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

April 1, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-01 (PDF)

L012 - Thu 1 Apr 2010 / Jeu 1er avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 April 2010 Jeudi 1 er avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2010 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L’ONTARIO DE 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

PATIENT SAFETY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

AUTISM TREATMENT

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD CARE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

FASHION INDUSTRY

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

DEMENTIA CARE

LONDON DISTRICT CHRISTIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTHY LIVING

EASTER

WAYNE BUTT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES

IN SCHOOL VEHICLES), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(DISPOSITIFS DE VERROUILLAGE

DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE

DANS LES VÉHICULES SCOLAIRES)

PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL DAY

AND MEMORIAL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE COMMÉMORATION DES AGENTS

DE LA PAIX ET LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF À LEUR MÉMOIRE

CIGARETTE AND CIGAR BUTT

LITTER PREVENTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CONTRE LA POLLUTION

PAR LES MÉGOTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À L’AUTISME

PETITIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

WATER QUALITY

CHILD PROTECTION

WATER QUALITY

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MINING INDUSTRY

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

TAXATION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PUPILS

WITH DIABETES, 2010 /

CHARTE DES DROITS DES ÉLÈVES

DIABÉTIQUES DE 2010

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

MAIL DELIVERY

BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PUPILS

WITH DIABETES, 2010 /

CHARTE DES DROITS DES ÉLÈVES

DIABÉTIQUES DE 2010

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

MAIL DELIVERY

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2010 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L’ONTARIO DE 2010

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 31, 2010, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s a delight to stand up here and talk about this budget. In the time allotted to me today, only 20 minutes, I want to concentrate on three aspects of the budget which I find troubling and somewhat puzzling, those three aspects being transit, poverty and hospitals.

Interjection: It’s an April Fool’s joke.

Mr. Michael Prue: I’m hearing something about an April Fool’s joke. I want to remind everyone that what I’m going to be saying is not an April Fool’s joke.

First of all, in terms of transit, I have lived my whole life in the city of Toronto, or the megacity of Toronto as it now is, with the exception of one year in Ottawa. I am a city boy, I freely admit that, and I have a great and abiding sense of the need for proper transit. Now, in the last couple of years, I watched as the Premier went around Toronto, was in all of the Toronto newspapers, was on the radio and on the television speaking again and again about the monies that were going to be put into transit in this city. I saw what he promised in Ottawa and other major cities across this province, and I have to tell you I was somewhat impressed.

I didn’t think that the government was up on the transit file when they were first elected, but I was somewhat impressed over that period of time that the Premier put a real emphasis and a real understanding about getting people out of cars and getting on to public transit. He seemed to understand the problems of gridlock.

We’ve all seen in this last week or so the reports coming from around the world, highlighting different cities and the problems they have with gridlock. It should be of no surprise to Torontonians that we are dead last, that it takes 80 minutes for the average commute for people to come in to go to work or to go to school everyday.

The whole idea of building proper and sustainable transit is one which the people of the greater Toronto area, and particularly in the city of Toronto, embraced. When the Premier stood up there and announced the $9-billion plan, he was joined by Mayor Miller, who so many times effused about the Premier understanding Toronto, and understanding and promising and saying that we’re on track to spend this money, to build transit that we have not done in a decade.

I looked at the places where it was going to be built, knowing this city very well. I looked out into Scarborough and the light rapid transit and the extension along Sheppard. I looked into Downsview and what was going to be built there. I looked out into the GTA and the Viva system and what was going to be built there. And all of them were plans that were meticulous, well-thought-out, important, and they were going to help.

So for the last year or so, I’ve been saying very little in this House on the transit file, because I don’t think I had anything to be critical of. What was being planned and what was being promised seemed reasonable and rational, and if I was on that side of the House, I would hope that I would promise much the same thing.

You can imagine the dismay of the people of Toronto, you can imagine the anger that was palpable from the mayor when he saw that in the budget this government determined that it was no longer the priority that it had been, that all of those stage presences and all of those announcements with the mayor were for naught, because at the first sign of any trouble, the first sign of any difficulty, the government retreats from their major promise.

They say now, “Oh, it’s okay. It’s simply put off for a few years, and maybe a few years down the road we’ll be able to get back onto the transit file and do what we promised to do.” Well, that has been the problem all along from successive governments—this one and the one before, I’m sure. That has been the problem. As soon as the times get tough, the people back off and the governments back off. I’m saying to this government that you ought not to be doing that. I’m saying to this government that a promise made should be a promise kept. I know these are difficult economic times, I know that you have priorities, but I always thought that transit was one of them.

When you travel around the city, you cannot help but note the gridlock. You cannot help but note in rush hours, particularly after about 7 or 7:15 in the morning, the traffic starts to tie up at the intersections. You cannot help but note that it is very difficult to do commerce, and when a truck stops to unload at any of our stores along major arterial routes, the cars get tied up behind it. There’s virtually no possibility for the trucks and the delivery people to do the commerce they are required to do other than to park, unload and do what they need to do 24 hours a day. The lineup of cars behind them is certainly noticeable, and the backup keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

We know from economic studies that in the Toronto area we are losing billions of dollars a year in terms of gridlock. We also have to think of the waste in terms of human lives; 80 minutes’ commute a day to come to work certainly has to be hard on personal time, family time and everything else. So I have to state that I am very disappointed with this government and very disappointed with the answers around this entire issue that have come from the Premier and the finance minister in question period in the last several days. I’m very disappointed because there are alternatives, and alternatives are not being looked at.

One of the alternatives, of course, is to try to find the money to do this. Other provinces are saying, end the tax cuts. Just yesterday and the day before, I looked at Quebec and their budget, and they have simply ended tax cuts to corporations. That’s what they did; they looked at what was going to help. And many of the corporations will tell you that if you can get rid of gridlock, they can save money and do a better job. So I think that getting rid of that tax cut and keeping the promise to transit would have been a far better idea of this government.

Although it is not my community, I also look at what this wrong-headed decision is going to do to the people at Bombardier in Thunder Bay. That factory, which produces streetcars, subway cars, rail cars and the like, was geared up to produce a lot of streetcars and subway cars under this $9-billion transit plan.

They have now been told that this is all going to be put on hold, and because it’s going to be put on hold, the economic planning is not going to be there, the people who were going to be hired and who will continue to work are not going to be there, and it is going to cause some considerable economic difficulty for the people of Thunder Bay, as well as, of course, the people of Toronto and Ottawa and Hamilton and London and every other major city across this province that has public transit.

I ask the government to think about this. It’s not too late—we’re in the middle of debate—to come back and do something else. It is not too late for you to take the idea that transit should be at the top of the list instead of something that can be fluffed off for later, for later, for never. That’s what I’m worried about and exactly what I see is going to happen.

The second issue I want to talk about is hospitals. I’ve stood up in this House and asked questions over the last couple of weeks about what is happening in our hospitals. Today is April 1, and on this date, Toronto East General Hospital has closed its physiotherapy unit. They have closed down a unit that has been there for a long time, and they have done so because of the budget cutbacks.

When I met with the CEO, Mr. Rob Devitt, a decent and good man, he told me that he wished he could have kept it open. He said that he understood the need for a physiotherapy unit within our community—this is provided only to those people who require physiotherapy as a result of operations and medical procedures that have taken place at Toronto East General Hospital. He understood the need for continuing that service, but what could he do?

He had been told by this government to expect a 1% or 2% increase in the hospital’s funding, and he had to determine, given that his costs were going up 5%, how he could make cuts in areas where the impact, in his view, might be minimized. He looked to those things that are required for a hospital to do, and he saw that one of the things that could be cut, or had to be cut and that he was reluctant to cut but had to, was the physiotherapy unit. So today, my community has a hospital with no physiotherapy unit, and the government, in its wisdom, came forward with 1.5%.

That is causing grief at Toronto East General Hospital but also in other hospitals in the Toronto area. Most of the people I represent do use Toronto East General Hospital as their community hospital, but there is another hospital in close proximity that people often go to, particularly if they are war veterans, and that is Sunnybrook, because Sunnybrook has specialized services and is a veterans’ hospital as well. So, many of the people in Beaches–East York, particularly veterans, go to Sunnybrook Hospital.

I received a letter from a nurse. The nurse asked me to be confidential and not to use the name. I’m not going to use the name, but I would like to read, in part, from the letter that the nurse sent me about what is happening at Sunnybrook Hospital. This letter was written in advance of the budget but certainly in anticipation of what was going to happen when hospital budgets were allowed only 1.5%.

This nurse writes:

“I can almost guarantee you that on a daily basis, our nurses will be working short which will in turn, further increase our fatigue and ‘burn out’ rates and thus sick calls. It is unacceptable to expect this of us and put our practice and the safety of our patients at risk.

“Our hospital has adopted the practice of routinely placing stable admitted patients into the hallway in front of desks to await for the next available beds. This practice is degrading and embarrassing in a foundation such as ours that prides ourselves in the care that we provide. Stripping a sick patient of the privacy of even a curtain, forcing them to be toileted and sleep in a noisy hallway because there are no beds available on the ward due to closed units from, once again, ‘budget restraints’ is unacceptable.

“Please review this process and allow more funding for ward beds, to decongest the emerg and remove the practice of hallway admissions. I’m sure that you would not want your family member lying on a hard stretcher in front of a desk in the hallway for three days.”

If you look at the budget, the budget contained only 1.5% for hospitals, and the 1.5% is certainly not adequate to maintain the hospitals at any kind of level that Ontarians have come to expect, which leads me to another very puzzling strategy of this government.

This government has announced a diabetes strategy, that they want to invest $8.5 million in the coming year for the diabetes strategy going to as many as 14 regional coordination centres, and they want to expand chronic-kidney-condition services. Now, ordinarily I would think this was a wonderful thing. Ordinarily, I would be standing up and applauding the government for its foresight, for what you’re doing and what you’re thinking and how you’re hoping to help people. But as it relates to the diet supplement, I wonder why this government is taking action to fund diabetes and to help the diabetes strategy and at the same time hurting those people who are diabetics.

I would like to quote from another letter. This letter was not sent directly to me, although I did get a carbon copy of it. It was sent to Glen Murray, MPP, 514 Parliament Street, from one of his constituents, with carbon copies to the Premier and Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services. I think this letter says it all in terms of a real diabetes strategy and what this government, in announcing that they’re giving $8.5 million for a diabetes strategy, is really not doing to help people who are diabetic. I quote this letter:

“I have diabetes and have had it for the past 30 years. My diabetes is not insulin dependent and part of that is because I work very hard to manage my illness. This means monitoring my blood sugar daily and controlling it through my diet. Diabetics, as you may know, are very limited in what they can eat. We need to be eating fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein to ensure that our blood sugar remains stable. Diabetics cannot eat junk food or fast food. We need to eat real food. We can’t eat empty calories like pasta and rice because these, even though they are cheap, raise our blood sugar quickly.

It is a lot of work to manage your diet when you have diabetes. When I can’t eat properly I get dizzy, headaches and I may shake all over and have to lie down immediately. My vision gets very blurry and it is hard to see anything because I get black spots in front of my eyes. I have cataracts and glaucoma that are a result of my diabetes, as well as arthritis, which is also made much worse by my diabetes.

“When I shop at supermarkets, I buy from the ‘seconds rack,’ where the vegetables are cheaper because they are not quite as fresh. If I can get a ride, I go to the Chinese vegetable markets because they are more affordable. Even though I live in rent-geared-to-income housing so I don’t have to use any of my food money to pay rent, I still struggle when it comes to my groceries and other basic needs. Sometimes I go and stay with my daughter when my food money runs out at the end of the month. I don’t know how people without children manage. The food bank near me does not have fresh food.

The food it has is very bad for diabetes. I do not drink or smoke and I still find it very hard to afford my basic needs each month. Each week, I spend $25 on incontinence supplies. Needles for my blood tests aren’t covered so that is another cost I must absorb.

“The subsidy I get each month is very small”—by the way, elsewhere in the letter, it says it’s $80 a month. “It is difficult enough to live in dignity when you live on a disability. It will be much harder if the government gets rid of this supplement.”

But in fact, that’s exactly what this government has done. They are getting rid of the special diet supplement. This woman, who suffers from diabetes, is going to suffer in the long term, because I’ve read what the government has to say—and I see my friend from Brant shaking his head. I see what the government is saying, because they’re going to provide it only for “severe” cases—read the budget speech—severe cases only. I doubt very much that this woman is a severe case. I can see full well what is going to happen to her diabetes, and I can see full well what is going to happen when this government finishes the special diet supplement.

I would like to just conclude, in the last minute, and talk about the special diet supplement. It is one of the meanest, cruellest things I have ever seen a government do: getting rid of a diet supplement and putting people at risk and full of fear because nobody understands what this government is going to do in the weeks and months ahead.

When you phone up, as we have—and I trust the member from Brantford has phoned up his local ODSP office as well—and ask them, “When is the diet supplement ending?” you will get somebody on the end who says, “We don’t know. We haven’t been instructed.” “Well, how much is going to be ending, and when can people expect their last payment?” “We don’t know. The government hasn’t instructed us when to do that.”

When you ask in the House, to the minister, “When is the diet supplement going to end?” she says, “I don’t know.” I think she’s waiting to see the special report at the end of the month by the hand-picked Liberal panel, and nothing is there.

But I will tell you that when you get rid of the special diet supplement, which 160,000 people in this province rely upon in order to be healthy, there are going to be casualties. There are going to be people who suffer, and the government has not made any commitment, in removing it and putting it into the health department, that they will fund it in any way near the same.

I have to say, this is a disappointing budget to me, at least in these three areas and others as well, and I ask the government to rethink their wrong-headed policies.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s always very enjoyable to listen to the member for East York—the last mayor of East York, I believe, before he was honoured with election to this fine chamber.

I always appreciate the passion with which he speaks on the issues that matter so much to him and his constituency, and the way that he stands up for the people who he sees being ignored by the government. We don’t always agree on matters of principle or philosophy or politics, but I certainly do admire the way that he brings those issues to the House.

He talked a lot about how one of the challenges for him and for all of us is when the government fails to live up to the commitments that it makes. When you start something, when you start something in motion, it forces something else or it gets something else rolling in motion. When the government says something or does something, people react to it. It’s not a static world. When people react to those things, they make commitments as a result of government commitments. What happens then is, when government pulls the rug out from under those people who have made those commitments, the challenges that were large before become insurmountable.

That is why we have always believed on this side of the House that when you make a commitment, you have to follow through. The other day, the Premier was talking about how important it is to keep his word. All across the province of Ontario every day, people are reminding this Premier that he has to learn how to keep his word.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: For the sake of Hansard, I’m the member from Brant not Brantford, so I have to remember—

Mr. Michael Prue: I did say that.

Mr. Dave Levac: He said it the first time, and then the second time he said “the member from Brantford.” He does know that I represent Brantford, Brant, Six Nations and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. But he also knows that I realize that he is the member from Beaches—with an “S”—East York, not Beach-East York, as we had that debate before.

He engaged me in my comments about shaking my head, so I will describe shaking my head. I was saying no because he never touched on, inside of the budget, the fact that in 2001, the budget for the special diet was $6 million, and today it’s $250 million. I’m wondering if he could comment on whether or not he believes that all of the people that he said are seriously in need of all of that special diet budget, from $6 million to $250 million—can you explain to me some of the clinics that were run on how to have people get that? I’d like to hear that.

As pointed out in the budget, there’s going to be a new form of having this special diet accounted for by medical doctors who will analyze to ensure that everyone who deserves to get it will get it. The circumstance which he describes is that if this person is in the medical need that they deserve, they will be getting that special diet. If they need that special diet for their health purposes, they’re going to get it.

If he can tell me how a budget can go from $6 million to $250 million in that period of time, what kind of restraint, what kind of sustaining can we do with that kind of budget. That is only that special budget inside of the ODSP that he’s talking about. Maybe he can explain to us exactly how that happened and where that came from, and maybe we can get to the bottom of this. I know both of us would agree that people who have those health needs will get them.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for his very careful analysis of the budget before us.

I want to focus particularly on his reference to the cuts that were made to probably one of the most important budgets in this province, namely the Metrolinx budget, to which this government had committed some $9.3 billion of resources and then mandated Metrolinx to do transportation and transit planning for the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas. Many of us read with interest the many announcements that this government made about the billions of dollars that would be committed to transportation and transit projects that were begun as a result of that.

Then to see in this budget $4 billion cut from that budget—although it’s characterized by the Premier and by the Minister of Transportation as simply a deferral, we cannot afford to defer any longer the work that has to be done to bring our transit up to speed, if I can use that term, in this province, particularly when in the same budget, what we saw was a confirmation of an additional $7 billion to essentially subsidize a behind-the-scenes-negotiated contract with an offshore company, the Samsung company, that we question will bring any benefit to the province of Ontario.

It’s about wrong priority setting, and that’s the issue that we have before us: a government that fails to see what the real priorities are in the province of Ontario.

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

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to rise today, just for a short time, to speak about the budget. I do want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for his comments. I really do feel that this budget was a budget for its time. It’s a very balanced approach. It speaks to jobs. It speaks to economic growth. It speaks to an investment in the people of Ontario.

That’s one of the things that I want to talk about for just a minute. I look at the retraining dollars. I know how difficult it is in a community when you lose a large employer. I can tell you, what I’m hearing from my constituents is how much they appreciate the Second Career training. It really does make a difference. It really does give them an opportunity to refocus and to have the resources to move into another career. So by making an investment back into the career training, it really does help the people of Ontario to transform to the new economy.

Then, the investment in full-day learning: For a representative from a rural area like myself, child care is a problem, it’s very difficult, so making an investment in full-day learning really does give our rural children help. It gives them the opportunity to be much more advanced when they go into school. It’s a difficult curriculum, and they have so much to learn. So anything we can do to help our children with assistance through full-day learning really does give them the ability to have much greater resources to deal with a very difficult curriculum.

Just in the few seconds I have left: When I see the members stand in the House and talk about infrastructure—especially from the other side of the House—and I look at the insignificant amounts that they ever spent on infrastructure, the voices—I don’t think they ever heard them: $32 billion—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member from Beaches–East York has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you to my colleagues from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Brant, Newmarket–Aurora and the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, I thank you for your comments, but I didn’t speak about any of the things that you commented on, so I don’t know. I guess you just wanted your two minutes.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I thank you. He is absolutely right: People react to commitments, and people expect the commitments to be kept. The people of Toronto, particularly, have reacted to the commitments on Metrolinx with some considerable anticipation. There is no doubt there is palpable disappointment throughout our city today, when that has been delayed or perhaps reduced forever.

In terms of the member from Newmarket–Aurora, he too is absolutely right: The whole issue around Metrolinx cannot be deferred. The government has, in choosing other priorities, not done justice to the people of this city.

I saved most of my comments to the member from Brant: This is entirely the government attitude. What he said today is entirely the government attitude: that this is an abused system and that the people are abusing the system. This is not in fact the reality. In order to get a special diet allowance, you are required to have a letter from a doctor. You are required to go to the doctor and have the doctor tick off the boxes, and it is in fact vetted by people who work within the bureaucracy.

If you’ve ever tried to help anyone get a special diet allowance, you will know how difficult it is, and that many people are unable to get it. Do people aspire to get some additional money? It is no wonder they aspire to get it, when the maximum you’re allowed is the $1,003 a month when you’re on ODSP as a single person. Then, it is impossible to eat unless you get a special diet allowance. That’s why they go out to get it, and they need it.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m delighted to stand up and speak on the budget motion. It’s important to enter the debate, and I’ve been listening to many different speakers from both sides of the House talking about this budget.

We are facing a difficult time that’s not like five years ago or 10 years ago, when we had the privilege of having a lot of jobs, a surplus budget and a strong economy. As you know, for the last two years the province of Ontario, the nation of Canada and the whole world have faced tough economic times. Our partner, our neighbour to the south, had a huge economic meltdown, As you and many people in this province know, Mr. Speaker, they are our strong partner in trade, so when they face difficulties, no doubt it’s going to affect us, positively and negatively.

For a long time, we know that those traditional jobs we have in the province of Ontario would exist in the future due to the progress of the technology. That’s why we are facing a difficult time, and I believe we have to work together to pass that difficult time.

Nous rencontrons un temps économiquement difficile, et nous devons travailler ensemble pour surmonter ce temps difficile.

That’s what we’re all about in this province: working together to pass difficult times in order to restore our economy and to find jobs for the people who live in this beautiful province.

That’s why we put a lot of emphasis on education since we got elected in 2003. We know that education is the most important and most fundamental element in order to build a strong economy, in order to build a strong future for the people of this province. That’s why our Premier, Dalton McGuinty, put a lot of emphasis on early childhood education. Building the colleges and universities across this province allows our students to be educated, to learn and to be able to compete locally, provincially and globally.

That’s why, when the federal government neglected their responsibility for child care in this province, our province came with $63 million in this budget to support our child care spaces across this province, because we know it’s fundamentally important for many families across the province of Ontario to see their kids go to a safe place to be looked after when they go to work.

It’s important to us to create a chance for many families who want to work. We thought the most important thing was to create full-day early learning. I think it’s a very important step toward a brighter future and a stronger future for our kids, for our families and for our province.

That’s why I believe that this proposal being debated right now in committee—we listened to many different deputations from stakeholders, school boards, teachers, parents, families and child care providers who came and voiced their concerns and support about this important step toward full-day early learning for almost 35,000 students in 600 schools across the province of Ontario, which I think is a very important step. Hopefully, if this bill passes in this House, we’ll see 35,000 students entering school in September. The benefit of this important step would be at 600 schools across this beautiful province.

I know we face a lot of difficulties. We know it’s important to educate our people and to invest in colleges and universities. That’s why more than $310 million in this budget is going to colleges and universities, to open them up for our bright students to be educated, to be able to study and learn, and to obtain good skills to be able to fight globally and nationally to find a good job.

We know the importance of our colleges and universities. I get the chance, every once in a while, to visit different nations. Every single time, when I go to those nations, I go to the colleges and universities to see what their education is all about. Do you know the first thing I hear? “We want to come to Canada to study. We want to come to Canada to learn,” because they know that we have a good—the best—education system on the whole globe.

That’s why it’s important to invest in the colleges and universities: to open our capacity to both host our domestic students and allow students from around the globe to come to Canada to study, to learn about our education; to give them the tools they need to be successful in their nations.

I think this is important for our economy. When we open our schools to foreign students, it doesn’t just mean that we’re going to obtain students who come to this province. We will also get friends who, when they get good jobs in government or whatever they do, will have a good connection with Canada and will start business and trade with Canada. So I think this is an incredible approach—and the right approach—toward a brighter future for this province and this nation.

Before this budget was announced, I had the chance, like many others in this chamber, to be lobbied and to receive many different requests from different stakeholders, whether in health care, education or infrastructure. Many different elements of our society came to us and asked us to pay attention to our investments. They asked us to maintain the services we have in Ontario. So when this budget came, I was so happy because this budget creates a balance between what we are facing as a government, as a nation, and our responsibilities as a province toward our people: toward health care, education, infrastructure and our children. This budget came as a result of responsibility.

It is a creative engine of economics that came to the people of Ontario and told them, “Despite our difficulties, we’re going to continue our investments in health care and maintain it in the public domain; keep it open and accessible to all.” This budget told the people who want to go to our colleges and universities, be educated and obtain special skills, “The universities and colleges will be open for you if you are ready, technically and scientifically, to enter those schools.” We also told the people of Ontario, “We want to share your knowledge and skills with the rest of the world.

We’re going to invite students from across the globe to come to Ontario. We’re going to increase our international students by 50%.” I thought that was a very important step toward opening up Ontario for business and education for the whole globe.

This budget came to tell people, tell families, “Yes, we’ll support you by providing child care for your kids.” We also said to the people, “Full-day learning is coming up in September”—hopefully, if this bill passes in the House—“to host 35,000 students in 600 schools across the province of Ontario.”

We also maintain our commitment toward the infrastructure which many different communities across Ontario enjoy. I think it’s a great investment, because when I go to London on Highway 401 or enter my city of London, Ontario, I see infrastructure everywhere: people building bridges, roads, parks, schools and colleges. Everything is taking place, in every community across Ontario, as a result of our investment of $32 billion, which went to infrastructure for the next two years to tell the people of Ontario, “Yes, we are here.

We’ll update your infrastructure and stimulate the economy by investing in your community, allowing people to find jobs and allowing factories to produce more products.” This is our commitment to the people of Ontario: not just in education, not just in health care, but also infrastructure.

The world is not as we experienced in the past. It is becoming more complicated and sophisticated. Technology is progressing on a daily basis. As you know, if you buy a computer today, the next day it will be obsolete because more advanced computers are coming. If we buy a car today, in a month or two or a year our car also becomes obsolete. It gets old because of technology passing us on a daily basis.

That’s why we have to invest in research and innovation. We have to continue our movement toward providing our community, our province, with a bright future and with the skills we need, because we cannot succeed in the future without updating ourselves on a regular basis, without educating our students to maintain our prosperity and our structure in this province.

With Open Ontario, we can share our technology with the whole world, especially the green technologies, purifications for our systems, which many people in this province are talking about.

Water is very important for communities across the globe. In this province, we enjoy a big wealth of water. As you know, we’re surrounded by five huge lakes. We have the biggest reservoir of fresh water around the globe, even though we have the best technology to purify our water. This technology is going to be a very important element to stimulate our economy and allow people from every part of the globe to come to Ontario, to learn from us and to buy our technology.

When I speak about water technology, I cannot help speaking about London, especially about two important, big companies that have proven themselves over the years. Purifics, a company I’ve spoken about many times, has incredible technology. They have the ability to purify water and air. They had the chance to get a contract with NASA one time to purify the water and the air for the people who go to the moon. So this technology has existed in London for many years.

We also have a great company called Trojan Technologies, which gets the chance to get contracts with many different nations to treat their water systems, their sewer systems, and purify their drinking water. Those technologies are important not just for Canadians, but for every nation around the globe.

That’s why when we open Ontario for business, when we open Ontario for education, when we open Ontario for health care, we’re telling people, “Yes, we’re open for you. Come share with us our technology, our knowledge.” It’s important in this day and age to share because we are in a small global village. Everybody can know what’s going on from one end of the world to the other within a second. That’s why we cannot live in isolation now. We cannot live alone. We have to share. We have to work together. Sharing and working together is going to create an economic engine for us as a province and give us the ability to maintain our prosperity.

Our government works very hard to protect the vulnerable people among us because we believe strongly that it’s our responsibility to look after our vulnerable people, our sick people, our children, our disabled, our people who for some reason are not able to function in this life. We believe strongly that we cannot do it alone. In order to grow and prosper, we all have to work collectively in this province. The working poor among us need our support and a small lift to give them the ability to walk with us and to walk with the rest of the province of Ontario. That’s our commitment.

Notre gouvernement a travaillé dur pour protéger les gens vulnérables, assurant une bonne éducation et les soins médicaux nécessaires. Everyone needs medical support and medical assistance, and it’s our obligation to give it to them and to support every person who lives in the province of Ontario.

This budget came to speak to this reality. It came as a result of the difficult time all of us are facing in this province—instead of standing up and hitting each other and accusing each other, from one side to the other. We can do that for political gain, but do you know what the most important thing is for leadership? To speak the truth and be able to support the move we are taking as a government to reduce and eradicate poverty, to fix our economy and, in the meantime, to create jobs for people who are looking for jobs in the province of Ontario.

When the financial situation hit this province, we didn’t panic as a government. We took the right approach.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, yeah?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We took the right approach. What did we do? We created Second Career, and the Honourable Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities announced yesterday in those House about 28,000 people being trained and retrained across the province of Ontario, and most of them have obtained jobs they love, jobs they trained for. This is a responsible government. Also in this budget we have spots for 30,000 more to be retrained in order to find new jobs.

Our responsibility, as I mentioned, because the economy changed and the technology changed, is also to update ourselves. Some of those companies, some of those factories, some of those jobs are not going to come back. We’ve lost them; they’re not coming back again. Do you know why? Because those are part of the past. Those traditional jobs are gone and are not going to come back. Therefore, our responsibility as a government is to create an environment for people to be retrained, to find new jobs in their new domain, in a new technology, in a new life.

That’s why Second Career is going to play a pivotal role to retrain 30,000 workers who lost jobs that will never exist in the future because they’re part of the past.

This is a responsible government. That’s why we come into this place and speak on a regular basis, to convince the opposite side to come in our direction, and to tell the people of Ontario about our responsibility as a government to continue our investment in education, health care and infrastructure, and in the meantime look after balancing the books and balancing the budget, because we don’t want to mortgage our kids. We don’t want to mortgage our generations: our responsibility to spend and our responsibility to invest, and in the meantime, our responsibility to make sure our budget and our books will be balanced in the future.

That’s the approach we’re taking as a government. This approach, I think, will mean a lot to many people across this province. We have 13 million people. We have millions of workers across this province looking to us, as the government, to create an opportunity for them, to create jobs, to create opportunities to find jobs.

When we take this approach, we think on a regular basis about our people, our workers, our seniors, our children and our families, because it’s our responsibility. As a result of our measures, the economy is progressing and doing a lot better. I was listening to CBC yesterday and today, and I guess our productivity is increasing and doing excellent. I get pleased and happy when I hear that GM rehired 700 people. Also, CAMI will have a second shift and Alliston is hiring people. In Woodstock, the Toyota plant announced a couple of weeks ago that 800 new jobs are going to be opened.

All these jobs are coming back to the province of Ontario because we provide the environment for them. They can prosper, and they can provide good work.

That’s why people from across the globe want to come to Canada to study, to learn and to open companies and factories. It’s good for us as a province, good for us as a government and good for us as communities across the province, because we cannot maintain our tax base without jobs. We cannot maintain our infrastructure without good working people across the province, without collecting taxes from many good men and women who work on a daily basis to provide for themselves and provide for us as a government, as a community and as a province.

That’s why I’m standing in my place, on behalf of my constituents of London–Fanshawe, to support the budget we produced in this House a week ago, and telling the people of Ontario that we’re going to continue working for you, because it’s our obligation and duty to support you.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I listened attentively, as I always do when members of the government speak, and particularly the member from London–Fanshawe. I’ve got to tell you: Had my only involvement in listening to what has been said about this budget been the address from the member from London–Fanshawe, I would just say, “Mail in my ballot for McGuinty for the rest of my life. Oh, my goodness gracious, this has to be the greatest budget from the greatest government in the history of mankind.”

Applause.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, they’re going to report that in the partial Hansard, I know. I’ll correct it; don’t worry.

Interruption.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Get that phone: That’s somebody calling me to say, “I listened to it, and I think it’s nothing but a load of you-know-what.” But answer that phone: It could be the Premier himself saying, “I wouldn’t even vote for me.”

Anyway, if you listen to the whole budget and you actually understand what’s being done and not being done, you’ve got to ask yourself: Are we only getting half of the story? I didn’t hear him mention the $21.3-billion deficit. I didn’t hear him mention that his government is going to double—that’s right; double—the debt of this province by 2012-13, an albatross around the neck of every man, woman and child in this province, and for those who are children today, they’re going to be the ones who are forced to deal with that.

As every prognosticator worth an ounce of salt says, interest rates are going up. What is going to happen to the cost of servicing that debt? We didn’t hear that from the member from London–Fanshawe. They need to be telling both sides of the story.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I was really looking forward to getting a chance to respond to some of the comments because I think this member lives with what they call rose-coloured glasses. If you listen to the speech by the member, as my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said, there has never been a budget so great that hasn’t gone as far and did so much for so few people. You would think that he’s Winston Churchill, for God’s sake.

I’ve got to say, I acknowledge that every government does some good. Every government that has sat in this House has tried to do the right thing. But the tone of this particular speech, I believe, was way over the top when it comes to the rose-coloured look at what goes on.

I just use one example. In his speech, he talks about how this government does things in a measured way; they don’t panic whatsoever. Well, I’ve been watching this government as it has been developing its policies on the Far North, and up until the throne speech, as a result of legislation that they have before this House, they had a position that 50% of the territory in the Far North would be protected in perpetuity from any development, including the lands of the Ring of Fire—or at least some of them.

All of a sudden, in the throne speech—because the government recognizes that they’ve got a political problem in northern Ontario in places like Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay and others, where the government is not seen too well because of its inaction on the economic front—“Ho, the Ring of Fire: Let ’er rip. It’s going to happen tomorrow; it’s coming to a neighbourhood near you.” If that isn’t panic, my friends, I don’t know what is. So I say to my friend across the way, I think a measured response to the budget would have been a far more interesting one.

To say that you’re working with all people in order to deal with the economic problems of this province—go talk to the workers at Siemens. Go talk to the workers at Xstrata. Go talk to the workers at Vale Inco in Sudbury, who have been on a picket line for nine months. I can tell you, people don’t feel as if this government is working with them in order to meet the challenges that this province faces and the jobs that they’re about to lose.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I too listened very carefully to the comments from my colleague from London–Fanshawe. It’s interesting: During these discussions about budget, there’s give and take on both sides, but there are some interesting statistics that I just want to quote this morning, and I think the member from London–Fanshawe touched upon them this morning. What is happening? The finance

section of this morning’s Toronto Star says, “The Canadian dollar rose more than one third of a cent Wednesday after the ... report from Statistics Canada showed” that the nation’s economy, led by manufacturing and mining, are making healthy gains in January.

What they’re saying on the GDP is, “It’s the fifth-straight monthly gain—and the biggest one month gain since December, 2006. Economists had been expecting GDP to rise by 0.5 per cent.

“‘We’re seeing a remarkable resilience and recovery up to now in the Canadian economy,’ said Craig Wright, chief economist for RBC Economics.

“‘December was a strong finish and January is off to a strong start. That adds up to a strong first quarter,” on the heels of strong fourth-quarter growth.

So there’s no question there are still many challenges out there, but we are seeing very positive signs that the economy is starting to move in the right direction.

I also note that in today’s Toronto Star we hear about the challenges, I believe, in Welland, Ontario. A small

article on page B5 indicates that Lakeside Steel, which is located in the wonderful community of Welland, Ontario, is about to add new shifts because of new demands for the product that they are producing.

My friend from London–Fanshawe’s riding is now the home of Trojan Technologies, which is the standard for water and waste water municipal operation across Ontario, to use that technology that’s state-of-the-art, and we welcome that he is so positive about developments in London and area.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I always find the member from London–Fanshawe to be nothing but supportive of his government, and rightfully so. But it’s our job to provide some balance to what is being said. There are some good provisions in this budget. The fact that there is a recognition to some degree of some of the social costs of the economic downturn and the fact that there are some very minor supports in this budget for some of the vulnerable people in our province are indeed positive.

But here is my concern: This government, this year, admits it will spend some $23 billion more than it takes in. That is a deficit. Try that at home, spending so much more every year than you’re taking in. That’s the definition of a deficit.

It will continue to do that for another eight years, which means that by the time we reach 2013, this government will have doubled the debt of this province from the time it took office in 2003. It’s a matter of responsible government. This government has shown none of that. It has spent. It is taxing. At the end of the day, they continue to talk about things at the 30,000-foot level, in terms of billions of dollars. What they are not talking about is how individuals and businesses across this province are hurting as a result of their mismanagement. It’s our responsibility to point that out.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank all the members who spoke in response to my speech.

I want to say to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and also to the member from Newmarket–Aurora, yes, we had the chance not to spend and not to create a deficit. But what would be the result of that? We’re not going to stimulate our economy. We’re not going to create jobs. Our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, our hospitals and our recreation facilities, all of it would be gone. That’s why we took that road. We know we’re going to create a deficit as a result of our actions, but we thought it was important to continue to invest in our infrastructure because our infrastructure needs investment badly.

Also, it’s the best way to stimulate our economy. As the member from Peterborough outlined and mentioned, as a result of our measures, the economy is progressing, and our productivity is growing on a regular basis. All the indications from CIBC to TD Canada Trust and all the economic experts in this province say about our strategy that it’s the best approach and the best strategy, and it’s the only way to stimulate our economy.

To the member from Timmins–James Bay, I listened to you, and I want to say something very important. We’re not panicked. That’s why we continue to invest in our infrastructure. We continue our commitment to the people of Ontario. In the meantime, we know the north is facing difficult times. That’s why in this budget there was a huge

section and also a huge element to support the people in the north, because we know on this side of the House it’s important that the province of Ontario, from the north to the west to the east and Toronto, all work together to create and maintain that engine which feeds the province of Ontario and the whole nation.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: A pleasure to join the debate and always a pleasure to follow my friend from London–Fanshawe. I didn’t get to finish about his speech, but I understand a little better now. When I was looking at the headlines from the newspaper, I realized why he was going on like he was about the budget. I had forgotten in fact, Mr. Speaker, that it was April Fool’s Day and perhaps he’s just telling us his usual stories and not really concerning himself with the facts. So that could be the issue that’s affecting—

Mr. Dave Levac: I’m using your other quote.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You like the other one better, eh? Yeah, I know that. I know that Mr. Levac will be sending that out in his householder to my riding.

Let’s start talking about the real issues in the budget and where the government failed—and I realize I’m on a short clock here today, which is unfortunate because I’d like to have more time. Perhaps we can have a unanimous consent motion or something.

Mr. Jeff Leal: We’ll see what we can do.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, I understand that. But let’s talk about what the government failed to do.

I know the member for Peterborough was talking about some good economic news across Canada. Perhaps he was talking about some of the good work the Harper government has been doing, but the job situation in Ontario is, quite frankly, desperate—the highest unemployment rate in the country. In this budget, the government failed to take on the responsibility for any real meaningful job creation program.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, put out our 10-point plan called 10for2010.ca, which speaks about 10 different ways we could actually help the economy and create jobs today. I’ll just touch on a couple of them here.

Suspend the new payroll tax on new jobs: When an employer hires somebody, if they were able to be freed of the burden of the employee tax for a period in that transition period, they’d create more jobs. They’ll be able to hire more people because that cost will be lifted from that employer.

Another thing that Tim Hudak talked about was killing red tape and regulations. This government is a red tape machine, a regulatory machine—I should say “regime.” They love to create obstacles to business so that they can create more empires for bureaucrats. That is how this government works. That’s why the best job program in this government has been to get a job in the government, because they love to hire people who are paid for out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

Another one we talked about was a suspension of the land transfer tax. One of the dreams in this country and in this province, indeed, is for people to own their own home. A suspension of the land transfer tax, which would average the savings of $3,000, would encourage home ownership. That is something that all people aspire to, and for those who are in that position, this would make it that much more affordable and would be a significant boon to the construction industry at a time when the economy is challenged, to say the least.

I want to challenge the government—to use that word again—on some of the things they’ve been talking about. The finance minister made this sound like it was some amazing—you know, the Premier was going on about fun with numbers. If you want to talk about fun with numbers, we’ll talk about some numbers here. The finance minister, in this speech—and I kind of thought to myself, “Do you even know what you’re saying here?” He was talking about the $32-billion infrastructure investment and saying what a great effect it had.

We recognize that infrastructure needs to be built in this province, but he used the quote from the Conference Board of Canada, saying that the $32-billion investment had a 1% impact on the GDP, and he sold that as something tremendous.

The GDP of Ontario is around $600 billion. A 1% impact on that is, of course, $6 billion. So if you make a $32-billion investment and it has a $6-billion effect, I think you can all see where we’re going here. But what they were trying to purport to the public was somehow that this had a great return on investment. No, it didn’t have a great return on investment. It had its impacts, and many of them were positive, but don’t try and sell something as something that it isn’t. What it was not was a return on investment. But those are the kinds of games that they play with the numbers, and that is what Minister Duncan was doing in the budget speech.

You would have to have a 5% impact on the GDP for $32 billion to have even been a wash. So I think it’s important that the government understands that you should not be going out there and trying to deceive people with having fun with numbers.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. I’d just ask the honourable member to be careful with his language. You don’t want to be accusing the government of some of that stuff.

Mr. Bob Delaney: “Deceptive” and “deceitful” are over the line.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Understood, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll do my best to be careful. I appreciate the warning.

Let’s talk about the Second Career program. They’re bragging about the Second Career program, and we understand that you have to have some kind of a program to assist people in transition, but what you also have to have is—you can’t just train people. They didn’t train astronauts before they found the moon. You don’t start training people for something that isn’t there. You’ve got to have a plan; if you’re going to train people, you also have to have a place to put them. So you’re training people for jobs, but you have no jobs for them.

This government talks about making great investments, but there’s no accountability. What should be absolutely tied to it are how many jobs we’ve actually created for those people that we’re retraining, but that’s not what they talk about. That’s their fun with numbers and that’s the messaging they like to get out there. They just think that, “Somehow people are going to believe we’re doing wonderful things.” But how sad for the person who gets retraining and then is told, “Your retraining dollars have dried up. The program is over. You’re on your own, and we never said you would have a job.

In fact, there are no jobs.” That’s what’s happening. We’re retraining people but we have no place to send them to a job. Shame on the government.

Talk about accountability—on page 164 of the budget there’s a short little note in there which translates to, “We made a promise to do a public review of the LHINs”—the local health integration networks—and on page 164: “No. We’re not going to do that.” This is about accountability. Budgets are about accountability. They don’t want to be accountable for the problems that they have created with their unaccountable LHINs. What does the Premier do? After telling everybody how you’ve got to keep your word, and he stood up in the House and said, “It’s so important that if you make a deal, you stick with the deal; you keep your word.”

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Tell De Beers that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, tell De Beers that—a 15% surcharge, right; a diamond tax.

He made those comments in here. What about his word to the people who are paying their taxes dutifully every day on every paycheque who want to know whether a bureaucracy that was the creation of George Smitherman is actually paying dividends, is actually making health care more efficient or working better? According to all the numbers, we’d have to say that they’re not working. If the government wants to dispute that—and they have every right to do so—then let’s proceed with the review. Even their own member, the member from Niagara Falls, says this is a mess and they should be reviewed.

He’s in the paper this morning. I don’t believe he is going to be on the Premier’s dinner list this weekend. But a lot of people across Ontario are nodding their heads and saying, “Yes, Kim Craitor is actually standing up against his government, which is wrong for breaking their word and not proceeding with the review of the LHINs.” Your word is important, and I think the Premier has to understand that the people expect him to keep his word.

How much time have I got?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Just a couple of minutes.

Ms. M. Aileen Carroll: You should have been finished a long time ago.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member for Barrie says that I should have been finished a long time ago. I hate to disappoint her.

I just don’t want to get too deeply into a thought without being able to finish it, and this one could take an hour.

The other thing that the member for London–Fanshawe never talked about was the doubling of the debt. The finance minister says we’re going to eliminate the deficit in eight years, and then he’s having a luncheon the other day and he says we could go faster. But his budget document will tell you that he’s predicating that on program spending not going up by more than 1.9% or 1.8% per year. Well, that has never happened under this government. They’re not even close to that. This government, in seven years, has raised program spending over 70%.

How do they think the public is going to believe for one second that they’re going to hold program spending to under 2% in order to eliminate this deficit in eight years? They can’t do it, and they don’t want to do it; they just want to tell everybody they’re going to do it, and they are wrong.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: It’s my privilege to introduce the parents of one of the pages here, Torin Hills: his father, Trevor Hills, and his mother, Mary Hills, are in the members’ gallery over here. I just wanted to welcome them to Queen’s Park and to enjoy today’s question period.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to welcome two of my Etobicoke–Lakeshore constituents who are here at Queen’s Park joining me today: Mr. Barry Horosko and Ms. Maureen Flanagan Pool. Both are active in the community. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s a pleasure to welcome the Centennial journalism students visiting the Legislature under the auspices of the legislative press gallery and Ms. Blizzard. They’re right behind you there. They include—I’d better put my glasses on for this—Aleksejs Nesterins, Kerry Prunskus, Ozman Omar and Vick Polatian.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’d like to welcome two of my constituents who came here today to watch the democratic process. They are in the west gallery. They are Bassam Abdullah and Khooler Abdullah.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s my privilege to introduce the president of my Steelworkers local. Rolf Gerstenberger is joining us from Hamilton, and retired member Paul Lane.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I’d like to welcome to the House today three individuals: Mr. Louis Louro, who is past president of the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals and a merchant here in Yorkville for the past 25 years; Mr. Carlos Teixeira, also a past president of the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals and DS Teixeira and Associates; and Mr. Gus Costa, a retired police officer as well as a paralegal who owns Global paralegal services. Welcome, gentlemen, to the House.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I notice that Connie Neilipovitz is with us again today, mother of our page Ben Neilipovitz from Thunder Bay–Superior North. Welcome again, Connie.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome Mayor Roger Sigouin along with Clerk Claude Laflamme, who were here early this morning for an 8:30 meeting with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and soon to be meeting with the Minister of Infrastructure, Mr. Duguid. I would like to welcome them to the assembly.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome to the Legislature today the mother of page Leah Kelly. Loraine Kelly is with us today. Loraine is not only the mother of Leah, but she’s a former staffer for Attorney General Ian Scott. Welcome, Loraine.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Vaughan and page Catia Marceau, to welcome her mother, Giulia Marceau, and her father, Stephan Marceau, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

As well, on behalf of the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, leader of the official opposition, and page Neale Taylor, I welcome his mother, Nancy Taylor, and his aunt Laura Kmety to the west members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. The member for Niagara Falls is quoted as saying, “Here in my riding the LHIN has been tarnished by what’s transpired over at the Niagara Health System.” He’s talking about the growth of executive salaries at the LHINs while you cut $15 million from front-line care and closed emergency rooms in Fort Erie and Port Colborne.

Now that your own caucus is joining the Ontario PCs in calling for a public review of your unaccountable, unelected, anonymous bureaucracies, will you stop breaking the law and call for a review of the LHINs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about some of the really exceptional things the LHINs are doing. As we’ve talked about at great length in the House, the role of the LHIN is really to integrate the services available within their boundaries for the people who live there. Their job is to knit together the health services that are available.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN for the work they’ve done. They’ve brokered an unprecedented level of involvement of primary care providers and specialists in local health planning. I look forward to the supplementary to talk about more of the accomplishments of the LHIN in Niagara region.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Clearly, Ontario patients and families don’t agree with this government’s decision to divert valuable health dollars away from front-line care and into the fat salaries of top bureaucrats and sole-sourced contracts at the LHINs. Neither does your own member, by the way, who says, “I believe in transparency. I don’t have a problem with LHINs being reviewed now....”

The question is, why doesn’t the Premier share his caucus member’s commitment to transparency and accountability, and stop blocking a public review of these unelected, unaccountable health bureaucracies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We welcome a review of the LHINs, and that will happen by members of all parties of this Legislature once the LHINs have achieved the full suite of services they will be providing in our communities.

The LHINs provide an invaluable service. I must say, I’m wondering now whether the members of the opposition actually understand the work that LHINs do. In the Central East region, for example, where the member for Whitby–Oshawa is from, here’s just one example of the work they do: They announced funding for 32 supportive housing units in the Central East LHIN to help people living with addictions increase stability and security in their lives and to reduce pressure on hospital emergency rooms. That is just one example of the work that is done by LHINs in this province.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We all know who’s really making health care decisions in this province. The Premier’s line that Queen’s Park isn’t involved in making them just isn’t credible. Even the Minister of Health admitted that Premier McGuinty bowed to political pressure and injected $15 million into Grace Hospital during the Toronto Centre by-election. You can see in the eyes of the McGuinty Liberal caucus that they know the public isn’t buying what the Premier is saying, but only the member for Niagara Falls is willing to admit that the Premier has to stop protecting whatever it is he’s hiding and take accountability for cutting health care and closing emergency rooms.

Are you cancelling the public review of the LHINs because you don’t want to confirm that consulting contracts and bureaucrats’ salaries are diverting money directly away from front-line health care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I’d like to invite the member opposite to come with me for a visit to the LHIN in her community. I think she will actually learn about the value of the LHINs.

The member opposite knows, although she doesn’t really want to say it, that when we brought in that community voice in the decision-making around health care, we actually replaced two levels of health care: We had the district health councils, and we had the regional offices in the health department. What the member opposite wants to do is recentralize power for health right here at Queen’s Park in Toronto, so that they can make the decisions they will need to make if they in fact do freeze spending on health care. That would mean cuts to service across the province. We do not want to do that.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, my question is to the Premier. Premier, you created the local health integration networks in 2006. Since then, the number of senior bureaucrats at the LHINs who earn over $100,000 has tripled.

Are you breaking the law and cancelling the public review of the LHINs so you don’t have to account for cutting money from front-line service while bureaucrat salaries are ballooning?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think there’s something in there about the sunshine list, and I want to say that we welcome transparency and accountability. In fact, there are 63,000 Ontarians—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’d ask the honourable guests here to please remove the photographs. I’m going to have to ask that they be removed from the chamber. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I was saying about the sunshine list that we welcome transparency and accountability. We think it’s important information for Ontarians to have and to consider.

There would be two additional facts that are important for them to consider as they review their sunshine list. Point number one: If we had taken inflation into account, 70% of the people who are on that list would not be there today. Secondly, we have expanded the sunshine list to cover off OPG and Hydro One employees who had been sheltered by the previous government. Employees in those two companies alone account for over 10,000 people on the sunshine list; that’s about one in six. We believe in transparency and openness.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Ontario families know that millions of valuable health dollars are not going into the front-line care as they should. People haven’t forgotten the money wasted on the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle or the latest slush fund for insiders and Liberal-friendly consultants at the LHINs.

Last year, Ontario families were in the worst depths of the recession, trying to make ends meet. How do you explain giving CEOs of the LHINs raises of $15,000 each on average, while they were fighting to save their jobs and emergency rooms in their communities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: With respect to LHINs and the sunshine list, the list this year went up by 19 people. I would note that the average salary has dropped. I would also note that the list would shrink by 60% had it been tied to inflation. Again, I would ask Ontarians to keep all of that in mind as they consider what has happened.

We’ve made a specific decision, notwithstanding the urging of the Conservative Party, to hold the line at $100,000 when it comes to the sunshine list. We think that for the average Ontarian family, $100,000 is a lot of money, so we will continue to uphold the sanctity of that commitment. We will also insist on ensuring that OPG and Hydro One employees are covered off even though the Conservative Party stands opposed to that.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The only things growing faster than the sunshine list are the six-figure salaries of the LHIN executives. This year alone, over $17 million was diverted from front-line care to the salaries of Premier McGuinty’s unelected, unaccountable health bureaucrats. That doesn’t even include what’s being handed out to consultants. The slush fund for consultants is attractive enough to have lured Barry Monaghan from his $351,000-a-year post as CEO of the Toronto Central LHIN, but there is no sunshine list for consultants.

Premier, are you breaking the law and cancelling the public review of the LHINs so you won’t have to account for the money meant for front-line care that’s now being diverted to consultants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have been made privy to an ongoing and concerted effort on the part of the Conservative Party to demean LHINs and those who commit to working on behalf of better health care in their community. That is an approach that we do not accept, that we will not adopt.

We continue to believe that instead of putting representatives of the ministry in the community, it’s better for the community itself to represent its own interests when it comes to determining the best way to make investments of public dollars. We just have a tremendous amount of faith in people in their communities. We have a tremendous amount of faith in our LHINs and, working together, we will ensure that we can continue to find ways to improve the quality of care that’s available to our families in their communities.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Connie Harrison is a downtown Toronto resident who is here in the gallery today. Connie is a cancer survivor, and today she suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. She barely gets enough money through her ODSP payment of $710 a month. Because of her measly income, she counts on a $72-a-month special diet allowance so she can afford the food she needs to manage her conditions.

I’m asking this question on Connie’s behalf: Will he explain to her why his government is about to make her life much harder by scrapping the special diet allowance?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question; I really do. I think it’s important for my honourable colleague to understand, as well as those who are receiving the special diet allowance—I’m not an expert when it comes to this particular matter. I’m not a doctor; I have not been trained in medicine, but it sounds to me like this particular individual would continue to benefit under the new nutritional supplement.

Our intention is to ensure that those who are in need of special support when it comes to their diet in fact receive that special support. The program as it exists right now is doing more than that, to the point where—when this started off I think it was costing us some $6 million—it’s up to $250 million on an annual basis. They tell us it could rise up to $750 million. That’s three quarters of a billion dollars. We want to make sure we get the program right; we want to make sure those who are entitled to receive this are in fact receiving it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Since the McGuinty government announced its intention to replace the special diet allowance, Connie has been living with fear and anxiety. She doesn’t know when her allowance will be terminated or if it will be terminated, and she doesn’t know how she will make ends meet if it is cut. Why is the Premier doing this to Connie and countless other vulnerable Ontarians like her who rely on the special diet allowance to stay healthy? Why haven’t you announced concrete plans on exactly what you are going to do?

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a great question that is being asked by the member from the NDP. Yes, there is a lot of concern out there in the community, but what I can say is that there is a transition period. Nobody will be cut off before the next program is in place, I want to reassure everyone. This being said, not everyone on the program now will be transferred to the new program. Because this new program is a nutritional supplement program, it’s going to be developed in consultation with our partners in the medical community and the Ministry of Health.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister has already said this will be for severe conditions, and it’s already administered by the medical community. You have to get a doctor’s letter to get the supplement today.

Connie isn’t alone here today. Kyle Vose is a diabetic living with HIV. He’s here in the audience as well. He is also worried about the cuts. So is Fiona Blair, who lives with post-traumatic stress disorder. Connie, Kyle and Fiona are just three of 170,000 Ontarians who rely on the special diet allowance to deal with their serious medical conditions.

I want the minister and/or the Premier to assure all of these Ontarians, each and every one of them, that they will not see a reduction in their benefits as a result of the cancellation of the allowance. Will the minister make that assurance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As I have explained, this new program will be developed in consultation with our partners in the poverty community and in the medical community, along with the Minister of Health. Will everyone who is receiving the special diet now be receiving it in the future? My answer is no.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: We’ve just heard the minister, so back to the Premier. This government claims the special diet program is not meeting its objectives, but it provides not one iota of evidence: no report, no study, no analysis. Its own expert social assistance review panel says the program shouldn’t be cut, and they are not due to report until the end of this month.

Why is the government in such a rush to end the special diet allowance before it has been properly evaluated by your own panel?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague is aware of the concerns that the auditor has expressed about this government program of ours. We think we have a responsibility not only to those individuals who are in need of special nutritional support and supplements, but we also have accountability to taxpayers to make sure that it is running as efficiently and effectively as it can.

On page 264 of the 2009 auditor’s report—one passage—he says a doctor “diagnosed celiac disease in 99% of the applications” brought before him, “which we feel is unreasonably high given that the nationwide incidence of this disease is estimated at 1% of the population.” That’s a legitimate concern. That’s just one reason why we feel a sense of responsibility to review the program and to find a better replacement.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: What the government has done is not a review, Mr. Premier. What the government has done is unilaterally cut this program in favour of some unannounced program in the future.

This government is desperate to save money—that’s the real reason it’s cancelling the special diet allowance—not by cutting six- and seven-figure salaries of hospital and government agency executives, but by slashing the benefits to Ontario’s poorest and sickest citizens.

Why is the McGuinty government willing to balance the budget on the backs of struggling people like Connie, Kyle and Fiona, but not on its high-flying Liberal friends and big seven-figure earners?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That’s an interesting and exciting way to put it, but obviously I can’t agree.

I think one of the responsibilities that we have, all of us, is to give expression to Ontarians at their best, and I think at their best they are kind, caring, considerate and compassionate. They also expect that their government will treat their hard-earned tax dollars respectfully.

What we’re trying to do is strike the balance. We don’t believe we have struck that balance in the best way possible with the existing program, so we’re going to develop a successor program that strikes that balance, that ensures that through their government, the people of Ontario do lend a hand to those folks who need special help when it comes to their diet. But at the same time, they expect that we will be responsible when it comes to dealing with their money. That’s what motivates this: We want to better strike that balance.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: There are words to describe this government’s actions. “Cruel” and “heartless” and “mean” come to mind.

Back in 2007, when this Premier was looking for votes, he said over and over and over again that reducing poverty was his top priority. But three years later, without any consultation, his government is cutting a basic allowance that provides up to 30% of the income for hundreds of thousands of social assistance recipients struggling with medical conditions.

Will the Premier look at the people here today—Connie, Kyle, and Fiona—display some courage and immediately reverse his decision—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would like to remind our guests that you are very welcome to observe but not participate in the proceedings.

Please finish.

Mr. Michael Prue: Will the Premier display some courage and immediately reverse his decision to scrap the special diet allowance?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to remind my honourable colleague—I know that for purposes of simplicity, you want to pigeonhole and you want to caricature the government: They’re either profligate spenders or hard-hearted and mean-spirited.

The fact is that we struggle to get that balance. The fact that we are continuing to move ahead with the Ontario child benefit, a program that wasn’t there before and that will provide $1,310 for our families when it’s fully implemented, notwithstanding difficult economic times, I think speaks to where our heart is found. The fact that we’ve found permanent funding for 8,500 more child care spaces speaks to where our heart is.

The fact that we are now determined to find a better program to help people who find themselves in difficult circumstances, who need additional support for their nutritional requirements, speaks again to where our heart is. But we’ve got to balance that with our responsibility to taxpayers to get this right.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. Premier, the sunshine list reveals that you have diverted over half a million dollars from the Hamilton Health Sciences budget to pay Ron Sapsford while the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle was happening right under his nose. You also poached $300,000 from the University Health Network budget to pay your hand-picked climate change advisor Hugh MacLeod before he skipped out the back door when the Environmental Commissioner exposed that you weren’t getting the results for the money.

Why do the McGuinty Liberals continue to rob hospital budgets to pay these bureaucrats’ salaries when the money should be going to front-line care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about how pleased I was to see in the budget that we are continuing to increase support for our hospitals and for our health care sector.

There is a party represented by the member who asked the question that actually has in their platform the position of freezing funding for our hospitals. We know that means cutting services; there is no way around that.

What we are committed to doing is continuing to build on the work we have done over the first six and a half years, restoring the health care system. We are increasingly looking to improve quality and value, and the LHINs play a very important role in that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, in my own riding, you know that 15 beds will close and 17 staff will be cut at Brockville General Hospital. Millions have been diverted from hospitals to pay the salaries of bureaucrats hand-picked by the Premier for his pet projects, some of whom are complicit in this government’s biggest scandals and waste.

Take the $506,000 that Premier McGuinty is robbing from the London Health Sciences Centre to pay Ken Deane. It’s bad enough an assistant deputy minister is making over half a—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment and be conscious of impugning any motive on another member.

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

It’s bad enough that an assistant deputy minister is making over half a million dollars, but Ken Deane approved untendered deals to Liberal consultants in the eHealth feeding frenzy.

Minister, why did the Premier block a public inquiry into eHealth and cancel the public review of the LHINs?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I have said many times now in this place, we are committed to a review of the LHINs; we are committed to an all-party review of the LHINs. We think that’s an important part of improving how we deliver health care in this province.

The question is when is the right time to do that review. We think the right time to do that review is when the LHINs have achieved their full mandate and are actually doing what we had in mind when we set up the LHINs in the first place, and that is to include long-term-care homes. They will not actually be getting responsibility for long-term-care homes until later this summer. We want to give them time to take that responsibility and have a couple of years of experience with that responsibility before we take a good hard look at the act.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Premier. Here are the facts about your hydro strategy in Ontario: Your smart meter program has meant higher bills for Toronto Hydro users and no reduction in power demand. Ontario Power Generation, operating an unaffordable nuclear fleet, is applying for a 9.6% increase for its portion of the bill.

Premier, at a time when Ontario residents are struggling to recover from the worst recession in a generation, you’re giving them a lot of pain and very little gain. When are you actually going to make the deep conservation investments that are needed to make hydro affordable in this province?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: So far, over 3.4 million smart meters have been installed across the province. That’s a significant achievement, and there’s more to come. I would think the honourable member, with his background, would recognize the importance of moving toward that culture of conservation. The time-of-use initiative will provide every resident in this province with that opportunity to engage in that movement. It’s important. It’s important that every Ontarian engage in conserveation. It saves them money in the long run and it ensures that as they shift their use, they’ll have opportunities to save.

At the same time, it ensures that we don’t have to build more nuclear capacity, that we don’t have to build more supply. It just makes sense. I would have thought the member opposite, given his background on environmental issues, would understand that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, if you spend a billion dollars on a program and it doesn’t actually reduce consumption, then that doesn’t help; that’s a waste of public money.

But let’s go on to another part of your program, executive salaries. Yesterday, we found out that former OPG CEO James Hankinson’s salary—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I hope you’re going to tie that in to the original question.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I am indeed, Mr. Speaker. We found out that his salary and bonus totalled over $2.1 million. His successor, Tom Mitchell, is over a million. Hydro One CEO Laura Formusa earns $978,000. That’s not going to help hydro ratepayers or the environment. When are you going to help ratepayers and the environment by making the investments that we need in deep conservation and stop wasting money on these inflated salaries?

Hon. Brad Duguid: One of the things that this government takes pride in is the fact that, prior to us coming into office, the sunshine list wasn’t accessible for OPG employees and Hydro One. It’s very important that we did that because it ensures that Ontarians have access to that kind of information. I think that’s important. It’s something we’re very proud of. The person he was referring to is actually making less than his predecessor was.

Now, the Premier is absolutely right: To average Ontarians, $100,000 is a sizable income. We understand that; we get that. Seventy per cent of these workers, as in all of government—and MEI is absolutely in line with that—would not have been on the sunshine list had there been inflationary pressures taken into consideration.

We think this is something all Ontarians should have access to—

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

PATIENT SAFETY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, my constituents have heard about the surgical errors uncovered in a Windsor hospital. We were relieved to hear that the hospital took the appropriate steps and launched a formal review, both of the incident and the doctor in question. The minister’s decision to appoint three highly regarded physicians to investigate and report on issues related to the quality of care and treatment of patients at three hospitals in Windsor also helped to reassure my constituents.

I understand, coming out of that, the surgical safety checklist is known to prevent errors in the operating room. Could the minister please tell this House about the surgical safety checklist and if our hospitals will actually be using it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for that very excellent question. I’m very happy to announce that the surgical safety checklist will be required for all operations in all hospitals in the province of Ontario starting today. The checklist is inspired by a pilot’s checklist. It includes a mandatory review of pathology and biopsy results by the entire operating room team—that includes surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses—in the operating room before a patient is given the anaesthetic.

The results of a study published in a 2009 New England Journal of Medicine reported that consistent use of a checklist reduces the rates of death and complications associated with surgical care. A province-wide education program with a comprehensive toolkit was developed and delivered across the province. Starting July 30, they will—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m relieved to hear that the checklist will now be adopted by all Ontario hospitals. My constituents will be happy to hear that this additional step will be taken to keep them safe when they undergo surgery, because, as we know, when a patient is admitted to hospital the only thing on their mind is their own health, safety and well-being. Patients and families don’t need the added burden of worrying about the possibility of things like hospital-acquired infections. In addition to minimizing the surgical errors, it’s also important to minimize infections in hospitals.

Could the minister please tell this House what the government is doing to keep patients safe in Ontario hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That’s another excellent question. Patient safety is a very high priority for this government, and we do have a plan to combat infectious diseases. We’re turning expert advice into action. We’ve established a provincial infectious disease advisory committee for the best and most current advice on infectious diseases. We’ve created the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion to position Ontario as a world leader when it comes to public health.

We know that when you track it, you can improve it. It’s the same principle we used to lower wait times. That’s why we’ve made C. difficile outbreaks reportable to the public health units, and we’re now seeing the lowest rates since we started reporting as a direct result of that reporting.

We’re doing excellent work in this province to improve patient safety. Most recently our initiative is on hand hygiene compliance—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of our colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo asking the first questions about untendered contracts at eHealth. For three quarters of 2009, the Premier knew about the money that was being wasted in the eHealth scandal. What’s worse, he defended it. As the sunshine list now shows, the McGuinty Liberals actually paid handsome raises to the people overseeing the billion-dollar eHealth scandal.

Now that an eHealth-style scandal is emerging at some of the LHINs, Ontario patients need to know why the Premier is once again defending the waste of health care dollars on consultants, bureaucrats’ salaries and insider perks.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We know that the future viability of health care in this province depends on us moving forward with electronic health records for the people of Ontario. So much of what we can do to improve quality and value for money depends on that foundation of eHealth. We’re making important strides to get to where we need to be when it comes to electronic health. One of the initiatives I am most pleased about is an initiative around ePrescribing. We’ve got a pilot study that’s under way right now. We’re seeing the results when doctors can electronically prescribe.

The prescription goes right to the pharmacy, and the patient can pick it up there at the pharmacy. We’re seeing much better results and fewer errors being made. That’s just one example of what we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: It’s not surprising that the Premier sidestepped the question, and the minister’s answer was not reassuring. The Premier could not only take a page from the government of British Columbia on how to transfer HST tax collectors without paying $25 million in severance bonuses, but he could also learn something from them about accountability. When British Columbia had its own eHealth scandal, the government referred the matter to the police, and they have now pressed charges. In Ontario, this Premier has done nothing to discipline those who blocked the auditor’s investigation.

He has not turned evidence over to the police to investigate, and he continues to block a public inquiry into who got rich from the millions that could have been going to front-line care.

Did the Premier cancel the public review of the LHINs for the same reason he has blocked a public inquiry into the eHealth scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to take the opportunity to talk a little bit more about what we’re doing on eHealth, because it really is a critically important piece of our health care system. Four million Ontarians now have electronic medical records. Physicians are already participating. We are expanding that: By 2012, 10 million out of 13 million Ontarians will have electronic medical records. Primary care providers have embraced the technology, and we will support them as they move to electronic health records. It’s critically important for health care in this province.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Yesterday revealed a new club: the $700,000 club. This club is filled with hospital presidents and CEOs whose salaries have continued to grow by 7% in last year alone.

Does the Premier think that it is right for Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Welland, Thessalon, Picton, Cobourg, Burk’s Falls, Oakville—and the list goes on—patients to be losing their health services while these CEOs, members of the $700,000 club, are taking home skyrocketing salaries?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We all, of course, understand the importance of having transparency when it comes to salaries. That’s why the sunshine list is there: so that we can take a good, hard look at the salaries that are paid by the taxpayers. I think it’s important to recognize that the number of hospital employees on the list did increase, but the average salary actually remains only $90 more this year than last year.

We need to be able to attract competent people, we need to retain the health care providers we have here. I am concerned, however, about hospital CEO compensation. We will be introducing legislation that will make health care providers more accountable for quality in their institutions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I agree with you that the health care providers did not cash in on the $700,000 club. Since the government took office, it is the hospital executives who saw their salaries increase by 40%, not the workers. The government can talk about the boards of directors of the hospitals and all this, but at the end of the day, every Ontarian knows that it is our tax dollars that are paying for this excess. It is clear that your priorities are wrong.

People in London are set to lose 14,000 hours of nursing care because of layoffs due to funding issues. Does the minister think it is right that patients are losing the care while top executives’ salaries continue to balloon?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to assure the member opposite that I share her concern about hospital CEO compensation. I think Ontarians are concerned about that as well, especially when so many of them are struggling to make ends meet. That is why we will be introducing legislation that will make those health care executives more accountable for improving the quality of the services in their institutions. We will link executive compensation to quality objectives to ensure that every dollar that we spend in health care does have the result of improving health care for people in this province.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, the great riding of Mississauga South is fortunate to be served by two outstanding school boards: the Peel District School Board and the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board.

As a parent of three children who have attended Catholic and public schools in Mississauga, I know first-hand about the high quality of education our students receive. However, when it comes to educating our kids, we should always strive to do better.

In a recent letter to the Mississauga News, PDSB chair Janet McDougald wrote about how our Peel schools are funded. She said that the students in the Peel public school system are the fourth-lowest funded in Ontario and that the funding gap has almost doubled in the past eight years.

Minister, why is per-pupil funding in Peel lower than in Ontario school boards?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: That’s a very important question from the honourable member. I think it’s important that I have the opportunity in this House, first of all, to identify that we recognize that in each board, in fact in each school community, the needs and demands of the students, the school and the community can vary.

We have a funding formula that, in large measure, provides funding to schools on a per-pupil basis, but there are other components that enable the government to flow dollars to schools to assist them to address some of the specific needs that they have within their school community. We have consulted with school boards, through the grants for student needs consultations, and I look forward in my supplementary to providing a little more information around some of the changes that we’ve made in the GSNs—

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

Will the Ministry of Education commit to using the 2006 census data and funding Peel boards accordingly?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: As I indicated in my first response, we have worked and consulted—in fact, the member for Guelph had consultations with stakeholders to understand how we can better support schools. The issue of current data was a very important one that was raised.

I am happy to be able to report to this House that in fact the GSNs that have been released for this year, particularly the learning opportunities grant portion that does consider census, have been updated and this component of the GSN will now consider the census data of 2006.

Now, for the school board of the honourable member that he has identified, that means that will increase their funding in the neighbourhood of 4% to 5%.

We thank the honourable member —

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. This week, I learned that a plant run by Crown Metal Packaging Canada in my riding of Thornhill, employing 159 people, will shut down in December. Crown Metal Packaging operates in 41 countries around the world, but this particular plant is shutting down because it is no longer competitive—their words. I’m told that it’s the jurisdiction that makes it uncompetitive—their assessment.

Premier, when are you going to acknowledge your role in making Ontario so uncompetitive that we continue to expel jobs and investment?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am pleased to respond to this question. First of all, we’re very concerned if we hear that there is a company that is going to consider not employing people in Ontario, and we have great concern for the people who may have lost a job or will lose a job. We’d like the particulars of this particular company, because we’d like to talk to them.

What we have been doing for the last three successive budgets in a row is making our tax environment in Ontario one of the most competitive in North America. What we can share with you is some of the influence that our tax policy has had in savings for companies very much like this, in particular those that are in manufacturing, as it sounds as if this company is. So I would like to have the details and the contacts. This member knows I’d be happy to call that company.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: The facts speak for themselves. What the minister continues to fail to acknowledge is that high taxes, a massive deficit and soaring energy costs give companies like Crown Metal Packaging more than enough reason to pack up and move to cheaper jurisdictions.

The Premier shouldn’t bother spending any money on polling to gauge the reaction to his budget; the closure of this plant is all the reaction that’s required. There was nothing in this budget that would convince Crown Metal Packaging that it could afford to keep this plant open any longer.

No one said economic recovery was easy, Premier. I’d like to know why this government is making it that much harder for companies like Crown Metal Packaging and the 159 people who work there?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: The reality is that there have been many studies done, especially over the last few years as we’ve come through a world recession. That last one, the KPMG study, ranks Canada as the second-most competitive place in the world. That’s our reality. This member also knows that the IBM global study ranked Ontario as the leading jurisdiction for foreign direct investment anywhere in North America two years in a row, even when those two years were 2008 and 2009, in the face of a world recession. Those are the facts.

What concerns us greatly is that there is one company that may consider moving; that’s a company that we need to speak to. We need to explain that we’ve eliminated the capital tax as of July this year—also an initiative that that member opposite voted against. We’ve also eliminated the surtax for small business, an initiative that that member voted against, and all of the—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Hamilton-Niagara has taken another economic hit with the move of Lakeport beer operations to London. Our leader, Andrea Horwath, is in Hamilton this morning talking with the newest group of unemployed Hamilton workers who are facing extremely difficult times ahead. With the closure of Siemens a scant two weeks ago, this brings the total to over 700 more jobs lost in Hamilton-Niagara.

Members of the government make faint claims of new jobs in the region, but I don’t think a $10.25 hourly minimum wage is going to sustain families who have relied on well-paying, permanent, full-time jobs. When will the McGuinty government’s plan for good, well-paying jobs in Hamilton start?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am very pleased to respond to this, because we too are very concerned when we hear news about Lakeport Brewery. We know that there is a history in Ontario of very terrific manufacturing, and that is a message we continue to send to the world. When we have communities like Hamilton that have been hard hit by the recession—as have other regions of Ontario which have been largely manufacturing-based—we’re concerned about that. We’re reaching out to these companies to see what we can do to be helpful.

With Siemens, the example that this member offers, we brought not only the CAW into our office to talk about future opportunities, but we’re engaging Siemens directly about what opportunities they may have in the future for work right here in Ontario. We are reaching out to Lakeport as well. They’ve made a decision to move manufacturing outside of Ontario. We think there could be other opportunities and we’re determined to see if we can—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: You may be reaching out, but they’re all leaving town. The Globe and Mail Report on Business, on March 30, said, “The brewery’s closure also delivers another blow to the labour market in Hamilton, which has seen massive”—I repeat, massive—“layoffs in some key industries.” Hamilton suffers an 8.9% unemployment rate while Niagara region suffers an 11.5% unemployment rate.

Recently, the minister from Hamilton said that the closure is a blow to Hamilton and the province “will help in any way we can.”

Rather than help in any way you can, I ask again: Where are the well-paying new jobs? What are the real numbers of the new jobs? Where is the McGuinty government’s new job plan to get the Hamilton-Niagara economy back on track?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think there is no question that the significant representation that Hamilton has, in particular in the cabinet and in caucus here on this side of the government—they have been tireless in their support of Hamilton.

We have been on the phone with leadership in Hamilton for a number of years, whether it’s through community and transition support programs or—I don’t know if the member participated in the economic summit of last year, which we supported on this side of the House, but that was another initiative that member opposite actually voted against. All of the infrastructure being built in Hamilton and in the Niagara region, tens of millions of dollars—every one of these initiatives is something that that member opposite voted against.

When we talk to these manufacturers around the world, we want them in Hamilton. It behooves this member opposite to be supportive of our initiatives while we try to help Hamilton when it—

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

AUTISM TREATMENT

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. On December 18, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring April 2 to be World Autism Awareness Day. This UN resolution is one of only three official disease-specific United Nations days and is designed, obviously, to bring attention to the issue of autism spectrum disorder. This is an opportunity to raise awareness about autism spectrum disorder and to encourage early diagnosis and early intervention. It’s estimated that approximately 6% of people are diagnosed with ASD.

Minister, can you please tell this House what our government is doing to support children with autism spectrum disorder and their families?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank my friend the member for Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale for his advocacy on this important issue and for giving me the opportunity to speak to it today. I have had an opportunity, over the past many years, to meet with children with autism, their parents and service providers. I’ve listened and learned a great deal about the work that needs to be done to meet these kids’ needs, and I want to thank those parents and children for sharing their experiences and stories with me.

We’ve made significant progress since 2003. More kids are getting support and we’ve broadened the range of services. We’ve removed the previous government’s discriminatory age-six cut-off and almost quadrupled autism spending from $44 million to almost $165 million today. Now, almost 1,300 kids are getting IBI therapy and we have introduced a respite program which served almost 7,000 kids—

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

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Minister, outside of the traditional delivery of autism services, schools are increasingly dealing with cases of autism amongst their students. While it is crucial that we provide appropriate resources to those in need of services, we must also recognize the challenges that face these kids when they enter the school system. Upon entering the school system there are obstacles and challenges facing ASD students. Knowing the importance of integrating students with ASD in the educational system, what is our government doing to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible?

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have the opportunity to speak to the work that we have done with our partners to ensure that there is an appropriate transition. As a result of that, we have implemented the Connections for Students model. This model is a school-based transition team that is established approximately six months before a child prepares to enter the school and will be in place for six months after the child is in the school. School boards have been instructed that transition teams must be in place no later than the spring of this year.

I think it’s also important that members of the Legislature note that we have been working since 2006 to provide more than 13,000—

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

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Health. A constituent of mine used to receive a monthly B12 injection from a CCAC nurse in her home. She is a senior and she has been cut off. She has to find a friend or family member to take her, no matter the weather. She is 97 years old. One fall in an icy parking lot could put her in the hospital.

Minister, I cannot believe that cutting off a 97-year-old woman once a month will save you money overall. Do you believe it will?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the member opposite is speaking to the value of home care, and we completely agree that providing care in-home is what we have to do. That is why we have dramatically increased funding in the home care sector. We have dramatically increased the number of people receiving care. We’ve taken off some of the rules that limited the amount of care people could receive.

I, of course, cannot speak to this particular case. I would be happy to look into it. But what I can tell you is that we remain committed to home care and we remain committed to an enhanced role in home care.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I hear repeatedly from constituents and nurses in my riding of seniors losing their CCAC care. You know that seniors losing medical care at home will mean more of them ending up in the hospital. Every penny you save from home care will cost much more in dollars in the hospital. I cannot believe you are willing to risk someone’s well-being by cutting corners on a budget.

Minister, why do you manage your ministry in silos?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the member opposite just made the very best argument for the value of the local health integration networks. It is their job to break down those silos.

This government is committed to improving health care in this province. The party opposite is committed to cutting health care in this province. When they were in office, this is what they did: They cut home care and community health care funding by $21.7 million in 1995-96 and $38 million in 2000-01. Nursing visits decreased 22%, while homemaking services decreased 30%.

I could go on about the record. What I will commit to is that we remain committed to improving home care in this province. The party opposite is committed to cutting.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A question to the Minister of Education. Minister, last week, in response to my question, you said you were listening very carefully to the deputations on Bill 242. As a result, you would know that many concerns have been expressed about the fact that the government has chosen to cherry-pick the full-day kindergarten program rather than implement the entire Pascal report. As a result, child care centres are facing a loss of revenue from the movement of the four- and five-year-olds to schools. This may force many centres to close. Many of them told us that, and you heard that.

What is the government going to do to support child care centres so that the kindergarten program doesn’t result in fewer child care spaces for parents next year?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What I can say to the honourable member right now is that I’m sure the honourable member appreciates that we have had second reading debate and we have heard the public presentations in committee, but we still have a good deal of work to do when we consider amendments that would be proposed and all of the information that we’ve heard at the committee level. We’re still in the process of sifting through all of that.

What I can say is that we are absolutely committed to investing in our earliest learners. What we have told the people of Ontario and the parents of four- and five-year-old children is that we are looking to implement an integrated, full-day kindergarten program. That is the goal; that is what Bill 242 is all about.

I think it’s always important, when we ask questions about what we’re going to do, to remember—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You don’t have much time. Clause-by-clause will happen next week. Amendments have to be submitted very soon. In order to ease the worry, my feeling is that you’ve got to present something.

I’m not sure whether you’ve listened carefully, because there’s more: The fact that the government has chosen to implement only one component of the Pascal report has raised serious questions about the before- and after-school part of the early learning program.

How are school boards supposed to find qualified people to staff a stand-alone program to care for four- and five-year-olds for a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon? How are they going to do that?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, the honourable member would know that we have announced the first—almost 600 schools will have this program in place.

That’s not all. We are taking a very measured approach. We’ve asked boards to work co-operatively with their coterminous boards and child care providers, because we understand that there are going to be some impacts.

With respect to the work that we are doing with Bill 242, I’m not going to presume to understand what the outcome will be of the very good work that is still under way on that bill. What I can say is that we have been listening very carefully to all of the people who have taken the time to bring their very best advice to us.

This is an important investment in our youngest learners. We are committed to building the strongest students in this province so that we can build the strongest economy in the world.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. It has come to my attention through the media, and indeed from a number of constituents in Willowdale, that there is some very ugly stuff going on in the small mover business—some really nasty business practices. I understand that what some of these practices revolve around is involving extra charges for stuff not quoted in the original price to the consumers.

There are all sorts of variations of this scam, but here’s just one, to give you the flavour: I’ve been advised that in some cases, moving companies are asking for extra money to remove the furniture from the back of the moving van once it has reached its destination. What they say is that that’s not included in the original quoting price. They’re just charging for moving from A to B, not to unload the stuff. Minister, what are we doing—

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

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: That was a great question. Thank you to the honourable member from Willowdale, who is a great advocate for consumer protection in his riding.

The ministry has a great deal of information to help Ontarians make informed decisions when choosing a moving company. It’s important to help consumers to know their rights before entering into an agreement with a moving company, and we have some great tips for them.

First, the final cost cannot be more than 10% above the original estimate. Second, if the consumer agreement for the move took place in their home, you