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

September 6, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-06 (PDF)

L075 - Thu 6 Sep 2012 / Jeu 6 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 6 September 2012 Jeudi 6 septembre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

EDUCATION

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MINISTRY SPENDING

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CHILD CARE

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

DEFERRED VOTES

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

CORRECTION OF RECORD

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTH BUXTON HOMECOMING

ARGYLE ART IN THE PARK

FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER

ISAAC BOUCKLEY

FALL FAIRS

ELECTRONIC WASTE

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

KEES TIEKSTRA

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

RADIATION SAFETY

WIND TURBINES

RADIATION SAFETY

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WATER QUALITY

INFRASTRUCTURE ROUTIÈRE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PERFORMANCE PAY AND BONUSES

IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ACT

(MANAGEMENT AND EXCLUDED

EMPLOYEES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES PRIMES

DE RENDEMENT ET AUTRES PRIMES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

(CADRES ET EMPLOYÉS EXCLUS)

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU DON

D’ORGANES OU DE TISSU

RURAL ONTARIO

PERFORMANCE PAY AND BONUSES

IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ACT

(MANAGEMENT AND EXCLUDED

EMPLOYEES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES PRIMES

DE RENDEMENT ET AUTRES PRIMES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

(CADRES ET EMPLOYÉS EXCLUS)

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU DON

D’ORGANES OU DE TISSU

RURAL ONTARIO

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in prayer. Good morning.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 5, 2012, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts en vue de mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for—let me get this right—Bruce—

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Chatham–Kent–Essex.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My apologies.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to talk this morning about the issues that are truly affecting seniors. It’s the barrage of tax hikes after numerous promises from this government not to hike taxes. Most seniors I know don’t like being misled about the hidden costs their government has levied against them, or perhaps it’s the loss of opportunity that once existed in Ontario when they were younger.

I myself remember a time when my own riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex was a proud manufacturing hub, home to companies like Navistar that held promise for the future. Now, with the skyrocketing cost of energy and narrow-minded focus on so-called green technology, this government has cast away the promise of a better tomorrow for Ontario in favour of propping up a currently unsustainable series of green energy experiments.

I also hear from seniors about the increasing cost of the hydro that they require to run their air conditioners in hot summer months and for their washing machines once a week. Not every senior has a vast backyard to hang their clothes on a clothesline; some of them need to use dryers—dryers that are now more expensive to run than ever.

Yet the response this government offers up is Bill 2, a bill that does a vanishingly small amount for a group that is smaller still. Picture it, Speaker, a group of wealthy seniors to whom $10,000 is the amount spent on regular renovations to their homes. Such a contingent is not likely to require what help Bill 2 has to offer. A group of seniors barely getting by on a small pension while life gets more expensive by the day: a rebate of $1,500 sounds grand until they realize that the $10,000 they must spend to get it isn’t a realistic expense.

Then there is a group of seniors somewhere in the middle, who may be able to afford $10,000 in renovations and will likely get $1,500 back for their troubles. Yet it’s not all of them. It’s a group who are afflicted by illness or injury. So the eligible contingent becomes even smaller. And considering that a $10,000 renovation would likely accumulate $1,300 in taxes, the senior in question would be netting perhaps $200 in savings by the time they’ve spent many thousands of dollars.

It is my humble opinion that Bill 2, the healthy home renovation tax credit, is nothing more than a feel-good bill that really won’t help seniors stay in their homes longer, especially when they need real medical attention.

Seniors in Ontario need help, most certainly. Is this the most effective way to do it? My gut tells me no. I have seniors in my riding approaching me constantly about the health impact of industrial wind turbines in my riding, about the lost jobs their children and grandchildren are now facing, and about the increasing costs of electricity and everyday services that are taking more and more out of their pensions. It’s my guess that this bill is nothing more now than it was the day it was introduced: a diversion from the very real challenges this government’s incompetence has put in front of Ontario’s seniors.

Our province is facing a deficit level it has never faced before: $16 billion more out the door each year than we take in. Where would this funding come from? Few know the answer to that question. This is $60 million that would be piled upon the deficit and thrown into the larger pile that represents our mounting provincial debt. All the while, this government remains focused on policies that damage and stall our economy, like rising energy costs, a refusal to implement a broad public sector wage freeze and half measures for students and seniors that do nothing to tackle the elephant in the room of a faltering economy.

May I suggest to the members opposite that there are better ways to help every Ontarian: moms, dads, grandmas and grandpas alike. Take the $60 million that you claim to have found in a tax credit and focus on better home care, more beds in long-term-care homes. These are just two examples. And oh, by the way, you should have been guarding the henhouse a little closer. What more could be wasted on your eHealth and Ornge scandals? Take a look at what that has done for Ontarians. Now you have to play surgeon and cut the services.

Perhaps this ministry can offer a better idea on what the interest is in a program such as this. If estimates have the tax credit costing taxpayers $135 million a year at full capacity, can we not have a conversion about how such money can be better spent?

Forgive me if I sound a little tongue-in-cheek, but I understand that $135 million for this tax credit is something of a pipe dream, considering this government long ago looked on benignly as they spent Ontario completely out of money. You cannot help seniors, not at home nor in health centres, if you have so recklessly taken the tax dollars they spent years paying into the system and thrown them out the window at every problem that came along.

Our seniors face real challenges as a result of this government’s incompetence. I believe that hoisting a bill such as this as a solution to the problems that plague our senior community is insulting. It’s an insult to the very real needs that have long gone unrecognized and uncared for by this government. Why? Because this government cares about one thing and one thing only: staying in power. Whatever is politically convenient for them becomes the latest pet cause, sure to be noticed again by nobody, just as sure to cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds of millions of dollars.

We saw it in the last election, when last-minute promises were made for the sake of political gain. I can recall one in particular that took the shape of an awfully large, expensive gas plant in Mississauga. We of course know now that spending $190 million on a desperation move, made by the Liberal campaign manager, was so completely acceptable at a time when seniors are struggling. I might add that when questioning the energy minister and the finance minister about who’s going to pay that $190 million, without blinking an eye, they simply said, “the taxpayers.”

So think about it: This government claims to be looking out for the best interests of seniors, when, purely for political gain, they threw away the equivalent of the first two years of this tax credit—$190 million—and for what? So they wouldn’t lose a single Mississauga seat? Well, I wonder what the seniors of Mississauga thought when they heard that news. I can’t imagine they felt Ontario was a better, healthier place for seniors.

In fact, they see a logjam in our long-term-care homes; they see an approaching precipice of fiscal calamity; and they see their home energy bills growing more expensive with each passing year. They see a government that has mortgaged the bright future of their children and grandchildren for the sake of political pet projects and complete, utter incompetence. This is no longer the province our seniors worked and fought for; it’s a place that the members opposite have made certain our seniors no longer recognize.

I will vote against this bill because I recognize there are serious challenges facing our senior community, and they require real responses.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to comment on the comments from the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. I agree with him on a lot of the things he said.

This $10,000 that they’re going to give out—as it’s been said a hundred times in this House, who can afford the $10,000? Most of the people in our province, elderly people, would have to borrow the money in the first place. Some of them may not qualify to even borrow the money to do the improvements on their house to stay in their house because they don’t have the income to cover it, and of course banks always want collateral. If there’s no collateral, there’s no loan. How do they pay it back when they can’t pay for their hydro bills, when they can’t pay for their daily food? How are they going to pay for it?

Not only can’t they borrow the money, they can’t pay for the loan and they can’t get access to finances, unless they’re fortunate enough to have kids that will take care of their parents, and sometimes that doesn’t happen.

We’re certainly not going to take money out of anyone’s hands who needs it, so we would have to support this in its minuscule presentation. But with all due respect, this is another example of a fluff Liberal bill to gain support from the general public so they can get re-elected, and it’s really pathetic. It almost reminds me of that $50 or $70 sports deal they’re going to give a rebate for. Like I said before, I’d be lucky if I could sharpen my skates seven times in a whole season, and there’s that money shot. The registration is $500 or $600.

If you want to do something for kids, help them with their registration. Help the lots of kids in our province who can’t even afford to play hockey because their parents aren’t in a position to give them the financial support. We’ve even got people in my community where the service clubs are helping them. It’s pathetic.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to comment on Bill 2 and the comments by the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. We need to actually think about what I just said. This is Bill 2. The people watching maybe don’t know what that means. Bill 1 is always a pro forma bill, which says nothing, after the speech from the throne by the Lieutenant Governor. Bill 2, therefore, is the first substantive bill to be filed in this House after the election. We’re here almost a year later, in the fall of 2012, talking about a bill that was the first substantive bill to be tabled following the election in 2011.

And what are we doing here? Why are we still here talking? We’re talking because the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, are going to vote against the bill, but they don’t want to be caught voting against the bill because they know the public likes it. While there are—oh, I can’t mention by-elections; I’m sorry, Speaker. While there are certain discussions going on in a couple of ridings, they don’t want to be caught voting against the bill, which everybody knows they’re going to do. So they’re just talking and talking and talking.

Quite frankly, the NDP, who everybody knows will vote for the bill, aren’t any help in speeding it up, because they like to make speeches about how they’re the only defenders of the poor.

Well, do you know what? Middle-class parents like me, who might want to help their parents stay in their home, can get this tax credit too, and I have no problem defending the middle class.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments. The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very surprised that I have the opportunity, but I won’t for one moment miss the opportunity to compliment the member from our side, from Chatham–Kent–Essex. He started with what I think is the most important starting point, talking about the seniors in his riding, and how difficult it is. The member from the NDP also tried to relate Ontario today: young children who can’t afford to play hockey. What has happened to Ontario? One should stop and look.

Bill 2 is a showpiece. I can’t understand why they’re not calling more important bills, like Bill 50 to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal. Why aren’t they calling government business? It should be on the record that this bill has been on the order paper for almost a year. It’s shameful that the government, which is in charge—at least it’s supposed to be, to call the bill, extend the number of hours or terminate the number of hours of debate on the bill.

This bill has three serious problems. It doesn’t recognize the dilemma for seniors today. First of all, if you can afford to do the renovations, this bill probably isn’t required. The $60 million committed to the bill in the budget isn’t accounted for. Where are you going to get that money? You already have a deficit closing in on $15 billion. The third-highest expenditure in Ontario’s budget is the cost of servicing our accumulated debt. It’s almost $11 billion. We’re spending, every hour, about $1.5 million more than we’re taking in—every single hour.

In fact, in this hour this morning, another million-plus dollars is being borrowed from somebody, some foreigner, some person from some other country, some other nation.

When I think of my family, I think of how hard it is in Ontario to pay the electricity bill. This bill isn’t required.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions or comments. The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I’m always interested in what all members have to say in this House, but even more interested in the argument put forward by the Conservatives. On one hand, they’re the tax cuts party. They’re the guys who want to give everybody tax cuts in order to drive the economy and build a better Ontario. But here they are voting against tax cuts. I just think the Tory position is rather funny, because on one hand, they argue that tax cuts are good, but when it’s not their tax cut, tax cuts are bad. That’s kind of interesting.

There was an interesting

article in the paper two weeks ago that talked about the Ontario deficit being $15-billion-plus, and then went back and looked at how much the Tory and Liberal tax cuts implemented in Ontario over the last 15 years cost the Ontario treasury. Guess what the number was? Fifteen billion dollars. It has always been, in my view, a very clever ruse on the part of the right wing: If you offer tax cuts, it’s a very popular thing to do for the public.

But what it does is it undermines public financing for things like roads, things like transit, things like hospitals, things like schools—those frivolous things that they always attack as being public services that are somehow bad. So I found this particular presentation rather odd.

The other thing I would say is, listen, I believe that every member should always have the opportunity to speak in the House, and I’m not going to argue for a second that Tories should stop speaking to this bill. That is their right, and I will never stand against that. But I just want to say, on our part, we’ve said what we’ve had to say on this bill. As the member from Hamilton East said, this is a step forward. It is not a huge step. It is going to help some seniors, and on the basis of helping some seniors, we’re going to vote for it.

But there’s a lot of other things that this government could have done that could have made things easier for seniors, and we at this point will just respond to the comments from the Conservatives and Liberals, but we’re done with debate. We’re ready for the vote.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to thank my colleagues from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Guelph, Durham and, of course, Timmins–James Bay.

I was listening to the comments by my colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, and very compassionately he said, “I agree with the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex,” as it related to seniors. He’s one of them as well, but we both are, and so we both can relate to the empathy that is shown—

Mr. Paul Miller: Not yet.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Well, you collect one of the cheques anyway.

But looking at it, we say that we’re very concerned about the health and the welfare of the seniors in our communities, not just in Chatham–Kent–Essex, but even as far north as Timmins–James Bay.

But on a serious note, the member from Guelph commented on how this is a very substantive bill, and I have to question that. I truly do. Let’s get real. This bill is a feel-good bill. It was brought out early, right after the 2011 election, and it was kind of like, “Well, let’s do something nice. Ontarians put us back into government. Let’s do something nice.”

But I want to get serious, and we as a PC caucus want to get serious and tackle the real issues, the real problems, that are facing Ontario today: a $16-billion deficit—that’s serious; that’s real. Let’s do the job that we were elected to do in this Legislature. Let’s represent the people from our ridings and our communities by dealing with more substantive bills, not something like this.

You look at the fact that we’re facing another $16-billion deficit, and yet, just before the election, they cancelled a $190-million gas plant. Now, that’s the “relocation costs”; the Minister of Finance has made that very clear. I don’t suspect that those are the real costs; there’s more to be found out.

But my point is, we’re throwing money away, and what we need to do is to get serious about doing business. That’s why I will not support Bill 2.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back in February, I believe we spoke about this bill, and it seems to be not that important even to this present government. It’s Bill 2, and it’s been on the books for almost a year now, so I wonder how much importance they have in this bill.

However, I was reading Hansard to prepare for today, and I was interested in a comment by the member from Thornhill, our finance critic. I’d like to read the comment he made back in May. “Seniors—the definition being 65-plus—qualify for this tax credit proposed by the bill. That’s about 13% of Ontario’s population in total, or about 1.8 million people.... But there are some very mitigating circumstances, one of which is that the median senior income in Ontario—meaning that most seniors living in Ontario are in this category—is $25,000 per individual and $45,000 per couple....

That translates into approximately $2,000 to $3,700 of income—gross income—per month, depending on whether you’re a single senior or part of a senior couple. In order to qualify for the maximum tax credit of $1,500, which is 15% of the maximum expenditure of $10,000, a senior actually has to have $10,000 to spend. That is the problem. That really is the problem, as one of my colleagues has said. So they have to have that. When the senior spends $10,000, he or she actually winds up out of pocket to the tune of $8,500.”

Speaker, my wife and I operated a decorating business for 20-some years. I can remember when the HST came into being back in 2009, July 1. A great present for Canada Day was that we got the HST out of that one. We worked for quite a demographic of people: We worked for seniors; we worked for young people. Most people want to know, when we estimate a job, what it’s going to cost them. “What do I have to write the cheque out for?” They’re not interested in all the little other things like how fast you can do a job or whatever else; they want to know what it’s going to cost them.

Well, after July 1, 2009, we had to start putting the HST on. You know, we lost business over that. Our business had been going since the early 1990s, and that was the first time that we’d ever had to lay off people, that winter, in our business. It was the first time, because people were backing off this high tax rate they were paying.

You would think this government could come up with a better idea. This bill is only going to affect a small portion of our population. You would think they would come up with some kind of a tax relief system that would affect more people in our system. However, we see this bill as something that they’re hoping seniors will not see through; they’ll jump up and down and say, “Gee, maybe we’d better vote for this government the next time, because look what they’re giving to us.”

Interjection: Aren’t they great?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: They’re just wonderful people.

Anyway, then we come along to this tax bill. That was the first hit we took, was on the HST. The next thing we were faced with in our business was when energy rates started going up. Again, we’d go in and estimate for our work, and they would say, “Gee, we called you two or three weeks ago to come in and give us an estimate, but we just got our hydro bills in from our smart meters. We can’t afford that extra couple of hundred dollars right now that it might take to paint our rooms.” All the time, these people are being hit with more and more and more.

So you come back, and the government decides, “Maybe we’d better do something. We’d better get these people back onside.” So they bring out Bill 2, the second bill, as was pointed out, in the Legislature last fall. They’ve been kind of letting it sit there, and they’re bringing it back now. It does nothing, actually, to help anybody, because seniors especially are backing off spending money because they don’t have the money to spend. And they’re frightened.

They are not getting their money from their investments like they used to because of low return rates on investments, but they are certainly afraid that if they have to borrow this money—and I think we all know interest rates are going to go up at some point. I hope they don’t go up soon, because one point in interest rate to this government is about half a billion dollars, and we certainly don’t need that at this point, because of this mismanagement.

Wouldn’t it have been better to have had a plan in place, to not let Ornge get out of hand, not let eHealth get out of hand, and whatever other scandals this government has faced? We probably wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in right now.

So a senior has a choice of looking at this as either if they have the money to put $10,000 into a project such as this, they probably don’t need the tax credit, or if they have to borrow it—most seniors don’t want to be borrowing money right now. They went through that in their past lifetime. They’ve got to deal with, “Jeez, what if the interest rate goes up? What am I going to be facing then?”

I was also interested in some parts of this bill—you would think home renovations would include most things, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t include new windows, which may save them on their hydro bill, energy costs. It doesn’t include more insulation. You would think that would be in this bill. No, it’s not.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: What is in the bill?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Well, there’s not much in the bill at all. It’s just sort of a bill that this present government hopes everybody will jump on. But, you know, I haven’t had one call in my office about this bill, and I don’t know whether any of my caucus colleagues have had any calls about Bill 2. But I do get calls about high energy costs. I do get calls about people who are being put out of work due to the horse racing fiasco going on right now—lots of calls about that. I don’t get calls on Bill 2. That makes me think, what’s the importance of this bill? There isn’t any importance to this bill.

People are more worried about their future than having to go out and spend $10,000 to get a 15% tax credit, I believe it is, or borrowing it or whatever. They’re more concerned about whether they’re going to be able to live for the next few years in comfort. So I fail to see the importance of this bill, especially when the constituents I represent—they’re the ones who are going to vote me in next time. They’re the ones who criticize me if I do something wrong and they’re the ones who applaud me if I do something right. Nobody—nobody—has called about this bill. It just doesn’t exist for the people in my riding, Perth–Wellington.

We need to put policies in place that get control of government spending. We’ve already seen this present government resist doing that. They’ve already spent probably over $2 billion since the last budget, which Mr. Drummond says we can’t afford. They hired Mr. Drummond—I think it was 1,500 bucks a day or something they hired him for—and they don’t listen to him. What does that mean to the people of Ontario? It means this government doesn’t listen to Mr. Drummond and won’t listen to us. We need help, but this bill just doesn’t do it.

This government doesn’t seem to be able to solve a problem without throwing more money at it. You know something? That’s just not how things should work. You’ve got to get control of your finances. The ordinary person in Ontario knows that. You can’t max out your credit card and use another card to pay it off. That just doesn’t work. That’s what we’re seeing here: We’re seeing this government borrow money to pay off debt. I think the ordinary person in Ontario wants this government or any government to get spending under control, and then maybe we can have some programs that really do have some meat in them. Thank you, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to comment on the member from Perth–Wellington’s presentation. He hit on some good things there, but one in particular. He talked about the HST.

Let’s build a picture here. They’re going to borrow the $10,000—they can’t borrow because they don’t have the equity to borrow the money in the first place, but let’s say they did get the $10,000. Okay, they’ve got the 10,000 bucks and now they’re going to build something in the house. Then they’re going to hire people to come and do the work, so they’re going to pay for that too, and HST on top of that. Then they’re going to pay for all the supplies—wood, metal, whatever it takes to do the job—and they’re going to pay HST on that.

The government says, “We’re going to give you a rebate on the $10,000,” but they don’t talk about all the hidden charges that are going to eat away. If you have to borrow the money, Speaker, you’ve got to pay the bank back. So this $10,000 now turns into maybe $12,000 or $14,000 that you owe. So really, when you borrow the $10,000, you’re now down another $4,000 on top of that, for services, for tradesmen, for bank loans, whatever you had to do with the money.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was a delight to hear the remarks this morning by my good friend from Perth–Wellington. It’s interesting what people get calls about. I’ve gotten a lot of calls on this particular one. I was just chatting to my good friend the other day, Hank Simmons. Hank Simmons is a home renovator, a carpenter here in Peterborough. Hank is actually doing a little bit of work in our house for Karan and myself. Hank was telling me, “You know, when I was in Rona the other day, and Home Depot and Home Hardware, I saw all these displays of things that would help seniors stay in their homes for a longer period of time.”

He saw those grab bars. He saw those new bathtubs that have the swinging door to allow people to have better access because they have mobility challenges. When you talk to a guy like Hank Simmons, he’s been in the carpentry business for, I don’t know, 30 or 40 years. He lives on Montgomery Street in Peterborough, a great guy––does great work. Anybody who wants home renovations in Peterborough, I’d certainly recommend Hank Simmons.

He was at Rona and he was at Home Depot and he was at Home Hardware, and he said, “I see a real opportunity with this tax credit for seniors coming in, an opportunity to buy those bathtubs, to buy those grab bars, to do some electrical work and indeed to keep people, those seniors, in their home for a longer period of time.”

I know the member for Perth–Wellington certainly looked at sub-subclause 2(7)(1)(i)(

A) of the bill. This bill will “enable a senior (for whom that residence is the principal residence, or who reasonably expects that residence to become his or her principal residence) to gain access to, or to be” more “mobile or functional within” the residency of that home.

Those are important things. Now, we need to carve out a middle position here on this bill, between the Tea Party and the occupiers. I think this is a very good example of Bill 2 being that responsible middle position.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I still want to pay respect to the member for Perth–Wellington, because he put it where it really belongs. This is another flowers-in-the-window Liberal bill. But he has told the members here today on the Liberal side that he has not had one call on it. I can say, from the riding of Durham, I’ve not had one call. I have had calls on energy bills. I have had calls on the high cost of auto insurance. I’ve had high calls on a lot of issues that respect the McGuinty government.

More recently, the doctors in my riding are just apoplectic about the changes to the OHIP fee schedule. I say this: If they want to help the poor and if they want to help the aging, they should have policies that directly and simply assist those people. One easy way would be to allow seniors to reduce the HST on their home heating bill: simply implemented, easily administered; help immediately and help all of them––simple rules like that as opposed to this one here. If you read the implications on this bill itself, it’s going to be hard to get the money, because if you don’t buy the right grab bars, as Mr.

Leal said, you probably won’t qualify. And if you’ve spent $10,000 and you’re to get 10% back, that wouldn’t even cover the HST you paid.

So this bill, in all fairness, is a waste of our time. It really is a waste of our time, and it’s almost like a charade or a false advertisement to the seniors. They’re giving them the idea that they’re going to help them. Now they’re charging seniors who have to move to a retirement home a tax; it’s a seniors’ tax on people living in retirement homes. And they aren’t building one more new long-term-care bed. You don’t care about seniors, and I think you’ve lost control of the whole idea of helping vulnerable people.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Yesterday, when we talked about this, and actually earlier today, it was raised that seniors have to spend $10,000 in order to save $1,500. The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek mentioned a litany of things that go and eat into this $1,500 that they would get back, whether it’s the tradespeople or the taxes or any number of things—taxes on multiple levels. Still, at the end of the day, seniors would be out of pocket $8,500, if they were able to scrounge together the $10,000, and with hydro bills going up 46%.

I know in my area transportation is a huge issue for seniors because we have many small communities that are separated by hundreds of kilometres, and public transportation is just not available, so seniors often either have to have a vehicle and pay the insurance and pay the high prices of gas, or else they have to pay someone else to transport them back and forth.

Yesterday I did mention that if we divide up the $60 million by all of the ridings, that comes down to about $560,000 per riding, which is a lot of money—a lot of money that can do a lot of good if we were to tighten up some of the eligibility requirements. Why don’t we take this money and target it so that we can help seniors who really need it? Why don’t we make changes?

As I said also, when I worked with my predecessor, even though it’s a federal program, we had a steady stream of people who came in to access the CMHC’s RRAP program, the residential rehabilitation assistance program. What we found was that the program was always exasperated. It would reset on April 1 of every year, and we would tell people, “Well, the program is exhausted for this fiscal year. Apply next fiscal year.” They would apply at the beginning of April, and what do you know? The program was exhausted. We did some digging. We found out that they keep the applications for six months, and we had to get people to start applying in October. So we need to make some changes to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Perth–Wellington, you’ve got two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I want to thank those who spoke to my presentation from Hamilton East, Peterborough, Durham and Kenora–Rainy River.

I too, like the member from Hamilton East, spent part of my time on a hockey rink as a referee, and although I had no famous nicknames like the member from Hamilton East had, I’m sure that we saw a lot of things in the hockey arena and on the ice that gave us pause at times. As you know, in the rules it says the referee may call a penalty. It doesn’t say he has to call a penalty, so we could use discretion on some of the calls that we used to make. We interpreted those rules. A sign of a good referee, actually, is that people don’t know they’re out there.

They don’t know the referee is out there because he’s letting the game play and the players play. He lets a few things go once in a while, and interprets the rules as he sees fit. That’s kind of what I’m leading to. What I’m leading to on that is Bill 2—if I had to be a referee and have a bill such as this that has no substance to it, I would have a difficult time enforcing the rules on it.

I see that any contractors who think they’re going to make a bunch of money out of this are going to look at this and say, “Oh.” There’s going to be a lot of head-scratching going on, Speaker, because of the rules that apply to this, or lack of rules that apply to this bill.

I think the government should concentrate on job creation, getting our energy costs down, and measures such as that to get this province going again. This bill certainly doesn’t do that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to rise in my place today to speak to this important piece of legislation that just forms a small part of the aging-at-home direction that Ontario seniors are pleased to go in. We as legislators understand that. The aging-at-home programs are extremely important, and this is just another part of that.

Alex Munter and I sat on the social services committee in the city of Ottawa back in the first three years of the city of Ottawa, the new amalgamated city. I was with him just about a year and a half ago, when he was the CEO of the local health integration network. He had 600 seniors together in Ottawa. He was up giving a speech, and he asked the whole crowd for a show of hands of how many of these seniors didn’t want to age in their own homes, and of course no hands went up. That’s something all seniors want to do.

This is a bill that will enable seniors to start looking ahead and start planning. We just have to look—I don’t want to bore people with this, but I think it’s important for people to know. You hear from the other side that it’s a $15,000 project, and you have to have your $15,000. There are so many small things that you can do in your home as you age, to make your home a better place for you as you lose the ability to look after yourself well.

Examples of eligible expenses: certain renovations to permit first-floor occupancy or secondary suites, granny flats or in-law suites; grab bars and related reinforcements around the toilet, bathtub, shower—before accidents happen, seniors can install these things; handrails in corridors, wheelchair ramps, wheelchair lifts and elevators, bath lifts, walk-in bathtubs, wheel-in showers; widening passage doors; lowering existing counters and cupboards or installing adjustable cupboards; and placing light switches and electrical outlets in accessible locations. That’s only the start of the list that I have here.

This is to make our homes better. You have to make that decision at some time: Do I make adjustments to my own home to stay there, or do I move? It’s a situation that my wife and I are going through, now that we’re looking, in our senior years, for: Where do we live? One of the issues with us is a two-storey home, so it’s that lift that may be needed sometime, or are you better on one floor? Those are the things seniors think of, and certainly that is part of the thinking that I have. Seniors want to spend the rest of their days in their own home.

This is a small part of our program, as a government, for seniors, but an important one. This bill lets seniors plan ahead and encourages seniors to plan ahead. A lot of those things that I mentioned are not $10,000 items; they’re $500 items. A non-slip floor in the bathroom: a $500 item. They will be able to get that work done and get a rebate.

If it’s taken up in a similar way that the federal 2009 home renovation tax credit program was—and I got criticized for using that program, but I did certain things with that federal renovation tax credit to make my home better, to make it more energy-efficient—up to 308,000 people could benefit from this program in the first year. It was a bill that we wanted passed. We’ve lost a good part of our first year, but 308,000 people are a lot of seniors who could start thinking of living at home and making those decisions that are going to help them do that.

Demographics, of course, is something that we have to be thinking of. I was looking at one of the slides that was presented in the past in estimates, I believe. Our population is changing. Below 65 years of age, over the next 20 years: about a 10% increase. They’re the people that are going to be paying all these things. Above the age of 65: That will grow by almost 50% in the next 20 years. We have to make sure that we take aging-at-home very seriously and get seniors participating in that to a greater degree. A lot of seniors do take

part in it now, but we could certainly get more seniors doing it.

The cost of the healthy homes renovations tax credit is offset by cuts in other parts of the budget. In 2011-12, it’s $60 million; in 2012-13, $125 million; and in 2013-14, $135 million, so it’s a significant assistance to seniors to move forward.

The other part of this is job creation. We always forget about the job creation part, but who will be working on this? Well, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, manufacturers—our neighbours—and this is important. That’s 10,500 jobs per year with this program. You can say it’s an insignificant program; it is not. First of all, it educates seniors to look ahead. It helps the seniors to look ahead. It helps the seniors to plan. Even the discussion of this tax credit—to say we don’t have calls—I’ve met seniors who are saying, “When is this program coming out? We want to do something.

When is the program coming out?” So there is interest. I can’t say that I got 100 calls on it, but certainly I’ve had 10 conversations with seniors asking when it’s coming.

It’s important. It’s going to make large changes in how seniors look at their future, how they look at what they can do to help them stay in their homes, where they want to be, to help with other programs that are out there—aging-at-home. We can do a lot with seniors. Seniors have to become more involved in this, because with the demographics that we see, with the doubling of seniors in the next 20 years, we cannot have people going into long-term-care homes too early.

If we work hard with the seniors, if we work hard through seniors’ organizations—I’ve got about 3,000 seniors in Orléans who are organizing four different clubs. They don’t like to call them clubs, but they get assistance from the government. We can help the seniors do more with seniors. It’s going to be very important. I think that’s what this program is about, and I certainly look forward to seeing the uptake of 10,500 jobs, 308,000 seniors participating, if it’s on the same basis as the federal program, which was quite successful in 2009.

It’s not major expenditures all the time: door locks that are easy to operate; lever handles on doors and taps instead of knobs; pull-out shelves under counters to enable work from a seated position; a hand-held shower on an adjustable rod or high-low mounting brackets; additional light fixtures throughout the home and exterior entrances; swing-clear hinges on doors to widen doorways; creation of knee space under the basin to enable use from a seated position; insulation on hot water pipes; relocation of taps to the front or side of a sink for easier access; hands-free taps; motion-activated lighting; touch-and-release drawers, and cupboards and drawers that pull out fully; and modular or removable versions of a permanent fixture, such as modular ramps and non-fixed bath lifts.

If the expenditures are $2,000 or $3,000, then seniors can keep the bills, or, if someone is sharing a home with a senior, they keep the bills. They make the application at the end of the year, and on a $3,000 expenditure, there will be $450 coming back. That’s not immaterial; that will encourage more seniors to do what they should do: start planning now and start making their homes more acceptable to them as they age. If we can do that, we certainly can keep people out of hospitals, at over $1,000 a day, or long-term-care beds, which are extremely expensive.

The senior issue is important. We’ve taken this one important step in bringing this legislation in. It will encourage seniors to do better planning. It will help them to make the changes to their homes, and we’ll find out that seniors can stay in their homes longer. It’s only one of the small pieces of legislation that we’ve brought in over the years to encourage this action. We have to keep seniors in their homes a lot longer.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the speech from the member for Ottawa–Orléans on Bill 2, the healthy homes renovation tax credit, as it’s called.

I would simply like to come back to some points he was making. He was talking about a senior spending maybe $500 on bathroom renovations, and I simply believe that this approach, for the vast majority of seniors out there—first of all, if they do spend that $500, the benefit is going to be $75, and they’ll pay $65 in HST on that $500. But I simply don’t believe that the majority of seniors out there, to get that $75 benefit, are going to know how to go through the motions of doing the paperwork involved to actually benefit from the tax credit. The only way you’re going to get reasonable participation is you’re going to have to spend an awful lot of money on advertising.

So my question to the government would be, how much money are you going to have to spend to promote this, to make it worthwhile? Maybe that’s what your goal is, because as the member from Hamilton East pointed out—I believe he called it a Liberal fluff bill—it’s more about getting publicity for looking like you’re doing something than actually doing something.

Certainly, I think, to get participation, you’re going to have to spend all kinds of money on advertising, which is probably exactly what you want to do because you’ll be able to talk about how wonderful you are and the great things you’re doing when, in fact, it’s a relatively minor benefit for a select few who will actually be able to participate in this tax cut.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on the comments from the member for Ottawa–Orléans. There are a few things that I agree with in his comments, but one thing I really agree with is he said that this is a small piece of legislation, and that’s what it is. It’s a small piece of legislation with a really

long title. That’s the problem with these types of legislation. This should just be part of a bigger piece that actually really did something for a bigger portion of seniors, because the biggest part that takes seniors out of their homes is they can’t afford to pay for the heat, they can’t afford to pay for the lights and they can’t get home care. You know what? In most cases, the senior does not move out of their home because the taps are on the wrong side of the tub, and in a lot of cases, if that’s what it is, they’re not even going to worry about the tax credit. They’re going to change it.

If you really want to have comprehensive legislation, then you make the everyday needs of seniors cheaper, like taking the HST off their heat in areas like mine where we can’t access gas, so a senior, and a lot did when they were younger—a lot of us heat with wood. But when you’re a senior, you have to heat with oil. I don’t see anything in the healthy homes renovation tax credit that helps with oil. It’s things like that.

If you really want to keep seniors in their homes—I’m not saying this is a bad piece of legislation, but it’s a very small, small piece of legislation with a lot of PR potential attached to it. That’s the problem. Is this going to help some seniors? Yes. Is this going to help seniors in general as part of our strategy to keep them in their homes? No. Is it going to be used as a lot of PR? Yes, and that’s the problem with this type of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was a delight to hear the comments this morning from my good friend and colleague from Ottawa–Orléans. I thought it was a very articulate, very profound speech, talking about Bill 2 and our assistance for seniors.

I find it very interesting. If you go out and talk to seniors’ groups—someone made a comment about moving a tap. Well, when you go out and talk to people who are involved with seniors, having a tap in the wrong location can lead to a fall, and often when seniors have falls, they break hips, and often when you break a hip, that can start the downward spiral for many seniors, and they find themselves in a very difficult position.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has been doing some analysis in Ontario over the last little while that indicates that up to 37% of the population that is currently in long-term-care homes, if they had other supports, could in fact remain in their homes for a longer period of time. The member from Ottawa–Orléans, who spends a lot of time with the seniors’ groups in his Ottawa riding, understands, when he’s having a dialogue and a discussion and listens to those seniors and those groups in Ottawa–Orléans, that they are embracing this bill.

It’s an opportunity to make major changes or an opportunity to make minor changes in order to retrofit their home, to make sure it’s more accessible and usable as we change in life—as our mobility perhaps decreases—but certainly don’t want at this particular time to go into a retirement home or a long-term-home setting.

Bill 2 is a real opportunity. It will be good for the economy. It will be good for tradespeople. It will be good for the people at Rona, Home Hardware and Home Depot. It’s an opportunity to increase their traffic within their retail operations, to provide those goods that certainly tradesmen will take advantage of to improve their homes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I appreciate the comments from our colleague from Ottawa–Orléans.

I do understand the motives. I have a soft spot for seniors. I have a lot of them in my riding. Our particular riding has in fact been hit hard through unemployment, which leads me to believe and think that there are a lot of people that are more concerned in my riding about where and how they’re going to pay the next food bill, pay their hydro costs, pay their taxes and be able to stay in their homes.

I appreciate the fact that they’re talking about wanting to make homes safer. I get that. I do; I get that. But you know what? I think we need to be looking at more substantive measures. What are we doing to really increase the jobs in our areas, to bring in real jobs, not just the home handy-guy that can install a handle in a wall to make it safer for a senior?

Also, the member from Ottawa–Orléans used an example. He said they could perhaps get a non-slip floor in their bathroom and it might cost around $500. So I did the quick math: 15% on $500 is about $75, but they’re also going to have to pay 13% tax on that $500, which is $65. So if we look at the economics of the situation, here we have a senior spending $500 to make their bathroom floor safer—I get that, and I think that’s a wise move—but in fact, because of the difference between the rebate of $75 and the tax of $65 they’re going to pay, they’re only going to net $10 out of this thing.

Therefore, their $500 floor only costs them $490. I’m looking at it and saying we need to be looking at things in much better ways.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Ottawa–Orléans, you have two minutes for a response.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’d like to respond to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for his good comments. I give seniors more credit than you do. I’m sure that this program will be picked up without a lot of advertising. They will see the opportunities here. I’ve heard the other side trying to bring down those numbers, but the fact is, it’s a 15% rebate. It was very, very successful as part of the federal program, and it’s going to be successful here.

To the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane: 308,000 seniors are expected to be taking up this program. It’s a big program, from that perspective, and it’s the education that we’ll see, and it’s the thinking of seniors that, “Yeah, we’re going to stay in our home. We’re going to make our homes ready for us.” And 10,500 jobs are not to be laughed at. That’s a lot of jobs. Those are good jobs for carpenters, plumbers. These aren’t inconsequential jobs; they’re extremely important. It’s part of the big plan. We’re keeping moving ahead with the Aging at Home part.

I want to thank the member from Peterborough, the best whip I’ve ever had. I really enjoyed his comments this morning.

The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex: Again, I want to say that these are important jobs. Whether the job is small or the job is large, whether the improvement is small or the improvement is big, these are very important projects for seniors. If we get 308,000 of them thinking that way and going ahead with these improvements, this is important.

We have to help seniors age at home. This is a good, good start on getting some of those things done so that your home is better for you. I ask all members to support this important legislation. It is going to help people like me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007, to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit.

Heckling from behind, the member from Hamilton East, speaking to the last speaker, said we’re going to become seniors, waiting for this bill to pass, as it was introduced I believe last November, and it has almost been a year. So it’s obviously not a big priority with the government or they would have called it earlier, especially if you look at some of the silly resolutions they’ve had us spending time in this place debating, including some in the past week that really were fluff resolutions.

This bill, just to go through it a little bit, is about a tax credit, the home renovation tax credit for seniors. It is very specific in that you have to be 65 years or older to qualify, and it applies to very specific improvements to your home.

One interesting feature of it is there is no income test. As has been pointed out, you can spend up to a maximum of $10,000 to be able to benefit from the 15% tax credit, so the most you could benefit from this tax credit is $1,500, if you spend the $10,000.

If you’re a wealthy senior and you need to do the renovations so you can stay in your home, so you can make it more accessible—which is another one of the stipulations of this bill—you’re going to spend the money anyways, because you want to stay in your home and because you can afford to. But for those that really need it, which is a lot of people out there—a lot of people, certainly, in Parry Sound–Muskoka—they’re struggling to get by, and they don’t have the money to be able to spend the $10,000. They’re struggling month to month on a fixed pension and are faced with increased energy bills and other costs.

That’s certainly what I hear about in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka. Particularly electricity bills are one of the big things that I absolutely do hear about.

This bill is really targeted to a very small segment of the population—seniors—but then also a very, very small group. I think for those to actually benefit from it, you’re going to have to have some money to be able to spend on these renovations.

I would also simply say, as I was saying in the comments I made a few minutes ago, that this is really not the right approach, because for a lot of people out there, they’re not going to be aware of this tax credit, or they’re not going to save the paperwork to be able to benefit from it. Really, the only way you get good participation with a very small segmented piece of legislation like this is to spend a lot of money on advertising, so then you’re spending money on advertising, as the government, instead of actually helping people.

I think there are much more efficient ways of actually helping people that need help. One would be to leave the money in the hands of the people that are earning it so they can spend it as they wish. Another might be, as has been suggested, removing the HST on electricity and heating costs, which would benefit everyone, and you wouldn’t have to save your receipts and go through a process—and be aware of it—to actually be able to benefit from it.

I think the approach the government is taking, as the member from Hamilton East pointed out, is really more about publicity. It’s more of a fluff bill to generate some positive response from the people at large. I think if it was a big priority for them, first of all it would have been passed by now. Bill 2 was introduced last November, and it still hasn’t made its way through the Legislature, so it’s obviously not a big priority.

In my riding, what are seniors really concerned about? Well, they’re concerned about access to health care, for sure. That’s something that really comes up. Most recently in Parry Sound–Muskoka, we’re seeing big cutbacks in things like cataract surgery. So all of a sudden there are big wait times for cataract surgery in the riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, on the Muskoka side in particular. I’ve learned from the health authorities that last year in Parry Sound–Muskoka, Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare was allocated some 952 cataract surgeries in 2011-12, and that has been cut back for this year, for 2012-13, to 409 cases—a huge, huge reduction in the number of cataract surgeries.

So I’m hearing from seniors who are writing to me saying, “I was scheduled to have a cataract surgery, and now it’s cancelled. How do I get it? This is something that I have to have done or I’m going to lose my sight.” There are no options about this. It’s not something they want to do. I would say funding those cataract surgeries is more important than this legislation and the advertising and other money that’s going to have to be spent on it to make it work.

So fund the cataract surgeries and reduce those waiting lists, because that is something I’ve had several letters, emails and calls to my office about, and it’s something that people are really concerned about, particularly in the Muskoka side of the riding.

Other issues that seniors are concerned about: access and quality of long-term care. Just last week I was at an anniversary—I think it was the 35th anniversary of Fairvern long-term-care home in Huntsville. There, the staff do a wonderful job of looking after their clientele, and they have a terrific group of volunteers who were recognized, some of whom have been there the entire time that Fairvern has been open, amazingly. But it is now becoming an older facility. It was originally the hospital, before it was made into a long-term-care home. So it’s in need of rebuilding.

That’s something that I think might be a priority for the government for the existing budget that they have out there—because one thing we know: the government’s in a deficit position. We’ve heard that lots of times. They have a $15-billion deficit, so it’s not like there’s money out there that they can spend. They’re actually spending borrowed money, and that’s something that has to be dealt with. It’s something our party has been making suggestions about, to deal with this big deficit.

I think there are lots of better ways, simpler ways, more effective and efficient ways to help seniors, to spend the money, versus this bill, which is quite restrictive and quite complicated, really, for the seniors who would be trying to access it. I just think that it’s probably more about PR than it is anything else. For that reason, our party will not be supporting this bill.

I’m pleased to have had a few moments to comment this morning. Thank you.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to introduce two members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees here. We have Chris Watson and we have Terri Preston; and also, from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, who has been sitting here all week, Craig Rockwell up in the stands.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome my friends Dr. You-Zhi Tang and Mr. James Jiang visiting the House today. Please join me in welcoming them.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier, and I’ll put my question to the Premier. Premier, our province is in trouble; that is clear. You’ve taken Ontario to the edge of a precipice—

Interjection: Where’s the Premier?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Where’s the front bench?

Mr. Peter Shurman: You’ve taken Ontario to the edge of a precipice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Could I have the clock reset, please?

I was about to recognize a point of order, but I also recommend to the member that I was going to see that the Premier was here. Now that he is here, I’ve reset the clock. It is now time for question period. The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s good rehearsal, though.

Premier, our province is in trouble, and that’s clear. You’ve taken Ontario to the edge of a precipice, and with your so-called budget, you took a giant step forward into the abyss. Now you’re looking for a parachute.

The Ontario PC Party bailed you out on your teachers’ legislation.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Peterborough, come to order.

Mr. Peter Shurman: We have a plan that will do what you can’t: get Ontario on the path to recovery. We’ve been solid, and Ontarians know where we stand. The same cannot be said for you or your budget cohorts, the NDP—the left-leaning education Premier masquerading as a tough guy on labour, walking hand in hand with the far-left NDP masquerading as centrists. What a joke. Together, you have led us that much closer to a $411-billion debt and a $35-billion deficit.

How can Ontarians trust you now, and why aren’t you getting on board with the PC plan to fix this mess?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is nothing if not entertaining, Speaker; I will say that. But I do appreciate the enthusiasm and the passion that he brings to his responsibilities. But they are at risk, I would argue, of allowing their rhetoric to distort their understanding of our reality.

I want to bring him back to some of the observations offered by Mr. Drummond in his report. He said in particular, in reference to Ontario and our government, “Spending is neither out of control nor wildly excessive. Ontario runs one of the lowest-cost provincial governments in Canada relative to its GDP.... And we must recognize that some important steps have been taken in the past few years.”

If we’re going to begin to debate this in earnest, we should do it on the basis of some reality. The fact of the matter is, we’re in a fairly strong position. We’ve taken some positive steps. From there, let’s have a debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Speaker, I love when the Premier quotes from the Drummond report. He uses it as he sees fit: He throws the stuff away he doesn’t like and picks the stuff that he wants. You can’t pick and choose. You’ve been pandering to unions for over eight years, Premier. With by-elections in mind, you decided to switch your tactics.

Ontarians have seen your chameleon games before: the pre-election no-new-taxes candidate turned new-health-tax Premier; the we-need-a-power-plant-in-Mississauga-and-Oakville Premier, to paying $190 million to cancel the plants mid-election. Now, after eight years of bending over backwards for your union friends, you decided to pretend to get tough on labour.

The only thing Ontarians can be certain of is that with the NDP’s help you will continue to decimate our province’s finances.

Since you cannot seem to decide who or what you will be, once today’s by-election votes are counted, will you commit to following the PC plan so that Ontario can finally recover?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, understanding the basis of our reality: We have one of the lowest-cost jurisdictions. In fact, we have the lowest spending per capita among all 10 provinces, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind.

I think it would be important to pay some attention to a column written recently in the Ottawa Citizen, and the title of that column was “Tim Hudak’s Simple Answer for Complicated Times.” It states, “Hudak, in the pursuit of popularity”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier is answering.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: “Hudak, in the pursuit of popularity, not good governance, proposes draconian measures to cut Ontario’s debt. That’s just the thing that will drive the provincial economy into the toilet so that all the stimulus money spent to save an economy on the brink goes for naught.”

That was less than two weeks ago. I think there’s a tremendous amount of truth to be had in that, and I would caution my honourable colleague in terms of the kinds of proposals that they would put forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Eight years of photo ops, Premier, political tactics, incomprehensible spending habits, and you’ve taken Ontario to the brink. Like the song says, “Big wheel keeps on turning, proud Mary keeps on burning.”

Instead of taking the opportunity to change your ways, you joined ranks with the NDP and produced a budget that in no way curbed your Liberal spendthrift ways. All the while, you ignored the Ontario PC Party’s plan to get Ontario on track to recovery.

You need to put political opportunism aside. You need to listen and get on board with the PC Party plan. You need to acknowledge that there is a range of options, beginning with an across-the-board wage freeze, arbitration reform, outsourcing, energy and many more on the way. Ontario PCs have been clear on where we stand. Why are you not listening?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate, again, the position taken by my honourable colleague, but obviously that’s not something we can agree with.

I think it’s important that we acknowledge our reality. We have the lowest-cost jurisdiction in the country. When it comes to spending in relation to GDP, we are the second lowest in the country. The fact of the matter is we’ve created 350,000 jobs since the recession; that’s 90,000 more than we had originally lost. Our GDP, which is the size of our economy, has grown by some 2.6%, I believe, since the recession. We continue to grow.

We have in place now an important conversation. We’ve just brought our doctors back to the table. We intend to sit down with them and find a way forward by working together. We’re working with our teachers as well; 55,000 of those came to the table, and we have plans for an agreement there.

We look forward to making more progress, and we’re always open to some credible, workable ideas from my colleagues.

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back again to the Premier: You told the public and members of this House weeks ago that we needed to pass your so-called Putting Students First Act immediately or there would be imminent labour disruption.

I have a message for the Premier. It’s from my husband. This morning, he actually went to a school—our daughter’s school—in Nepean, and he might be surprised to learn what my husband found: The school was open, there were teachers teaching, there were kids in the classroom, parents dropping off their kids. I must say, Speaker, this Premier hit the panic button harder than anybody did in Y2K.

While we’re happy to bail out the Premier on a partial wage freeze, because the province cannot afford any more of the handsome salary increases or generous bonuses, it’s hard not to question your motive. Will you finally admit that your recent conversion to fiscal conservatism has more to do with winning a seat in Kitchener–Waterloo—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very pleased to have before this Legislature a piece of legislation called the Putting Students First Act, because that’s what we need to do: We need to put our students first. We need to give confirmation, and we needed to give confirmation, to Ontario families that our government would do whatever it took to ensure that school would start and that the school year would be uninterrupted.

We’re very, very pleased. I too, and the Premier too, have had an opportunity to go to many schools in this province in this past week. We know that schools are open, and we know that our teachers are accepting our students. But what we needed to ensure was that the dollars remained invested in our classrooms. The member opposite forgets about $473 million that would be pulled from our classrooms if we did not take these steps. I know that’s an issue to her, because that’s why they’re supporting this legislation. It’s about putting our kids first, ensuring classes start and continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I find it interesting that they decided to go to schools when kids were on summer vacation and on the weekend before they started school. But the parents who went to school yesterday, the day before and today know full well that they hit the panic button.

To the Premier: You know the old saying. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. The voters in Kitchener–Waterloo aren’t fools. They dropped their kids off to school this week too. Like my husband, they saw no lockouts, they saw no strikes, but they did see a Premier who would say anything and do anything to get elected. Some things never change. You’ll go to any length in order to win. Will you apologize to the voters of Kitchener–Waterloo for using them in your ploy for getting that elusive majority you so desperately want tonight?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Perhaps the member opposite did not listen to my first answer. The Premier was at school on Tuesday; I was at schools on Wednesday. We know that parents were dropping their kids off, and we know that they were pleased with the choices that our government is making to keep dollars in the classrooms, to continue to roll out full-day kindergarten, to keep our class sizes small, to build new schools and make those additions so that our kids can have and continue to have the world-class education that our government has built up since 2003, when we came into office following the mess that that member opposite and her party had left to the families of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Simply put, no one believes you anymore. Premier, in what can only be considered a master stroke of alienation, you threw the teachers’ unions under the proverbial bus after they secured you three back-to-back-to-back governments.

When it became clear that Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC caucus actually had a plan to freeze wages, balance the books and get our debt and deficit under control, you stole our so-called homework and recalled the House early to make some cheap political points and take credit for our plan.

By tomorrow, win, lose or draw, you’ll likely be working with our friends across the way, Bob Rae’s successors, in the high-tax, high-spend, high-debt, high-deficit NDP to keep this province on its rocky path. Only the Ontario PCs and Tim Hudak have been consistent in our call for an across-the-board, legislated, broader public sector wage freeze. How can voters trust you now?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: On this side of the House, we know that families across this province find ways to live within their means. That’s what they expect of our government, and that’s why we’re making choices that put our students first and ensure that we continue to roll out full-day kindergarten. I know that the member opposite’s daughter is a graduate of full-day kindergarten.

This is an opportunity for all of our kids to get the education that we want for them, but as the adults, we need to make choices that put them first. What we are asking our partners in education is to ensure that we can put our kids first, that we can find ways to ensure that full-day kindergarten continues to roll out, so that my kids who benefitted from that, and the member opposite’s kids who benefitted that, and all of our kids in this province can continue to get the education that they want and deserve. As the adults, we need to put them first.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. A few years ago, an MPP stood in this House and asked, “Premier, as your government lurches from crisis to crisis, crises of your own making, it has become clear that you are willing to say absolutely anything in order to hold on to power ... when you are prepared to say anything in order to hold on to power, why should Ontario families trust you?” Premier, who said that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It feels like I’m on a game show here. I look with some suspicion at my colleagues on this side of the House, Speaker, but I’m sure my honourable colleague opposite will enlighten us all with the source of that wonderful quote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I am sure, Premier, that your memory fades when these matters come forward. In fact it was you, Premier, who asked that question, nearly a decade ago, in opposition.

Today he heads a government that’s lurching from crisis to crisis, from the mess at Ornge to seat-saving private power deals that cost the public millions, and he heads a government that will say anything to hold on to power, even if it’s unconstitutional legislation he knows will be thrown out by the courts.

My question to the Premier is the same one he asked a decade ago: Why should Ontario families trust you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: You know, my honourable colleague, together with the official opposition, has been trying to convince Ontario families that there’s a crisis in education. We don’t see it that way, Speaker. In fact, we see it more as, “Steady as she goes.” Schools are open, as predicted; teachers are there, as predicted; students are there, as predicted; parents continue to have confidence in their schools, as expected. And that has all happened because of the progress that we’ve made together during the course of the past nine years.

There has been steady progress. Test scores are up, graduation rates are up, and we have every reason in the world to continue to remain optimistic here in Ontario about the future of our education system for our families.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, just so that it’s clear, this Premier is not saying “Steady as she goes” in Kitchener–Waterloo, let me tell you. He’s telling families that schools are about to be closed.

The fact is, when Ontario families look at this government, they see a Premier who just doesn’t know what he believes in anymore, besides holding on to power and avoiding accountability. Voters today will render a verdict on the Premier’s desperate quest for majority power. Is he ready to stop the political games and focus on the challenges facing everyday families in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we’re consumed by that very responsibility every day. Understanding our financial circumstances, the state of the economy and our fiscal challenge, we think it’s important for all of us to hit the pause button when it comes to public sector pay. So I’m proud to say that the doctors are back at the table with the Minister of Health. I think that’s very good news. Anything that we do resolve together is always better than any kind of a unilateral decision.

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to arrive at that outcome to the extent that we would have liked when it comes to working with our teachers, but we did land an agreement with 55,000, and using the basis of that agreement, we’re expanding it province-wide.

So I think families understand, notwithstanding my honourable colleague’s different perspective on this. They understand there’s a fiscal challenge. We’ve got to hit the pause button on pay, and we’ve got to do it in a way that doesn’t compromise the quality of health care and education.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Last October, we had an election, and the result of that was that a minority Parliament was elected to Ontario. The people of Ontario have spoken. They said that they want the parties to sit down and to do what’s right when it comes to the people of Ontario.

Instead, for the last almost a year now, you’ve been contriving in order to get a by-election in Kitchener–Waterloo, to try to be able to organize in your own way, to your own political advantage, trying to get back to your majority. But there are issues that have to be dealt with. We’ve put forward a practical, simple proposal to stop handing out bonuses to the top earners in the public sector. Can we count on you this afternoon when it comes to that vote?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Premier has asked me to review the pay-for-performance policy that was established by the Conservative government of the day. We’re doing that. I’ll be bringing forward appropriate legislative and regulatory measures to ensure that everybody shares equally as we move back to balance, as we protect health care and education. I’ll look forward to the member’s comments on that and, hopefully, his and his party’s support for that initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: We know that the Conservatives were wrong doing it 10 years ago. They should never have implemented that program. But what’s even more galling, you’ve kept it in place for the last nine years, and only now that it’s made public you decide that you’re going to close the barn once the horse has bolted out of the barn.

I’m going to ask you again: We’ve put forward a very practical measure that essentially says we’re going to stop the practice established by the Conservatives and carried out by the Liberals for nine years. Will you support the bill, yes or no?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Last week, the NDP tabled a bill. I pointed out to them that it only covered 30 people and they quickly moved to change the bill. It was written on the back of an envelope. We appreciate their direction, and we look forward to bringing forward a workable piece of legislation and regulation to ensure that everybody participates fairly.

I’ll also remind the member opposite that their bill does not propose to cover those members of AMAPCEO who get pay for performance, or anyone bargain, and there are a substantial number of employees in that situation.

We need to have a fair bill, Mr. Speaker, a bill that covers more than 30 of 9,000 people. We’ll bring that forward in a responsible fashion. We’ll look forward to the views of the third party on that. I appreciate they’re moving this issue forward. Hopefully, they’ll be able to see their way to vote for the bill—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Minister of Finance: It seems to me that you’re embracing the Tory policy. You’re trying to find some way to be able to keep employees—a bad policy, instituted by the Conservatives, that had pay-for-performance bonuses as part of the salary. You have to make a choice: You either agree with the concept or you don’t. You can’t keep on playing this game of saying one thing to the voters of Kitchener–Waterloo and Vaughan and doing another thing when you come here to the Legislature.

I’m going to ask you again: Will you scrap the Conservative pay-for-bonus scheme that was put in place 10 years ago and vote with New Democrats to get rid of this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to fix it, and we’re going to fix it appropriately, in a fair and responsible way.

We need to push the pause button on all these matters so that we can continue to invest in full-day learning, which the Conservatives would cancel. We need to do it in order to continue to make the important investments in health care that are helping our families. We’ve got shorter wait lists for various surgical procedures, more people have a family doctor—so yes, we are going to do that.

I hope the member opposite and the third party will support that initiative. We agree it was bad policy set up by a bad government in the bad old days, so with the steps we’ll take, we’ll ensure fairness across the public and broader public sectors, across bargain and non-bargain employees, in a way that will survive constitutional and court challenges.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. It’s no surprise that the $190-million cancellation of the Mississauga power plant has shocked every taxpayer in Ontario, but yesterday at the public accounts committee, Liberals delayed and then stopped our efforts to get to the truth about the cancelled Oakville power plant. Minister, your friends did everything they could to stop the Auditor General from investigating Oakville, and you were successful. The clock ran out. That leads me to my question, Minister: What do you not want the public to learn about Oakville, and just how big is this bill going to be?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, we’ve been clear from the beginning that the relocation of the Mississauga power plant would be spoken to when we had a relocation and we had cost estimates, and it was. We put the documents out there.

We still haven’t seen the Conservative cost estimate from their commitment to cancel the Mississauga gas plant. I’m waiting to see that, to see how it compares, because it was their position as well as it was the NDP’s. And we’ve been very clear about Oakville. When the very sensitive negotiations, arbitration process is concluded––when it reaches a conclusion, we’ll speak to the conclusion. At that time, everybody will be able to judge the results. There isn’t a result at the moment to judge, but there are sensitive negotiations and discussions ongoing.

That’s been our position, and the Speaker has an issue before you at the moment. We’ll await that ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Minister, we both know there’s more to the $190 million you paid out to cancel Mississauga. In addition, you gave them a sole-sourced, brand new $300-million gas plant contract in Lambton, and you did this instead of simply converting the coal plant. Taxpayers now have no way of knowing whether that $300 million is a fair price, or whether an additional part of the cancellation fee was buried in that $300 million.

At estimates committee a couple of weeks ago, your finance minister said—and a former energy minister, I may add—that this was done because, and I quote, “You can’t convert a coal plant to gas.” Now, when I toured the Lambton plant, the first thing the executives told me was how easy it was to convert a coal plant to gas. My question: Minister, are you sticking with his story?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I think the member, with respect, has mixed up several things. Our commitment was not to proceed with the Mississauga gas plant, as was theirs, and to relocate it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: What we’ve done is, we’re relocating it. So this other gas plant that the member is speaking about in fact is the gas plant that was to go in Mississauga. But, you know, yesterday was an interesting day––

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey, come to order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: ––the federal government came out with their own coal emissions targets. We take a different position than they do. We’re getting out of coal by the end of 2014, no later. We’re cleaning up the air, absolutely. My friend talks about the Lambton generating station. It’s time it was closed. The health of Ontarians demands that we get out of coal and clean up the air.

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Sarnia residents and Mayor Bradley have been ringing alarm bells about the $8-million to $10-million deficit faced by their local CCAC due to increased demand and costs but no increase to funding.

The CCAC has requested a funding increase from the LHIN, but the LHIN can’t say, as funding hasn’t been finalized by the minister. Mayor Bradley said that seniors understand that they probably are going to lose a service that is very valuable to them. When will the minister finalize LHINs’ funding for the year so that seniors can no longer, and don’t have to, worry?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite. I wonder if she has had a chance to read the London Free Press

article just this morning that talks about the extraordinary progress that is being made by investing more in community care. In fact, we’ve seen the ALC rates in the hospitals come down substantially because more people are getting the care they need at home. This is the absolute founding principle of our action plan: get people the care they need in the right place. Very often, the right place is at home. Too many people are still in hospital who could be cared for at home. Too many people are in long-term care who could be cared for at home.

That is why we, in this past budget, made the decision to invest more in home care while we hold the compensation of physicians constant and while we hold hospital base budgets constant.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I did read the

article in the London Free Press today, but today we’re here asking a question about the Sarnia, St. Clair location. So back to the minister: This minister can talk a good game about strengthening the community care sector, but when she fails to provide timely and clear information about funding five months into the fiscal year, her commitment to this sector has to be called into question.

I’m going to ask the minister again: Please, when will her office provide finalized funding to the Erie St. Clair LHIN and all the LHINs in Ontario so that more home care in Sarnia—not London, in Sarnia—and all communities are protected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what is happening in London, and the results of that are evident in the article, is happening right across the province. We have put a very clear priority on enhancing home care. It’s what people want. People want to be home whenever possible, and it’s also what’s right for the system. We have made some tough decisions on other parts of our budget so we can free up money for more home care. That is the future of health care in this province, and I am very excited that we’re actually starting to see the results of that on the ground.

EDUCATION

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question this morning is for the Minister of Education. As the economy recovers from the global recession, we all know we’ve had to make some tough choices. The government simply can’t afford the kind of salary increases we’ve seen in the past, and I think many people recognize that. But as the economy continues to recover, the government has to take serious steps to bring the budget back into balance. Will the minister please tell this House how the McGuinty government has protected education in Ontario in the face of these choices for the sake of our students’ futures?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank my colleague for the question. Let me be very clear: The commitment of this government to strong publicly funded education, Mr. Speaker—that will never waver. It’s a commitment coupled with the dedication of our partners in education that together has brought us real results—real results for our students, results that we should all be proud of. We’ve brought test scores up. We’ve brought grad rates up. We’ve restored public confidence in publicly funded education after years of neglect under the previous PC government.

Our work in education has brought us recognition here in Canada and around the world as a leader in educational excellence. That’s why we’re working so hard to protect the classroom experience for Ontario students, because we know that the best investment in the future of this province is an investment in our kids, and that’s why those are our priority choices.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My supplementary question is also for the Minister of Education. It’s about full-day kindergarten, which is very important to the constituents in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, and I would say everyone’s riding.

Parents know that kids are getting a world-class education, and they’re also saving thousands of dollars with the introduction of full-day kindergarten. We’ve talked a lot about the Drummond report in the House this week. The Drummond report said we should eliminate full-day kindergarten. The Drummond report also said we should raise class sizes. The opposition parties said that we should do that.

Can the minister please tell this House why the government has made the choices that it has made?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The member is right. We have sought out advice across this province and we have received advice. We received advice from Mr. Drummond in the Drummond report, and it did recommend, to live within our fiscal reality, to increase class sizes and halt the rollout of full-day kindergarten. But we know how important these initiatives are to our students, to the children of this province, and we have chosen to keep class sizes small, to continue to roll out full-day kindergarten. As a result of those choices, we are keeping teachers in our classrooms and educational workers in our schools.

By choosing to protect full-day kindergarten, we are preserving 3,800 teaching positions. By rejecting Mr. Drummond’s advice to increase class sizes, we are preserving more than 6,000 teaching positions.

Mr. Drummond recommended cutting 70% of non-teaching staff positions. That would have put 10,000 dedicated educational workers out on the street, and those are not the choices that we want to make.

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. John Yakabuski: Now back to question period.

To the Premier: Premier, it seems that day after day, scandal after scandal, and your government is exposed. First we had eHealth, then Ornge, then the Mississauga power plant scandal and countless others.

We now have another scandal that is brewing under your watch. In addition to ballooning salaries, the OSPCA spent $4.6 million in 2010 in so-called professional and consulting fees. In an internal memo dated August 13, 2012, it appears they want to keep those numbers secret.

Premier, will you not learn from previous scandals and require the OSPCA to release the salaries of their employees, and will you provide the necessary oversight to avert another Ornge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It gives me great pleasure to speak about the OSPCA here this morning. First of all, let me congratulate the OSPCA for the good work they have done.

To answer the question of the member from Pembroke, the salaries of the OSPCA are on the sunshine list, so you don’t need to ask for more information about them. All of those that you are just—your innuendo this morning that they are hiding their salaries—it’s on the sunshine list.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Only the salaries of the CAO, the CEO and the CFO are revealed.

First we had the ridiculous $1.6-million salary of Dr. Mazza that blew up in your face, Premier. Now we have a charitable organization, that receives provincial funds, taking a page from the Ornge book.

In an internal email sent to OSPCA CEO Kate MacDonald from CFO Tom Stephenson, he said, “Please note, the file as it stands has some salary numbers in it that we would not want to get out.” It goes on to list some other costs. Premier, what could a charitable agency receiving provincial funding have to hide?

One thing that has remained constant in these files is the lack of oversight from your Liberal government, allowing these kinds of things to take place. Premier, will you finally do the right thing, provide the necessary oversight, protect taxpayers’ dollars and release the salaries and the details of consulting contracts at the OSPCA?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, every dollar that is invested in OSPCA by this government—and we’re not going to apologize today for investing in OSPCA for the welfare of the animals in Ontario. Every dollar that is being invested by this government into the OSPCA is accounted for. We on this side of the House believe in transparency, so—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sorry; I asked a question––

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, you did. I’m awfully glad that you recognize that, too. So let’s bring it down.

Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Talking about transparency, we have asked the PC Party to release their expenses a year ago, and they have not yet released it. So what are you hiding? I’m going to ask the member from Pembroke.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. Recently, your government made it clear that MNR cuts are coming. Communities across the north, such as Ignace, have serious concerns that these cuts could mean the closure of local MNR offices and, with them, the loss of a significant number of the community’s jobs.

Given that recent cuts, such as the downsizing of the Bear Wise program, took Ontarians by surprise, including the local police organizations who were suddenly tasked with these new duties, will the Premier commit today to full public disclosure and consultation before these cuts are made?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It’s a very, very important question. As usual, this government will ensure that we do the necessary consultation, as we have in the past. It is very, very important that, as we move forward, everyone clearly understands the decisions we’re making, why we’re making them, and fully engages in those types of decision-making initiatives that will ensure, as we all know, that the importance of the MNR remains intact and is very, very respected by this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: We’ve seen what consultation means with this government. It’s usually after the cuts have happened.

Back to the Premier: We all understand the need to tighten our belts, given our current financial situation, but cuts to offices in Ignace and other communities today will have serious economic impacts tomorrow. For example, community leaders are now worried that these cuts will have a negative impact on the reopening of the Ignace sawmill and the Bending Lake iron ore mine because of the local expertise that it takes away.

So I ask again: Will the Premier commit to holding off on cuts until municipalities, First Nations and members of the public can have meaningful input?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: There’s no doubt, as the member knows and as everyone in this House knows, that there are tough decisions we’ve had to make. There’s absolutely no question. We will ensure that the negative impact is minimized as we move forward. One thing we won’t do is compromise the principles that MNR has always had.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. There has been a lot of news recently surrounding the contract negotiations between the Canadian Auto Workers and the three major North American auto companies. I know that the auto sector is really important to my constituents, many of whom work in the sector, and I also know it’s important to the overall vitality of Ontario’s economy.

It’s important that we continue to create and retain jobs across the province, and we need to ensure we’re supporting key sectors like auto. These are very competitive times, and the recent economic downturn has hit the auto sector particularly hard. This impacts Ontario’s families, and it impacts the province’s economic well-being.

Could minister please let the House know what Ontario is doing to ensure the strength of this sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question. But more importantly, I want to thank him as a passionate advocate for the auto sector. This member has worked tirelessly as chair of our auto caucus on the government side, and he’s done some great work.

The auto sector does represent, as the member said, a very important part of our economy and contributes billions of dollars to our GDP. More importantly, it employs over 485,000 Ontarians.

We’re very pleased to see the auto sector recovering well, following the restructuring in 2009, with growth in sales every year since 2010. In fact, Ontario has been the number one auto assembly jurisdiction in North America since 2004. That’s why this government has made a number of strategic investments in the auto sector, including the restructuring of GM and Chrysler and recent investments in Toyota and Magna.

We will continue to stand by the auto sector. We’ll continue to make those investments that are creating jobs in this province, even if the opposition did not support those investments—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I know that my constituents, and I think all Ontarians, will be pleased that this government recognizes how important the auto sector is to the overall economic health of this province. Auto workers in Oakville and across the province can see that strong commitments being put forward by this government will ensure that Ontario continues to lead the way in the auto industry.

Over the summer I was talking with constituents, and while the overall feeling is that the auto sector is doing well, they’re now reading articles about the Canadian Auto Workers negotiations and they’re concerned about where the industry is heading.

We all know that Ontario’s auto sector has fared better than many other jurisdictions across North America. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, could he update us on what has been happening over the summer in the auto industry in this province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The fact is—there’s no two ways about it—this has been a very good summer for the auto sector in Ontario. We just look at the investment General Motors announced recently: $850 million in research and development in that sector; very important. This investment will bring tangible benefits to automotive suppliers but also to our post-secondary institutions.

I’m also pleased to note that this summer a third production line was introduced at the Ford plant in Essex, Ontario. That’s very important to those workers out there. Announcements like these would not have been possible had we taken the opposition’s advice and not stood by the auto sector during their most challenging times.

The member talked about the auto negotiations, and that’s an important point too. These negotiations are important. We call on all sides to do the very best they can to come up with agreements that are fair to workers but also maintain our competitiveness in the province of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. No matter how you spin it, Premier, your record is one of wasted taxpayers’ dollars, mismanagement and scandal: Ornge, eHealth, Samsung, your power plants—and the list goes on and on. The result of nine years under the McGuinty government has left Ontarians burdened with record debt, record deficits, record high hydro rates and growing unemployment lines.

Today, voters in Kitchener–Waterloo face an important choice, and I believe they’ll choose the path by denying you the majority that would only accelerate Ontario down the road to nowhere. Isn’t it time you woke up and realized the message voters gave you last October hasn’t changed, and that they won’t trust you with a majority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I’m going to react to all that negativity with some positivity. We have had a wonderful exercise in democracy during the past four weeks. I want to thank all the parties, all the candidates, all the volunteers, all the teams who have been making the efforts that they have put into this exercise.

There are other parts of this world where people are making sacrifices, even sacrificing their lives, so they might have in place a democracy where they can make a choice about their future, and I think we should celebrate that today in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, more spin, Premier, more spin. Let’s face it: Your record is so bad that you had to base your entire campaign in Kitchener–Waterloo on our plan to freeze public sector wages. Now desperate for a majority and knowing you definitely couldn’t run on your own record, you stole our plan and tried to call it your own. But you didn’t even get that right, because you won’t freeze wages across the board. Instead, you created an unnecessary crisis as the school year was about to start—more bungling and mismanagement.

Premier, do you really think anyone believes the guy who gladly opened the vault for these unions in the first place will actually follow through on his promise to keep it locked if you get a majority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It takes a lot of work to be that bleak, a lot of work.

Let’s celebrate something else. We’ve been talking a lot about education, and I know that we’re all political geeks to some extent or another, and we’ve been paying some attention to some of the ongoings south of the border and how they lament, in both parties down there, the quality of their schools. I think we can and should celebrate the progress we continue to make inside Ontario schools. We can be proud of the progress that we’ve made, proud of the effort made by our teachers, proud of the relationship that we’ve worked so hard to establish with our teachers.

But any way you look at it, class sizes are down, test scores are up, graduation rates are up, and there’s a sense of enthusiasm around the possibility inside Ontario’s publicly funded schools. That’s all there, and again, that’s something we can and should celebrate in Ontario.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, ConCreate USL went bankrupt in the middle of its work renovating overpasses on the Stoney Creek portion of the QEW. I understand the ministry has just chosen a new contractor for the projects, but nevertheless, the ongoing closure of the Millen Road overpass is causing enormous inconvenience for the residents in this area.

The ministry clearly failed in its financial due diligence on ConCreate USL. When can residents finally expect the work to be done and life to return to normal in the surrounding areas? And how much is this going to cost the taxpayers?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. First of all, you should be aware that the procurement process at MTO, and indeed at Infrastructure Ontario, has been recognized internationally as among the best in the world, and we have demonstrated that in all of our significant infrastructure as we move forward.

In terms of the specific project that you’re mentioning, I will take it as a request on your part that I look into any inconvenience that might be caused to the people in and around Hamilton as a result of the readjusting of that particular project.

I know that there have been a number of projects as a result of that particular bankruptcy, including one in the city of Ottawa that I’m more familiar with, and we have taken great care to find new subcontractors and to minimize the impact on the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Minister. You might want to do a little more investigation into the solvency of these companies that you’re hiring to do the work.

The company had a $17.5-million contract with your ministry—$17.5 million—to renovate six bridges along the QEW, including Millen Road, Grays Road, Fifty Road, Fruitland Road and Glover Road. Now, in addition to massive inconveniences, there are some genuinely dangerous areas, such as the Fifty Road overpass where sightlines are severely compromised. Severe accidents are possible.

When will the ministry finally complete the long-delayed work on these QEW improvements?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, I have to reiterate that if the member looks at all of these significant contracts that have been let by MTO across the province of Ontario, bankruptcies are seldom seen. This is a one-off. It’s the first one that I’ve seen since I’ve been minister, the first one I’ve seen since I’ve been back in this House.

Once again, you’ve brought to my attention what you perceive and what your constituents feel are some inconveniences as a result of the resetting of that particular contract. I’ll take that as a request and look into it, and I will get back to you with a response. Over and above that, I’d be very happy to arrange a meeting with you and senior officials at MTO so we can review it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Some of the constituents in my riding have turned to Ontario’s social assistance system during the recent global recession. As the economy recovered and people worked towards getting back on their feet, the Ontario Works program was there to provide much more than just income support. Ontarians also turned to the Ontario Works program for help finding a job and for employment training supports. I understand that the program is a lot different than it was when we took office in 2003.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House and my constituents what improvements our government has made since 2003?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. Particularly during these tough—what we’ve seen in the last few years—economic times, it’s very important that we have a social assistance system that’s responding to the needs of Ontarians during this worldwide recession.

Since 2003, we have made a number of very comprehensive changes to social assistance. We have raised social assistance rates eight years in a row, by a total of 14.9%. We ended the deduction of the national child benefit supplement and flowed through the federal working income tax benefit to all Ontarians receiving social assistance. We’ve simplified rules around earnings exemptions, so that the more you work, the more money you keep. We’ve extended drug, dental and vision care benefits for people leaving social assistance for employment, to help them make the transition.

Mr. Speaker, it’s always a work in progress, and I look forward, in the supplementary, to talking about further reforms that we’re looking at.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Minister. It’s good to hear that the system is there for those who need it.

Despite the progress the minister mentioned, I’ve heard from my constituents that there are ways that the system could work better for our clients. I’ve also been hearing some concerns about its long-term sustainability.

I understand that the ministry appointed a commission for the review of social assistance in 2010 and that the commission was mandated to provide advice on ways to not only reform the system but also to ensure the long-term viability of the social assistance system. Can the minister elaborate on this for us?

Hon. John Milloy: We recognize that our social assistance system needs to be more responsive to the needs of those who are receiving social assistance, particularly when it comes to helping them and encouraging them in the transition into employment.

As the member noted in his question, in November 2010 we named two commissioners, the Honourable Frances Lankin, a former MPP and cabinet minister, along with Dr. Munir Sheikh, academic and former chief statistician of Canada, to look at our social assistance system. The commissioners have received almost 700 written submissions, and their website has received over 47,000 visits. They’ve had a consultation process that has brought them to 11 communities. They’ve met with numerous stakeholder groups and engaged with over 2,000 individuals. Mr.

Speaker, I know I speak on behalf of the government when I say that we are looking forward to receiving their report very soon and the advice that they’re going to provide us.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, just this spring your Liberal House leader stood before the Greater Kitchener–Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, making excuses why your government couldn’t invest in upgrading Highway 7. He claimed the Liberals shelved the Highway 7 expansion in 2010 because they simply didn’t have the money to invest in this critical infrastructure project. But let’s take a look at what the Liberal government decided to spend taxpayers’ money on instead. How about $750 million on the mess at Ornge, $2 billion on eHealth, $190 million on buying Liberal seats in Mississauga and possibly now up to $1 billion on cancelling the Oakville power plant?

Premier, how can anyone in Kitchener–Waterloo seriously believe you’ll actually follow through on building Highway 7 two years after you broke your original promise on this project when you continue to waste billions of dollars on Liberal pet projects and seat-saver programs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m really pleased that he raised the question with respect to Highway 7. What we’ve done so far: We’ve protected the 18-kilometre route so that it cannot be used for anything other than building Highway 7. We have committed $50 million to acquire properties for the new corridor. The property acquisition effort is already under way. That funding was allocated before we knew there would be a by-election, and that government voted against it. The Tories voted against $50 million for Highway 7. Take that back to your by-election right now.

We’ve entered into a number of agreements with local businesses and property owners, and are continuing to work closely with those impacted by the corridor. We’ve acquired a maintenance facility and land on Shirley Avenue in Kitchener, where we will begin stockpiling fill for the Highway 7 construction. We have identified the Highway 7 project as a good candidate for Infrastructure Ontario, and we have been working with P3 Canada to provide some assistance with the funding. That’s what we have to say about Highway 7.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier. Premier, you promised to build Highway 7 in 2007, cancelled it in 2010, and now you’ve said the project is back on. Yes, there’s a by-election happening.

Premier, if I promised my wife I’m going to fix the sink and did nothing for five years, I would imagine somewhere around the three-year mark she would start to get awfully suspicious about that sink ever getting fixed. Nobody in Kitchener–Waterloo believes you’ll actually follow through on this project. And you just don’t have to take my word for it. In fact, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record recently said, “What we think the public will find unacceptable is that $190 million in public funds that could have been spent in the public interest was used instead to keep this self-serving, power-hungry party in office.”

So I have to ask you, Premier, why should anyone in Kitchener–Waterloo believe you’ll build Highway 7?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I can only repeat the facts. I can only repeat the facts that I just repeated. I would add one other factor: It’s $300 million which is going to the Waterloo LRT project. But I do have a Conservative record, a PC record, on Highway 7: 1997, no plan; 1998, no plan; 1999, no plan; 2000, no plan; 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007—all the way through from this government, no plan for Highway 7. We’re putting money into it. We’ve got a deadline when we’re going to break ground. You take that back and talk to the people in Kitchener–Waterloo.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would actually seek your attention. I would like to remind the member from Peterborough that I’ve already singled him out in the name of his riding—

Interjection: Kick him out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —along with the member from Renfrew.

I usually take this opportunity, when somebody asks me to toss somebody, to tell them that they may be the first.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I was your first.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We are so close. Thank you.

New question.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Minister of Education: Parents continue to see their local child care centres shut their doors. Twenty-four centres have closed in Toronto alone in this past year.

In April, the government agreed, under pressure from the NDP, to provide $90 million to help keep child care centres open. Why are child care centres still waiting for this money, and why is the government threatening to claw back all the money that’s not spent by December 31?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very proud of our government’s record when it comes to child care. Since 2003, child care funding has increased from $532 million to more than $1 billion—a 90% increase. We stepped in with an investment of $63.5 million to permanently fill the funding gap when the federal government stepped away. We are providing an additional $51 million in funding to child care centres, phased in over the next few years. We’re also providing $12 million over five years to help non-profit child care centres renovate.

In this year’s budget, we invested more than $90 million in 2012, $68 million in 2013 and $84 million in 2014.

We are working right now with the sector in a big conversation to find a pathway to transition, to modernize the child care system in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: All those claims are no comfort to children and parents facing the closure of their centres.

Minister, the government knew a year ago that it would take municipalities some time to get provincial dollars to child care centres, but the government took its time, and now municipalities are being threatened with losing dollars that aren’t spent by December 31.

When will the minister stop these threats, stop putting more child care centres at risk of closure, and promise that every dollar of the $90 million she just talked about, the $90-million transition funding, will be spent to help child care centres stay open?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Full-day kindergarten is the most significant transformation in our education system in a generation, and we need to find a way for full-day kindergarten to live compatibly with a modern child care setting.

We have seen investments in the city of Toronto go up by 50%. We will continue to work with our partner municipalities. We will continue to support Ontario families to give their kids the best early learning that we can in this province, and we are recognized around the world for doing that.

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know how important it is to Ontarians that our government do everything it can to make life easier for seniors. Seniors are among the most vulnerable residents of Ontario, and it’s particularly important that we provide care to our seniors in a manner that is accessible and as close to home as possible. Can you please explain to the House what this government is doing to ensure that seniors are getting the care they need where they need it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m very proud to talk about how we’re making care for seniors a priority in our Ontario health care system.

We’re developing a seniors’ care strategy which will help older Ontarians stay healthy, live at home longer and get the care they need—the right care at the right time at the right place.

Dr. Samir Sinha is our expert lead in our seniors’ care strategy. He’s travelling the province. He’s asking all Ontarians, but particularly older Ontarians and their caregivers and their providers, for their input on the seniors’ care strategy. We will all work together to make sure that our seniors get all the care they need and all the independence that they want.

DEFERRED VOTES

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave / Projet de loi 30, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour les aidants naturels.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1135 to 1140.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Jeffrey has moved second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave.

All those in favour, rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Jones, Sylvia

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mangat, Amrit

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

McDonell, Jim

McGuinty, Dalton

McKenna, Jane

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Milligan, Rob E.

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.