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

May 16, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-16 (PDF)

L043 - Thu 16 May 2013 / Jeu 16 mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 16 May 2013 Jeudi 16 mai 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

POWER PLANTS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ELDER ABUSE

TENDERING PROCESS

CHILD PROTECTION

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

WIND TURBINES

CASINOS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POWER PLANTS

CONCESSION STREETFEST

AHMADIYYA MUSLIM COMMUNITY

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

SCHOOLS IN TORONTO–DANFORTH

ROBBIE’S RAINBOW

BRUCE POWER

COBOURG COUGARS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR AND OPEN TENDERING ACT (LABOUR RELATIONS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR DES APPELS

D’OFFRES ÉQUITABLES ET OUVERTS (RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL CHEZ CERTAINS EMPLOYEURS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC DANS L’INDUSTRIE

DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

TRIPLE “D” HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

FAIRNESS AND COMPETITIVENESS IN ONTARIO’S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ ET LA COMPÉTITIVITÉ DANS L’INDUSTRIE ONTARIENNE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

POWERLINE SAFETY WEEK

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

POWERLINE SAFETY WEEK

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

POWERLINE SAFETY WEEK

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

AIR QUALITY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AIR QUALITY

LAND USE PLANNING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE SIKH

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROMPT PAYMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES PAIEMENTS RAPIDES

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE SIKH

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROMPT PAYMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES PAIEMENTS RAPIDES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 14, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 65, Loi visant à mettre en œuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Since I wasn’t here the other day, I’m not sure exactly to whom I’m replying, but I’d just like to make a few comments on the budget.

You know, this is really a great budget for people of Ontario. When you look at the fact that we’re investing another $700 million of the people’s money, through our taxes, in home care over the next three years—if there’s one issue I think that surely every member in this House can agree upon, it’s that elderly people want to stay in their own homes as long as possible. Survey after survey indicates that, and they should not go into a long-term-care home until it’s absolutely necessary. One way in which this can be done is to provide the support services that elderly people need in their own homes.

This is probably the area where, consistently over the years, I get the most number of calls, quite frankly.

I think we have set up a good system in Ontario over the last number of years. You may be interested in knowing, Speaker, that I was a member of the board of health in Kingston back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the Kingston public health unit became the first public health unit in the province to actually supply home care services to elderly seniors so they could stay in their own homes. From that system, which started in good old Kingston—the Limestone City, Canada’s first capital—the home care system we have in the province of Ontario developed.

Speaker, let me just say that, sure, there are sometimes individual situations where we hear from people that perhaps the services aren’t available as quickly as they should be, quite frankly. We continually work with that, each and every one of us in our constituency offices, to help those situations. But one way in which we can really deal with that situation is to pass this budget so that the extra $700 million that is required in home care can be distributed across this province and the elderly can stay in their own homes much longer than is currently the case.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I was here when the member from London–Fanshawe spoke on this bill, and I commend her for making some insightful remarks. I’m really holding my breath to see—if they really look at this budget, they’re going to find out it’s actually a disaster, and really the whole thing here in this House, with all due respect, hinges on the decision of the NDP.

Now, I want to frame this a little bit, so the people of Ontario know what’s happened. You know, in the last 10 years, the budget in Ontario has pretty well doubled. You should ask yourself, are you any better off? Not only that, but the debt itself, the accumulated debt—that’s the credit card, that’s the mortgage on the house. They’ve taken out a second mortgage. We had a debt of $139 billion. Now the debt is $273 billion.

To put this in a little broader reference, some debt is good. A mortgage on a home for your family is good debt. A mortgage for going out to clubs is bad debt. They have a lot of bad debt. The gas plants: We don’t get the gas plants; we’re paying for them, but we’re not getting them, do you understand? So that’s bad debt. That debt is measurable by any amount. Then you look at servicing the debt.

Servicing the debt is almost $12 billion a year. That’s the third-largest expenditure. So this government has a significant structural fiscal problem, and I say to you and to the pages here, on their last day, that this debt is your taxes of the future. Not only do we have the highest tuition in Canada for you when you go to university or college—that’s debt, because tuition is a tax. Electricity is a tax. Those are controlled by the government—services provided to the public—and there are charges attached to some of them. All of them, including physiotherapy for seniors—as of August 1 it’s going to be a debt on seniors. This government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, an honour to stand here on behalf of my constituents and respond to some of the comments made earlier by the member from London–Fanshawe, and I think I’d like to respond to some of the comments made today.

Yes, we have a responsibility with this budget, and it does, in large part, hang on the decision of our caucus. It will rest on the decision of our caucus, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We believe we were brought here to look at what was presented and try to make the best decisions on behalf of our constituents.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re pushing so hard for an accountability office. We firmly believe that only in a minority position do we have a chance to get this, because, quite frankly, majorities of all types don’t really like accountability, and when they do—when the Harper Conservatives put it in, they didn’t like it either. They would love to back out, but it’s a good thing.

It’s a good thing, because the difference between an accountability officer and the auditor—the auditor performs a vital service, but he performs that service after the deal is done. It’s very easy for governments, for parties: “We promise $700 million here, $300 million there.” You know, you can promise and announce the same money three times over. An accountability office could say, “Okay, here’s what’s been promised, but here’s what’s actually happening in real time,” on a non-partisan basis. It’s not about gaining points; it’s about an actual, real-time accounting of what’s going on.

That would benefit all the people of Ontario—it really would—and it would benefit government as well, because then they could see problems before they become scandals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

M. Phil McNeely: Je n’étais pas ici pour le discours du membre de London–Fanshawe, mais j’aimerais parler un peu de l’ouvrage, le travail, pour les jeunes.

La stratégie ontarienne d’emploi pour les jeunes fournira 295 millions de dollars sur deux ans pour appuyer les initiatives qui favoriseraient les perspectives d’emploi et l’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation pour les jeunes de l’Ontario :

—le fonds ontarien d’aide à l’emploi pour les jeunes, avec 195 millions de dollars sur deux ans, afin d’ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives d’emploi pour 25 000 jeunes;

—le fonds ontarien d’aide aux jeunes entrepreneurs, avec 45 millions de dollars sur deux ans, pour appuyer la prochaine génération d’entrepreneurs via le mentorat, le capital de démarrage et le rayonnement de l’entrepreneuriat;

—le fonds ontarien d’innovation pour les jeunes, avec 30 millions de dollars, pour diriger et gérer les activités de recherche, de développement et de commercialisation au sein d’une industrie et aider les jeunes entrepreneurs dans les collèges et universités;

—le fonds pour une meilleure adéquation entre la formation et l’emploi, avec 25 millions de dollars sur deux ans, pour appuyer de nouveaux projets pilotes novateurs.

Le plan de l’Ontario pour l’emploi et la croissance repose sur de solides assises économiques soutenues par des politiques et des investissements du gouvernement dans six domaines.

Alors, je supporte bien le budget. On devrait travailler très fort pour l’emploi pour les jeunes, et le programme qu’on a ici est certainement quelque chose qui va aider les jeunes.

I spoke mostly in French in my response to the member from London–Fanshawe, but I think it’s so important that we do get that youth employment going. There is a real need in this province, so let’s support the budget and get on with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from London–Fanshawe can respond.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you to all the members who contributed to the debate on G65.

Yesterday, the leader of the New Democrats met with the Premier, and they sat down to talk about some of the proposals we have made since the budget was released. One of the things we have said many times over is that we’ve had a minority government elected to the 40th Parliament and the people have asked us to make things better for them and get results. In a minority government, we all have to talk to each other in order to come up with the best policies and legislation for the people of Ontario.

But this government also needs to be held accountable to the people of Ontario, and we’ve heard that. We’ve had our phone lines and we’ve had our websites and our constituency offices, and people are saying, “We elected a minority government. We want results, but we need to hold this government accountable for the things that have happened.”

A financial accountability office can help stop these kinds of scandals before they get to this pinnacle point of no return. That financial officer can certainly prevent these scandals like Ornge, eHealth, and the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants, where billions of dollars are wasted. The people of Ontario don’t deserve to have public funds misused that way.

We need to make sure that public funds are used for education, health care and infrastructure, to look after the people of Ontario. That’s what they put trust in us for. They put trust in us to make sure their public interest is being looked after, and we need to do that. One thing that New Democrats have said we should be doing is having a financial accountability office to make sure this doesn’t happen and we hold governments accountable for where they spend the money.

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

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: It’s my pleasure this morning to rise and speak to this debate. The budget, as we know, is an important document; I would say probably one of the most important documents we discuss in this House. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to some of the issues that relate to me, both as Minister of Children and Youth Services and as the MPP for Windsor West.

Let’s be clear: The challenges we face in this province can seem daunting and complex, because they are. We live in the shadow of an uncertain global economy. We are confronted with many challenges. We have an aging population, and young people who need jobs. Because of all that, it can often feel as though we have to choose among our priorities: to say that we can balance the budget or improve education; we can invest in our roads and bridges or reduce wait times at our hospitals. It’s really tempting to oversimplify things. It’s tempting to reduce public policy to an either-or equation, but that’s not the way forward.

This proposed budget bill offers a clear path forward that creates prosperity for Ontarians while making sure we’re protecting our most vulnerable. Our approach to this budget is one that started with the people of Ontario. It’s based on discussions we’ve had across the province. We also heard from people in my riding of Windsor West, and we continue to get their feedback on why this budget needs to pass.

First, if I may, I’d like to speak to certain investments this budget protects and strengthens in crucial services for our children and youth. Through this budget, our government is proposing to add another $5 million for children’s treatment centres. These centres provide rehabilitation services for youth up to 19 years old with physical and/or developmental disabilities, chronic illness and/or communication disorders. This additional investment is very important for these children and youth and their families. It will support a pilot program to help children across the province transition into school.

This investment will also expand the family-centred children’s rehabilitation information system to five children’s treatment centres in northern Ontario. This budget also increases the Ontario children’s benefit, which we know has benefited thousands of families across the province. Investments like these that we make today in our children’s future are one of the best things we can do to give them a bright and secure future.

This budget also addresses another major concern of people across Ontario and in Windsor-Essex, and that is economic renewal and job opportunities. Last week, I spent some time speaking with business leaders in Windsor and heard this loud and clear. I talked to them about how this budget will help create jobs for the region and give local businesses a competitive advantage. The response was positive, and I felt genuine excitement from the community.

We need to move forward on this budget bill so that we can invest in the areas that matter most. That’s why a key element of this budget is our investment in jobs for our youth. I might say, my first job out of university was as a supervisor at an employment centre for youth, so this is something I’m very excited about. I’ve heard from so many people across the province, and especially in Windsor-Essex, that youth unemployment must be a priority.

The $295-million investment will complement our comprehensive youth jobs strategy by giving businesses financial incentives to hire, train and sustain skilled youth workers. The comprehensive approach to creating jobs for youth certainly responds to what I’ve been hearing in my community.

As you may know, I’m the mother of two boys. They are 12 and 17, and my 17-year-old is lucky: He has a part-time job. I’m also a former director of employment and social services for the city of Windsor. Based on those experiences, I can tell this House that a comprehensive approach that incorporates mentoring, partnering with employers and financial incentives for job creators is an approach that works. Our budget invests in people, and I truly believe that investing in people works.

There’s also a youth entrepreneur and innovation fund. So if a local youth has a great idea for a successful business, their dreams can become a reality.

We’ve also created the first-ever Premier’s Council on Youth Opportunities to engage with youth, young professionals and community partners, so that young people across the province get the right training and job opportunities and have the tools they need to succeed. Who best to listen to for a youth strategy than the youth themselves?

As well, we aim to give businesses a better environment to grow and prosper. Our budget provides greater employer health tax relief to small businesses by increasing the tax exemption from $400,000 to $450,000 of payroll, beginning next year. It would save up to $975 per year for employers. I can’t tell you how many small businesses in Windsor have told me that they’re pleased with this move. For businesses that need to purchase new machinery and equipment, our budget extends the capital cost allowance to 2015. That would reduce Ontario tax on manufacturers over the next three years.

Speaker, as the MPP for Windsor West, I am also proud of the investments made in this budget for my region. Our government recognizes that Windsor has a unique economic base that must be supported and nurtured. This budget continues with this government’s commitment to the southwest development fund. Since its launch last fall, the government has committed $15 million through the southwest development fund, attracting a total investment of nearly $120 million and helping create and protect 2,200 jobs.

As well, some of you may know that Windsor is home to the busiest border crossing in Canada, where so much of our trade takes place. The province begins at Windsor. That is why our vision for a prosperous Ontario means a significant investment in infrastructure to ensure businesses get what they need on time—because time, after all, is money. In Windsor-Essex, that means that the Herb Gray Parkway, the 401, Highway 3 and other major transit routes will continue to receive provincial funding for widening and maintenance.

On top of that, this budget proposes to make the gas tax for municipalities permanent. Just last year, the city of Windsor received more than $3.6 million from gas tax revenues. What that means for my riding, Mr. Speaker, is that this permanent funding will allow the city of Windsor to provide vital municipal services to residents.

The government has made important gains in making Windsor-Essex a better place to live and work. I know that the people in my area directly took

part in creating this budget. They are expecting that this Legislature will do the right thing. The budget really is for all Ontarians. It is really incumbent upon all of us to ensure that this province can move forward prosperously and to ensure a fair society. If passed, it will absolutely help build a more prosperous Windsor West and a stronger Ontario.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s important to recognize that a member from cabinet stands and of course endorses the budget. She’s part of the same team that was there making decisions on wasteful spending in the province, which troubles me, you know. Really, this budget, if you look at—

Hon. John Gerretsen: John, say something positive.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no, with respect, she is a member of cabinet. I respect that. She’ll be given orders to do this and that. She has a tough ministry, I would say, as well. It’s a very important ministry. But the fact she should know is, you’re increasing spending and reducing services. That’s the problem. Right through all of this budget document, it’s increasing spending and reducing services, physiotherapy being one; they’re working on drugs—you see, the trouble they have on the chemotherapy drugs as just one example.

So I’m cautious about this budget to the extent that I think underneath it, it’s sort of like a submarine: We can see the little antenna above the water, and that’s all this budget is, but below the water is a lot of debt, a lot of risk. It’s the price of energy in Ontario; health care; the hospitals in my riding are now operating at—they used to get 7% a year; now they’re getting 3% a year. It will only show up when they start laying off nurses.

I’m seeing it in almost every area. I read this morning in the paper that the extracurricular activities in most of the high schools are not taking place. A young athlete who was given a scholarship is not able to participate in a sport, which could jeopardize her getting a scholarship at a top university. There’s so much in this budget that troubles me. You know, even in home care now, the biggest problem we have is they’re going to put more money into home care but they’re taking it out of the hospitals. It’s a shell game from start to finish. There’s no possible way I can support it, and I’m surprised the NDP is going to support this. They haven’t read it.

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

M. Michael Mantha: Je suis désolé d’entendre que mon collègue de Durham indique qu’on n’a pas lu le budget. Certainement, on a pris le temps—on a pris notre rôle extrêmement au sérieux dans notre position comme adversaire au gouvernement pour vraiment apporter la nécessité et puis les besoins qui vont refléter les gens de nos communautés et à travers la province.

Oui, on a pris le temps de lire le budget; c’est une des responsabilités fondamentales qu’on a comme député pour représenter les gens de nos circonscriptions. Le message qu’on reçoit de nos circonscriptions est qu’ils demandent beaucoup une accontabilité de ce gouvernement. Ils ont vu plusieurs scandales qui sont passés et puis plusieurs argents qui sont fait, plus ou moins, lancer dans toutes sortes de directions pour vraiment protéger des postes.

Puis, là maintenant, il y a des gens—des mamans des enfants qui sont seules à la maison; il y a des pères de famille qui travaillent à deux, trois emplois—qui cherchent une explication ou une justification : comment est-ce que le gouvernement peut garrocher de l’argent à tout partout à travers la province, mais ils ne peuvent pas nous donner ce que nous autres, on en a de besoin pour rendre notre vie, à travers la santé, un petit peu plus sécure; pour être capable d’aider nos aînés dans nos communautés, pour faire certain qu’ils ont besoin de cinq jours et puis la garantie de cinq jours pour que ma mère et mon père ou mon grand-père et puis ma grand-mère sont pris soin de à leur maison?

Ça fait que ça, c’est une affaire qu’on a regardée; puis oui, on l’a lu, le budget, monsieur le Président. On a aussi proposé à ce gouvernement d’imposer que l’ombudsman de l’Ontario peut regarder à ces services-là, à travers des services de santé, pour se rassurer et puis apporter quelque sorte de crédibilité en travers de notre système de santé, pour faire certain que les services qui sont dans le budget se rendent aux personnes qui en ont tellement besoin dans toutes nos communautés.

Monsieur le Président, je veux vous rassurer, on l’a lu, le budget. On a fait nos devoirs et on continue à travailler. Merci.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to follow the Minister of Children and Youth Services to speak about the bill. I was very disappointed to hear the comment of the member from Durham. I would challenge anyone to say that Ontario’s Youth Jobs Strategy is not adequate to support our young people.

The other piece is that I held a youth entrepreneurship workshop in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt two weeks ago. Every young person who attended the event across the city—even as far as from Durham and Mississauga came to my workshop—was commenting on Minister Hoskins’ good work in the youth jobs strategy. I cannot believe any member of this House can say that $295 million is not a good thing for Ontario young people.

Let me read to the member from Durham that the government of Ontario will be initiating the Ontario youth employment fund to the tune of $195 million:

“—Ontario Youth Entrepreneurship Fund to support the next generation of entrepreneurs through mentorship, start-up capital and outreach,” to the tune of $45 million over two years.

“—Ontario Youth Innovation Fund to support skills needed to lead and manage industrial research, development and commercialization, as well as support young entrepreneurs at universities and colleges.”

This is what innovation is all about. The last fund for Ontario’s Youth Jobs Strategy focus on youth:

“Business-Labour Connectivity and Training Fund to promote partnerships among business, labour, educators and youth to identify and solve” problems related to development issues.

So it is very rich for the member opposite to say this is not what Ontario young people want. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, I challenge him to go across his region—across all of Durham—and say this is not appropriate to support.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: You know, with this budget, we just see more of the same. It’s the same old, same old. We’re talking about scandal, mismanagement and waste. It’s far from the first example that this government is unwilling to really take steps necessary to put Ontario back onto a better path.

This budget should have been used as an opportunity to really rein in spending, decrease the deficit, pay our debt down and get government across the aisle back in the place this province needs to be. Instead, the budget is being used to double down on spending and waste. We’re seeing spending increase at a time when even your own economist, Don Drummond, said you need to take action now, and then you actually tout that you’ve done 60% of it.

Hey, you can’t jump a canyon in two leaps; you need to do it in one big leap. You can’t do it in half measures; you need to do it in one big, solid step that shows you have a commitment to this province and the people who pay the taxes. It’s not your money; it’s our money. It’s all of our money, and we’re here to represent that.

It should come as no surprise to those of us who have been doing our jobs holding this government accountable that they’ve got an awful lot to account for. It starts with the Liberal seat-saving plan—the gas plants, right? That’s what really is the confidence motion we should be talking about here. That’s what people really want to vote on. That’s what is in the front of people’s minds, not a pretend budget that does nothing to solve the province’s problems. It’s window dressing, just like just about every other piece of legislation we’ve seen come out of this government in the past couple of years.

Why don’t you actually sit down and think about something that will really get this province back on its feet, instead of putting window dressing all over everything, putting pretty names to your bills and making sure you go out and market that? You know what? People are sick of that. They see through it. They want change. They want a government that’s actually going to stand up and do what’s right for Ontarians, listen to them and actually take bold action that’s going to get this province back in shape, not pretty words and pretty bills.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Children and Youth Services, you have two minutes for a response.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to thank all my colleagues for their responses to my comments with respect to the budget bill that we’re debating here today.

There were a number of things that I’m quite proud are in this budget that I wasn’t able to speak to in the 10 minutes that I had. We’re talking about $42 million to help adults with developmental disabilities. We’re talking about transforming social assistance and social policy. We’re looking at continuing along the way to eliminate the deficit in time. We have the lowest per capita public service across the country, Speaker. There’s an increase in community care, with increased support to rural communities. We’re creating opportunities.

When I’m in Windsor, when I’m speaking to the staff from my constituency office, and I say, “What are the calls we’re getting? What are people interested in?” Speaker, they’re looking for help, they’re looking for support, and that’s what this is providing them.

We’re looking at a balance between ensuring our economy stays strong, which we’re doing with respect to our investments and our support of business, and investing in our citizens and in the people of Ontario, which I truly believe in. We hear the party opposite, the opposition, say we shouldn’t be making these investments, that we need to just focus on the budget. Well, as I said when I started my comments, public policy is not an either/or predicament.

It’s one where we have to look at both sides and ensure that we have balance in terms of what we’re investing in our communities and where we can make some changes to transform how we provide those public services. That’s what we’re working along, and that is what we will continue to do.

Speaker, as well, if I look back at the past in my riding of Windsor West, in terms of investments that have been made over the last number of years by this government in my riding, if those investments had not been made, I shudder at what that community would look like.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to ask you a question.

Mr. Robert Bailey: The Minister of the Environment is going to advocate on my behalf, and I appreciate that.

I’m privileged to stand today as the MPP for Sarnia–Lambton to speak to the 2013 budget motion. I’d like to say up front that I will not be supporting this budget motion.

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I know that’s disappointing for a number of people on the other side, but I thought I might as well be up front and clear right off the start.

Too many hard-working folks in Ontario and in Lambton in particular are having trouble finding work in this province, and this government has presented a budget that, unfortunately, provides no hope for them.

When we as MPPs stand in this House to debate the budget, we need to make sure that we are representing the interests of the people of our community. Unfortunately, the policies of this government for the last decade have done little for Sarnia–Lambton. This budget is more of the same.

This is a no-hope budget for the people of Sarnia–Lambton who have been looking for work since the good-paying manufacturing jobs have left our community due to skyrocketing green energy prices. This is a no-hope budget for the people who lost their job when this government took a hatchet to the horse breeding and horse racing industry. This is a no-hope budget for people who will lose their jobs when the Sarnia Jail, one of the best-run jails in the province, is closed, and millions in income and indirect spending will be shifted from Sarnia to the Liberal riding of Windsor–Tecumseh.

This is a no-hope budget for the people who will lose their job at the Lambton Generating Station when it is closed at the end of the year—closed despite the fact that every energy expert in Ontario knows that the Lambton Generating Station is a prime candidate for conversion and is desperately needed to support the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals’ addiction to unreliable industrial wind turbines.

Despite the wishes of the Premier and the leader of the NDP, the people of Sarnia–Lambton know we can’t waste another year or two talking about problems while they sit on their hands. This is not my opinion alone. My constituents in Sarnia–Lambton have been overwhelmingly in favour of voting down this budget. In fact, I asked my staff to find me any letters from constituents asking that, as the MPP for Sarnia–Lambton, I vote in favour of the 2013 Liberal-NDP budget. Mr. Speaker, there were none. What they did find were emails like this from Mr. Chuck Matton of Lambton Shores. It reads:

“The wind energy situation is completely out of hand!

“We have lost $2 billion over the last six years for our hydro dealings with the States and Quebec. And we pay the highest rates in North America. Why?

“Again, mismanagement. The only thing green about any of this is the money being wasted.

“The NDP won’t bring down the Liberals because, in my opinion, Ms. Horwath is so unsure of her party’s chances in an election and subsequently losing her seat.

“She talks a good plan at times but always fails to press the Liberals on anything or really try to make a change. Too comfortable, I guess.

“The dice have been rolled and action must begin....”

Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of the tone of the emails my office has received since the Liberals and the NDP began negotiations to keep Premier Wynne and her Liberal henchmen in power.

Here is another. I want to read this into the record because it is important that the people in this chamber are aware of what the people out on Main Street are saying.

This email is from Mr. Rick Hornblower. It reads:

“Well, Bob, almost two years.

“Still not sure about my alliances.

“What I do know is that the Liberals must go.

“My belief at this hour is that the NDP will support the present government.

“As much as the people of this province have had enough of the Liberals, I believe that those like yourself have to step up the commentary. You need to convince the NDP, and speak out against them in the Legislature.

“As the opposition critic [for corrections] ... you need to take the minister to task on her mismanagement at the London detention centre.

“Make it personal. It is her ministry.” There’s quite a bit more.

“You can quote me in the Legislature, but it seems most evident that in London, the detention centre is being run for the most part by the inmates.

“Additionally, your party cannot give up on pressing the health minister, given all” of the outstanding issues on eHealth and Ornge.

“And do not forget the energy minister and Premier in all of this.

“Relentless pressure, the same kind of pressure and disclosure that sent McGuinty, Bentley and Duncan running away and hiding.”

Mr. Hornblower and Mr. Matton’s frustration with the inaction by the Liberals and NDP is evident. These are the sorts of emails that are common in my office. They are common because people in my community see nothing in this budget that will address their top concern: building the economy in a way that people have the opportunity to work in good jobs and earn good wages. Instead, the Liberal Party has committed the province to another year of no action in the budget, as they promised to “keep studying plans to build the economy.”

There is absolutely no plan to entice corporations or businesses to come to Ontario and to do better. That is a major concern for the residents of Sarnia–Lambton because, as a border community, the residents in my community understand how necessary it is to be competitive for business with our neighbour to the south. They understand that we are in constant competition with the US in order to land the big investments and new jobs.

To highlight this issue and shed some light on the concern that people in my community have with this budget, I want to share an

article from First Monday, which is a business magazine printed in Sarnia–Lambton. The

article is by a man that Mr. Bradley, the Minister of the Environment, might know from the past: Mr. Chris Cooke. It’s entitled, “146.5 Million Reasons Not to Invest Here.” It reads:

“It was a small story tucked away in a corner of the business

section of the Globe and Mail.” This is from the

article in First Monday.

“Toyota will build its next-generation Lexus not in Cambridge or Woodstock but in Georgetown, Kentucky. Even the largest car company in the world is shunning Ontario, the most expensive place in North America to manufacture anything. The ES350 will be built in the deep southern United States, where power costs are a small fraction of what they are here and where job-hungry state and municipal governments walk on water to attract auto investment and jobs.

“Unlike Ontario, the state of Kentucky is offering Toyota $146.5 million in incentives to build cars there.

“Kathleen Wynne doesn’t get it.

“She and former Premier Dalton McGuinty destroyed manufacturing in Ontario by blighting the province with wind turbines and uncompetitive energy costs. She’s closing” down “Lambton Generating Station by the end of the year.

“She’s replacing a perfectly good power source with” a “half-billion dollars’ worth of gas generation less than a kilometre away.”

“Wynne could convert Lambton Generating for a fraction of the cost. Instead of creating jobs, she’s destroying them. Three hundred will be unemployed at Courtright by Christmas.

“She’s out of control and the largest auto manufacturer in the world knows it.

“Toyota is ignoring a provincial government that is out of touch with reality.

“Unlike Wynne, Toyota knows it must build cars people want in a competitive marketplace, and Ontario is anything but” that.

“Power costs are too high. Labour costs are too high.

“Taxes are too high. And there are too many bureaucrats pushing around too much paper.

“Kathleen Wynne, or, as Brian Keelan calls her”—another commentator in that paper—“Kathleen McWynnty, is allowing wind turbines to be built next to million-dollar homes along Lakeshore Road in Plympton-Wyoming.

“Everywhere we go in Ontario we can see the power but we just can’t afford it. Toyota can see that too and must surely be asking the same question.” I won’t say what the next line was; it wouldn’t be parliamentary. Again, that was an

article by Mr. Chris Cooke, editor of First Monday, a publication in Sarnia.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I will not be voting for this budget because as the elected member of provincial Parliament for Sarnia–Lambton I need to represent the opinions of the people of my community in this chamber. I might add, just to go back over that: the affront on the harness racing industry in the past, Lambton Generating Station, the Sarnia Jail—and that’s just a number I can think of off the top of my head.

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I had some help from the Minister of Rural Affairs; I’ll pay him credit for that. Just as recently as April-May, he and I met, and I think we got some results there. It’s unfortunate that people were put through that, though, for the last year. I will say that.

The people of Sarnia–Lambton want change in government. They want a government that will be courageous in its leadership. They also want a government that will not hide or ignore the problems of today, as this Liberal budget instructs us to do.

In conclusion, I would like to add that it’s been an opportunity and a privilege to stand here today to debate the budget. We did read the budget. I spent some time in the lockup. I know members in my party spent the whole day in there; we spent a lot of time in there.

Hon. James J. Bradley: You’re still voting no.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, we’re still voting no, as the Minister of the Environment said.

We had to weigh it all, and at the end of the day we had to do what’s right by my riding; other members can speak for their ridings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleagues in the NDP, I cannot support this budget or this government, in good conscience. As we’ve said all along, it’s not so much about the budget; it’s about this government in particular. It’s not about numbers; it’s about this government. We think they’re past their best-before time, and we can’t possibly support them; I can’t possibly support them, as the member for Sarnia–Lambton. My residents are asking for change at Queen’s Park, and I am as well.

At this point, I will thank you for your indulgence and listen to the rest of the debate.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to stand here and talk about the budget and respond to some of the comments from the member from Sarnia–Lambton. He talked about his own riding. That’s a good thing; that’s what we’re all here to do.

He talked about the comments of people from his own riding. The comments he’s getting and the comments that I’m getting in my office are quite frankly different. Not everyone in my office is saying they support the Liberals, because quite frankly, in northern Ontario most people don’t trust the government because of the scandals. So I have people saying, “Bring down the government.” I also have people saying, “Make government work.” So I have a hard time believing that there is a universal—not one person in Sarnia–Lambton wants government to work. I have a hard time agreeing with the member on that one, because, you know what? There are various opinions across the province.

A lot of people comment to me, and it’s easy to say, “Oh, the Conservatives don’t read the budget.” That’s not the real problem. With the people who comment to me, the problem is that they said, even before there was any discussion, “We’re going to vote against.” The business people in my riding—a lot of them tend to be Conservative—shake their heads and say, “What kind of response is that? You never, ever say no or walk away from something before it has even been presented.” That’s what a lot of the Conservative-minded people in my riding have a hard time buying.

That’s why we are still looking at this and why the one thing that we’re going to need is accountability, because that’s the one thing that no one is buying from this government. We need much stronger accountability measures.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m always hopeful, Mr. Speaker. I was hopeful the member for Sarnia–Lambton would be positive in his response. I know they get their notes. They’re called talking points. The whiz kids—

Interjection: You get them too.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I don’t read mine, though.

The whiz kids in the back room prepare the talking points, and members just get up and use them. Now, there were several quotes he had, or emails, that sounded as though they were coming from the Conservative executive, so they had a meeting and they decided they would send all these emails.

The fact is, it’s a pretty balanced approach in this budget, and I think most people I’ve talked to out there—some like some portions of the budget; some say, “I would have preferred something else here or there,” but by and large, they’ve said that it seems to be a reasonable budget that the province can work with.

I recall that from 1977 to 1981, we were in a minority Parliament that worked exceedingly well. Why? The government was responsive to the opposition, and the opposition tended to be responsible. Therefore, it lasted four complete years. Did the government put a little water in its wine? Yes, it had to. Let’s hope there’s wine after tomorrow to put water in. But the government did that, and the opposition had to tone down a bit in its approach.

We’re looking at a budget that has a lot of positive components to grow the economy, to deal with those who have major challenges in these economic times, and at the same time to bring down the deficit in a period of time that’s not going to push us back into recession.

I’m looking at my friend from Beaches–East York. He would have been delighted when he saw that the Trillium benefit now can be received either in a lump sum or in individual payments. That’s just one part of the budget that has responded to people of Ontario. So I was deeply disappointed that my friend from Sarnia–Lambton was not really enthusiastic about a great budget.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I was intently listening to the member from Sarnia–Lambton, and I certainly agree with many of his comments. I have heard some members of the government wishing that we would speak positively about this budget. Well, I can give you some positive terms. The budget is positively awful; that’s exactly what it is. It doesn’t decrease spending. It’s mind-boggling to me why a government cannot find ways to run this province without spending more money all the time, and that’s what we see in this budget.

As far as saying that we would support the budget, of course we wouldn’t support this budget, because you look back over the past nine years or so at the record of this government, and why would you support this government? All members on the opposition side, including the third party, have seen what a horrible record and the waste and the spending scandals that this government has been involved with. So why would we prop up a government like this? We certainly wouldn’t. As has been proven correct, the spending is continuing at a rate that we just can’t afford. That certainly was brought out in the budget that we received last week. That’s why we don’t support this. We can’t support this.

People in my riding have been asking me more and more, and it certainly isn’t an onslaught of people—I can agree with the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane on that; not everybody wants an election—but it’s getting more and more that I’m being asked, “When are you going to pull the plug on these guys?” Certainly I think that the time has come to put this government out of its misery and get on with an election.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Sarnia–Lambton and, as well, to his colleague from Perth–Wellington who just spoke and reiterated many of the same points. It’s quite clear that they are convinced that this government has created a great many sinful acts, and I think there are many Ontarians who would agree with them that the government has done a lot of wrong things in the last couple of years. We recognize, in the New Democratic Party, that there is much unease out there about gas plants, about Ornge, about eHealth, about 100 other things that have gone wrong for this government.

But I have to tell you, the reality of this situation is that the people have sent us here, all of us here, to make this province work. They, in their wisdom, determined that this would be a minority Parliament, and we have an obligation from each and every one of the three parties represented here to make them whole, to make what they wanted work.

The easiest course, and the one I think my colleague from Sarnia–Lambton and the Conservative Party have chosen, is just to say no and force an election. That’s the traditional role of an opposition party in a majority government.

The hardest course is to try to make this Legislature work and to improve the lives of ordinary Ontarians. We, in this party, have tried, and we are still trying to do that. We are doing that because we believe that the people out there, the majority of them, want to see this Legislature work. They do not want an election at this time, they do not want the scandals to continue from that side, but by and large, most of the responses we’re getting are that people are positive towards the budget itself.

We await Ms. Wynne’s decision on where the Liberal Party is going to go with our suggestions, and that’s the way it should be.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a privilege to reply to my colleagues from Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Minister of the Environment, the member from Perth–Wellington and, of course, our colleague from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Speaker, recent polls—I mean, we all know what the pollsters—

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, but who knows what they’re good for?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, who knows what polls are good for? One that was a couple of weeks ago said that over 66% of the people in Ontario wanted a change in government; they wanted a change in direction. They were fed up.

Mr. Michael Prue: How many wanted an election?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I don’t know how many wanted an election. I don’t remember those numbers now. But like I say, polls are suspect now. I think the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker had a quote many, many years ago, which I won’t use here, but he said what polls were good for; he said that dogs knew what polls were good for. That’s being held more and more true as time goes on. I think it’s the pollsters—I’ll probably get myself in trouble with a number of them; I know a number of them. But I think their tactics and their methods certainly seem suspect anymore.

Anyway, it’s good; I’m glad I had the opportunity today to hear comments from my colleagues and had an opportunity to speak about the issues in Sarnia–Lambton, and they are many. I want to be able to go back home on this weekend—we’re on the parliamentary break, and life wouldn’t be very comfortable for me if I went back and said that I was supporting this government, because that’s not what I’m hearing at home. It would be very uncomfortable, I can tell you right now.

The people who vote for me and even those who haven’t made their minds up have already made their minds up on both this government and this budget, and a number of the scandals that I won’t go into at this time; they are certainly legion. If I was trying to list them—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Bob, are you going to the races at Hiawatha?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I hope to be able to go to the races at Hiawatha, definitely.

I just would like to sum up with an old quote: It’s not that they know so little; it’s that they know so much that isn’t true.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s with great honour that I rise this morning to offer my comments on behalf of the constituents of Algoma–Manitoulin. What is most important about this bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill 65, the Prosperous and Fair Ontario Act, is what it means for the people of Ontario. At the end of the day, Ontarians have made it clear that they do not want any more scandals or wasted money. They want their elected officials to do what they were elected to do and get results that would make life more affordable, improve health care and create jobs.

We have heard from thousands of Ontarians, and it is their voice we expect represented in this budget. Ontarians demand accountability and they deserve to have it as well.

There are a number of measures in this bill that will not work for Ontarians. This act attempts to look as though it is working for Ontarians by reducing auto insurance, but when you look at the fine print, it’s just a weak attempt at doing so. The act establishes an industry-wide target for a 15% reduction in premiums that insurers are permitted to charge in the private passenger automobile category. That sounds great, Mr. Speaker, and a tad familiar, but the problem is, it is only a target. A target does not mean action. Setting targets is promoting trying, instead of demanding positive change.

FSCO gets an extended mandate to investigate the billing practices of these med rehab clinics and auto body shops, and a process of FSCO sanctions leading to the revocation of licences is laid out if a provider commits fraud. This is a step in the right direction when it comes to accountability. Insurance companies, auto body shops and health clinics all have a role to play and a

part in the prevention of fraud. There is no doubt that fraud leads to greater costs when it comes to auto insurance—but if these anti-fraud measures do translate to consumer savings and not just increased profits for the insurance sector.

There is no mention of a review of the neighbourhood discrimination issue. This means that, depending on where you live, no matter your driving record, you will be legally allowed to be treated differently. This is unfair and a practice that the government is well aware of. Ontarians want to see this practice ended, yet all they are left with is another missed opportunity.

We want to bring accountability to this budget on behalf of Ontarians and have already announced a series of proposals that will enhance accountability measures going forward.

It is extremely difficult for people in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin to understand how the government could squander millions on eHealth, Ornge, and now the gas plants while the north remains underserviced in many areas.

I have raised the plight in the Legislature before of a constituent from Chapleau who must travel to Timmins for dialysis three times a week and has experienced long delays with the Northern Health Travel Grant, something that this government had committed to repair in a previous budget. We still are waiting.

It is difficult to understand how billions can be wasted while some northerners are forced into debt seeking medical care they desperately need. It is also difficult to comprehend that the government can throw money away on scandals but cannot spare money to fix the poorly managed northern transportation network. Northerners cannot rely on taking the cancelled ONTC train and must instead rely on driving on underserviced roads in northern Ontario. These roads are often closed because of a private contract which has left these roads extremely dangerous to drive on in winter conditions.

Now, in the spring, due to blocked culverts and water that is blocking these roads, we can’t get to places of work.

Algoma–Manitoulin communities deserve accountability. They deserve to know that every tax dollar is going toward programs and services that will benefit this province and their communities as well. They expect this government to learn from its mistakes and have accountability and transparency issues built right into government policies.

New Democrats are proposing that Ontario’s Ombudsman have oversight over the health care system. This would start to rebuild the trust which has been broken through scandals and the failure to provide Ontarians clear guarantees in the health care system. Ontarians told us that they want concrete changes in health care, and they know better than to just allow the government to keep saying, “Just trust us; we’ll deliver.” Families have seen their faith in this health care shaken by chemotherapy underdosing, scandals at Ornge air ambulance, and the government’s failure to guarantee home care wait times.

Asking Ontario’s Ombudsman to have oversight into the health care sector is a fair and reasonable way to start building trust.

New Democrats have also proposed to create a financial accountability office that would track government spending. This financial accountability office would be modelled after the parliamentary budget office at the federal level. It would examine the government’s annual budget and provide fiscal updates for accuracy, something we desperately need.

New Democrats have called on the government to close corporate tax loopholes. This is a no-nonsense policy that would create government revenue to spend on programs that help all Ontarians. Instead, new corporate tax loopholes are set to come into effect in 2015 and would allow corporations to write off the HST on entertainment and meals, something that northern Ontarians cannot fathom to understand—why we continue to do those things. This again frustrates Ontario families. The government wastes money on scandals and cuts programs and services and then goes so far as rewarding some of the highest earners and leaving open tax loopholes.

This budget also falls extremely short when it comes to promises on home care. This government sets a five-day target instead of a guarantee. We should strive to do better, not strive to try to do better. We need commitment to eliminate the 61,000-person wait-list for home care. We need to cap CEO salaries and find executive savings in the health care sector so that we can make guarantees and give our seniors the care they deserve in their homes at the time they need it.

This government brags about creating strategies, but besides adding a youth job program that we, the NDP, originally proposed, there is no program mentioned that will actually tackle the province’s 7.7% overall unemployment rate. This rate can be even higher for northern communities, and we need programs that create incentives to invest and hire in the north.

There are real issues that Ontarians want to see solutions for. This budget is troublesome because it does little to address challenges faced by northern Ontario. There is barely even any mention of the north in this budget.

There is no talk of an infrastructure plan for the Ring of Fire. It is very unlikely that this project will move ahead and boost the northern economy while the government continues to ignore its challenges.

The government continues to divest ONTC while talking about a pan-northern transportation system. This shows that the government does not understand northern Ontario, because the ONTC is an important part of the northern Ontario transportation plan.

The budget announces the extension of the northern electricity rate program, investing $360 million over the next three years, but we need to have this program extended to medium-sized energy consumers. These consumers need to have a break in order to grow in the north so that they can develop their businesses and attract more to northern Ontario.

The government committed to working with stakeholders on the review of the mining tax, but there has been no announcement on progress of this review that was first initiated last budget. Ontario has one of the lowest mining taxes, and we need to ensure that communities are realizing the full benefit of hosting these mines.

There are valuable services that the north has lost, which are having serious repercussions on our local communities. There are no mentions of addressing these issues in the budget. The government refuses to reverse its decisions to cut ServiceOntario offices. Northerners who rely on these counters in Manitouwadge, Wawa, Chapleau and along the North Shore of Manitoulin Island have had their hours of service cut in half.

These cuts have had a negative impact on local businesses and local economies, as well as employees who have experienced reduced hours and the loss of jobs. Businesses who rely on ServiceOntario to process transactions have to wait until these kiosks are open to do their business. This is a drag on the local economy.

It is clear that this budget has a way to go to work for Ontarians, and especially northern Ontario. Accountability continues to be a top concern, and we need to have a real effort to bring accountability efforts in. The budget will need to include measures that work for Ontarians in order for Ontarians and individuals in Algoma–Manitoulin to once again support this government.

We’ve set out very precise demands that we’ve been asking for in these discussions that we’ve been having in regard to the budget. I’m very proud of what our leader, Andrea Horwath, has done. I’m very proud of standing here with my colleagues, along with the NDP, doing the work that needs to be done.

It’s quite unfortunate that I look across the way to my colleagues in the Conservative caucus who chose the easy way out. I can assure you: When I’m talking to my municipal leaders and my communities, I hear a mixed message, but the one message that I consistently hear every single time—actually, from card-carrying Conservative members—is, “Why didn’t they at least read the budget?”

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my comments there.

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

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his remarks today. I couldn’t help but pick up my remarks from where he ended by saying that, certainly, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal government don’t see eye to eye on everything. This is an opposition/government relationship but, at the same time, I do give a lot of credit to the NDP for coming forward with ideas and coming forward with proposals for the budget, rolling up their sleeves and working, as I believe most Ontarians want this minority government to work.

As I say, I pick up on his closing comments about the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party have basically been missing in action when it comes to the budget. I gave a media interview recently where I pointed out that when I talk to many people about my role as House leader, they say “Oh, it must be very exciting in a minority government. It must be deal-making and sitting down and”—as I say—“rolling up your sleeves”—and, as I joked in the paper—“ordering Chinese food and working late into the night to say, ‘We don’t like this clause, and if you could fix this

schedule or if you could do this, we’ll let it pass. If you allow this bill to go this way, we’ll support you here in committee.’”

I think they’re always disappointed when I say, “Well, no, it actually doesn’t work that way.” I thought it was going to work that way, but instead, we have an official opposition which has just checked out, an official opposition which showed up and basically said, “We don’t care what’s in the budget.” We joked that we could have taken Changebook and put it in the budget, and they would have said, “We’re going to vote against it. We do not want to make this minority government work.”

I feel that that’s very sad. It’s a sad commentary on the message that I think Ontarians will pick up—I think, a point another member made—a message that Ontarians sent to us, which is that it’s a minority government and we’ve got to work together. So I congratulate the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for raising that point. I congratulate the NDP for sitting down and trying to work through things. Let’s hope that we can find a deal.

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate commenting on the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. A couple of things he had mentioned—I’m sure there’s probably very few in this Legislature that know about Sultan Road, which he’s talking about. If he knows the history very well, as I do, about Sultan Road, there are certainly a lot of impacts on there. Some of the other things are that when you talk about the mining rates, let’s find out which rate you’re talking about, because look what happened to De Beers at Attawapiskat.

If you know what De Beers did in this Legislature, you would certainly think differently about the rates on mining and how it’s impacting. We need to look at all those things.

In regard to the Minister of the Environment, who spoke earlier, where he stated about some of the aspects: When is it that an opposition has actually supported a budget? Tell us when and show us all the details that we can go into—the official opposition, not a third party. If you go into the details now—

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, but at least they read it.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Read it, yes. Let’s talk about page 31, when it talks about the revenue tax on there because, actually, I did read the budget. One of the concerns was that, “New revenue tools should enable choice among different transportations available while encouraging the use of public transit.” Is that a reference to a 10-cent-a-litre transit tax in order to support Toronto? A lot of individuals in Oshawa do not want that.

Let’s go to page 35. In the time I have, I want to make some comments about page 35, where it talks about extending the 407, the 35/115, but there isn’t a timeline there. As mentioned here, it talks about a significant component of the things that are happening there. We want to make sure. I’d love to have the time to debate that because I have a lot of answers for that specific issue.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Thank you, Speaker. If we go on to page 208 of the budget, because I did read the budget, it specifically talks—people need to realize it—about a $3.6-billion spending increase. You want to look at what’s happening in here. You have to realize the whole budget, do an analysis of everything that goes on and unde r stand what the words in there mean in this particular one—pages 31 to 35—significantly. We need to talk about the mining tax, which the member from Algoma–Manitoulin was speaking about. There are a lot of other issues that I hope to get to.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m pleased to stand up here and talk about the budget for the members of my riding, London–Fanshawe. I was pleased to hear some of the actual comments from the member from the Conservative Party, because he talked about what was wrong with the budget. He talked about some of the things we’ve been saying, because there are no targets—or, excuse me, there are no guarantees. This budget has targets for things, and we are asking for guarantees. Just because you don’t like something in the budget—you should give feedback on what you want to see in the budget. But the Conservatives have said, “We’re just going to vote it down.”

New Democrats have been very respectful and thoughtful of this process and considerate of the voices of Ontarians and the people that we represent. We see that this government says that they want a target for five-day home care visits. We are saying that that’s not good enough. The people of Ontario want to hold you accountable to things that you’re promising. So we’re looking for guarantees and we’re asking this government to take our considerations very seriously before we decide on this budget.

The member mentioned about transit and how it’s going to be paid for. Well, again, we’re saying that you guys are offering that we’re going to have a transit system. You say it’s going to cost—independently, we’ve heard $300 million, but we want to make sure we hold you to that and make you accountable because we know that with the Presto transit project—you started off, I think it was at around $25 million, was it—somewhere around there? It’s now up to $700 million.

That is not how the people of Ontario want to see a budget. They want to make sure that if you say you’re going to spend something and you forecast that money, that’s the amount. You’ve done the homework to make sure that’s what it costs. They don’t want fiascos that are going to cost three or four times more than what this Liberal government says in their budget.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I wish to respond to the debate by the member for Algoma–Manitoulin. I’m just looking through page 62 of the budget. That’s the north—I hear that from the member from Thunder Bay often, advocating for the north. People have heard me advocating for Orléans in the Ottawa area. I think it’s important that those issues—the low lake water that has a big impact on this member’s riding and the docking of the ferry: Those things are so important and those things have to be looked at in the budget.

So I look at “Strong Northern Communities” on page 62, and it talks about the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. It talks about the government “investing $360 million over the next three years through the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate ... Program.” He mentioned that. He just wants to see that continued longer-term, I believe.

“The Ontario Power Authority’s Industrial Electricity Incentive ... program offers a reduced electricity rate on new and expanded production....

“The government is making significant infrastructure investments to strengthen northern communities. For example, it is building a new Thunder Bay Consolidated Courthouse, expected to be completed,” and the Atikokan General Hospital.

“In 2013, the province is providing northern municipalities with $339 million in support through the combined benefit of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund ... and provincial uploads, an increase of $86 million over the previous program.

“Government support for northern school boards” is a 72% increase since 2002–03.

“The Northern Ontario School of Medicine has graduated a total of 220 new doctors since the spring of 2009.”

So there are all kinds of good things happening in the north, but there always, always has to be that drive to get more for the northern communities who contribute so much to our economy.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to touch on the member for Ottawa–Orléans. You’re absolutely right: We always have to fight when we’re representing the north. It seems that we’re always left on the back burner, and we have to scratch and fight and bite for every single piece that we can get for northern Ontario. I can assure you, you will hear nothing less from me from this side of the House.

I want to also thank the Minister of Government Services for his comments that he brought to the discussion.

The member from Oshawa: You’re absolutely right when it comes to the mining tax. Yeah, we have to think about it, but that’s all that’s been happening over the last couple of years with this government. We keep thinking about it, but we’re not implementing; we’re not doing anything. We need to sit down to really discuss how we’re going to make this a benefit so that some of the municipalities and some of the communities that are providing good opportunities to these mining corporations benefit as well from it. So we need to discuss it, but we also need to take action upon it and stop talking about it.

My colleague here from London–Fanshawe really touched on what my whole message was about, really bringing an accountability measure and making sure that Ontarians have the faith and the trust, and we can re-establish some type of credibility into our government. For far too long, we’ve seen wasteful spending, unaccountable governments that they are frustrated with. They are beyond their minds as to what is happening with where this province is going.

They are happy with some of the announcements, which are very reflective of some of the demands that we have put forward. That’s my role. That’s what they’ve asked me to come to Queen’s Park to do, to bring their needs and their wants to the table so that it can be reflected in the policies that this government is looking at moving forward. What they are now asking for, and what they are demanding, is that this government is accountable to delivering those programs to them, to their communities and to their municipalities back home.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like the Legislature to welcome the students from grades 10 and 11 at the Oxford Reformed Christian School from the city of Mount Elgin. The students have also brought with them some chaperones and teachers: Jake and Jacqui Van Meppelen-Scheppink, Lisa Groeneweg and Johann VanIttersum. We want to welcome them here to Queen’s Park, and I hope they enjoy their day. They experienced one of the great experiences of Toronto—they got caught in traffic coming in.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Actually, Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to wear these beautiful carnations that were given to us by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, who are having a day at Queen’s Park today. I would ask for unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I was told that was coming after introductions, but now that you’ve done it, let’s do it.

Do we have unanimous consent to wear the carnations? Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of guests?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce the interns in my office, Mackenzie Radan and Mariam Balika. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature, and we all hope you enjoy your time here. They’re in the west lobby, Speaker.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Taylor Workman, an officer with the Royal Canadian Navy, from London West, and Cassie Andrew, a third-year wildlife biology and conservation management student at the University of Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome four guests who are here in the gallery today to support my private member’s resolution this afternoon: Miss Judy Mead, Mr. Brendan Pooran, Ms. Dawn Roper and Mr. Gordon Kyle from Community Living Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, I’d like to introduce the family of one of my favourite pages here, Chedi Mbaga. The mother is here, Leila Mbaga—where are they now?—and brother Jerome Mbaga—

Interjection: There they are.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There they are: brother Jerome Mbaga, sister Mariama Mbaga, sister Naila Mbaga, brother Kisenge Mbaga, and friend Robert Lowenstein. Welcome. Good to have you here.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: With your permission, I’d like to say goodbye not to only all the pages who will be leaving us tomorrow but, in particular, Mr. Simon Osak from the noble institution from Upper Canada College, which I share.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce a class from Maranatha Christian Day School in Drayton and their teacher Laverne Good. They’re just starting to filter in on other side there. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: I guess I did that a little bit in reverse order, but I would like to introduce some guests who have come down to participate in the MS Society Day at Queen’s Park. They are Laurel Ireland, who is the daughter of a good friend of mine; Rona Ramsey; also, Mr. Yves Savoie, who’s the executive director for the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada; and Cathy Topping, who came to see me with her caregiver Marg. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to introduce a couple of interns at the Ministry of Education this summer who are sitting in the east members’ gallery: Paulina O’Neill and Natasha Milne. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from—the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Who are you recognizing?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Okay. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I stand as the Minister of Government Services to introduce interns from my office: Azeem Patel, Zain Haq and Benjamin Atkins.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, just coming into the gallery up there are students from the Crawford Adventist Academy, an academy that’s in my riding. I just wanted to welcome them, as I just did downstairs a few minutes ago.

Mr. Norm Miller: I want to introduce—I don’t believe they’ve quite made it here yet—Elizabeth and Siegfried Kiessling, who are down at Queen’s Park today for lunch with their MPP. They were successful bidders at an auction in support of Christine’s Place. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Sudbury and page Megan, aunt Anne-Louise Sabo, uncle John Sabo, uncle Jerry Tonello and cousin Zachary Tonello are here to visit Megan. Welcome, and thank you for joining us.

In the Speaker’s gallery, I’d like to introduce some lifelong friends of mine from the riding of Brant. Three of them are retired; the other one’s coming close to retirement. They’re lifelong friends of mine: Dom DiBartolomeo, Mike Rafferty, Bill Chopp and Bill O’Neill. We’re glad you’re here with us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. I find it remarkable that this government, which claims to be so open and transparent, can continue to pull the wool over Ontarians’ eyes. Yesterday, the Premier met with the leader of the third party. It would seem to me that they are simply planning their next move, at Ontario’s peril. The NDP were handed seven of their demands in this pathetic excuse for a budget, and they’re asking for more.

While the leader of the third party stands here one day claiming she has lost confidence in this government’s accountability, the next day she is meeting with the Premier in a bid to keep them in power and the NDP at the table. Well, a pox on both your houses. Ontario needs a change. We need real action and an immediate stop to these charades and delusions of grandeur.

Would the Deputy Premier please tell us: Did your Premier take the Lexus lane to meet with the leader of the third party to throw future Ontario jobs under the bus?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think what this province needs is a budget. I think we need a budget to be passed in the House, and that’s what we all should be talking about. You know, there’s a lot at stake. This isn’t a political game, Speaker; this is about real people who are waiting to know whether or not this budget is going to be passed. So let’s talk about who’s watching very, very carefully. Maybe the 30,000 young people who are going to benefit from the youth job strategy—they’re watching very carefully to see whether this Legislature will pass the budget that will get them the jobs that they need.

How about the low-income families who are waiting to see whether we collectively will pass a budget that will increase the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Before I go to the supplementary, the member from Cambridge will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I should have expected that kind of public relations messaging coming from a party with an unelected Premier. It seems to me that the only thing they can do right is to spin and shift focus away from their failed record. Well, spin this: Out of all of the provinces, Ontario has the highest level of provincial debt—$273 billion. Ontario has lost—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, don’t use the opportunity when it gets quiet to talk.

Finish the question, please.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Ontario has lost 58,000 private sector jobs in March alone. Here’s the spin for the Liberal comms office: You cannot spend more money than you’re taking in and still hope to balance the books. Taking advice from a party that is infamous for Rae days is not only poor strategy, but also compromises the future of the province. Credit rating agencies have already downgraded Ontario. Deputy Premier, how can you stand here and tell Ontarians your government is being transparent, or does the NDP have to make another ask for that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As you can imagine, there are a lot of people talking about what this budget means for them. I think the member opposite might not care about the people on social assistance who are very, very excited about the opportunity to keep more of the money that they earn, but I bet he will care about what Ian Howcroft, the vice-president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, has to say about this budget. He says, “We are pleased to see the government formally recognize the importance of manufacturing to the province’s economy.... Overall, this budget is a good signal that the province wants to work closer with industry.”

This is a budget that has widespread support. It’s time to get this budget passed.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: The Deputy Premier should be mortified that this is the hope that has been offered to Ontario families. Ontarians deserve more. Ontarians deserve a government with a Premier of their choosing, which yours is not. Ontarians deserve transparency. Secretly meeting with the leader of the third party in backroom talks does not instill confidence, in me or in the rest of Ontario, that your Premier actually wants transparency.

The time for talk has ended; now is the time for action. Only Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC caucus have shown clear and principled leadership to bring Ontario back to the top in places to live, economic performance and opportunity. The leader of the third party has made a deal with the devil.

Deputy Premier, does your caucus actually believe in its own budget—

Interjections.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Speaker, “the devil” is unparliamentary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Etobicoke North will resist, because I want him to go to his seat so I can tell him to stop.

Borderline. I remind you to stay away from that kind of language, please.

Finish. You have—wrap up.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’ll just put the question, Speaker.

Deputy Premier, does your caucus actually believe in its own budget, or is the leader from the third party giving you a pill that’s just too tough to swallow?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You know, the member opposite raises the question of a democratically elected leader. I think he might also take a moment to think about what the people of Ontario sent to the Legislature the last time we went to the polls. They sent a minority government. They want us to make minority government work.

That’s exactly what we’re doing. This budget contains essential Liberal values. It also contains elements that are common ground with your party, with the third party. But over and above everything else, this is a budget that the people of Ontario want and are anxious for it to be passed.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Deputy Premier. This week at the justice committee, we heard the Liberal political interference drove up the cost of your gas plant scandal. Michael Killeavy of the OPA told us the energy minister’s chief of staff instructed them to put a richer counter-offer to give the Oakville proponent more money. This morning, John Kelly of the Attorney General’s ministry told us the province had no obligation to pay damages for the full value of the contract, yet the Premier’s office clearly instructed the OPA to do so.

The Premier signed off on the 2011 deal that kicked off this drive of costs in Oakville. Her signature was on that document. Deputy, why won’t any of you admit when you knew it was more than $40 million?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should review Hansard of what Mr. Kelly told the committee this morning. Let me share some quotes with him.

This is what he said on the idea of the issue of negotiating by the Premier’s office. He said, and this is John Kelly, counsel to the Ministry of the Attorney General: “To be fair to them”—by that he means Mr. Steeve, Jamison Steeve of the Premier’s office—“he did say throughout these notes that they were not there to negotiate; they were there to listen.” He went on further to outline how important it was to reach a deal with TCE as opposed to going into litigation, and let me again quote: “In my experience of 40 years of litigating, if you can avoid litigation, you should. It’s a process that is fraught with risk.”

I think what Mr. Kelly did was point out that in the situation we were in, we took the best course in terms of negotiating.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I come from northern Ontario, and I’ve got to tell you, you can put as much baking soda on a dead skunk as you want; it still stinks.

Mr. Killeavy joined a long list of witnesses who told the committee the Liberal government knew, for months, the Oakville cancellation costs would be higher than $40 million, but no Liberal will stand up and tell us when they knew that. Your Premier was either part of or leading the government that directed those bad proposals that drove up the cost.

Your government squandered $585 million, all to benefit the Liberal seat-savers, instead of going to cancer treatments, MRIs or long-term care for seniors. Will somebody over there tell the Ontario taxpayers why you refused our confidence motion in this House yesterday?

Hon. John Milloy: The member opposite references the Premier, and I would remind him that it was this Premier who wrote to the Auditor General and asked him to expand his investigation to look into the Oakville situation. Mr. Speaker, let me quote what Mr. Michael Killeavy said in front of the committee. He said—listen to this—“These costs cannot be known with certainty at this point in time.” He went on to say, “The cost of relocation of both plants are estimates which are dependent on assumptions and information which becomes available over time. Because of this, numbers can and do change.” I think, Mr.

Speaker, you would agree we’ve taken the responsible course in asking the Auditor General to look into this situation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about Mr. Killeavy, let’s talk about what he said about the opposition’s antics to have documents released during the negotiations that were going on. He had this to say: When we were at “the negotiations, we were always trying to keep a close eye on the costs ... to the ratepayer,” keeping it “as low as possible.” I’ll finish it in my supplementary.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Deputy, your Premier’s political apology was just that: political. At home when you break a window, you don’t say, “I’m sorry the window broke.” You say, “I’m sorry I broke the window.” Your Premier said, “I’m sorry for the decisions that were made,” and she said, “I’m sorry about the mistakes the government made.” But it was the Premier who signed off on the 2011 arbitration agreement, and several other of you cabinet ministers signed off on that as well.

What Ontario wants to hear is, “I’m sorry I made those decisions,” and somebody from the Liberal Party has got to stand up and say that. Will it take a judicial inquiry and the threat of jail doors slamming to get somebody over there to tell us the truth, Speaker?

Hon. John Milloy: The member talks about politics. Let’s go back to last summer, when there were very delicate negotiations going on, and he and members of the opposition were calling for commercially sensitive documents to go forward. And as I said, this is what Mr. Killeavy had to tell the committee. You want to talk about Mr. Killeavy’s testimony? This is what he said: When we were at “the negotiations, we’re always trying to keep a very close eye on the costs and keep the costs to the ratepayer as low as possible. If documents had been disclosed, it could certainly prejudice our position in any negotiations.”

Mr. Speaker, that honourable member and his colleagues could have cared less last summer when they were demanding sensitive documents to come forward which would have prejudiced the negotiations. He’s one to talk about playing politics.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. We are pleased that after months of hard work by New Democrats, the Premier has agreed that she needed to own up and apologize for the gas plant fiasco.

But taking responsibility means more than just saying you’re sorry; it means taking steps to make sure that it never happens again. Will the Minister of Finance be adding new accountability and transparency measures to his budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Accountability measures are critical in any operations of any government. It is why we introduced accountability measures in 2004 with the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act. We took initial steps to ensure that any pre-election report be assessed appropriately so we don’t have a repeat of what happened when they had a $5-billion hole in their budget. Another item: we also provided an accountability act called the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act in 2010, again to bring higher accountability standards for lobbyists and enabling us to ensure that any activities going forward are measured and have proper oversight.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget, on pages 217 to 220 and pages 143 to 145, we have a number of accountability measures that have been added to ensure that we take proper steps and proper oversight measures always.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: None of those things that the finance minister just talked about stopped for one second what happened in the gas plant fiasco—not one of them.

Speaker, words are easy to say, but taking action requires real leadership. New Democrats worked for weeks and we finally got an apology for the gas plant fiasco. But now we need to see action to make sure we aren’t back in the same situation on some other matter.

Will the finance minister agree that the Premier’s apology is one thing but Ontarians want to see real action on accountability and transparency?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We agree that we have to enhance accountability on an ongoing basis. We recognize that certain mistakes occurred, and corrective actions have been taken. We have provided legislation, which has been stalled by the opposition, to try to do just that when it comes to air ambulance—and other measures. We are doing what’s necessary.

The suggestions provided by the third party are interesting. We welcome the opportunity to have that discussion and we look forward to having a very productive conversation.

But let’s get the budget passed. Let’s move forward, because what’s at stake right now is even greater, and that’s the people of Ontario and ensuring that we take these initiatives that are in this budget to move forward. We’re very open, and welcome any further enhancements that we can make to accountability measures.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Ontarians are tired of being let down by their government. I hope everyone agrees that Ontarians deserve better. An apology doesn’t give families any comfort that waste and scandals will be stopped before they start.

Does the finance minister agree with Ontarians that the budget needs to be more transparent and more accountable to people in order to end all of the things that have happened in the past?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me refer to page 217 and page 143. We have chapters in this budget that speak to accountability. We have measures in here that speak to the initiatives to enhance and increase our accountability. We agree. We recognize how important it is to have these oversight measures in place. We’re taking those steps. We’ve done so under the Ministry of Finance; we’re doing so with all ministries, for that matter. And under the treasury board and management board of government, we’re taking initiatives to ensure accountability.

So to the response to the member opposite: I appreciate your suggestions. We welcome them. We’re taking actions on them as well.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Catherine Fife: To the finance minister: Ontarians told us that the budget needed to be made more fair, accountable and transparent. Will the finance minister tell Ontarians if this government will actually start being accountable and create a financial accountability office?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the fourth question on the matter, and let me reaffirm that we’re taking measures. We’re taking precautions. We’re taking steps to initiate even greater accountability. I appreciate the recommendations made by the third party. For that matter, I appreciate recommendations made by all parties.

What we need is to put forward a budget that does indeed speak to the people of Ontario. We have a budget that is balanced, that is fair and speaks to those who are wanting to invest in Ontario. It also speaks to those who are most vulnerable in Ontario to help them.

More importantly, we want our government to be accountable. We want our government to deliver on its issues, and we want the government to deliver for the people of Ontario. We’re looking forward to doing that together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Ontarians want and need this budget to be made more transparent, accountable and fair. Will the government ask Ontario’s Ombudsman to oversee our health care system and act as an advocate for patients?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What we need right now is to pass the budget that talks about creating jobs and promoting growth, that talks about being fair to all Ontarians and that talks about helping people in their everyday lives. This budget speaks to that.

It also speaks to measures to increase accountability to ensure that whatever government is in power, that it be accountable; whatever government and whatever programs are brought forward, that we have proper oversight. We recognize that. We share those same concerns. We want to make certain, though, that we pass this budget. Let’s work towards making us all more accountable.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Ontarians told us that the budget needed to be made more transparent, accountable and fair. That’s what they want to see. That’s what they need to see.

Will the finance minister agree to stop telling families that they need to pay $300 million to toll carpool lanes, while at the same time he hands a $1.3-billion corporate tax loophole to corporations?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The notion of a tax loophole of $1.3-billion is not true. It’s not a loophole; it’s not new; it is something that has been in existence, and the exemption comes forward in 2015 to 2018. We’re asking the federal government to work with us to curb and stop those initiations so that we can balance our books.

Around reducing gridlock, I would expect that the third party would agree that we need to enhance HOV lanes in order to initiate and reduce gridlock for the benefit of all Ontarians. The extra hour that a transport truck is struck in traffic is an extra hour of lost productivity. We’re talking about $6 billion in lost productivity in this province because of gridlock. So we have to take these steps to move forward on that.

I would hope that we pass the budget. Let’s work together for the benefit of all Ontarians.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I rise to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Minister, when I rose in the House yesterday morning, your government had 36 hours to prevent an impending strike at the LCBO. Now there are 13 hours left to prevent a strike that would embarrass this province and hurt its tourism industry on this long weekend.

It’s now a day later, and no progress has been made. In fact, OPSEU union bosses have ordered the set-up of dozens of strike headquarters across the province.

Minister, when people say that they want a dry long weekend, an LCBO strike is not what they had in mind. Will you stand with Ontarians today and prevent an LCBO walkout, or will you play your usual game and cower to the big union buddies in the public sector?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we respect the collective agreements. We want the LCBO and the employees to bargain in good faith. We recognize that the members opposite would rather create havoc and not allow for a collective agreement to occur. We’re not doing that. We’re going to allow them to have their discussions.

I’m hopeful and I’m confident that they’ll come to an agreement so that we’ll all enjoy a good long weekend. Let them do their thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, in the 2009 collective agreement, your Liberal government awarded OPSEU workers at the LCBO with a 7.75% wage increase over four years—almost double the rate of inflation. If the latest Statistics Canada data is to be believed, OPSEU is demanding that part-time staff at the LCBO be paid double—double—what the equivalent employee in the private sector would receive. That’s double, Minister.

This government cannot afford to continue awarding big raises to unions at the expense of Ontario’s fiscal future. Will the Minister of Finance stand here today and commit to taxpayers that no increases will be awarded and that liquor sales will proceed this weekend?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me be clear: What the opposition wants are results, and what we’ve been able to achieve is close to zero-zero over the last couple of years. Our compensation envelope remains the same. Please recognize that our growth and spending have been below 1%, so we are achieving results.

We recognize that the parties all want to negotiate. Allow them that opportunity, because when they bargain in good faith, when they have that ability, it provides for the best result in the end.

I’m hopeful that we are going to have a resolution. A mediator is involved. A blackout is now before us. Let them do their work, and let’s come to a resolution that all parties will agree to.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday, the Ontario Ombudsman came to the committee that was looking at Bill 11, the air ambulance act. Mr. Marin yet again urged the government to grant his office oversight of Ornge.

The Ombudsman had received complaints from whistle-blowers years before the scandal made the headlines. He was told about high executive compensation and the use of public dollars on the private side of Ornge, but he wasn’t able to investigate. My question is simple: Has the minister heard enough proof? Is she finally ready to grant Ombudsman oversight of Ornge and our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted that Bill 11 is now before committee. I think members of the committee are doing their work, and that’s exactly what they should be doing. Speaker, it’s important to me that this legislation get passed. It’s also important to me that the committee do their work, hear from witnesses and make their decisions about the bill going forward. I want to let that committee do its work. It’s an important piece of legislation. I look forward to it coming back.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Ombudsman oversight is not in the bill, and unless the minister gives her okay it will never be included in the bill. The committee cannot do this without the minister’s support.

Ontarians were hoping that Ornge would mark the end of an era of scandals in our health care system. They want to be assured that our health care dollars are being properly spent and serving the needs of the people of Ontario. We will continue to lack accountability and transparency unless the Ombudsman receives the right to investigate complaints. The Ombudsman actually receives complaints about hospitals—hundreds of them every year—about long-term-care homes and continues to receive complaints about Ornge, but he doesn’t have oversight.

Will the minister prove that her government is capable of learning from their mistakes and grant Ombudsman oversight of the health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the member opposite is deeply interested in making sure that health care in this province is delivered to patients who need it. I know that she would be interested in knowing what is happening at Ornge. There is a new patient advocate in place now. They’ve got a conflict-of-interest protocol established. Of course, they have a new CEO, a new COO and a new board. The salaries of senior leadership have been posted online. The whistleblower hotline is now active. The new medical interiors have been approved. The Thunder Bay base improvement plan has been approved.

There are a lot of good things happening at Ornge, and I know that the member opposite would also be very happy to know that the two surplus helicopters have been sold.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In the recent Ontario budget, I was thrilled to see the commitment made to continue to support northern regional development. I’m speaking specifically about the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp., which provides funding for entrepreneurs who are committed to creating jobs and growing businesses in northern Ontario communities.

When I was in Timmins and Thunder Bay for pre-budget consultation, I saw first-hand the positive impact this program is having in northern communities.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please inform the House how our government’s commitment in the 2013 budget to the NOHFC will provide a positive impact on communities all across northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks to the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for the question. Certainly, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is something that, as a government, we’re very, very proud of, and as northerners we’re particularly proud of. May I say it’s a thrill, as minister, to be in a position to chair the heritage fund board.

What we are excited about is our strong commitment in the 2013 budget: $100 million in annual funding to the program, which of course is an increase of $60 million from the last term. This is something that makes a great deal of difference in terms of job creation in the north. Some interesting statistics, Speaker: Since 2003, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. has approved over $834 million in funding, leveraging over $3 billion toward 5,000-plus projects. Over 22,000 jobs have been created in the north and retained in the north—great news for economic development in northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: After listening to the minister, it is quite clear that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is having a positive impact across the entire north.

Where I believe the NOHFC is having a big impact is in giving northern Ontario’s young entrepreneurs the best possible start. While I was in Thunder Bay, I had a conversation with young Ontarians who were able to remain in their hometowns in northern Ontario because they were given an opportunity through NOHFC funding to start a business that provided them with the best possible start to their young entrepreneurial career. Although these entrepreneurs may have ventured down different business paths, what they have in common is that they are able to create jobs in northern Ontario.

Once again, through you, Speaker, to the minister: Can he please share with the House how young entrepreneurs from across northern Ontario are being positively impacted by our government’s commitment to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m just, of course, delighted with the support from the member for Scarborough–Agincourt, and all my colleagues on all sides of the House. Certainly, speaking of the positive work the heritage fund is doing to support young entrepreneurs in northern Ontario—we want to keep our young people in the north.

We are supporting our young business people with creative and strong business ideas in creating their own job opportunities by opening up their own businesses. This does allow them to stay in their communities. It allows them to contribute to the local economy and create jobs.

I could go through a long, long list—we’ve helped young entrepreneurs—we funded a fitness centre in Sudbury, a music studio in Kenora and a clothing company, a wonderful one that I patronize myself, in Thunder Bay, just to name a few. We’ve approved over 400 projects that have created over 800 jobs. It’s truly tremendous to see the government working to keep young people in the north and helping them pursue their dreams and their visions.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: We have a made-in-Ontario crisis from years of neglecting our developmentally disabled. We’ve all heard the disturbing stories of families unable to cope.

The Callaghans are coming to Queen’s Park today; 20-year-old Anna is developmentally disabled and requires care 24/7. Both parents work. Anna is eligible for 24 hours of nursing care a week. The Callaghans asked for only 34 hours a month, but in March, her agency could only provide 12. When Anna finishes her education next month, she will have no supports.

This afternoon, our health critic is calling for a select committee on developmental disabilities to ensure that Anna, the Callaghans and other families receive the support they require. Minister, do we have your support for this resolution?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I am proud to say, in support of the colleague opposite, that I will be delighted to support the motion this afternoon. I think that anything we can do together to address some of the serious challenges that we have is something that we must do.

I would just point out that one of the ways we’re trying to address some serious challenges that we must all address is through our budget. I specifically point to the additional influx of dollars to assist in the developmental disabilities sector; I’m sure that the members opposite support that.

I’ll be delighted to support the motion, and urge all my colleagues on this side to do the same thing. We can use all the help, together, that we can get, and if we can do it on behalf of the people who are most vulnerable, good for us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Whitby-Oshawa.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: While we are grateful and this sector is grateful for the money that has been allocated in this year’s budget, we know that it will not be sufficient to help all of the 12,000 people who are on the wait-list for service. It will help somewhat, but there are some innovative solutions that are being proposed by service providers across the province. I believe that a select committee shall have the opportunity to explore those and be able to disseminate them across the province, so I am very grateful for your support. We look forward to the committee being established—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: —so it can begin its work as soon as possible, because, as the minister knows, the need is urgent.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to hear that. Anything that we can do together to respond more appropriately to the most vulnerable folk that are there and need our help is good. You’re right: There are a lot of innovative ideas that we can’t—

Interjections.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Do you want to hear the answer?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Maybe your colleague in front, who asked a serious question, will have a chat with you, but we’re with you. I think, together, we can get some important and good, innovative things done that will serve a lot more people. I think we’ll all, in the end, be able to feel good about having worked together to do that.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. There are laws in this land that say you have to hang onto documents—you cannot shred documents as a result of leaving your employ. When you work in the Premier’s office, when you work within the government, there’s something that’s called a preservation notice. Chris Morley, your chief of staff, along with all of the staff in the Premier’s office, would have gotten these preservation notices in order to not shred documents.

The question to the Deputy Premier is this: Why did Chris Morley, the Premier’s chief of staff, shred documents as he left the employ of the Premier last June?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: In terms of some of the specific cases that the honourable member raises, as members know there is a committee of this Legislature which is looking into the issue of documents—that was the main focus of the committee before it was broadened.

But in terms of the general question, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, both as House leader and as Minister of Government Services, that we take our obligations very seriously as a government. We are very committed to being open and transparent. There are record retention rules, as the honourable member is aware, that require that certain official government records are retained as long as needed. We have taken a number of steps in terms of new staff, particularly new political staff here, to make sure that they are aware of that obligation, and we certainly take it seriously and will continue to work with the system to make sure that the rules are followed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The rules were not followed; that’s the point. People left the employ of the government as political staff and they destroyed the documents. They hit the delete button and cleared the archives so that the records would not exist to shed light on the decisions that were made by your government. How can you stand in this House and say that you’re living up to the law when it’s clear in committee—testimony says that they deleted the records?

So I say to you again: Are you above the law? How do you get the rights to shred records?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: We have made every effort to provide the committee with the information they’ve requested. As members are aware, there were an initial 56,000 documents that have come forward. The committee has asked for other documents that we have worked diligently to provide to the committee.

The Premier not only asked the Auditor General to come in, not only offered a select committee, which the opposition, including that member’s party, turned down, but she offered a broad government-wide search, broader than anything that had been asked for by the committee. We made that offer through Liberal members of the committee, and the opposition turned it down.

As I said, we take our obligation very seriously. We are working, particularly with new staff, to make sure that the safeguards are in place going forward.

ELDER ABUSE

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the honourable minister responsible for seniors. Recently we witnessed some terrible instances of domestic senior abuse. Many seniors may find themselves weak and defenceless while others may suffer from conditions such as dementia, leaving them in a state of vulnerability.

For many seniors in my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, this is a serious concern, but more so it is a concern for family members who worry and wonder how their loved ones can feel safe and secure in their residence.

Speaker, I’m asking the minister today: What measures is our government taking to ensure that our seniors living in retirement homes will not be subjected to abuse?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thanks to the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Our government does not tolerate any form of elder abuse. It is my commitment and that of this government to make sure that our seniors live in healthy and safe homes.

We were the first government in Canada to introduce a strategy to combat elder abuse, setting very clear terms for our seniors. In 2003, Ontario invested some $8 million in elder abuse prevention and awareness initiatives. Additionally, in 2010, our government passed the Retirement Homes Act, the first provincial legislation protecting seniors in retirement homes, requiring them to have a policy in place promoting zero tolerance of elder abuse, complying with the residents’ bill of rights, ensuring mandatory annual staff training on fire prevention and safety, zero tolerance of elder abuse, and whistle-blowing as well—

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

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for advising us on the measures already taken to prevent abuse and neglect of seniors.

But abuses take many different forms and are often perpetrated by close family members or acquaintances; sadly, these are not reported. Minister, it’s a serious problem as too many remain silent due to fear, shame or lack of awareness. As you know, Minister, the senior population is growing—more than doubling by 2036. With that demographic in mind, the number of seniors seeking alternative living in retirement homes is going to rise dramatically as well. Through you, Speaker, to the minister: In order to prevent and eliminate elder abuse, could the minister please tell us what actions are being taken by the ministry?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I can appreciate the member’s commitment to the well-being of seniors. Let me say, as the minister responsible for seniors, that the Premier and this government treat the well-being, safety and privacy of seniors in this province with utmost importance. Speaker, our proposed budget further addresses the elder abuse by continuing to commit to Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors to provide better access to health care, quality resources and improved safety and security for Ontario seniors.

The budget also demonstrates that the government is committed to moving forward with additional recommendations concerning seniors’ safety, as well as from Dr. Samir Sinha’s report, Living Longer, Living Well. Together with public education, raising awareness, we can provide seniors with a safe and enjoyable retirement home.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, I would like to inform you about a long-standing problem with our outdated labour laws in this province. For years, certain unions have successfully exploited a legal loophole in the Labour Relations Act that allows them to certify municipalities and school boards as if they were construction companies. Once this happens, the public sector employers become trapped in a labour monopoly which requires them, by law, to contract out all publicly funded infrastructure projects to companies organized by a specific union.

This unfair practice on average restricts 70% of qualified contractors from working on public projects and increases infrastructure costs by 40%. Minister, will you take a stand for taxpayers today by closing this loophole?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I appreciate the member raising an important issue. I believe the member opposite will also be tabling a private member’s bill on this matter today or sometime soon. I look forward to reading the bill and the content of the bill.

But as you know, Speaker, our government believes in a fair balance in labour relations. We want to make sure that all parties involved in labour negotiations have the opportunity to negotiate agreements that are fair to both parties. I do understand that some broader public service institutions have become bound to province-wide construction agreements. There is a provision within the Ontario Labour Relations Act that allows for those broader public service employers to seek exemptions. They have to file to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in order to do so, and then there’s a process that ensues from there on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, that process is actually flawed, and this is not a project that can be reviewed, studied, analyzed, evaluated and assessed just so we can have another conversation about it. It requires action now. Certain unions have already trapped several public sector employers in labour monopolies, including Hamilton, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie and the Essex school board; and now the region of Waterloo is at risk of becoming the next victim of this legal loophole, at a cost of roughly $78 million.

Minister, today in fact I’ll be tabling the Fair and Open Tendering Act to protect taxpayers in my region and in all communities across this province. Will you take a stand for Ontario taxpayers and end closed tendering today?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I noticed with interest that the member opposite called the system flawed. I don’t know if he remembers that it was in 1998 that Jim Flaherty, then Minister of Labour, actually put that system in place and then further on, in 2000, refined the system even further. The system we have in place was actually put in under the watch of the previous Conservative government, which is now the official opposition.

So the system has been there and has worked well over the years. It’s a system that is designed so that an arm’s-length agency or tribunal like the Ontario Labour Relations Board is the one making the decision whether an employer is a construction or non-construction employer. The government should not be making those decisions; the board should be making decisions.

However, the member opposite is tabling a bill. I look forward to reading the bill and having further discussions with him on that.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Many children work in Ontario’s recorded and live entertainment industries, and many of these children work in substandard conditions. Some very young toddlers are being denied basic rest periods, healthy snacks and safe waiting areas, and many older children work excessive hours each day.

Can the minister tell us what successive Liberal governments have done to provide real protection for child performers?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, we obviously have, under our employment standards laws, strict rules around the kind of duties that children can participate in, and I look forward, obviously, to learning more about this issue with the member opposite. If he has any specific concerns, I ask him to provide me that information, and then we can work together on it.

Most recently, I had the opportunity to meet with the actors’ union, ACTRA. They did not raise this issue to me, but I will, along with you, reach out to them to see if there are any specific issues so that we can, together, work to ensure that all children in our province are protected and nobody is abused or violated.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yesterday, I tabled Bill 71, the Protecting Child Performers Act, 2013. Writing this bill was a collaboration among ACTRA, Equity, my staff and legislative legal counsel. It’s a good bill, and, coupled with strong regulations, will provide significant protection for child performers in Ontario. It will be a model for other provinces to follow.

Why has this government never supported legislation that would bring in long-overdue protection for child performers?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, the member opposite is tabling a bill, and I look forward to reading the bill and giving it careful consideration, so thank you very much for your work on this, working with important partners and stakeholders on this, because it’s important.

But I do want to say that we respect the member’s concern for health and safety and employment standards, children enjoying the workplace. In fact, to address those concerns regarding the implementation of health and safety laws for children in this industry, we have an excellen