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

April 15, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-15 (PDF)

L016 - Thu 15 Apr 2010 / Jeu 15 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 15 April 2010 Jeudi 15 avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY RATES

ENERGY RATES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PENSION PLANS

DRIVER LICENCES

TAXATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

TAXATION

FIRE SAFETY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

LABOUR UNIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

SOCIAL SERVICES

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PHARMACISTS

MIHIR GHOSH

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

CHILD CARE

CLIMATE CHANGE

POLISH COMMUNITY

ENERGY CONSERVATION

VOLUNTEERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

(PUBLIC TRANSIT EXPENSE

TAX CREDIT), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

DE L’IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

(CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT POUR DÉPENSES

DE TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN)

PETITIONS

CHILD PROTECTION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

TAXATION

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

TAXATION

TAXATION

WIND TURBINES

CLIMATE CHANGE

CHILD PROTECTION

MINING INDUSTRY

CHILD PROTECTION

CHANGEMENT DE CLIMAT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CLIMATE CHANGE

AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION

AUX CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

TOM LONGBOAT DAY

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE

AND ELDERLY PEOPLE

FROM ABUSE ACT

(POWERS OF ATTORNEY), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES VULNÉRABLES

ET DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

CONTRE LES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

(PROCURATIONS)

CLIMATE CHANGE

AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION

AUX CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

TOM LONGBOAT DAY

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE

AND ELDERLY PEOPLE

FROM ABUSE ACT

(POWERS OF ATTORNEY), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES VULNÉRABLES

ET DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

CONTRE LES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

(PROCURATIONS)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 14, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 16,

An Act to implement 2010 Budget measures and to enact or amend various Acts / Projet de loi 16, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2010 et édictant ou modifiant diverses lois.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m delighted and honoured this morning to stand up and speak about the government’s budget measures.

As you know, we introduced our budget quite some time ago as a result of many different things that happened in the province of Ontario, in our beautiful nation of Canada and around the globe. The economy for the last couple of years has been suffering from a lot of anxiety as a result of the collapse of the financial system in many different nations. Many banks went bankrupt, many companies closed, many factories closed and many businesses closed their doors as a result of the bad economy.

As a result of this economy, our government took extra measures to put in plans for the province of Ontario to make sure that the people of this province have a job, good health care and a good education system at the elementary, high school and post-secondary levels. Also, we made sure our infrastructure investment continued in the province of Ontario in order to stimulate our economy, maintain our prosperity and make sure that people can commute from one end to the other without any trouble.

I come from a city called London, Ontario. My city was hit hard by the collapse of financial institutions in the world. Many people from my riding of London–Fanshawe lost their jobs. Many companies closed. Many families were looking for a solution to feed their families, put food on their table and pay their bills and mortgages. So we faced tough times in this province after many, many good years.

As you know, our government put in plans to absorb the results of this financial crisis. They put in plans to stimulate the economy; they put in plans to maintain our health care in the public domain; they put in a plan to maintain our public education system to be open for all the people in Ontario; and we also have a plan to open our universities and colleges to people from around the globe as a result of our Open Ontario for business and education.

I had the chance to visit Saudi Arabia not a long time ago. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, allow me to introduce my friend, who came from Saudi Arabia a couple of days ago, the president of the Canadian Dawah Association, Mr. Shazaad Mohammed. He was our guide when we were there.

We had the privilege and honour to visit many different institutions. By the way, I went with my colleague Dave Levac, the member from Brant. We had the privilege to meet government officials, we had the privilege to meet university presidents, we had the privilege to meet a chamber of commerce, many different stakeholders, many different people, many educators, and all of them told us they love Ontario. They love the education we have in this province, and all of them asked us how they can come and study in this province.

Over and over, they spoke to us about our green energy. They believe we’re on the right track, that we’re taking the right direction in order to protect our environment by creating initiatives, which we call the green energy system in the province of Ontario, to engage many different companies, factories, scientists and researchers from around the globe to come to this province and invest and tell us how we can change our habits, how we can produce energy in a green way, in a positive way, not harming our economy and not harming our environment.

We went to a university, and the first thing they asked us was, “How can we go and study in Canada? How can we attend universities and continue our research and innovation in Canada?” Therefore, our initiative is working; people around the globe have heard of our initiative, have heard of our Open Ontario plan. They’ve heard that our universities and colleges are open for all students from around the globe to come and study, because we can offer something nobody else can offer on this planet. We can offer the discipline; we can offer high education; we can offer many different things nobody else can do.

That’s why we have to capitalize on this initiative. We have to open our colleges and universities. That’s why in this budget we have a plan to increase our capacity by 20,000 students this coming year and also increase our capacity in universities and colleges by 50% to allow students from outside to come and study here. I think it’s a great direction, a great strategy to engage people from around the globe.

As you know, when people come from different nations to study here, they establish a good relationship with our community, with our culture, with our government and with our many different stakeholders. So when they go back to their countries, if they get a job in government or become ministers, governors or whatever, the first thing they think about is Ontario and Canada. It’s the best and most important natural way to attract people to deal with this beautiful province. That’s why we have the Open Ontario strategy for open education in our colleges and universities.

We know exactly that we cannot build a future without building on our education system, without investing in our youngsters in this province. That’s why our government strongly came with a project—full-day learning. Full-day learning, hopefully, if the bill passes all the stages, will be opened in September. It would be about 35,000 students from across the province of Ontario in those classes. Almost 600 schools across this province will be open for students to come and study.

Let me tell you, I had the privilege and honour to be on the committee where we discussed this bill for many days. Many stakeholders came. Some of them voiced their concerns, and they had a right to voice their concerns. I was happy and honoured to see the Minister of Education and the government listening to the concerns and adjusting the bill in a way to protect our child care spaces in the province of Ontario, our good partners in the province of Ontario who have worked with us for many years to provide support for many youth and children.

Therefore, full-day learning will be a great answer for many families who cannot afford to go to work and leave their kids behind. This I think is the right step in the right direction.

Despite the tough economic times, our government took the right decisions and opened the schools for all the people in this province to study and to learn, because we know exactly that the most important thing, the most important time when you invest in the youth is when they are still young. You give them the chance and the strong base to grow up with and good education. I think the people of Ontario, in September, are going to see the positive results of this direction.

Despite our tough economic times, we didn’t stop investing in our infrastructure. We heard for many years that our infrastructure was neglected, our infrastructure was not being paid attention to. We have crumbling roads, bridges and sewer systems that are very old and not handling the capacity of cities and towns. Many people cannot deal with commuting because of the narrow roads in many different jurisdictions.

That’s why our government, despite the economic situation, despite the financial difficulties, continued to invest in our bridges, our roads and our sewer systems, in order to update them to the level where we are strong and able to support and service the people of this great province.

In my riding of London–Fanshawe, as a result of this investment, many bridges will be reconstructed, many roads will be surfaced and widened, many recreation facilities will be supported, and many parks will be enlarged and expanded in order to absorb and look after many people who want to visit those parks. I think, as a result of the bad economy, we have started turning in a positive way. As a result of that, we have created many thousands of jobs for the people of Ontario, and I think it was a good way and a good method to stimulate our economy.

As a result of our investment in infrastructure, as a result of our continuation of investment in the education system and health care, we noticed the positive impact because our economy started coming back.

As a result of that, we heard that the GM Oshawa plant is going to rehire more than 600 people. As a result of that, CAMI in Ingersoll is going to rehire 700. Also, there was good news the other day about the Toyota plant in Woodstock. They might add another shift, which means about 800 good-paying jobs are coming back to our economy. Our economy is coming back due to our initiatives, due to our strategy.

I want to commend the Minister of Finance for his steps, for his directions and for his commitment to this economy and this province. Also, I commend our government, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, for seeing the future and a great vision for this province of Ontario.

As you know, we are one of the biggest provinces in this beautiful nation. Our responsibility and duty is to help others, our responsibility and duty is to attract more jobs to come to this province because, as you know, we are the engine of the economy of Canada. If our economy is strong, this country will be strong.

I had the privilege and honour to visit many different locations in the province of Ontario. I saw and heard many people commend our strategy, and commend our budget. I was asked, “How come the opposition party won’t support you? How come the opposition party, in a difficult time, doesn’t come with you as a government—forget about political divisions and political strategies and tactics, and come together in order to create a good economy for the people of Ontario?” Because in difficult times, people put politics aside and think about the people of Ontario. That’s what we’re doing here.

I hope the opposition parties, the Conservatives and the NDP, come with us and join our hands and our efforts.

Laughter.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: The member from the opposition is laughing.

It’s important for all of us to work together, because working together is very important in showing leadership for the people of Ontario. Because you know what? I want to tell you, people don’t care about party affiliations, they don’t care who is in government, who is in power, which party, many different things. They don’t care. Do you know what they care about? They care about finding jobs. They care about their families. They care about the most important thing for them: to provide food for their families.

That’s why I believe that in difficult times, all of us should work together to create a good economy and a good direction for the people of Ontario. That is what we’re working for on this side of the House.

When we try to pass this bill, when we finish the debate, hopefully all of us can take a chance to support this direction, because Open Ontario is our plan. It’s a very important plan for the people of Ontario. It’s an important plan for our economy. It’s an important plan to maintain the health care system in the public domain. It’s important for all of us to invest in our education, because education is the way of the future of this province.

It’s important for us to support our colleges and universities, to open the capacity, to increase the capacity, to welcome the students of this province and also to welcome students from around the globe. As I mentioned to you, it will be a good tool for us to tell about our prosperity and also to bring business back to us, to have a good time, a good connection with our province.

That’s why I’m standing up today and speaking from experience about what I heard from many different people in the province of Ontario, in Canada, from around the globe. Because I know we take a lot of things for granted in this province. We think we have nothing to offer. As a matter of fact, who says that and thinks that way? It’s wrong. They are wrong. We have a lot to offer. We are being looked at from many different directions around the globe. Everyone tells us, “You live in the most important and most beautiful province and the most advanced province in the world.

How can we come to share this advance and knowledge and sources with you?” That’s why this budget is talking about opening up this province for businesses to come to Ontario, to open in Ontario, to prosper in Ontario.

I also have a friend who has a good connection with a Chinese company. They are good in green energy. Do you know what they said? They want to come to Ontario. They want to open factories in Ontario because they think we are the most important province to open for business, because our businesses, our system—health care, education, infrastructure—all fit and make it easy for a company to come and open in this province. That’s what we want. We want business. We want to work for the people of Ontario.

We want people, when they wake up in the morning, to be able to go to work and come back to their family in good health and in good shape, in order to provide for themselves and their families. So our strategy is working.

I want to say again, our plan, if implemented fully, would be good for the people of Ontario, would be good for our economy, would be good for all of the people who want to come to Ontario.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You sure let them spin you in your caucus meetings.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: The member from Welland—hopefully I can hear his plan. I know the opposition talks about many different things. They come up every single time and criticize us, but what’s their plan? I don’t know what their plan is; I have no idea. I didn’t hear the plan yet.

Mr. Jeff Leal: They’ve got a plan: Darrell Dexter’s plan in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: See? I don’t know anything about their plan. Instead, they stand up and criticize us. Show us your plan; I might change my mind. Maybe I’ll support your plan. But I want to see a complete plan to serve the people of Ontario, serve our education, serve our health care, serve our infrastructure and create jobs for the province.

I was listening to CBC Radio this morning, and TV. Do you know what they said? Our economy is performing very well. We’re not there yet, but we’re on the way to having a good economy. I don’t want to fool the people: We had a tough time. We’re climbing back again to a good level, and we can offer people good service and good health care.

I think our government is taking initiatives. You heard about pharmacy issues lately, and I heard the opposition supporting the pharmacists against the people of Ontario. Supporting the people with a lower price of drugs is very good for everyone in this province. We’re creating a measure to help people pay less for drugs. I think we should be commended.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the Minister of Health for her great initiative and her great direction to maintain health care in the public domain by creating many different ways to save money for the people of Ontario, for the government of Ontario to be able to reinvest this money in health care: in cataract surgery and in knee and hip replacements, and also to lower the pressure in the ERs and allow people to be healthy again.

I think our government has taken the most important directions. We’re not thinking about the political aspect of it, because we don’t care about politics; we care about Ontario. We care about how we can help the province of Ontario. We care about how we can create jobs for the people of Ontario, how we can continue working with the people, how we can create a strong economy and provide for us collectively as a province and as a people, and how we can create jobs for those people who are looking to us, as elected officials, as saviours.

That’s why our initiatives, our budget bill, will make a lot of difference for the people of Ontario if it passes, because it means continuation of infrastructure, maintaining the education system and health care, and also opening Ontario for business, opening Ontario for education, opening Ontario for all people to come and learn and be prosperous with us in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me to stand up in this place and speak about our budget. I’m looking forward to hearing from the opposition. Hopefully we can work together.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. For a while there I felt like singing Kumbaya.

The honourable member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m glad to accept the invitation of the member from London–Fanshawe to respond to his remarks about his government’s plan to open Ontario. Here is what the government is opening Ontario to. They are opening Ontario, this coming Canada Day, to a new 13% tax on everything that Ontario consumers will touch; that’s what they are opening Ontario to. They’re opening Ontario to what will be the highest energy prices in North America; the announcement will be made this week as we listen to the Ontario Energy Board give us those results.

They’re opening Ontario to one of probably the most difficult battles we’ve seen initiated by a minister of the crown: the battle that is raging now between the government and the pharmacists in this province. What they’re opening Ontario to is the inability of pharmacists to keep their doors open, because unilaterally, with one announcement, with one piece of legislation, this government is carving out approximately $300,000 of revenue from every pharmacy across the province of Ontario. That is what this government is opening Ontario up to.

And no, I and my colleagues will not follow the member and his government down that road. We refuse. We’ll stand with the people of this province for good government, not the kind of policies that this member and his government are forcing on the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: In the interests of full disclosure, I should indicate at the outset that I like the member from London–Fanshawe. He’s a most congenial person, and one is hard-pressed to say anything other than kind things about him. But we’re not talking about him—in fact I just have, in the most complimentary way—we’re talking about the regrettable failure of this government to understand that—yes, there’s an economic recovery. The stock market, the TSE, is now over 12,000. Banks are reporting bigger and better profits, and their stock values have risen along with the other TSE 300 types.

But it’s a jobless recovery, because what happened is that Mr. McGuinty and the Liberals allowed this province to be gutted of its manufacturing jobs. Those are the wealth creation jobs. Not service sector jobs, not the hospitality sector—value-added manufacturing jobs. That’s how you create wealth. You don’t create wealth in a casino; you create wealth in manufacturing.

What’s remarkable is that when the economy was tanking, when it was in free fall, this government wanted to accept no responsibility whatever: “Not our job. We have no control.” It’s like that observation that success has a thousand parents and failure is always an orphan. All of a sudden, Mr. McGuinty had no control over the free fall. He wants to take credit for the economic recovery, but he also doesn’t want to acknowledge, first of all, that he can’t take credit for it and, second, that it has nothing to do with creating jobs, because jobs aren’t being created in this province. There are $10.25-an-hour jobs, but you don’t send kids to college and university on minimum wage.

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to rise in this House and participate in the discussion on the budget. At the outset I would like to congratulate Minister Dwight Duncan for bringing such a responsible budget to this House. The budget reflects the values of our party. It reflects the values of our government.

What is in the budget, as you can see, are investments in our education, investments in our early childhood education, full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds, investments in our universities. We are going to create 20,000 new spots in our universities and colleges.

There are provisions for the establishment of a new online institute for learning, higher education, which is new in Ontario. This is going to open up higher education to every individual who is living in any part of Ontario. In his home, in her home, they can access the best education source, to increase their knowledge and education. Also, they can get a university degree.

That is the essence of this budget. The social services investments will be there, and education and childhood education as well. There are also other elements in this budget relating to the infrastructure investments. We are investing $16.5 billion in our infrastructure. This is stimulating our economy, creating jobs and keeping jobs. This investment will create 300,000 jobs.

This is what we need at this time, when the world economy is in recession. We need to invest heavily in our economy in order to create jobs, and that’s what this budget is going to do.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: We listened intently to the member from London–Fanshawe. As the member from Welland said, he’s a respectable commentary person and well informed in some respects, but in this case he’s certainly not revealing everything that the people of Ontario should really know.

This budget is a failed budget. It still has a deficit of $21.3 billion. I think the general theme in the media has been that we’re going to pay more and get less; that’s basically it.

We have the highest tuition in universities and post-secondary in Canada. That’s only one example. According to the media reports this morning—and I could recite these, and will in the time I have next to speak—we have the highest electricity rates, which will make us less competitive, as the member from Newmarket–Aurora, Mr. Klees, said this morning.

On July 1, we’re going to implement the HST, which is going to net the province about another $3.5 billion in tax revenue, and we must not forget the health tax that was levied on Ontario right after the 2003 election. That revenue, per year, from the taxpayers of Ontario, is about $3.5 billion.

What they really have here is—all members here want to serve Ontario and provide all Ontarians, equally, the best possible services and level of services.

If you look at the sunshine list that was issued last week, there is a 63% increase in public sector servants receiving $100,000 a year or more. In my own ministry, government services, there are 60 people making over a quarter of a million dollars a year. I would challenge even the minister to name one.

What’s happening here is we are paying more—your spending is up by 67%—but the service level is down by any measure, and I think this is just unacceptable in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for London–Fanshawe has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the members from Newmarket–Aurora, Welland, Richmond Hill and Durham for commenting on my speech.

First, I want to go to the member from Newmarket–Aurora: I don’t want him to support the government; I want him to support the people of Ontario. He needs to decide if he’s on the side of the people of Ontario or on the side of the drug companies. I have nothing against the drug companies, but we have to be fair when we apply our policies and how we can create a mechanism to protect the people of Ontario. That’s what we are doing on this side of the House.

Also, the member from Welland: Look, when the economy hit North America and around the globe, it was tough for many different nations. Sometimes we cannot control it. But the most important thing is not to panic but to create a plan to absorb the result of the negative impact on the people of Ontario, and to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs for the people of Ontario. That’s what we did by continuing to invest in our infrastructure, by making rules and regulations to allow people to come to this province and reinvest and show some kind of confidence in this province.

Also, the member from Richmond Hill was right; it’s important to invest in our children and youth, and also in the universities and colleges, because that’s the future of this economy and the future of all our lives. It’s very important.

The member from Durham: I want to tell him something. What we said is true. We want to invest in education and health care and infrastructure because we believe this is the only way we can survive in this province of Ontario. It’s the only way we can build a stronger future for the generations to come. I want to tell him that we’re not shy about our record. We’re going to continue advancing ourselves in this direction in order to achieve our goal, which is prosperity for this province.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: In the few minutes I have, unfortunately, on the budget bill, Bill 16—I’m trying to represent my constituents from the riding of Durham.

We had two post-budget open houses in my riding of Durham, serving Uxbridge, Scugog and Clarington, and both of those presentations were put on by reputable accounting firms—BDO Dunwoody in the north. It was held in Port Perry. The mayor of Uxbridge was there, Scugog was represented, as well as business leaders and retired persons. There were about 50 persons at the one in Port Perry from Uxbridge and Port Perry.

In the south, at the other one I had, there were about 70 people involved or who attended—almost all of council, including the mayor; the head of the utility; representatives from OPG; the board of trade; a couple of the Rotarians; the president of the rotary club; and other members of the community.

The

interpretation that they said was, “What is the future?” When you look at the overall budget, in excess of $110 billion, there’s still $21 billion—probably around 20% of the total spending is deficit. Deficit is really the lack of funding for the operational budget, and it actually becomes accumulated debt.

When you look at the accumulated debt in Ontario, it’s increasing. It has increased every single year in the province. In fact, my own impression is that you don’t like to criticize spending if it’s for the right reasons, but you like to measure the outcomes of that spending. The most important part that the Premier said in remarks on budget day—health care is one example, and maybe I’ll spend my time on this document on two areas that are very important to my riding.

The two areas, of course, would be health care—and the Premier said in the budget speech itself that, in 12 years, 70% of the entire provincial budget would be health care. That’s not sustainable, and I suspect we’re seeing now just the beginnings of the battle which will be fought on the backs of patients.

But let’s take a little look at where we are today. I met last week with Dr. Michael Damus, as well as members of the Central LHIN, which covers the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital, along with Mayor Bob Shepherd. Our concern is that we want the hospital to remain as a full-service emergency level hospital. We’d like to have elective surgeries there as well.

But what is happening is, unless the doctors are adequately compensated or the hospital indeed is compensated through the Central LHIN, the local health integration network, they can’t keep the hospital emergency open. If they can’t keep it open, it becomes nothing more than you enter the hospital, you’re stabilized and transferred to the Markham-Stouffville site, which is part of that hospital organization. There was the same challenge this year in Port Perry, as well as in Bowmanville. Bowmanville hospital was threatened as well because of the funding deficit.

All hospitals in the province right now are required by law, Bill 8, to have a balanced budget, but we know that almost every hospital has an operating deficit. In fact, during the two by-elections, strangely enough some $15 million showed up to keep one open because there was a by-election, to favour the candidate in that area in Toronto. But that money was taken from one down in the Niagara-Hamilton-Welland area. In fact, a young person died en route to hospital because the emergency had been closed. That is an autopsy report, not something I’m making up.

Every hospital in every community—Northumberland Hills Hospital just outside my riding—Lou Rinaldi’s riding—closed, I think, 15 beds and laid off 23 full-time nursing staff.

What else is important in this is that one of the complex issues in the Peterborough Regional Health Centre is that they have an audit. They’re under a complete watch order now; they’ve taken over. That hospital is operating at about an $11-million operating deficit and forecasted next year for a $25-million operating deficit. I wish the auditors and the restructuring people there good luck, but that audit team was put in there by Premier McGuinty, taking over the autonomy of a local hospital.

Here’s the outcome. I read the reports on it, and it turns out they have an inordinate number of ALC patients, alternate level of care. Those patients in a hospital—the worst possible setting for frail elderly people is to stay in a hospital with all these anti-viral infections and things like that going on. The nursing staff are so pressed and stressed that they don’t have enough time. They should actually be moved to long-term care or complex continuing care in a different institutional setting.

Let’s follow up on that. The biggest problem in hospitals today is the number of ALC—long-term-care—beds. They’re in hospitals. Why? Because there are no long-term-care beds being built for our aging population. Why aren’t they being built? When we were government, we added and funded 20,000 new long-term care beds. Here’s the issue. As they opened more of them, the funding is $40,000 per long-term-care bed.

Now what we were debating yesterday in this House—and I participated. I see Mr. Phillips, the minister, is here. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Phillips. But this file, Bill 21—it’s on the order paper now—is regulation of retirement homes.

Let’s not get confused here. Retirement homes are not regulated today but they exist, and they should be regulated. I’m in support of the bill. But what they’re not saying is that the province is not providing them any money. So if you are going to be discharged from a hospital to a retirement home—the average person in a retirement home would be there and basically the province takes your OAS, old age security, and your CPP, Canada pension plan, up to about $800 or $900 a month. The province takes that and they fund the rest.

If you have no other resources, they guarantee that you will have at least $150 a month, called a personal care allowance. So if you’re penniless, the province pays the rest—about $40,000 per bed. The second

part is that in these retirement homes there is no money. So if they discharge you to a retirement home, you’re paying.

What does it cost in one of those retirement homes? I know at first hand. A less expensive one would be in the $30,000-a-year range, maybe $35,000 a year. That’s out of your pocket or your mother or dad’s pocket. In fact, the high-order ones—I’m looking at one for a person who I have power of attorney for right now in Peterborough. It’s Canterbury Gardens. The cost per year is $65,000. Now, who is paying for it? I think it’s a beautiful facility. The person is paying for it.

Let’s just follow up on that $65,000. What are your parents? You want loved ones being taken care of. This Bill 21 is private long-term care. That’s what it is. No question about it. They’re privatizing health. Right now, to pay $65,000, a senior would have to take $100,000 out of their RIF, because after tax they’d only get about $68,000; you pay some 30% tax. And you want some money to get your hair done or whatever it is they do. I can’t believe it. That’s the future.

I expect the minister here to at least announce that he’s going to ask for some companion funding under Bill 21. That is one of the amendments I would move. The minister is here and I’m sure he’s listening.

If you look across health care, there is a very large battle with the pharmaceutical companies, but they’re taking on the smallest participant in the drug battle. Of the billions of dollars spent in pharmaceutical care—which is important, and we should all recognize that it is the fastest-growing portion of health care, with costs escalating at about 15% per year, which, again, is not sustainable. I recognize the government is trying to contend with it, but there are three major participants. There is large pharma, the patent drug companies.

They’re international, they have global influence on jobs and research, universities and academic institutions, and they’re an important part of the knowledge-based economy. I think even Barack Obama has tried to take them on, and good for him. How’s he doing?

Here’s the next part: The other participant is the generic drug part. The generic

part is when the patent has expired and the formula has been copied by the generic company and they sell it for something less.

So Premier McGuinty and his health minister, Deb Matthews, are taking them on, but they’re portraying it as a fight with the pharmacists. Keep in mind that what they call these promotional allowances, or whatever they’re calling these things, have, under the government’s watch and accord, been happening for years. It’s not something that just happened in the last couple of months; it’s happened for years. These promotional allowances were to educate and promote both the consumer and themselves, monitor side effects for certain drugs and all these various things.

It’s not like they’re just doling out chocolate bars at the pharmacy. These are highly trained individuals—four-years-plus of a degree in medical and medical-related things—anatomy and pharmacology. They know more about pharmacology than the doctors themselves, I would put forward.

So they’re picking a battle with the pharmacists, but what they’re actually doing is changing the whole ball game. Let’s be honest here. There’s about $1 billion in this amount of transactional money, we’ll call it, from the generic drug industry—a very large, lucrative industry; no problem with that.

But the pharmacists in my little communities of Uxbridge and Port Perry and Clarington—and Clarington more specifically, because I know personally on a social level one of the pharmacists in Orono: Tito—great guy, well-educated, a pleasant community person involved in many ways in his community as a volunteer and as a professional. He will likely be closed. Why? Because they have fundamentally changed the rules of the game and they’re blaming him.

They could easily have found a way of transitioning out of this. What’s the difference here? Why is it that they need—right now Ontario has some of the lowest dispensing fees in Canada on a per capita basis. Here’s the real issue: To dispense an appropriate pharmaceutical product on a prescription takes skill, knowledge, trust, confidence, and all these qualities that we expect these people to have. They’re actually not being subsidized properly.

Doctors are paid by you and me, and 99% of them, I’m sure, earn every dollar they make, whether you’re an orthopaedic surgeon, neurologist or cardiologist. I sure want the best at my bedside at the time I fall off my feet. With pharmacists, I feel the same. But right now they are not being compensated, and have been compensated on these, what they call, allowances. The government is calling them kickbacks. They want these pharmaceutical stores to stay open—and there’s more to it.

I could spend more time on that, because here’s what’s happening: Some of the generic drugs are now being dried up in Ontario and you’re going to have to buy the patent drug. I have one that’s a heart pill, and I’ll put it on the record. That heart medication that you’re buying today as a generic is $38 a tablet. The drug you’re going to get in my riding in the next week for that heart medication has been replaced by the designer drug, I guess you’d call it; it’s now $68. That’s just one example of a widely used, widely prescribed medication in Ontario. That’s what’s going to happen.

The province is actually going to take the $1 billion, they’re going to pocket $500 million of it and they’re going to give the pharmacists a dispensing fee increase of $1 when right now they’re underfunded by $7 per prescription compared to other comparators in the country. I’m not going to go on on that, but that’s all part of health care.

The second part—it’s in the clippings this morning. This is all planned; I can’t believe it. I’m just amazed at this whole thing—it’s like a dance. BC is looking at a new way of funding hospitals on a per-service fee. BC is leading the way on that, and it’s going to fundamentally change the way they fund programs in hospitals.

Now a group in Ontario just casually, coincidentally announced that doctors are overpaid. I see another cloud on the horizon for doctors in Ontario. They’re floating it as that a third party group has released a report this morning that says in a general sense—and it’s in the clippings here—that doctors are overpaid.

It’s not Premier McGuinty saying it. No. They’ll probably do a poll next week to see just how much depth in the public—not the doctors; the public: “Doctors are making $200,000 a year? Holy smokes; $200,000, $300,000, $400,000?” What’s the threshold of tolerance for the people who are basically unemployed? We have a 10% unemployment rate; let’s keep that in mind. This economy is based on having no plan in the economy. If we had lots of money we’d be doing pretty much the same thing, but when you don’t, you have to learn how to put the spending in order, and that’s the second part.

The other

part I wanted to talk about that the member from London–Fanshawe spoke about briefly is energy prices. I’m going to put that in context as well. If we look back at Ontario’s Sir Adam Beck, Ontario was once applauded and respected. If you drive down University Avenue, you will see a statue of Sir Adam Beck. He was basically the father of electricity, or electricity distribution, certainly. He had a theme, and it was “Power at cost,” which means a publicly operated utility. What he really meant was power at any cost, that Ontario’s economy was built on cheap—or at least safe, reliable and affordable—electricity. That’s what Ontario’s economy was built on.

If you look at an

article in the media yesterday by Don MacKinnon, who is the president of the power workers—Peter, I’m sure you’ve read this article—it’s an excellent article. Here is what he said. It’s a very technical article, but generally he says that, unfortunately, this misguided focus on trendy, headline-motivated policy is rapidly eroding any price advantage while ignoring existing strengths. He’s referring to how, with the right decisions, Ontario could be an energy leader.

He’s talking about the frivolous renewable/sustainable energy policy in Ontario, paying 80 cents a kilowatt hour for roof-mounted solar and 16 cents an hour for wind, and at the meter we’re paying about five to six cents. How is that being subsidized? We’re being locked into these long-term, 20-year-plus contracts with these sustainable/renewable providers, some of them foreign, like Samsung. I’m so discouraged about the lack of confidence in Ontario on the energy file.

It’s just so disheartening to think our universities and our expertise cannot be respected by the Premier, instead of having to go to Korea to import their skills and knowledge. We have it right here in Ontario. There is a complete vacuum of respect for our own—not just the pharmacists, but now the electrical people and the doctors and the professors.

I’m worried about the future. You can’t spend your way into prosperity. Quite honestly, we’re spending our way into recession. Ontario is in worse shape than any other province, and the future doesn’t even look brighter. I think it’s discouraging, quite frankly. I challenge the government to stop and take a look and work with our leader, Tim Hudak. We do have a plan. In fact, we were asked by the member from London–Fanshawe what our plan is.

Mr. Bob Delaney: You don’t have a plan.

Mr. John O’Toole: Our plan is first—and the member on the other side was saying that they don’t know. Well, I agree they don’t. You don’t seem to have a plan by any measure. I would say that for us, if you want to look on our website, you should check 10for2010.ca. If you look at that and at the suggestions we made about accountability and transparency on public spending, on public contracts—think of the eHealth scandal: a billion dollars of health dollars wasted. Look at the LHINs. There’s more waste in government. You have a $100- billion-plus budget, and if you couldn’t save 5%, then you aren’t capable of managing. So I ask for your comments—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to speak after Mr. O’Toole.

There is no question that this budget reflects Liberal values and Liberal thinking. I think that’s undebatable in this chamber. This is a government that talks about there being a deficit out there, about there being a financial crisis that they are having to deal with. Yet this is a government that is quite happy, quite willing, to hire a company called Goldman Sachs that was at the centre of the world financial crash.

This government is willing to hire as advisers a company that sold financial instruments—asset-backed commercial paper—that were based on a fantasy about mortgages being paid back, and then was willing to sell the bet that those assets would collapse. This government has taken that company on as their advisers.

This government is quite happy to contemplate selling off revenue-generating assets when it talks about the financial needs that this province has. OLG, LCBO, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation between them generate about $4 billion a year in revenue for this province. Why would you sell off assets that produce a large volume of revenue and, frankly, are critical to delivering your policies on energy and your policies in terms of making sure that the sale of alcohol is made appropriately?

The contemplation of the sale of those assets reflects Liberal values, Liberal values being “We’re going to look as nice as we can, and we’re going to sell the silverware to pay for an operation, an approach that is not sustainable.”

This budget is a failure. This province deserves more.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It’s certainly a pleasure to stand here and discuss Bill 16, and also to make some comments on the remarks by the member from Durham. He spent a considerable amount of his time talking about health care. I think buried in there somewhere was an acknowledgment that we have made strides. He alluded to the hospital in Peterborough, which, as far as I’ve heard, is state of the art and a huge addition to that community and the broader community around the city of Peterborough.

We’ve certainly had many successes in health care. There are now 900,000 more Ontarians who have access to family physicians. We’ve reduced wait times for many surgical procedures, including cancer surgeries. Our Open Ontario plan certainly shows that we remain focused on quality improvement in health care.

But given our deficit situation, of course we have to look for cost savings, and we are doing this in many different areas. The area that is being talked about a lot at the moment is reforming the cost of generic drugs. It is certainly a situation that needs to be addressed. Ontario is paying some 50% more than other jurisdictions for generic drugs.

Lowering the cost to 25% of the original brand name drug for people who receive their drugs through the Ontario drug benefit program will also benefit those who get their drugs through private employer drug plans and people who pay for drugs out of pocket. All in all, we’re going to be saving taxpayers millions of dollars with this particular strategy. By eliminating the professional allowances, we will be compensating pharmacists more directly for the services they offer. This is a good step forward.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to make a few comments on my colleague, the member from Durham’s speech he just gave a few minutes ago on Bill 16.

One of the things I’m most concerned about, as a rural politician, with the rollout of this budget and the debate on the budget—and I think what my constituents are concerned about as well—is the debt we are accumulating in the province of Ontario. It’s my understanding that when Premier Dalton McGuinty came to power in 2003, the total accumulated debt of the province of Ontario was $114 billion. That’s from John A. Macdonald’s days right through till 2003.

If you look at the budget document itself and the projections through to the year 2017-18, when Mr. McGuinty or the finance minister claims he will balance the budget, the accumulated debt will rise to just shy of $250 billion, which is a quarter of a trillion dollars in my way of thinking.

That scares me. I know that we can talk about infrastructure investments and health care and all these different things you can talk about and you can brag about, but the reality is, every government since the beginning of time has had those same kinds of challenges, but they haven’t taken a budget from 2003 and, 14 years later, have doubled the accumulated debt in the province of Ontario. That scares me a lot.

My constituents are concerned about that, and along with things like pharmacy and HST, I think it will be a high-level election issue for this government in 2011, when we go to the polls.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: How does one dare respond to an address by the member from Durham? But I shall try.

The member for Durham references Sir Adam Beck. Sir Adam Beck would be a nobody, a minor, obscure member of the lower nobility, if it weren’t for Nikola Tesla. I for one want to make it clear that our electricity system here in the province of Ontario—and across North America and the world—is a result of the genius of Nikola Tesla. As I say, he is so often unsung, but we should acknowledge his most significant contribution to the 20th and 21st centuries.

Look, the government’s taken on pharmacists, and let’s make this clear: The big-box pharmacies are going to survive regardless, because they don’t make money selling drugs. They make money with those cosmetics counters and the high-priced toiletries with huge mark-ups, a product that in many respects is recession-proof. The people who will suffer, the people who will be displaced, are small-town corner pharmacists, the kind of pharmacist I grew up with and still patronize down in Welland where I come from, or in Port Colborne or Wainfleet or Thorold.

This government should be taking on the drug companies, but it has neither the guts nor the gonads to do that. They don’t have the gumption to take on the big international drug companies. Because if you want to talk about obscene drug prices, those are the villains, not the pharmacist; not the guy who corrects the doctor’s prescription because you have an allergy to something that the doctor mistakenly prescribed because he or she is so harried and rushed. So rather than take on real villains, this government creates villains out of some of the greatest, noblest and finest people in our communities: small-town pharmacists.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to thank the members from Danforth, Oak Ridges–Markham, Simcoe North, of course, and the member for Welland for his very respectable comments; he’s a great, experienced debater himself.

I’d only say that the member from Oak Ridges–Markham, who is a doctor, Dr. Jaczek, was the medical officer of health for York region. I have a lot of respect for your comments and hope that you would speak up for the challenges facing health care, and bring some—it’s a discredit that you’re not actually the Minister of Health; they have doctors sitting in the caucus who basically don’t have any serious responsibilities. I say that respectfully, not critically.

I think that this is an important time for all members to represent how this budget affects their riding. I look at my riding and the auto sector. The restructuring in the economy just in Durham is a good example of what Ontario is going through. But then if I look in the north, there’s a special provision in the budget because the north is paralyzed in recession. The pulp and paper industry and the forestry industry generally are in serious, serious trouble. A lot of the mining and resource sectors are in trouble as well, and a lot of them are very dependent on having reliable energy.

This budget falls short. It has no plan to deal with future spending. It has committed to reducing spending by 1.5%, I believe, on average; that is not sustainable either. They have to find new ways and new partnerships to deliver services across the schedule, yet they have a predisposition to tax and spend in excess of the health of the economy. Unless the economy picks up, we’re headed for a double dip in Ontario.

We need leadership that’s prepared to say, “Here’s the plan,” and work together. Our leader, Tim Hudak, will be there—and I’m sure the NDP and Andrea Horwath would be there as well—because this is about the people of Ontario, not political interests.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Given that we will be adjourning within the next few minutes, I will be giving the opening part of my one-hour leadoff. I’ll have the opportunity, I gather, in a few days to continue through.

Applause.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I note that there are enthusiasts out there.

The member from London–Fanshawe talked about the deficit that this province is wrestling with and the fact that the government is faced with a financial crisis in the broader society that it is trying to come to grips with. It’s trying to manage its financial, social and political obligations in the context of that crisis.

I want to talk about the context of this budget, but before I do that, I have to remark again, because it is extraordinary to me that this government, recognizing the scale and scope of the global financial crisis, has hired a company, Goldman Sachs, that has been testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in the United States about its role in that financial crash. I alluded to this briefly in my remarks earlier.

Goldman Sachs, a broker company and investment banker, sold financial instruments that sold asset-backed bonds that were based on quicksand. It sold those to institutional investors and investors around the world, and those bonds were the equivalent of selling houses that were going to burn down. At the same time, it sold, to others who were interested, insurance that those houses would burn down and even bought that insurance knowing those houses would burn down. In the heart of the financial crisis, they gained somewhere in the range of $10 billion, cashing in those insurance policies on asset-backed commercial paper, those IOUs they sold that were just simply junk.

When you have a government that is dealing with profound financial problems, and it hires a company that was at the centre of the crisis that has afflicted the globe, you have to ask about its judgment in terms of who it brings on board to advise it. This government faces, within 18 months, an election, and in some ways this is similar to the situation that faced the Harris government at the end of the 1990s. That was a government that needed cash to cover a budget deficit; it needed cash so it could address the financial demands, the needs, of this province; and a government that sold an asset at about a quarter of the value that it is now assessed at.

Dalton McGuinty wants to be very clear that he isn’t doing the same as Mike Harris. That is his public line. That’s his messaging. So when he met with the editorial board of the Globe, as reported by Adam Radwanski, he said that we don’t want to be seen as burning the furniture to keep the house warm. He’s trying to figure out where to allocate the money that would be forthcoming from a sale. He has a problem, because the simple reality is he is breaking up the furniture to heat the house.

If he applies it to the deficit, people will understand very quickly that’s not sustainable; it is a one-time hit and that, in fact, he has gotten rid of a revenue stream, a series of levers for the operation of this province, for a quick hit before an election.

He doesn’t have a lot of other good-looking options. One of the options that was floated in Mr. Radwanski’s column was using the money to pay for assets, possibly in post-secondary education, but it’s just a shell game. If you need a few billion in one pocket, and you put it in that pocket, then, money is available in another pocket. It is all a shell game.

You have to understand this budget is being written in the context of an election happening in the next 18 months: “How do we find the cash to look as good as possible?” Not, “How do we make sure that the long-term interests of this province are safeguarded?” That’s the question that has to be asked. That’s the question that has to be answered. And hiring a company that was one of the central architects of the financial projects that caused the world economy to crash is not something that’s defensible.

We have a larger context for this budget. If you talk to Armine Yalnizyan at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, if you read articles about what has happened with income in this province and in this country, you’ll see that for the last few decades the income of the middle class in this country and this province has been stagnant. People have been working hard, people have been upgrading their skills, but the central reality is that the broad middle class in this province has had its income stagnate.

The wealthiest have gotten wealthier; the poorest have gotten poorer. And, in the middle, that group that our economy depends on for purchase of goods to drive the economy; that group that is the social backbone of this province, because they’re the ones who get the education, hold down the skilled jobs, do many of the critical things that the economy of this province demands—and frankly, membership in that class is something that people aspire to, either to get into or to maintain a position in. That income stagnation arises because of a decline in the economic base of this province, and this budget has to be understood in the context of that decline.

In any society, when a province, a country or a city writes a budget, it reflects its underlying wealth and it reflects the different power between social and interest groups in that society. The underlying wealth of this society has been threatened. I ask you, if you go to London, Hamilton, Windsor, Cambridge, Kingston—all over this province—people see manufacturing in decline, economic activity in decline, loss of middle-income jobs, forcing people into very low-paying jobs.

That’s a substantial piece that has to be addressed. It’s not addressed in this budget. This budget is part of the management of the decline, rather than an attempt to reverse that decline. It is not a budget that is actually going to take on the fundamental weaknesses in Ontario’s economy and address those weaknesses. That’s a profound problem.

This government, this Liberal government, has been making some very high-cost choices in terms of the future for this province. Instead of taking on sprawl in the way it needed to be taken on, it’s going to allow sprawl to continue.

It may nip a bit here, tuck a bit there—and recently the Pembina Institute brought out a report about the cost of sprawl and congestion on the economic centre of the province, the greater Golden Horseshoe—but the simple reality is that more and more greenfield sites are going to be eaten up for sprawl, and that is going to have huge impacts in terms of costs to provide infrastructure and huge costs in terms of the congestion that will arise from that, all of which will weaken and undermine our economy.

This budget does not take the steps necessary to address that, and the policy decisions made by this government leading up to this budget don’t address that.

Once again, the fundamental problems facing our economy, the ones that need to be addressed so that we are an affordable and attractive jurisdiction, aren’t being addressed. That is a huge problem.

Just recently a study came out about the impact on health care of the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in the Toronto area. I have to say, in the 1990s I was one of the pioneers of efforts to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. The simple reality, when you look at the demographics, is that Toronto cut visits to emergency rooms for people with breathing problems and heart problems quite substantially, quite noticeably. So in fact, when you take actions in the wider world that impact on people’s health, then you have an impact on health care costs.

This government is in a position to put its coal-fired generators on standby. Demand for power has been dropping, but we’re still burning coal. This government knows very well that burning coal causes death, causes health damage. It could be acting much more quickly than it is to help contain health care costs by reducing deadly air pollution. It is not doing that. That is an underlying factor that drives health care costs.

I understand that my time is limited and I will take up the rest of my speech when I next have the opportunity.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: On behalf of our page Avery Watters, I’d like to introduce members of her family who are here today: her father, Mike Watters; her brother, Cameron Watters; family friend Mike Healy; and their grandmother Rita Mueller. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Enjoy the day.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my absolute delight to introduce this year’s girls’ government team. They’re from Annette and Runnymede public schools. They’re going to be meeting with Minister Bradley and they’re going to Ottawa next month to meet with a cabinet minister. They’re accompanied by Michael Kanalec and Vanessa Shrimpton, their teachers. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Milloy: I know that members will want to join me in welcoming Maureen and Eric Sanderson, who are in the gallery today, from my community. It is Eric’s birthday today, so we wish him a happy birthday.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Legislature this morning Mr. Sukhdial Singh Bhullar. He’s a retired inspector general of police from Punjab, India, and he is the most decorated officer in the police forces in Punjab.

Accompanying him is Mr. Devinder S. Sangha. He’s a good friend of mine. He just moved from Montreal to Ontario. I think finally he saw the light. Welcome.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to introduce Sylvia Maracle in the gallery, who is head of the Friendship Centres.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Oxford and page Kyle Rutherford, to welcome his mother, Carolynn Rutherford; his father, Mark Rutherford; his sister, Jenna Rutherford; his cousin Cole Pirie; his grandmother Sandra Rutherford; his grandfather John Rutherford; his grandmother Irene Baker; and his grandfather Ralph Baker. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Can you list how many different rate increases, taxes and fees the McGuinty Liberals are imposing on Ontario families’ energy bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve said many times—and I’ve said it in this place and I’ve said it in response to questions from the member—that there is no question energy prices are on the increase in Ontario. We’ve been saying that for some time, but there is reason for that. One of the reasons is, when we came to office we inherited an energy system that was in an absolute shambles, an energy system where the supply of energy just was not adequate enough to ensure the sustainability and the reliability of our energy system. So we’ve had to make investments in nuclear modernization; we’ve had to build new gas plants; we’ve had to invest in renewables.

There is no question: Worldwide, the cost of energy is going up, and will be going up in this province as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: George Smitherman promised 1%. We know where that went.

The minister won’t answer the question, so I will. The McGuinty Liberals are making Ontario families pay for the following: a $5-a-month regulated price increase; $8 a month for the HST; $38 a year for the loss of the small-volume discount; $5 a month for the smart meter program; your $53-million backdoor energy tax grab; a $5-a-month so-called green subsidy; the $437-million Samsung subsidy; a $2.75-a-month OPG rate increase; and $1.6 billion for Hydro One transmission expenses. That does not even include the Hydro One debt retirement charge or distribution charges, regulatory charges—the list goes on and on.

Can you at least come clean with Ontario families, seniors and businesses and tell them how much more the McGuinty Liberals are going to make them pay for energy this year?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the honourable member for reminding me of another thing that we’re paying for: Consumers are paying for the debt that they built up in all the years of mismanagement, through their entire term in office, when it comes to energy. Our consumers today have to pay for your mistakes.

But we as a government and as a generation have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that we get it right. That does ensure that today, we have to make some of the tough decisions that their party refused to make when they had the opportunity to handle these files: investing in more nuclear to ensure that we have an adequate level of nuclear; investing in the modernization of our nuclear system, in the refurbishment of Darlington; investing in renewables—something that’s important. We’re leading the world when it comes to growing renewables in this province, something every—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: If the McGuinty Liberals can’t do the math, we’ll do it for them. Ontario families will pay at least $300 more per year because of their policy. One leading energy adviser group estimates that after all your new green—so-called green—subsidies roll out, Ontario families will pay $631 more each per year. They don’t even consider the cost of your Samsung deal, proposed retrofits or HST tax grab.

The $5 rate increase being announced today sends the price of electricity up more than 60% since you came to office, and who knows what pending generation cost increases will come with new gas plants in Oakville and North York, what they will add? Will you just say, once and for all: How much is too much for you?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We inherited, as I said before, an energy system that was in shambles. We’ve had to make tough decisions. We know that the cost of energy is going up, not only in Ontario but around the world. But we’re making the tough decisions that we need to make today to ensure that we have a reliable supply for tomorrow, and in making those tough decisions, we’re growing renewables in this province. We’re creating jobs and building the next-generation economy.

My question to the member is: What is your plan? You come down on us; what is your plan? You have no plan. You want to go back to coal. Your love affair with coal continues to this day. As the Conservatives are cuddling up to coal, we’re doing all we can to build a cleaner, brighter future for the next generation through investing in renewables. We’re going to keep going in that direction—

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

ENERGY RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. If a concerned Ontario family or senior wants to know how much more they will be paying for hydro this year, where can they go?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Energy Board regulates energy prices, and the Ontario Energy Board, at least two times a year, comes forward with rate increases. This is—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You just have to say it’s all your decisions—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew: You just asked the question. I don’t know how you can listen to the answer when I have difficulty hearing it because of your heckling. You know the rules; if you’re not satisfied in the end, you can call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Energy Board regulates the prices of energy. In fact, this is about the time of year when the Ontario Energy Board comes forward, as they do biannually every year, to indicate what the cost of energy will be and what the price to the consumers will be. They make seasonal adjustments to the rates and thresholds to accommodate for summer and winter. So I think that the member will hear very soon from the Ontario Energy Board, who will determine what the increases will be for this year.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Their decisions on energy prices are based completely on the policies that you give them.

Dalton McGuinty spares no effort to increase Ontario’s hydro bills at every opportunity, but makes no effort to let the public know about it. According to an Ontario Energy Board letter of April 9, you’re directing electricity distributors to bury your backdoor energy tax grab in the regulatory charges

section of the bill, so you’re hiding this tax from Ontario families, the very people who will pay it.

Will the McGuinty Liberals rethink the plan to bury the backdoor energy tax and post it on a separate line on people’s energy bills, or will Ontario families have to read the blog of the Premier’s strategic adviser Andrew Steele just to know when you’re increasing the tax and by how much?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re working very hard with our energy partners. In fact, this is something that our entire generation has to work towards, and that’s to transform our energy system from the system we inherited that was reliant on dirty coal, from a system that was simply not reliable in terms of energy supply. We’re making the investments today to ensure that that system indeed is reliable.

I know the member doesn’t support that. He wants to move us back to the day when we turned the lights on every morning when we got up and we were never ever sure whether they would actually be able to turn on. He wants to move us back to the days of coal.

I say this again: Watching the Tories cuddle up to coal is something that should strike fear into the hearts and minds of every Ontarian who cares about the health of their kids.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’ve been promising to shut down coal since John Gerretsen’s hair was black and they’ll be promising until Brad Duguid’s is grey.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that we refer to members by their riding name or their ministry.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The market price for electricity is at historic lows, but the McGuinty Liberals have added so many regulatory increases, taxes and fees that Ontario families, seniors and businesses now see their electricity bills at historic highs.

It’s bad enough that you aren’t even being transparent about all these taxes and fees on electricity bills, but the same OEB letter makes it clear that you’re using electricity bills to raise taxes for general revenue. You have instructed utilities on how to collect taxes from families and businesses and send it along to the Minister of Finance.

Why have you turned local utility companies into tax collectors?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I know John Gerretsen, and John Gerretsen’s a friend of mine—

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

The same reminder that I just gave to the honourable member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke applies to the minister.

Hon. John Gerretsen: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I’ve been environment minister for two and a half years and I’ve only had two questions from the official opposition. I’m looking forward to a third question in the immediate future to show that they’re interested in the environment of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind all members again that we refer to riding names and ministry offices.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the difference between us and them is that we have a plan to ensure that the future of energy in this province is sustainable, reliable and indeed affordable.

But if you look back in history, Tories weren’t always that bad. In the early 20th century, there was opposition to hydro power from Niagara Falls. Premier Whitney in those days moved forward with that and that powered our economy in Canada for many years into the future. Whitney was a Conservative; he had vision. How sad it is today to see the Tories when they’ve moved away from any vision at all.

Ontario is the leader in clean energy. We’re a leader around the world. Our investments today will be looked on in the future as being visionary down the road in building a stronger economy and a brighter—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier says that he’s breaking his promise to fund the construction of Toronto’s Transit City light rail lines because this government simply can’t afford them. How much money is Ontario actually saving from this decision?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s $4 billion. We’ve been public about that. We made reference to that on budget day.

What we’re doing is adjusting the timetable. It allows us to save this money in the short term, and it’ll require that it be expended in the longer term.

I think my honourable colleague has to recognize that our revenues have been affected as a government because of a global recession. We’ve had to make some choices. We said that we would prefer not to make cuts to our hospitals, not to make cuts to our schools, but instead to stretch out our timetable when it comes to investing in public transit. Again, as I’ve said many times, I think that’s reasonable and, I’d argue, it’s responsible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We know there are significant divisions on the government side over this wrong-headed decision. In fact, Toronto city councillors tell me that they’ve heard from several panicked government MPPs who have told them that the province, in fact, will only save about $100 million a year, at most. That’s because the province can amortize their transit investment over 40 years. One hundred million represents less than 0.1% of Ontario’s 2010-11 budget. That’s a small price to pay to improve public transit, to enhance economic productivity and to help the environment.

So I ask: What is the real story behind the Premier’s broken promise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think the Minister of Finance would like to speak to this.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we are continuing along with our investments. We are adjusting the time frames. Those time frames are still very much five to seven years out in terms of when any of the projects would have started in any event.

The member is right: These projects can be amortized over an extended period of time, but if she were to look carefully, she would see that the borrowing and the cash flow has to happen at the outset. What this does is it allows us to develop these lines appropriately, finance them appropriately, and continue along the path that this government has taken over the last seven years, and that is to invest heavily in public transit, both in the greater Toronto area and indeed right across the province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Toronto-area families deserve a full explanation from this Premier. Moms and dads will continue to miss dinner with the kids because they’ll continue to be stuck in traffic.

Given what we know about Toronto’s gridlock and its negative impact on the local economy, how can the Premier continue to claim that his decision is fiscally responsible when in fact it is the exact opposite?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to remind the leader of the New Democratic Party that we are now providing Toronto with five times the amount of funding they were provided with in 2003. We have invested over $9.3 billion in public transit. We are keeping our commitments on all the projects while we are adjusting the timetables. We will fund the full cost of the Transit City projects.

But, as the Premier indicated, given our deficit this year of $21 billion, we feel it is both appropriate and responsible to adjust those timelines, recognizing that the projects under consideration wouldn’t even begin construction for probably six or seven years. Accordingly, we made the decisions we’ve made. We will continue to make the investments we’ve made in public transit. It is a responsible and appropriate policy for this time.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question is to the Premier as well. Yesterday, at a conference, pension expert Keith Ambachtsheer made a startling point. He said that fees on the $700 billion held in private savings plans are sucking up $8.4 billion more than contributors would pay if they were saving inside large public pension plans. That’s $8.4 billion that is going into the coffers of banks and insurance companies and not into the retirement savings of Ontarians and Canadians.

With banks and insurance companies lobbying to increase their role in overseeing retirement savings, where does the Ontario government stand in this historic pension debate?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Ambachtsheer yesterday morning, albeit briefly. It’s one of a number of meetings we have had to discuss the issues. He has put an element of the discussion that is before all Ontarians, and indeed all Canadians right now.

We talked yesterday. I shouldn’t say we did; that was not part of my discussion with him. We did talk about the three pillars of savings in the Canadian pension system, the first being the public side of the system, the second being the private part and the third being tax-funded programs at the federal level, such as OAS and GIS. All Canadians are engaged in debate on ensuring that we have the best system possible.

The government laid out the options it’s looking at in its budget. I would invite the member opposite to have a look at those options, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on this important issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There really are only two fundamental sides to this debate. On one side, there are those, like New Democrats, who passionately believe in public, cost-effective defined benefit plans. On the other side, there are those who support fee-loaded private options being promoted by the banks and insurance companies.

On behalf of the four million Ontarians who lack a pension plan, I once again ask this Premier, which side is he on?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are on the side of the best possible pension system for all Ontarians. I would remind the member opposite that one of the reasons we began this discussion and why Premier McGuinty led this discussion at the national level is because only 30% of Ontarians have a pension. We are well aware of that.

Number two: The member opposite refuses to acknowledge that many Ontarians save through other vehicles, and that is simply a fact of life.

Number three: The member opposite has not spoken about the cost associated with this, other than on one side of the issue.

We have kept alive a number of options that are well defined in the budget. We will continue to work with other provinces and the federal government—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this is not an academic exercise. This is about providing all Ontario workers with a secure and dignified existence in their retirement years. New Democrats have come down firmly on the side of public, defined benefit pension plans. We have made it clear that billions of dollars in savings should be going into the pockets of retirees and not into the coffers of banks and insurance companies. But unfortunately, nobody knows where this Premier and this finance minister stand.

It’s a very, very simple question. Whose side are they on? With pensioners on the one side, as we are, or with bankers and insurance companies and their executives?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It is not a simple equation. In fact, the member opposite needs to address a number of important issues. Should we have a segregated pension system in Canada? That is every province with its own system—number one. Number two: We agree that the cost-effective delivery of pension services is an extremely important variable, and we agree that, for instance, the Canada pension plan’s costs of administration are lower than those of private-sector-sponsored plans.

But Canadians save in a variety of ways. If she is advocating getting rid of RRSP tax deductions, for instance, she should say so. She hasn’t said that. If she is arguing against a range of other tax policies that benefit savers, she should say so.

This is an important issue. Premier McGuinty and his government continue to—

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

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Premier: I want to ask the Premier about the Ontario driver’s licence tourism industry over which his Minister of Transportation is presiding. This emerging industry is not only encouraging novice drivers from the GTA to visit remote parts of Ontario, but it also guarantees them driver’s licences while they’re there, licences they probably couldn’t even qualify for in their home jurisdiction.

I’d like to know from the Premier, can he tell us how much longer his government intends to allow these flea market driver’s licences to be issued? And can he explain why the Ministry of Transportation has been turning a blind eye to this mockery of our licensing system in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am pleased to take the question. I’m not sure my honourable colleague intends what I think is a legitimate understanding of the question he is putting to us, which is that those people who work in the sector of testing young people for their licences are somehow using lower standards or are less effective or are less prepared to uphold Ontario standards than those working within the city of Toronto or the GTA. I think that’s a serious allegation. I think he ought to carefully consider making that kind of allegation.

We’re proud of the province-wide standard that we have in place. It’s one of the highest, if not the highest, in North America when it comes to our graduated licensing system. We have one of the safest traffic records on our roads anywhere in North America in large part because of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s precisely because we are concerned about road safety that we are challenging the Premier on this. It seems that everyone except the Premier and his Minister of Transportation understands that what’s going on here is not only wrong; it’s a threat to the safety of every motorist who ends up on the same roads as people who are getting their licences without the appropriate testing.

Here’s how the president of one driving school explains why they haul carloads of students to remote parts of Ontario: “In Toronto, it’s too difficult to get the licence ... it’s more traffic ... it’s easy to get their licence up there.”

Will the Premier commit today to direct the Minister of Transportation to restrict DriveTest centres to testing applicants who live within the designated geographic area where the people live, to give credibility—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will do no such thing. I think an Ontarian is an Ontarian is an Ontarian, and a standard is a standard is a standard. I have confidence that our driving standards are some of the strongest in North America. I have confidence that we apply the same standards whether we are in Kingston or Cornwall or Kenora or Windsor or Wawa or Toronto or Ottawa, or in any community in this province.

Our responsibility is to make sure that we have strong standards, our responsibility is to make sure that our children, in particular, are enrolled in the best possible graduated licensing system, which we have here, and our responsibility is to uphold the safest track record, when it comes to our roads, in North America. We’re proud of that, and that’s what we’re going to keep doing.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Your government knows that the HST is going to hit struggling Ontarians where it hurts: in their wallets and their purses. That’s why you continue to roll out exemptions and rebates.

Earlier this week, the government said it would prevent landlords from increasing rents due to the impact of the HST on utilities and other costs. This will reduce the HST hit on tenants whose hydro and heat is included in their rent, but what is the government going to do to protect the growing number of tenants who pay their utilities with added HST separately from their rent?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would be aware, and as my colleague the Minister of Revenue would be prepared to tell you, of course, we have a whole tax package. What it does is, there are energy credits within that; there are credits that are available with the HST. They are the most generous in certainly all of Canada. Those credits are designed to ease the transition, first of all, and you will know there are three transition payments, but after that there are permanent credits, which are the highest in all of Canada.

Our HST in Ontario, of course, will be 2% lower than that of NDP Nova Scotia, where recently the NDP Premier of Nova Scotia and finance minister announced that indeed there would be a 2% increase in their—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I have to give the minister marks for not answering the question, because he’s very good at it.

Minister, tenants are the most economically vulnerable Ontarians; one third of them already live in poverty. Most tenants simply can’t afford to pay an additional 8% on their heat and hydro. All tenants deserve protection from the HST, not just those who happen to pay utilities as part of their rent.

Why won’t you listen to groups like the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations and protect all tenants from the HST by giving a rebate to those tenants for the HST they have to pay on their electricity and heating bills?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member may or may not be aware, the new Ontario property tax credit—I’m referring here to the property tax credit—for instance, will provide an additional $270 million in property tax relief every year to low- and middle-income homeowners and tenants. It is estimated that Ontario’s comprehensive tax plan, including the introduction of the HST and tax cuts for business, will help create almost 600,000 jobs for people. Almost three million people, low-income families in Ontario, will receive a new, permanent—I underline that word permanent—sales tax credit of up to $260 for each adult and child per year, one of the most generous in all of Canada.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Changes to our drug system have caught the attention of my constituents, particularly seniors in the riding of Peterborough. Seniors often have to cope with tough chronic health problems, including cancer, diabetes, arthritis and dementia. With the recent announcement of drug reform, it is clear that 70% of the $750 million paid for so-called professional allowances don’t go towards direct patient services. This money would be better spent on more health services, specifically more low-cost drugs for Ontarians and Peterborians.

I understand the government’s new plan includes lower costs for drugs and an end to provincial allowances, but can the minister please provide more details about how these changes will bring more drugs to the Ontario drug formulary?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. We’re making these important reforms to make sure that Ontario families get access to lower-cost drugs, and more of them, as new drugs become available. Yesterday, as we do on a regular basis, we notified pharmacists about new drugs we’re adding to Ontario’s formulary. We are adding six new brand-name drugs and 24 new generic drugs. It’s our proposed reforms that make new listings like this possible.

This is very good news for people with many different conditions including HIV, hypertension, high blood pressure, Parkinson’s disease and many more health conditions. This expansion of our formulary builds on a record of achievement since our reforms began under Bill 102. Until yesterday, we had it at 150 new drugs, including 38 cancer-fighting drugs. Yesterday, we were permitted to add then another 30 new drugs. Our reforms—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Seniors in my riding of Peterborough were relieved to hear that so many new drugs have been added to the formulary, and with the new reforms, there will be access to even more low-cost drugs.

Shoppers Drug Mart spent almost $150,000 in one day in advertising in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen. They’re telling the public that they disagree with our proposed drug reforms and that the changes will result in a reduction of services. I understand that such distinguished groups as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation applaud the changes, saying they will improve access to important drugs.

But where do the seniors come in? Could the minister please tell this House how seniors feel about the changes to our drug system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Not only does CARP, the seniors’ advocacy group, support and welcome our proposed changes, they conducted a poll among their members, most of whom were seniors. Let me tell you what the seniors said about this. When asked about eliminating rebates as a way of lowering the cost of generic drugs, 92% of the seniors voted that they agree with us on this issue, and 85% of the voters disagreed with the notion that pharmacies claimed they cannot afford to do business without rebates. It is clear that seniors understand why we’re making these reforms. They support our plan.

They know it’s the right thing to do to lower the cost of drugs in this province, which will allow us to cover more drugs on the formulary.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Ontario families are just 77 days away from July 1 and your greedy HST tax grab being added to everything, but that hasn’t stopped them from speaking out.

Bruce Sovran of Kingsville says, “Everyone who will be paying the HST will suffer. Given our current economy, I think this tax is proof that our government needs to be voted out because they don’t care about us.” The member from Essex won’t stand up for Bruce Sovran, but I will.

Premier, will you listen to the hard-working people of Essex, who know what’s good for them without you telling them, and scrap your greedy HST tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member for Essex does a terrific job representing his constituents; he doesn’t need any advice from that member. I think that member ought to say why he was against the personal tax cut that came into effect on January 1. I think he ought to come clean and tell the people of Ontario why it is the Tories’ own expert witness at pre-budget hearings the year before said that this policy will create 600,000 jobs, raise family incomes and raise capital investment.

This is a carefully constructed policy that lowers taxes for 93% of Ontarians. It will create jobs across the province. It will help lead this province out of this global downturn that we’ve all experienced. It’s the right policy. It’s about jobs and a better future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: Residents in Ontario’s southernmost town are not alone in condemning your greedy HST tax grab. David Harasymiw of Sault Ste. Marie says, “The creation of 600,000 jobs because of the harmonized sales tax—I don’t think so. If anyone, including voting Liberals or any other voting human being thinks so, I have a mining company in Timmins that’s going cheap.”

The member for Sault Ste. Marie stands up for Dalton McGuinty instead of Dave Harasymiw, so I’ll ask, Premier, will you scrap your greedy HST tax grab?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians are also interested to know why his federal counterpart Tony Clement voted for this and why the federal Conservatives provided $4 billion for this. I think they ought to answer that question. I think Ontarians are interested to know why your party said one thing before we introduced it and another thing after we introduced it. I think Ontarians want to know why your expert witnesses in the past have called for this and your party supported it and why you don’t do it now.

I think most of all, while you talk a good game, why don’t you stand in your place and tell Ontarians, will you abolish the tax when you form a government, if you form a government? I think they’re trying to have it both ways. The people of Ontario can see through this masquerade and the people of Ontario will recognize, over time, that this tax policy is the right policy to create jobs—

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

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister for seniors’ affairs. On January 20 last year, a Toronto Star

article was titled “No Sprinklers in Fatal Orillia Fire.” Two residents of the Muskoka Heights Retirement Residence were killed and eight were hospitalized in critical condition. I’ll quote from that article:

“‘Last night, Ontario’s fire marshal and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs told the Toronto Star that all such buildings should be legally required to have sprinklers, regardless of designation.

“‘There’s nobody I know of in the fire service that doesn’t want sprinklers in not only those buildings but in residential buildings. It’s a big issue,’ said Pat Burke, the province’s fire marshal.”

Yesterday, Minister Phillips said, “We take the advice very much of the fire marshal and the fire code.”

Why is this minister not taking the fire marshal’s advice? Why is he not legislating mandatory sprinkler systems in all retirement homes in Ontario?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I’d refer this to the minister responsible for the fire code, the community safety minister.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I really want to make sure that everyone in Ontario understands: We haven’t shut the door on any option, and for anyone to suggest that the door is closed is in fact to give information that isn’t perfectly accurate. We continue to ask the fire marshal for advice. We take that advice very, very seriously. We weigh that advice, as we weigh the advice from our other fire partners.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: In that same Toronto article, the home’s owner said that the retirement home did not have sprinklers but had recently passed a fire inspection. It apparently had all the necessary equipment to prevent serious injury and death, but without a sprinkler system, two died; eight were seriously injured.

In the same article: “The fire marshal’s office is putting together a review of the government’s response to the Meadowcroft inquiry. He was unable to comment on his findings, but said he hopes to send them to Rick Bartolucci, Ontario Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, by month-end.” That was last year.

It’s very clear that the Ontario fire marshal supports mandatory sprinkler systems in all retirement homes. Will the minister, right now, on the record, tell us the official recommendation from the Ontario fire marshal to the government regarding mandatory sprinklers in retirement homes, and is the minister going to follow his recommendations?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: We take the advice of our fire partners very, very seriously. We look forward to that advice not only on sprinklers, but on a variety of ways that we can educate the public with regard to fire safety.

I think the member knows full well—the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association issued a letter suggesting that we shouldn’t place false hope in any one particular initiative.

I think it’s very important. The advice I’ve asked the fire marshal to give me is how we can ensure that there is a total package so that we can best educate the public with regard to fire safety.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, it has been a tough year for farmers. Ontario’s fruit and vegetable growers have had a number of challenges, such as the rising dollar, which has also impacted our processing sector.

Minister, a recently released report called the Fifteen-Year Comprehensive Strategic Plan for the Ontario Apple, Tender Fruit and Fresh Grape Industry consists of a dozen studies commissioned by the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre which examined the strengths and weaknesses of the province’s fruit producers.

Could the minister please tell this House more about the strategic plan that was released and some of the recommendations that may benefit farmers in my riding as well as across Ontario?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West. He certainly is a strong advocate for agriculture. It really is my pleasure to answer this question.

I want to say that I applaud the apple, tender fruit and fresh grape industry for developing their 15-year strategy. Having a long-term vision and a plan to get there will be their key to success.

Three key themes were identified for the industry strategy, and I want to cover them off, as follows: the industry should increase focus on the end consumer; the industry needs to improve quality and value chain performance; and innovation needs to be emphasized across the industry.

The plan sets out an objective of thriving in the domestic and global markets. These themes resonate with our Open Ontario plan and with our Premier’s agriculture summit.

I look forward to the supplementary to add—

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Minister, as you mentioned, one of the key themes in this comprehensive strategy discussion is having the industry focus on the end consumer, such as giving consumers more organic, affordable fruit, a greater fruit variety and improved marketing.

I know that your ministry has been working hard to promote the importance of buying local and to encourage both the public and the retailers to realize the benefits of buy-local initiatives.

We know that the strategies to promote Ontario food will help drive local sales and all the benefits that go along with that, including a stronger agri-food sector. Partnerships along the value chain between local producers, processors and grocers are crucial to ensure that the demand for Ontario food products is met.

Could the minister tell the members of this House more about the Buy Local strategy and what our government is doing to promote Ontario food and encourage Ontarians to buy locally?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: We do all recognize—every member in this House—that good things do grow in Ontario. The Premier’s summit, held earlier this week, focused on translating consumer demand into market realities. Building a stronger value chain from farm to retail will help strengthen our agri-food industry to thrive and connect more with our consumers and develop more homegrown food products.

Through Open Ontario, we will continue to support opportunities to encourage Ontarians to buy local and we will help our agri-food sector seek new markets for Ontario-grown produce. The McGuinty government has invested over $65 million in programming to support Ontario foods, and we are committed to adding an additional $40 million over the next two years. When you buy Ontario, everyone wins.

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Minister of Labour. This week, my office received a letter from Arc Electrical in Ottawa. This business has been under siege by the IBEW and the Ontario Labour Relations Board during the last year.

The McGuinty Liberals support union tactics that promote collusion and are illegal in other jurisdictions, including the practice of salting, where union organizers infiltrate companies, even against the will of employees.

Arc Electrical is not alone. The same is happening to firms all across Ontario, firms like Abacus, and Blenheim Electric.

Minister, your policies are costing us jobs and destroying businesses. Did union donations to your party buy these unfair labour laws?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the member of impugning motive and would ask him to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thought the member, with his time out from this chamber, would have learned something during that time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I remind the honourable member that we do not make references to people’s presence or absence in this place for whatever reason they may or may not be here. I would just ask that you be conscious of that and that we not direct our comments personally to one another in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I understand, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking to the learning of what’s going on in our province. What’s going on in our province is we have the best labour relations that we have had in the last 30 years.

We understand—and it’s because our employers, our labour groups, our employees have come together to work together and understand that we have challenges before our province. We have experienced the worst recession that this province and the globe has experienced since the Great Depression. Because of that, our labour groups, our employers have come together to get the job done, to get moving, get Ontario moving forward with an Open for Business plan that we have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ve learned a lot about this Liberal government for quite some time.

To the Minister of Labour: Your government allows stripping and market equalization funds, tactics that have only one goal—the destruction of small, non-union businesses.

The owner of Arc Electrical was chased out of business by your union friends in the IBEW. Six good employees lost their jobs, and he now teaches at Algonquin College. He told me that union intimidation and campaigning is now common practice on our college campuses as well.

Does this government support intimidation of students as well as employers? Or is your idea of Open Ontario closing the doors on all employers and workers alike?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What this government is fighting for is fair, balanced labour relations. That’s what we have brought to this province: restored labour relations.

And yes, when businesses look to locate, they look for places that have stable labour relations. That’s what we have here in Ontario. Our Open for Business plan is attracting business and we are working with our partners. When I say “partners” to the member, I mean all partners. I mean employers, labour groups, employees. We are all in this together, I say to the member. The member needs to understand that. This isn’t about dividing groups. This is about moving Ontario forward, and that’s what Open Ontario is all about.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. This morning, Torontonians learned that one of their most cherished hospitals is cutting staff. The Service Employees International Union was told that at least 25 front-line positions at Women’s College Hospital are being axed. These employees keep the hospital running. They keep it clean and they ensure that patient care does not suffer. How can the minister justify these cuts as hospital CEO salaries continue to skyrocket and her government hands out billions of dollars in more corporate tax cuts?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the question. I do understand that Women’s College is constructing a new state-of-the-art building and, as part of the project, they’re moving the final Sunnybrook programs back over to the Sunnybrook campus. Many of those positions are administration and management positions that may be able to move with the programs to Sunnybrook.

There are 3.1 FTEs that are nursing positions. However, 1.5 of these are vacant positions. We’re talking about fewer than two nurses who are affected by this. We have 10,000 more nurses working in Ontario today than we did in 2003 and we continue to increase the role of nurses in this province. These changes are being put in place to—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the minister listened to the question, she’d know I’m not talking about nursing positions; I’m talking about SEIU employees. These are workers in maintenance, people who do the cleanliness work that keeps those MRSA-type bugs away from hospitals. These are very important workers, and yet this is another cut in a long list of hospital cuts that we’ve been seeing across the province. Communities everywhere are realizing that they might actually be the next in line to lose local hospital services.

In Toronto, Toronto East General, St. Michael’s, St. Joseph’s and now Women’s College are all coping with cuts. Across the province, hospital services have been cut in Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Seaforth, Northumberland, Burk’s Falls and Cobourg. The list goes on and on. The question is this: Will the minister tell us how many more hospitals will be forced to make cuts in the time coming?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I welcome the opportunity to talk about Women’s College and I urge members who are concerned to actually make sure they understand that these changes—and they are changes—will not affect patient care. They will not impact services provided to the patients who turn to Women’s College for their health care.

These changes are being put in place to become more effective. That’s the important thing here. In health care we all have to be open to the kind of changes that will allow us to maintain a very high level of health care in this province. We’ve been very supportive of Women’s College since the demerger with Sunnybrook. We’ve increased funding by almost 40%. We will continue to support Women’s College Hospital. They play a very important—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As you are aware, the recent economic downturn has had an effect on all Ontarians. I’ve heard many stories, from Welland to Toronto to Sudbury, including accounts from my own constituents who have been struggling through these tough times. The truth is, we’re all facing difficult times.

I understand that the government has introduced many initiatives to help Ontarians in need, and one in particular is the poverty reduction strategy. This strategy is an important tool created to help Ontarians by providing long-term support needed.

In Scarborough–Rouge River and Toronto, affordable housing and rent supplements play an important role in the poverty reduction strategy. I’m hoping the minister would be able to provide the House with an update on these programs.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The question does touch on a serious problem that we have around the world, and certainly we’re not exempt in Ontario, and that’s the one of poverty. We are attacking that, however, head-on. To date, we have committed to creating and repairing at least 76,500 housing units across Ontario. In addition, the 2009 Ontario budget made permanent $5 million annually to ensure stable funding for municipal rent banks across Ontario.

We’re delivering close to 35,000 rent supplements to help make rent more affordable for low-income Ontario families. Rent banks have helped 23,000 families avoid evictions so far this year. On average, this means keeping 330 families in their homes every month.

The McGuinty government is committed to the first Ontario long-term affordable housing—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Minister, I’m pleased that this government has decided to tackle this serious problem of poverty in Ontario. Your ministry is providing Ontarians with a very important service, and I ask that this service continue well into the future. I will be sure to take this information back to my constituents.

This year’s budget recognizes health, education and economic development as key priorities for the government and laid out a plan to eliminate the provincial deficit by 2017.

The minister comments on the substantial commitments by this government in the affordable housing sector, but there is no mention of new funding for social housing renovation and affordable housing development in the 2010 provincial budget. I’m hoping the minister would be able to address the budget and how it will affect his ministry and, most importantly, the people in my riding and all Ontarians.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to inform the member that while the economic circumstances are challenging at this time and they’ve pinched our financial situation, our investment in much-needed affordable housing remains unchanged.

In 2009, the province, together with our federal partners, committed to investing $1.2 billion over two years in affordable housing. This means that the second half of the affordable housing funding is being rolled out this year. That’s more than $600 million in funding for Ontario families in need.

Today, we’re continuing to invest in housing through $100 million for the 2008 budget, which has seen more than 62,000 units repaired; $127 million for the DOOR program, to help create and repair affordable housing; and $80.24 million for off-reserve aboriginal housing—

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

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and it concerns—I wrote the Premier and the minister back in January, and I can’t believe you haven’t changed this program. The program I’m referring to—honourable members may not know this: The Liberals have a three-year program for apple growers that subsidizes by 50% the purchase price of new, petroleum-based, plastic, American-made apple harvest bins, but they won’t level the playing field and subsidize the 100% Canadian-made wooden bins that have been used for centuries by apple growers.

I ask the minister, is this what you and the Premier mean by Open Ontario, that it’s open to Americans but closed to Ontario businesses?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you very much for the question, and I really do appreciate the question.

I want to clarify just a few things. In fact, for the sourcing of the bins, it’s entirely up to the business. The decision is made entirely by the operator of the business. If they choose to buy American or they choose to buy Canadian, that is strictly up to the business.

We have provided funding, and that is through the food safety and traceability, and the apple growers have found that the plastic bins are easier to clean and certainly much easier to work with for storage of their apples. That is why they’re moving away from the wooden bins.

But if they choose to move to either keep the wood or move to the plastic, that’s up to them. That’s a business decision that they make.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, that’s ridiculous. It shows what lack of knowledge you know about business and small business. You’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I reminded an honourable member earlier about not bringing our questions or answers down to a personal level. I remind all members of that.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Well, it is rather personal when you’re driving fellows like John Finch in Clarksburg out of business. He makes wooden apple bins. Farmers won’t buy the bins anymore because you’re subsidizing by 50% the American-made plastic bins. By the way, plastic’s not a renewable resource, the last time I looked, and good Canadian wood is. It’s better for the environment. They’ve used them for centuries.

I got a form letter back from your ministry that made no sense. In my 20 years here, I—either you guys are stubborn, or you don’t know what you’re doing. The fact of the matter is, farmers don’t have a choice now. If they want to be part of the program, they have to buy American-made plastic bins. Is this what you call Open Ontario?

I ask you again, why don’t you level—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I’ve got to tell you, to take lectures from that side of the House, when I come from a small business background and he doesn’t, I think is actually quite laughable.

But I want to make it perfectly clear in my answer: The decision is up to the farmer. It’s up to the farmer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members, it is Thursday.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful, member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful, either, Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Minister?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: One of the things that I wanted to further speak about—and it is an opportunity for me to talk about this—is the understanding of agriculture from this side versus that side. There have been some—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please. I try extremely hard to be patient, and I try to be the referee who does not lose his cool, and I’m biting my tongue. But to start making allegations of who’s smarter and who’s not smarter when it comes to a particular sector, an important sector in our province, is not helpful. I trust that each member—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Simcoe–Grey, that’s not helpful, either.

I think it’s important for members to recognize that when the Speaker is standing, they should be listening to what the Speaker has to say. It is important work, what we do in this House, what I do and what you do as opposition and as government. You can criticize a program, you can criticize initiatives, but let’s not bring it to a personal level.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Massey Centre in my riding provides residence and support to the most vulnerable: teen moms and their babies. It provides daycare; it provides a parent-child centre. This centre has not had an increase in its provincial funding in years. In the next day or so, this centre may be on strike. Those teen moms won’t have the support that they need. The parents whose jobs depend on that daycare centre won’t have the support. The parents and children who come in to the early years centre won’t have that early years centre.

Will your government immediately sit down with the management of that centre and help them resolve the ongoing financial problems they face because of a lack of increases over the last number of years?

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to recognize and acknowledge the good work done by the Massey Centre, an important organization here in the city of Toronto that has done work helping teen mothers find a better pathway for them and their children.

Our government has worked hard over the last number of years to make sure that we continue to put additional services in place to help those moms. Those are the very moms who will benefit from the Ontario child benefit. I was in my home community this morning talking about the importance of that benefit to mothers to be able to find a better footing for them and their children.

I know that the Minister of Labour will look forward to speaking in the supplementary to the specific issues associated with the labour dispute. But suffice it to say that we are very supportive of the work that has been done for many years by the Massey Centre. I invite any organization like that to meet with me, and I—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m pleased that the minister recognizes the good work of the Massey Centre. That’s a step forward. My hope would be that the recognition of good work and the critical nature of that work would be recognized not just in words here, but in money on the table to make sure that that good work can go forward and the workers at that centre can be paid decently.

Minister, the clients, the parents, the workers and the administration face conflict and disruption within the next 48 hours. Will you act now to help them deal with their financial problems so they can resolve this conflict?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. As the member has heard from the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the Massey Centre is very important to our community, as are all our centres that provide these social services. This work in our communities is vital.

When it comes to labour relations, at times, they can be difficult, but at the Ministry of Labour, we are there to assist. We’re there to assist with our mediators and our conciliators to help the parties as they resolve their differences and whatever disputes that they may have between each other to find a way to move forward. That’s how we help them.

We all know the great work that gets done in the community. We want to continue—

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

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

Mr. Bob Chiarelli: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. Minister, this past Monday, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published research from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. This shows that a smoking ban implemented in Toronto restaurants in 2001 corresponds with a decrease in hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, specifically, heart attacks, angina, stroke and respiratory conditions, including asthma, emphysema and pneumonia or bronchitis. This study is a helpful tool in furthering the health promotion agenda, and clearly shows that preventive action is paying health dividends.

Minister, how has the government supported Ontarians and municipalities to reduce exposure to smoke?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for the question and also to publicly welcome him to the Legislature.

The ICES study is an important one that has garner