Welcome viewers to our ongoing program focus coming to you from Channel 17 Center for Media and Democracy here in Burlington, Vermont. This is town meeting TV. We're on remote now and because we're still going to the coronavirus pandemic. So my guests. Welcome Sharon Toburg. Welcome back Sharon Toburg. Oh, thank you, Margaret. Yes, to be here again. Yes, you did two programs with me in 2019. And you are the policy analyst for the Vermont right to life committee. www.vrlc.net. And we are addressing this ongoing question. What does abortion belong in Vermont's Constitution. That's the title we agreed upon Sharon. And so this is actually part six of the program, which we did, we didn't have any program at all in in the first pandemic year 2020. Sharon, is it okay with you if I read article 22 chapter one of Vermont's Constitution to start us off. Oh sure that would be the constitutional amendment that has been proposed here in the state of Vermont so why don't we share it with the viewers. Okay. So article two. Oh no it's article 22 of chapter one of Vermont's Constitution that an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course, and shall not be denied or punished unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Okay, first of all Sharon. Let me clarify is it is article two right it's article two of chapter one. It is proposed to be article 22 of chapter one of the Vermont Constitution. That is the language that will be added to the Vermont Constitution. If the voters approve it when they vote on it in November of 2022. Okay, so this will be and correct me if I'm wrong Sharon this will be added to the Constitution, if the voters vote on this particular language. Yes, the Vermont legislature in 2019 took up both a piece of legislation which I was here discussing previously, when I was on your program, called age 57. That legislation put into Vermont statute that abortion is legal unrestricted unregulated throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. That legislative initiative came out of some meetings held between a Planned Parenthood the ACLU some key legislators who met with the Attorney General and staff from the Attorney General's office for months throughout the summer of 2018 to create this language for legislation to put that put abortion into Vermont statute, as well as to follow up with this constitutional amendment. The main purpose of this constitutional amendment is really to prevent any future legislature from changing what was passed in age 57, which became known as act 47 of the legislature. The legislature voted in 2019 for unrestricted unregulated abortion. The legislature rejected every proposed amendment that would have a limit limited abortion, including limits on late term abortion, requiring a parent to be notified of a minor was seeking an abortion health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. There were many more amendments that would have put limits on abortion throughout pregnancy, they were all rejected by the legislature. So, that language went into Vermont statute, and now what they're trying to do is amend the Vermont Constitution to make sure that a future legislature cannot change the law on abortion in Vermont. Sharon, let's go over the language because the word abortion is not in this proposed amendment at all. No, the word abortion is not in the amendment. There is also sort of a purpose section that was passed along with this proposal, abortion is not included in that purpose section either. Even though Vermont right to life and the ACLU and the Legislative Council said it would be advisable to include abortion in there. That language was not included. But it is very clear that this is an abortion amendment. And that it is intended to protect what was put into Vermont statute that is unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy. And is there any anything in the Vermont statute that protects the onborn or however people wanted to call it the nine month journey that the fetus, the impregnated seed takes to produce a human being. Is there any, is there any language in the Vermont, is there anything in the Vermont statute that protects the onborn. There's nothing. In fact, it is very clear from case line Vermont that a fetus has no rights until it is born alive in the state of Vermont. That is, the child has to be born and has to take a breath before it's considered a person with rights in the state of Vermont. The nature rejected adding such language to Vermont statute that would protect a fetus at any stage of development. And one other issue separate from abortion to is, there's no protection for a woman who wants to carry a child to term, who is a victim of a crime that causes the death of the fetus we've had instances here in Vermont. This is in Bennington, where a woman who was pregnant with twins viable twins was struck by an impaired driver. She lost the twins both both the babies died. And the news reports said, nobody died in that car crash, because these twins were not born alive so they didn't count in the eyes of the media and they don't count in the eyes of Vermont law. And they won't ever be able to count. If we pass this constitutional amendment. In the language of this concept of this proposed constitutional amendment. It says an individual individuals without saying whichever sex the individuals right to personal reproductive autonomy. What is personal reproductive autonomy. Well, personal reproductive autonomy does not have a fixed definition. Over the past decades, it has come to include things such as the right to choose or refuse sterilization, the right to choose or refuse contraception, the right to choose or refuse abortion. It encompasses how people become pregnant, but it doesn't have a fixed definition. And every time there is a new court case dealing with a reproductive rights issue. The definition can be expanded to include something else. That's one of the things that is so troubling about this amendment is while we all understand that it doesn't that mean abortion and sterilization and contraception. It's essential that courts could interpret it to mean many, many more things things we haven't even thought about. And one point you just made is it does not reference gender. Just about all of the reproductive rights cases that have been heard by courts thus far, have centered around women's rights. But this is gender non specific. So the debate over this amendment in the legislature during the testimony in the legislative committees. It was repeatedly said that various terms and this amendment is going to mean what the courts determine that it means what the courts decide it means, particularly, as I said in the area of people who can't get pregnant. The courts will decide what what it means for reproductive autonomy for people who can't get pregnant. And when you're going when you're going into the difference between a man and woman in this. What about the rights of the, the male in in the abortion question. Although those are some good questions. I'm going to know until some of these issues work through the courts if this amendment becomes part of our Constitution. Of course, it men can't have abortions but do they have a right to not be fathers in some way. Do they have a right not to provide child support under this amendment. That's a question if they. We really, we really don't know what it means for men. There have been cases at the federal court level of men who say, I, I deserve a right to choose just like a woman can have a right to choose an abortion I deserve a right to choose not to be a father. Those cases have not been successful. Child support has continued to be required, but we're entering very new territory here. There is no state in the country that has this type of amendment in their Constitution. And we're really don't know what the courts might do with it and how the definition of personal reproductive autonomy might expand in the future.  And when you say the courts, the courts will decide on based on what laws regarding reproductive rights. Well certainly they will look at what the legislature did with age 57, where they said, we reject any limits on abortion. Some interesting language in this proposed amendment about a compelling state interest. That is a legal term that is used to hold courts to the very highest standards when they are evaluating whether a regulation or law would be permissible under this constitutional amendment. And one thing they will look at is they will look and see, okay, the Vermont legislature in 2019 did not find it to be compelling to protect an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy. They did not find it compelling that a parent be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion. It was not compelling to have health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. So those are some factors that will play in. There are some people who think based on that language about a regulation to further a compelling state interest, they think that that's in there to allow there to be regulation, when in reality, it is in there to prevent as many regulations as could possibly be thought of. And of course we do not know what a Vermont court will do with this, but we do know at a national level but the Supreme Court and federal courts have done. And for instance, I know many people are familiar with the debate that was held some years ago over the partial birth abortion procedure.  That was outlawed by the US Congress, even our very own pro choice Senator Patrick Leahy voted in favor of that law. It was challenged in the courts, and it was upheld by the US Supreme Court, but it was not upheld under this very high compelling state interest standard. It was upheld under a much lower standard, the, what is called undue burden standards. So there are these different levels that courts look out to decide whether something's allowed and and when you think of something like a partial birth abortion. So it's not something that's been upheld as a compelling state interest. So the. So when we think about what might be a compelling state interest, it's going to have to meet a very, very, very high threshold, and most abortion regulations have no chance of meeting that threshold.  Does this amendment speak to the pro choice community in a comprehensive way. I think we have to recognize that there are a lot of people who consider themselves pro choice but who do not support age 57 and do not support unregulated abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The vote was held on age 57 there was a Democrat representative who was very supportive of many regulations and and she said, you know, the fetus is not nothing. What the abortion lobby what the Planned Parenthood abortion lobby wants to see in statute and in the Constitution the idea that the fetus is nothing and deserves absolutely no consideration. And that abortion should not be regulated in any way, because of that. But I think most people even if they're pro choice can recognize that the fetus is not nothing. And particularly when we're talking about viable children who would live but if they were born at the stage of development. It brings to mind all of the progress that's been made medically in prenatal care in the past century that come to mind today about what some people would call rescuing children who are at risk in in the in the womb of the of the mother. Well, there was I saw a story recently there were a set of triplets born at the UVM Medical Center, and they were born at 22 weeks, and all three of them lived and were released from the hospital and are doing well. The UVM Medical Center performs elective abortions at 2221 weeks, seven days gestation. So that's a day before these twins were born they perform elective procedures then, and they will continue to perform abortions throughout pregnancy. They have an ethics consultation and consideration. Sometimes they don't. But on the one hand you have a set of triplets born at basically the same stage as the time they are doing abortions it just doesn't make sense. How can children be worth protecting and saving in one instance but they're, they're just nothing in another instance. And that brings to mind the what is, what is you as a as a representative that the policy analyst for Vermont right to life. What do you mean by right to life. Well, Vermont right to life believes in upholding the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death, and we oppose abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. These are the organizations that deny the right to life. So that that is our organization's position. But we work with a lot of people who as I said can consider themselves pro choice but are just really up all that the thought that in Vermont, you can have an abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. The other one other item to recognize is that we have some legal precedent here in Vermont around abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion. The state of Vermont is paying for abortions for women who qualify for Medicaid. It is likely if this constitutional amendment passes, we will be paying for many more abortions we will be paying perhaps for in vitro fertilization surrogacy. So whatever kinds of reproductive procedures that are determined to be covered by this it's very likely they will have to be included in any state medical program that is put forth by the state. It's interesting that court decision that requires Vermont to pay for abortions. And the judge said, unlike other states, the state of Vermont does not prefer childbirth to abortion. So that is the public policy stance that is in age 57 and is in this proposed constitutional amendment that there's no difference really between childbirth and abortion. It's the same thing that it doesn't really matter whether you do one or the other. So it's, it's very upsetting, as I said to a lot of people who aren't as pro life as I am and don't share my fully pro life views but still recognize as I said that a fetus maybe deserves some consideration and that the health and safety of women deserve some consideration. What, what, what are the things that will happen if this amendment is passed and is part of the Constitution. You know, I think really your imagination is the limit. We've seen federally recently that the Biden administration has removed limitations on fetal experimentation, and the use of fetal tissues in research. So there's a pop. There's possibilities there that that fetal tissue could become used more here in Vermont for research that there could become a market for it that women could proceed with a pregnancy just for that purpose really because they are going to have this right to do what they what they want reproductive autonomy will encompass the right to become pregnant for whatever reason you you want to. There's also questions around, particularly with young people with minors we are seeing a lot of moves towards using cross sex hormones and minors with for transitioning purposes. And those that is will be free from regulation free from parental notification free from any parental involvement at all there won't be any requirements that the parents be involved. And, you know, the truth is, we really don't know. We're told that personal reproductive autonomy means a limited number of things, but that is just today and as the courts go through cases and people come forward with challenges. It's, it's going to start meaning a much more broader set of things. In your opinion, with within the United States Constitution with with our, the definition of right of right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does that include protection for the onborn child. So the Constitution does, it's actually the Declaration of Independence that was the liberty and pursuit of happiness. So that language isn't in the Constitution. I'm not a legal expert. I don't know if there's an argument to be made that language in the US Constitution could protect unborn children. So I guess my answer to that is, is I don't know. It is interesting to note that one of the rationales being put forward for passing the constitutional amendment is because we can't be sure what will happen at the US Supreme Court level with the Roe v Wade decision. But what a lot of people in Vermont aren't aware of is that Vermont had legal abortion, even before Roe versus Wade, we had a state court decision that said abortion was permissible, even before Roe v Wade. And we also now as I said have enacted the act 47 the unrestricted unregulated abortion bill, and that is in Vermont statute so regardless of what the happens at the national level. The abortion rights are already in Vermont law. This constitutional amendment is not needed to secure abortion rights now. As I said, its purpose is to prevent any changes to Vermont law in the future. And I think that's, it's not a good rationale, in my opinion, because we don't know what's coming in the future. When Roe v Wade was passed it, the age of viability of an unborn child was much further along science has pushed it back for weeks and weeks and we're going to continue to see changes and what this constitutional amendment will do will prevent us from addressing those changes legislatively with a with a democratically elected legislature. Well, thank you Sharon you seem to, to give us an all encompassing view, knowing that you represent right to life, which is, which you have expressed very well about your belief in the value of the unborn child. And this is also a question of social values.  Is that something of value to to the state, and can and should it be protected. And I think that those are questions that we do have to answer before we make this amendment to the Constitution in which we will in the voting booth right it will be in the first on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2022. After it has been ratified and adopted by the people when ratified and adopted by the people of the state that that's when we ratify and adopt it in that vote, November 22. There will be a vote in November of 2022, assuming that the Vermont House of Representatives passes proposal five again, which we certainly expect that they will. The Senate passed at the second time here in April. Yes, my understanding is they'll be waiting until next year the next part of the legislative session to take it up. And if they pass it, the voters will vote in November of 2022. And given our, what we the question that we're addressing does abortion belong in Vermont's Constitution. Can you wrap up our discussion right now and, and tell me your opinion of that in. And we'll go out with that. Well, not surprisingly, I don't think it belongs in the Vermont Constitution and I think you hit it. And they said what, what do we value. And this amendment says we don't value unborn children at at any stage of pregnancy, and we don't value their mothers because we won't allow even health and state safety standards around the issue of abortion. So I think there's a lot of values that we hold that run contrary to this proposed amendment. So I'm hoping that some pro choice voters will look at it and say no, no Vermont should not have abortion in its Constitution. Thank you very much Sharon Togorg for your discussion with me today on this issue. And I appreciate your, your knowledge of the issue and all and the understanding that you bring to all the repercussions of the law. So thank you for inviting me to be on your program Margaret. Yes, until next time Sharon Togorg and thank you channel 17 Center for media and democracy. And on happy spring, happy Mother's Day, second Sunday in May. Thank you. Goodbye for now.


is now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's moral opposition. Thank you, a very simple and straightforward question to Premier. Premier, exactly which taxes do you plan to raise in the province of Ontario? Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and I thank the leader of the opposition for the question and just say to him that we are committed as we have said for a number of months that we are committed to building transit and building transportation infrastructure in this province Mr. Speaker. We've been clear about that, we have stated that we will bring a plan forward in the budget and we will do that Mr. Speaker. And we will do that in the fairest way possible. There will be a transparent fund Mr. Speaker. It will be clear which projects we are going to build Mr. Speaker and we recognize that in our urban centres and in the GTHA transit is a burning issue Mr. Speaker but we also recognize that in our rural and northern communities roads and bridges and water systems Mr. Speaker those pieces of infrastructure are critical. So we're going to continue to build infrastructure Mr. Speaker we're going to continue to make investments in this province and I hope that the leader opposite will join us Mr. Speaker. Well if the Premier is asking if we'll support increasing taxes on families and job careers in the province of Ontario, absolutely not. I mean here's the difference, you believe taxes should go up in the province I believe they should come down to encourage job careers. Unfortunately the Liberal record on taxes is a rather poor one to say the least. Before elections Donald McGinty or I suspect now Premier Nguyen will say they're not going to increase taxes. And then he brought in the HST, he brought in the health tax he brought in an income tax increase you brought in a business tax increase and now we're getting very invasive answers on exactly which taxes you want to raise. Basically you said you're going to increase income taxes again but you said you're not going to tax the middle class you're going to tax other income earners. So Premier maybe we can get some more clarity here and end the cat and mouse game. How do you exactly define middle class when it comes to income taxes in our province? Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Well the Leader of the Opposition says that there's a difference between us and there absolutely is a difference between us Mr. Speaker there is a fundamental difference and the difference is Mr. Speaker that we are going to make and have been making and will continue to make investments in the future. Member from Duffin, Caledon come to order. We will continue to work with business and partnership Mr. Speaker and we will continue to invest in infrastructure. What the Leader of the Opposition has put forward Mr. Speaker is a what I would say is a non-plan but it is an initiative that would cut and slash across the board Mr. Speaker that would slash services and Mr. Speaker I do not believe that that is what is needed in this province right now. What we need is an aspirational plan and understanding that investment in communities is what is necessary that is what we are looking forward in our budget Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. The problem with your aspirational plan is your only aspiration is to increase taxes and put as deeper into debt. I think that got us into a significant mess. Now Premier you will not tell us how you are going to define middle class but you are going to increase income tax I guess that is clear. I appreciate that you said there is a fundamental difference between you and I I would agree. I just wish we saw a fundamental difference between you and Dalton McGinty. It seems like it is pretty much two sides of the same coin. You also said that you are going to increase business tax you are going to increase taxes on job creators in our province. In 2011 you said quote raising corporate taxes would create a chill in the job increases we have seen. They impressed May 26. So at a time that a million people have no job in the province of Ontario Premier why are you considering increasing taxes on job creators or are you considering increasing taxes on job creators. Let's give the member from Northumberland, Quinty-West an opportunity to stop. And it will. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and as the leader of the opposition knows full well we have cut taxes to small businesses we understand that small business needs that support and we have as recently as this year have cut the payroll taxes for small businesses. But Mr. Speaker what we know at this point in our history is that it is very important that we make investments in the province and that we work in partnership with business Mr. Speaker. That is not the strategy of the leader of the opposition. He believes that cutting and slashing across the board is what needs to happen. We just don't accept that Mr. Speaker. We believe that it is very important that we make sure that young people have the training that they need and that people who have lost their job have a way back into the job market Mr. Speaker and often retraining is what they need Mr. Speaker. He also does not accept the notion that investing in transit and investing in transportation infrastructure in the immediate term creates jobs and in the long term creates economic prosperity. So that's the fundamental difference between him and me Mr. Speaker. I believe that investing and making sure that that communities have the report they need that that's what needs to happen. He believes that cutting and dividing is what needs to happen. We don't accept that Mr. Speaker. New question. Back to the Premier Speaker. Well here's the difference. I've got a million jobs plan to put people back to work in the province of Ontario. Now here's the other concern I have. Part of our million jobs plan is to make sure that we have a government that spends within its means just like families have to do every day just like businesses have to do every day. But my finance critic is uncovered. Senior ministry of finance officials that paint a very different picture of Ontario's finances from what you said Premier yourself in 2013. A ministry of finance document that you've seen says there are quote no plans in place to achieve out your deficit targets from the 2012 budget. So there's no plan to balance the books. You say in your budget that you're on track to balance the budget. So if a CFO or CEO were found to be misleading its shareholders on the finances. Answer. Our question. So Premier what do you think we should do with you? Well thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And the you know the leader of the opposition had he taken the time to read the fall economic statement he would have seen Mr. Speaker that the numbers get updated. And he also would know Mr. Speaker that on page two of that document we said uncertainty in the global economy is leading to lower revenue growth. Ontario's revenues are more than five. I think you should hear this because you haven't read it. Ontario's revenues are more than five billion dollars lower than projected since the 2010 budget. Mr. Speaker we are constantly updating numbers. I think you already know. Thank you. And let's bring it down. Finish please. Government's responsibility to understand what is changing in the fiscal and the economic situation Mr. Speaker. So of course we work with our officials and there are numbers that are updated. Changes that are made. We run scenarios. We look at options. That's how you develop a responsible policy position Mr. Speaker. And that's what we are doing. Thank you. Well I disagree Speaker. I think that people expect the government to be honest with taxpayers and say the finance. Another as you characterize it fundamental difference between you and me. You went further Premier. This is not a one-shot occurrence. There were several examples of how you and Mr. Finance said one thing and your financial officials said the other when it came to the budget last year. Your financial officials we've now discovered said for 2014-15 and 15-16 that the government is not on track to meet 2012 budget deficit targets. Finance officials said a few weeks later you said the opposite. You said that you were on track. So people watch this closely. Not only taxpayers that are stuck with the bill. Businesses that want to invest in this province. Credit rating agencies. So if the Premier and the finance minister are saying one thing and finance officials who look and crush the numbers are saying the opposite how can we actually trust you in the province of Ontario. Isn't that enough to say it's time for a change in new leadership that will be honest about? Thank you Premier. Well thank you very much Mr. Speaker and I will just remind the leader of the opposition that we are the party we're the government that passed a law that says Mr. Speaker that before a budget there has to be an opening up of the books before an election there has to be an opening up of the books because he will remember that when we came in in 2003 as a government 5.6 billion dollars which had not been disclosed to the province as a deficit Mr. Speaker but that's what we discovered when we came in. So we passed a law that makes it necessary mandatory for the books to be opened before an election Mr. Speaker but I just want to make sure that people understand what the leader of the opposition is doing. He's taking material out of context from finance finance officials Mr. Speaker materials that are part of a discussion with government officials Mr. Speaker in the development of a budget in the development of policy. When he read the fall economic statement he would have seen that the numbers had been updated Mr. Speaker that's what responsible government does we update numbers and we develop a policy. Thank you. Unfortunately Premier your shell game is up. People are onto the fact that you say one thing and do the opposite. You told all of us you're going to be different from Dalton to Ginty I'm seeing more and more of the same. I'll remind you again these are official Ministry of Finance documents in the last budget and I'm comparing what the finance official said to what you said a few weeks later in the budget. So not only were you inaccurate when it came to the deficit figures you're also dramatically inaccurate when it came to the jobs in the province. Ministry of Finance documents say quote the economy has not yet regained the strength of pre-2008. There are fewer jobs relative to our population and more unemployed yet a few weeks later you said Premier if you're going to invest in a company if you're going to invest in a province you want to know you're actually getting the hard facts that you're getting the truth one of the reasons we have a million unemployed in the province of Ontario is we can't trust you. We can't trust you we can't trust Dalton to Ginty. Will you actually table budget be honest questions if you're not going to be honest people of Ontario just move aside we'll come in we'll clear the mess and put people back. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the original gamut of this question Mr. Speaker because what the leader of the opposition is proposing for this province is devastating cuts across the board. We are being very honest with the people of the province that we need to make investments we were honest in the fall economic statement when we said that the revenue numbers that we had anticipated had not been realized Mr. Speaker and that there is a revenue hole Mr. Speaker and we are going to work very hard to put forward a budget that will continue to grow. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition has said that he will cut he has said and his his critical for red tape as recently as just a few days ago last week said that regulations that were put in place after the Walkerton Water Tragedy said we have to take a look at the ridiculousness of regulation she said Mr. Speaker the radical and risky approach that the leader of the opposition puts forward is not in the province and we will not go there. New question? You see it please you see it please thank you leader of the third party thank you speaker my questions for the premier since she first took over the liberal leadership from Dalton McGinty the premier has insisted that it was absolutely essential for middle class families to foot the bill for transit and transportation expansion and when she raised the concerns of families who are feeling squeezed like never before the premier told them they were behaving like children she was having an adult conversation and she'd get back to us when she was done. Speaker can the premier tell us what review is this week? Thank you very much Mr. Speaker well despite the tone of the leader of the third party what I will say to her is that I said no such thing Mr. Speaker I have been clear that whatever revenue tools ever plan we brought forward was going to be fair Mr. Speaker that it was going to be transparent and that it was going to allow us to continue to invest in transit and transportation infrastructure Mr. Speaker I've been clear about that from the moment I took on this job and Mr. Speaker the only reason that last week I moved to say that it was necessary to make it clear that we are not going to increase HST or increase gas tax Mr. Speaker is that there was a lot of mischief that was being created by members across the floor Mr. Speaker by identifying somehow the notion that we had committed to making those increases we had done no such thing we are committed to building transit and our plan will come forward in the budget Mr. Speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker I guess the premier figured out that painting yourself into a corner is pretty darn mischievous the liberal government has made it clear that they plan ahead with more corporate tax cuts and new loopholes and they've also committed to scrapping the fairness tax giving a multi-million dollar tax break to Ontario's highest income earners new democrats have been consistent it's not fair to ask families to pay more while handing out billions in breaks to people who need them the least can the premier tell us what her view is this week Thank you very much Mr. Speaker I have to say and surprisingly the NDP has been consistent in not supporting transit building Mr. Speaker they have not cut your Mr. Speaker they have not in this province and I say Mr. Speaker that position I would have expected from the conservatives I would not have expected it from the NDP Mr. Speaker I would have thought that the NDP would have been interested in working with us to come up with a plan that was fair and that would invest in people and would invest in the infrastructure particularly in transit in her urban centres Mr. Speaker that so many of their members and so much of their history has been supportive of Mr. Speaker but that does not seem to be the case and it's very disappointing that they don't support that kind of investment in it. When she was transportation minister she took four billion dollars out of the HST and the highest hydro bills in Canada the same government that bragged about their planned corporate tax giveaways and had to be dragged kicking and screaming speaker to bring in the fairness tax on high income earners the same liberals who told families feeling squeezed that they were behaving like children when they complained about the idea of even more new taxes now say that they have a plan to protect middle class families does the premier really think people find her credible Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker when I was minister of transportation I did not take four billion dollars out of transit we invested four billion dollars in transit which she knows perfectly well that those projects are speakers so I will say that it is consistent with her party's past and their philosophy that she would be supporting the building of infrastructure Mr. Speaker that she would support the investment in this province whether it's in infrastructure in northern Ontario whether it's in training programs Mr. Speaker that she would support that kind of investment unfortunately that is not the case Mr. Speaker we will move ahead and bring a plan that will put those investments front and center Mr. Speaker I hope that parties on all sides of the house can support that plan Mr. Speaker thank you my next question is for the premier unemployment in Ontario is the same this month as it was last month and our unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly above the national average does the premier think her status quo job creation efforts are working or will she look at something new thank you very much Mr. Speaker and I think I think the leader of the third party knows that there are jobs that are being created and it's true Mr. Speaker that the economic recovery has not been as quick as we would have liked it to have been 100,000 new jobs have been created over the last year Mr. Speaker and she also will know that in terms of youth employment I think the update is over 9,000 young people have placements Mr. Speaker because of the variety of tools that we put in place Mr. Speaker so I believe that we need to continue to bring businesses to the province and we need to help businesses that are here to expand investments like the support of Cisco Mr. Speaker that's the kind of expansion that we want to make sure continues and we will continue to partner with business and continue to help create those new jobs Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Speaker the Liberal and Conservative plan to keep generating more and more dead money with no strings attached giveaways isn't working it's why Ontario continues to lag the rest of Canada when it comes to job creation it's time to take a smarter approach one that we see working elsewhere is the Premier ready to admit that giveaways aren't working it's time to reward job creators with job creation tax credits thank you very much Mr. Speaker well as the leader of the third party knows there are many businesses with whom we have partnered and who are creating new jobs this is an issue of retaining jobs and helping businesses to expand and to create new jobs so 100,000 jobs as I said 100,000 new jobs have been created in the last year Mr. Speaker has created a new tax system and made it one of the most competitive in North America and in fact we have done very well when you look at other jurisdictions in terms of regaining job loss since the economic downturn we're partnering with businesses through the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund Mr. Speaker and we are making progress on those fronts so I look forward to the opportunity to hear more from the leader of the third party but Mr. Speaker we are on track to hear from the economic downturn final supplementary when Heinz pulled up stakes from Leamington they went to a jurisdiction with job greater tax credits a job greater tax credit ensures that we are rewarding the companies that are creating the jobs when a company creates a job they get a tax credit when they invest in training their workers they get a tax credit when they invest in infrastructure for this province here in Ontario they get a tax credit when they invest they get a tax credit when they hire they get a tax credit when they train they get a tax credit well the premier admits that her plan isn't doing the job and it's time to take a targeted tax credit approach to getting families working in Ontario again thank you very much Mr. Speaker well you know I agree with the leader of the third party that we need to work with business that we need to partner with business who don't seem to think that working with business is what we need to do I actually agree with the NDP that we do need to work with business but I would suggest Mr. Speaker that the work that is being done right now is creating results so if we look at, I've talked about Cisco but Ford and Oakville securing 2800 jobs we invested $70.9 million and that leveraged a $700 million investment in Toyota we provided a grant of $16.9 million and that will create 400 new jobs Mr. Speaker original foods limited in Dunville a grant of $1.5 million Mr. Speaker will create 150 new jobs so Mr. Speaker we are working with businesses we are making investments partnering with business that is creating jobs and the investments are tied to the creation of those jobs Mr. Speaker and I think that is a fundamental requirement of those investments that we made thank you my question is for the premier minister of agriculture premier I was proud on Saturday to stand with 400 people at Kempfield Agricultural College to take the first steps in building a new future at that campus we had farmers college alumni members of the community at the meeting Robert Jelly who chaired the college royal at Kempfield this year expressed his profound disappointment that you've been potentially silent on this issue and you're the minister of agriculture when eastern Ontario's farmers and farm families needed their minister of agriculture to stand up for them you weren't there for them these colleges in Kempfield and Alford are so important we need an educational institution east of Guelph minister I'm asking members of our farm community want to hear from the minister will you stand up for Kempfield and Alford and reverse that decision please premier I will answer the first question and then I'm going to I know the minister of training colleges and universities is going to want to comment on this because it is an issue to do with the university so I want to just be clear I'm very interested in finding local solutions MPP the MPP for Glenn Gary Prescott Russell has been working very hard and a local solution has been found from college it's not helpful when things get barked back and forth when we're trying to get an answer and somebody speaking even when I'm trying to say something the member from the Pee and Carlton will come to order please Glenn Gary Prescott Russell will come to order and the next person that says anything carry on I understand the significance of the program at Kempfield Mr. Speaker and I want that program to continue and the program is not being cancelled Mr. Speaker the MPP as I say to find local solutions we are open to a local solution Mr. Speaker the program is not being cancelled it's a matter of making sure that the program is viable and working with the local community well Premier I've spoken to the Minister of Training and Colleges and Universities I've spoken to your parliamentary assistant farm families and farmers in eastern Ontario want to hear from you if I'm to believe as a citizen this morning your parliamentary assistant Mr. Crack the member for Glenn Gary Prescott Russell essentially agreed with me standing up for these agricultural colleges we need a viable and strong agricultural sector and we need to be able to teach innovation at an agricultural college close to home Minister are you going to stand up agree with those 400 people and the 5,000 odd farmers put a moratorium on it don't dismantle, control and help stand up thank you very much Mr. Speaker and you know I understand that we need to have this program that's why the program is not being cancelled Mr. Speaker the program is not being cancelled I just want to be very clear and you know I know as the Minister of Training Colleges and Universities has said this is not a partisan issue we want this training and this education process to go forward we are open to a local solution Mr. Speaker the MPP for Glenn Gary Prescott Russell has been working looking for local solutions and I ask the member from Renfrew, Yippee-Sinc, Cambroke will come to order the member from Stormont Dundas in South Blangary will come to order the member from Oxford will come to order I knew it was a male voice Guelph is an autonomous organization that has the authority to make these decisions but I would ask the member opposite to us to look for a local solution we do not we are not canceling the program we want a viable solution and I hope that the member will work with us to find that local solution Mr. Speaker Thank you Speaker before I go to the Minister I'd like to congratulate all of the winter Paralympic athletes on their huge successes and so she's to the Minister responsible for Pan games for the millions of businesses locals and athletes participating in the games and living in the GTHA and the expectation of a 20% reduction in vehicle traffic and a temporary implementation in the HOV lanes from Oshawa to Hamilton is unreasonable in cities that already suffer from a horrendous gridlock gridlock that even the premier agrees already cost a local economy $6 billion Speaker how can local residents and businesses be confident that this government even has a transportation plan when the minister seems unable to provide any details Thank you Thank you Speaker for the question Speaker another day another drive-by shooting of the Pan and Games by the member opposite Speaker the fear-mongering tactic and negativity is not good for the game it dampens the moray of our competitors it takes away 26,000 jobs it hurts our trading relationship with nations of the Americas it hurt Ontario and Canada's repetition Speaker last week represented a workable achievable transportation plan the member opposite acknowledged that he has a plan Speaker is allegation unfunded it only muddies the water and he has no credibility Thank you Speaker Thank you Supplementary Thank you Speaker quite an interesting response Speaker transportation and security are two extremely important factors to the success of this Pan and Parapan Games but it appears the government is more interested in creating chaos than thoughtful detail plans no details no plan means chaos at these games at the rate this is going these games will be known as the Pan-M-Demonium Games Speaker what is going to take place the government to crevate and reveal workable transportation and security plans for the 2015 Pan-Parapan Games there's no plan let's hear about it Minister Thank you for your briefing last week we were delighted to announce the TO 2015 forecasted budget decreases from 1.44 1 billion dollar to 1.392 billion a saving of 49 million dollars Speaker we have a comprehensive transportation plan it is the work of more than 30 transportation partners led by the Ministry of Transportation they are the experts the plan includes best practices or past games in Vancouver and in London Speaker it is workable it is achievable Speaker I'm glad that the member office it came to the technical briefing this time Speaker unfortunately it appeared it did not pay attention at all member office at no plan only with unfounded allegation he badmouthing the game all the time Thank you Thank you Mr. President Thank you Mr. Speaker Minister of Training colleges and universities last week the University of Guelph did make an announcement that they were going to be closing the Alfred campus in my riding of Glen Gary Prescott Russell and also the Campville campus in Leeds Grandville but let me tell you Mr. Speaker as a member for the Rural Riding of Glen Gary Prescott Russell I was immediately on this file and I found this decision very troubling as well working with the Minister of Agriculture Food and the Minister of Training colleges and universities we came up with a solution that looks like it's going to be moving forward in Alfred and we're doing the same thing to have educational and research opportunities to continue at Campville College and I can tell you that I am very very proud to stand up and although the opposition will pretend to be the champions of Alex we've done our job on this side of the house so I ask you to see it please you see it please the the House will come to order I'll say it again some people are pushing pretty hard and I think I'll have to push back including you Minister of Training colleges and universities Thank you Mr. Speaker and I have to say Mr. Speaker I'm from Ontario and I want to commend the member Mr. Speaker for his proactive advocacy and for stepping up Mr. Speaker to make something happen to help save the Alfred campus Mr. Speaker this is not a partisan issue as the Premier said this is a decision made by the University of Guelph which is within their jurisdiction to make but this member Mr. Speaker on catching wind of this decision stepped up picked up some partners who have signed an agreement Mr. Speaker and principle to move forward and ensure that those programs continue at college I want to commend the member for his efforts and Mr. Speaker I want to assure the member because I know he's working hard on the Kempfield situation that we're open to solutions there and he'll work with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle he'll work with whoever he has to work with to try to find a solution for Kempfield as well Thank you Mr. Speaker please supplementary Thank you very much Speaker and thank you Minister for that very comprehensive answer as to the work that we've done in the last week on this side of the house finding a community based solution for Alfred campus in my right and Glen Gary Prescott Russell was a priority for me but at the same time Speaker was a priority for me to continue that we make sure that agriculture and research education continues at Kempfield College and I will continue to work on behalf of my constituents and the agricultural community across this great province of Ontario Mr. Speaker in my writing 70% of the population is francophone and the minister has alluded to the members from Simcoe North come to order reaching an agreement and partnership with Calais Boreal and La Cité and I can tell you that francophone students across this province do have challenges in getting their post-secondary education so I'm going to ask the minister could you please explain to us what we're doing to ensure that francophones have the opportunity as everyone else in this province to get their education in this province Thank you Thank you Mr. Speaker I'm actually going to have things about this a very non-partisan question it's about francophone students Mr. Speaker and their ability to experience their aspirations here in the province of Ontario a responsibility that each and every one of us should take very seriously and we do Mr. Speaker because we're improving access for francophone students to get access to French language programs here in Ontario this year we've invested $84 million in French language post-secondary education this represents a 62% increase in funding for francophone programming since 2003 last fall we provided $2 million to Glendon College, Calais Boreal and La Cité to expand their programs and services in both high needs areas with the opportunity to partner with other institutions across this province Mr. Speaker this is important for francophone students it's important that this government continue to stand up for those institutions and those students unlike the party opposite Mr. Speaker who's in the last platform considered La Cité and Boreal investments to be a waste Mr. Speaker far from it these institutions are playing a very important role in our post-secondary system Thank you No question? Thank you Mr. Speaker We are going to yield internal liberal documents that prove you're telling the public one thing while the complete opposite is factual You stood in this legislature and told this repeatedly that you'll balance the budget by 2017 Morten, Member from the P&C with Le Thras Le Thras speaker In fact the MayBudget document that you displayed earlier you said you're on track and newly discovered confidential documents you were told last March that you're not on track to meet the budget deficit. You knew this budget document was wrong, yet that's what you told the legislature, the bond rating agencies and the public. You had a chance to come clean with the financial community. What else are you hiding, Premier? Mr. Speaker, it took these individuals six months to get to page two of the financial economic update. And they're now asking questions about something that we put out over a year ago that spoke very specifically and clearly about how we're recalibrating our spending in order to meet our targets. We are on track, Mr. Speaker, and we will stay on track, notwithstanding the challenges that we face. Member from Renfrew and Nipissing, Pembroke will come to order last time. And the minister responsible for seniors will not be my armchair quarterback. Carry on. Mr. Speaker, we have become the leanest government anywhere in Canada. We are the lowest per capita government because of the work we have done. We've had some challenging times and we made it very clear that our revenues are down by $5 billion and notwithstanding that we're making those cuts as necessary and we're making investments that are even more important. Notwithstanding the fact that the federal government has cut funding only to Ontario, we will stand tall with the people of Ontario to meet those targets with or without those individuals' offices. Premier, on page two of that budget, you're stating a fact that only a month before you knew to be wrong. At the beginning of March last year, your government knew that you were $3.6 billion off the mark. So what did you do? You went and cut a deal with the NDP to run the credit card bill up even higher, all the way to what is now known to be from your secret documents, $4.5 billion gap in the budget. The documents say it clearly. Cabinet retreat outcomes increase the fiscal gap. It's clear that you had your deficit widening deal with the third party already in place last March. And it's very clear that you have absolutely no plan to balance the budget. So Premier, what fees and taxes do you have secretly cooked up to bring us back to balance? And is this budget deal with the NDP already done like it was last year at this time? Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, we have a plan that speaks to investing in the people of this province. We have a plan for strategic investments in modern infrastructure to create employment. That's why we have a $600,000 net new job since 2003. And Mr. Speaker, the individuals opposite are only playing gimmicks. They're just talking about cuts across the board. Nowhere do they talk about how they're going to invest and stimulate economic growth. We have made a number of programs to reduce taxes, to maintain a dynamic business climate, to attract investment into our province. They are the job creators. That is who we stand with. They have chosen not to support business. We will. We'll support families as well to make sure it's fair to all concerned. Mr. Speaker, it's a balanced approach that's going to ensure economic recovery and more prosperity for all Ontario. Thank you. The question, the member from Toronto, Dan Ford. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Premier. Ontario families reacted with concern to news that natural gas companies are applying for rate increases up to 40%. What is this government going to do to ensure that hard-pressed Ontarians are protected from unfair energy price increases that they just can't afford? Across North America, this winter has been one of the coldest in the last 25 years. The severe weather we've experienced has caused demand for natural gas and electricity to increase by as much as 25%. The increased demand has caused natural gas prices to rise all across North America, Mr. Speaker. In Ontario, natural gas utilities pass the cost of natural gas to consumers without any markup. They do not make a profit on the commodity cost of natural gas, but on their own distribution rate, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario Energy Board, as part of its mandate to protect ratepayers, reviews these rates every three months to make sure they accurately reflect the cost of delivering natural gas to consumers. No increases have been approved, Mr. Speaker. It's before the Ontario Energy Board. Let them do their job. Thank you. Supplementary. Well, Premier, people understand that it was a cold winter. Everyone knows that. But for families being squeezed, the news of natural gas getting more expensive is very hard to take. Can the government ensure that these rates will be reviewed in a way that is fair, open, and transparent, and will they allow families worried about the cost to have their say? Mr. Energy. Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the Ontario Energy Board. They listen to submissions from the public, from ratepayers groups. They listen to the industry when they make their decisions. It's fair, open, and transparent, Mr. Speaker. But I have a question for the critic from the NDP. What is his suggestion to reduce gas rates in Ontario? Please tell the people in Ontario how you would do it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the minister of health and long-term care. I would also like to welcome the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario to the legislature. Their presence is especially appropriate, Speaker, as we have reached another 10-year milestone this weekend. It's been 10 years since our government established Ontario's first family health teams. I'm pleased to report that FHTs have been making a positive, multi-disciplinary impact not only across Ontario but within my own riding of Etobicoke North. Patients report significant benefits from having access to select health care practitioners all at the same location and with an internal referral system. Minister, beyond my own riding, I respectfully ask you to share some of your insights on the broader accomplishments and contributions of family health teams across Ontario. Thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for this question, and I want to say thank you to the representatives from the Association of Ontario Family Health Teams who are here with us today. I want to say thank you to the dedicated nurses, the doctors, the dieticians, the pharmacists, all of the other health providers that are working in our family health teams. We now have over 200 family health teams and Ontarians benefit from their skills, their hard work, their compassion every single day. In just 10 years we've gone from zero family health teams to 200 family health teams. That means more than eight sides with over 2,400 physicians in our family health teams. It's a team-based model that provides improved coordination and collaboration so that patients get the care they need. Three million Ontarians are benefiting from family health including 700,000 who previously did not have a family doctor. Speaker, this is progress in 10 years and we say thank you to the family health teams. Thank you Minister for the insights, your review and your dedication to this file. Speaker, it's been said that medicine is the most scientific art and the most artistic science. I think family health teams particularly embody this, mixing the right amount of evidence-based science with the right amount of delivery, care and the humane approach, indeed the art of medicine. My own constituents in Etobicoke North benefit from Kane's family health team and the Etobicoke Medical Center family health team. I was there for the ribbon cutting at the opening and now we're serving 30,000 patients. So in your presence, Minister, in Parliament, I would also like to thank them. Yet there are still some people across Ontario without a family doctor who are clearly, as you know, the best kind of doctor. So Minister, I ask you how are we increasing access to primary care across Ontario? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Speaker, and I must say primary care providers really are the entryway into Ontario's excellent healthcare system. Not only do they provide care when Ontarians need it most, they have an important role to play in health promotion, in illness prevention, to keep people out of our emergency departments. I'm pleased to say that 2.1 million more Ontarians now have a family doctor than in 2003, but there is still more to do. That's why we're training more doctors at home, we're recruiting more from abroad. We now have 5,000 more doctors working in Ontario than just a decade ago. Of course, Ontario and initiatives like the Northern and World Recruitment and Retention Initiative ensure those doctors are going where they're needed, and Health Care Connect have patients who don't have a family doctor find one. I remain committed, Speaker, to increasing access to excellent and timely primary care. I give a new question to the member from the Pee and Carlyle area. Thank you very much. My question is to the Premier. When the House wasn't in session last week, she snuck in through two expensive political appointments to chair Ontario's power generation as well as the disgraced Hydro-1. After the $1.1 billion gas plan scandal, the Premier promised Ontarians that she would take the politics out of the energy sector. Now we see that her former leadership rival, Sandra Pubetello, is going to chair the disgraced Hydro-1. She apparently passed up the opportunity to be Ontario's finance minister, but she has no energy sector experience with the exception of allegedly gang tackling the former Minister of Energy, George Smitherman, over the Samsung Agreement at a cabinet meeting. Now we understand Ms. Pubetello was set to make $150,000 a year, or $38,000 an hour, $3800 an hour, based on last year. The question is, who gets to pay for it? We all know that that's Hydro-1 consumers. So will the Premier share with us what the Premier has signed off on her payment to Ms. Pubetello? Mr. Speaker, we take the management of Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-1 very seriously. We have taken great care in replacing the two chairs of those two organizations. Both existing chairs, Mr. Speaker, have been in office for somewhere around 10 years. We explored all the possibilities, Mr. Speaker, and quite frankly, with her experience in government, in cabinet, she has as much experience as anybody else in the sector. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, she is very, very clearly going to work towards making Hydro-1 more customer oriented. She has experienced that doing that. She is currently, Mr. Speaker, the chair of the economic, the CEO of the Economic Development Corporation of Windsor and as other senior corporate positions. Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that Premier would pass that to the Minister of Energy, who is one of Santa Pubetello's biggest boosters during the leadership. The Pubetello appointment is just another bad energy decision by this government. We're going to come back with just another long item on a very long bill for folks that are paying Hydro-1, and we are continuing to pay for the Liberals' mistakes. Whether it is the $20 billion that the Minister brags about to communicate 1.1 percent of energy on our grid through the FIP program, or it is the $1.1 billion canceled gas plants to save the Finance Minister's seat, we have two out of control agencies at the OPG and at Hydro-1. They continue to produce inefficiencies and incompetencies by the second. Propane and natural gas are going to be at all-time highs, and people in Ontario are going to be forced to be paying for their heat and Hydro or their grocery bill. The Liberal Energy Plan has failed. Will Kathleen Wynne stand in her place today and adopt him who does not for affordable energy in the province of Ontario? De Ceder please, another reminder, another reminder that we do not use first names here, we use titles or responsibilities, and I'd appreciate you adhering to that, even when you're making comments sitting on your seat, which you're not supposed to do in the first place. Minister of Energy. Speaker, I mentioned that we made two appointments at the same time. One was to the Ontario Power Generation, Mr. Bernard Lord, former Premier of the province of New Brunswick, who comes to the job with absolute perfect credentials, Mr. Speaker, having experience in the electricity sector as Premier and having had to manage those very, very important files. It's a credit to us, Mr. Speaker, that we'd be able to attract Mr. Lord. With respect to Hydro-1, Mr. Speaker, Hydro-1 is recognized by its peers across North America as having one of the top five distribution companies on the continent, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, they have totally rebuilt, almost totally rebuilt and made more credible our transmission system in the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker. A transmission system that government let deteriorate so we were having outages and brownouts every single day somewhere in the province, Mr. Speaker. We're proud of our institutions. My question is for the minister of health and long-term care. For the past year, new Democrats and public health advocates were urging this government to take action to prevent paid plasma clinics from opening in Ontario. This advice was completely ignored by the Liberal government, and last week the first paid plasma clinic announced that they were opening their doors. Tomorrow is the grand opening. Only then did we hear that the minister was going to take action. My question is simple. Why did it take her so long? Thank you, minister of health and long-term care. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am very pleased that I will be introducing legislation that will make it illegal to pay for blood, just as currently it is illegal to pay for organs or to pay for sperm or egg, Mr. Speaker. That's a pretty foundational principle and recommended by the Kreber Commission that we have a volunteer-driven blood collection system and plasma collection system. So we are moving forward with both regulation and legislation. I'm assuming the member opposite by the question will support the speedy passage of this legislation. I think it is important, Speaker, to note that Health Canada, unfortunately, said that it was up to provinces to make this decision, province by province, rather than having a national strategy. And once they made that announcement, Speaker, that's why we're moving forward now. Thank you, supplementary. I really can't understand why the minister would wait until Canadian plasma resources have finally made this whole improvement, recruited their staff, set up their clinics, set up their donor, and opened their door to finally decide to make a peep about it and decide to close them down. Is it just me that think that they will maybe be legal action because of this starty decision? And who will pay for those legal action? Well, at least the minister admit that she was mistaken in not taking action sooner. I cannot speak for the business decisions of a company that had no license to operate in Ontario or in Canada. That was a decision that that company made. What I'm telling you, Speaker, that we believe that a license is required from the provincial government. They do not believe that. Rather than having this embroiled in the courts, we are moving forward with both regulation and legislation to ensure that the principle of voluntary donation remains intact. It's a principle decision, Speaker. It is absolutely the right decision. And I'm delighted that the NDP will support it. And I'm hoping that the Progressive Conservatives will too. Thank you. New question. Member, come over here. Thank you, Speaker. I've got a question this morning for the minister of the environment. As you'll know, Speaker, this is Canada Water Week. It's a national celebration of our nation's most vital resource. This week culminates with World Water Day, this Saturday, March 22nd. Here in Ontario, we have the privilege of being the caretakers of the largest supplies of fresh water in the entire world. For the people of this province, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River Basin are vitally important for a high quality of life and their continued prosperity. They supply our drinking water, they power our towns and cities, irrigate our farms, fill our fishing nets. They provide hours of recreation, relaxation, spiritual sustenance for Ontario families and visitors to this province as well. The magnificent lakes and the rivers and streams that feed them are one of the great economic advantages we have in Ontario. Speaker, through you, could the minister provide the House with information on what the government is doing to help our communities protect our Great Lakes? Very timely question, Mr Speaker. Our government understands the importance of maintaining a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem right here in the province of Ontario. One small but effective step that we have taken is establishing the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund. This program offers modest grants to grassroots community groups for activities such as cleaning up a beach or shoreline, restoring a wetland or planting trees to stop stream bank erosion. For example, we funded local groups projects to improve fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and water quality in George Creek and 14-mile Creek flowing into Lake Superior and Lake Ontario respectively. In fact, we've launched this program two years ago and since we've done so, we've awarded more than $3 million to 156 groups to make improvements in their Great Lakes. Actions like these in communities across Ontario add up, and that's why last week we invited non-profit groups seeking funding for the Great Lakes projects to make their applications. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've got a question again for the minister of the environment. I agree we shouldn't take the Great Lakes for advantage, but when I speak to my constituents about water, they're often speaking about the drinking water that comes out of their tap. Municipal and provincial governments have spent literally billions of dollars building drinking water treatment plants, training people to operate those plants, and making sure that the water that comes out of those plants is safe to drink. Safe drinking water in this province requires both substantial and adequate funding and persistent vigilance. Speaker, through you, could the minister provide the house with information on what our government is doing to make sure that the drinking water that comes out of our taps is not only safe for us today, but will also be safe for future generations. Great. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've got a very timely question. Some in this house will remember what happened when the province let its guard down on drinking water protection, budgets were being slashed willy-nilly, drinking water inspectors were fired to save money. Well, money was saved, but lives were lost. Seven people died, thousands were sickened, walk had improved, that there is nothing as precious as clean, safe drinking water. I am pleased to champion the clean drinking water law and regulations that were implemented in response to the Walkerton tragedy. Some people in this house may not agree, but I think it's exceedingly important that all of us in this house remember the bitter lessons of the Walkerton drinking water tragedy. I hope that no member of this house will ever forget that, and that tragic consequences for everyone. We brought in rules, regulations, policies, and laws to ensure that this will never happen again. My question is for the Premier. The Premier last week, a group of Ontario standard red horse breeders filed a statement of claim against oil and the province. The lawsuit states that the cancellation of SARP was made with no prior consultation or offer of compensation. It's true, and it's what we've been saying all along. Your government's conduct towards the industry is inexcusable. The NDP's indifference by allowing the 2012 budget to pass is inexcusable. I ask the Premier, why should it take a lawsuit to force you and the NDP to pay attention? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I cannot speak to an ongoing legal situation, Mr Speaker, and I won't do that, but I can say to the member opposite that my record on the horse racing industry, Mr Speaker, is very, very successful. The Alliance Circuit, Mr Speaker, and this is eight tracks, Woodbine, Mohawk, Flamborow Downs, George and Downs, Western Fair, Clinton, Hanover, Grand River, all have funding plans, Mr Speaker. They all have a strategy in place and a funding plan in place. Fort Erie has a funding plan. Rideau Carlton, there is a conversation ongoing. Ajax has a funding plan, Mr Speaker, and Sudbury Caworth, the Dresden Hiawath and Leamington are still in negotiation, Mr Speaker. So we are very pleased at the progress that we've made, Mr Speaker. I've made it clear that the integration of horse racing with the gaming industry is what needs to happen, and that is underway, Mr Speaker, and those tracks will have a 2014 season. That's a success, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, Speaker, I've spoken to leaders in the industry and they tell me the previous spin is completely at odds with reality. It's not up to the course to sort this out. It's up to you, because you and the NDP made the mess. You need to clean it up. We have called for an immediate and permanent end to your so-called modernization plan that would build 29 new casinos while putting even more of the horse racing industry out of business. We would also re-establish a workable, transparent and affordable sloths and racetracks program. Why won't you? Thank you. Very much, Mr Speaker. Well, the opposition is advocating for a return to a program that was not transparent, Mr Speaker, that was not working, and I think he knows perfectly well that John Snowblen and Albert Buchanan and John Wilkinson worked to put together a plan that would be transparent, that would focus on the industry, Mr Speaker, and would allow for the integration of gaming and the horse racing industry. So, as I said, Mr Speaker, the eight tracks in the Alliance Circuit all have a plan, Mr Speaker, for going forward. We're under, we're still in negotiation with some of the other tracks, but, Mr Speaker, I'm very confident that the $400 million over the next five years that we are investing in horse racing is going to allow the horse racing industry in Ontario to thrive as a speaker and will not, as the opposition would suggest, return us to a non-transparent and unaccountable plan. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week, agriculture in Eastern Ontario was dealt the body blow with the decision to close Camp Felt and Alfred Agriculture College. Agriculture education, it should be hands-on and site-specific because the process for learning, to learn agriculture, you learn it where you grew up and a lot of those students are still going home to their family farm. But something else, farm folks, they understand hard budgetary decisions, but what they need is they need a chance to be able to help determine their future. Premier, Premier, you're the one person in this province who has the power to give those people a chance to help to see if they can save their college. You have the power. Will you use it? Thank you. Mr Speaker, as was responded to in previous questions, Mr Speaker, the power to respond to this local challenge is found in the hands of the local people in those communities and the local members, like the member from Glen Gary Prescott Russell who stepped up and got some local partners in Collège Boreal and Le Cité to help ensure that those students at the Alfred campus can continue to get the Francophone agricultural courses that they want to pursue. And I've reached out to the member for Leeds-Grenville as well to say, you know, we can do the work with this on a nonpartisan basis. What we do need are local local stakeholders to step up and provide this programming, Mr Speaker. Find a way to do it. And we're open to those solutions, so we're happy to work with the member opposite. Should he have some solutions to put forward? Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Once again, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. This is a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and we need more than a fair weather minister. We need more than a minister who's just going to make great announcements when agriculture is happy. Right now, this area is in a crisis, and they're not asking for a bailout. They're demanding a chance to come up with a plan, and they weren't given that chance. Why don't you talk to the people before these announcements? And yes, the Minister of Agriculture can have an impact on this question. Thank you. Mr Speaker, the member opposite would be a lot more helpful if we were to get off a soapbox and get to work and see if he can work with us to find local solutions to this local problem. The challenge here, Mr Speaker, is, and it's very important to say this, there is not a loss of programming here in the agricultural sector. The programming is moving to another location, Mr Speaker, because in the interests of the University of Guelph, they've determined that that's what's best for their students, that's what's best for the growth of the program. At the same time, we recognize the local challenges that this creates, and that's why we're working very closely with the member for Glengarry Prescott Russell, and we'll work with the member for Leeds-Grenville and other members, Mr Speaker, and other community leaders to see if there's a similar solution available at the Campfield campus. We want to be constructive. We want to make sure that we're doing the best that we can to ensure the agricultural community is well served. In light of passage of Bill 156, an act to proclaim the month of January, Tamil Heritage Month, I draw the member's attention to the fact that the opposition they designated for this afternoon is identically worded in the effect section of Bill 156. Standing Order 52 provides that no motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be proposed during the same session. I must therefore rule that the motion designating opposition day number two is now out of order and may not be proceeded with. Pursuant to Standing Order 38A, the member from Leeds-Grenville has given notice of his dissatisfaction with answer to his question given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the closure of Campfield and Alfred Agricultural Colleges. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m. Pursuant to Standing Order 38A, the member from Perth Wellington has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer of his question given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the horse racing industry. This matter will be debated to tomorrow at 6 p.m. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on a Point of Order. I appreciate your indulgence. I just want to introduce to members of the Assembly the bilingual political science class joining us from Glendon College at York University. They're here, good or ill, to see democracy in action today, Speaker. I want to welcome the student submission of all of that. The member from Bruce Gray Owens Sound on a Point of Order. Point of Privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I could. Point of Order. Point of Order, sorry. Mr. Speaker, the government of the day continues to talk about working in partnership. I wonder why today they're out glad handing in my riding, handing out check. Stop please. Stop please. Stop please. I stand. I stand. I'll wait. I stand. You sit. Thank you. The Attorney General on a Point of Order. Is it in order to ask for a late show before the answer has been given by a minister? The process is in place. It was appointed properly. The member from Berry on a Point of Order. Thank you, Speaker. Earlier, the minister responsible for Pan Am Games referred to comments made by myself and the member from Hamilton East Stony Creek as drive-by shootings. I believe this to be highly unparliamentary and very inappropriate. It's my hopes that the minister will apologize and withdraw. It's time for him to go. It's time for him to go. He's done. Do not condone any kind of language that would inflame. There were no specific references made to individuals and I would also caution all of us against using any kind of language that would inflame and finding and I'll wait while I try to respond. And I find that each of us need to reflect inside or maybe look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether we are being parliamentary. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if we could take a moment to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. I wish everybody a happy St. Patrick's Day. Maybe we could just honor it with a spirit of a bit of beer and a bit of fun. Thank you. I wish everyone the best today. There are no deferred votes. This house stands adjourned until 1pm this afternoon.


So here's my theory. It's like two nanoseconds after the Big Bang. We have about four light elements and no galaxies. And we're trying to measure that and talk about it as if it's a finished or complete thing in some way. And I think it's not. I think it's so brand new we can't begin to comprehend it. I think for all the frames that we use to understand it, none are adequate, none are right, all are wrong. And in the long run we'll compare other things to the internet. The internet itself will be a frame for other things. Things will be like the net. We don't say that right now. Nothing is like the net. But saying that I feel like that old test question of define the universe and give three examples, right? So it's sort of like a new universe and it's not an example of the old one repeated. But that's my thinking at 11 or 12 o'clock sometime in the middle of May.