Mr. Shortill advised, “Shortly before 4 p.m., MPPs will proceed to the Legislature (escorted by a member of the minister’s office and OPP officers) to be present when the minister tables the budget.”

However, like so many other things with this government, there was a significant divide between the plan and its execution. What happened at the end of the briefing departed considerably from the plan Mr. Shortill shared with us. After the briefing had concluded, members remained at the briefing room and awaited our escort to the legislative chamber, but as 4 p.m. neared, we were not permitted to leave the room.

We asked security to escort us or release us so we could make our own way to the legislative chamber in time for the budget address. We were not released or escorted; rather, security stated that they were awaiting the finance minister’s orders before we would be permitted to leave the briefing room.

Again, this was not in keeping with what Mr. Shortill said the plan was to be. This deviation from the plan is also not what I or my colleagues consented to or could be taken to have consented to by attending the briefing.

We were detained. The breach of privilege begins with the detention. The breach is aggravated by the fact that we were not permitted to be in the legislative chamber in time for the Minister of Finance to table the budget.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit state, “The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”

O’Brien and Bosc go on to explain both the privilege and the role of the Speaker in more detail. In

chapter 3, which deals with privileges and immunities of members, O’Brien and Bosc state, “In circumstances where members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.”

What constitutes a breach of this privilege has been considered in rulings by several Speakers of the Canadian House of Commons. In 1989, Speaker Fraser, for one, was asked to rule on what transpired after a member was stopped by security at a roadblock and prevented from accessing Centre Block by car. On October 30, 1989, Speaker Fraser ruled that a prima facie case for obstruction existed and referred the matter to a standing committee. You may find it pertinent for your deliberations to note that in making his ruling, Speaker Fraser considered the fact that the member was free to walk to Centre Block, but he still ruled that a prima facie case of obstruction existed.

In 1999, Speaker Parent considered a point of privilege raised by members of Parliament who had difficulty accessing their offices. The members objected to the lack of access, saying it prevented them from performing their functions and meeting their obligations in a timely fashion. This was for routine work, not something as eventful as a budget presentation. But Speaker Parent ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege existed, and he referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Following the authorities and precedents, I respectfully submit there’s no conclusion but that a prima facie breach of privilege exists for the interference my colleagues and I experienced on Thursday, March 25. We were physically obstructed, impeded and interfered with when we tried to make our way to the chamber for the presentation of the budget to the assembly. We were held back from the legislative chamber even though, according to the government’s own plan, the lock-up period was over.

This is a serious matter. In a civil context, a court would have little difficulty finding that we were held against our will. But in this parliamentary setting, the detention is even more serious, because it interfered with the interests our constituents have in our full participation and attention on the budget.

Our mere absence from the legislative chamber at the beginning of the budget presentation is proof that the interference occurred.

The precedents I have cited show that this is enough to establish a prima facie case that our privilege was breached. Add to it my submission that we followed the plan sent to us by the Minister of Finance’s staff, but the government did not.

In my submission, it is also compelling to consider that the opposition members did everything reasonably within their capacity to be in the chamber, but it was the failure of the government to ensure we were escorted.

Following the parliamentary authorities and precedents I’ve cited, a prima facie case of obstruction exists, and this matter should be referred to a committee to examine the deviation from the rollout plan, why it happened and how it can be avoided in the future.

Upon your ruling that a prima facie breach of privilege exists, I am prepared to move a motion calling for this matter to be referred to an appropriate committee of the Legislature to examine the breach and report back to the Legislature with recommendations.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Speaker, on behalf of New Democrats, I rise in support of this point of privilege and wish to speak briefly to it. First of all, it’s a very, very serious matter. It’s far from a trivial matter.

It’s important, perhaps, that we remind ourselves again, by reference to Beauchesne, where Beauchesne quotes Erskine May—because here we have a breach that could be perceived as a breach of an individual member’s privilege; or it could be a breach of the corporate privilege, a privilege of the House as a whole. In my submission, it’s the right of the House to have full attendance of its members, unless those members are not present in the House for any number of valid reasons.

Take a look at what Beauchesne cites of May—I’m referring to Beauchesne, 6th edition, page 11: “Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”

It was interesting, I happened upon a reprint of John Hatsell’s four-volume Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, first published in 1818. I’m referring to the reprint published in 2010 by General Books. The first volume opens to page 4, and Hatsell prioritizes privilege as number one in the list of parliamentary issues that he discusses. This dates back to the period prior to Henry VIII in the British Parliament.

I’ll just read briefly from Hatsell’s commentary on this. “As it is an essential part of the constitution of every court of judicature, and absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers, that persons resorting to such courts, whether as judges or as parties, should be entitled to certain privileges to secure them from molestation during their attendance; it is more peculiarly essential to the court of Parliament, the first and highest court in this kingdom, that the members, who compose it, should not be prevented ... from their attendance on this important duty, but should, for a certain time, be excused from obeying any other call....”

Now, historically, as I understand it, and I’m sure others agree, this protection from molestation or interference with one’s right to attend and obligation to attend at the High Court of Parliament was interfered with as a result of things like civil arrests for debt, amongst other things, and that’s specifically what is considered in historical considerations of these individual/collective privileges.

Just very briefly, another interesting decision—this one predates Confederation here in Canada. It’s from the Upper Canada Court of Queen’s Bench in the case of Wadsworth. There was a case where a member of the Legislature—before Confederation; no Parliament—was arrested, and the court found that his civil arrest was a breach of his privilege.

The court states at paragraphs 10 to 11 of the decision, “Now, if it is essential to the public interests that the several members should be at liberty, when called upon to attend to their legislative duties, and that these duties must be regarded as paramount to private or individual interests, as they are undoubtedly considered in England, it follows, as it appears to me, that a member cannot be restrained at the instance of any individual from attendance upon these duties.”

What is shocking and egregious in the case put to you by the member for the Conservative Party is that, as we see it and as we know it now, the police were operating at the direction of the Minister of Finance. We’re told that they, the police, were awaiting the finance minister’s orders before members could leave the briefing room.

My final submission—and this is a decision by Speaker Milliken, which I submit to you is very, very much on point and very, very valuable to you, sir, in determining the outcome of this point made by Mr. Miller. I’m referring, of course, to the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O’Brien and Bosc, page 111:

“In 2004, a question of privilege was raised regarding the free movement of members within the parliamentary precinct during a visit by the President of the United States, George W. Bush.” We don’t have a scenario here where, as in some of the other cases cited from the federal Parliament, we have a demonstration or we have a picket line; this is a visit by an American President.

Back to the text: “A number of members complained that, in attempting to prevent protesters from gaining entrance to Parliament Hill, police had also denied certain members access to the parliamentary precinct and thus prevented them from carrying out their parliamentary functions. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

What’s most interesting about this is what the committee did. If you take a look at the footnote on page 111, it tells us, “The committee concluded that members’ privileges had been breached and recommended that the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP provide written reports to the House outlining how such a situation would be avoided in the future.”

That seems to me not only to confirm the validity of this point of privilege, but also to confirm the scenario wherein Speaker Fraser—wherein the obstruction was technical but not particularly effective, and that is the case where cars were blocked from going onto Parliament Hill, but people could have walked. Speaker Fraser found that the mere blocking of cars, even though people could have circumvented the blockade by walking in, in and of itself was a prima facie breach.

Here we have police officers and security staff holding members of the Legislature who are protesting their detention, who are pointing out that the time is coming that it’s 4 o’clock, who are declaring that they have been assured that they will be allowed back into the chamber, escorted, in time for 4 o’clock, and the response, as we hear it at this point, from security personnel and presumably the OPP, is, “Oh, no. Nobody’s going anywhere until the Minister of Finance says so.”

I don’t want to be critical of the police officers in this instance, because I think that we have a case here where police officers are following directions. I think that we also have a case, the decision of Speaker Milliken, which not only confirms the breach that’s occurred here, but also provides, in my respectful submission, the appropriate remedy should this matter go to debate after the Speaker finds a prima facie breach.

Thank you kindly, Speaker. Also, as you can well imagine, I’m grateful to the learned persons who referred me in the first instance to Hatsell as a source of parliamentary precedent. I’ll be referring to it again, I’m sure.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka and, of course, it’s always lovely to have another opportunity to hear the member from Welland refer to his precedents and all the things that he loves to do.

I would argue that there is no breach of privilege in this particular circumstance. I would also note that under

section 21(b), a question of privilege is to be taken up immediately. While the member has provided us with written submissions dated April 1, this alleged breach of privilege occurred Thursday, March 25. The House did sit for a full week afterwards, and it could have been raised at that time. I did not receive the submissions in my office until April 8. So I am just pointing out for the record that it was not done in an incredibly timely way, though

section 21(

b) does require that it be taken up immediately.

I would also argue that the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka misspoke in his submissions by saying they were obstructed by the government. They were, in fact, obstructed by security at the time. Procedures were set out and instructions given to all members of the Legislature with respect to the lock-up that occurred around the budget, which was delivered on March 25. Unlike other budgets, like that presented in 2003 at Magna, this one was presented here in the Legislature for the general public to have access through the parliamentary network, for the public to have access to hear, for those who were invited to attend that day, and for all members of the Legislature to attend.

I would note that in 2003, I was locked out of a ballroom at the North Bay Best Western, as I had not been a privileged invitee to see the in-camera presentation of the budget at Magna. So I was delighted to be here on March 25, and to be able to share with all viewers across the province the presentation of the budget. I would note that all three caucuses do go through the lock-up procedure.

On the day, March 25, all members were told that before 4 p.m. they would proceed to the Legislature, escorted by a member of the minister’s office and the OPP. That was set out in the instructions. The Conservative caucus was advised that they could leave shortly before 4; that’s what I’m told. I am told, as well, and I am seeking to confirm, that there was some confusion between the security and the staff at that time as to how they were to be escorted.

I would note that at 4 p.m. on the afternoon the budget was introduced, a couple of members of the PC caucus did manage to get here in time and raise their concerns that the rest of their caucus had not been able to leave the lock-up. We were also concerned. We agreed with your ruling at the time, Mr. Speaker, that we stand down the reading of the budget speech until all members of the caucus from the Conservative Party were allowed to reach the chamber. The absence of members of the Conservative caucus was brought to your immediate attention.

We all agreed with your ruling that we should wait until they were allowed to arrive, and we all sat here patiently awaiting their arrival. The finance minister did not start his budget speech until he received an indication from you, Mr. Speaker.

I would note that the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka misspoke in his presentation by saying that his members were not able to be in the House when the minister was tabling his budget. That in fact is incorrect. The budget was not tabled until all members were in the House who wanted to be here. I would suggest to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that you did not have to stop him. There was a request that we pause until all were here, and we acceded to the request. No privilege was breached. Everyone was here for the presentation of the budget. There’s no prima facie case of privilege.

All members who made their way to the chamber were in their seats when the finance minister rose and began his speech. The government intended to allow time for members of all three caucuses to make their way to the Legislature. Unfortunately, that was not the case, but remedial action was taken that allowed us to proceed.

I would note that all precedents presented by the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka are not on point. They do not involve the presentation of a budget. They involve protests, and we all know that we were very familiar with procedures around protests here during the 1999-2003 period. That was not the case in this particular circumstance. They were not dealing with the budget procedure. Twice the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka stated that they were not allowed to be in the House when the budget was presented, which in fact is false.

I would also note that there was no lock-up the day of the throne speech. The leader of the official opposition managed to be late for that as well, despite the fact that there was no lock-up, so I question the—there’s no accounting for punctuality.

The Minister of Finance will be working with the OPP and legislative security to ensure that this circumstance does not happen again, Mr. Speaker, and I will be providing you with written submissions in response to the letter we received on April 8.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have no quarrel with people providing written submissions, but I do recall that when member Ouellette rose on a point of privilege, there was a response by way of written submissions from the government House leader, and that’s fine. At the time, I queried whether it was in order for those not to become part of the record. I was shocked when I subsequently discovered that Mr. Ouellette hadn’t received them either. I just assumed—it was so naive of me. It was so unusual. I just assumed that they would have been served upon Mr. Ouellette so that he could rebut, if he chose to, any portion of it.

I have no quarrel with written submissions. If there are written submissions, though, I submit to you, sir, that the opposition parties have an opportunity to receive those submissions and to respond to them, should they wish, prior to the Speaker making a ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yes, I thank the member for Welland for that point, and I’ll speak to the point of privilege, but let me just come back to that.

As the honourable member will remember, and all members of the House will recall as well, I did speak to this and encouraged this discussion to take place amongst House leaders.

For the honourable members’ information, when I received the notice of the point of privilege from the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, I noted at the bottom of his point of privilege that it had been cc’d to the government House leader. That is why the honourable member from Welland, who is the House leader of the third party, received that same letter today, because I felt it was appropriate that he be aware of the information that I had from the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka that had also gone to the government House leader. I felt it was important for you to have that in responding to the point of privilege.

I would just, once again, reiterate, to encourage that discussion to take place, that I’m quite happy to have direction given to me from the House leaders in future instances, such as being given notice that the Speaker automatically copy that to the members. But again, I think this is an issue that we do need to discuss.

Mr. Peter Kormos: With respect, this isn’t privileged correspondence when one serves notice upon the Clerk and/or the Speaker, for instance, about a point of privilege to be raised. It’s not privileged communication. The Speaker is free to do whatever he or she wishes to.

I submit that the Speaker has, in fact, taken control of the matter by ensuring that all caucuses receive a copy of the notice. I think that’s fair and appropriate, and I think the Speaker has every right to do that unilaterally. I don’t know what Mr. Miller may say to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps, and I’m certainly prepared to do this as Speaker, to assist me in making that decision, if any of the new information that has been put forward has not been copied to all three parties, or all members are not aware of it, then I will not use that in my deliberating.

The member from Whitby–Oshawa on the same point of privilege.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: If I could just concur with the points that have been made by the member from Welland in the case of the point of privilege that was brought previously by the member from Oshawa, it would appear that a decision was made on the basis of information that wasn’t available to all parties. I’d submit that it’s contrary to the rules of natural justice in the sense that you need to know the case that you have to meet. When you don’t see those written submissions, it’s impossible to respond.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to consider a requirement that in the future, all matters be copied to all members who are involved with these points.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would remind the member from Whitby–Oshawa that this isn’t a court of law. I do recognize what you’re saying, but we weren’t given submissions from the member for Oshawa when he made his submission. We had to respond orally to what was presented in writing to the Speaker when it was presented to us in the House. So we had no submissions with which to respond to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And again, I think this is a very worthy topic for the House leaders to discuss. I also, though, believe that, just as a courtesy amongst all members, if somebody is going to be writing to the Speaker with a point of privilege, the easiest thing to do to avoid any of the discussions that we’re having right now is to cc it to the other two parties.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I don’t want to belabour this. This isn’t a court of law, but it is the court of Parliament, the highest court, if you will; a court which has the capacity to regulate itself. I don’t want to quarrel on this particular issue, but in fact there are frequent references to either the high court of Parliament or the court of Parliament and its adjudicative role. I simply wanted to respond to the government House leader with that observation.

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

First, in response to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka: I think it’s important to clarify, since reference was made to standing order 21(b), that 21(

b) refers to a matter being taken up immediately once the Speaker finds that that a prima facie case of privilege exists. It does not refer to immediate raising of the point in the first place, to clarify that.

I thank the honourable member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, the member from Welland, the government House leader and the member from Whitby–Oshawa for their comments. I will welcome any additional information and would remind members that it should be copied to all members. I will defer my decision to a later date.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BETH DONOVAN

Mr. Steve Clark: I rise today to pay tribute to Beth Donovan, who passed away suddenly on April 4 at the age of 67.

Beth’s influence in community care is evident with the Beth Donovan Hospice in Kemptville bearing her name.

Donovan began her involvement with the hospice in 1994, two years after it was formed by Father Brian Hart and the parish council in Merrickville. Originally known as the Merrickville Community Hospice, the rectory at St. Ann Roman Catholic Church was used to provide respite hospice care services. A registered nurse, she joined the hospice to help coordinate volunteers and started the first volunteer training program. As the program grew, it moved to Kemptville, and Beth served as executive director. She worked tirelessly, passionately, and was committed to ensuring that those who wanted to remain at home could and that they were cared for.

The hospice service area was also expanded and now covers those in need from Merrickville-Wolford and North Grenville to the township of Elizabethtown-Kitley.

Beth Donovan’s proudest moment was when she launched the building campaign for a new 10-bed residential hospice to be built near Riverside Park in Kemptville in December 2008. It was a goal of hers to erect a building where a day hospice program could be established.

To her husband, Stanton, and their family, my sincere condolences. It is my hope that Beth Donovan’s dream will soon become a reality.

EVENTS IN STONEY CREEK

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m pleased to tell the Legislature this afternoon about the Stoney Creek Warriors Junior B hockey team, which, by winning the Niagara district title, has moved another step toward winning the Ontario Junior B title.

In a game last week against the St. Catharines Falcons, the Stoney Creek team won game 6 to become the 2010 Golden Horseshoe conference champions.

They will now play in the round robin tournament with two other division winners. The two top teams will move on to a seven-game final for the Sutherland Cup.

I congratulate all the players, their coaches, the owners and of course the parents, all of whom play a significant role in the success of this and any sports team.

The next level of competition is to be held in Ottawa on May 20, but the cost of $250 per student is way beyond their families’ means, so we are seeking support for this school band of 45. As well as direct donations, to support their trip to the Ottawa competition through the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board Foundation, I invite all who will be in the Stoney Creek area on April 24 to buy a $10 ticket at the Creek Community Church, 605 Highway 8, Stoney Creek. As well as having a great dinner, you will be entertained by the Lake Avenue school band.

EPILEPSY

Mr. Khalil Ramal: March was Epilepsy Awareness Month, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend all those individuals, families and organizations that came together to raise awareness of this neurological disorder. Epilepsy affects over 300,000 Canadians, yet many Canadians do not know much about this disorder and how it impacts the lives of those who suffer from it. This is why speaking out about this issue is so crucial and why I give this statement today.

Two organizations that I would like to specifically acknowledge for their hard work and efforts to raise epilepsy awareness are the Epilepsy Cure Initiative and Nutricia North America. These two organizations held a reception in Toronto last month with the purpose of educating the public about epilepsy and dispelling the stigma surrounding this disorder. This reception also provided the opportunity for advocates to speak about various avenues through which patients can manage this condition; for example, through nutrition and many other initiatives.

It was a wonderful event, one full of hope and promise. I commend all those who strive to raise awareness of epilepsy, to educate the public and to find a cure for this physical disorder.

POLISH COMMUNITY

Mr. John Yakabuski: I rise today in the House to offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to all the people of Poland and to all Canadians of Polish descent.

As we know, on the weekend, the president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, his wife, Maria, the army chief of staff, the navy chief commander, heads of the air and land forces, the national bank president, the deputy foreign minister, the army chaplain, the head of the national security office, the deputy parliamentary speaker, the Olympic committee head, the civil rights commissioner and at least two presidential aides and three members of the Legislature were killed in that tragic plane crash near Smolensk, Russia, where the plane went down in dense fog as they were flying to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre at the hands of the Stalin regime.

The void that has been created in the Polish leadership and the mourning that that country is going through are hard for any of us to comprehend. My riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is home to Wilno, Canada’s first Polish settlement, and this Wednesday, Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, was to visit there. Obviously, that state visit has been cancelled. I share, with all the Canadian Polish Kashubs from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke who were looking forward to the Prime Minister’s visit, in giving our deepest condolences to those of Polish descent all around the world.

OPEN ONTARIO

Mr. Glen R. Murray: Our government’s Open Ontario plan is addressing three critical challenges that our province is facing.

The first is aging: One in four of us will be over the age of 65 within 20 years.

We’re also confronting issues of environment and energy. We are losing biodiversity on this planet; one third of species will have disappeared by 2050.

Finally, we have the movement of an economy from one of production to one of innovation.

We are meeting the challenge of an aging population by making our neighbourhoods friendlier to seniors through Places to Grow, building transit-friendly, walkable communities for many older folk who will no longer be able to drive a car. We have also added 1,000 more police officers to the province’s forces.

We are meeting the environmental challenges from energy and water by creating new solutions to climate change and water scarcity with the Green Energy Act and our new water act, while also building jobs and hopes for many Ontario families.

We are meeting the challenge of the new economy by ensuring Ontario capitalizes on the global reputation of our universities by ensuring that they become portals that fuel the dynamic economy with the best talent in the world. Our tax reforms, investments in innovation and research, and unprecedented investments in economic and cultural infrastructure, from the AGO to rapid transit, will enhance Ontario’s leadership role in the new economy.

These are just a few of the ways our government’s Open Ontario plan will help improve the lives of Ontarians: safer, cleaner and more accessible communities while investing—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Last week, the Liberal government announced 47 new onshore wind power projects and one offshore wind project. This announcement of large wind turbine projects is in addition to last month’s announcement of 510 medium-sized projects.

All of these Liberal wind projects will be built under the terms of the Green Energy Act. Under the current law, they will be built with limited public input and no municipal planning control. In communities across Ontario, the voices of constituents and elected representatives have been effectively shut down as a result of the Green Energy Act.

When the Green Energy Act was being debated, municipalities across Ontario asked the government not to curtail their ability to shape and negotiate wind power projects under the Municipal Act. Dufferin–Caledon, Mulmur, Melancthon, Amaranth and Caledon all passed resolutions urging the government not to remove their planning oversight.

The Green Energy Act changes mean that municipalities have lost all power to alter a project to meet the needs of their community. Municipalities have traditionally had responsibility for planning so they could be responsive to community needs.

I believe planning oversight should rest with our municipalities, and so today I will introduce a private member’s bill to give municipalities back their Planning Act powers for renewable energy projects.

I would urge all members of the Legislature to support my private member’s bill. Ontario residents should be allowed to express their views and influence how renewable energy projects will proceed in their communities.

PHIL HARTMAN

Mr. Dave Levac: I stand today to recognize the late Phil Hartman, legendary artist, actor, comedian, screenwriter and father.

Most of us know that Phil was Canadian, but what most of you do not know is that he was born in Brantford, Ontario, in 1948, and spent his formative years there, in my hometown.

Phil is known for his many contributions to the world of arts, including the renowned Bill Clinton impression on Saturday Night Live, among many other characters.

As the founder of the city of Brantford’s Walk of Fame, in 1997, I personally met and became a friend of Phil during his induction as one of the first three inductees in our city. Phil came home and he loved it.

Phil’s career was both diverse and impressive. Not only was he a part of the cast of Saturday Night Live for eight seasons, he was also in several commercials, movies, sitcoms and cartoons, such as the Simpsons. He was the man of a thousand faces. Tragically, his genius life was ended too soon.

I am currently working with the city of Brantford and Phil’s brother Paul and his team to encourage Canada’s Walk of Fame to recognize Phil Hartman in this year’s ceremony. There is currently an online petition circulating, entitled “Phil Hartman for Canada’s Walk of Fame 2010.” You can find it on ipetitions.com. There’s also a Facebook page with thousands of fans already on it. I hope we can add all our names to have Phil Hartman put onto the legendary Canadian Walk of Fame. I can see no other reason why—we should honour Phil Hartman.

MEMBERS OF PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT

Mr. Bob Delaney: Ontario is a diverse province, and so are the people who represent it in the 39th Parliament. Ontario’s 107 MPPs were born on four continents, in 16 different countries.

Most of us were born in North America—83 members. Of members born in Canada, 85% of Canadian-born MPPs are from Ontario. Two members were born in the Caribbean and one of us in the United States.

Europe is the birthplace of 14 MPPs: three from the Netherlands; one each from Poland, Portugal, Ireland and Germany; five from Italy; and two from Great Britain.

Asia is the birthplace of nine MPPs: four from India, two from China and one each from Iran, Pakistan and Lebanon.

In Canada, only British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the territories did not spawn a sitting Ontario MPP. Sixty-eight MPPs were born in Ontario, six in Quebec, two in Nova Scotia and one each in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

We bring to this Legislature, and to the business of Ontarians, a global range of backgrounds, upbringings, education, work experience and outlooks. We speak, read and understand more languages than I was able to count, and we bring together, and to Ontarians, a truly world-class group of parliamentarians.

POVERTY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: In these challenging economic times, our government remains committed to breaking the cycle of poverty. We set a target to reduce the number of children living in poverty by 25% over five years, a move which would take 90,000 children out of poverty by the year 2013.

Our budget announced that we will be investing $63.5 million per year for child care to permanently fill the funding gap left by the federal government. This investment will save over 2,000 child care spaces across Toronto.

We are also moving ahead with full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds to ensure that all children have every opportunity to succeed. The early learning program will be in over 20 of our schools in my community of Scarborough this September and will serve around 1,400 kids.

Last year, we nearly doubled the Ontario child benefit, two years ahead of schedule, and are committed to fully implementing it at $1,310 per child by 2013.

Our comprehensive tax reforms will remove 90,000 low-income Ontarians from the tax rolls.

These are just a few of the many initiatives our government has taken to help families living in poverty, and we will keep working hard to support Ontarians in need.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(RENEWABLE ENERGY

UNDERTAKINGS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE (ENTREPRISES

D’ÉNERGIE RENOUVELABLE)

Ms. Jones moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Planning Act with respect to renewable energy undertakings / Projet de loi 29, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire en ce qui concerne les entreprises d’énergie renouvelable.

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. Sylvia Jones: Currently, the Green Energy Act means that municipalities have lost all power to alter a project to meet the needs of their community. Municipalities have traditionally had responsibility for planning so they could be responsive to community needs.

I believe planning oversight should rest with our municipalities, and this bill will give municipalities back their Planning Act powers for renewable energy projects.

EHEALTH ONTARIO SPENDING

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

DE CYBERSANTÉ ONTARIO

Mr. Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about Ontario’s Electronic Health Records Initiative / Projet de loi 30, Loi prévoyant la tenue d’une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité concernant L’Initiative des dossiers de santé électroniques de l’Ontario.

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.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The bill requires the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a commission to inquire into and report on the spending related to Ontario’s electronic health records initiative, and to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of unacceptable spending in other agencies in similar circumstances relating to Ontario’s electronic health records initiative.

The commission has the powers of a commission under a public inquiry. Once the inquiry begins, the commission must make an interim report in six months and a final report in 12 months.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham to present a petition as follows:

“Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty is increasing taxes yet again with his new 13% combined sales tax, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

“Whereas, by 2010, Dalton McGuinty’s new tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy” and use “every day. A few examples include:” rent, “coffee, newspapers and magazines; gas for the car, home heating oil and electricity; haircuts, dry cleaning and personal grooming; home renovations and home services; veterinary care and pet care; legal services, the sale of resale homes, and funeral arrangements;

“Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised he wouldn’t raise taxes in the 2003 election. However, in 2004, he brought in the health tax, which costs upwards of $600 to $900 per individual. And now he is raising our taxes again;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition” from the riding of Durham “as follows:

“That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario’s current economic reality and stop raising taxes on Ontario’s hard-working families and businesses.”

I’m pleased to sign and support this and to present it to Kyle, one of the new pages here at Queen’s Park.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Sudbury, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients ... ; and

“Whereas” since “October 2009, insured PET scans” are “performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with the Sudbury Regional Hospital, its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital, thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it to the table with page Khaleel.

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

Mr. Dave Levac: This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the health of the First Nations youth in Ontario is of growing concern;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To continue the partnership with the Right To Play partnership with the Moose Cree First Nation;

“To expand the Right To Play program to other First Nations communities; and

“To follow up these programs to ensure that other initiatives continue to promote the health of First Nations youth in Ontario.”

I affix my name to this petition and pass it on to Carrington for delivery.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Natural Resources Canada has cancelled the ecoEnergy Retrofit for homes program and the Ontario government has committed to matching grants up to $5,000;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Commit to the continuance of the provincial portion of the ecoEnergy grants.”

I agree with this petition, and I’m pleased to sign it and pass it to my page, Andrew.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the worldwide demand for water is expected to be 40% greater than the current supply in the next 20 years; and

“Whereas Ontario has developed many new clean water technologies and practices since the Walkerton water contamination, which resulted from the poor water regulation practices of the former Conservative government; and

“Whereas Ontario has now implemented many new, improved practices for clean water regulation, developed better policies and fostered new clean water technologies; and

“Whereas the Ontario government’s Open Ontario plan includes strategies to increase our province’s ability to develop and sell clean water expertise and products to the rest of the world;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That all parties of the provincial Legislature support the government’s plan to introduce a new Water Opportunities Act to take advantage of the province’s expertise in clean water technology, create jobs and new economic opportunities for our province and help communities around the world access clean water.”

I agree with this. I will affix my signature and give it to page Ahsan.

TAXATION

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the residents of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

“Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

“Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships ... and lawyer and accountant fees; and

“Whereas the blended sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers.”

I have signed this, and I continue to receive many, many more of these.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Bill Mauro: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

“Whereas we currently have no psychiatric emergency service at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in Thunder Bay, Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to support the creation of a psychiatric emergency service in emergency at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in Thunder Bay, Ontario.”

I support this petition and put my signature to it.

POWER PLANT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the province of Ontario, through the Ontario Energy Board, has selected a location for a gas-fired electrical generating power station within three kilometres of 16 schools and more than 11,000 homes; and

“Whereas the Oakville-Clarkson airshed is already one of the most polluted in Canada; and

“Whereas no independent environmental assessment has been completed for this proposed building location; and

“Whereas Ontario has experienced a significant reduction in demand for electrical power; and

“Whereas a recent accident at a power plant in Connecticut demonstrated the dangers that nearby residents face;

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to immediately rescind the existing plan to build a power plant at or near the current planned location ... on Royal Windsor Drive in Oakville and initiate a complete review of area power needs and potential building sites, including environmental assessments and a realistic assessment of required danger zone buffer areas.”

I’m pleased to sign this petition and pass it to my page, Khaleel.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Kuldip Kular: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas early childhood learning is a fundamental program in the development and education of Ontario’s youth;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To continue to expand full-day learning across the province;

“To continue to make our children a priority for this government;

“To continue investments in the infrastructure of our education system;

“To continue to support Ontario’s families through these initiatives; and

“To never go back to the days of forgotten children and mismanagement of schools we saw in the 1990s. We applaud the new investments in full-day learning and look forward to their continued growth across the province.”

I agree with the petitioners, so I put my signature on it as well.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Durham, as well as the riding of Halton, it appears. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Natural Resources Canada has cancelled the ecoEnergy Retrofit for homes program and the Ontario government has committed to matching grants up to $5,000;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Commit to the continuance of the provincial portion of the ecoEnergy grants.”

I’m pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents and present it to Kyle again, the page from Oxford.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have a petition today to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we never want to see another tragedy like Walkerton ever again. The health and safety of Ontarians can never come second to profit and greed. Clean, safe drinking water is a right all Ontarians should be able to enjoy.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To continue to upgrade our current water filtration system;

“To continue to monitor and test our water systems;

“To continue to strengthen Ontario’s trust in the safety of our drinking water;

“To continue to invest in new systems and personnel to monitor and test our water;

“To never forget the mistakes of the past and always hold our water supply to the highest standard; and

“To continue to invest in the health and safety of Ontarians through our water supply.”

I agree with this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Andrea.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John O’Toole: I have a petition, also from my riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

“Whereas the municipality of Clarington passed resolution C-049-09 in support of Lakeridge Health Bowmanville; and

“Whereas area doctors, hospital staff and citizens have raised concerns that Bowmanville’s hospital could turn into little more than a site to stabilize and transfer patients for treatment outside the municipality”—not unlike other communities;

“Whereas Clarington is a growing community of over 80,000; and

“Whereas we support the continuation of the Lakeridge Bowmanville site through access to on-site services, including emergency room, internal medicine and general surgery;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the McGuinty government take the necessary actions to fund our hospitals equally and fairly. And furthermore, we request that the clinical services plan of the Central East LHIN address the need for the Bowmanville hospital to continue to offer a complete range of services appropriate for the growing community of Clarington.”

I’m pleased to sign and support this and present it to Owen, one of the new pages here at Queen’s Park.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas early childhood learning is a fundamental program in the development and education of Ontario’s youth;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To continue to expand full-day learning across the province;

“To continue to make our children a priority for this government;

“To continue investments in the infrastructure of our education system;

“To continue to support Ontario’s families through these initiatives; and

“To never go back to the days of forgotten children and mismanagement of schools we saw in the 1990s. We applaud the new investments in full-day learning and look forward to their continued growth across the province.”

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks’ table.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition in support of the Eglinton LRT:

“Whereas investing in public transit and infrastructure is important to Toronto and to Ontario to help reduce gridlock, improve air quality and create jobs; and

“Whereas the Eglinton rapid transit line is a much-needed link that will travel along Eglinton Avenue, from Kennedy station in the east to Pearson airport in the west”—connecting Durham region with Peel region;

“Whereas the Eglinton rapid transit line would create 10,000 green jobs in construction, engineering and public transit;

“Whereas the Eglinton rapid transit line would be a boost for neighbourhood improvement, promoting local business and increasing property values for current retailers and homeowners; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has found it necessary to phase in the public transit projects due to the current ... economic downturn;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make the Eglinton LRT line a priority when developing the plan to phase in the public transit projects.”

I support this petition and affix my name to it.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition that’s addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas the worldwide demand for water is expected to be 40% greater than the current supply in the next 20 years; and

“Whereas Ontario has developed many new clean water technologies and practices since the Walkerton water contamination, which resulted from the poor water regulation practices ... ; and

“Whereas Ontario has now implemented many new, improved practices for clean water regulation, developed better policies and fostered new clean water technologies; and

“Whereas the Ontario government’s Open Ontario plan includes strategies to increase our province’s ability to develop and sell clean water expertise and products to the rest of the world;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That all parties of the provincial Legislature support the government’s plan to introduce a new Water Opportunities Act to take advantage of the province’s expertise in clean water technology, create jobs and new economic opportunities for our province and help communities around the world access clean water.”

I’m pleased to sign and to support this petition and to ask page Owen to carry it for me.

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Toby Barrett: A number of petitions came in today addressed to Premier McGuinty and health minister Matthews titled “Please Don’t Cut Community Pharmacy Funding.

“I am an Ontario community pharmacy customer and patient. I am aware that the Ontario government is considering cuts to elements of community pharmacy funding. I depend on the convenient, accessible advice and services I get from my pharmacy. I want to ensure that my pharmacist is there when I need him. I want to know that I can talk to my pharmacist after work when I can’t get to my doctor’s office or when my doctor’s office is closed. I want to know that my pharmacy will continue to be able to provide valuable health services to my community, so please do not make the cuts to the neighbourhood health care my community pharmacy provides.”

The final statement: “I support my community pharmacy,” as I do as well. I will affix my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2010 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L’ONTARIO DE 2010

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 1, 2010, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some time left. You see, my debate was split. I had an opportunity to speak some time ago, and in fact it’s hard to keep track of what we were up to or what I might have been speaking about a couple of weeks back, because since then we celebrated the resurrection of our Lord on Easter Sunday, we then had a break, and of course yesterday Phil Mickelson won his third green jacket as the Masters champion. So, much has transpired since I last spoke on this budget.

A lot of things have changed, but some things haven’t changed, Madam Speaker. I said “Mr.” to start, and I see that that also has been transformed, into “Madam.” One thing that hasn’t changed is, it’s still a bad budget. It was a bad budget before Easter and it’s a bad budget now.

The other thing about the budget is, you just have to wonder where it was coming from. Since they tabled this budget, have you heard the Premier going out on his soapbox and saying how we need municipalities to tighten their belts and we need them to rein in salaries in the municipal sector, we need to do this and we need to do that, and we need to show leadership on restraint? As Randall Denley wrote in his column in the Ottawa Citizen a couple of days after the budget—and he didn’t say it in these words, but I’ll say it: What a joke.

If the Premier wanted to show leadership on restraint—he had an opportunity when this recession was deepening and it was clear to everybody that business as usual was simply not going to work anymore—he would have at least had the moral authority to stand in his place and say to public service unions, be they provincial, be they municipal, be they the MUSH sector, such as universities, schools and hospitals, “We’re instituting restraint today.” But no, he let a whole year and a half go by, almost two years, doing nothing, with his head in the sand. And now he stands up there as the champion of restraint.

How duplicitous is that? It’s unbelievable that he can portray himself as being the champion of fiscal responsibility after squandering the opportunity and ceding the moral authority that he actually had when this recession was deepening to at least get people to buy in and agree that, yes, we all have a role to play and we all can play our part. No, he makes sure he signs all of the contracts. He forces hospitals to sign long-term contracts with their staff that go years into the future.

For example, now he tells hospitals, “By the way, you might get 1.6%, or maybe you won’t, even though we’ve already forced you to sign contracts that obligate you to much greater spending than that.”

Now he wants to be Dalton the defender, when we all know he is Dalton the debt doubler. Shame on him, because before we leave this place in 2012, the debt of this province will have doubled under Dalton’s watch.

Hopefully, mercifully, he will not be the Premier at that time, because I really do, in my heart of hearts, believe that this province cannot take another term of this rudderless, aimless, planless—I was going to say “shameless” and “blameless” just because they rhyme, but they wouldn’t apply, because they take the blame and they should be ashamed of what they’ve done to this province in the six or seven years they’ve been in government, particularly with regard to our fiscal condition.

The Minister of Finance talks about how we’re going to get out of this. He’s got an eight-year plan. Well, his eight-year plan is predicated on holding government spending to an increase of about 1.8% or 1.9%.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My friend from Wellington–Halton Hills says “1.9%.” We want to be accurate because we wouldn’t want the Liberals getting upset. It’s 1.9% per year for that time frame.

Since they’ve been in government, they’ve never been able to keep spending below—I think it is about a 6% increase. Oh, there’s a little chart here. It’s a great chart, but I’ll have to put on my glasses. These are their spending increases: “holding the annual growth in program expense to an average of 1.9% beyond 2012-13.”

Given their record, that’s not only fiction—fiction even has a basis sometimes in reality. It may not be true, but it has a basis in reality. This has n