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

November 18, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-18 (PDF)

L070 - Thu 18 Nov 2010 / Jeu 18 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 18 November 2010 Jeudi 18 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS

AIR-RAIL LINK

GROWTH PLANNING

HYDRO RATES

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

RAIL LINE

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

WOMEN’S ISSUES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

DIABETES

UNEMPLOYMENT

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ENERGY POLICIES

WINE INDUSTRY

SCHOOL SAFETY

TAXATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CEMETERIES

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

POWER PLANT

CEMETERIES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CEMETERIES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

TEMISKAMING AND CHATHAM-KENT-

LEAMINGTON ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010

CONCERNANT TEMISKAMING

ET CHATHAM-KENT-LEAMINGTON

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(PROTECTION OF DRUG

ENDANGERED CHILDREN), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES À L’ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

(PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

MENACÉS PAR LA DROGUE)

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

TEMISKAMING AND CHATHAM-KENT-

LEAMINGTON ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010

CONCERNANT TEMISKAMING

ET CHATHAM-KENT-LEAMINGTON

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(PROTECTION OF DRUG

ENDANGERED CHILDREN), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES À L’ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

(PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

MENACÉS PAR LA DROGUE)

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

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

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 15, 2010, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le trafic des billets de spectacle.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 17, 2010, I am now required to put the question:

On October 21, 2010, Mr. Bentley moved second reading of Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 17, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts in respect of water conservation and other matters / Projet de loi 72, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur le développement des technologies de l’eau et modifiant d’autres lois en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’eau et d’autres questions.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: First of all, I would like to defer the lead of our critic as he is on a committee at present. Do we have unanimous consent to stand down the lead?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, first of all, for that and giving me an opportunity to participate in this debate. It’s quite apropos that at this particular time we’re having this debate, for a few reasons: one, just because of the content of the bill—and I’ll get into that in a little bit—but just generally, when it comes to rules around how we monitor our water, how we treat our water, and how we make sure that the water that comes out of the tap when you need it is safe.

As we know, we went through a pretty horrific time here in Ontario some years ago with what happened in Walkerton. I’m not going to go into detail on that, except to say that we recognize that that was a tragedy where people died as a result of drinking water, and there was a response by the Ontario Legislature in order to deal with that. We have ended up creating some of the toughest, some of the best rules when it comes to making sure that drinking water for individuals, as put through the municipal water systems, is the safest it can be.

We are probably second to none in Canada and, I would argue, probably rank fairly well worldwide when it comes to the safety of the water in Ontario as a result of that tragic experience and what was learned from it.

I want to take the opportunity to speak about how we haven’t really ensured that drinking water for Ontarians is safe. It’s interesting, the Ontario government and this Legislature says we need to make sure that the water is safe for everybody in Ontario except those people who live in First Nations communities. Why do we do that? Why do we as Ontarians not ensure that the federal government, which is responsible for the infrastructure on reserves, ensures that the drinking water on-reserve is safe?

It seems to me that if we’re saying to municipalities, “You have to ensure that water is safe for your citizens and your municipality,” certainly to God we can figure out a way to make sure that the federal government, the absentee landlord of reserves, does something when it comes to making sure that the water on-reserve is safe.

Let me just give you a couple of examples of what’s going on today. I won’t even talk about the Kashechewan water crisis till later. Imagine my surprise: I went to Attawapiskat last Wednesday, I believe, for a number of meetings with band council and others, and one of the issues that they raised with me is their water plant. I was a bit surprised because we just built a water plant in Attawapiskat some five, six, seven years ago. So it’s a brand new plant. The province of Ontario participated in that process, by the way, but by and large, the lion’s share of the money came from the federal government.

The federal government, as you know, under Health Canada, is supposed to be responsible for the monitoring of the water that comes out of those taps. Well, imagine my surprise when I find out there has not been one inspector who has gone into the water plant in Attawapiskat in the last year.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Not one?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Not one. Why? Because that particular individual who used to do the job for Health Canada took retirement. The federal government can’t seem to find somebody to ensure that the water in Attawapiskat is safe and that there’s proper monitoring done of what comes out of the taps.

My point is simply this: Are not First Nations citizens in this province citizens of Ontario? I think we’ll all agree the answer is yes. If we agree that they’re citizens of the province of Ontario as well as being Canadians, then we certainly have a responsibility to ensure that our First Nations brothers and sisters on reserves across this province are able to have the same type of standard when it comes to drinking water in their taps as they do in taps outside the reserves in Ontario. So I, in this debate, want to take the opportunity to say to the government of Ontario: We have an absentee landlord.

They’re called Stephen Harper and the federal government, and before that it was Jean Chrétien and the federal government.

The federal government, we know, is a complete disaster when it comes to dealing with First Nations and the infrastructure in those communities. You only have to go visit reserves across this province to see to what degree the federal government refuses, continues to refuse and always will refuse to do what’s right by First Nations communities. We’re talking about families with 20, 25 people per house. We’re talking about houses that are old, substandard and, in many cases, full of mildew and mould of various types.

We have situations where there’s not a hockey arena, there’s not a recreational facility for the kids to be able to exercise and do what other kids do around the province. We’re talking about schools that are substandard—in some cases, schools that don’t even exist because the federal government has been delinquent in its responsibility to ensure that kids have schools as we our children do across this province. I am prepared to say there’s hardly anything that the federal government does on-reserve that works. It’s all a failure.

So here lies the question: If the federal government, as I contend, is completely irresponsible and unwilling to take its responsibility when it comes to the lives of those people who live on-reserve, then who should? And I’m not suggesting for one second that we say to the federal government, “We will take over your fiduciary responsibility.” Absolutely not. I wouldn’t let those suckers off the hook for two seconds. But my point is, we need to start applying some standards on reserves by way of law.

I know it’s going to be kind of problematic because the Constitution gives the federal government responsibility for aboriginal issues, but we need to find a way to pressure the federal government and, if necessary, shame them into doing what is natural for all other citizens in the province of Ontario.

First Nations kids should be able to go to the tap in their home, go to the tap in their school, open the tap and drink the water out of any tap in that community and know that they’re not going to get sick, as any other child or adult in this province of Ontario is able to do now when it comes to municipal water systems. Why is it that we allow the federal government off the hook for not ensuring that water is made safe?

Every child, every individual should have the right to housing. You go into First Nations communities across this province and the housing situation is deplorable. It is substandard, it is overcrowded, and certainly, something needs to be done to resolve it. I was in Attawapiskat again on Wednesday of last week and the temporary housing measure—this is INAC, the department of Indian affairs, that oh-so-great ministry federally that’s responsible for native issues. They said, “Oh, we have a solution to the sewer backup system in Attawapiskat.

We’re going to make a deal with De Beers Canada and we’re going to move the temporary construction trailers that the construction workers lived in on-reserve so we can make that a temporary shelter when we have to evacuate people.”

Well, first of all, they’re admitting that they’re going to have to evacuate people because of substandard infrastructure. Can you believe that? Can you imagine the government of Ontario saying, “We’re going to create, in the city of Timmins or Toronto or Thunder Bay or Cornwall, temporary accommodations, because we know every year we’re going to have to evacuate citizens because our infrastructure has failed”? Can you imagine that? But anyways, that’s what the federal government did through INAC, that oh-so-great ministry that takes care of First Nations issues.

They installed these trailers. To De Beers’ credit, they gave them to the community, and that was good on their part. But here’s the problem: You have now 90 rooms, about 10 feet by 10 feet square, in which 90 families live, and it’s not a temporary accommodation; it’s a permanent accommodation. So imagine that. Imagine you, your wife and your two babies, three babies are having to live in a 10 by 10 room. That’s where you live.

Why should anybody live in that kind of situation? Not only do they have to live in that, but there are four toilets. You know those toilet bowls? I’m not talking about bathrooms; I’m talking toilet bowls. There are four of them for 90 families. There are four showers for 90 families. There are four stoves for 90 families. People are having to line up at the bathroom by shift, having to cook by shift and figure out when they’re going to bathe. Would we allow that in Toronto?

Let’s say we had a situation where we had an evacuation of some type in a city or town somewhere in Ontario. We would make sure that people were able to have some adequate type of temporary accommodation. But then we would be in there trying to fix it, saying, “Let’s fix whatever the problem is so these people don’t have to be continually evacuated.” If we don’t accept it for any other citizen in the province of Ontario, then why are we accepting it for First Nations individuals?

I know that some people are going to say, “Bisson is a one-trick pony. Whenever he gets a chance, he comes into the House and talks about these native affairs issues, these aboriginal issues. Maybe he’s talking about that too much.” I talk about it because nobody else does. I’m tired of going onto reserves in my riding and in Howard’s riding and in other people’s ridings where I continually see the same thing. Yes, there’s progress being made. But, oh, my God, they’re little baby steps, because it’s all about incrementalism with the federal government.

I have no use for the federal government. I am so peeved with those guys when it comes to their lack of response or their lack of responsibility and doing nothing for citizens such as we see in First Nations. They’re so busy talking about absolutely nothing on the Hill that has to do with anybody else that they can’t find a solution for some of our first citizens in this province and in this country.

So, yeah, I raise these issues. I wish I didn’t have to. I wish that communities on reserves across Ontario and Canada were flourishing, as many of our communities are, and people had hope, and people had safe drinking water and places to live and good schools for their kids and paved roads and sidewalks—you know, those kinds of things. But it’s not the case. So, yeah, when this type of debate arises in the House and when, in this case, we’re talking about safe drinking water under Bill 72, I’m going to raise it, because I believe Ontario has to be the solution. I didn’t say part of it; the solution.

I say to my honourable friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and to the Premier, that I understand their argument when they stand here and say, “We can’t take over what the federal government doesn’t do.” I hear you. I’m not asking Ontario to all of a sudden say, “You feds stand aside. We’re taking over. We’re coming with our chequebook.” That’s not what I’m asking for. What I’m saying is that we become the solution, because what is clear is that the federal government is not going to do it. How can we, as legislators, and the government of Ontario stand aside and watch an absentee landlord in those reserves across this country?

I say to the Premier and to the cabinet and to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that I want us to be the solution. I want us to hold the federal government accountable for safe drinking water standards on reserves. I’m not saying we have to pay for it. I’m saying we need to figure out how we force the federal government to do what is naturally done in every other community across this province.

If my neighbour digs a well, there are standards by which we drill the well, extract water from the well and, if it’s any kind communal water system, make sure it is safe for people to drink, but we do nothing about entire communities because they happen to be reserves? I think we need to be the solution.

I think the provincial government has got to think about what is our plan when it comes to making sure the federal government does take its responsibilities, and yes, if necessary, us ponying up some dollars as well, because we are benefiting from much of what is happening now within First Nations territory. We know the De Beers diamond mine. We know that Detour Lake is about to start, a 60,000-tonne-a-day gold operation. Can you imagine how big 60,000 tonnes a day is? The OPG water development, $2.7 billion; the money that’s going to generate for the province of Ontario through Hydro.

The Ring of Fire is being talked about and touted as a great thing. Well, we are going to benefit from those territories, and I think we need to be part of the solution and, yes, we need to help with infrastructure as well.

What is clear is that the federal government is not going to do anything so long as we continue the policy of Ontario and federal government, which has been, “You don’t say anything about what I’m doing, and I won’t say anything about what you’re doing when it comes to First Nations.”

Policing, a shared responsibility—the federal government pays 51%; we pay 49%—but they’re under the Police Services Act. That was a provincial act the last time I checked. We have situations across First Nations where there aren’t adequate stations for the police to work out of, and there isn’t adequate jails to house people when they’re being picked up for whatever it might be, overnight or for a couple of days, due to an altercation of some type with the law or they’re being held until they’re transferred to a court or jail or they’re being picked up for impaired—whatever it might be.

We know the effect of that.There was a fire in Kashechewan where two men died in jail. Why? Because the jail didn’t meet minimum standards when it comes to safety. What was used to lock the jail cells was a chain with a padlock, so there was no easy way of opening the door in case of an emergency. The officer ran in to where the men were being held and was trying to pick the lock with the key, but because of the smoke and the intensity of the fire, he wasn’t able to get the key in the lock.

Imagine what that person lives with every day, knowing he wasn’t able to put the key in the lock to let the men out of the jail and they died. Imagine what that officer feels today. There was no fire detection system. There was no smoke detection system. There wasn’t even a fire alarm, for heaven’s sake. Two men died in the fire as a result of not having adequate standards.

Everywhere else in Ontario there is a standard when it comes to how we operate our jails. Can you imagine if the OPP or the local police in Sarnia or London or Kirkland Lake had to work in the conditions that NAPS, Nishnawbe-Aski Police, have to work in and what the citizens would have to deal with if they ever came in contact with those jailhouses? There would be an uproar. My God, the government of Ontario and the Solicitor General—there’s no way we would allow that to happen. Why do we allow it to happen in First Nations?

I’ll tell you why. The federal government doesn’t give a hoot. They don’t see First Nations as equal citizens across this country. They see them as: “We made a deal with you guys. Go away. Hide on your reserves. We’re not interested. We’ll let INAC deal with you.” INAC: Boy, I’ve got things to say about them, but that’s a whole other issue. I can’t say most of them, because it would be totally unparliamentary.

Here we are again: a question of standards, with inadequate standards in most of our jails and most of our police stations across the area.

The case of this contractor’s trailer in Attawapiskat: I raised in the House last when I came back that those trailers—this is all going to be in writing, and we’re going to put both the federal and provincial governments on notice if that hasn’t been done already. There is no fire detection system other than a camera that a security guard watches. In other words, if a fire were to start inside one of the rooms, we’d have no way of knowing until the fire came out, and by then it’s too late. There is no fire suppression system—sprinklers or whatever it might be—and there’s no fire alarm.

You’ve got 90 families, and if a fire starts in one of the rooms in one of those units and somebody finds out and runs and tries to pull the fire alarm, there’s none. It doesn’t work.

Why do we allow that to happen? I really ask myself, “Is it because we don’t care?” I know that members in the House are all honourable members, and they care. I do know that. I look at my friend Mr. Levac, whom I’ve worked with on a number of aboriginal issues, and whom I consider a friend and an ally on those issues. The issue is that we can’t continually let the federal government off the hook. In the case of police stations, they’re under the Police Services Act and 49% paid for by us.

Take a look at infrastructure, when it comes to water, when it comes to housing, when it comes to roads—any infrastructure. It doesn’t exist in First Nations communities. People need to understand that there are very few reserves across Ontario where proper infrastructure exists. There are a few, but not a heck of a lot of them. In the vast majority—90% of them—it’s a pretty dismal situation. Why do we allow that to happen?

I say to the government, “Yeah, the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, I get it.” I have no problem with the concept of what you’re doing in the bill; however, there are problems with what you’ve done in the bill. I’ll let Mr. Tabuns, our critic, speak to that in more detail.

I wanted to take this opportunity to say that we, as a province, must ensure we take responsibility for the citizens of Ontario no matter where they live, and that includes First Nations.

The day we start doing our jobs, as legislators and the government of Ontario, in ensuring there are standards that are applied on reserves when it comes to safe drinking water, when it comes to proper infrastructure, when it comes to schools that are adequate for the needs of our children—once we start to do those things as a province, it will force the federal government to take on its responsibility and also sort of cipher out what we have to do, as the Ontario Legislature, in order to ensure that the citizens who live on reserves across this province are able to take similar things for granted that we do in our communities when it comes to essential things such as safe drinking water.

I thank the members for allowing me the time to put those items on the record, and I look forward to their comments.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I was listening intently to my colleague and friend from Timmins–James Bay, and I want to tell him right off the bat that he struck a chord with me. He struck a chord with me in his speech insomuch as the missing-in-action federal government, the difficulties we’ve had in my riding in ensuring that that’s happening. But I will give him some good news, and that is that with the Chrétien government and then with the Harper government, we finally did get some water relief. There’s a plant being built, but it has been a long time coming.

The other part to that is that I tend to agree with the sentiment he’s trying to raise, and that is that we’ve got to find a way to navigate this political quagmire. We’ve got to find a way to navigate the pressure that needs to be put on the federal government, because if we could do that relief valve he’s talking about, I’m absolutely convinced we can actually get into the claims. We can actually get those things resolved, and inside of the partnership that he’s talking about.

I’m optimistic. I honestly believe that there are enough people outside of the federal government at this time who are starting to come together. Municipalities are making agreements, such as what has been happening in my riding. The people themselves are beginning to be educated about the condition that they’re living in. This is southern Ontario, one of the richest places in the world, and we have the circumstances that you’re describing? It’s not acceptable.

For myself, I believe dearly in what you’re talking about. I agree with your philosophy. I agree with your sentiment that says, “It’s our neighbour. Somebody is there who’s in distress. We should be helping.” We’ve got to help ourselves find a way to navigate that quagmire.

I’m going to ask my government to try to work that way and respect, at the same time, not letting the feds off the hook. I want to be strong about my emphasis, and I know you are too. So I agree with my colleague, and I thank him for his comments today.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Timmins–James Bay, I think, should be highly praised for his careful attention to the First Nations’ plight, as he described.

We’ve heard that a number of times over the past several years, about the unsafe drinking water on-reserve. To think that they have a new plant and are unable to manage it properly isn’t a good thing. I don’t know why they have to actually go to a federal ministry. I think they should take some of that and have an on-site person, a qualified First Nations person trained in the proper kind of monitoring and measuring, because it is their water.

In fact, if you look at this bill and the comments that he was making, I would hope to have the chance this morning to speak on it because I think the government, although this is their second bill on water, still doesn’t quite get it. In fact, I think if you stay tuned, some members on this side have said that they characterize this entire Bill 72 as smart meters for water. Now, you might wonder what that means. In fact, I think what they’re trying to do under water quality is monitoring it. It’s also another sort of suspicious move, if you will, of downloading another responsibility. Mr.

Speaker, you would like this: While sounding like doing the right thing, they are actually downloading it to the municipal level. I’ll be reporting to the House this morning on an important bill issued to the joint works committee at Durham region by Mr. Cliff Curtis, the commissioner of works, as well as Mr. Clapp, the commissioner of finance. It clearly makes the point that this is downloading.

So I look forward to that, and I thank the member for his remarks and hard work.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I understand where the member from Timmins–James Bay is coming from when he speaks about the small communities. Some of the communities that I visited with him back when I was on the finance and economic affairs committee were Attawapiskat and Moosonee, and it really took me back to the days as a consulting engineer, where we were dealing with small municipalities. The technology is often too complex. We take the city technology and we put it in the small communities and it doesn’t work.

The federal government has that responsibility. They should be doing something about it. I feel so great that if I’m in Toronto and take a drink of water out of the tap, it is good-tasting water, it’s safe water, and it gets us away from all that plastic that we don’t want to use.

The city of Ottawa spent tens of millions of dollars upgrading their plants, and our water bills have gone way up, but so they should. The municipalities have to do their best, but they have to have the revenues to properly run their systems, and the small systems are very expensive to run on a per capita basis when you have 1,000 or 2,000 users.

That’s one of the things that this government is doing to make sure small municipalities have high-quality infrastructure. We have a program for the small—I believe it’s 2,500 connections, so approximately a population of 5,000; I’d have to check that. The Ontario small waterworks assistance program, OSWAP, is over $50 million. That’s a new program that’s just going out now.

We are doing a lot. Part of

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010, is taking the expertise Canadians have and exporting that to other countries and giving work to our engineers and to our contractors. We have the expertise, and this bill is going to help us pool that together.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I don’t think the member for Timmins–James Bay has to make any apologies whatsoever about his advocacy for native people, aboriginal peoples, especially in northern Ontario. Many of us in this chamber, certainly those of us in the NDP caucus, have had the opportunity to travel with the member for Timmins–James Bay to some of those communities, and we’ve witnessed what are real atrocities. It’s an honour to have the member here in the chamber reminding this government of its delinquency, that is to say the government’s delinquency, in addressing the needs of those Ontarians.

You travel to some of those communities and you’re not even sure you’re in Canada anymore. Certainly the people living in those communities don’t feel that there’s any connection with Queen’s Park, or Ottawa, for that matter.

I, for one, as a southerner who has been fortunate enough to be witness to those atrocities, find it appalling that this government repeatedly would simply shrug off the concerns of the member for Timmins–James Bay and our colleague the member for Kenora–Rainy River as well—would shrug them off and somehow say, “Well, it’s not our problem. It’s a matter for the federal government.” The responsibility of the province extends beyond North Bay.

It somehow strikes me as tragic that here at Queen’s Park there’s far too often a perception that the province of Ontario begins and ends at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor. Well, it doesn’t. It encompasses a whole lot more than that, and it’s about time that this government stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility. I suppose an apology would be in order but, more importantly, some action on behalf of those communities that Mr. Bisson speaks of, and the people who struggle daily to live in them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Timmins–James Bay has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank members for their comments, and I just want to respond to one particular part, where the member for Oshawa—or Durham, I guess it is—says, “Why don’t the communities themselves do the water testing?” They’d love to. Where is the federal government with the money to help do the training so that they can qualify the people to run the water plants? That’s the problem. And where is the federal government in designing water plants that are able to function and have the capacity for the water needed in those communities, knowing that those are communities with very quickly increasing populations?

In Constance Lake right now, another reserve in my riding just north of Hearst, everybody is now on bottled water, and they’re having to bring water trucks in from nearby water sources to pump water into the water system in order to provide water for that community. So if there is a fire, there’s no ability to fight that fire, because they wouldn’t have enough water to run the fire truck. But the federal government is still haggling about what the solution is to resolve the water issue in Constance Lake.

They’re trying to minimize their financial exposure to the solution by proposing something that the community already knows is not going to meet the needs and is not going to be able to provide the quantity and quality of water that that community needs now and into tomorrow.

That’s the problem, and that’s why I’m saying—and my colleague Mr. Kormos, the member from Welland–Thorold, is right—that we need, as a province, to take our responsibility and we need to say to the federal government, “There are standards when it comes to drinking water in the province and you’re going to bloody well follow them.” If they don’t like it, we need to find a way to force them to do it. If we have to drag them kicking and screaming and we’ve got to shame them, we’ve got to do whatever we’ve got to do, we just go and do it, because it is what this Legislature should be doing.

The provincial government says they want a new relationship with First Nations; this is the way to prove it. Start that new relationship by becoming allies of First Nations and making sure that at the end of the day we do what’s right by them.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: This is a bill that I sort of paraphrased at the beginning by saying it’s smart meters for water usage. That’s basically where we’re headed. Now, what leads me to this suspicion is—I just have to link the point I’m trying to make and the argument we’re making on this side. First of all, I’m disappointed—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: There is a discussion going on that’s overriding my comments.

I read an

article in the paper this morning that I think says a lot about the government’s approach to measuring human activity. The

article is by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun. It says, “It’s interesting how the word coping was not mentioned in campaign literature when the Liberals were running in the last election.” I’m quoting from an

article here. “But it is on the record for the next one.” So they’re setting the table here in the last few days, and this afternoon we’ll hear it. “Meanwhile, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s phantom talk of a temporary 10% reduction in hydro costs Wednesday reminds one of having to thank a guy because he stops hammering you in the head.”

The consumer is getting the pain and the Premier is going to give them relief. It leaves so many questions unanswered, and we’re hearing comments in our ridings about being hammered in the pocketbook and, as Mr. Warmington says, on the head. Here’s what is really going on here. We’re not sure if the 10% will be on the total bill, as is the HST, or it’ll be on the electrons only, because if you look at the bill, it is made up primarily of other supportive charges, many of which they can’t explain in the House. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has asked questions on that.

Going back to the bill, this bill is the second bill on the topic of water. I’m even more surprised—in third reading, I listened yesterday very carefully to our member from Haldimand–Norfolk, our critic for the environment and those topics—very well informed, a very cohesive discussion and argument. This morning, the government members sitting in the House—how few there are—are refusing to talk on the bill. I find that suspicious as well. As we move along here about the backtracking over the last few months, actually—mostly since we came back in September—the government seems to have one direction, and that means reverse.

Now this bill—this is the second, as I said—introduced in May 2010, here’s how important it was. The hearings were held in October, when the municipal election was on, and it’s my understanding that there was not one elected person at the municipal level—and water is a municipal responsibility; the regulations are provincial, arguably—but there were no presentations or persons from elected office that appeared. There were submissions, and I want to commend Durham region for one of the more complete and comprehensive submissions. It isn’t a topic that I would politicize.

I mean by that that around the world, the topic or question being asked is, “Is water a human right?” That’s the question globally. We look at Third World countries and the lack of clean drinking water is really a primary cause of many of the ailments, including what’s going on in Haiti. So let’s not treat this topic lightly. It is really important.

The report issued on June 15 by the Durham region commissioner of public works, Mr. Curtis, and the commissioner of finance, Mr. Clapp, requested the government to have proactive consultations with the following agencies—I’m hoping and putting on the record that they’ve done that—“to develop a common template for reporting on municipal sustainability and conservation plans: the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Water Environment Association of Ontario ...

Water Works Association, the Municipal Engineers Association, Ontario Public Works Association, Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario and the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association” and that the report, J-33, “be forwarded to the Ministers of the Environment, Energy and Infrastructure, Economic Development and Trade” as well—and that’s the report that I’m referring to; it’s report 2010-J-33.

You have to look at this in the context of what is actually going on on a broader scale. There’s two things—and this is why it troubles me. I’ll get to the point in the few minutes I’ve been allowed this morning. I have a major issue, which I have spoken to Minister Wilkinson about, in my riding of Durham, and it’s on Lakeridge Road, which is sort of the boundary road between Uxbridge and Scugog township. On that site, there’s a quarry that’s being questionably rehabilitated by a numbered company, and the numbered company is Earthworx.

There’s a public hearing that’s going to be held, I believe, next week on that, and I think there will be ministry officials there. I’ve spoken to the minister several times on this, about the neighbours suggesting that they’re dumping materials that are contaminated. In fact, the municipality of Scugog—Port Perry and that area—Mayor Marilyn Pearce has requested Golder Associates to do testing on the soils that are being dumped there.

But here’s the issue: That is on the greenbelt, the Oak Ridges moraine, which is one of their cornerstones of environmental quality. In fact, when I asked the first time, I was told that clean fill permitting of dumping is allowed at the municipal level; contaminated fill is allowed and regulated provincially. But the real issue here is, who’s testing the soil to see if it’s clean or not?

The municipality contracted Golder Associates to do the testing on the soil, and it was found that there was contamination in the soil. I reported, along with the municipality, to the ministry—in fact, right up to the deputy minister. I was so tired of getting baloney for answers and no attention that we had to go right through to the deputy minister. This is the aquifer—and that’s the point: The aquifer is right near the bottom on the Oak Ridges moraine, feeding the wells and the supply of water to many, many areas.

To date, I’m unsatisfied with any action taken. There was an order issued on October 25, an order of enforcement and to have a qualified person to inspect these loads. When the loads of material from site recovery—it could be a brownfield site, it could be just levelling the site for some other use. Who’s monitoring that activity? Who’s manifesting those loads that leave the site in downtown Toronto to the site in Uxbridge, Port Perry? How do we know what’s actually in the material? Who’s responsible? Who’s responsible for the cleanup? Who’s responsible for the water?

The same thing: When they say Oak Ridges moraine—what they’ve done with the greenbelt is they’ve downloaded the responsibility for those sensitive areas with very, very little money to enforce, monitor etc. I find that as one more example.

This bill does basically the same thing. No one—our leader, Tim Hudak, made it very clear to us that we recognize the importance of safe, clean drinking water and support all of the Walkerton recommendations by the O’Connor report, so let’s not try to imply that someone in this House, of any side, has some opposition to safe, clean drinking water.

Now, let’s put it in context. If you look back to September and October 2006, this very government had a bill, Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. Ms. Broten was the minister at that time, but she had to leave cabinet because of the Taj Ma-garage. But this one was

An Act to protect existing and future sources of drinking water to make complementary and other amendments to other acts. That one, I can recall, was really closing in on having higher standards for private wells.

Now, on those private wells, I’m the person who puts the well in and spends the $20,000 for the well, or other people who have a private well. The suggestion out there was that they were going to start charging you for the water that you take out of the aquifer through that well. Well, they denied that, but I want that on the record as, “stay tuned.” Remember, I started by saying that this whole thing is rather suspicious, because we call it the smart meters for wells, and this is just a strategic step along the way—responsibly so—to downloading it to the consumer, to the private citizen who is already strangled on every single thing they do.

It’s called the HST, for one thing, which restricts every single expenditure or service. Whether it’s physiotherapy or getting your income tax done, it’s all going to be taxed. On every single activity or service, you’re being taxed, and this—

Mr. Jeff Leal: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I always enjoy the very well-informed remarks from the member from Durham, but we may be veering slightly off topic—certainly at your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as we continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I appreciate the point, but every once in a while he does refer to the bill and he certainly talks about water, so I’ll let the honourable member from Durham continue.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much, Speaker. I will try to connect the dots here. Some people, perhaps, aren’t listening intently enough to realize that I see a suspicious recurring—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Theme.

Mr. John O’Toole: —theme of command and control. That’s really what I’m worried about. It’s Father Knows Best, but it turns out that he really doesn’t.

In fact, if you look, all of the things you’ve backed—the eco tax. We would support a proper reduction, a source reduction of environmentally sensitive material. What they were doing was quite the opposite: They were just collecting tax on it, on the plastics and things that couldn’t be recycled. It was absurd, but it was a great tax grab because every dozen eggs you bought with that plastic on it, you would have to pay tax on it. Rather than dealing with trying to reduce and eliminate the source itself, they have the most perverse approach: They think, “Tax it.”

Here’s what energy is doing: The smart meter is actually a cash register for the government. The smart meter says that you’re going to pay more whenever it’s the logical time to do the function, which is washing your clothes or cooking your food. All those times, the rate is double; it’s actually double. If you look at the charts, the normal rate is about five cents and the high peak rate is about 10 cents, nine-point-something. They’re encouraging you, the Premier says in a gleeful tone, to do your laundry on the weekends. This is micromanagement, and I see it in water. I see the same thing in water. I see the same thing—

Hon. Carol Mitchell: When was the last time you did laundry?

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, I would say—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Now, see, I’ve touched a nerve because the Liberals—you see, I am a parent of five children. In fact, I was a single parent of five children for a while. So don’t—look, just stay to your own script. If you have a script, you can get up and speak; otherwise, listen up.

I will try to give you the information that I’ve received from Durham region, which says that you already have a lot of tools. You have the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Oak Ridges moraine act, the conservation act—requirements for municipalities to show leadership in water conservation.

This goes on to say, “Part II of the proposed act would establish the Water Technology Acceleration Project (WaterTAP) as a non-crown corporation to ‘grow globally competitive companies, and provide high-value jobs in Ontario’s water and waste water sector.’” The Ministry of Research and Innovation fact sheet says this. The government has allocated $5 million annually over three years to hire some—eventually, the municipality is going to have to pay for this.

They are going to be required to submit sustainability plans to the ministry—circumvents the autonomy of council. It says, “Although staff recognize the merit in requiring an asset management plan as part of the sustainability plan for water and sewer systems, there are numerous concerns with the sustainability plan requirement as follows....”

What they’re requiring them to do is hire consultants to do various capital appreciation and monitoring of systems and then return this to the ministry. What’s missing is any funding to do this. When you raise the requirements without the right support mechanisms in place, you’re raising taxes locally. If you think it’s that important, put your money where your mouth is. I would say that’s what’s missing in this bill. It’s what’s missing in the electricity bill.

When I look at electricity, the Green Energy Act sounds great, the same as this sounds great. Look at the detail. You can see it on your bill. The consumer is paying through the nose. Right now, they are paying for solar power—Mr. Speaker, you know this yourself in your area—80.2 cents a kilowatt hour. What are you paying for it in your home? It’s five or six cents. Where is that other 60 or 70 cents coming from? It’s coming from you from another pocket. They’re taking credit for making electricity twice as expensive.

They often refer to countries like Denmark—this is important—as a country with a balanced sustainability energy plan. We should look at the best practices, for sure. Let’s look at the other side of it. The cost of energy in Denmark is 34 cents per kilowatt hour.

Okay, let’s take your bill. There have been 500 questions asked on it here in the House; Ms. Horwath has asked a lot, along with our leader, Tim Hudak. What it is today is 10 cents a kilowatt hour, plus all those other charges, and plus the HST on top of everything—it’s about eight cents a kilowatt hour. It’s between five and 10, so we’ll say eight cents a kilowatt hour. Four times eight is 32, so if your bill is $100, it’s now going to be $400. It’s that simple. Do the math.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It’s not that simple.

Mr. John O’Toole: Tell the people the truth. Use the green language framework, and then tell them the truth about what it’s actually going to cost you.

Give consumers choice: “If you want Bullfrog Power that’s 18 cents, sign here.” That’s what you should tell them. Do this in the time of the economy when we have high unemployment, poor investments—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: The Minister of Agriculture is talking about deregulation. I’d like them to explain on this bill, Bill 72, how much money they’re transferring to the municipalities to pick up these increased standards and regulations, monitoring and capital monitoring reports. You tell me if this isn’t downloading by stealth. What I’m pointing is—well, it’s a smart meter. Now you have the meter on the water meter—and it clearly says that it’s got to be full-cost recovery.

So if I say to the waterworks employees, qualified people, that they’ve got to do these new functions—monitoring, testing, testing for more materials, report to the ministry, hire new staff, with the computer system to do it—that’s going to be on your water bill, just like today it’s on your electricity bill. I think this is absolute deception.

I can honestly say to myself, everybody wants clean water and safe, reliable, affordable electricity. These are essential commodities for persons at all income means. It’s a universal discussion around the world in terms of safe, clean—but what they’re doing is they’re downloading it. They’re actually commercializing some of the activities, which will drive up the prices.

I can say that when I look through the Durham region report, and the question of autonomy at the lower tiers as well, it’s sort of like the greenbelt—I’m going back to the issue at Lakeridge there, where the aquifer is threatened by contaminated material potentially being deposited right over the aquifer, and the province hasn’t given them five cents to monitor it, to test the materials, and some kind of standing. So I blew the whistle last week. I went right to Beggs, the deputy. I said, “Look, you know now that people think it’s contaminated”—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. John O’Toole: Can I have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, for more time?

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I heard a no.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I, for one, applaud the member from Durham for his analysis of this bill. It’s a sop to those Ontarians who are enthusiastic about environmental issues, but it’s nothing more than a sop. It’s shallow, it’s hollow.

One of the problems that the member for Durham understands and that certainly impacts on the communities that I’m proud to represent is that you can’t talk about encouraging clean water technologies without providing communities like the ones where I come from that have been bankrupted by this government’s job destruction policy, without financing that infrastructure in those communities.

Understand, where I come from, places like Port Colborne, Welland, Thorold, even St. Catharines have lost huge chunks of industry over the course of the last four, five and six years, and thousands and thousands of jobs. It’s not just the job loss; it’s the loss of industrial tax assessment. We don’t have factories anymore; we’ve got brownfields. The largest single employer in Welland is Canadian Tire Acceptance, a call centre, when it used to be Atlas Steel and Union Carbide and Page-Hersey and Welland Tubes and half a dozen forges.

You don’t just lose the jobs, you lose the tax assessment. That means that in cities like Welland, Port Colborne, Thorold and St. Catharines, you can’t invest in the infrastructure. That means that water pipes rust and corrode underground. That means that sewer pipes crumble. That means that you threaten the quality of the water as it’s being delivered to people’s homes, and that means that in places like Niagara region you lose thousands and thousands and thousands of litres of water every year through leakage in the system.

So unless this government is prepared to invest in communities themselves and end the download that impacted communities seven, eight and nine years ago, it’s blowing hot air.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Certainly it’s a pleasure to make a few comments on what could be described as a very wide-ranging discussion from the member from Durham—with somewhat convoluted arguments at times, I would like to suggest.

I want to pick up on a couple of his points. He certainly is known to make his views known to the Minister of the Environment, John Wilkinson, on a number of occasions, and I hope he will acknowledge that the minister acted very speedily when made aware of the situation in Scugog that he referred to.

Another letter from the member from Durham to the minister was extremely useful in terms of information about Monoxygen, that uses an ozone water purification system. This is exactly the kind of company this bill will help, bringing good jobs to Durham and across Ontario, so the minister was really pleased to get that information from this member. That is, of course, why we are so disappointed that in fact the member voted against this bill during second reading.

Knowing that the Conservative Party is concerned, obviously, about business interests in particular, I’d like to mention to the member that earlier this morning, in fact at a breakfast meeting at RBC, which has taken a particular interest in the water industry, there was a group of some 80 to 100 business individuals to discuss the report recently sponsored by Industry Canada, Water and the Future of the Canadian Economy. The audience this morning, which involved so many business leaders, has looked at our bill. It incorporates the elements that they were hoping to see that we would bring forward. In particular, WaterTAP, the Water Technology Acceleration Project, is being applauded widely.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to thank the member for Durham for his knowing remarks. They may have wandered a bit, but it’s a broad subject.

When the member brought in the suggestion that the electricity costs of this province, which are now being metered or will soon be metered on so-called smart meters—smart in the fact that they are taking a lot of money out of consumers’ pockets, and maybe not so smart on the part of the government, thinking that Ontario citizens would not catch on to this little game and see their hydro bills going through the roof.

The member started his comments by suggesting that this bill is the thin edge of the wedge to start a smart meter for water. Why not have a smart meter for water? After all, it’s working in the hydro business, taking a lot of money out of the consumers’ pockets that they can spend on their pet projects of windmills and solar energy—solar energy, as the member pointed out, that they’re paying 81 cents a kilowatt hour for and selling for eight or nine cents a kilowatt hour.

Obviously, they’ve never run a lemonade stand in the morning in the summertime, because anybody who had run a lemonade stand would understand that you can’t buy something for 80 cents and sell it for nine cents and expect that there wouldn’t be an increase in costs somewhere along the line.

The member for Durham has pointed this out, and the government would be wise to take very careful consideration of what the member pointed out for them. It hasn’t worked in electricity and it won’t work in water. I can assure the members that not only will the people in urban Ontario and suburbia be upset about having their water meters affect their water bills, but the—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I think one of the main directions that the Water Opportunities Act, 2010, focuses on is water conservation and innovative technologies, and these are extremely important.

A person I know who’s been in the water business a long time, Al Perks from R.V. Anderson in Ottawa, one of the longest-running engineering firms in Ontario—Al has been the manager of the Ottawa office for 25 years now. One of the things he tells me about water systems is that they have to be flexible for all sizes of communities.

Charging the right price for water is difficult in small communities, but this is one of the directions we want to go in, and to suggest that smart meters aren’t important for electricity—I can’t see anything that is going to advance conservation as much as knowing how you use that utility. When you think of it, you pay maybe—my own bill—I had my home retrofitted with a new furnace and air sealing etc., and I’m paying about $80 or $90 a month currently. I think, for cable, I’m paying about $70 or $80. So when you think of what you’re getting, it’s just amazing that we should not appreciate that smart meters are where the whole world is going. We have to conserve our energy.

With water, we have to look at trying to get systems that focus on what individual communities need, and that’s what Al Perks has mentioned: You can’t take the major city designs and put those out into the country. You have to be good. With the small communities, the First Nations communities, we have to do a lot of work in making sure conservation and innovative technologies are at the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for Durham has two minutes for his response.

Mr. John O’Toole: I thank the members from Welland, Oak Ridges–Markham, Halton as well as Ottawa–Orléans.

I’m glad that people are paying attention to this very important topic. I suspect that I want to go back to a couple of things.

The member from Oak Ridges–Markham: I have a lot of respect for her. She’s a former medical officer of health. She’s right: There is a lot of attention being paid to water, and this is not the right kind of attention. This is all about collecting money. If you look at the report I refer to, J-33, I’m going to say quickly that it implements a 100% user-pay system with full metering. That’s what it does. That’s a smart meter reference I made.

Number two, it says it creates large water service areas and requires amalgamation of systems. It also adds costs to all the efforts. This is in the report. You can look it up. Its target and performance measures will be indicated by the minister. That’s problematic. And it says it devolves the autonomy of the regions that actually do the job today.

This government has lost complete control or any reasonable plan of implementing essential consumption in Ontario. When you think of it, people wanting physiotherapy today are going to have to pay tax on it; children who want to register in programs are going to pay tax on them; and adults wanting to take tai chi, or whatever it is, will pay tax on it. This is all about tax-and-spend government, and Premier McGuinty has simply lost his way.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I’m going to get shortchanged a little bit this morning because I am allowed a modest 20 minutes. I resent that, but it’s all the standing orders provide. You’re going to shut it down at quarter after, so that means I’ve got only 10 or 11 minutes. That’s okay. I’ll come back next time the bill is called, and I’ll finish up my time then.

The real fundamental issue here is the lack of funding for municipalities to undertake water conservation measures—end of story. As I told you a few minutes ago, I come from smaller-town Ontario, not the smallest town but a smaller town. Well, Wainfleet is a small town. I come from old, historic communities, that historically were industrial communities—Port Colborne, Welland, Thorold, St. Catharines—and that have been gutted of their industry. That’s what I told you a few minutes ago in the brief two minutes allowed during comments and questions.

Take a look at Welland. Atlas Steels: At one time, thousands of workers worked at Atlas Steels. My father was an Atlas Steels worker. As a kid, you’d see this army of green-garbed workers with their black lunch buckets walking down Cameron Avenue, Alliance Avenue, Major Street, to Atlas Steels. It was a steel mill, a stainless steel mill. It’s now an empty grassy acreage that is a brownfield.

Just as an aside, in smaller-town Ontario, the value of property isn’t sufficiently high to justify the private sector in remediating it—as compared to, let’s say, Toronto or Winnipeg—which means that it’s very difficult to develop on these properties. That’s Atlas Steels. Union Carbide: Again, the government here at Queen’s Park—these were the canaries in the coal mines, because they were the precursors to the huge hemorrhaging of industrial jobs in Ontario. But it was the beginning, and you saw the inertia develop.

Atlas Steels, specialty stainless steel, the only manufacturer of its type in Canada, used to provide the drill rod for Sudbury Inco, for drilling. Now I’m told that Sudbury Inco buys that rod from Europe or other international sources because it’s not available domestically. Union Carbide, gone; Page-Hersey, downsized now; Lakeside Welland Tubes gone—half a dozen forges gone.

And, as I say, it’s not just the job loss; it’s the tax loss. When you lose these industries, it doesn’t mean you need fewer police officers. It doesn’t mean that you need less water or sewerage. It doesn’t mean that you need fewer firefighters. It doesn’t mean that you need less paving on the road. What it does mean is that the cost of doing that is transferred over to residential property owners and, indirectly, even apartment dwellers, or the work that’s required to be done simply doesn’t get done. In particular, I’m going to talk about Wainfleet and the struggle that they have.

But I also want to mention—because it’s perhaps timely—that just the other night, I was reading a newly published book called The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World’s Favorite Soft Drink. The author is Michael Blanding. Amongst the other revelations in there—some I was already familiar with, for instance, Coca-Cola’s endorsement, participation and support of paramilitaries in places like Colombia, which murder trade unionists. I was in Colombia a few years ago doing a tour with trade unionists and met families of trade unionists who had been slaughtered by paramilitaries at the behest of Coca-Cola. There’s a lawsuit right now in the Florida courts with respect to that.

But one of the interesting things was about Coke’s venture into the bottled water industry. Their brand name is Dasani. Dasani bottled water is tap water, literally, that goes through a little bit of voodoo water filtration that Coca-Cola claims—nothing particularly fancy. When I read it, I have to remind myself what suckers we are to be buying tap water in plastic bottles and paying more for it than we pay for fine wine, champagne, milk or orange juice. It’s incredible. It’s a mug’s game. And there are some jurisdictions in the States—especially because Coca-Cola is big into buying off school boards.

They’ll give a particular school X thousands of dollars a year to have the exclusive rights to Coke in that school. Coca-Cola, like other soft drinks of its type, is called liquid sugar by the critics of them. There are jurisdictions in the States that have effectively banned Coca-Cola from their schools.

I know there was an effort here at Queen’s Park by a very honourable member to attack the bottled water syndrome, but he, of course, was betrayed by his own colleagues. It was the most unpleasant sight. I was sitting here while that happened. I found it most unsavoury. It happened to be Liberal colleagues, so I suppose it wasn’t unexpected. They turned on one of their own in a very embarrassing way. I supported the member. I supported his particular initiative, even though I felt there were some concerns in it, but I supported it because I wanted it to go to committee because I think he raised a very important issue.

Then we’ve got people like, God bless him, Sid Ryan, when he was still head of CUPE, travelling to municipalities and encouraging people not to use bottled water but to drink tap water because, for Pete’s sake, it’s a heck of a lot cheaper and, in most cases, it’s far superior in terms of quality.

Some of the other stuff in this book, The Coke Machine, besides the Dasani water scam, was their experiences in, amongst other places, India, where they were building bottling plants, drilling down into the water table and consuming enough water that they were drying up farmers’ wells—literally. They were marketing themselves as benefits to the local community—economic development. They’re literally draining the water table and farmers are going out of business because they can’t grow crops, because you need irrigation. They used up fresh water supplies.

They “also produced solid waste that it distributed to local farmers as fertilizer. When the fields treated by this fertilizer began to lie fallow, and when farm animals that drank water polluted by this waste began to die, Indian scientists discovered that Coke’s solid waste contained four times the tolerable limit of cadmium, which can cause prostate and kidney cancer.”

So the next time you see one of those—they’ve got all the kids on the hillside, and what’s the song they sing? It’s nice to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony?—think of the fact that Coke has been poisoning people throughout the world, killing people with its deadly product and slaughtering trade unionists by paramilitaries armed with guns and chainsaws. By the way, it’s one of the favourite tactics used by paramilitaries in Colombia when they go after a progressive or a trade unionist. As I say, I encourage people to take a look at that book. I suspect it’s probably in the Queen’s Park library.

The other bit of reading today is Joe Warmington’s column in the Toronto Sun. Warmington is a particularly compelling columnist—very capable, very competent, very readable and very clever. He truly is eclectic. When I talk about this bill as being a “sop,” I think Joe Warmington addresses what this government is doing with legislation like this. He’s commenting in today’s column on Premier McGuinty’s comment that “We have to make sure families can cope.” So Warmington uses coping as a jumping-off point.

“So you’ll help us cope?” he writes.

“How generous, Mr. Premier. Must have found some of that missing eHealth billion?

“The truth is he”—McGuinty—“doesn’t have a clue about how ... Ontario taxpayers,” already $19 billion in debt, “are coping.

“But he will find out next year.” He’s referring, of course, to the 2011 election.

He writes further, “McGuinty smirks like he’s joking around on an episode of the Rick Mercer show. But there is no laugh track in Ontario these days.

“Meanwhile, do you think he does his laundry at 3 a.m. as he suggested Ontarians do to save money? Does he have any idea of what a disgrace it is asking people to do that in a province where people cradle every second they are not working, or in traffic, so they can cherish that little time with their families?

“It’s amazing because all of this comes from the mouth of a guy”—that’s McGuinty—“who flies routinely to China on a carbon-emitting jet to negotiate away more of our jobs. If he knew anything about Ontario, he’d know what a vacant factory looks like. He should meet the people earning minimum wage, working at two jobs and using their credit cards to survive in a province he has made too expensive to cope in.”

Now, Joe Warmington doesn’t identify himself as a lefty by any stretch of the imagination, but he sounds downright red when he writes about the plight of working people in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario, when he writes about the plight of families, when they do have wage earners, who have to work at two and three jobs and have to max out credit cards to pay daily bills and keep their heads above water.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Excuse me.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You’re excused, Mr. Ramal. It’s no problem. It was a delight.

Here we’ve got a bill that merely sets aspirational levels. What does that mean? Are there concrete goals? Are there specific requirements in this legislation? Of course not. These are aspirational levels.

I fear and regret that we’ve reached that time where the Speaker’s going to adjourn the House to 10:30 so that we can start question period. I’ll be back, Speaker, and I’ll finish this up when I am.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1018 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature today Dr. Swarn Lata of Scarborough. Actually, she’s the mother of my communications director. She has held various positions on the boards of non-profit organizations and also has a doctor’s degree in music as well. We want to welcome her to the Legislature.

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to welcome Huntsville and district of Muskoka councillor Fran Coleman to the Legislature. She’s in the members’ west gallery.

As well, Scott Rowe: Scott is the grandson of the Honourable William Earl Rowe, who was Lieutenant Governor of Ontario from 1963 until 1968.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to welcome, in the members’ gallery, members of Trans Health and the Rainbow Health Network. I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I am delighted to welcome the Dr. Fergal Nolan, president of the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada, sitting in the west gallery.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to take this opportunity to welcome to the Legislature the great kids of Gateway Public School in Flemingdon Park and their teachers, Mr. Wayne Belick and Mr. Peter Wiens. Welcome, and have a wonderful day.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to welcome two very infrequent guests to the Legislature. Stewart Kiff and Chris Watson are here with us today.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to acknowledge the presence of Ashley McKnight, Mary Campbell and Emily Schacht, who are all master’s of social work students at Wilfrid Laurier University. They’re here today to attend an event with the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition. Welcome.

Sophia Aggelonitis: I’m very proud to introduce to the House today Leah Morris and Rick Morris, who are here from Hamilton Mountain. Leah is the Ontario recipient of the Council of the Federation Literacy Award.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the east members’ gallery, I’d like introduce my constituent Lena Kalaycian. She’s completing her master’s degree in public administration at the University of Ottawa.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’d like to welcome two dedicated teachers from my constituency in Mississauga: John Solarski and Mat Solarski.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m very excited to introduce to the House today a singer-songwriter and very talented musician, Ron Nigrini; his lovely wife, Maryanna Nigrini; their daughter Melissa; and their son-in-law Jose Iguiniz Romero, who are here from Commanda, Ontario, and are big supporters of the Commanda Community Centre.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I’d like everyone to welcome a friend of mine: the executive director of Community Living Essex County and an outstanding public servant, Nancy Wallace-Gero.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton and page Emily Hryb, to welcome Emily’s mother, Jennifer Hryb, to Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

On behalf of the member from Brant, I’d like to welcome Ralph Spoltore and José Marques to the east members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Experts agree that Premier McGuinty is the worst fiscal performer in Canada. Scotiabank says Premier McGuinty is taking Ontario families down a path to where we have fallen behind the rest of Canada. Statistics Canada shows that 41,000 Ontario families have lost private sector jobs since Premier McGuinty’s HST took effect. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters say hundreds of thousands of Ontario families lost manufacturing jobs before the economic downturn. It’s because you make energy social policy instead of economic policy. Don’t Ontario families deserve better?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, I welcome the question, but I take issue with the negative, pessimistic and dark perspective brought by my honourable colleague. But I do share the bright, optimistic perspective from the MPP for Leeds–Grenville, who said, “Building future jobs in the renewable energy field is clearly the way to go.”

The fact of the matter is, there’s a tremendous amount of support within the official opposition for our energy policy. The fact of the matter is, we are creating jobs throughout the province, including in many of their ridings, and they are more than willing, of course, to attend those opening events and to help us celebrate those new jobs that we’re bringing to their ridings.

Whether you’re talking about the MPP for Sarnia–Lambton, the MPP for Haldimand–Norfolk or the MPP for Leeds–Grenville, they understand how important it is to find ways to support our policy to create clean energy for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: It’s not only the experts at Scotiabank who say Premier McGuinty is dragging Ontario families down the wrong path. Experts at the Bank of Canada say the same thing. Toronto Dominion Bank warns that the size of your deficits relative to the size of the economy makes Ontario worse off than it was when the NDP were the government. The C.D. Howe Institute warns that your spending and debt leave no wiggle room if factors like interest rates change. Yet Premier McGuinty spends $2.1 million more than he collects in revenue every hour of every day.

He just shrugs when his wage freeze plan has gone badly off the rails. Why don’t you believe that Ontario families deserve better?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We know that in fact there are many within the official opposition who support our clean energy plan and particularly the clean jobs that are coming with that.

I also suspect that there are some within the official opposition who support the $3.4 billion that we invested in the auto sector. I know that the leader called it corporate welfare, but we disagree with that approach. In fact, there are 400,000 jobs across the province that are connected with the auto sector.

Here’s what Export Development Canada said just yesterday: “There were many who considered Ontario exports a writeoff a few months ago, but the auto sector has experienced a remarkable about-face, and exports of industrial goods are also in the double-digit growth zone. Ontario auto production has strengthened enough to spur significant new investments in the sector.”

The fact of the matter is that the auto sector has turned around, and we are proud to be there for them and with them in the darkest hour.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: Economists agree that Premier McGuinty is Canada’s worst economic manager. Dr. Livio Di Matteo points out that, while you try to confuse families into thinking the financial crisis is to blame, “The fact remains that Ontario’s performance is the worst of all 10 provinces,” and Ontario’s economy has declined every year you’ve been in office.

Dr. Michael Veall of McMaster points out that despite Ontario families paying more because of the HST, your record deficits will leave our children with a net debt of $20,000 per person. No wonder the Fraser Institute ranks Premier McGuinty as Canada’s worst Premier in comparison to all others.

When will Premier McGuinty understand that Ontario families want change?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition would like to have Ontarians believe that somehow the global economic recession developed inside our government, but I just don’t think Ontarians buy that. They know that we were hit and hit hard, particularly because we are the centre of manufacturing in Ontario. They know that we have done everything we could; we’re stimulating the economy to the tune of $28 billion. They see the new roads, bridges, hospitals, courthouses and schools in their own communities. They understand that that has created some 300,000 jobs at a very difficult time.

I know that my friends opposite like to pretend that there’s nothing that needed doing. The fact of the matter is that in the face of recession we’ve made investments. That has entailed a significant deficit, and we’ll continue to work with Ontarians to find a way out of that. But in their hour of need, we’re there for Ontarians by stimulating their economy.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Peter Shurman: Back to the Premier: Ontario families agree with the experts. They watch helplessly while Premier McGuinty spends $2.1 million more every hour of every day than he collects in revenue and adds more and more to the debt he will leave our children. That’s not how they run the family budget; why is it how you run the provincial budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m having to restrain her, Speaker.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: You’re teasing me, Premier. Why are you teasing me?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I appreciate the question from my colleague opposite. There was a specific opportunity that we gave the official opposition to show their true colours when it comes to managing government expenses. We said that we wanted to cut the price of generic drugs in half. We wanted to save Ontario taxpayers half a billion dollars that would go to the bottom line. We gave them the opportunity to support our government and, more importantly, to support Ontario families and taxpayers. There are more than a million Ontarians who pay for their generic drugs out of pocket; they don’t have a plan of any kind.

When push came to shove, they decided they were not going to stand with Ontario families, they were not going to stand with Ontario taxpayers; they decided to stand with big money. So once again, there’s a revelation—an occasional revelation but an important revelation—as to where their real priorities lie.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: What the Premier doesn’t understand is that Ontario families need a chance to catch up, but what Premier McGuinty and his team sincerely believe is that Ontario families have some infinite ability to pay for all of his expensive experiments, which is why he did not stop Disney cast members from training LHINs on quality service; Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga from converting a garage to an emergency room; ultrasounds for dogs in Peterborough hospital; $7,800 for a hospital consultant’s vacation in Japan; Christmas luncheons and bonuses for health consultants; and dinner and drinks for hospital consultants.

What makes you think Ontario families should have to pay for all the cheats you simply will not stop?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think what’s important today—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important to note that yesterday, we sat with members opposite in the estimates committee. We had an opportunity to talk about the Ontario economy. What was so informative for all of us was that the members of the official opposition actually agreed that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is doing a tremendous job in selling Ontario to the world. They said openly, “We agree.” When we showed examples at committee yesterday of the kind of innovation that the Ontario government, partners with our Ontario companies, creates and takes to the world, this particular member, my official critic, said, “We agree.”

I think that should speak loudly to the people of Ontario, who want good jobs so that they can afford to live in the lifestyle that they choose. But that member opposite needs to be—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Yesterday, the minister did agree that she is the grande dame of the theatre. I want to tell you that.

Ontario families need a chance to catch up, but what this Premier offers them when he backtracks on his expensive energy experiments is to take $1 billion from their own pockets to pay them a hydro bribe.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I withdraw that.

Only an out-of-touch Premier as this one is would think that because the deficit is $19 billion instead of $20 billion, he has $1 billion to play with. It’s kind of like a guy who’s overdue on his rent, has maxed out his credit card and owes his friends and family money, but when he finds 50 bucks in an old jacket, he goes out and blows it on a round of beer for his buddies.

You wouldn’t put up with a friend who acts that way. What makes you think Ontario families should put up with it from a Premier?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think Ontario families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Hamilton East. Member from Lanark. Member from Halton. Member from Durham. Member from Lanark.

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think what’s really important is that people are going to want to know, and they will hear this afternoon, that in fact our deficit is going to come out 25% lower than what we anticipated. Even these members opposite are going to say that that’s good news for Ontario and good news for Ontario families.

To this individual, who is my official critic for the economy here in Ontario: We’re going to say that small businesses are going to look forward to the kinds of support that they have been seeing—they, in fact, have received cheques since last week to support them through the transition—when we changed a tax policy that helps small business, when we’re seeing a 20% decrease in the corporate income tax for small business. Surely that member opposite has to support this.

My big question today is going to be, when they hear what is in that economic statement today, will that party support the government position that is going to see clear help, not just for everyday—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The McGuinty government has made a lot of promises recently to Ontario families. They promised the HST wouldn’t cause any harm, but people are paying more. They promised that business tax cuts would create 600,000 new jobs, but 34,000 people have lost their jobs since July 1.

Given the Premier’s track record of spinning fairy tales, why should people believe today’s promises?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I was perhaps being overly optimistic, but I thought that when the leader of the third party had the first opportunity to be in this House subsequent to some rumours about the contents of our fall economic statement, she might want to stand in her place and congratulate us and thank us for doing the kind of thing that she has been asking us to do for a long time. Perhaps during her supplementary, she will want to take the opportunity to do that.

The fact of the matter is, and I’ll speak to this a good length in my coming answers, we have a lengthy record of assistance to Ontario families. I look forward to speaking to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier said that his $2-billion corporate tax giveaway would create jobs, but 34,000 families have lost a job since those tax breaks kicked in. He said Ontario’s recovery is near, but economists are forecasting a long, long period of very slow growth. And he said that the HST would make life better, but people are paying more to turn on the lights and keep their homes warm.

Why should Ontario families believe the Premier when his remedies, to date, have only caused more pain?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can’t share the same bleak outlook, but I thought it’d be appropriate today for me to recite a little bit of a chronology in terms of the supports that we’ve put in place for Ontario families and the very consistent position taken by the NDP to oppose each and every one of these.

Three years ago we put in place the Ontario child benefit; it’s now $1,100 per child, and they opposed that. A year and a half ago it was the seniors’ property tax grant—we doubled it to $500; a personal income tax cut—that’s $400 a family for mom and dad; a sales tax credit benefiting nearly three million Ontarians—for a family, it’s $1,040, and they opposed all of that. Then there are HST transition payments; the second payment is going to be delivered this December. It’s $1,000 for a family—they opposed that again.

Each and every time we put forward a specific, substantive measure to benefit families, they stand in the way against that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Across Ontario families are struggling. Paying the bills is still getting harder. The number of Ontarians out of work has grown by more than 30% since the start of the recession two years ago. The Premier’s response has only made life more expensive and dampened the economic outlook for this province.

After years of not listening, why should families believe that the Premier is suddenly on their side?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I talked about what we did three years ago; I talked about what we did a year and a half ago; now I’ll talk about what we did six months ago. At that time, we put in place the northern Ontario energy credit—that’s $200 a family; the energy and property tax credit—that’s $1,025 for seniors. We cut the price of generic drugs in half. There are over a million Ontarians who are paying for their drugs out of pocket—they opposed all those provisions. Two months ago, the children’s activity tax credit: $50 per child, $100 for a two-child family.

And then there’s full-day kindergarten: for parents of four- and five-year-olds, they’re saving hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, on half-day child care.

Again, I say, so that my honourable colleague will hear me, every single time we have put forward a specific, substantive measure to ease things a little bit for Ontario families, they have stood in the way of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I would just offer a suggestion: The Minister of Economic Development and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, as there’s been questions and answers going on, seem to be having a side discussion. I think it would be much better for all members of this House and our guests that instead of having that shouting discussion across the floor, it would be much easier for them to step outside and talk face-to-face quietly to one another.

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In September, we launched a campaign to have the HST taken off the hydro bills. We urged families that were struggling with their bills to join the effort. All told, 60,000 people signed the petition we started just six weeks ago. Together, we sent a very powerful message: Families need relief from the growing cost of living.

People have seen permanent hikes to their hydro bills. On behalf of these people, I’d like to ask: Will the Premier’s hydro relief be permanent or just a short-term measure?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward to delivering the particulars of the support that we’ll be providing to families when it comes to their electricity bills.

I agree with the leader of the NDP that it’s important that we find ways to support families in these lean times, and specifically with respect to their electricity bills. We agree in that area.

What I’d like to have is the agreement of the leader of the NDP when it comes to our determination to move ahead and put in place clean energy. I’d like to have her agreement that it’s important that we shut down coal-fired generation in Ontario. I’d like to have her agreement that doing that is good for our health, but especially for the health of our children. I’d like to have her agreement in each and every one of those measures, because there was a time when I did have that agreement, but of late, I have not.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’ve been telling the stories of families from across Ontario, families that are facing challenges, like paying the bills or finding a job, families like Helen Crabbe’s, who writes, “Please do not allow the HST to remain on our hydro bills. Please help us.”

New Democrats have been listening to Ontario families since the very beginning, and it seems the Premier is finally starting to prick up his ears. Why does he only start listening, though, when an election is looming?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just cited 10 separate instances, 10 separate legislative initiatives that provided specific support to families and, in each every and instance, the leader of the NDP and her party have voted against those.

Here’s something else which frankly surprises me. Recently, I was in Hamilton, in fact in the leader of the NDP’s very riding. I was there with JNE Consulting, who had entered into a joint venture with a Chinese company that I’d met with on my recent trip to China. They’ve decided to work together to create 300 jobs in Hamilton in the clean energy sector. That’s good news for Hamilton. It’s part and parcel of our clean energy policy, and it would be nice to have the leader of the NDP’s support for that specific measure insofar at least as it benefits the people in her riding.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is giving with one hand and taking with the other. The HST on hydro is just plain wrong; it should be scrapped. That would offer permanent relief, real relief for families in this province. Ontario families, in fact, agree. Why is the Premier refusing, then, to offer this kind of permanent relief?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, the leader of the NDP has been talking about this for quite some time. I’ve told her that we are in agreement that we need to do something, and we look forward to articulating in some detail the specific support we’ll be providing to families shortly in this Legislature.

Beyond that, again, I would ask the leader of the NDP to give some real consideration to supporting our plan to bring more clean energy to the province of Ontario. It’s good for our economy because it creates new jobs, including the jobs we’ve put into her riding. It’s good for our health. We learned some five years ago by means of a study that dirty coal is costing our health system nearly $3 billion. There are premature deaths and all kinds of increased rates of hospitalization and lung problems, especially in children.

Of course, the other thing we’re doing through our energy plan is, we’re creating more energy to ensure that we have a reliable supply, which is especially important for the manufacturing sector in Hamilton. Again, I’d ask the leader of the NDP for support.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. It appears the Minister of Energy’s dire prognosis of crumbling hydro meter syndrome is not the most ridiculous statement to come out of the mouth of a McGuinty Liberal this week. The Premier’s denial that electoral politics were behind his latest hydro rate cut backtrack takes the cake.

Having raised hydro rates 75% since taking office, have you really become so out of touch that you think Ontario families are going to believe and fall for your latest attempt to confuse them with your hydro bribe?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s just more in a series of misinformation that comes out of that side of the House when it comes to not wanting to tell the whole story.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We’ll start with the Minister of Energy withdrawing his comment.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I’ll withdraw that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Davenport will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw the comment. I’m sorry about that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East is not being helpful to the functioning of this chamber.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: As usual, the member opposite is not accurate in his assessment of this situation, nor is he even close. But accuracy is not something, I think, that that party has been very used to bringing forward when it comes to these issues, and I’ll tell you why: because they don’t want Ontarians to know the facts about what went on in the energy sector. They don’t want Ontarians to know just how far behind we were when we took this portfolio over. They don’t want Ontarians to know that when they were in power, we lost 1,800 megawatts of power, like running Niagara Falls dry.

They don’t want Ontarians to know that under their watch, the use of coal went up 127%. They don’t want Ontarians to know that we’re doing everything we can—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier McGuinty has backtracked so often on the plans his team has come up with that it’s impossible for Ontario families to know where he stands. What they do know is this: Every time he backtracks, Premier McGuinty uses Ontario families to pay for the mess that he and his team have created.

He has made Ontario families pay for his backtracks on eco taxes, the Oakville power plant, his public sector wage freeze plan—that was really good—the HST and the child tax credit. He’s at it again with his latest hydro handout, something his finance minister and Liberal insiders say is just the beginning of a whole lot more backtracking and electioneering to come, with taxpayer giveaways.

Which of your long-held convictions will you be putting up for sale next week?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I don’t need the assistance. I have enough armchair Speakers at home who like to send me emails, and I appreciate them.

I would just remind all members in this House that, yes, the opposition has a role to play, as the government has a role to play, but we have to ensure that we ask our questions in a manner that is not in any way being derogatory or taking shots at other members. I do take some exception to the comment that the honourable member just made at the end of his last question and would just ask him to withdraw it, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Our energy policy is all about Ontario families. It’s about building a strong, reliable, clean and modern system for Ontario families to run their homes, for Ontario families to run their businesses, for Ontario families to engage in the economic development that’s going on, and building a budding clean energy economy here in this province. It’s all about those families. We’re working with those families.

We are one of the first governments in a very long time in this province to be very honest with Ontario families. We cannot build that stronger, more reliable, cleaner system of energy without making important investments. But we’re going to stand with those Ontario families. We’re going to help them through this transition. We will not bring those Ontario families back to the condition you left them in seven years ago. We’re going to move proudly forward with a modern, clean, reliable energy system, and we’re going to do it standing with—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have a question for the Premier. Just over a year ago, the McGuinty government released a report saying that the HST and corporate tax cuts would create 600,000 new jobs, but since the new tax came into effect on July 1, more than 30,000 Ontarians have lost their jobs. How much longer should Ontarians wait before the Premier admits that his jobs plan is nothing more than an expensive flop?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important to note that a member of the NDP was also at estimates yesterday, when we had hours to discuss the Ontario economy, and a very pertinent fact is important to put in the House today: Our American counterparts have seen a 10% renewal of the jobs that they lost pre-recession, compared to a 75% increase in jobs back to the levels that we had before the recession. These are really important figures, so that we can show how we compare to jurisdictions that we actually trade with. Some 80% of our trade is with these jurisdictions in the US.

It’s important to note that again yesterday the member for the NDP came to really talk about how terribly the automotive sector was doing.

Let me say that Chrysler alone, year after year, in the last two years, has seen a 30% increase in sales in Canada alone. This is the kind of renewal that we’re seeing—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again, back to the Premier: Unemployment now is still more than 30% higher than it was at the beginning of the recession, and the number of people without a job is up more than 60% since October 2007. The Premier’s so-called plan, the HST and corporate tax giveaways, drove up the cost of living for families while creating a $2-billion annual hole in the treasury.

How can the Premier say his plan is working when people are paying more, too many are still out of work and the economic outlook is so grim?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me say this—and we’ve been up front with the people of Ontario: Ontario had it tougher than any province in the country during the last worldwide recession.

We knew, because we are the heartland of industry for the country, that that means the work that we can do as a government, counting on support from even opposition parties for some of our initiatives—when we talk about the advanced manufacturing strategy that just in its program alone created 5,200 new jobs—that’s like two Toyota plants in Ontario—our expectation is that the NDP would support these kinds of initiatives exactly when our economy needs it, exactly when we as a government can help lever the kinds of investments that that program alone brought to the province.

We expect the NDP to support new jobs in this province. We expect them to support the economic statement that’s going to be tabled in the House later today.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, this week you announced a $15-million investment in the Ontario Brain Institute at Baycrest hospital here in Toronto. The Alzheimer Society of Ontario says that 181,000 Ontarians are currently living with dementia and another 255,000 Ontarians will be affected in their lifetime by 2020.

There is already a great deal of research taking place in Ontario that is contributing to a knowledge-based economy and bringing Ontario to the forefront of research and innovation. For example, the Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest hospital is considered one of the top five neuroscience research facilities in the world. Minister, how will this new institute help Ontario reduce health costs brought about by our aging population, and will this investment create some jobs?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I first want to set the record straight. Rather than closing 28 hospitals, like the party opposite, we have built 19. And more than that, as my friend knows, we have used the platform of the brilliance of our doctors and researchers through this brain institute to create the most innovative and exciting research solutions to Alzheimer’s and brain cancer. This is life-saving research.

The party opposite wants to shut down this whole process by taking $3 billion out of our health care system in research, shutting our hospitals, taking jobs away, and robbing seniors of much-needed solutions. We will offer our seniors the best available services in research in the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: When announcements like this are made, my constituents often ask me how one comes to the decision that investments like this in the institute are necessary. That’s in the context of Ontario families carefully managing their money. They want to be sure that the government does the same with their hard-earned dollars. Ontario is going through some of the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression, and this is a significant $15-million investment of the taxpayers.

How can my Willowdale constituents and other Ontarians be sure that this investment in the Ontario Brain Institute at Sunnybrook is good value for the taxpayers?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Unlike the party opposite, we are not afraid of the world or that Ontario can compete with the very best.

As a matter of fact, let me share with my friend. This process began in 2008. Toronto businessman and my friend Joseph Rotman and Dr. Martin, dean of Harvard Medical School, began investigating the possibility of creating the brain institute here in Ontario. They established a council that consulted with more than 70 neuroscientists across Ontario and 50 leading experts. I can’t think of a government that did that kind of due diligence on anything previous to us getting elected.

The council released a report, and when our Premier met with President Peres, he pitched us because even in Israel, they knew that we in Ontario were their best allies and researchers. We’ve done the due diligence on money, we’re leveraging private sector investment, we have international partners and we will be a leader in curing diseases as one in four Ontarians become over the age of 65—

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

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Toronto District School Board is proposing to pay students for getting good grades; a very curious strategy, given the government’s decision to do away with grades and report cards. When the minister was asked whether she agrees that Ontario families should be paying students cash for good grades, she refused to oppose the strategy, saying it is up to the board.

In light of today’s fiscal update, which I think again is going to show that the government continues to pile up massive deficits, I would ask the minister: Would you be prepared to claw back the money the board thinks it can afford to waste like this and instead reinvest it in front-line education for at-risk students?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I don’t believe that this is the way to go in terms of supporting student achievement. This government has been very clear: We believe the very best way to support student achievement is to have a qualified teacher in a classroom, not on a picket line; that was the strategy used by the previous government. We have hired teachers. We have invested in good places to grow. As a result, since coming to government, student achievement is up. Class sizes are down. Graduation rates are up. We have increased our investment in education by 40%.

We have focused on literacy and numeracy, and our investments and our faith in the front-line people in our education system have paid off, and students are more successful. When they were in government, one out of four students dropped out.

I’m happy to say—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The issue is this cash for grades. So far, the minister hasn’t indicated that she is prepared to put a stop to the waste of this taxpayer money. Until the Premier backtracked at the last minute, the minister had no difficulty telling boards that they were to implement the sex education curriculum. It was also no problem telling boards to ban chocolate milk. Also, there was a hands-off approach to the sexual orientation survey in Ottawa, and now the privacy commissioner has weighed into that issue.

However, when it comes to this issue of cash for grades—and the research tells us that’s not the solution—the minister has deferred to the boards. What is it going to take for the minister to ensure that the priorities of hard-working Ontario families are addressed?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We’ve made it very clear: We don’t support that idea. We have listened to what the people of Ontario told us. They made it very clear: They were not in support of public dollars going to private schools. We settled that. We’re not in favour of that at all. That was a commitment made by the previous government.

We are investing in our schools and our students. We are investing in classrooms and hiring teachers. We are focusing on literacy and numeracy, and our student achievement has gone up. Class sizes have gone down. Graduation rates have increased. Students are improving. That is the way we believe we need to continue to invest in student achievement.

We have received results. There is more to do. We are continuing to work with our school boards and with families to support their initiatives. They have been very clear and they are satisfied that we are working with—

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

HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Attorney General. November 20 is trans remembrance day, and I am joined today by members of Trans Health and Rainbow Health in the gallery. New Democrats have tabled Toby’s Act (Right to be Free from Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity) three times in this House. When will the McGuinty government bring forward its own legislation to make sure that gender identity is included in the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’m sure I join all members in the Legislature in welcoming members of the community to the Legislature. This government has no tolerance for discrimination. We have no tolerance for discrimination based on transphobia. The Human Rights Code protects the transsexual and transgendered community. The decisions are clear: It extends the protection. The message that we want to make sure everybody knows is that protection is there for you if you need it. To anyone even thinking of discriminating on this basis: Don’t. It’s against the law. It’s against the protections of the code.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Attorney General should know that non-specified rights do not hold up. The Alberta Supreme Court has already ruled on that. That’s why there’s a growing outcry for such legislation.

Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall herself supports our bill and wrote a letter to the Toronto Star calling for gender identity to be added to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Economic data shows that 97% of trans Ontarians face employment discrimination, 50% live below the poverty line and 41% attempt suicide.

The McGuinty government can help end this discrimination by bringing forward legislation. When will it finally have the political courage to do so?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We have legislation; it’s called the Human Rights Code. The decisions are clear. Those of the transsexual and transgendered communities are protected.

We want to be very clear: It is not helpful to suggest in any way, shape or form that there’s some challenge to the existing protections. There is not. The protections are there for those who need them. To those who think that they can discriminate: Do not. The law prohibits it. The decisions are clear. The protections exist. We reject all forms of discrimination in this province.

AIR-RAIL LINK

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, my constituents in the riding of Davenport are very conscious of the ongoing construction along the Georgetown GO corridor to accommodate the air-rail link, a key transportation connection between Pearson airport and Union Station.

I’m having a stream of constituents coming to my office concerned about their local environment. Understandably, people want to make sure they live in a safe, clean environment. They want their government to ensure it does everything it can to keep the air we breathe clean.

We know that in May 2009, Metrolinx announced that it is going to study the electrification of the entire GO Transit rail system as a future alternative to diesel trains currently in service. Would the Minister of Transportation, in light of my constituents’ concerns, give us an update on the electrification study that Metrolinx is doing right now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for Davenport for his advocacy. I know that he is as enthusiastic as I am about reducing gridlock, improving air quality and getting people out of their cars and onto transit.

As he mentioned, Metrolinx is currently studying electrification. It’s a very inclusive study. It looks at capacity and service impacts, environment and health, community and land use, economic impacts and system costs. I will be reviewing that study once it’s completed and once it’s submitted to me.

What I want the member for Davenport and his constituents to know and be clear about is that the Georgetown South corridor infrastructure is being built to be capable of converting to electrification. That’s what we’re doing. All the bridges and structures and all the grade separations will be designed to meet the greater height requirements for electrification. Track spacing is being designed to allow for the foundations. Signal systems are being upgraded to allow for an electrified train system. It’s not a matter of whether we go electric; it’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary? The member from York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: The constituents in Davenport and my constituents in York South–Weston will be glad to know that the study is moving forward and that Metrolinx will be building ready for electrification. My constituents want to continue to be consulted on this important issue, and I will continue to advocate on their behalf.

Earlier this week we learned that Metrolinx is now in the process of acquiring the vehicles that will run on the air-rail link. My constituents are very concerned about the type of trains that will run on this corridor right in their backyard, and there is still much discussion about dirty diesel trains. Can the minister update this House on the vehicles for the air-rail link?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to be clear that the shuttles that will be running on the air-rail link will meet the stringent tier 4 diesel emissions standards. Those emissions standards—that diesel doesn’t exist yet. It’s being created as the cleanest diesel that will be available. Those shuttles will meet those requirements.

The reason that we’re doing this is because we want this air-rail link ready for the Pan Am Games in 2015. That air-rail link is part of the bid book. It needs to be ready.

We’re going to be working with Metrolinx, obviously. They’re entering into negotiations with Sumitomo Corp. to purchase the 18 diesel multiple units. These are convertible units, so these can be converted from diesel to electric units.

The public engagement process has been very comprehensive. The terms of reference were established in conjunction with the community, so the community—

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

GROWTH PLANNING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. A couple of weeks ago, late in October, you announced amendments to the badly flawed growth plan for the Simcoe area. You asked for feedback by January 31, 2011. I have to tell you: That date is ridiculous, and it’s completely unreasonable. You know that there are many changes on municipal councils, and new councils need time to adjust. They need at least a six-month extension for the feedback on a plan that will be in place—this is on a plan that will be in place for 2031. The end of January is completely unreasonable.

Premier McGuinty sat on the plan for two years with no good reason to hold it up. Will you, Minister, extend the January 31, 2011, deadline by a minimum of six months?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. The member will know that there was a very extensive consultation process that took place over a period of almost two years. We did issue a proposed amendment, and the proposed amendment will have a 90-day, a three-month period for additional consultation. We believe that’s an adequate period of time given how much consulting we had done previously. There has been tremendous pressure from the community, from Simcoe county, to move quickly on the development because, yes, it has been held up too long. What the member is now asking for is for that development to be held up that much longer. We’re not prepared to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, one would wonder why you would leave it until the writ period of a municipal election. You know councils are not even sworn in until the week of December 1—well, maybe you don’t know that. December 1 is when they’re sworn in. Your scheme gives them two short months to sort through the plan and get approval for feedback.

After sitting on this plan for two years, you decide to rush amendments at a time when councils are in the lame duck position, and the Christmas season falls immediately after. There’s no rush for the amendments. There has been no consultation with the new councils. A deadline extension to the end of July 2011, is completely reasonable. Why are the McGuinty Liberals standing by this sham of a process?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to know what alarm clock woke this member up. He’s had all kinds of opportunities to raise this issue with me previously—that’s number 1. Throughout the whole process of the Simcoe consultation, throughout the whole current process of considering the amendment that has been released, this member has done absolutely nothing in terms of engagement.

We have consulted extensively. We’re consulting over a period of three months. I’m getting very, very positive feedback from many of the municipal councillors. Many of the municipal councillors have indicated, including mayors, that they are very satisfied with the process to date. We will have a final answer at the end of January.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier: I was in Windsor yesterday, where I met with a couple of city councillors. Windsor’s council unanimously passed a motion calling for the HST to be taken off essentials like hydro. Why won’t the Premier take the HST off hydro and give Windsor families a break?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, and I know that my honourable colleague is going to commend us when she sees the particulars of the support that we’re going to be announcing through our fall economic statement.

I know that the Windsor council gave some thought to this, but what I would say to councils around the province is to give some thought to what their local distribution companies might do. We’re going to be doing something now to benefit Ontario ratepayers, those folks who receive electricity bills and make payment on them. We’re going to be doing something here, as a government, in terms of something that’s within our control, but we’d ask the municipal councils as well to take a look at what they might do, especially those who have local distribution companies over which they have specific responsibility.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Windsor has been hit hard by job losses. The unemployment rate is nearly 11% and 1,500 people lost their jobs just last month. Families are having a very difficult time making ends meet.

Will Windsor families see permanent solutions to sky-high hydro bills from their government today, or desperate, short-term promises that expire when the votes are counted?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ve had a lot of opportunity to debate electricity policy in here. We’re introducing a new measure here and it will be revealed shortly, through the finance minister, in the fall economic statement.

I appreciate the political perspective that my honourable colleague brings to this—in fact, that’s a very important part of her responsibility—but I think it’s really important to keep in mind the perspective of the Ontario family. I think what we’re announcing today will be received as good news. It will be seen as such: good news. They’ll be looking forward to this particular measure taking effect and having a specific impact on their electricity bills. That’s fundamentally what this is all about.

I thought that there might be a consensus in this House that we need to do something that is received as good news by Ontario families, and I believe fully that’s exactly what we’re doing today.

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Minister, while we have not fully recovered from the significant downturn in the economy, we are making progress. The effects of the recession in northern Ontario have been particularly challenging, but I’m aware that your ministry is working in partnership with businesses and industry to grow job opportunities in the north through the northern Ontario growth plan. Provincial support for the Huron Central Railway, St.

Marys Paper and the Terrace Bay pulp and paper mill are great examples of the investments and the commitment our government has demonstrated to ensure workers and their families in the north have the opportunity to succeed.

Minister, as you know, it’s important that we continue to attract investment in the north. Can you tell us what you’re doing to promote investment and economic development in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question, and there’s indeed some good news that’s coming out of northern Ontario.

I think it’s fair to say our government policies and our Open Ontario plan have positioned our province to remain the number-one jurisdiction in Canada for investment, particularly in the mining sector. Yesterday, that came home in a very significant way when the CEO of Vale Canada announced a five-year investment program for Ontario and for Canada. In Ontario alone, Vale announced it will be spending $3.4 billion to upgrade mining and processing facilities here. That includes a number of positive pieces of news: $360 million towards the Totten Mine. This will be the first new Vale mine in Sudbury in almost 40 years. It’s expected to begin production in 2011, creating 130 jobs.

Let me also give a bit of thanks to our colleague the MPP for Sudbury for the hard work and advocacy he’s done on behalf of that. He knows what good news this is for Sudbury and all of northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Minister, Vale’s decision to invest in Ontario is certainly great news for our economy and for the families that will benefit from these jobs. Vale is making these investments in Sudbury, a city that has been built on the success of mineral exploration and development. It makes sense that companies would want to invest there. It’s clear that Vale’s investment will also have a positive impact on all of northern Ontario, including First Nation communities.

Minister, we know