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

November 24, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Nov-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 November 2009 Mardi 24 novembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

TAXATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

CHILD POVERTY

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

MUNICIPALITIES

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

DISASTER RELIEF

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOSEPH BRANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

RODNEY WATSON

SHEILA JAMES

SHEILA JAMES

GRK FASTENERS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

NORWOOD FALL FAIR

HOLODOMOR

PAN AM GAMES

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

PETITIONS

TAXATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PENSION PLANS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

SALE OF DOMESTIC WINES

AND BEERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

TAXATION

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

TAXATION

RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTION

YOUTH ACTION ALLIANCE

IDENTITY THEFT

TUITION

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TAX PLAN FOR MORE JOBS

AND GROWTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAN FISCAL

DE L'ONTARIO POUR ACCROÎTRE

L'EMPLOI ET LA CROISSANCE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 19, 2009, on the motion for time allocation of Bill 210,

An Act to protect foreign nationals employed as live-in caregivers and in other prescribed employment and to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 210, Loi visant à protéger les étrangers employés comme aides familiaux et dans d'autres emplois prescrits et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: So we have another time allocation motion before the House; this on Bill 210. We've seen in recent weeks that with every bill this government brings in, it brings in time allocation. And now we see the McGuinty Liberals pushing forward bills that aren't even in committee. They haven't even had any debate whatsoever. We've had first reading, we're in second reading, we haven't been to committee yet and now we have time allocation.

This Liberal government is going to be punished for its disregard and arrogance with the public. The public will not accept and stand for complete disregard for democratic processes and traditions. These actions by the Liberals are ill-conceived. They are arrogant and unacceptable in a truly democratic jurisdiction.

Bill 210 has deep-seated flaws. Time and time again, we have gotten up in this House, and so have the NDP, to point out that allowing warrantless entry into people's homes is a travesty; it is completely without regard for our constitutional protections. This bill, should it be passed in its present form, will undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional at the first court case. But we've seen that these Liberals don't care about the Constitution. We saw that with their stunt driving law. Two courts have now ruled that it's unconstitutional, and they don't care. They don't care.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: So you don't care?

Mr. Randy Hillier: The member from Sudbury is interjecting. He thinks that disregarding the Constitution is acceptable, in his view. I'm sure the people of Sudbury don't agree with their member.

Regardless, they don't care about the Constitution; they don't care about protecting people's rights and freedoms. Bill 210 is just one more example.

Again, these things would come out through the committee process; they would come out through a debate. But the Liberals are not interested in debate. They're not interested in hearing what somebody else has to say. Their grand wizard has spoken and laid out the legislation. They don't care.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That's right, the grand wizard from Ottawa–I believe that's his riding—has let everybody know that this is the way it will be.

This government is creating legislation that is not helping anybody. It's not helping the residents and the citizens and the taxpayers of this province. They're only concerned about creating legislation that sounds good, that gives them a sound bite and a little headline—a little picture, a photo op in the paper. That's what really motivates and drives this Liberal government and their agenda—a sound bite and a headline—as long as it doesn't get past 20 seconds or so, because after that they're completely inept at discussing and debating anything.

They're concerned about talking points, not about justice, not about the Constitution—talking points. They're also concerned to make sure they have good deals, sweetheart deals for their friends and fundraising buddies. We've seen that often enough in the last number of months through the summer of scandal and into the winter of discontent that will be upon the Liberals shortly: sweetheart deals for their fundraising buddies. And they're not concerned about the ramifications for the actual foreign live-in workers.

What is going to happen to these people if this legislation does pass? We should be having our arms open, encouraging and embracing those foreign live-in workers to come to this country, and this legislation will have the typical unintended consequences that come from not having discussion and debate on a bill. We will see—and we've talked to many people involved in that industry—that it just won't happen. A lot fewer foreign live-in workers will be able to get to our province and start that journey to landed immigrant and resident; that's without a doubt.

On this side of the House, we believe we should protect those who cannot protect themselves, and we know that that happens by having regard for our Constitution, not having disregard for it. Foreign live-in caregivers are such a group.

I welcome the opportunity to bring this bill to committee to debate it, understand the full ramifications of it, and amend and modify it where necessary. We welcome the opportunity to create and assist with that legislation, which would then stand the test of time, unlike their other bills that, as soon as they come before the courts, are ruled unconstitutional.

But we all know how things go with this McGuinty Liberal majority. Everybody else's voices are unheard. Everybody else's concerns are unimportant. Everybody else is shouted down while they ram through their legislation, their agenda of talking points and sound bites—and time allocation. Stakeholders have been ignored, and consultations are really not consultations; they're predetermined facades.

We all know what happens with a Liberal consultation: They come in with a decision, and then they bring in a few people to make it appear that there was some discussion. We saw it with Bill 173 and Bill 191. We've seen it with every bill this Liberal government brings in. Of course, we see it with the Premier's—the wizard's—grand proposal of the HST: no discussions, no public hearings, no debates, just ram it through. That's what they are doing with the HST. All the concerns that are raised—unimportant; it's unimportant what everybody else's concerns are. This pattern will hold true. If it does hold true, all the flaws are unimportant, all the problems.

I would like to just speak to that with the HST. Here we are; this Liberal government is delegating its jurisdiction to the federal government, delegating our responsibilities, our jurisdiction to the federal government, which is going to handcuff and bind future governments in Ontario as far as policy and jurisdiction.

I would like the members on the other side to just think what you're going to do when you handcuff future governments. Again, this is really a constitutional discussion with the HST, and I would say that the Liberal government has no regard for constitutional divisions of power—

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —no constitutional regard, and we've seen this on and on—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Order.

All right, the member may continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again, a disregard for—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I ask the minister to come to order.

Continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Some ministers have a lack of culture as well, and consideration; a lack of regard for our Constitution, delegating our authorities to other levels of government.

I would ask every Liberal member in this House, have you ever read any history? Go back and read about a Premier in this province, Oliver Mowat. Go back and read what he did. Go back and understand what the role of government is. Understand the importance of our Constitution and the importance of divisions of jurisdiction. It's not just a laughing and joking matter, as members from Sudbury and other ministers may think. This is an important—

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker—withdraw?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I'll withdraw.

One thing is for sure: This government that was elected six years ago is not the same government we have today. It is rotting from the inside out. It is full of disregard and contempt for the constituents and residents of this province, without regard whatsoever for public hearings, significant and real discussion and debate. Once again, this bill has deep flaws, and the government refuses to acknowledge that those flaws exist. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. That's what they're all about.

It will be interesting to see what happens, how the Liberal government acts in committee, as we've seen them so often in the past silent and mute, without any interest for actually listening to stakeholders and constituents. That's where we should be actually getting some amendments. But I have no belief, no confidence that this Liberal government cares whatsoever about anything anybody else has to say.

This government has not considered what will happen to this industry of legitimate foreign live-in caregivers, the agencies, and the hundreds and thousands of people who help them come to our country every year. Essentially, that industry will be made illegal by Bill 210. That whole industry will die and wither on the vine like so many other industries in this province under the Liberal government—wither and die away. They have no regard for our economic base, either. They have no regard for our Constitution. They have no regard for the consequences to our economy. Just move forward; move forward.

Earlier this month, my office met with a group of legitimate nanny agencies. They said to me, "We have been in business for over 20 years. We are not criminals. Why does this bill treat us as criminals?" It's because the Liberals—because of their callousness and their disregard for anybody but their talking points and sound bites.

This government will treat all but its own narrow group of Liberal friends with callousness—pure and simple; everybody else is unimportant. The origin of this bill was nannygate, with a Liberal member from the federal House, Ruby Dhalla. This government ignores the real problems out there but criminalizes a legitimate industry. It's terrible that this Liberal government really has no regard for its actions.

Because of this callousness, they will force tax after tax on this province. There will be bad legislation upon bad legislation. They completely ignore the wishes of the residents and taxpayers of this province—people who are being devastated by their actions and their legislation. Ultimately, their callousness will destroy, and has destroyed, their party's credibility. It is time for this government to wake up and realize that just like this bill, they have flaws. It's time for them to realize that they do not have all the answers and that their perceptions are not the only perceptions.

It's time for them to begin listening to people. It's time for them to fix their legislation before they bring it in and enact it. This is what this House is for.

The failure to have public hearings on the HST illustrates this total and absolute corruption of process and disregard for our Constitution and our laws. This Liberal government has no credibility whatsoever.

It is pointless to discuss these things with a government that is deaf to concerns. I move for adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Mr. Hillier has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0919 to 0949.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Mr. Hillier has moved adjournment of the debate.

Those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 6; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I declare the motion lost.

The member for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has the floor.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It must be wearing on the Liberal benches to have to always bark the orders and not be involved in real tangible discussion and debate. I thought I might demonstrate to the House how the Liberal backbenchers involve themselves in debate. For the next few minutes, I'm going to show the people of Ontario and the members of the Liberal Party how Liberals engage in debate.

First, they put their hands to their ears, because they don't want any outside stimulus interfering with the party line. This is an important first step for all Liberals: Keep their hands to their ears and don't allow anyone or anything to penetrate the talking points that they've been handed. This is very, very important. No Liberal can be nominated unless they can do this for at least a full parliamentary session. That's the first stage for a Liberal to engage in debate.

But the next step, of course, is to engage in the discussion. For a Liberal to engage in a fulsome discussion about important subjects of the day, their next step is to put their hand over their mouth. The silence of the lambs is often referred to.

After listening to their talking points and their lack of discussion about things like the HST, it's also important that we should demonstrate how Liberals enunciate their knowledge of the Constitution. It's much like the previous one. They like to demonstrate their knowledge and expand on their knowledge about their constitutional obligations like this. Another little silence of the youse I guess. Youse all be quiet over there; you are part of the Liberal Party.

But what's also important, of course, is the Liberal perception of reality. The Liberal perception of reality, of course, is handed down to them by their supreme leader, and it goes like this: They have to close their eyes to all others. The grand wizard has—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Just a moment. I just ask the member to find alternative, to withdraw that.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Interjection: The grand pooh-bah.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Maybe "grand pooh-bah" would be better.

But that's the essence of a Liberal member in this House. That is the essence. That is the complete Liberal—deaf, dumb and blind to everything and anything other than what their leader has told them. There's an old adage about ignorance is bliss, and I know everybody is blissful on the other side of this House.

But really, when you get back to your ridings on—December 22, I guess, is when you're going to be getting back there. The Liberals have really thought that this discussion and debate is so worthy that we'll extend the sitting to December 22. Listen, I look forward to this. I look forward to being down here and having this Liberal Party in front of the media and the public every day so that they can demonstrate just how willing they are to engage in discussion and debate.

Interjection: They're going to serve us a turkey dinner.

Interjection: They're the Christmas turkeys.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The Christmas turkeys will be out. They might be a little bit late, but they will be out this year.

This extended period of time affords you guys all the opportunity to engage in more of this debate, as I just demonstrated, and show your residents—your constituents—just what you're doing down here and how important what you're doing is, that it needs you to grab into their pockets, deeper and deeper, and take another $3 billion out of their pockets. That's what it is: $3 billion in extra tax and extra revenue for this government, who, as they're doing this and this and this, have spending out of control.

This Liberal government is growing the bureaucracy, growing their agencies, growing government at twice the rate of inflation—greater than twice the rate of inflation. They have a significant spending problem.

I want you to get back into your ridings on December 22 and tell your residents how you just love spending their money. You love spending it so much that you're going to put another tax on them so you can continue to do it. For two more years—not quite two more years—you're going to be on a spending spree and you're going to be taking and taking and taking more money from hard-working, productive people in this province so you can keep your habits intact. But there will be a day—the day of reckoning is coming.

On October 11, people will pass judgment on you because you have not had the courage to get out and actually talk to people and hear their concerns. The pooh-bah has spoken. He has told you that public hearings are not an important part of democracy. Democracy is unimportant to those fellas on the Liberal side, as long as their leader has told them what to say and do and what to listen to.

Anyway, this whole Liberal government is really showing to the people of this province what a facade they are. There's some window dressing but there's no substance behind the facade. The facade is made up of those talking points; the facade is made up of those headlines and bullets, the slogans. I remember once talking to an individual, and he said, "Be careful of those who think in bullets and talk in slogans." I didn't realize it at the time, but he was talking about the Liberal Party: "Be careful of those guys. There's no substance to them. There's nothing inside, just a facade that's hollow."

Interjection: Empty.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Democracy is empty within them.

I really do call on this Liberal government and the backbenchers to stand up, take ownership and show regard for those people who elected you, those people who went out and cast ballots for you. Show them that there was a reason for it, that you're going to deliver value to them, that you're actually going to listen to them and that their concerns are of significance and importance to you. Go out and do that. Show all those residents, show all those constituents—show them, demonstrate to them that you are indeed an elected representative and not part of the "Youse be quiet" crowd of the McGuinty Liberals. Will you do that?

Go out during the break, the Christmas recess, even though it's going to be a little bit shorter. It's only going to be from December 22 now until the middle of February. Go out there and listen and engage in real discussion, engage in real debate. Show those constituents that you are something different. Show them that there's cause to have some belief and confidence in democracy in this province, and that you're just not a bunch of puppets on a string, bringing in time allocation motions when there is a real subject of interest.

Show them that you have, and demonstrate that you have, knowledge of our Constitution. That would be a novel thing for this Liberal government to do: actually demonstrate that they understand what a constitution is and that they understand that we, in this province, have a role that was crafted through debate—real debate—back in 1867; a division of powers, a division of authority, and checks and balances to ensure that this great country, this Confederation, would run and operate in a sound, peaceful and secure fashion with regard for the freedoms and rights of the people of this country.

Go out there and show them. Read a couple of books during that break between the times when you're pondering how you're going to get out of a public meeting to discuss the HST. Read up a little bit.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a Liberal Premier in this province, back in its early days: Oliver Mowat. He was a Liberal Premier. He fought with the federal government over constitutional jurisdiction on four different occasions. His name was Oliver Mowat. He took those cases to the Privy Council in London, which was our highest court at that time, and he won each and every time because he understood his job and understood the Constitution. He was opposed to Sir John A. Macdonald, another one who understood the Constitution. But Oliver Mowat stood up for this province, stood up for the people of this province and was successful.

We don't see those sorts of people in the Liberal government now: people who will actually stand on principles, stand on knowledge. No, we see them standing on talking points, we see them standing on slogans, we see them hiding behind headlines. That's what we see of this Liberal government: hiding behind headlines. It's an unfortunate time when the people of this province, who have placed their faith and confidence in elected representatives, cannot count on them to actually listen to them. It is an atrocious abrogation of authority.

I know that members on the Liberal side view themselves as politicians first, and they are politicians. They're also legislators. They are legislators first. They're supposed to be legislators first and politicians second. "Legislators" means that you understand legislation, that you understand the law, that it's not just a game of deaf, dumb and blind and who plays the good spin from the Liberal side. The debates in this House on these important bills have diminished with time. They have diminished since this Liberal government has grasped second-term rot and has no direction.

But I should also add that there is another element to being a Liberal backbencher and a Liberal member. Although they don't engage in discussion and debate, they don't have a whole lot of knowledge about constitutional responsibilities and their reality is, of course, skewed, they are very friendly when it comes to fundraisers. They have a lot of friends over there that they like to listen to—maybe not a lot. But they're good at fundraising.

They really, really treat these fellows well, exceptionally well, have them come and become involved with their agencies, boards and commissions, become chairmen and vice-chairmen, get nice per diems and nice expense accounts. We saw that through eHealth; that's the other one where the Liberal government has refused to allow the people fired from eHealth to come before the public accounts committee, right? They refuse to allow this. That's another part of the Liberal "Put your hands over your ears and eyes. Don't allow those who do know what happened to testify before a committee of this House."

I hope you all have a good, good Christmas when you get home December 23. I know we will. It will be interesting to see what's under the Christmas tree for all those Liberal consultants and fundraisers this year. I'm sure the Liberal Christmas tree will be stacked high and they will actually be able to buy a lot more with this extra $3 billion they are taking out of people's pockets, another $3 billion to buy presents for their friends and their consultants.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of these Liberal meetings they've held. We've heard the Premier talk about his meetings, how they've gone out there and they've had all these discussions. But if you really want to engage in discussion, the Premier has got the answer for everybody.

What did the Premier say this week? "If you really want to get engaged for the public, if you really want to get involved and participate in discussion of the important things of this government, phone up talk radio." That's what he said. "Phone up talk radio. Don't bother talking to my backbench. That's just a waste of time. Call up talk radio and then you'll get some interesting discussion. Talking to my backbench, well, that's just useless.

Phone up CFRA in Ottawa, phone up CFRB and get involved in some real good discussion with somebody who actually wants to listen, because the Liberal Party doesn't want to listen. Why should we do that? We'll get on there and do our talking points after. Lowell Green, he likes to listen; Bill Carroll, he likes to listen. But Liberals—pardon me."

Even the Premier has shown and demonstrated to everybody in this province that it is a waste of time to talk to his party, an absolute waste of time. I'm sure as the Premier escalates and enunciates his commitment to democracy, the next time somebody asks him about discussing and debating topics he will say, "If you really want to get involved in democracy and discuss and debate things, send a tweet to the twits." That's what he'll say. "Get on Twitter. That's where your real discussion is, right? You don't even have to wait to dial up and phone a radio show.

Just get on your little BlackBerry and send a tweet to the twits, and that's all that's required, right? That's democracy." He'll probably say, "I don't even know if they know how to operate those twits or tweeters, or whatever they're called, but send it to them anyway, for all the good it's going to do."

I'm going to say that this Liberal government—I have empathy for you on the backbench. I do. It must be an absolute burden and fearsome to go back to the riding and say, "Well, phone up talk radio. That's what the boss said. Don't bother calling me at the constituency office. Just phone talk radio. That's what the boss said, you know, and I have to do what the boss said." That's the Liberal way.

It must be an absolute burden on you ladies and gentlemen that you go back and you know you've done and accomplished nothing. You've done and accomplished nothing in your time here. That would drive me to distraction. It would probably put me into a depression mode if I knew that nothing that I did was ever—that you didn't do anything. Well, maybe you listened to talk radio and saw what people had to say. Or maybe I turned on the BlackBerry and saw what tweets were coming in today. But I really do have empathy and I do feel for the burden that people in the Liberal Party must carry.

But there is a saying that I think you should all take with you: The truth will set you free. Speak truthfully. Speak honestly. Stand up and show the people in your ridings that you are a representative, that you are a legislator, that you're not just a political seal or a political lamb, that you actually have some substance there for him and that you actually can provide value someday if you just stand up and do it. It will set you free and you'll feel better for it. Part of the best Christmas present that you guys will get this year is that advice: Stand up and show people who you really are.

Show them that you're not just marching to the tune of the pooh-bah, that your residents don't have to call talk radio to get a message to you, that you will actually invite them in and talk to them and listen; and hear their concerns about this massive tax contract grab that you're doing, how it's going to harm people when you take $3 billion more out of their pockets.

Wouldn't it be a blessing for you guys and girls on the other side to actually invite people in, hear their stories and share their reality with them? Understand what you are doing and that maybe the grand pooh-bah's way is not the only way. Maybe there is another way. That way is called being honest. That way is shown by listening to people. It's demonstrated by opening yourselves up to other perceptions and engaging in that fulsome discussion, not just a time allocation motion and a tax grab.

Tax grabs and time allocations: The two hallmarks, the stock and trade, of this Liberal government are time allocation and tax grabs. Time allocations and tax grabs—stock and trade of this Liberal Party.

There really is little value in discussing anything with these fellas until they get that Christmas spirit and listen to that Christmas advice.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The time being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I am pleased to introduce the family of our page Christopher Dabner from Burlington today. We have with us Katie and Pat Dabner, and Tony Dabner, Christopher's uncle. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Today is Advocis Day at Queen's Park yet again. We have over 60 members from the Financial Advisors Association of Canada who have come to meet with all of us, all MPPs from all three parties.

Joining us today in question period is Kris Birchard, who is the chair of the board of Advocis; Greg Pollock, the president and CEO of Advocis; Roger McMillan, the chair of the Ontario committee of Advocis; and my good friend Terry Zive. Welcome to Queen's Park. Welcome to question period.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to introduce to the House the former mayor of Hearst, the former member for Cochrane North and, I think, the best Minister of Northern Development and Mines the province has ever seen: René Fontaine. Welcome, René.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I'd like to welcome two financial advisers and friends from Ottawa who are here today on behalf of Advocis. We have David McGruer of Dundee Wealth and Geoff Carter of Freedom 55. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to welcome three folks from the Hastings-Prince Edward cancer society unit—they're in the west members' gallery—Jeff Brace, Stirling Johnson and Heather Gray. Welcome to Queen's Park.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce a regional director of the Canadian Cancer Society from Sudbury, Connie Innes, who is with us today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome all the people who are here today with the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division, for their educate your MPP day.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Joining us in the members' west gallery, on behalf of page Vanessa Van Decker, are her mother, Maureen Madigan, and family friend Cavalena Cawthray. Welcome.

TAXATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday, November 19, the member for Leeds—Grenville, Mr. Runciman, raised a point of privilege relating to the consideration of Bill 218. I thank the member for providing me with written notice of his point of privilege, as required by the standing orders. Having read his submission carefully and listened to his arguments and those put by the government House leader, Ms. Smith, and the member for Timmins—James Bay, Mr. Bisson, I am now prepared to rule.

As the member for Leeds—Grenville stated, privilege deals with the specific ability of individual members, and the House as a collective, to carry out their parliamentary duties.

In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice,

chapter 3, the rights and immunities of individual members, and the rights of the House as a collective, are clearly set out as follows:

Members' individual privileges include:

—freedom of speech;

—freedom from arrest in civil actions;

—exemption from jury duty;

—exemption from attendance as witnesses;

—freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation.

As a collective, the privileges of the House include:

—the power to discipline its members;

—the regulation of its own internal affairs;

—the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members;

—the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers;

—the right to administer oaths to witnesses;

—the right to publish papers containing defamatory material.

In order for a finding that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out, the Speaker must be satisfied that sufficient support exists for the proposition that one of these heads of privilege has been breached.

In his point of privilege, the member for Leeds—Grenville argued that the members individually, and the House collectively, have been obstructed in the performance of parliamentary duties and functions for two reasons: first, that Bill 218 contains provisions that allow for the government to enter into an agreement that will be binding beyond the next general election, and second, that the government is refusing to allow for full public hearings on Bill 218.

The Retail Sales Tax Act could again come before the House for further amendment at a future time in another session of Parliament, including even the complete repeal of any changes made at this time as a result of Bill 218. There is nothing in the bill itself that prohibits a future government from proposing alterations to the Retail Sales Tax Act or renegotiating an existing extraparliamentary agreement. While doing so might constitute an abrogation of the agreement and could carry political or legal consequences, this is not something that is of procedural consequence to this Legislature.

The member for Leeds—Grenville may be of the opinion that the terms of the particular agreement are an affront to democracy. However, the fact that he holds this opinion does not make it a matter of privilege. The heads of our privilege, which I just enumerated, are quite specific. Nothing about our current circumstances offends any of those heads. Members are debating the bill; no one has been obstructed from doing so. The key point is that this Legislature is being presented with a specific proposal and has the opportunity and the power to grant or deny it.

As to the second point the member makes, being the asserted refusal of the government to allow public hearings on the HST legislation in communities across Ontario, I have before me no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, the bill has yet to pass second reading, and as yet no referral or terms of referral have been made.

However, even if there were such evidence, under the rules of this House, the government has the ability to put to the House a motion that allocates time for each stage of the consideration of a bill. The House, in turn, has the ability to pass or defeat such a motion.

While there could very well be certain provisions contained in a time allocation motion that might make it out of order, the allotment of more or less time to committee consideration of a bill would not likely be one of them. Indeed, we have many examples of little or no time being allotted to committee consideration of a bill by way of a time allocation motion properly put, debated and decided by this House.

There is no head of privilege that dictates the extent to which public hearings must be held, as long as they are determined within the rules of this House.

For these reasons, I cannot find that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out.

The member further indicated that if I am unable to find a prima facie case of privilege, he would then argue that a contempt of the House has occurred. Once again, on the same grounds, I see no support for that conclusion.

I thank all members for their submissions on the matter.

The member for Nepean—Carleton has given me notice of her intention to raise a point of privilege. Her point relates to the applicability of provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act to Bill 218,

an Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts.

I am prepared to rule on the matter without hearing further from the member for Nepean—Carleton, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to do.

There is substantial precedent, and universal support, for the notion that the Speaker does not have the authority to deal with legal or quasi-legal issues and will not deal with requests for an

interpretation of the law.

From a procedural perspective, Bill 218 is properly before the House at the present time, and whether there are any legal issues of the nature the member raises would need to be decided by the courts. The question is not one for the Speaker to decide.

The member has therefore not made out a prima facie case of privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. On November 9, your government, behind closed doors, signed something called the comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement, or CITCA. On page 69 of this HST agreement that your government signed, it says you locked the province into your HST grab for a "period of five years from the implementation date." Premier, what in the world gives you the moral authority to lock the province into your greedy tax grab until 2015?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to begin by welcoming the leader of the official opposition back to the Legislature.

If the honourable member is asking us whether we are absolutely committed to this initiative, whether we are determined to cut taxes for Ontarians effective January 1, whether we are determined to take 90,000 Ontarians off the income tax rolls effective January 1 and whether we're prepared to move ahead and create 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians, the answer from this government is yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: No, I've been very clear and the Premier so far has refused to answer questions about this CITCA deal—these details he has tried to bury since signing the agreement on November 9.

Premier, you have no mandate to bring in this record sales tax grab. Premier, you campaigned against tax increases and now are bringing a $3-billion sales tax grab on the backs of Ontario families and retirees. You're refusing to consult the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill and now we find out that you're trying to lock the province in until 2015.

Premier, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't page 69 say that no further exemptions can be made until after July 1, 2015?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, if my honourable colleague is questioning our commitment to move ahead with this package of tax reforms, then he's wasting time. I think the real question that weighs heavily on the minds of Ontarians is: If my honourable colleague is so adamantly opposed to our package of tax reform, then why won't he, at a minimum, send a letter to the Minister of Finance in the federal government asking him to put a stop to the HST? Why will he, more importantly, not stand up in this Legislature and say that, should he earn the privilege of serving Ontarians as their Premier, he will put a stop to the HST immediately?

He won't say that. He won't send that letter because he believes in the HST. He believes in our plan.

Interjections.

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

The honourable members will come to order. The member from Willowdale will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, after six years in office, Dalton McGuinty is increasingly out of touch with middle-class families and retirees in the province of Ontario. In answering a very direct question about his backroom deal that tries to lock the province in till 2015, this Premier is increasingly slippery in his responses to the official opposition.

Here's the bonus—and tell me if I'm wrong, Premier. On page 69 of your agreement, you negotiated a $4.3-billion poison pill that would punish any government that tries to break your CITCA deal. Premier, you have no moral authority for this sales tax grab. You seem to be afraid of full public consultations, and now we find out about your backroom deal.

Premier, you really have only one way to proceed. Will you hold full, province-wide public hearings in Kitchener, London, Sarnia, North Bay and Ottawa? Will you do the right thing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Education. The member from Renfrew.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians would be interested in knowing why the leader of the official opposition is not in fact prepared to repeal the HST. It's because he understands that while it's in place in 130 other countries and four of the provinces, at no time and in no way have any of those jurisdictions repealed it.

He knows that it's a plan to create 600,000 more jobs, and he's without a plan of his own when it comes to creating 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians. He knows it's a plan that's going to cut taxes for Ontarians and for our businesses so that they can grow stronger, especially our manufacturing sector. He also knows that there are so many different economists on both sides of the spectrum, business groups and poverty groups that have built a very strong consensus around the need for us to find a way to move forward and embrace our future.

He knows that the position he adopts right now is one of clinging to the past. He knows that the responsibility of leadership is to build a bright and promising future. He knows, more than anything else, this is—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. Premier, three straight questions on your backroom CITCA deal, and three times you slipped off the hook from answering those direct questions.

Another question: Just two days ago your member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex held a public consultation on the HST, Dalton McGuinty style. To attend her so-called consultation with the Minister of Revenue, guests had to cut a cheque for $50 to her Liberal Party riding association.

Premier, why is it that the public has to pay the Ontario Liberal Party before you'll listen to their views about your greedy sales tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again I want to—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague may not know that so far, in government, we have together hosted over 160 different opportunities to meet with Ontarians, as distinct from fundraisers. We do fundraisers, and so do the opposition. But there have been 160, and more, opportunities that we put in place to meet with Ontarians, to consult with them and hear from them on this.

One of the questions that comes back to us time and time again is, if the official opposition remains so very much opposed to the HST, then why won't they commit to repealing it? I can't answer that question for Ontarians, but I'm sure that my honourable colleague would want to do that right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, the Premier says they've had 106—

Interjections.

Interjection: Who's the government? Are we the government or are you?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They don't know.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean will please come to order, and the member from Halton.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you claim you've had 106 public hearings. That must have done wonders for Liberal Party coffers if they're charging 50 bucks a head.

I want to ask you, what has happened to Dalton McGuinty after six years in the Premier's chair? First you tell Ontario families that if they don't like your HST sales tax grab, they should call talk radio or hang around the water cooler. Now we find out option two: Make a donation to the Ontario Liberal Party and then you can have your say.

Premier, I'll ask you again: Why do your so-called consultations require a donation to the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That's just silly; I can't think of a more apt word.

I want to bring to the attention of my colleague something he has been saying in the last few months, even: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and to collect two separate groups of sales taxes." He also said, "In the manufacturing sector, the problem with the PST is it cascades, so every step along the way there's a tax on tax on tax, which raises the cost of goods and particularly punishes exporters. So we understand how [a harmonized sales tax] can help the economy."

Again, we're wondering: If he's so adamantly opposed to this particular initiative of the HST, why did he support it just until recently and why does he refuse to repeal it?

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: That tells you a lot about what happened to Dalton McGuinty after six years in office. Premier, your gut reaction—

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Yesterday was such a good question period. It was quiet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Transportation is not being helpful.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You can tell a lot about what's happened to Dalton McGuinty after six years in office. Premier, quite frankly, you should have gotten up on your feet and said that what the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex did was wrong. It's wrong to charge $50 to have a consultation on the HST. It's wrong to fill your Liberal Party coffers with your so-called consultations, and it's wrong that the Premier doesn't have the courage to call for full public hearings across the province of Ontario, because I don't believe that Ontario families and retirees should have to cut a cheque to the Ontario Liberal Party to have their say about this greedy tax grab.

I'll ask you again, Premier: Will you have full, open and free public consultations for families across the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It has been said that if the facts are on your side, then you argue the facts; if the law is on your side, then you argue the law; but if neither are on your side, then you holler. The official opposition has been doing a lot of hollering lately, and I can understand why.

Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that the honourable Leader of the Opposition held public meetings in North Bay, London, Nepean and Markham and charged $25 on every occasion for people to attend.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will come to order. Minister of Transportation, Minister of Finance and Minister of Municipal Affairs.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier likes to pretend that the HST is already a done deal. Despite widespread opposition from Ontario families, the Premier has said he wants the HST bill rammed through the Legislature before Christmas. But he alone cannot bring in the HST; he needs his friends in Ottawa to pass legislation to make the HST possible. Why is the Premier plowing ahead with this bill, refusing to hold province-wide public hearings when it hasn't even passed the minority Parliament in Ottawa?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I thank my honourable colleague for the question, and I want to remind her, as well, of why it's so important for us to work together and move forward with this package of tax reforms.

There's a lot of mythology and fiction connected with this particular initiative, but I think the facts, as I like to say, are not unimportant.

Here are a few facts: Our plan represents the biggest tax cut ever in the history of our province: we're cutting personal income taxes for 93% of Ontarians, effective January 1; we're taking 90,000 low-income Ontarians off the tax roll; we're cutting business taxes to make our businesses stronger, but especially the manufacturing sector; and finally, it's important to understand that our tax reforms are going to cost the government $3.4 billion during our first four years, but we think it's very worthwhile investment in creating jobs for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, here's a fact for the Premier: Even senior members of the federal Liberal Party are clearly uncomfortable with the HST, and Conservative MPs are scrambling as fast as they can to get away from it. Their constituents have all told them that they don't want to pay more to get a haircut or to fill up the gas tank just to fund another corporate tax giveaway. Will the Premier today tell Ontarians what he plans to do if the Parliament actually rejects the HST?

Rather than speculate on that, let's talk about the facts: 140 countries and four provinces have already adopted the HST or a VAT, and nobody has ever reversed it, including the NDP in Nova Scotia. They're not going to reverse it, because it works; it strengthens the economy. Here's another fact: When they brought the HST into the Maritimes, it led to a 12% increase in business investment, which we think is very important. Here's another fact: Economists from the right and the left endorse our plan—I wish my honourable colleague would acknowledge that. As well, poverty groups and business groups have endorsed our plan. It's a solid plan, and we are looking to moving forward with it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, one of the things this Premier should do, as Premier of this province, is acknowledge that the people have a right to tell him what they think about this in public hearings. I'll tell you what they're telling the people of this House: that now is not the time to ask them to pay 8% more on their hydro, on their home heating, on their gasoline and even on their Christmas trees. They're telling the members of Parliament the same thing, and it looks like MPs are actually listening. Why doesn't the Premier do the same and apply the brakes to this tax that nobody wants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I haven't heard from a single Ontarian who is not eager for us to put in place a plan to create 600,000 more jobs—not one. I haven't heard from an Ontarian, either, who would not be interested in any kind of a plan, positive or otherwise, but at least a plan of some kind, either coming from the NDP or the Conservatives, that would create jobs.

We know what they are against. We know that they find security in clinging to a past that is not going to come back to us, but they don't have a plan to build a stronger Ontario for the future. We do. We've got a plan that's going to create 600,000 jobs over the course of the next 10 years. It's a plan that's going to lead to $47 billion more in investment in new businesses, and it's going to increase our incomes by up to 9%. We think it's a solid plan; it's a plan worthy of the ambitions of the people of Ontario. We're going to move forward with it on their behalf.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. The McGuinty Liberal tax scheme is simply unfair, and people want the government to hear that. Marion Calvert tells us this: "It's not fair when the economy is slow and people are out of work."

This tax scheme hasn't even passed the federal Parliament. The government can actually take some time to listen to the people of this province. Why won't the Premier do just that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The individual referenced by my honourable colleague talks about work, and that is what this package of tax reforms is fundamentally all about. It's about creating 600,000 more jobs—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Peterborough will come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the members from Lanark and Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound as well—and Simcoe North. I can keep going. I'll just stand here. I'm quite happy to stand here. The pages will be a little delayed for their lunch. But it is getting a little difficult to hear, and I would just ask all the members to be respectful of one another and respectful of our guests who we have in the gallery.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that it is only too easy for us in this rarefied atmosphere here at Queen's Park to lose sight of the concerns on the front lines of Ontario. I know that my honourable colleague has in fact come into contact with families that have experienced job loss. She has in fact travelled through communities, whether in the north or southern Ontario, which have been the subjects of terrible devastation as a result of the global recession. She knows that the single most important thing that we can do is put in place a plan to create jobs. That's what this plan is all about: It's about building a bright future for the people of Ontario by creating 600,000 more jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Anybody can buy a study, the way this government did, to put numbers together that are simply not corroborated by anybody else on earth.

But I think what this Premier needs to know is that across Ontario, people feel like this tax is being imposed on them, imposed by Dalton McGuinty and imposed by Stephen Harper, and they haven't even been asked their opinion.

Sandra Dawson of Port Dover says this: "How can a single mother who takes pride in making ends meet on her own without government funding and striving to get ahead believe the McGuinty government is considering her best interests when contemplating the implementation of the harmonized tax?"

Instead of telling people what to think, why doesn't this government, why doesn't this Premier at least take the time to listen to what people want?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am pleased to get the question on behalf of that particular individual, who I believe is a single mum. Let me tell you about some of the things that we're doing to help Ontarians. In addition to cutting taxes for 93% of Ontarians, 2.9 million families and individuals are going to get our new annual, permanent tax credit—$260 per person. There are also transition payments that we have in place. For the typical family, it's $1,000; for the typical individual, it's $300.

Beyond that, taxes will not change for 83% of consumer purchases, notwithstanding the bleak picture that my honourable colleague continues to paint. We have been very deliberate in ensuring that we are fair to Ontarians, but particularly to those in the low-income levels so that they in fact come out ahead as a result of our package of tax reforms.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before the last election, this Premier denounced the policies of the federal Conservatives. He said that harmonization may be Harper's agenda, but it wasn't his.

Sally Stewart writes this: "I can't afford any more taxes. We are in a recession as well and taking a hit.... We work on a budget each month and I can tell you it is not a budget that allows a lot of the extras."

My question again to this Premier: Will he open his ears and agree to hearings today so that he can hear the concerns, the opinions and the worries of the people of this province who are about to get whacked with a huge tax increase?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to tell my honourable colleague that we gave a tremendous amount of thought before we decided to move ahead with this package of tax reforms. It is a dramatic departure from the past, admittedly; it represents a dramatic series of tax cuts for people and for our businesses; and it brings in a harmonized sales tax. We heard from economists on both sides of the spectrum. We heard from business groups, poverty groups and the like. We listened long and hard to all of those groups and individuals.

In the end, we decided to do this because we honestly believe it is the right thing for us to do. It is the best thing we can do to strengthen this province, to secure a bright future for our kids and, most importantly, to create 600,000 more jobs. You talk to families, you talk to businesses, you talk to Ontarians generally: It's about jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what this plan is all about: 600,000 more jobs.

TAXATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: My question is to the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek would best be seated in his own seat if he's going to be interjecting. The member from Peterborough will come to order as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek will come to order, and if he continues—I am extending a warning to the member from Hamilton East.

The member from Cambridge.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Premier, do your so-called HST consultations with Liberals such as Maria Van Bommel offer seniors' discounts?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member knows that we refer to members by their riding names.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I'll repeat the question. Do your so-called HST consultations with Liberals such as the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex offer seniors' discounts?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is something that we have sadly come to expect now of the official opposition. I think, as I like to say, the facts are not unimportant. There is a distinction between a fundraiser—we host fundraisers and they host fundraisers. Those are not dirty things; those are important things to support a strong democracy. Above and beyond that, we have in fact collectively hosted over 160 separate meetings with various groups right across the province, open to the public, in order to engage Ontarians in a conversation about our package of tax reforms, including the HST. My honourable colleagues opposite know that. I just wish they would admit it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Premier, while you've been consulting with everyone who would slip the Liberal Party a $50 donation—

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

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I withdraw it.

Premier, 86% of seniors who belong to the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said they want province-wide public hearings. Most of these taxpayers live on fixed incomes. Many won't benefit from an income tax cut. They don't have $50 to buy access to Liberal members.

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

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I withdraw.

Will you hold committee hearings in Brantford, Guelph, London, Kitchener, Peterborough, Ottawa, and Cornwall and let seniors make their views known free of charge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I get the sense there's some kind of a theme emerging here. The official opposition is nothing if not creative, and they enjoy trafficking in fictions.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I stand up; the Legislature goes silent. I sit down; the opposition raises the tone. I would just remind the members again that we have always accepted some interjection in this place, but I do want to be able to hear both the question and the answer.

Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This is a final warning for the member from Lanark.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: With respect to seniors, we were particularly concerned about the impact of our tax reforms on seniors. They will disproportionately benefit from our personal income tax cut, from our new annual tax credit of $260 per person. They will also benefit from the expansion of our property tax credit, which is something my honourable colleagues opposite voted against. But as I say, we've been very mindful of the needs of our seniors as we move forward and we are very confident that in fact seniors in the middle- and low-income brackets are overwhelmingly going to come out ahead as a result of our tax changes.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My questions is to the Premier. Twenty years after a federal resolution to end child poverty, Campaign 2000 reports today that one in nine children in Ontario is growing up in poverty; 120,000 children rely on prepackaged and processed food from food banks; and families on social assistance struggle to get by on incomes $5,600 below the poverty line. After six years in government, this is in fact the McGuinty government legacy.

We must surmise that the Premier is satisfied with the current levels of child and family poverty in Ontario. Is the Premier satisfied?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to have a chance to speak in this Legislature. First I want to thank Campaign 2000 for their report and their continued advocacy on behalf of the too many children who live in poverty.

Campaign 2000 has been a key partner for us as we have developed our poverty reduction strategy. I had the opportunity to meet with them last week; I met with Jacquie Maund and her Campaign 2000 colleagues to discuss their report. At its heart, what their report demonstrates is that Ontario is moving in the right direction to support Ontario's children and youth living in poverty. That's why we developed the poverty reduction strategy and focused on kids in the first place, setting an ambitious target of reducing child poverty by 25% in five years.

The report tells us we're on the right pathway. Yes, there is more to do. I look forward to continuing the work that my predecessor, Minister Matthews—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The McGuinty government likes to talk big on poverty, but its real attitude is that poor families can wait—wait a year for a social assistance review that has never happened, wait two years for a low-income dental program that isn't happening, wait three years for an affordable housing strategy that isn't happening and wait five years for a 25% reduction in child poverty that you're never going to meet. Why is this government content to let struggling families languish in poverty when it gives profitable corporations tax cuts right away?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: It's unfortunate that the member opposite didn't take the time to read the report wherein the writers wrote, "In December of last year, the Ontario government fulfilled an election promise and took the significant step of setting out a poverty reduction strategy for Ontario with a target to reduce the rate of child poverty by 25%....

"With all-party approval of the Poverty Reduction Act in May, tackling poverty is now a permanent part of government business."

And in that vein, we accelerated the Ontario child benefit from $600 per child to $1,100 two years ahead of

schedule in the 2009 budget. That is making a significant difference for Ontario families. We invested $200 million to implement full-day early learning in September 2010 and $300 million the following year.

Every single day, we take steps forward to make sure that we will reach our target, a historic target that—

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

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé. Today, the Canadian Cancer Society is here at Queen's Park to lobby politicians. In June, the society and other partners in the fight against tobacco raised concerns over $17 million in cuts to smoke-free Ontario and the Ministry of Health Promotion's move to an integrated model to fight tobacco.

The minister's response to their concerns was: "There may not be evidence to support integration, but we're going to do it anyway and we may be able to tackle tobacco from this perspective." Why, on an issue so important to the health of Ontarians, is the Minister of Health Promotion cutting an evidence-based program that is working, that is producing results, and gambling on a bargain-basement program that she says herself is not supported by evidence?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for her question. Our government is certainly committed to our Smoke-Free Ontario Act and the smoke-free Ontario agenda.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation that we have in North America. Under that legislation, we have numerous initiatives that are aimed at targeting young people, to prevent them from starting to smoke and to help them quit smoking. We are committed to helping people to quit because we recognize that smoking is an addiction. That is why we have cessation programs and a number of other different programs aimed at getting people to quit smoking, raising awareness and educating people about the dangers—

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

M me France Gélinas: The government can be committed in many different ways, but when you move from an evidence-based program that is providing results to one that is not evidence-based, I question that judgment.

Next week will mark the one-year anniversary of Bill 124, the ban on sale of single-wrapped, candy-flavoured cigarillos that are so popular among youth. The Canadian Cancer Society was ecstatic last December when this bill passed. It received royal assent. But today, people in Ontario with a buck in their pocket can buy those cigarillos because the McGuinty government has not acted upon this law.

Minister, if you wait for the federal government to take action, these products will remain on store shelves well into the summer of 2011. You are planting the seeds to kill more Ontarians. Why is the Minister of Health Promotion so afraid to take action on cigarillos?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I would like to remind the member opposite that since this ministry was created, we have invested approximately $37 million in programs to prevent children and youth from starting to smoke. We have also banned the display of tobacco products throughout the province that can induce children to smoke. The government has supported this amendment to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to restrict the sale of flavoured cigarillos, and I would like to thank our member from Brant, who was instrumental in getting this bill passed as well.

It is our goal to move forward and promote a smoke-free Ontario. We intend to move forward and continue to work with our young people to encourage them not to smoke and to raise awareness in this province about the dangers of smoking. We will continue as a government—

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

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week I had the opportunity to read an

article in the Ottawa Sun regarding an issue that is brewing in the Lanark Highlands. The MPP and MP from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington have issued a referendum ballot to many residents in the area over a water and sewer issue in the riding. From what I gathered in this article, this is a dispute over how to proceed and how best to address the needs in the communities involved.

My question relates to the topic of referendums on municipal issues. Many residents in my riding have been asking how an issue can be voted on through a referendum, and what the procedure is. With municipal elections set to start in the new year, what is the procedure to have a referendum question on a ballot?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the member for the question. I too read the

article and was disappointed that a member of the opposition, along with a federal MP, would actually go out and interfere in a municipal issue in Lanark Highlands. The rules are very clear for a municipal referendum. It has to be instituted by the municipality or by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, must be a "yes" or "no" question, and is presumed to bind council.

The so-called referendum in question doesn't even address the issue of secrecy. In fact, the MPP and the member of Parliament on their ballot have said clearly, "Please leave your name and address at the bottom of the ballot." What kind of a referendum is that?

The local municipal leaders have unanimously condemned the interference on the part of the MPP from Lanark and the federal member of Parliament. I tell them: Stay out of the business of those municipalities who are doing good work for the people of Lanark county.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I appreciate that clarification on that sham. It's useful and will be helpful to me in explaining the issue to residents of my riding in the coming year.

There is more and more talk of the coming municipal election, the first since our government was re-elected in 2007. You've been the Minister of Municipal Affairs for two years, doing an outstanding job at a time of significant upheaval and uncertainty, as we have all tried to steer through a global economic crisis. Municipalities have struggled like many other sectors to meet the needs of their communities. They are looking for a partner, a good partner—a partner that works with them. As you know, it's just not about financial support; it's about meeting their needs.

I have heard the minister talk before in this House about the positive relationship our government has with municipalities, and not doing in municipalities the way the former government did. What are the concrete steps you have taken to strengthen this relationship?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm proud of the work we've done. We consult with the municipalities, we don't surprise them like the previous government, and we've uploaded a number of costs from the local property tax base to the province. By the time that the uploads take place, for instance, in Lanark county, that county will save close to $4 million.

I continue to be concerned about inappropriate behaviour on the part of the member from Lanark. Warden Paul Dulmage said of the ballot, "The ballot is ill-conceived and doesn't address the questions adequately. The issue is about safe drinking water, public health and economic development."

In a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, Warden Dulmage further stated, "Lanark county council was shocked and appalled that an elected representative, Mr. Randy Hillier ... would attempt to undermine the local municipal democratic process and decision."

And the Perth—

Interjections.

Hon. Jim Watson: The mayor of Perth said that he had "great concern" about the interference of the member from Lanark—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a personal attack that you allowed to occur.

Mr. Tim Hudak: A personal attack on a member, Speaker—they called for a point of order on that.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Why did Rita Burak, the new eHealth CEO, seek legal advice about whether evidence of what she called "inappropriate practices" should be turned over to the OPP?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I would like to do is talk about eHealth, because I think it's very, very important that we all acknowledge how critically important eHealth is to the future of our health care system in Ontario. We're moving forward, as quickly as we can, in a responsible way to bring Ontario to the e-health world that we need to embrace.

We are having some very important experiences through the H1N1 vaccination process, where we are seeing first-hand that doctors who have electronic medical records are able to immediately identify those patients in their roster who are eligible for the first phase of the sequencing program. We saw how eHealth really did make our health care system stronger. It supported people through this pandemic. That's just one example of many that demonstrate how important eHealth is to the future of our health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, I would address my question to the Premier. This is a serious issue that requires an actual answer.

According to Ms. Burak, the legal advice she received was that "there was not a sufficient case" to turn over evidence to the OPP. For weeks you've been saying the auditor saw no evidence of fraud or criminal activity, but Ms. Burak found something that she was so convinced was evidence that she got a legal opinion.

Premier, since you've scrapped the public accounts hearings and are blocking a public inquiry, we can only ask you: Why wasn't the evidence turned over to the OPP?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Rather than engage in speculation, I think it's important to reflect on the progress we have made on eHealth and, more importantly, where we're going to go in the future.

We've got thousands of Ontarians now who are engaged in a pilot program for ePrescribing. This is a critically important component of our eHealth strategy where the physician directly connects with the pharmacist without giving a paper prescription order to the patient. We know that that is a safer process. We know that it cuts down on fraud. That's the kind of example of things we have to continue to move forward on.

We have a drug profile viewer in all of our emergency rooms so that emergency room physicians can instantly see what drugs a patient is receiving. That is another example of a safer, better health care system, and we're committed to—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The HST is creating a stir in the Premier's own hometown. Ottawa realtors say that the HST will add $1,449 to the cost of purchasing a home. Local home builders agree, saying the HST will have a negative impact on everything from home buying to home renovations. But, in an added twist, the head of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association says that he was told there would be no HST a mere three weeks before it was announced.

My question is very simple: Why would he have been told that, and by whom?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the leader of the third party for the question. When it comes to the real estate industry, I've had a great opportunity to speak with members of the Ontario Real Estate Association and members in my own riding. I remind them that if you're a part of any type of activity where it's going to attract an increase of 8%, for each and every one of those businesses, their cost of business is going down.

It's so important, I say to the members of the opposition, that we make sure consumers understand that the cost of business is going down, let alone that they're getting their personal income tax cuts. People are getting those starting on January 1, if we're able to pass our bill. I look forward to voting for it.

It's important for people to understand the nature of our tax reforms, that the cost of business is going down some $5.3 billion. It's important that consumers understand that, that they go to those businesses and say, "Listen, I understand about the tax, but where's my share of your cost savings?"

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I'm sure the Ottawa Real Estate Board and the Ontario Real Estate Association reminded this minister about the important role of the real estate industry in economic improvement in this province. I'm sure he didn't listen, though.

Clearly, Ottawa residents and business owners want a say in this Premier's unfair tax scheme. They realize that the HST will make life more expensive for families and present one more obstacle for businesses that are struggling to overcome this recession.

Ottawa residents and business owners agree that the HST is the wrong tax at the wrong time. Why is this Premier muzzling them by refusing harmonized sales tax public hearings in Ottawa?

Hon. John Wilkinson: There is no time to wait to create 600,000 more jobs in the province of Ontario. I say to our friends, and particularly those in real estate, that there are two markets. There is a market where your clients are coming to you because they have to sell their house, because they're being foreclosed, because they've lost their jobs; and there's a market where people are selling their houses because they're building wealth, because they're moving ahead. The most important thing we can do in this province is to give hope to the people who've lost their jobs that there will be a future.

That's why I say to the friends in the real estate industry that it is important for us to have the fundamentals in this province correct. It is to have the creation of new wealth, the creation of new jobs. I say to them that that is what has built this province.

They have made a valuable contribution and will continue to make a valuable contribution, but we will make sure that the economic climate in this province is a positive one, where there are people buying houses because they want to, not because they have to.

TAXATION

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Minister, recent news very much reflects the behaviour of the official opposition. Yesterday's Belleville Intelligencer ran an

article entitled "Hudak Not Our HST Saviour." The

article states—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm just going to remind the member of a ruling that I made previously on a couple of statements: Whether you're making allegations either directly or indirectly against a member or a group of members, I just ask that you be cautious in the phrasing of your question.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Yes. My apologies, Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition "in the next provincial election, just because he is flapping his gums about how horrible the HST"—

Interjections.

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I withdraw the comment.

Ontarians need to know that their leaders take this debate seriously—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member from Renfrew to withdraw his comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdrawn.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: The federal Conservatives encouraged Ontario to harmonize tax through a commitment of $4.3 billion. What will the $4.3 billion mean for Ontarians?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Out of respect to the Chair, I do want to remind the people of Ontario that they can go onto the Internet to yesterday's Belleville Intelligencer and they'll see a quite interesting

article about the position of the members opposite.

It's important to remember that we've told people that we would not have proceeded with the harmonization of our sales tax, and our massive tax reform and cuts, if it had not been for the historic decision made by Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty to transfer some $4.3 billion to the province of Ontario so that we can take that money in the first year, that year of transition, and put it right into the pockets of consumers. That really had been the historic logjam. That is the reason that the province of Ontario had not been able to move forward.

But because we were able to reach that decision, set aside partisan differences and understand what is important—to create 600,000 more jobs in Ontario, $47 billion—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Yesterday's National Post stated that "Small businesses ... should generally benefit from the change from a two-tax system," and yesterday's Windsor Star and Ottawa Citizen stated that the "harmonized sales tax set to be introduced by the McGuinty government next June could rapidly improve the province's economic standing."

The HST has the support of groups ranging from leaders in business such as Telus and Bell Canada and is also supported by poverty advocates such as the Daily Bread Food Bank because it will benefit low-income earners and create jobs.

This is a very serious issue dealing with the economic future of Ontario. Minister, whom should Ontarians believe: those who are operating on the ground or those who treat this debate as a joke?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would give an example: Just recently, GE Canada decided to make an investment of some $100 million in the great city of Peterborough. The CEO of GE Canada, Elyse Allan, said that because of the improvement in the business climate right here in Ontario—because of the actions we are taking—her company, which could have invested anywhere in the world, decided to make their largest reinvestment, I think, in the history of their company in Peterborough. That means jobs; jobs to the people in Peterborough. That's exactly why we are doing this.

It is important for people to understand that under our tax reform package, because of the harmonization of our sales tax, we are permanently cutting income taxes for people and for business. For every dollar that we save for businesses, there are $2 of tax cuts for people, and it's going to start on January 1. It's going to start on January 1 because those of us on this side of the House are going to vote in favour of that—

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

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. How is it that you're giving $200,000 to the people of the Philippines for disaster relief but you haven't given a nickel to those who suffered through the F2 tornado in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: My ministry has responsibility for the Ontario disaster relief assistance program, also known as ODRAP. The rules have been in place for several decades, including when the honourable member's party was in power. We're following the same rules and criteria for every municipality. Some municipalities, in fact, have benefited from ODRAP because they fit the criteria and others did not.

We sympathize, obviously, with all of those individuals who lost property. Sadly, there was one life that was lost, but we have been there on the ground with my colleagues from the Ministry of Natural Resources to do what we can to help as the government of Ontario. Certain municipalities, regrettably, did not fit into the criteria, and that is why that particular municipality did not benefit.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, recently apple grower Tom Ferri said in the Blue Mountains Courier-Herald, "It feels like a slow boat to China, here... there's been a lot of talk, but no cheques rolling in or hint of that happening."

So I ask you: How can the Premier justify acting so quickly to provide aid to another country when he hasn't even begun to help the people in his own backyard?

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me just remind the honourable member again that the program in place has certain criteria that have to be met. We look at the ability of a particular municipality to pay for some of the costs. Let me just tell you about some of the jurisdictions where we have been able to help.

Randy Hope, the mayor of Chatham-Kent said, "That is why we declared a state of ... emergency. I am very pleased that the province of Ontario has recognized the extent of the damage."

Haldimand county Councillor Lorne Boyko said, "Of course they didn't promise anything but they were ... interested in hearing what happened here and they were extremely helpful with outlining the process involved in applying for ODRAP."

The mayor of Oliver Paipoonge, in northern Ontario, in the Timmins Daily Press said, "Many of our municipalities were very hurt ... the province came through so quickly this time...."

We are always on the ground working with our municipal partners. We do what we can with the limited resources we have. I can assure the honourable member, if he has suggestions on how to change the criteria—

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

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Finance. A distinguished group of legal counsel and researchers for past public inquiries delivered a stinging critique of the proposed changes to the Public Inquiries Act. They argued eloquently that the government's proposed changes so profoundly compromise the independence of a public inquiry that it would be very difficult to attract a sitting judge to act as a commissioner.

Why is this government gutting the Public Inquiries Act? What is it that you're trying to hide?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you very much for the question. We're doing the opposite, actually. What we're trying to make sure of is that the Public Inquiries Act can support inquiries that will deliver the answers to questions that the people of Ontario need on very important issues while fully supporting the independence of the judiciary, within the time needs and within the monetary requirements of the province of Ontario.

There are some who have weighed in with some concerns, and we're taking a look at those concerns and will continue to take a look at those concerns. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we have a strengthened approach, not a weakened approach. We believe we have it right, but we're going to keep taking a look at the suggestions that are made by others.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: At the heart of the legal counsels' criticism of the proposed changes are provisions that would allow the government to interfere with the commission after the commission has been appointed. These provisions allow the government to terminate an appointed commissioner, revise a commission's mandate and arbitrarily make any other changes it wants after the commission's work is under way. In fact, it's the legal counsels' view that these changes would effectively end the tradition of public inquiries that has served the people of this province so well over so many years.

So I repeat: Why is this government making these anti-democratic changes to the Public Inquiries Act? What is it that you're trying to hide?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: With respect, I take a different position from that outlined by the member. Most of the comments by counsel and others don't use such colourful language. At the end of the day, we want an independent process. The courts have confirmed that governments always have the right—always have the right—to put an end to an inquiry. It is rarely used. All we've done in this act is actually make that transparent by putting it in the act, by confirming what's already there.

Again, we very much respect the comments being made by the former commission counsel and others. We're taking a look at those. At the end of the day, we want a strengthened process. We need to deliver the answers the people of Ontario need and to be respectful of the taxpayers' money.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. There's no excuse to drink and drive. While most Ontarians obey the rules, this message, it seems, has not reached everyone. This behaviour is unacceptable and it's a concern I hear often from the residents in my riding of Mississauga South.

Recently, I hosted a reception for Smart Serve here at Queen's Park. They're an organization developed to promote and provide information about safe alcohol service, both at work and at home.

It's important to have awareness organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, and Smart Serve working alongside our governments. These groups help educate the public on the consequences of drinking and driving, and how to prevent it.

What is the Ministry of Transportation doing to help reduce the instances of drinking and driving in Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much. Excellent question. I applaud the efforts of our safety partners, and that includes MADD Canada, OCCID and our enforcement agencies. They all work very hard to keep drunk drivers off our roads.

As you know, Ontario's roads are the safest in North America. We continue to work hard to keep them that way. For example, this past year we have seen significant increases in spot checks across the province, due to the doubling of our funding to the RIDE program.

That being said, there's always more that can be done, and that is why MTO staff are continuously reviewing current policies, monitoring other jurisdictions and working with our safety partners to determine the best ways to keep Ontario's roads safe.

I look forward to being able to discuss some of these efforts in the supplementary questions, but I can tell you that our partners that we have out there have been indispensable in terms of providing us with good advice and strong—

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

Mr. Charles Sousa: Each year in Ontario, statistics show that drinking-and-driving collisions are the cause of almost one quarter of all traffic fatalities. The behaviour of drinking and driving, especially that of repeat offenders, is a learned behaviour. Concerned residents in my riding and, I'm sure, people all across Ontario want to see this behaviour stopped before it begins.

In his first answer, the minister mentioned other initiatives that the government is moving forward with to keep our roads safe. Can the minister tell this House what he's doing to combat drinking and driving on Ontario roads?

Hon. James J. Bradley: We have among the toughest drinking-and-driving sanctions, I think, in all of North America, and that's thanks to the support of all members of this House.

New measures are already in place to seize and forfeit the vehicles of repeat drunk drivers. Effective on May 1, 2009, drivers caught with a blood-alcohol concentration between 0.05 and 0.08, the "warn" range, face longer suspensions of drivers' licences and additional sanctions: for the first instance, three days; for a second instance, seven days and the requirement to take a remedial alcohol education program; and for a third instance, 30 days, the requirement to take a remedial alcohol treatment program, as well as having an ignition interlock condition on their licence for six months.

Both education and prevention are key to the reduction of drinking and driving. That's why in this House we also unanimously passed supportive legislation that requires zero blood alcohol—

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

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question was for the Minister of Children and Youth Services but I will ask the Premier. The parting gift that the now Minister of Health left for children's aid societies across Ontario was a $67-million cut to their budgets.

Dufferin Child and Family Services have had their budget cut by 17.1%. Peel Children's Aid Society will be forced to cut 24 front-line workers. Durham Children's Aid Society have said they would need to cut 63 jobs to balance their budget. Halton is faced with cutting 34 front-line workers. The York Region Children's Aid Society has already laid off 16 front-line workers—and more are expected.

Premier, what's it going to take for your minister to accept her responsibility to protect Ontario's most vulnerable children?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to this question. It's a very important issue.

One of arguably the greatest responsibilities we share is that, through our children's aid societies, when we take children into care, we are effectively acting as their mothers and fathers. I'm not sure there's a greater responsibility any of us might take on during the course of our lives than to act as a parent.

I think it's very fair to say that we have dramatically increased funding levels for our children's aid societies during the course of the past six years. What we want to do now is, through our sustainability commission, work with the children's aid societies to ensure that we have effective and efficient use of that funding. That work will begin very, very shortly.

Funding had been rising far faster than case volume. It's important to understand that since 2003, funding is up over 29% and children in care up less than 1%.

We believe that all of that money—every one of those dollars—is well invested. We want to make sure, through our sustainability commission, that we're getting the best value.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I just want to, upon reflection, refer back to an exchange of questions between the member from Peterborough and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Upon reflection—and this is one of the challenges of a loud chamber and of trying to hear every word—I'm of the opinion that there was a personal attack directed at another member of this Legislature, and I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw his comments, please. I'm specifically asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Jim Watson: I was quoting a letter, and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm just asking that you withdraw the comments.

Hon. Jim Watson: If it was inappropriate, I withdraw the quote from the county warden.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I need an unequivocal withdrawal.

Hon. Jim Watson: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Whitby—Oshawa has given her notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Health: the reason why evidence of inappropriate practices at eHealth was not turned over to the OPP. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Cambridge has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning consultations regarding the proposed new HST. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Greg Sorbara: It is my pleasure to welcome this afternoon to this House the family of the late Sheila James about whom I will say a little bit more during members' statements. Her husband, Wayde Preston; daughters, Georgina and Ellen Preston; her parents, Bill and June James; her parents-in-law, Maurice and Donna Preston; her siblings and all the people who are here today to listen to a few words of tribute in honour of Sheila—we welcome you all to this Legislature.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOSEPH BRANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to make a statement regarding the pending approval of the proposal for redevelopment of the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington.

I want to thank my colleague Christine Elliott, PC critic, for asking questions on this issue to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the deputy minister on November 3 in the Standing Committee on Estimates on my behalf.

Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital hasn't seen any major restructuring changes since the 1970s. That's almost 40 years of stagnant physical change to the hospital. It is critical that the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital proposal move more quickly to approval of their expansion and renewal plans.

Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital was one of the hardest hit by the C. difficile bacterium in the spring and summer of 2008. Included in this renewal of the hospital is an increase of private rooms from 15% to 80%, which will meet the ministry's new design guidelines for infectious disease control.

The request has never been approved. So here we are now, in 2009, six years later, and we still don't have an imminent approval of these plans. I will continue to stand and call for the approval of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital's restructuring proposal. You know, after waiting 40 years for changes to our hospital, surely the people of Burlington should not have to wait any longer.

RODNEY WATSON

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On October 19, Iraq war veteran Rodney Watson announced that he had been living in sanctuary at Vancouver's First United Church for a month. Rodney remains there today. The 31-year-old is in a self-imposed prison because he was facing deportation to military custody in the United States, despite Canada's Parliament having voted against such deportations.

After completing his first tour of duty in Iraq in 2006, Rodney made the decision that he could not, in good conscience, go back. As Rodney's own words explained, he continues to be disturbed by his participation in this unsanctioned war. Rodney, who is of African-American descent, found the racism of his fellow soldiers unacceptable, whether directed at him or foreign non-combatants.

I speak of Rodney's situation today because most of the US Iraq war resisters who are in Canada and have spoken out publicly live in my riding. Twice, the majority of federal members of Parliament have voted on the initiative of Toronto MP Olivia Chow to direct the government to immediately stop deporting US Iraq war resisters and to create a program to facilitate their staying here in Canada.

I urge all members of this assembly to speak with the members of Parliament who represent your ridings in Ottawa and ask them to oppose the deportation of Rodney Watson and other US Iraq war resisters.

Minister Chan, I urge you to write to your federal counterpart, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, to let him know that the majority of Ontarians, 63%, want US Iraq war resisters to be welcomed as permanent residents.

SHEILA JAMES

Mr. Greg Sorbara: I rise today to pay honour to a woman who has had a profound and permanent impact on many of us in this House and on the public life of our province.

Sheila James was a truly great spirit: a mother, a wife, a partner, a daughter, a sister, a public affairs professional and a brilliant adviser to cabinet ministers and political candidates as well as two Premiers. Sadly, Sheila died last August.

I am also pleased and honoured to announce the establishment of the Sheila James memorial fund through Equal Voice. This is a fund that will advance some of Sheila's greatest passions and interests and support initiatives to promote the election of women to public office across the province and across the country.

Sheila amazed me. Her intelligence was extraordinary. Her analytical skills were unsurpassed. She was a brilliant force for good. She always spoke truth to power, and she had an incredible sense of humour and a deep love for life and family.

Today we pay tribute to the many varied accomplishments in her life and to the fine work that the fund will do to honour her.

We offer her family—her husband, Wayde, and daughters Georgina and Ellen—and all of her admirers our enduring affection and support. We will remember her fondly.

SHEILA JAMES

Mr. John O'Toole: It's an honour to add a few words of tribute to the late Sheila James.

I must admit here that I did not know Sheila James, but I certainly heard of her. Her parents, Bill and June James, live in my riding of Durham, as do Sheila's parents-in-law, Maurice and Donna Preston, her brother-in-law, Marty Preston, and sister-in-law, Paddy Grayhurst. They are with Sheila's husband, Wayde Preston, and daughters Georgina and Ellen in the gallery, as Greg Sorbara said.

Sheila James is cherished as a mother, wife, partner, daughter, sister, colleague and friend. Her life was devoted to making a difference through excellence as a communications professional. As has been said, she served with Premier David Peterson and Premier Dalton McGuinty, with obvious success.

Toronto Star columnist Jim Coyle said, in a tribute published yesterday, that we "give the world three things.

"We give it our labour.... We give it our example.... Most of all, we give it our children—the greatest expression of faith and hope there is."

Sheila James's parents and family have every reason to be proud, and I know they are. The life of Sheila James will continue to lead and inspire others, and we thank the James and Preston families for their devotion to community and service.

GRK FASTENERS

Mr. Bill Mauro: Twenty years ago, Uli Walther and his family came to Canada and resided in Thunder Bay—Atikokan, my riding, out on Rosslyn Road, and established their business, called GRK Fasteners. They have about 38 employees there and about another 27 in the United States, marketing their product, which is a patented technology. Currently, about 400 million units of that technology come through Thunder Bay. Through the great work of that company and the great product that they patented, they're poised for huge growth, to see that double to almost 800 million units. Their patented screw technology is very much in demand.

But here's the rub: They may have to leave Thunder Bay. The federal government began by applying an 8% tariff on this company and then, with almost no notice, they increased it to 170%, as the company brings in supplies from suppliers around the world.

Aerospace, auto and recreation are exempted, but for some reason, using SIMA, the Special Import Measures Act, as the legislative authority, the CBSA, the Canadian Border Services Agency, has decided to slam this family-owned and -run business in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

CITT, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, has heard the appeal from this company. We're hoping that they'll pay attention. They will be ruling soon on this. We need the feds to be aware of this unfair application and ensure that they're doing all that they can to ensure that this Ontario-based company gets to continue to stay in Ontario, in Thunder Bay, and continue to employ people.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I would like to take a moment to recognize the excellent work that the current Minister of Transportation has done on the extension project of Highway 410 to Highway 10 in Brampton. This project, started under Premier Ernie Eves, helps me to get back home to Bognor much faster. Highway 10 is now a four-lane road to Orangeville.

However, I would like to remind the current Minister of Transportation that he cannot stop now. He needs to keep going north of Orangeville to Owen Sound. With the winter approaching, it won't be enough for the minister to simply tell my constituents that they need to be prepared, stay alert and drive according to road and weather conditions.

As he is no doubt aware, improvements to the stretch of Highway 26 between Woodford and Meaford have been in the works for years. But I wonder if the minister realizes that it has been 18 long years since I was promised improvements to the treacherous Bayview Hill area on Highway 26. I hope it won't be another 18 years before something is done.

We also need to see roadwork done on Highway 6 from Durham to Tobermory. This is an especially treacherous stretch of highway to drive on in the wintertime. I know I speak for all my constituents when I call on the current Minister of Transportation to get going with road improvements in that neck of the woods.

The road remains a two-lane highway for its full length up to Tobermory. Highway 6 spans 110 kilometres on the Bruce Peninsula. That's a lot of communities counting on you, Minister, to get the job done like you did for the people of Brampton and Orangeville.

NORWOOD FALL FAIR

Mr. Jeff Leal: I rise today to speak about an event that I look forward to attending every year, the Norwood fair. Like many other fall fairs, it is attended by thousands of guests each year, because it offers those attending the opportunity to experience rural life and celebrate our rural communities.

This year, I had the pleasure of talking about two talented young people, Ms. Christina Crowley and Mr. Kyle Rivington. Both had the distinct honour of competing in the European Young Breeders Competition in Battice, Belgium. Ms. Crowley and Mr. Rivington were chosen because of their success in previous Holstein Canada, 4-H and EBI competitions. Mr. Rivington, aged 23, took top honours, as well as Overall Top Individual for the show, and Ms. Crowley, aged 22, was fifth overall and won the Grand Champion Showperson award. The competition involved not only showing their cattle but answering questions from judges.

These two young people gained valuable experience in the agricultural sector and made friendships with their European colleagues. These friendships led to a decision to remain in Europe and visit some Holstein herds in Italy. They then made their way to Paris and to Buckingham Palace before travelling to Rome.

Their love for the agricultural community will see these young people evolve into successful adults. They are an example of the value of supporting rural youth in our agricultural programs. Congratulations to Ms. Crowley and Mr. Rivington for a job well done.

HOLODOMOR

Mr. Dave Levac: Yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of Holodmor and the start of Holodomor Education Week. I had the opportunity to address the opening of Holodomor Education Week yesterday in Toronto. I want to thank Minister Michael Chan for affording me the honour of presenting a memorial plaque on his behalf to the Ukrainian community, and the Premier for allowing me to bring words of greeting from him on behalf of all Ontarians.

A great many Ontarians have no personal experience of forced famine or tyranny and no way of knowing the anguish and chaos that plagued a dictator's time in power. Some, unfortunately, do. Holodomor Education Week is enormously important for those too far removed or too young to understand or even feel Holodomor's significance. Ten million people were starved to death by Stalin.

This is why commemorating Holodomor through the efforts of Ukrainian Canadians and the League of Ukrainian Canadian Women, and through acts of this House, is so very important for us to relive and understand history.

By joining and working together, the very first ever tri-sponsored private member's bill reached royal assent on April 23, 2009. We made history. For the first time in Canadian history, it was a tri-sponsored bill.

I want to thank MPPs Cheri DiNovo, Frank Klees, Ernie Hardeman, Gerry Martiniuk, Minister Laurel Broten, Minister Donna Cansfield, MPP Khalil Ramal, Minister Chan, Minister Fonseca, and you, Speaker, for your support for this very important day.

I say today, never again. Ukraine remembers; the world acknowledges. Dyakuju.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Joe Dickson: Along with millions of Ontarians, I'm looking forward to the 2015 Pan Am Games, which will be hosted here in Ontario. These games are expected to inject billions into Ontario's economy and create 15,000 new jobs.

To house the 10,000 athletes and officials who will come to compete in the Pan Am Games, new housing development will be built in Toronto. The much-needed new affordable housing will be with us long after the games for all regions.

In my area of Durham region, four municipalities, including Ajax, Pickering, Whitby and Oshawa, will all host competitions. Even better, my four communities will not incur any capital costs.

Some of the events to be held in Durham region are indoor shooting at the Ajax Community Centre; modern pentathlon, held at the Pickering Horse Centre; outdoor shooting at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club; boxing at Oshawa's General Motors Centre; wheelchair basketball at a new build, Abilities Centre, set for completion in 2014; boccia at Durham College in Oshawa; wheelchair tennis at the Iroquois sports park in Whitby; and softball at the Lakefront West Park in Oshawa.

We were fortunate to have a number of key people—including David Peterson, bid chair; Jagoda Pike, CEO; Premier Dalton McGuinty; Health Promotion Minister Margarett Best; and others—at the bid opening, and we congratulate everyone on their success.

VISITOR

Mr. Bill Mauro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I could just introduce, in the members' east gallery, Mike Skube, down here for Advocis Day. He wasn't here a little bit earlier.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That was not a point of order.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business, such that Mr. Hoskins assumes ballot item number 56 and Mr. Sorbara assumes ballot item number 79.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the November 24, 2009, report of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 108(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. David Orazietti: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on General Government and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to greenhouse gas emissions trading and other economic and financial instruments and market-based approaches / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui concerne l'échange de droits d'émission de gaz à effet de serre ainsi que d'autres instruments économiques et financiers et approches axées sur le marché.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1518 to 1523.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Orazietti has moved the Standing Committee on General Government report regarding Bill 185. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 44; the nays are 12.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

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

"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 ... haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships"—not newspapers anymore; the Star bought them off—"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 also and will send it with Connor.

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 ...;

"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."

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Jim Wilson: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several paramedics in Simcoe county had their pensions affected when paramedic services were transferred to the county of Simcoe, as their pensions were not transferred with them from" the hospitals of Ontario pension plan and the OPSEU trust "to OMERS, meaning they will receive significantly reduced pensions because their transfer did not recognize their years of continuous service; and

"Whereas when these paramedics started with their new employer, the county of Simcoe, their past pensionable years were not recognized because of existing pension legislation; and

"Whereas the government's own Expert Commission on Pensions has recommended that the government move swiftly to address this issue; and

"Whereas the government should recognize this issue as a technicality and not penalize hard-working paramedics;

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

"That the Minister of Finance support Simcoe—Grey MPP Jim Wilson's resolution that calls upon the government to address this issue immediately and ensure that any legislation or regulation allows paramedics in Simcoe county who were affected by the divestment of paramedic services in the 1990s and beyond to transfer their pensions to OMERS from" the hospitals of Ontario pension plan or the OPSEU trust pension plan.

I obviously agree with this petition and I'm signing it.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the good people of Sudbury and it's about requesting a PET scan. It goes as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service ...; and

"Whereas by October 2009, insured PET scans will be 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 Karen.

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition in support of proclaiming April Hispanic Heritage Month in Ontario. I join my colleague the honourable Antonio Ruprecht in this petition.

"Whereas Canadians of Hispanic origin have made outstanding contributions in the building of this great province; and

"Whereas the Hispanic population is among the fastest-growing communities in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Hispanic population in Ontario represents 23 countries across the world, such as Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador ... Peru, Puerto Rico, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela; and

"Whereas Hispanic Heritage Month would give Ontarians the opportunity to participate in various cultural and educational activities that would strengthen our diversity; and

"Whereas the proclamation of April as Hispanic Heritage Month in Ontario is an opportunity to recognize and learn about the contributions Canadians of Hispanic heritage have made to Canada and to the world in music, art, literature, films, economics, science and medicine;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support proclaiming April of each year as Hispanic Heritage Month in Ontario."

I support this petition and affix my name to it.

SALE OF DOMESTIC WINES

AND BEERS

Mr. Toby Barrett: One thousand, seven hundred and fifty-two signatures have arrived on petitions from the OKBA, Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association, titled "Say Yes to Beer and Wine Sales in Convenience Stores.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario restricts the sale of beer and wine to the LCBO, a few winery retail stores and the Beer Store, and the three large beer companies are owned by multinationals;

"Whereas other provinces (notably Quebec) have been selling beer and wine in local convenience stores for many years without any harm to the well-being of the public;

"Whereas it is desirable to promote the sale of beer and wine in a convenient manner consistent with a contemporary society;

"Whereas it is essential to support local convenience stores for the survival of small businesses;

"Whereas it is obvious from the current market trends that the sale of wine and beer in convenience stores is not a question of 'if' but 'when';

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Liquor Control Act to permit the sale of beer and wine in local convenience stores to the public throughout the province and to do it now."

I sign the petition.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: The subject of this petition is, "Stop the Exploitation of Foreign Workers," and it's actually in support of Bill 160, whose author is Michael Colle—the caregiver and worker protection act. It reads as follows—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Can you just read it?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this is true. I've got it right here; it's right on here.

"Whereas a number of foreign worker and caregiver recruitment agencies have exploited vulnerable foreign workers; and

"Whereas foreign workers are subject to illegal fees and abuse at the hands of some of these unscrupulous recruiters; and

"Whereas the federal government in Ottawa has failed to protect foreign workers from these abuses; and

"Whereas, in Ontario, the former government deregulated and eliminated protection for foreign workers; and

"Whereas a great number of foreign workers and caregivers perform outstanding and difficult tasks on a daily basis in their work, with limited protection;

"We, the undersigned, support Mr. Michael Colle's bill, the Caregiver and Foreign Worker Recruitment and Protection Act, 2009, and urge its speedy passage into law."

Since I agree with this petition, of course I'm delighted to sign it.

TAXATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have a petition provided to me by George and Julianne Lehmann, which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty will increase taxes once again on Canada Day 2010 with his new combined GST, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new 13% combined GST will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as: coffee, newspapers and magazines, gas at the pumps, home heating oil and electricity, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, veterinary care, arena ice and soccer field rentals, Internet fees, theatre admissions, massage therapy, funerals, condo fees, courier fees, fast food sold for under $4"—that has been changed, but after the election they'll change it again—"bus fares, golf green fees, gym fees, snowplowing, bicycles, taxi fares, train fares, domestic air travel, accountant and legal services, and real estate commissions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly ... as follows:

"That the Dalton McGuinty government recognize Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

As I agree with it, I affix my name thereto.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Mik