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

September 11, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-11 (PDF)

L077 - Tue 11 Sep 2012 / Mar 11 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 11 September 2012 Mardi 11 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

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HEALTH CARE

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ENERGY POLICIES

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

YOUTH SERVICES

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

VISITOR

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 DONNANT

LA PRIORITÉ AUX ÉLÈVES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

WES PRANKARD

BLYTH THRESHERS’ REUNION

KIMBERLY RIVERA

TORONTO INTERNATIONAL

FILM FESTIVAL

CASINOS

NORTHERN ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MINING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

ELECTORAL REFORM

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ELECTORAL REFORM

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HEALTH CARE

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

HOUSE SITTINGS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

The House met at 0900.

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

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 6, 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?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I certainly understand that we’re going to be debating the healthy homes renovation tax credit, but I would be remiss if, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, we didn’t acknowledge the amazing, heroic acts of both our American friends as well as many Canadians who were able to help out that day. I just wanted to say that we’re thinking of you.

Bill 2, the healthy homes renovation tax credit: I’m happy to participate in the discussion. This bill, of course, was introduced on November 23 of last year. Almost 10 months later, we’re still discussing this bill. Unfortunately, my concern with it is, it just seems to be another new bill, another additional program that the McGuinty Liberals are trying to tease Ontario voters with. I truly do not see it accomplishing the laudable goals that they make reference to. Part of it is just because the program, in my opinion, seems to be very flawed and very skewed to a very small percentage of people who will actually be able to access that.

Again, this is not a new program. We’re seeing this time and time again where the government doesn’t seem to understand that you cannot keep adding program after program, new spending after new spending, without actually looking at the other side of the balance and saying, “What do we need to rejig? What do we need to remove in order to look at new programs?”

Subsequently, there are two primary problems that I see with Bill 2. The first, of course, is that it limits scarce taxpayer dollars to help a very, very small number of people, and I’ll talk about that. Basically, it’s because in order to qualify for the program, you have to spend a large chunk of your income first on the renovation to get a minute tax credit at the end. For the maximum return, a senior, or an individual with a disability, would have to spend $10,000.

I know in my community the median income for a senior is about $45,000. I think the average for an Ontario senior is $45,000. If you look at individuals who have a disability, it is considerably less than that. So to assume that they would have the ability—indeed, the option—of spending up to $10,000 for renovations to their homes—and we’re making a big leap here, because I have questioned how many of them actually own homes when your income is sitting at $45,000 or, on disability, even less.

When you consider that the median income, as I say, is $45,000 per senior, and for a single senior it’s $25,000, truly, how many of those individuals, of those households, are going to say, “Yes, I’m going to spend a quarter of my annual income, or almost half of my annual income,” to get a renovation, and to get a paltry tax receipt, or tax break, at the end?

I ask the minister, through the Speaker: How many? I’d love to have this number. We have questions and answers at the end of our debate. How many seniors and households, individuals with a disability, do you truly anticipate will be able to take advantage of this program? I would argue that it’s a very small number. In fact, it’s outrageous, when you think about it.

What will happen is that people who need to make those renovations, who were planning to make those renovations, because they have a change in their health circumstances, because their family is able to step up and assist with perhaps a child or a sibling with a disability—they were going to make those renovations anyway. People don’t put grab bars in their bathrooms because they want to; they put them in because they need to, because it is a necessity.

In many cases, it’s post a stroke or a fall, and a health professional has come in, done an assessment of the home and said, “This is what you need to do in order to bring your loved one home. You need to have that ramp. You need to have those grab bars. You need to make the following modifications.” They’re not waiting for Bill 2 to be passed. They want to bring their loved one home. So they’re doing that if they have the ability to do it.

I know in my community, many times, service clubs and the United Way, individual agencies, are helping those residents make those modifications. In fact, Jack MacLaren, my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, was involved in such a program last December, where there was an individual who was essentially a bed-blocker in a hospital up in the Ottawa area, and he could not go home until a ramp was built.

To his credit, Jack MacLaren got a group of individuals together—sorry, the MPP from Carleton–Mississippi Mills got a group of individuals together, got the lumber donated from a local business, and they built the ramp. Bless them. I’m pretty sure that they weren’t waiting for Bill 2 to be passed before they actually stepped up and got the work done.

It’s just unfortunate that we have focused in on something that ultimately is not going to make a difference to seniors and to individuals with disabilities, because we all know there are lots of things that we could be focusing on. I’d love to have a discussion about additional home care, additional supports for people who are dealing with a sibling or a child who has a disability and wants to stay in the community, wants to stay in their home. Bill 2 isn’t going to do it. It’s not going to cover it off. It’s just an example where the McGuinty Liberals think a new program is a solution when in fact a new way of thinking is ultimately what we have to do.

I was listening yesterday during question period, and I must say I was kind of taken aback when the Premier, in responding to a question regarding economic development, economic motivation impetus—what we’re doing in Ontario—he talked about Bill 2. We were asking about what he was going to do about the job crisis in the province and he said, “ ... in order to help us create more jobs. We have a specific bill. It’s the healthy homes renovation tax credit, Speaker. It will support $800 million in home renovation activity on an annual basis and create 10,500 new jobs every year. That’s a bill before this House right now.”

Really? We’re really trying to spin Bill 2 as an economic motivator in the province of Ontario? I can’t see it. I just can’t see it. It’s narrowed down to a small group of residents who were going to be doing that work anyway, because as I said before, we don’t put ramps and grab bars in unless we need them, unless there is a reason for it. So to say that Bill 2 is the economic motivator that the McGuinty Liberals are holding their hat on concerns me greatly.

In closing, I wanted to make a quick reference to the Drummond report. In it, it details Ontario’s fiscal situation. I know that the members on the other side don’t like to talk about the Drummond report, but the reality is, you did ask him to do it. You paid him to do it. He gave you hundreds of recommendations, and what I think you were doing was punting it down the road and saying, “We’ll deal with that later. We want to talk about that after the election. We’ll let Don Drummond and his committee look at this, review it,” and now you’ve completely ignored it.

In his report, one of the statements he made is that there is $60 million in Liberal spending programs being introduced, and frankly I don’t buy the argument that Bill 2, with its nine or 10 pages, is the answer to Ontario’s job crisis. I can’t see it. I can’t see how you are justifying it as an economic bill. I’ll leave it at that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. Certainly she made some obvious points. Ours have been made. That is to say that this is going to affect very few seniors, and we’ve called on our friends across the aisle to actually come forward, once this plan is implemented, with how much money is actually spent, how much take-up there is, because our suspicion is that there will be very, very little.

Very few seniors can afford $10,000. Very few seniors can even afford a few hundred dollars right now. Most of the seniors I know, who are struggling to stay in their homes, are doing so because of high energy costs and because they don’t have human help, human home care, people to come and do simple things like shopping or bathing or mowing the lawn. Those are the things that seniors need.

Remember that a vast majority of our seniors are struggling, and that in fact one in 10 senior women just about are living in poverty right now—one in 20 men. This is a terrible legacy for those who have built our province and our country. So there’s much more that could be done.

We’re not interested in holding up this bill. It’s a very small step, yes. Will it benefit a few people? Probably. They’re probably people who need it the least. But let’s get on with it, Madam Speaker. Let’s get this through, and let’s maybe hope that the government brings forward some meatier legislation, and I’m not talking about Bill 115.

I’ll leave it at that. We’re not putting up speakers for a reason. We want to get this House moving. We want to make this government work. Again, thanks to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. On with the show, I say.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: It is my pleasure to speak again to this bill, and I’m encouraged by the comments from the member from the third party about the need to get on with this bill. She’s right in one way, in that this is part of something. It’s part of a much bigger strategy about helping our seniors stay at home and helping them age at home with dignity and independence for those who choose to stay at home.

It absolutely will, Speaker, help create jobs through the renovations that seniors undertake under this bill. It does not require seniors to spend $10,000. I want to clarify that for the member from Dufferin–Caledon. This bill covers renovations up to $10,000, because some people, quite frankly, need more than a grab bar, and they will receive a bigger tax credit in that case. But for those who need something smaller, they will have, of course, a smaller tax credit.

Speaker, as I said, this is part of a bigger strategy. We’ve recently announced more PSW care for people at home. That will primarily benefit seniors. We have an aging strategy in Ontario. We have more community supports in Ontario. So I think when we look at Bill 2, we have to look in the context of all the things we’re doing to help those seniors who want to stay at home do that with grace, independence and dignity.

The member for Dufferin–Caledon questioned how many seniors own a home. This is about not just homeowners; this is about any tenant, any senior in their place of residence, being eligible for this credit. It’s also important to emphasize that Bill 2 would allow people who own a home and have a senior at home, such as a parent or a grandparent, to claim the tax credit, so the application is much broader than what has been suggested here.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s always a pleasure to follow our member from Dufferin–Caledon, and I tend to agree with her points that this Bill 2 has nothing to do with actually helping seniors and nothing to do with economic development.

Speaker, when I walked here into the front of the Legislature just the other day, I saw the graffiti that was on the statues out front. Now, thankfully our crew here are crackerjacks. The graffiti has been fixed within a couple of days. But it’s more symbolic of the sentiment that’s out there. People are disgruntled. They’re unhappy. We have 600,000 men and women who woke up this morning without a job. We have 300,000 less manufacturing workers today than we had. Those are the issues that we need to be tackling.

This Bill 2 chips away at the fringes. It’s more glow than show, Speaker. It does nothing—absolutely nothing—for the seniors. It does not do anything for the economy. Those 600,000 men and women with nothing to do this morning but go out and look for a job: Some of them have to come out here and express themselves, and I think that is the issue. The real core of the issue is that we have a disgruntled community. We have people who are fed up, who are tired of being unemployed, and this Bill 2 has absolutely no way to put those men and women to work. It does absolutely nothing to assist the seniors at all.

This bill should stop in its heels now. We should be finishing with this bill and moving on to the real core issues that are affecting society. That’s what’s happening out here, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Madam Speaker, much has already been said about Bill 2: the weaknesses, the strengths. The underlying purpose to keep seniors in their home is, of course, a very important strategy and an important issue to address, particularly when many seniors that I speak to want to be able to stay in their homes, want to be able to stay with their families. The fact that the renovation tax credit also assists loved ones who want to keep their parents in their home is a good thing. But the problem with the bill, like many people in this House have said, is that it doesn’t cut to the heart of the problem.

The root cause of many of our problems in this province is poverty, and we should address our remedies to poverty reduction.

The other area that I think is of paramount importance is an effective means of delivering health care and home care. The hospital-based model that we have been using to this point is not the most efficient mechanism to deliver care that would keep seniors in their home. So if we really want to address keeping seniors in their home, let’s look at more community-based models like community health centres, additional funding for home care, additional funding for doctor visits at the home, nurse visits at the home.

That way, we could really move towards a solution that truly puts seniors in their homes, living with dignity, and that addresses the issue directly. I think that’s what we need to move towards.

The bill itself has some positive points, but again, it goes too short in terms of really addressing the issue of keeping seniors in their homes.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Dufferin–Caledon has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the members for Parkdale–High Park, Pickering–Scarborough East, Nipissing and Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

I did notice that the one Liberal member who commented did not give me the number that I’m looking for and, actually, the number that the member from Parkdale–High Park is also looking for, which is—you must have done the background. You must have done the studies. What percentage of seniors, what percentage of individuals who have a disability, is going to be able to tap into this program? I think it’s a valid question. It’s part of the debate that we should be having as we talk about the validity of the healthy homes renovation tax credit.

I think it’s unfortunate that they are glossing over that because even they understand that the percentage of people who are going to participate in the program is minuscule.

The Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, Bill 2, has additional spending and no savings line. Once again, we are dealing with additional spending and no balance on what you are removing, what you need to wind down, what programs aren’t working, aren’t efficient. I would argue that within a year, you will find that Bill 2 is one of those not-working, inefficient pieces of legislation that in fact is going to be more about PR spin than actually assisting seniors and individuals who have a disability, who are going to make the renovations, who are needing to make the renovations to be able to continue to live in their family home.

I’ll leave you with this: Once again, if this, Bill 2, is what we’re going to talk about, is what you’re going to hang your hat on as an economic development bill, we are in a sad, sad situation in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to speak today. I wish it was something a little more substantial that we were speaking about, but as we’ve already heard this morning, Bill 2 is not substantial by any means.

It is a privilege to get up and speak in the House. There have been a lot of great visionaries who have spoken in this Legislature, and every time I stand up, I think of those great visionaries and those leaders who made the tough decisions to move the province forward—people like Bill Davis, John Robarts and Mike Harris. And now we have this Premier—not quite in the same class, that’s for sure.

This Premier has failed to ever meet the challenges of our times. Bill 2 is just part of this legislative agenda, this smokescreen, to make it appear that something is happening over there. It’s all about politics; nothing to do with policy. There are 600,000 men and women who woke up in this province this morning who don’t have a job to go to—600,000. Some 25,000 people, just last month—that’s a town about the size of Owen Sound—lost their jobs. The numbers just came out a couple of days ago. So, does this government bring in a jobs plan? No.

They bring in another fluffy little bill like Bill 2 that does nothing to solve the problem. Some 16.5% of people who are under 25 are youth; they’re out of work today. These are stats that really send a message, or at least should send a message, to this Premier that it’s time to start making some tough decisions in Ontario.

So, are we talking about reforming apprenticeships? We are on this side. But are they doing that over there? Absolutely not. We need to create some high-paying, really good jobs in the skilled trades. This is just a government that’s feathering its nest with putting its buddies at the College of Trades. This government’s running a $15.3-billion deficit and it has doubled the debt in the last nine years. Are they tackling that? No. They’re bringing out Bill 2, which is a fluffy piece of legislation that’s not going to have any effect at all on our seniors, which I believe is what it’s aimed at doing.

We’ll get a little bit further into who’s going to benefit from Bill 2 a little bit later on, and it’s nobody. There’s nobody.

I don’t know how many people paid attention over the last couple of weeks to United States politics, but we did have the Republican convention a couple of weeks ago. Last week we had the Democratic convention as well. So I’d like to take this moment to quote former Democratic President of the United States Bill Clinton. He’s no raging right-winger—

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With all due respect, I refer to

section 23(

b) of the standing orders that the speaker in debate should be adhering to the bill at hand. I’d appreciate consideration of that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. I just remind the member to refer to the bill being debated.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d be happy to do that. I just thought the members on the other side would be happy to hear a Bill Clinton quote. Can I give you the Bill Clinton quote? This is what Bill Clinton had to say last week. Bill Clinton said this: “We’ve got to deal with this big long-term debt problem or it will deal with us. It will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we’d rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. We’ve got to deal with it.” Bill 2 does absolutely nothing to deal with the big debt problems in Ontario.

So Bill Clinton gets it; this side of the House gets it; but unfortunately and it’s quite shocking that that Premier over there doesn’t get it.

I talked to a lot of seniors over the summer at different fairs and events that I was at, including one just the other night at Moira Place in Tweed. These are seniors who are on a fixed income. The average old-age security payment every month is $540. The average Canadian pension plan payment every month is $788. So you factor in property taxes or rent or food or gas or the biggest rising expenditure in the province of Ontario, thanks to the McGuinty government—electricity prices: How in the world are seniors expected to get the maximum out of this benefit?

They have to spend $10,000 that they don’t have to try and get 15% back. Of course, there’s the 13% HST that you would pay on that, so really we’re talking about 2% here. That’s all we’re talking about when it comes to this bill: 2%. That’s why they called it Bill 2, perhaps.

It is an insult to every senior on a fixed income in this province to pretend that this laughable excuse for a piece of legislation is actually going to help them. We’re talking about the proverbial band-aid on the bullet hole here when it comes to Bill 2, and it’s not going to help the fiscal situation in the province. We need real action on the economy, and we’re simply not getting it. If we want to create jobs for contractors and subcontractor trades, then we have to reform the apprenticeship system. We’ve talked about that.

It baffles me that the government can’t seem to understand that the number of working plumbers, electricians, mechanics and millwrights is directly related to how many young people are apprenticing in those trades, and there are just not enough of them. That’s why we want to expand the apprenticeship program, reduce the ratio, so we can get more skilled trades workers out there on the job. The average age of an electrician in Ontario is 65 years old, and I heard the other day that the average age of a stonemason is 73—73 years old; that’s the average age of a stonemason.

I was at a graduation ceremony in June at Moira Secondary School, and this young lad walked up onto the stage and went to the microphone—each of them would say what they were going to do next year, if they were going to university or college or whatever. He said he was going to go become a stonemason. I said, “Now, there’s a kid who’s got his act together because he’s guaranteed to get a job.” His name is Jake Anderson. I went over and introduced myself and said, “Good luck at school because you’re guaranteed to make a lot of money.” There’s just not enough of these people out there.

So here we are, anyway, debating Bill 2, which is a bill that we can’t afford, aimed at people who can’t afford it, and it’s attempting to create work for tradespeople whom we don’t even have. Let me think about that again. It’s a bill that’s going to spend money that we don’t have, aimed at people who can’t afford it, and creating jobs for tradespeople who don’t exist. Makes sense to me—sarcastic.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We got it, Todd.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know you’ve got to tell them.

Mr. Todd Smith: I just wanted Hansard to realize.

Anyway, this is a cheap and cynical ploy just to grab votes, and that’s what it’s all about.

Let’s get down to the brass tacks of this again. I think the last time I spoke to this at second reading, I called it the wealthy homes tax credit, not the healthy homes tax credit, and really it does only pertain to people who have money. How can you go out there, a senior these days, and spend $10,000? They just don’t have it.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: You don’t have to spend that amount.

Mr. Todd Smith: I realize you don’t have to spend it, but to get the maximum benefit, you have to spend $10,000. Thank you for paying attention, though.

We’re talking about: You spend $10,000, you’re going to get 15% back. You’ve got to pay 13% to the government for HST anyway, so we’re talking about 2% here. Then, of course, you figure in the tax compliance cost. I talk to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business quite often, and I was speaking with the CFIB when one of their member surveys came out. They were stating that the average small business owner spends between six and 10 hours a week dealing with regulations, the bulk of which is tax compliance.

So, in addition to a bill that we can’t afford, aimed at people who can’t afford it, creating jobs for tradespeople who don’t exist, we’re now adding another layer of red tape to the system. That’s what’s happening with this bill.

Somewhere there’s someone sitting in a chair listening to this, and it makes sense to them. I worry that unfortunately it’s the guy in the Premier’s chair. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. We’ve got 600,000 Ontarians out of work; 25,000 of them—a town the size of Trenton—lost their jobs last month in Ontario. Small business confidence is at the lowest point in Ontario that it’s been in 14 months. The leaders of this province are gathered in this chamber right now. We’re not discussing how to put those 600,000 Ontarians back to work.

We’re not talking about how we can improve the conditions for small business in Ontario. We’re talking about a 2% rebate—2%—on a home renovation bill that almost no one it’s targeted to will actually be able to afford. That’s what we’re talking about.

The province used to make tough decisions back in the good old days. Now, unfortunately, this government is shirking its tough decisions. This province used to have a vision, and unfortunately now it seems it fails to see beyond the end of its nose.

I look forward to the comments on my discussion on Bill 2 this morning. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m happy to talk on the healthy homes renovation tax credit today. I actually was at an event on the weekend, and spoke to a senior. He approached me and he said that he and his wife live at home, and he’s having a very difficult time. He actually had a walker and he let me lift the walker. It was extremely heavy. I think I’m a healthy, middle-aged woman, and here I am, I couldn’t even lift this walker. It was maybe about, I’d say, 40 pounds. His concern was that he is having trouble lifting this walker up two steps to get into his home.

So he said, “You know, Teresa, I would really appreciate if you could look into if there’s some kind of program to help me. I need a ramp. I need to build a ramp in my home so I can at least stay in my home longer.”

So the light went on, and I thought, “Gosh, I could tell him about the healthy homes renovation tax credit, but that’s not going to help him.” In his case, he’s a very low-income-earner senior. His wife is also very ill, and he’s looking after his granddaughter. So in those cases we’re talking about, this is a bill that’s going to help some people, and it’s a very small sum. It’s not going to help the seniors who are really in need, who have those economic challenges that they are facing day in and day out and are trying to stay at home.

I think if this bill was really intended to help all seniors with physical disabilities who can’t afford to remain in their homes, it should have been written differently. Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to add that to the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s always a privilege for me to hear the remarks of my very learned friend from Prince Edward–Hastings and have the opportunity to chat about Bill 2.

I personally am a great admirer of Mr. Davis’s, but I remind everybody that, during his 14 years as Premier, he had 14 straight deficits.

Interjection: Fourteen.

Mr. Jeff Leal: That might be a fact that my learned friend from Prince Edward–Hastings didn’t acknowledge during that. That was 14 straight deficits.

Let me tell you, I had the opportunity to be with my friend in Stirling a couple of months ago. I was driving into Stirling and got to see Home Hardware; that’s right on the main street there in Stirling, along with Stirling Creamery—a great spot.

But when I was driving into Stirling on this day, I didn’t see the famous sign for Rob Ray. Rob Ray had a very distinguished career in the National Hockey League and played for the Buffalo Sabres, but somehow I think they’ve taken the Rob Ray sign down.

But when you get into Stirling, there are a number of family-owned businesses that are in the hardware business. I took the opportunity to go into Home Hardware there, and I could see such things as grab bars, and I could see such things as special showerheads, and I could see the anticipation of those great citizens in Stirling, Ontario. Once this bill is passed, Bill 2, they’ll be running into Home Hardware and they’ll be buying those things to renovate their houses to make sure that mom and dad can stay in those homes longer through the healthy homes renovation tax credit.

I know that’s something my good friend from Prince Edward–Hastings just missed when he made his speech this morning. These are the kinds of things that will be helpful dramatically through this bill. It has been estimated that 380,000 seniors across the province of Ontario will take advantage of this. Those fine citizens in Stirling, Ontario, will benefit from this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, and I think he was right in his assessment and dismissiveness of this bill. When you look at it, he talked about the red tape and his business friends and the regulations that are in place.

I think I’ll just draw a little bit more attention here. Why are they actually doing this? First of all, we know there’s an aging population. Secondly, we know that they are not building one new long-term-care bed in Ontario.

What they’re doing is, they’re downloading all of the responsibility to the family. Then they’re saying that for community care access centres there’s no money. There are not enough hours for any of my constituents who are looking for care in the home.

This is the biggest shell game I’ve ever seen. The tragedy with seniors is told more wholesomely and fully in an

article in the Toronto Star, which is usually very complimentary to the Liberals. Here’s what it says: Ontario is the worst in Canada “when it comes to growing poverty [and] increasing income inequity.” This

article goes on to say—and the report is called Falling Behind. It’s a real commentary on Ontario today. The

article says: “It is time for Ontarians—including policy-makers—to face the disturbing facts about inequality in our province.” It goes on to say that it’s “growing poverty and cuts to social programs.” I’m not making this up. This is the Toronto Star saying that Ontario today is one of the worst provinces in Canada when it comes to the amount and growing of poverty.

That’s shameful. Who is most affected by this? Often it’s seniors, our parents, the people who don’t ever call on the government. They’re the ones who built this country.

They should be ashamed with Bill 2. It’s nothing but something in the window to say they’re addressing the issue of seniors and poverty in Ontario. It’s shameful.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Madam Speaker, picking up on the comments of my colleague, I read the report as well, and there are some very startling issues if you look at what Ontario’s position and the rest of Canada’s is in terms of our ability to address the growing inequality, the growing poverty in our country. At one point we were leading the country, as a province, in terms of our investments in addressing inequality, and particularly “equality of opportunity.” That was language that was used in the report: that to balance the equality of opportunity, investment needs to be made into various programs and services.

The hardest hit when it comes to poverty would be those who are most vulnerable. Those who are most vulnerable would be our two most vulnerable demographics, the young and the very old, because both face obstacles when it comes to care, accessing resources, employment—obviously, when you’re very young, you can’t even work. The very old face the very same issues of access to resources, ability to work. When you’re on a fixed income, it’s particularly troubling that the rising cost of living would impact you even more. That’s obvious.

Again, looking at the perspective of seniors living in their homes, in the context of poverty and the context of how we address poverty reduction so that seniors can live in their home, this bill obviously doesn’t address that. I think that’s just a comment for us to reflect on so that we do come up with some bills, come up with some legislation that really addresses how we can address those who are facing poverty and their inability to face the rising cost of living.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thanks to all who provided comments, as well.

The member from London–Fanshawe, speaking on the significance of more home care: Bill 2 doesn’t provide increased home care for seniors.

I was up in the northern part of my riding just the other day for a 95th birthday. Gerald Trumble is his name, and it was in Gilmour, at the community centre. There were a number of seniors who were there, of course, and I was speaking with them. That is the biggest concern out there right now: “Are we going to be able to get the care that we want and need in our home?”

I was speaking with a woman named Irene, who has two steel knees. She was telling me about the fact that she can only get care for one and a half hours a week, and she can hardly even move around her house. The care just isn’t there because the money is being wasted at the provincial level on boondoggles like Ornge and cancelling power plants for $190 million so we can save four Liberal seats. The priorities are in the wrong place with this government.

I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough as well, and I can assure him that the Rob Ray sign is still there in Stirling. Matt Cooke’s name is on it as well. Stirling, of course, is Hockeyville, and I know that the Home Hardware on West Front Street was happy for the plug this morning.

The member from Durham and the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton spoke about the gap that exists in the Toronto Star story, indicating that Ontario is the worst in Canada when it comes to growing poverty. Is the government doing anything to address this problem? Are the policy-makers doing anything over there to address this problem?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Yes.

Mr. Todd Smith: The member from Scarborough East says yes. This bill certainly does not do that. This bill is just about more spending, and it’s about more window dressing to make it appear that the government is doing anything.

As I said earlier, Bill 2 is all about window dressing for this government. It does absolutely nothing to help seniors get the care that they need when they need it the most.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Barrie.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to rise and speak again to the House about issues that affect seniors in Ontario. The topic is especially important, given that seniors make up 14.6% of our population. This percentage, by anybody’s estimation, is going to skyrocket in the coming years. Thus, determining efficient, cost-effective ways of ensuring well-being to our seniors and to alleviate the financial stresses that they see and they face now and in the future is a worthwhile and necessary cause, certainly.

Yet by pursuing Bill 2, the healthy homeowners act, the Liberal government downplays the seriousness of the well-being of our senior citizens by producing a bill that is just window dressing masquerading as an initiative that serves Ontario’s seniors. I’ll tell you this: There are a lot of storefronts in downtown Barrie that could use some window dressing—

Interjection: Right across Ontario.

Mr. Rod Jackson: —and right across Ontario. In reality, it only helps a wealthy few who don’t need it and ignores most of the real issues that seniors actually are facing today.

Given that the median income for seniors for this rebate is $25,000 a year for singles, they would have to spend half their income to receive a measly $1,500 maximum at the end of their tax credit. That seems like a lot to ask.

When I’ve talked to seniors in Barrie, they say that they need their entire income for the everyday necessities of life, and there’s little left over for expensive house renovations. Most of us don’t have a lot left over for expensive home renovations, never mind people on a fixed income.

This bill excludes most of Ontario’s senior population, as other speakers have mentioned. We don’t really know the true number of the people that it actually affects—namely, those with an average or lesser income, who could use financial assistance the most—in favour of only helping the wealthy, who need it the least and have the means to make those renovations, regardless of a tax credit.

Why are the Liberals planning on spending $60 million by March, if this bill passes, on something that only helps those who probably don’t even really need it? It sounds like more of the same ways that the government became known for, the waste that has put us on the path to a $30-billion deficit if we don’t take action now.

Some of my Liberal colleagues have argued that a bill that helps some is good enough, and that the fact that this bill may not help most seniors is not a good reason to oppose it. I disagree. It is exactly this “good enough” philosophy or mediocrity that has brought Ontario into this tough position of having to cut a giant deficit. Ontarians deserve and want value for their tax dollars, not a half-hearted, feel-good attempt to fix social issues by simply throwing money at them.

This bill seems to exemplify why our health care system is one of the most expensive in the world and yet ranks below our peers in quality. Among OECD countries, Canada is second from the bottom only to the United States, and even they exceed us in some measures. Ontario deserves better. Bill 2 is not good enough.

Let’s face it: Thanks to hardships such as ongoing tax hikes—despite this Liberal government’s promises not to raise taxes, I might add—and rapidly rising energy costs—not aided by this government’s misguided focus on green energy experimentation such as wind farms—seniors are facing a rising cost of living every single day. This is not going to get any better if we continue down this path, spiralling towards a $30-billion deficit. Bill 2 only slaps a band-aid on a wound that needs stitches.

It’s easy to agree that we are all 100% for supporting the well-being of Ontario’s seniors; that’s obvious. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. But let’s make sure that we’re all actually helping seniors—all of them, not just a few of them, not just the wealthy seniors. Beyond the obvious fact that most seniors could not even afford the necessary renovations to receive the tax credit, even if they have the money, the tax credit does not apply to some of the things that seniors need most for living.

This tax break doesn’t cover important things like walking devices or wheelchairs, or general repairs like roofing, plumbing or electricity, or services such as snow removal. You know how many calls I get from seniors looking for options for snow removal because they can’t afford to clear their driveways for an ambulance to pull in, in case of emergency?

These are financial costs of everyday life in Ontario. These are the types of burdens that seniors have been telling me they actually need help with, and these are the costs that we should be focusing on. After all, what’s the point of having wider hallways for your wheelchair if you can’t afford to buy one in the first place? What’s the point of spending half your yearly income on a wheel-in shower if you can’t afford your hydro bill?

If we truly focused on helping seniors, we would be debating bills that target the high costs of energy; ways to make our health care system more efficient; ways to provide more beds for a seniors’ home; and providing the resources to enable better home care—just to name a few—not spending months of valuable time debating a costly, ineffective and wasteful bill that does little to address the true stresses that seniors face on a day-to-day basis in Ontario.

This seems to me like another example of mismanagement and irresponsibility on the part of this government—the same mismanagement that allowed eHealth, Ornge and even the upcoming ARL, that is spiraling out of control; the same as the looming $30-billion deficit that is before us.

Mr. John O’Toole: What’s the ARL?

Mr. Rod Jackson: The ARL is the air-rail link.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh, yes.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Yes.

Let me take a moment to speak about the cost of this bill, or rather, $60 million by March alone, not to mention that the program has not been costed out for yearly expenses. Bill 2 may produce some expensive surprises at the end of the year.

There’s also no mention of where this funding for this bill would come from—sort of an important point when this government is running a huge debt. Usually, you figure that stuff out before you spend it, not after you spend it.

These two things seem to be both odd and irresponsible, given the extensive reformations necessary to keep our province afloat and our finances afloat, as dictated in the recent Drummond report. Remember the Drummond report?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I do.

Mr. Rod Jackson: That’s good.

By the way, given that Mr. Drummond was given $1,500 a day for his work, you’d think this government would take the suggestions of their dear, well-compensated friend maybe just a little bit more seriously.

If we continue down this road, we’ll not only be neglecting the well-being of seniors today, but we will be ill-equipped to help the quickly aging population of middle-class Ontarians who are concerned about the adequacy of their retirement income and their levels of coverage. With a growing number of seniors, it is not only important that we find ways to alleviate excess financial strains but that we get it right. We can’t afford not to, and this bill certainly cannot afford not to get it right.

Right now, most middle-income Ontarians are not saving enough to guarantee a decent income and quality of life into retirement. Given the tough reality of the economy that Ontarians face, it means that Ontarians will continue to have little money left over to save for retirement in the future.

Just recently, I visited a few retirement homes. They now have a new tax, or fee, or whatever you’d like to call it today—$10 a month. They’re already complaining about 10 extra dollars, because they can’t increase their income. They’re on a fixed income. You can’t keep squeezing these people. You’ve got to actually help them where it means something.

I feel like it would be impossible to justify this expensive bill to ordinary Ontarians who are just wondering why we seem to be spending enormous amounts of money giving tax breaks to the rich, who could afford to benefit from this bill, when they are worried about putting food on their table, keeping their kids in university and how they’re even supposed to save enough for retirement when their job may be on the line; nor could I justify the healthy homeowners act to a caregiver who supports an elderly parent living at home and is worried about how he or she will be able to pay the hydro bill and fix that leaky plumbing in the basement.

He or she can’t afford the $10,000 in renovations that would do nothing to increase the value of their house. It seems ridiculous to say, “Well, she could spend less and still get a break.”

Let’s be honest: A 15% tax credit on even a $500 investment is only a paltry $75, not even enough to get groceries for a month—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It might fill your car.

Mr. Rod Jackson: It might fill your car, yes.

Enough is enough. Ontarians want and deserve better. It’s time that this government starts addressing the real issues at hand. Stop giving window dressing to real problems. Let’s talk about stimulating the economy and getting our spending back on track. It’s time for this government to remember that value and quality matter and pay off in the long run.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I listened to the member from Barrie. He made some important points. Certainly, if anybody read that report on the state of Ontario, we would be shocked to discover that we are 10th out of 10 in just about every marker in terms of economic or ethical health, I would say, because any province that’s willing to tolerate the levels of poverty and joblessness we are needs to give its head a shake.

We hear from across the aisle that the government has been doing something about this. Well, Madam Speaker, they’ve had nine years—nine years—only one of which has been a minority government. The rest has been a majority government. They could have done anything they wanted to do legislatively, and yet, nine years later, we are in this situation in Ontario.

And seniors play a

part in that, because many of our seniors live in poverty. Let me tell you that the two reasons that seniors have to leave their homes have nothing to do with this tax credit.

(1) It’s that they can’t afford their energy bills or their property taxes, and those are significant; or (2) that they need human help in the home. To the member who says, “Well, it’s not just about the $10,000 that you put in; you can actually spend less and get a tax credit,” quite frankly, putting grab bars around a bathtub is not the reason seniors can stay in their homes or have to leave their homes. That’s proven. Not only that, but if you look at Quebec, who did it better, you can actually get the money up front for doing some necessary renovations.

This doesn’t even kick in until tax time, so you have to put the money up front, and seniors don’t have any money to put up front. They barely have money, many of them, to pay the rent, pay the mortgage and pay for food. He’s absolutely right. This is window-dressing. However, here’s our point in the New Democratic Party: It helps a few; very few.

We say, let’s move on. We’re trying to make this government work. We want to move this legislation through so we can get to what we really need, we hope.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: It gives me great pleasure to speak today to this tax credit in support of seniors. I’ve heard from seniors in my riding who want to stay in their homes. We know that one of the greatest reasons for senior hospital visits is falls, falls that could be avoided by grab bars, by lifts, by specific medical supplies.

This is but one support that will assist seniors. Let’s look at some of the supports that we’ve provided: energy and property tax credits, personal income tax cuts, an Ontario sales tax credit, property tax grants and improvements to home care services. These are all elements of our Aging at Home strategy, a strategy that contains a number of elements to help seniors stay healthy and to live with dignity and independence in the comfort of their own homes.

I was a member of the committee that reviewed this bill, where delegations came forward from seniors’ groups, from suppliers, from contractors, all of whom are supportive and want to see this move forward. I was there when delegations were aghast with the holdups that were taking place at committee over this bill.

We heard from the March of Dimes of Canada, who said that this was a needed complementary tool; from CARP, who polled their membership, over half of whom indicated they would use this tax credit; from the Alzheimer Society, who told us that they congratulated the government for taking a step forward in helping seniors, that this responded directly to the concerns they hear from caregivers. We heard from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, who called it a tremendous opportunity; Motion Specialties, who indicated that this would be a welcome program.

For all the comments against this bill that we’re not providing enough, I say again: At least this government has a strategy. Through various elements outlined above, we are helping thousands of our seniors throughout the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Again, I’ve spoken to this bill before, but my esteemed colleague from Barrie makes some very good points, that, again, this is just window dressing, and this government has become very good at dressing up the windows. It’s almost like Christmas, and you’re a little kid walking by the store and you see all the great little things that Home Hardware has to offer, but even though there are great items in the Home Hardware, both in Stirling—and I would also suggest there is a great Home Hardware in Campbellford, on Grand Road. My esteemed colleague from Peterborough might want to check it out.

It’s a new facility, and it’s great to have them in town. They do wonderful things.

But getting to the point of what this bill actually does for seniors: Again, the NDP and ourselves make some very strong points that the individuals who are going to actually access this benefit already have the money to invest in home renovation so that they can stay in their homes. It sounds good. I mean, I truly believe that this government’s intentions were there to do the right thing, but as we’ve seen over and over again, this government doesn’t think through the process and doesn’t think about the actual impact it is going to have.

Again, when I was door-knocking, and when I’m out in my riding even to this day, Madam Speaker, seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford to even stay in their homes because of the skyrocketing price of utilities. So this bill is nothing more than window dressing.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: I also agree with my colleague from the opposition that this is another half-measure bill brought forward by the Liberals: $10,000––who can afford $10,000 with seniors?

Madam Speaker, 20% of the people in my riding live below the poverty level; they can’t even pay their hydro bill. These are the people who live in terrible conditions, housing that requires more insulation, houses that need new windows, things like this. They can’t afford that.

I don’t know where this government thinks that this is going to be beneficial. It’s only going to be beneficial to maybe the upper middle class or even higher. They can afford––who can afford to borrow $10,000 in the first place to get the work done?

If you borrow the $10,000, then you’ve got to pay the tradespeople to put it in, and they’re going to charge HST on their services. It eliminates the whole process.

Then they say, “Well, you don’t have to spend $10,000. You can spend $2,000 on something for your home.” What kind of benefit are you going to get on $2,000 after you pay HST and you borrow the money to do it? There are very small, small savings.

It reminds me of the bill they brought forward for sports. They’re going to give every family $50 a year or $100, depending on the sport. I could sharpen my skates maybe five or six times when I played hockey for $50. What is that going to do? I mean, it’s almost an insult. If you really want to help somebody, maybe help them with their cost of signing up to play, their registration fees, if you’re going to do something. Take the HST off of that.

But the things they’re doing are just to please the public, to make it look like they’re helping seniors, like they’re helping children. They’re doing all these things. It’s just a fog screen they’re putting forward. These things are ineffective. They’re small. They’re Timbits, if you want to call it that way. I hope the public is not buying it and that they understand that this is another ruse by the Liberal government.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Barrie has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Thank you for the comments from my colleagues. There’s one thing that’s certainly clear, and it’s that it’s time to get serious about this stuff. This is a half measure, clearly, that doesn’t really do what it says it’s going to do. It doesn’t benefit seniors in any wholesome, fulsome way to stay in their homes.

The things that are kicking seniors out of their homes are the fact that they can’t afford their insurance, they can’t afford the roofing, they can’t afford their property taxes, they can’t afford the upkeep of their property. They can’t afford the roofing; they can’t afford the average things that all of us pay for in our homes. What does this do to help them with that?

What about people who, when I go to their homes, they tell me about how—I tell this story a lot, but it’s really telling—they actually have their finances out of jars? They have a jar for the food and a jar for their heating and a jar for their rent and a jar for whatever else. When one of those jars runs out, they’ve got to go into the next jar. That means they’re sacrificing something, something like their rent that month, something like their food that month. They’re sacrificing something. What about helping them?

What about helping the seniors that are actually in homes who have already been kicked out of their homes? You’re actually charging them $10 a month on a whole different subject. So you’re actually taking money from them, too. Is that to pay for this? I don’t know.

These are the people, my mom and dad, your mom and dad, and some of these people sitting here in this room, like the member from Durham perhaps, who have a real concern about where this is going. We need to take care of this growing number of seniors in our province, and we’re not doing it in a real fulsome, wholesome way.

If you really want to get serious and you really want to help them and you really want to make a difference, do something about it. Don’t put window dressing on it. Actually stand up, take a stand and do something to help these people stay in their homes.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate.

Mr. John O’Toole: To put things in context, today is September 11, and the member from Dufferin–Caledon, in her opening remarks, reminded each of us how important today is in terms of protecting democracy.

Isn’t it ironic that today we’re also going to vote on Bill 115, which is expunging rights of teachers, some of whom are here today? I think that this speaks very loudly to Premier McGuinty. This bill number 2 is an example—and I’m going to use some of the terms that have been used by people here. It’s a bill of half measures, it’s a bill of window dressing, and it’s a bill—some people say it’s a lot to do about nothing.

The real issue here—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: See how they’ve come alive now. They haven’t said a word this morning—not a word this morning—and now, all of a sudden, they’ve been engaged. It’s so sad when you think of it—of the real goals and what the plan here is of this government. It is tragic now that they’re barracking over there.

I’ll put it in a broader context. Here’s what the bill is. Listen up, and you’ll actually learn something that’s actually true.

This bill number 2 is a healthy homes tax credit. Here’s what’s really happening: They have not built one single long-term-care bed, so there’s nowhere for seniors to go.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: When you have your time, you can explain all that you did.

The next thing they did, Madam Speaker, was, they actually started to regulate. They had a regulation to govern retirement homes. Now here’s the issue as well.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Listen to Mr. Duguid over there.

The retirement homes issue is this: There isn’t five cents of government money in a retirement home, and yet by setting this up, there’s going to be a tax on seniors in retirement homes now, thanks to the McGuinty government. They’ve increased the costs of even retirement homes, but there’s no provincial money in them.

The context of Bill 2 is this: They’re going to say Aging at Home—that’s the strategy. Now, what does the Aging at Home strategy really mean? It actually means aging alone at home, because if you listen to your constituents, the seniors, they’re going to tell you they can’t get any hours of care. What are the people in remote and rural Ontario going to do—have a nurse drive for four hours so they can get private-duty nursing or care?

This bill is nothing but window dressing, as has been said by almost all of the speakers this morning.

In a broader sense, an

article that I referred to earlier, dated August 30, in the Toronto Star—and its title is this: “Ontario Worst for Inequality.” It starts out by proclaiming that, under Premier McGuinty, “Ontario is the worst in Canada when it comes to growing poverty, increasing income inequality….”

It goes on to say, “‘It is time for Ontarians—including our policy-makers—to face the disturbing facts about inequality in our province,’ says the report entitled Falling Behind: Ontario’s Backslide into Widening Inequality, Growing Poverty and Cuts to Social Programs.”

That’s the real statement here, and that’s why they’re so silent.

They really have become quite elitist, I believe, in their attitude that we don’t need the teachers anymore. “We don’t need the public sector. We don’t need anyone. We can do it. I’m Premier McGuinty, and I’m infallible,” or whatever.

My point is this: This bill is just exactly what most people understand it to be: window dressing.

Here’s the real issue. To get the full credit of the $1,000, it’s important to recognize that you have to spend $10,000. Now, if you spend $10,000, you’re going to have spent $1,300 in tax—that’s with the HST—because there’s tax on the labour and the services, and there’s tax on the permits, all of which is revenue to the province. But what are they giving you back? They’re giving you part of your HST back.

The seniors who can afford to do this—it’s shameful. This government should be ashamed of what they’ve done to seniors. They’re ramming this stuff down their throats like they are on many occasions to a lot of issues.

So I stand here myself, listening to the speeches in the last month or two—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m quite concerned that even the cabinet ministers that are here and yelling back to me, trying to overshout the person that’s trying to make some input—what I want you to do here is this: Take a second look at this bill. Take a look at this bill, and try and actually get it right. Give the HST back to people, at least.

I’m quite amazed, Madam Speaker, that they’ve been silent for the last couple of minutes. I hope they’re contrite that what I’ve said—all of which is true. There are less long-term-care beds, less home care, and less money for health care in this province, especially drugs. Who’s going to be most affected? The seniors.

This bill, which in the budget is forecast to be $60 million, is a drop in the bucket of what’s really needed to make homes accommodate persons to age in their own homes, which I believe would be the preferred choice. But there have to be other options for people that are available and accessible to the families in Ontario today. Most of us should reflect for a moment and think of our own parents or loved ones or those with special needs, because they’re the ones that are being left behind, as referred to in the

article that I cited in the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star is generally very amicable with the Liberal Party. In fact, I would call the Toronto Star the Liberal briefing notes. Basically, that’s what they are.

The founder of the Toronto Star, Joe Atkinson, was honoured this past weekend in my riding because he was actually born in my riding, in Newcastle. “Holy Joe” is what they called him. He was a wonderful person, a caring person. You tell me in your two-minute response to my remarks here this morning—

Mr. Paul Miller: There won’t be any.

Mr. John O’Toole: Anyway, in my two-minute response, I want to hear them say that I’m right.

Interjection: You’ll be waiting a long time, John.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like them to refute what I’ve said. I put it out there. Say what they’re going to do; that’s what debate is about.

Bill 2 was introduced in November, right after the election. It was kind of an olive branch to the seniors, who are being left behind. We’ve been talking about it for ages now. November 23 was when it was introduced. It’s quite a small bill in terms of what it actually does, but there are so many rules of how you qualify for the money, what qualifies and what does not qualify. If it increases the value of your home, it doesn’t qualify.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Obviously this gentleman from Ottawa hasn’t read the bill. I question if he has even read it. They’ve just got the speaking notes handed to them, and they read them. That’s all they do. It’s shameful. I tell you, I’m waiting until this afternoon, because there will be a few people here this morning and this afternoon when the vote occurs, and I want to see what they are really standing up for—the people of Ontario, or are they just absent without excuses?

Anyway, Madam Speaker, I’d like to have had more time.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to introduce and to welcome the mother and older brother of page Zakhar Husak, Ms. Danusia Burdyk-Husak and Lukian Husak, who are visiting us today in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As always, we welcome our guests.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to introduce a representative from the OSSTF, Heather Megill, who is in our gallery behind us. Welcome.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to welcome Leah Nelson. She’s in the members’ gallery today. She’s a first-year global and political studies student at York University who’s visiting Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. Further introductions?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I would like to introduce Fred Hahn, head of CUPE Ontario, in today’s audience.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Seeing none, I would ask that our pages gather to be introduced. It’s too easy. It’s too easy.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon.

Dave Levac): I would ask that all members join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages, serving for the first session of the 40th Parliament: from Etobicoke Centre, Christina Boothby; from Thornhill, Roberto Fusciardi; from Oak Ridges–Markham, Parnika Godkhindi; from Mississauga South, Jasper Hébert; from Hamilton Centre, Zakhar Husak; from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Patrick Kyte; from Brampton–Springdale, Simran Mann; from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Sydney McCluskey; from Mississauga–Brampton South, Sashin Narayan; from Ottawa Centre, Mathilde Papillon; from Ajax–Pickering, Katherine Parker; from Whitby–Oshawa, Andrew Rudback; from Oxford, Jenna Rutherford; from Niagara Falls, Ethan Seaver; from Peterborough, Maya Stibbards-Lyle; from Mississauga–Erindale, Maggie Street; from Beaches–East York, Caelius Tarantino; from Trinity–Spadina, Leo Toueg; from Scarborough–Agincourt, Anna Wang; and from Halton, Jacqueline Wu.

Welcome, and thank you.

Applause.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, August 27, 2012, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, Mr. Klees, rose on a point of privilege concerning an anonymous document that had been distributed to members of this House, the Queen’s Park press gallery and an undetermined number of other individuals.

In his point of privilege, the member claimed that the document, entitled The Frank Klees Report, impugned his integrity and that it was clearly intended to intimidate and obstruct him from carrying out his duties as they are related to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the committee’s review of the Auditor General’s report on Ornge air ambulance. After reviewing the member’s written submission and the Hansard from August 27, I am now prepared to give my ruling.

Parliamentary privilege is defined by Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice as “the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively ... and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their function, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”

Included in these rights, as enumerated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, is the member’s freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. The text notes that “The unjust damaging of a member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions.”

The document in question raised by Mr. Klees, which is undated, contains seven pages of resumé-style information about the member’s educational background and purported involvement in a number of business ventures. In making his point of privilege, the member from Newmarket–Aurora drew a parallel between the existence of this document affecting him and the posting of videos on YouTube earlier this year that directly targeted the Canadian Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Vic Toews.

After reviewing the document of which the member complains, I have to say that I’m not able to find a realistic threat, specific or general, against the member from Newmarket–Aurora. This is an important consideration when considering the relevance of the Toews matter in the case at hand.

A key aspect of House of Common Speakers Scheer’s finding of the prima facie case of privilege in support of Mr. Toews was his conclusion that, “When duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.” Speaker Scheer went on to say, “I have carefully reviewed the online videos in which the language used does indeed constitute a direct threat to the minister in particular, as well as other members. These threats demonstrate a flagrant disregard of our traditions and a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of this House.”

The Klees document, while sinister and disturbing in its own right, does not rise to the level of an obvious threat directed to the minister last February.

In further considering how to address this point of privilege, I have found the following passage from Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, by Joseph Maingot, to be helpful. He states, “Whether a parliamentary privilege is violated depends on the nature and extent of any particular privilege claimed by Parliament in relation to the circumstances of the time, the underlying test in all cases being whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament.

Therefore, all interferences with members’ privileges of freedoms of speech, such as editorial or other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body which may influence the conduct of a member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the member to take or refrain from taking a particular course.

But any attempt by improper means to influence a member in his parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with members’ parliamentary work is always of question depending on the facts of the case. Finally, there must be some connection between the material alleged to contain the interference and the parliamentary proceeding.”

Also on this theme, the 24th edition of Erskine May on page 263 states, “Written imputations, as affecting a member of Parliament, may amount to contempt, without, perhaps, being libels at common law, but to constitute a contempt a libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity.”

In reviewing the Klees document, I can find no single connection between it and, as the member claims, his work on the public accounts committee or any other parliamentary proceeding. The member alleges this connection, and claims an attempt to intimidate him as a consequence, but the document itself is completely silent on the member’s parliamentary work. Further, the member for Newmarket–Aurora has made no claim that the document interfered with his ability to perform his normal parliamentary roles, including his work on the public accounts committee.

I am therefore unable to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has been made out.

However, I have previously referred to the sinister nature of the document in question. While not expressly stated by its unknown author, this unsigned document can realistically serve no other purpose than to attempt to impugn the integrity of its subject. It was prepared and presented in a matter that invites the reader to accept its innuendo and its litany of guilt by association as fact.

I therefore join the chorus of condemnation that members from all parties of this House expressed on the day the member for Newmarket–Aurora raised his point of privilege, and I hope the likes of documents such as this one will not be seen again.

I thank the members for their contributions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m continuing with the Premier on our call for closing down health bureaucracy so we can invest in better patient care, more nurses and personal support workers.

My question is to the Premier. You’ve created these new bureaucracies of middle management called LHINs. You’ve put North York in with Cook’s Bay, while Scarborough is in the same LHIN as Borden; Northwest Toronto is in a LHIN with Caledon. Basically you sliced up Toronto into five different pieces, and grouped different parts of Toronto with areas outside of the Toronto area.

So Premier, can you tell me: What is the community of interest between North York and Cook’s Bay, between Scarborough and Borden? How do these boundaries make any sense?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted that the member opposite is actually starting to ask questions about LHINs and the good work they do.

To answer that question, Speaker, the boundaries of the LHINs were determined based on referral patterns. People come from an area around Scarborough, for example, to receive services there. So there is logic behind those boundaries.

But I think it’s important to say that our health care system serves all people in Ontario. Those LHIN boundaries do not exist for patients. They deserve to get the care they need, where they need it, when they need it.

That is what we are committed to continuing to do: to strengthen the LHINs and to bring more providers into the LHINs. I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m not sure if I got it. I didn’t get an answer from the Premier, because these boundaries make no sense whatsoever. They’re not in the interests of patients or health care. The community of interest—if you want to argue somehow and tie yourself into a pretzel, Premier, that Scarborough and Borden have that community, or Cook’s Bay and North York.

We have a better model, Speaker: to actually have it in the community, to build on hospitals that are working and to knit together the various parts of our system between home care, community care, hospital care and long-term care. Instead of having people getting the runaround, instead of having people in our offices in tears because their mom or dad can’t get a long-term-care bed, work together, eliminate the middle management and invest in patient care. Even Don Drummond said your current system of LHINs is not working.

Choose a path. Are you doing LHINs 2.0 or a better path, one that organizes by the community, in the best interests of patients and invests in front-line care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I think if there’s anyone confused here, it’s the Leader of the Opposition. I’m just confused. Are you talking about eliminating LHINs, or are you talking about moving those boundaries?

The work that we are doing to improve health care is getting demonstrated results. But I have to say, I did have a chance to read your pathway to nowhere paper, and it contains some very alarming language. Let me read from page 12 of your document. The Ontario PCs clearly state they want to create “competition between hospitals and independent health facilities.”

So my question for the Leader of the Opposition is: Is this the Shaun Francis solution? Are you actually setting up for private delivery of health care in the province of Ontario? It’s time for you to come clean and admit—

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

Leader.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m glad the minister actually now has taken the time to read our document, because it is the right path forward. A new approach is going to improve patient care.

So the minister asks about page 12. Here’s the example that we talk about: the Kensington eye clinic, which is doing eye surgeries, I think on a contract from the University Health Network, and that was actually approved by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government and probably Minister Matthews. So I don’t know if you’re flip-flopping now, if you’re saying that the Kensington eye clinic should be shut down. If that’s the case, Minister, say that’s where you now stand.

I disagree. I think they’re doing a good job there, paid for under the OHIP umbrella: more procedures, better-quality care. I don’t know why you’re turning your back on something you actually did right for a change.

Let me ask you this, Minister. In your own backyard, the South West LHIN has hit two out of 14 of their goals. Do you give two out of 14 a passing grade?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am even more concerned now than I was when I read the document—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I stand, you stop.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am more concerned now than I was when I read the document, because I thought, when the Leader of the Opposition actually asked the question straight up, “Are you opening the door to for-profit delivery?” he would stand in his place and say no. The Kensington model that he talks about is one that we believe in and talk about in our action plan. It is a not-for-profit model.

The people of this province want to know from the opposition: Are you for for-profit delivery or are you committed to not-for-profit delivery in our hospitals?

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Honest to God, this minister must be so distracted by Ornge and her failure to get a deal with the doctors that she has no idea what’s actually going on in her own Ministry of Health today, this September of 2012.

You’ve done this with Kensington health clinic. You’ve done it with other cornea replacements, for example. You’ve done it with Shouldice. The list goes on. If you’re going to close those down, then get on your feet today and say you’re going to close them down. But we’ve got a better approach that actually invests in patient care, coordinates care, because, right now, under Dalton McGuinty, if you don’t fight like hell for a loved one in the health care system, too often you get left behind. We’ll put patients, not bureaucrats, at the centre of our system.

I’ll ask the minister the question that she dodged. In your very own backyard, two out of 14 of the goals were hit by the South West LHIN. I know you’ve got a lot of friends there. You may have helped to appoint the CEO. But if they only hit two out of 14 of their goals, why did you give the CEO a pay raise when we’re supposed to have pay freezes across the board?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you know, yesterday we called the document “pathway to nowhere.” In fact, I think today we can confirm that the title of that document should be “pathway to privatization.” The opposition party has put forth a plan that will take us in the direction of US health care. There are many examples internationally that we should be looking at, but the US model is not one of them.

We remain committed to not-for-profit delivery in our hospitals, and I would like the opposition to stand up and say, “We, too, are committed to the Ontario model, the Canadian model of not-for-profit health care.” Will he or will he not do that? Clarify this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The problem, Speaker, is that this minister is committed to the bureaucratic model of health care. Ours is one that puts patients first and brings services together.

Minister, two out of 14 targets were met by the South West LHIN, your own region. Your good friend Michael Barrett was given a pay raise under your leadership for hitting two out of 14 targets, when I thought people were supposed to have their wages frozen. What does this mean for average families in southwestern Ontario? Cancer wait times did not hit the target; cataract surgery—way above target; patients needing hip replacement surgery in the South West LHIN—way beyond target; knee replacement surgery––outside of target; and emergency length of stay––too long.

We will take out the layers of bureaucracy, the middle management, stop the paper-pushing from going to the inbox, to the outbox, and invest in nurses, personal support workers and health care, not bureaucrats. Why won’t you take a better path forward?

Interjections.

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

Another quick reminder that when you’re asking the question, the members might want to let the question be put—and the same with the answers.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the Leader of the Opposition has a newfound interest in health care, so let me educate the member opposite about wait times in the South West LHIN. Hip replacement has gone down by 215 days, a 62% decrease; knee replacement wait times have dropped by 153 days from when you were in charge, down 43%; cataract surgery is down by 23 days; MRI outpatients by 58 days—it’s been cut in half; CT outpatients by 49 days—since you were in charge, we have cut CT wait times in half.

Are we there yet? No. Are we well on our way? Yes, we are.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: That is a recipe for failure. Two out of 14 of your goals? That’s not on the way to progress; that’s going backwards. I wouldn’t give the guy a raise; I’d fire him and actually clear out the whole bureaucracy.

Minister, the LHIN in my home area, the Hamilton Niagara LHIN, is no better: two out of 14 targets hit. We’ve got a brand new, shiny LHIN office for the bureaucrats who don’t spend a minute with patients, and the hospital has gone nowhere. That’s not progress; that’s a step backwards.

This is our plan, a path for prosperity: patient-centred health care that puts the interests of the patients first. Your plan—a byway to bureaucracy, a detour to deficits, a road map to the runaround for patients—is going to come to an end. Our plan will put patients at the centre of the health care system.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’re very concerned about the member opposite’s commitment to privatize the delivery of health care. We’re also very concerned about his plan to eliminate oversight. He wants to fire 4,000 nurses. That is in the plan. You want to eliminate the oversight that we think is vitally important.

When they were in office—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members will come to order, and when I’m standing, there’s no talking. Thank you.

Minister, finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this paper that was released yesterday is nothing but a recipe for disaster. It is full of holes. It does not hold water. It will eliminate the oversight and responsibility to ensure that the money goes to the right places so that people get the care they need.

We’ve made tremendous progress. There’s more to do. I’m proud of the work we’ve done. This is not a solution.

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last fall, the Premier campaigned on a plan to deal with Ontario’s deficit. I have a simple question: Does the Premier still stand beside the plan? Does he stand by the plan that he campaigned on just about a year ago?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I certainly stand by the budget that was so enthusiastically supported by my honourable colleague, the leader of the NDP.

Our plan, at the highest—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, that plan consists, at the highest level, of doing what Ontario families want us to do. They want us to get hold of the deficit; they want us to put in place a plan that provides for its elimination over time in a responsible way. They want us to protect the quality of education we deliver to their children. They want to protect the quality of health care that’s delivered to everybody in the family. That is our plan. That’s what we intend to keep moving forward on, and we’re pleased to have the very support of the leader of the NDP with respect to the plan as it’s found in our budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier had known about the financial challenges facing this province for some time—at least, he should have. Why did he, during last fall’s election, explicitly promise not to introduce the sort of simplistic, unconstitutional legislation that he’s planning on passing in a little while?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, if my honourable colleague is advocating for a social contract-type approach, we reject that. I want to make that perfectly clear. My honourable colleague believes we should be giving teachers a pay hike. She believes we should be giving doctors a pay hike. She believes we should be giving everybody in the broader public sector a pay hike. She also believes that we should subsidize horse racing in Ontario and we should subsidize the ONTC. That’s not leadership; that’s follower-ship.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Leadership is about making decisions. It’s about making choices on behalf of Ontario families, and families are saying to us, “Give our kids a quality education and give us a strong economy so my child, when she grows up, has access to a good job,” and that’s what we’re delivering on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what I can tell you for sure is that I believe that respectful conversations with all of the people who make this province work is the only leadership that we need in Ontario.

Parents want what’s best for their daughters and sons when they send them to school in the morning. But when they look at their government, they see a Premier who is passionately arguing for the same plan that he passionately argued against not even a year ago. How can the parents of this province trust this Premier when he’s putting forward a plan that he himself dismissed as being reckless and simplistic?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontario parents know where we stand when it comes to publicly funded education in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Northumberland will come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They know we stand for smaller classes. They know we stand for higher test scores. They know we stand for higher graduation rates. They know we stand—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: No, you don’t. You lowered the bar.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Northumberland is warned.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They know we stand for a full-day kindergarten program. It’s the first program of its kind in North America. I think this year we’ll open our doors to 120,000 three-, four- and five-year-olds. By 2014, it’ll be open to 250,000 of our youngest learners. That sets them on a path for progress in achievement not just in elementary school but in secondary school and in post-secondary education as well. Ontario parents know where we stand when it comes to publicly funded—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Do the honourable thing, Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As the warning was given, the member for Northumberland–Quinte West is named.

Stop the clock, please.

Mr. Milligan was escorted from the chamber.

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

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I can tell you is that last week, the people of Kitchener–Waterloo decided that they were not going to support a government that first and foremost stands for Liberals. Parents want a plan that puts their kids first, and they’re tired of a government that seems to do anything but that.

Even the Premier’s own MPPs are scrambling to distance themselves from this simplistic and unconstitutional plan. Why is the Premier so determined to push ahead with a plan that he himself has criticized, he himself knows won’t work and his own MPPs can’t even support?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I would recommend to my honourable colleague that she in fact read, if not the wording of the actual decisions in both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal—that she at least get a hold of a

summary prepared by an independent third party.

If my honourable colleague takes a long, hard look at the legislation, she will understand. What it does, Speaker, is it protects some 20,000 jobs inside our schools; it protects the progress we continue to make in full-day kindergarten; it protects smaller class sizes; it protects progress inside our schools. That’s what it does. It strikes an appropriate balance, given our fiscal times.

My honourable colleague honestly feels that it’s appropriate at this point in our history that we give teachers a pay hike; we disagree.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier believes that his simplistic legislation is going to stand up to a court challenge, but what he refuses to acknowledge is that more and more legal experts are coming forward to express their serious concerns. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says that they doubt that the bill is constitutional. Professors at Osgoode Hall Law School note that the fact that you’ve simply bargained for six months—or any period of time—isn’t the case law. That’s what they’re saying at Osgoode Hall. I’d ask the Premier to listen to some of those experts.

The Premier says this is going to work; they say he’s wrong. Why should anybody believe him?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate my honourable colleague’s

interpretations of the jurisprudence, Speaker, but I see it a little bit differently.

I think we have a shared responsibility, I would argue, to find a way, at this point in time, to ensure that we are moving towards balancing our budget, understanding that more than one half of the money that we spend in government goes into compensation; understanding that the fair, practical, reasonable, responsible and, by the way, lawful thing for us to do is to hit the pause button for a couple of years, not just with respect to teachers but with respect to doctors, with respect to all of our broader public sector partners, and to do that in a way that protects the quality of public services and protects jobs.

We think that’s exactly what our families want us to do. We think it’s fair, balanced and thoughtful, and that’s what we’re going to do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, parents want to see kids in the classroom; they don’t want to see turmoil in our schools. They want to see a plan that puts students first, not the Liberal Party first.

The Premier brought forward a plan that he knows won’t work to push an agenda that people simply are not buying. Will the Premier listen to parents, to legal experts, to educational workers and to his own MPPs and put the brakes on this reckless, reckless plan today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let’s try to assess the reckless character of what has happened so far: Schools are open; teachers are in the schools; full-day kindergarten is continuing to expand; we’re maintaining small class sizes; test scores have just gone up once again; we are maintaining our efforts to increase the graduation rate; we have a 30%-off tuition grant for our college and university students, Speaker, that has benefited our families in a challenging period of our economy. If my honourable colleague categorizes that as reckless, then I suggest that she look up the definition of “reckless” in the dictionary.

I think we are on track. We’re doing what we need to do, and we’re putting the needs of students and families first.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Minister, when your government created the LHINs in 2006, you also made a promise to conduct a review, a comprehensive review, of their performance by 2010. It’s now 2012 and this review still has not been conducted. Minister, what are you trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to have my critic back. What I can tell you is that the review of the LHINs is proceeding. We have gone through the appropriate process to get that review started by an all-party committee.

I look forward to hearing what people have to say about how we can make our LHINs stronger. I look forward to hearing about what we need to do to get better care for patients.

I also want to hear from the critic herself: Do you support privatized health care? Are you part of the Shaun Francis lobby to open up our hospitals to for-profit delivery? I am hoping that the reason your name was not on that document is because you are committed to not-for-profit delivery of health care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Minister, your LHINs are collectively only meeting 23% of their targets—it’s pathetic. The Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN met only two of 14 targets. Similarly, the Central West LHIN also met only two of 14 targets. But even worse than that, the North East LHIN met only one of 14 targets.

Minister, if you’re so proud of the LHINs’ conduct, why don’t you conduct the review that your own legislation mandates? Again, I have to ask you: What are you trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me try to be clearer this time. That review will happen. We have submitted the appropriate documentation. We’re ready to move forward with that review, because we’re committed to continuing to improve patient care.

On this issue of privatization, I’m nervous. The member from Newmarket–Aurora ran for the PC leadership on the platform of privatizing health care. He was not successful in that leadership bid. I want to know: Is the PC Party committed to not-for-profit delivery, or are you opening up the door to for-profit delivery? That is the most important question we need you answering.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. A new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives once again confirms Ontario’s record on affordability of post-secondary education in Canada. Get ready for the results: dead last. According to the CCPA, sending a kid to university in Ontario is almost three times more expensive than in Newfoundland.

The minister is reviewing post-secondary education, but this review isn’t addressing the growing challenge that middle-income families face in paying for university or college. When will the government make post-secondary education affordable for Ontario families?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s fascinating to me that the party opposite, when in government, cut student aid by 50%—50% when you sat over here. When we came to power, the budget for student aid was $380 million. This year, it will be over $1 billion.

In 1991 and 2002—those years are very important years, because the budgets for our universities and colleges were exactly the same, not adjusted for inflation. Under both parties opposite, we saw no increase. As a matter of fact, we saw half a billion dollars taken out of our college and university systems.

Since 2003, our colleges and universities have seen a 60%, 70%, 80%, 100% increase in their budgets. As a matter of fact, as the member for Whitby–Oshawa would know, the UOIT’s budget has gone up 368%. We—

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The CCPA report is clear: Ontario’s tuition grant only minimally improves affordability, because fees were already so high to begin with. Worse, fewer than one in four students get the grant, and it was paid for by cutting nine grants and bursary programs.

Will the minister finally admit the cost of post-secondary education is out of reach for too many Ontarians, and will he commit to do something about it?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Ontarians know the difference between the rhetoric of the third party and the reality of the third party. We’re going through difficult labour relations across the broader public sector. We have a clear plan that goes a hell of a lot farther with respect to collective bargaining than what they did when they were in government.

We introduced a 30%-off tuition, which is indexed, which is $1,680. That’s $1,680 more going to families than—the party that in the last election, more recently, didn’t even have an education platform. The NDP platform on education was blank—nothing for universities, nothing for colleges, nothing for high schools. Talk about putting students last. That’s the party that puts students last.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question this morning is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Over the last several weeks, there have been questions raised in this Legislature regarding access to health care throughout the province and including in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. In order to ensure that more Ontarians have access to family doctors and family health teams, residents throughout the province deserve answers on how improvements are being made.

Yesterday, the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound talked extensively about a very different plan. I worry that that member will not ask the right questions on behalf of his constituents and all Ontarians, so I will. Through you, Speaker, to the minister: What are you doing to make sure that more residents of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and all of Ontario have access to the health care they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for that question. I can tell you that making sure Ontarians, no matter where they live in this province, no matter who represents them—the best-quality health care, the best access to health care is a priority for us.

That includes the people of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. I’m very pleased to report that 95% of the people in that area now have a family doctor. There are now 219 doctors, an increase of 38 doctors—38 more doctors working there now than when we took office. That’s an increase of 20% in the number of doctors, even though we have actually seen a decline in population in some areas there. We’ve also got two new family health teams providing care to 36,000 patients. Over 5,000 of those patients did not have a doctor when the PC Party was in charge.

We will continue to improve access to care for all people, including people in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I heard something that’s a little troubling, and I will repeat myself once again to all members: I have a problem with individuals asking questions that talk about somebody else’s riding with the intent of embarrassment. I don’t like it, and I—

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t like it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Second time.

I’m asking us to raise, not lower, our decorum in this place. I’m asking us to treat each other with the respect that is deserved, as all members do. I’m going to remind you, I like the idea of asking tough questions, and I like the idea of having answers, but I don’t like the idea of moving into somebody else’s riding and trying to cause problems. I’m asking you to ensure that it stays that way.

Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. Over the past few months, we’ve heard from a number of folks on our health care situation—the Drummond report, many people—about the directions of health care, and this does include the role of our local health care organizations. Indeed, we’ve heard a very different vision yesterday on health care from the opposition party, and one that I believe puts patients at risk and would dismantle oversight that we’ve worked so hard to put in place.

Residents of Ontario deserve to know if they are being provided quality care by their LHINs and their community care access centres. Through you, Speaker, to the minister: How are Ontario residents benefiting?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me give you just one example of how Ontario residents—in this case, people in the Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound area—are benefiting from the good work of our local health integration networks. I am very pleased that, in July, the LHIN listened very carefully to the voice of residents, and they have approved a 10-bed residential hospice. Speaker, this is great news. The community has been fighting for this.

Let me read what Ruth Lovell Stanners, a very powerful former mayor of Owen Sound, a very powerful woman, a spokesman for the residential hospice, said: “‘It’s been very clear to the LHIN that our community is behind this. It’s not just the work of a few people; it’s the work of the entire two counties. We can all take satisfaction from that.’

“LHIN board chair Jeff Low confirmed that community support was the dealbreaker. ‘We got the message loud and clear on community support,’” the chair of the LHIN said.

This is the LHIN working. This is the LHIN listening. This is the LHIN acting, responding to the needs of the community. We will all benefit from this hospice.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you have a full slate of critics. They are called patients and taxpayers. If I doubled the debt, I would expect every person to have a doctor and a health care service that works; 98% is not acceptable.

Specifically, the people of St. Catharines are wondering when their MPP is finally going to stand up and say, “Enough,” to the litany of failed Liberal politics. They want to know why the quality of their health care is deteriorating, and their MPP and his Liberal government doesn’t care.

The record of the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN, serving Burlington and Norfolk, is dismal, having met only 14% of your own targets. It has missed targets in cancer surgery, cataract surgery, hip replacements, MRI times and ER wait times. Those are the things that patients care about. Apparently, 14% is how the government accepts a high level of success. That’s brutal, Minister.

Can the Minister of Health tell the people of St. Catharines why they should close their—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock.

Let me restate, again, my concern: When we start making comments about other people’s ridings, it’s not a problem when you’re talking about the generics of issues. It becomes apparent that, if it’s an attack on an individual member’s integrity or their capacity to serve their riding—that’s where I’m trying to get you to see that it is not good for all of us.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: But we are allowed to do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask that the comments be reserved until at least I’m finished speaking.

So I caution all members again to reserve that kind of discussion and elevate the discussion to issues at hand, as opposed to any one member’s ability to serve their community. I reject that they don’t.

Minister: Response.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: For just a moment there, I thought the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound was going to say thank you for the decision on the hospice. He knows how much this will benefit his community.

But, Speaker, what I can tell you is that, when the party opposite was in charge, they did not even measure wait times. They did not even have any idea how big the problem was. We came to office. We decided to measure wait times, and now we are hard at work driving those wait times down.

The member has asked about Niagara. Well, let me tell you about the NHS, Niagara Health System, wait times—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Bill Walker: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m also going to ask the member to bring it down, as he has been mentioned by riding already, and you asked the question.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

The Niagara Health System has had remarkable success in bringing those wait times down. Are we meeting targets? On some, yes. On some, we’ve still got a way to go. But hip replacements: people are waiting 215 fewer days now to get that hip replaced. They’ve cut 153 days off knee replacements—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock.

If the member from Lambton believes that I do not have the resolve to elevate the discussion and to continue to ask us to listen to questions and answers, he’s mistaken. I am intent on raising that level, not lowering it, and it’s my intent to have us all be able to put questions and have answers in a decorum that’s acceptable in this place and anywhere else.

Supplementary question? The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, my question is back to the Minister of Health. Minister, the entire Liberal caucus has turned their backs on their constituents over the past nine months. They’ve been stonewalling investigation attempts into Ornge and their power plants.

Since they refuse to do their jobs and hold you accountable, the PC caucus here is going to do it for you. The LHIN responsible for Richmond Hill met only five of its 14 targets—a 36% success rate. Minister, will you admit that the Central LHIN at Richmond Hill has failed the residents?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m just finding this whole line of questioning a bit odd, because they didn’t even measure wait times.

We measure wait times, we’ve set ambitious targets, and we’re seeing progress towards those targets. Maybe the member opposite would look in his own backyard and see the progress we’ve made in London, for example. London Health Sciences has seen a reduction of hip replacements of 262 days—fewer days spent waiting in pain. Knee replacements have come down by 229 days; CTs, 10 days; MRIs, 47 days. We are making progress.

The important thing is, we publicly report. Anybody can see what those wait times are. I want to ask you: Do you support privatization of our health care system? That’s the question.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Jonah Schein: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, something fishy is happening in Chatham–Kent–Essex. Residents are on the hook for cleaning up thousands of dead fish from their shores. So far, the Ministry of the Environment is refusing to cast its nets widely, and it’s prematurely dismissing this disaster as a natural occurrence.

Will the minister get on board, help with the cleanup and get to the bottom of this before yesterday’s catch turns into tomorrow’s environmental contamination?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I should say first of all that the member from the area has raised this issue several times with me, and I’ve communicated with him. The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex, as the local member who is influenced by this and impacted by this, has raised this. So I want to give him his credit for doing so. He did not make outlandish charges such as you’re making at the present time for what some might think are political reasons.

The Ministry of the Environment has been doing testing of the fish in this particular case to try to determine the source of what has happened. Very often, what happens, happens on a natural basis; that is, the bottom water comes up to the top, the top water goes down to the bottom.

But that doesn’t mean that the Ministry of the Environment or the federal Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Natural Resources have come to a final conclusion on what the case may be. As soon as we have—and we’ve established this as a high priority—the results of that testing, we’ll be sharing it with everybody.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Back to the Minister of the Environment: Rather than helping the residents of Chatham–Kent–Essex deal with this serious environmental contamination issue that has the potential to impact the health of people, the Ministry of the Environment, a ministry that’s undermined by deep budget cuts, seems to have hung a “Gone fishing” sign on their door.

People are holding their noses and combing their beaches with garbage bags in hand. When will the minister stop floundering around and reel in the situation before it gets away from him?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Whoever wrote that question for you has some amusing comments to use.

I have a note here. As you would know and the local member would know, there were public meetings held over the weekend. You probably didn’t have a chance to attend those and were relying on some political staffers to give you the questions. But I suggest that you speak to the local member, who has been on top of the issue, along with the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and working hard to determine, first of all, the source, and to assist in the cleanup.

Even the mayor of Chatham-Kent, who is a former NDP member of this Legislature, has been complimentary of the manner in which this government has handled this situation. But I know that for political reasons sometimes it’s much more fun to try to exploit a situation of this kind instead of dealing with it responsibly.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. David Zimmer: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, over the past few years, the government’s long-term energy plan has outlined a bold plan for a clean, reliable energy system. Its focus is on the health of families. It focuses on a clean environment. It creates jobs and brings investment, and it reduces reliance on fossil fuels.

Minister, last week the federal government, the federal Tories, brought forward their emission standards for coal plants, to be implemented over the next number of decades—decades. Although this is a step in the right direction, it’s unlike our government’s plan, which is committed to eliminate the use of coal by 2014. That’s two years from now, not decades down the road. It’s a decision that makes Ontario a leader in this field.

Minister, adding clean, reliable energy and replacing dirty coal is a costly endeavour—

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is absolutely right: We need to get out of coal as quickly as possible to protect the health of Ontarians and to save money.

The member from Willowdale has quite rightly said that federal regulations that look decades down the road aren’t helping the health of Ontario families today. We’re out of it by the end of 2014. We’re going to prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses that were taking place in 2003, when coal was a quarter of our power use. We’re saving over $4 billion a year that was paid through the health system to deal with those illnesses. We’re not having to spend for the environmental degradation.

Getting out of coal makes a lot of sense, is the right thing to do, and we’re doing it by the end of 2014, not several decades down the road.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the benefits of the feed-in-tariff program for our energy sector and how it helps Ontario families and businesses. These discussions talk about jobs, investments, new factories, innovation and much more.

The opposition over there is deadly opposed to the FIT program and would much rather see the continuation of coal-fired plants in this province, sort of like their federal Conservative cousins. But my constituents in Willowdale tell me that the FIT program has been a great addition to the clean economy. Indeed, other jurisdictions are following our lead; they see the benefit.

Minister, can you give me an update on the status of the FIT program and the benefits that it’s bringing to our energy sector and to Ontario families?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Willowdale is quite right. We are using clean, green, renewable energy, whether it’s solar, biogas, wind or hydro to get out, and accelerate our getting out, of coal, but also doing it in a way that establishes jobs here in the province of Ontario. We’re well over 20,000 jobs already. We’ve got a number of manufacturing facilities. We’re bringing this on and requiring that at least half of the components—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Simply putting your hand over your face while you heckle does not stop the noise.

Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know some don’t want to know the relationship between clean and green and jobs, but you know that the blade plant in Tillsonburg makes blades for wind turbines. If you kill the wind turbines, you don’t need the blades and you don’t need the jobs.

The frame plant, Thurston in manufacturing in Port Colborne, makes frames for wind turbines.If you kill the turbines, you don’t need the frames; you kill the jobs.

We’re bringing on clean, green electricity in a way that creates jobs here in Ontario. Jobs are important for families and businesses.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Health this morning. It’s evident that the member from Ottawa–Orléans is preoccupied with conceiving and dreaming up a carbon tax and not interested in passing along the report card to residents from his LHIN—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are some things that are not in rules and in regulations. There are some things that are written, and in this place we speak about treating each other with respect. If I’ve opened a can of worms, my deepest apologies. I’m asking us to race to the top, not to the bottom.

The member proceed.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This all started with the Minister of Health this morning. I’d just like to point that out. I hope she has an answer for this question.

The Champlain LHIN met—wait for it—two of 14 of its targets—14%. That may be a passing grade on that side of that House. It certainly isn’t a passing grade on this side of the House. So I ask the minister: Will she admit defeat and will she tell the people of Ottawa–Orléans that their LHIN and their MPP continue to fail them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yesterday we were presented with a white paper from the caucus opposite. It contained what I had hoped was a simple editing error. After this morning’s question period, I am now convinced that the health care policy of the party opposite is to privatize health care.

I’m asking the member opposite: Are you with Frank Klees, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, are you with Shaun Francis, or are you going to stand up for publicly funded health care?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary, the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Health. At least one Liberal member has been busy breaking with the Premier on his decision to eliminate 60,000 jobs in the horse racing industry.

Health care in Peterborough, in Ontario, continues to deteriorate. The LHIN responsible for Peterborough met four of its 13 objectives, a success rate of 30%—quite pathetic. The wait time for admission to hospital in Peterborough is 44 hours, which is eight hours longer than the target.

Will the Minister of Health admit that the LHINs are abject failures and embrace the PC plan to strengthen Ontario’s health care system—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Peterborough will come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When the Progressive Conservative Party was responsible for health care in this province, 28,000 people in Peterborough could not get a family doctor. That’s a fact. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, they shut down hospitals. They fired thousands of nurses. Doctors left Ontario for the States—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And while I have the clock stopped, I want to bring one more point of clarity. When individuals are being attacked for the work they do, this is what is bothering me. I do not have a problem with people talking about ridings per se, in issues involved in ridings; I have a problem with individuals attacking other individuals in their ridings, and the work they do. So please, all I’m asking you is to not engage in that activity.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham has been talked to before, and I would like the member from Durham to stop his insistence on making comment after I’m speaking.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am hopeful that the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock, being a nurse herself, will stand up and say, “I reject privatized health care. I am going to stand up for not-for-profit hospitals in this province. I reject the platform to move to private health care.” Will the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock, a nurse, stand up in favour—

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

YOUTH SERVICES

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The government has announced its plans to close the Thistletown Regional Centre, a renowned facility that serves the needs of some of Ontario’s most challenged citizens. One of the internationally acclaimed programs provided by Thistletown is the sexual abuse family education and treatment program, or SAFE-T. It provides life-saving help to children and parents who come there following a sexual assault within their family.

Will the minister explain how he thinks it is possible to maintain this outstanding program through the closures?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for the question. I want to say that after making the difficult decision to close Thistletown—by the way, a decision that was made by the NDP government as well, in the 1990s—that we are well on our way to successfully transferring programs from Thistletown into the community, including the important programs referenced by the member opposite, the great work that’s being done by the programs of SAFE-T, TRE-ADD and Panorama.

I want to assure the member opposite that the important services that are offered and provided to families in these programs will continue to be offered through community-based agencies.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Just for the record, we reversed that decision. That’s why it’s still open today.

The minister recently released the action plan for youth, which details 20 recommendations for strengthening supports for youth. SAFE-T is an essential program needing this support. Experts like Professor Marshall, from Queen’s University, have written to you, saying, “I’m surprised that your ministry intends to close any programs for juvenile offenders at a time when the evidence clearly indicates that such programs not o