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

May 18, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2010-May-18 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 18 May 2010 Mardi 18 mai 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

PHARMACISTS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TAXATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSOCIATION

POVERTY

TAXATION

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

DEFERRED VOTES

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

CYCLING SAFETY

WOMEN’S MULTICULTURAL RESOURCE AND COUNSELLING CENTRE OF DURHAM

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

TRILLIUM HEALTH CENTRE

ONTARIO BUDGET

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

POPE JOHN PAUL II

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU ET

LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CALEDONIA ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE RELATIVE À LA SITUATION EXISTANT

À CALEDONIA

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SAFE BICYCLE PASSING), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (DÉPASSEMENT SÉCURITAIRE DE BICYCLETTES)

SANDRINGHAM DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

ACT, 2010

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT (DISCLOSURE RE INVESTIGATIONS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ADMINISTRATION FINANCIÈRE (DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ENQUÊTES)

VISUAL FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES SYSTÈMES D’ALARME-INCENDIE À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WATER SUPPLY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH /

MOIS DE LA PRÉVENTION

DE L’AGRESSION SEXUELLE

WATER SUPPLY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

WATER SUPPLY

PETITIONS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

WIND TURBINES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

MINING INDUSTRY

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

BREASTFEEDING /

ALLAITEMENT MATERNEL

LABOUR DISPUTE

INFRASTRUCTURE HEALTH AND

SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 16,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I will be sharing the majority of my time with the member from Pickering–Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: This seems to have become a bit of a routine as of late, where the House leader and/or the chair of cabinet are very gracious with their time that’s allocated and provide it to me.

I’m very pleased today to join in the debate on the third reading of Bill 16, our budget bill. Obviously, subject to the concurrence of this body here, we might very well see the budget bill passed in relatively short order. It’s only some two months from the time our budget was first introduced; although I’m sure not a record by any means, nonetheless, a fairly expeditious process in the context of our legislative framework.

Bill 16, Creating the Foundation for Jobs and Growth Act, 2010, speaks very firmly about what the budget this year is about, and it really is about establishing a firm foundation in spite of the economic climate or in response to the economic climate. We’ve all seen for the past couple of years a firm foundation for jobs for those in Ontario and for growth as we move forward through, hopefully, the tail end of this recessionary period; although not clearly out of the woods yet at this point, when you look at the international situation, you understand that, but moving out of that into a time of growth.

The 2010 Ontario budget moves forward the five-year plan, the Open Ontario plan, that was introduced as part of the throne speech. Certainly, the budget is building on the Open Ontario plan to create new jobs and growth, at the same time taking the necessary measures in a responsible fashion to eliminate the deficit we find ourselves saddled with at this point in time, in a large measure due to the global economic recession and the need to invest in infrastructure and in stimulus as a mechanism to support this province and support the need for jobs in these times.

It’s money well spent for infrastructure needs that had been for some time, I would suggest—certainly prior to our coming to office—sorely neglected. We need to do this to create jobs and growth, and to work toward elimination of the deficit we find ourselves in.

We’ve made tremendous progress, I would suggest, over the half-dozen years we’ve now had, and this will build on that in supporting job creation and enhancing the programs and services that Ontarians expect of us. They expect us to provide opportunities for quality education for their children, they expect quality health care in their communities, they expect that their community hospitals will be there for them when they need them and they expect that they will have the opportunity, when they need it, for skills training.

Part of this budget, as in past budgets, is providing career opportunities and skills training opportunities that might not otherwise present themselves for those who find themselves dislocated in the workforce.

Health and education, and the opportunity for skills training and post-secondary education to provide young people in particular with opportunities to prepare themselves for a new economy, have been the foundation values we have formed government on, and this budget truly reflects those values in this particular economic climate. As well, in this budget we look to manage government expenditures, including compensation restraints.

We know we are showing that type of leadership on a managerial side. As well, all of us in this House have really set the stage for that. We are now well into a period of restraint ourselves when it comes to wage increases. We started that process more than two years ago, and it’s going to be extended, so each of us in this body has set an example. As well, our managerial/professional staff are also experiencing similar wage restraints.

In doing that, we’re respectful of the collective agreements that are in place. We respect the people who negotiated those collective agreements, and we plan to honour those collective agreements.

But we’ve made it clear in this budget process that with a $21-billion deficit and the need to work our way out of that deficit over a responsible period of time—cutting it in half within five years and eliminating it within eight years—there is going to be a need for those in the broader public sector, those to whom we make transfer payments and who depend on the provincial government, to recognize that our resources are limited and there will not be the capacity to provide the types of increases on an annual basis that were available in the past.

Thus, as they enter their negotiation periods, they’re going to have to be cognizant of that in the business they do.

We have a plan. It’s a realistic and responsible plan for elimination of the deficit within a structured period. I’ve already said it will be cut in half within five years and eliminated within eight. It was interesting, when we did pre-budget consultations, a number of organizations came before us. I recall that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce spoke to us—I believe we were in London at the time—and talked about eliminating the deficit. They recognized that in an ideal world, one would be able to do it very quickly.

But they proposed to us at that point that we show a measured mechanism, a measured strategy to eliminate the deficit, they said, within the decade. We are effectively within that target range; we’re probably slightly ahead of that range. They were speaking broadly at that point in time, but they were making a serious point that there had to be a targeted initiative to do that within that period of time or less.

In that sense, we think we took good advice from those in the business community—small business in particular—about what we need to do, at the same time acknowledging the importance of public service, health and education in particular in this province, and the need to be respectful of those who work in the public sector that we fund through transfer payments and those who have collective agreements.

If there’s anything this budget does, it certainly continues to respect the importance of public services in this province. In addition, there continue to be significant investments in infrastructure. This budget follows up on the budget of last year, where we assigned some $30 billion plus—I think it was about $32 billion—for infrastructure through stimulus and support. Some of that was spent last year, and some is being expended through this budget year. It was part of a more than one-year program, and it’s one that is being done in partnership with other orders of government.

We certainly appreciate the leadership that the federal government has taken in that regard, and we appreciated the opportunity to work directly with them, since we can’t do it on our own. As well, our municipal partners, that other order of government, have traditionally been supporters and partners in initiatives such as this, but this time even more importantly so.

This is a very, very significant investment that the province is making, as well as the federal government in their part of it and the municipal governments, to ensure that we rebuild the infrastructure that is so sorely needed, whether that’s water and sewer systems—pipes in the ground; roads that need to be built; public transit; or community facilities.

Those are not only needed by communities, they’re not only needed to restructure the infrastructure that is deteriorating over time, but they’re also needed because of the economic climate we find ourselves in, and thus the need to unfortunately run a very significant deficit at this point in time, because we need the dollars expended in infrastructure to create jobs at a time when we need to support the economy.

If one looks now, as we move through the tail end of that recessionary period, what the world is saying about Ontario and about Canada in that regard is that we seem to have had it right. We seem to have avoided the worst of the calamities that were experienced and are continuing to be experienced by our friends and neighbours south of the border. One only needs to look to Europe at this point in time, whether it’s Greece, Spain, Portugal or the Celtic Tiger, Ireland, as just preliminary examples of the stresses they find themselves under.

But here in Canada and in Ontario, our fiscal systems seem to have sustained us well, but we also are making the right investments to help us work our way through the process, and this budget remains a significant part of that investment.

We’ve seen a rebound occurring, and that’s pleasing. Obviously, the GDP is increasing; the projections are very good for us, compared to where we were not that long ago. But one only needs to look at places like the auto sector, and see the General Motors of the world, which are part of my broader community in Durham and tend to be our bit of a focus, if I can speak a bit parochially in that regard, on the Durham side, the Pickering side of my riding. It doesn’t exclude others, by any means, but we see now that GM has come back to life.

On my way home yesterday, I heard they have announced that they’re turning their first profit in over three years. They went, I believe, from a $6-billion loss last year to something around an $800-million profit in their first quarter this year. So we’ve seen a rebound. We see the new GM vehicles on the road, and that’s not to talk down any of the other manufacturers, because there is activity happening throughout that sector. But where I and my constituents live, GM is a very important part of that.

Our investments in folks like GM provided confidence. Our investments last year and going into this year to support the economy in this province will help provide people with the jobs they need and the income they need to buy those vehicles. Whether it’s a Ford vehicle, a GM vehicle, a Honda being built in Alliston or a Toyota being built elsewhere in the province, those are important investments that we made that are paying dividends, and what we’re doing in this budget is continuing to support jobs so that people will have the disposable income to reinvest effectively back into the economy.

The time allocated today is going to be somewhat limited, as we try to work our way through. In particular, I certainly want ample opportunity for our opposition friends to speak to their views on this budget. But I have to tell you that I’m pleased to have worked with our minister, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, in that regard. We believe this is the right budget at the right time, and I think we’re seeing that the economy is beginning to bear out the decisions we made last year.

I believe that the decisions we’re making this year will be equally borne out this time next year, when people are talking about the successes we have had, and will recognize this is the right budget at the right time for Ontario and the folks who live here.

That’s some of what I want to say. I do have a few other things I really want to add at this point in time—as I say, I’m cognizant of the time. I want to speak a little bit about post-secondary education. I talked about infrastructure and jobs, but I want to speak briefly to post-secondary education. That’s critically important if we’re going to prepare primarily young people for a new economy, a new way of doing business in the world. I’m not sure we know what that’s going to look like yet. We know from our initiatives that energy is an important matter.

We know that water in this world is going to be an important matter. It’s why we’ve turned our attention to those things, over the past few years, on the energy front and more currently turning our attention to water: because it’s an important element not only for business, but it’s an important element for each of us every day of the year.

Here in Ontario and in Canada, we are privileged to have a vast quantity of fresh water. A lot of that water, surprisingly, doesn’t run south; it runs to the north. People think we have access to all this fresh water readily available, but the fresh water we actually have available to us is a little more limited than we might otherwise recognize from the use by our existing population. Nonetheless, this continent and this country are still home to a vast majority of the world’s fresh water.

Saying that, there is a focus we need to have on the future. We have to prepare young people, principally, through post-secondary opportunities in colleges and universities and postgraduate work, so that they are ready for that new economy, although we don’t know quite what it’s going to look like. That means that through the expertise that is being developed and has developed through the professionals, the professors and others, we have to provide the opportunity for young people.

This budget is providing opportunities, some $310 million, if I can recall the number—and I may be off by just a small amount—on an annual basis to accommodate growth funding. It will accommodate some 20,000 new students, 20,000 new places in the post-secondary system, or systems—universities and colleges primarily, as well as some training. It’s important for those young people to be able to step into the new economy, to have the skills, develop skills, and with the skills they have to be ready to take them forward in an entrepreneurial fashion.

It’s not a matter, anymore, of training someone and sending them out to the job. We now have to have young people with skills, with the capacity to come out of the education system, and learning—not having finished that process and thinking they’re ready to do the job—they have to come out of that hungry to learn, hungry for entrepreneurship, hungry to take advantage of the expertise, the mentorship that can happen in a corporate entity or in a public sector entity, and we need those young people with the right mindset to do that. Part of these investments, in my view, will provide them that opportunity.

I have young people in my family. My children now have finished their university careers. My youngest is a couple of years out of university but still on a learning curve—a very steep learning curve, I might add. I look forward at this point to my grandchildren, three of whom are now in their teens, and one approaching that era—it won’t be long before they’re in our college and university systems. I’m hopeful that’s where they will be. I want them to have the kind of opportunities in those systems that will prepare them to be leaders in the economy and leaders in the community when they leave those institutions and move into the workplace.

It’s not to ignore at all those older workers. We are working jointly with the federal government on the target initiative for older workers. That’s an agreement we have with the federal government, and it’s targeted at hard-hit communities. There are those older workers, those who are displaced in this economy, those who do not have the skills necessary to readily step into these new roles.

We have an obligation also to provide support where possible for those older workers in targeted communities that have been hard hit, to give them the kinds of opportunities they need to be able to work through the balance of their working career before they are ready to move into some other phase of their life, to provide them with a new set of skills where the demands are there for them to be able to take advantage of that. Ideally, in a perfect world, you don’t want to dislocate people at the end of their careers and have them pick up their family and move, and those kinds of things.

So we want to work within those communities that have been hard hit and help to retrain those particular workers so they can stay within their overall communities.

This budget, the 2010-11 budget, focuses on a number of issues. It certainly focuses on public service, which we have done. It focuses on the economy from the context of our infrastructure investment. It focuses on post-secondary education for young people. It focuses on those targeted workers, older workers who are dislocated. It pays attention to the deficit that we have, with a targeted time frame in which to eliminate that deficit, and cut it in half within a five-year time frame.

I believe firmly that a year from now the media and others will be speaking about this budget having been the right budget at the right time, in my view the same way they’re speaking about last year’s budget now. If we look at the media and the success Ontario has had, they’re speaking about Ontario having done the right things at the right time for Ontarians.

Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. Members of the House, I look forward to the balance of the debate. With the will of this House, we’ll see our budget bill concluded in relatively short order.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to comment on Bill 16, which is the main budget bill put forward by the government. I’d like to begin by talking a bit about the process by which it’s passing, and that is that the bill has been time-allocated. It is a substantial bill; there’s some 31 schedules as part of it. The government has time-allocated the bill so it’s on a very shortened time frame for passing through the Legislature.

In fact, there was but one day of public hearings—some five hours—for those people interested in commenting on the bill to have their say—with very little notice, I might add, for those interested. In fact, there was so little notice that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario missed the deadline for written comment.

On the eve of the clause-by-clause about to occur, AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, was sending out letters and contacting MPPs, quite concerned about the fact that the result of one of the provisions in this bill—I think it was the insurance schedule—would be that municipalities would be forced to have much higher insurance premiums, and they were quite concerned about this.

That just outlines the flawed process that the government is using; they’re rushing it through. In fact, with that specific

schedule that was going to affect municipalities, the government voted against a

section of their own bill in reaction to that. But as I pointed out, the municipalities missed the deadline for written submissions and missed the opportunity to come before the committee for the public hearings as well.

Who knows what else is hidden in this piece of legislation? They have this flawed process, very much demonstrated last week with Bill 44, which is the northern energy bill. That was the mother of all time allocation motions, I would say, the most rushed I’ve ever seen; so much so that I went to the subcommittee meeting on, I think, Tuesday, with a Wednesday deadline for hearings on Thursday. So, surprise, surprise, nobody made a written submission and nobody showed up for public hearings, it was so rushed. And there were no amendments to that particular bill.

That was the northern energy bill, and I’m surprised it wasn’t actually part of this one. I’m not quite sure why the government is insisting on rushing things through, thereby making mistakes.

Those who did come before the committee were mainly pharmacists, because they were aware, and became aware, that two schedules of the bill—schedule 5, the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, and one other schedule, further along here—quite drastically affect them and the way they’ve been doing business. We heard from a lot of pharmacists during the five hours of public hearings.

The message that came from the pharmacists is that they support reducing the costs of generic drugs, they support doing away with the professional allowance that they’ve been receiving, but they just need a little time to make those changes because they’ve been operating under a certain business model and it’s being changed dramatically by the government. I proposed an amendment at committee to give them a little time to make the transition. Unfortunately, the government voted that and other amendments down.

I know the government is trying to characterize them as Big Pharma, but it’s the small pharmacies like, in my riding, Steve Vandermolen, who has a Gravenhurst pharmacy, or Darl Dillabough in Bracebridge, or Bill Coon or Helen Luvison, or Gordon Lane with Lane Family Pharmacy in Parry Sound, that will be most dramatically affected by this quick change.

As I say, the pharmacies are interested in lower generic drug prices and doing away with professional fees. They just need a little time to get there, because we have this wonky system right now where they fill a prescription under the Ontario drug benefit plan and they get paid $7 even though the real cost is $14, and then the difference gets made up through this professional fee. They don’t want to see that. They’d rather be paid the $14, as Alberta does, and some reasonable profit. Then they’d be able to continue to provide the front-line health services that our seniors and families count on.

In fact, I went and visited Steve Vandermolen at the Gravenhurst pharmacy last week—they were putting on a clinic— and there talked to folks who were coming in. They made it very clear to me how much they rely on the advice of the pharmacists. There were people there who said, “If we have some small problem, we’ll come and see our pharmacist because it takes us three weeks to get an appointment with the doctor and usually, in most cases, the pharmacist is able to explain and help us or give us advice—sometimes the advice is, ‘Go see your doctor’—but often cases they are able to provide help for.”

When I went to the clinic, they were doing a photo op as well, and they did a blood sample on me. I found out my blood sugar is a little low, so I learned something myself going to the clinic that day.

It’s these small pharmacies that are most at risk with the draconian measures the government is taking and this rush process that they are involved with, especially in rural and northern Ontario. The people in rural and northern Ontario, families and seniors, depend on those small pharmacies for the front-line health services.

Other parts of the bill—I mean, there are 31 schedules and it’s time-allocated. We get all of 20 minutes in total for third reading. I’m going to be sharing that time with another one of my colleagues, so I obviously can’t cover the whole bill itself in any detail whatsoever.

Another schedule, though, in the bill is the LHIN review, the local health integration network review; postponing that is part of this bill. Maybe that’s why they’re trying to rush it through, because they don’t want too much attention. When the local health integration network legislation passed in 2006, it required a review by March 2010. The date came and passed, and the government didn’t do the review on their new mid-level health bureaucracy. As a result, now they’re putting in legislation to postpone that review, conveniently, until after the next election.

As the opposition, we see these new bureaucracies as a diversion of money from the front-line health services. We think the review should have occurred when it was originally stated. I note that the problem of the government not complying with its own legislation has actually now been sent to the Legislative Assembly committee to deal with, although that committee has to, first of all, deal with another issue, the issue of members being restrained from being able to make it to the budget delivery on time on budget day of this year.

The parliamentary assistant talked about some other aspects of the budget bill. He talked about compensation restraint and the measures the government is taking. I simply say that it’s half-hearted, and they are creating a lot of problems.

We had the Ontario Hospital Association come before the committee and point out how they have non-unionized and unionized workers in different hospitals doing the same jobs, and now all of a sudden this is going to create great problems for them because the government is not restraining unionized workers, in most cases, until after the next election, but they are immediately freezing the wages of non-union workers, although with some loopholes to get around it in their case as well.

This is creating problems, as in the case of hospitals, where they have some unionized and some non-unionized workers in some cases doing the same job.

About 50% of the budget is wages; most of those wages are unionized; most of the contracts don’t come due until after the next election. So, really, despite the fact we have record deficits, despite the fact that Dalton McGuinty is on track to double the Ontario debt by 2012—that’s a little scary. It took 23 Premiers to get to the debt of $140 billion we had when Dalton McGuinty came into power in 2003, and he will have doubled that by 2012. That is something to think about. It’s something that we all will have to bear and pay our way out of with future restraint.

The parliamentary assistant was talking about the deficit reduction plan. It’s just not a credible plan. They’re talking about balancing the budget by 2017-18. That’s beyond two provincial elections, and it’s probably beyond a typical economic cycle as well. What happens when we have the next recession? That’s when government has to spend money, and if they still haven’t balanced the budget, we will end up getting further in the hole without balancing the budget.

I should just point out in wrapping up, because I’m already out of time, the fact that it’s not a revenue problem. This year, they’re budgeting on record revenues of $107 billion—$107 billion. The problem is they’re also setting a record for spending: $127 billion, so roughly a $20-billion deficit planned again for this year. It was $21.3 billion last year. The government has increased spending some 70% since coming to power. They just can’t control spending. Their restraint measures are half-hearted and problematic. I have no hope that if this government was in power for 100 years they would ever—will ever—balance the budget going into the future.

I have real concern about the fact that the government is doubling the debt in the province and what that’s going to mean for the future of the province—all the interest payments, the risk of interest rates going up. We all know they’re at historic lows, but they’re going to be going up. I certainly have real concerns that we are dealing with a budget bill with 31 schedules in such a tightened time frame. With that, I’ll close.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a privilege to be able to rise here today and speak to Bill 16, the budget bill. Any budget bill addresses the priorities and values of the government that presents it. The reality here, as my colleague has said, is that the budget is very large; it covers a very broad scope, and it is very difficult to go through it in a way that one could call thorough. What I hope to do, though, this morning is address what I see as a number of the key elements in this budget, to give people some sense of the government’s priorities and values.

The first thing I want to address is the unwritten part of this budget. The reality is that the McGuinty government is considering selling off Ontario. It’s considering selling off some of the most productive and strategic assets that this province has: Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, the LCBO, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. We in this province are very familiar with what happens when a government facing an election and needing quick cash decides to sell off an asset to pay down the deficit and give it a little money to spread cheer and happiness around the province.

We saw that with the Highway 407 deal, which people in this province still are suffering from, still losing value on, still feeling the sting of those private collections against their driving ability in Ontario.

The McGuinty government has met with the editorial board of the Globe and Mail, and the phrase that was quoted was that they don’t want to look as though they are “burning the furniture” to keep the house warm. And you’re right: They don’t want to look like that, but that may well be what they are doing. In fact, I believe that is what they are doing, but they don’t want it to look like that. So they are madly casting about for an expenditure that will be attractive enough that they can sell that sale, that they can get the political buy-in for cutting loose or starting the process of cutting loose some of the most critical assets in this province.

If, in fact, Ontario sold off Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, the LCBO and the lottery and gaming commission, we’d lose more than $3 in revenue for every $2 that would be saved on debt servicing. In total, Ontario taxpayers would come out half a billion dollars poorer every year in lost revenue. Those four entities, those four bodies, operations, generate about $4 billion a year. If you sell them off, you have to get a very high return on your investment to make up for what’s lost.

If you sell them off, you get rid of those strategic levers that we need in this province to build our economy in the decades to come. Yet this part of the budget, so far unwritten, still the subject of a mad scramble to find political cover, unfolds behind closed doors.

It speaks volumes as to who the consultants were. Who were the financial advisers hired to pull together this deal? The company Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment banker, was hired by Dalton McGuinty to do the work, to do the analysis, to present the case and the opportunities for this.

As you are well aware, Goldman Sachs has currently been charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. According to the New York Times, they’re under criminal investigation. According to the New York Times, their former client AIG, one of the larger insurance companies in the world—one that got badly burned in the subprime mortgage catastrophe—has ended their financial relationship with Goldman Sachs.

This is the company that’s advising Ontario on how to dispose of its assets. This is the company that has recently testified before the American Congress, a company whose future is called into question by American lawmakers, who have called for a criminal probe of its activities. That is the Premier’s consultant; that is the Premier’s adviser. That’s extraordinary to me.

I recently asked the Premier about Goldman Sachs. I talked about the recent revelations in newspapers about charges and investigations. It was interesting, what the Premier had to say: “I gather my colleague is making reference to some contractual arrangement that our government may have entered into with Goldman Sachs.” He held them out here, at arm’s length. He knew that there was a taint there that he didn’t want on himself. He didn’t get rid of them. He didn’t say, “When I get their report, I will shred it.” He just wanted to make sure he didn’t have any political damage.

This is extraordinary. This is the unwritten part of the budget that we are debating today, a part that will be as consequential to this province as any other debate that we have. I raise this issue not only because it’s a significant piece of the budget that should be debated, but also because I’m fearful that between the time this House rises in the next few weeks and the fall, Goldman Sachs and Dalton McGuinty will have done a deal that we will actually not have an opportunity to debate in this House. That is a very, very scary prospect for this province.

Having spoken about the unwritten part of this budget and the authors behind the scenes and their current state, I want to talk about the impact of this budget on public transit. I’ll talk first about Toronto because that’s the most visible part of the iceberg, that’s the most visible issue and one that, frankly, people across Toronto are upset with.

The government has said that it is going to save $4 billion by pushing back Transit City, an investment to put light rail vehicles and high-speed streetcars throughout suburban Toronto so people can get places quickly, so people who are currently isolated don’t have to stand on street corners and watch bus after bus after bus, packed to the rafters, pass them while they wait, desperately trying to get to work on time. That cut, called a delay, is a pushback until after the next election, making the reality of Transit City far more uncertain.

Beyond that, when we see the truncated plans, the chopped-up plans, that come from Metrolinx on the revisions to what’s left after that funding is supposed to come back, we can see that the city of Toronto gets far less than it would have otherwise.

Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, in the greater Toronto area congestion costs our economy about $6 billion a year. Any intelligent government would be acting to reduce that burden on our economy. Any intelligent government would be saying, “If we want the economy of this urban region to prosper and grow, then we need to remove those things that are strangling it.” Instead, this government is stepping backwards. It is stepping backwards with the cut to Transit City and with the truncation of any future plan. This is a blow to the city and an expression of where this government is at when it comes to transit.

This government cancelled the Ontario bus replacement program. What they’ve said to municipalities is, “Now the gas tax money, which was flowing to help you with your transit costs—you can use it to buy buses.” What it sounds like is they’ve cut this but in fact they are providing for it over here.

No, they’re taking an expense, moving it into an already stretched and stressed budget line and saying, “Make do with this smaller amount.” So for Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Windsor, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kingston, cities all over this province that have transit systems—they’re not Toronto’s transit system; it’s a different scale of transit system, transit systems that people rely on, on a daily basis, transit systems that allow people to get to work, allow people to see their families, allow people to live the kind of lives they want. Those transit systems will be poorer when this budget is passed.

Those transit systems will be stretched and stressed. That speaks to the values of this government.

In this budget there’s barely any mention of action on climate change. In fact, I can see why this government wouldn’t want to talk about climate change in this budget. If you cast back prior to Christmas, the report from the climate secretariat showed that this government was not going to meet its own goals, that the plans it had in place to deal with climate change were not going to succeed; they were going to fail. Then the Environmental Commissioner came along.

He did his analysis and he concurred: Yes, this plan will not meet the requirements, the targets set by this government, and those targets already were weak. In a budget you get to see whether a government will put its money where its mouth is. Are they in fact substantially committed to dealing with climate change, or not? Well, the reality in this budget is that there’s less money for transit, and that means more car use. Transportation is already about a third of the global warming gases, the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change in this province.

This government has not answered questions when they’ve been put to it. What are the implications for your climate plan of the cuts to Transit City and other transit investments in Ontario? They have no answer. I guess no answer is a better answer than saying, “Well, in fact, we are undercutting our climate plan and we will fall even further behind in meeting the targets that we had set.” That’s the real answer from this budget; that’s the real environmental commitment: “We will not address the critical issues that need to be addressed to meet our targets.”

I want to talk about this budget and its impact on poverty. On Friday, at the invitation of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, I went to the South Riverdale Community Health Centre in my riding, where the medical staff deal with a variety of people who have severe medical conditions, compound, sometimes mental health coupled with diabetes, coupled with other disabilities that make life very difficult for these people. What the staff had to say at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre was that in fact they saw far more illness arising out of these cuts to the special diet allowance.

Because if you have diabetes, if you have other chronic diseases like MS and you are not able to get an adequate quantity and quality of food, you get sicker, and when you get sicker, you may well wind up in hospital at extraordinary expense to the people of Ontario.

This government has, in the transit area, ignored an investment that will cut long-term costs for our economy. In the cut of the special diet allowance for those who are on Ontario Works or ODSP, it has decided that large numbers of people are going to wind up in hospital, where they will be treated for conditions that, at their core, really just require enough food. That’s the critical thing: People need food, and if you cut the allowance that allows them to eat decently, you are condemning them individually to misery and making sure that we, as a society, will have to deal with the cost of those consequences.

As a result of the cut to the special diet allowance, there will be a 1% increase in the basic needs allowance for Ontario Works and ODSP in the fall of 2010. One per cent does not allow people to keep up with the cost of rising rents, of the HST on their electricity bills or of the HST on their everyday expenses. It’s a way, politically, to cover yourself and say that we haven’t clawed back all the money from the special diet allowance, but it is not a contribution, an investment that will actually allow people to live with some dignity and build the platform on which many will be able to get back to work.

Time after time, I talk to people who want to get to work, who find that because they aren’t given any assistance to get into school, to get their kids into daycare or to pull together the supports that they need to get out of poverty and into working life, they’re condemned to continue that life of poverty.

There hasn’t been a medical evaluation of the special diet allowance to verify that the program wasn’t meeting the objective of helping people meet their basic dietary needs. This is a political decision, not a medical decision, and not a decision based on any study of needs, of health outcomes, of health impacts. Respected health professionals have stated that the allowance is essential to meeting health needs, given the inadequacy of social assistance rates. I’d be very interested in hearing the contrary medical opinion that the government is relying on in making these cuts.

Did it in fact talk to the medical community and come back with a conclusion that well, really, people don’t need to eat, or they don’t need to eat that much, that they can eat much less and still be alive?

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently called for an increase to the allowance, not its elimination. When the government says, “We were listening to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, but there were problems,” fair enough. There were problems. But the problems weren’t that people were getting too much money and eating too well; it was that there wasn’t an adequate allocation.

If you look beyond the special diet allowance—although I think that encapsulates the values of the government, a government in which those with the least political impact are going to get hungrier and sicker in the next while and those with the least political pull or leverage will be left to their own devices.

I want to look at some other things that could have been done. There were no reforms to punitive social assistance rules which trap people in poverty. For instance, asset stripping: telling people to divest themselves of all the last little bits of property that they have before they go on social assistance so that, frankly, having done all that they are left in a position, in this society, where they’re defenceless, utterly dependent. Should anything go wrong, should there be a dispute with the government, they will not have any resources to fall back on. That is a huge problem.

People on fixed incomes, on social assistance, who will be paying more for gas and for electricity in their apartments, especially now that the government is going forward with the sub-metering of apartments—people are going to find themselves in far more difficult circumstances.

In terms of dealing with employment standards, making sure that people who work for a living at minimum wage get paid decently, the government has said that it will spend $6 million over two years for more employment standards officers. Really, we need more enforcement of employment standards than that. Talk to people who have found that they have worked for days and weeks for a company where the employer never pays. They know that for the most part, they’re just left on their own. They don’t get the enforcement that’s needed.

This budget really does reflect the values of this government. A big part of it has been written in secret; the consequences of it have not been revealed. The reality is that this government that says that it’s green and concerned about climate change has cut a substantial program that would, in fact, address climate change. This government that says that it will deal with poverty has, in fact, decided to make poor people hungrier, sicker and more desperate. This budget is a budget that this Legislature must vote against.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I don’t know if it’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 16 and the time allocation of it, but it’s important to speak to this budget. I can’t help but comment on the member from Pickering–Scarborough East as he was making his comments about how the Liberals are not sure what the new economy will look like, but they’re embracing this new economy. I guess he was referring to the new economy that the Liberals have built over the last six years in Ontario.

Maybe I should refresh his memory of what this economy looks like that the Liberals have built, and what they’re continuing to build with Bill 16. As we know, a few short years ago, before the Liberals came to power, Ontario historically had been the engine of prosperity in this country. Well, under their new economy, we’re a have-not province. We’re collecting welfare from the rest of Confederation. When they took power, we had a huge and strong manufacturing sector that contributed to our well-being and our standard of living. Under their watch, we’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs under their new economy.

Under their proposals and what they have done—we did have one of the lowest unemployment rates. We are now above average in unemployment rates with the Liberal new economy. In our forestry sector, which used to employ tens of thousands and add huge wealth to Ontario, while under their new economy in the last six years we have lost 63 mills in northern Ontario. We have lost over 45,000 jobs in forestry in northern Ontario.

For the member from Pickering–Scarborough East, if he wants to see what the Liberal new economy looks like, just look at the devastation you’ve done to this province and you’ll see clearly what your policies are doing.

This bill, Bill 16, the budget bill, is full of secrecy, it is full of unknowns and, as the Liberals witnessed last week, they got caught in their own unknowns, as there was a

schedule in there that would have transferred liability for accidents on public roadways to our municipal governments. They got caught with their pants down. They didn’t even read their own budget bill. It wasn’t until AMO—the Association of Municipalities of Ontario—read through the details of that

schedule that the bells went off and the red flags were raised. The Liberal government defeated its own

schedule in committee once they realized, once they were told—I’m not sure; did they purposely put that transfer of liability in there or was it just incompetence? I’m unsure and I don’t think anybody is really clear how that got in there. Certainly, they’re not admitting to anything.

But I think it’s also important—they talked about the north. What else is this Liberal government doing as they’ve devastated northern industries? Well, they have a $130 crumb for energy credits—tax credits—for people in northern Ontario. As they extract over $1,000 out of each person’s family income, they give a crumb back.

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I guess that hit a nerve with the government House leader. They have a little bit of a soft spot, I guess, when the truth comes out.

We hear about this “open-doors Ontario.” That’s what their open-doors Ontario is: Open the door and leave, because there are no opportunities here under this Liberal government. Open the door in Ontario and what do you find? Half a million provincial regulations that this Liberal government has built up and barred the door with. That’s what their open door is. Open the door and find a mountain of regulatory obstacles that will prevent anybody and everybody from achieving any economic prosperity in this province.

The Liberals are exceptionally good at rhetorical language, the flowery phrases that make people—it sounds like they’re actually concerned. Open doors and we get this new economy that has put Ontario in the caboose of Confederation for economic production. Of course, the Liberals will always say, “Well, there’s a global recession.” Of course, there was a global recession. But how come Saskatchewan remained a have province? How come Saskatchewan saved and regained its prosperity? Newfoundland, Alberta, BC: four provinces that were have provinces stayed as prosperous economies, and we got the Liberal new economy down the drain.

We can talk about pharmacies, forestry, the HST, but it’s also important to see how this Liberal government works. We have an opposition day motion that was scheduled. It was agreed that we would debate the HST, a $3-billion tax grab by this Liberal government. We had an agreement with them that we would debate the HST and put the HST before the people in an election. That was our opposition day motion. What does the Liberal government do once they hear what that’s all about? They run for cover. We get some squawking from the back benches about nonsense, but they cancelled their programming motion.

They cancelled the agreement. They have no regard. It’s not just the public that they break promises to; they break promises to everybody and anybody.

There is no such thing as an oath with this Liberal government. Just go back to your Canadian Taxpayers Federation oath that you would not put in a new tax unless you consulted and had agreement from the people. Well, we know that 80% of the people are opposed to the HST. The PC Party wanted to debate the HST, bring it before the people and really show that democracy respects people. Well, that is the last thing that this Liberal government ever wants to do.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The time is now expired. Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 21, 2010, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 16,

An Act to implement 2010 Budget measures and to enact or amend various Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1001 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce some family members of our page Jacob Alaichi. We have with us today his mother, Laila. We also have his sister Phatima Alaichi; and brothers Raphel, Ismael and Kamal. We welcome you all here today.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I’d like to welcome the grandmother of Emma Allen, one of our pages, Betty-Ann Duncan, and her aunt Elizabeth Duncan. They’re from Hanover and I think maybe her grandmother may have taught with my brother, so welcome.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m very pleased to introduce the parents of my Leeds–Grenville page, Luke Goralczyk. In the members’ west gallery are his father, Alex Goralczyk, and his mother, Nancy Gray. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m very pleased to have here in the Legislature these past few weeks a page from my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Mary McPherson. Visiting to watch Mary in her duties today in the members’ west gallery are her mother, Tracy Shields; Mary’s sister Sarah McPherson; and her grandfather Ken Shields. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: In the east gallery we have a number of distinguished guests who are here today to celebrate a special event. All the members this evening are invited at 6:30 to celebrate a very special spiritual giant of the 20th and 21st century, His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Our guests are Marek Ciesielczuk, who is the consul general of the Republic of Poland, and Mr. Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, who is a former councillor of the city of Toronto.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to introduce some guests of Guelph page Rhett Figliuzzi who are here with us today. I think this must be the grandparents on the other side of the family and I think they’re up there where I can’t see them. His mother, Cheryl Figliuzzi, is back, along with grandmother Gale Baldwin and great-aunt Grace Beeney. Welcome.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: They haven’t arrived yet but I want to introduce the students from Lakeview Christian School from Bayfield and welcome them to the Legislature and their teachers Ms. Friesen, Ms. Steiner, and Mr. Bender. Welcome when you arrive.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to welcome to the House today Rick Strutt, who is the president of Community Living Toronto; and Sam McKail, who is here, and their annual Appetite for Awareness Day. MPPs can go to room 212a after question period for a complimentary box lunch.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Tuesday April 27, 2010, the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Mr. Murdoch, rose on a point of order arising out of question period. The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound asked a question of the Acting Premier, who immediately referred the question to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. The supplementary was also answered by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound attempted to file his notice of dissatisfaction to a response by the Acting Premier, and argued that her referral of his question to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure was technically a response. The member asked for some clarification on the rules and practice respecting this issue.

I had a chance to review the point of order, and I’d like to remind all members that standing order 37(

e) states the following: “A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates.” The Acting Premier referred the question which dealt with renewable energy and industrial wind farms to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, as the rule allows.

I also refer members to standing order 38(a): “The Speaker’s rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal. However, a member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question, or who has been told that his or her question is not urgent or of public importance, may give notice orally at the end of the oral question period that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House and must give written notice to the Speaker and file reasons for dissatisfaction with the Clerk before 12 noon, and the Speaker shall, not later than 4 p.m., indicate the matter or matters to be raised at the time of adjournment that day.”

A notice of dissatisfaction on a question for adjournment proceedings—a late show—must be filed with the minister who responded to the question. Therefore, if the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound was not satisfied with the response the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure provided, then he would have been well within the rules to file his notice of dissatisfaction with the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

In support of this, let me make reference to the June 3, 1993 ruling given by Speaker Warner, in which he responded to a similar point of order by confirming that a notice of dissatisfaction can only be directed to the minister who responded to the question and not the minister who referred the question.

The referral of the question by the Acting Premier did not amount to a response to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound’s question. The response and supplementary by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, however, did.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Ontario families are wondering what has happened to Dalton McGuinty after six years in office. Ontario’s Ombudsman, André Marin, has served the public of Ontario with dignity, and your government has accepted each and every one of his recommendations for reform. Yet, Premier, you are presiding over an unseemly smear campaign to sully his reputation in an attempt to prevent his reappointment. In contrast, you have bent over backwards to appoint Liberal attack dog Patrick Dillon to his third government job in three years.

Premier, what does it say about the Office of the Premier when the Liberal attack dog gets everything he wants and the Ombudsman, the watchdog for the people, gets a smear campaign?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to take the question.

With respect to Mr. Dillon, I think it is noteworthy that he was appointed by the NDP government in 1993 to the Ontario Construction Secretariat. In 1996, he was appointed by the then Ontario Conservative government to the WSIB. More recently, he was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the Corrections Canada advisory board. Mr. Dillon began his career in the construction industry in 1961. He’s the business manager and secretary-treasurer of the construction trades council. The council represents 150,000 apprentices and tradespeople, and represents 13 affiliated unions. I think his credentials speak for themselves.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The one credential the Premier notably left out is that Patrick Dillon heads the so-called Working Families Coalition that spent some $7 million on attack ads, helping push the Liberal Party over its spending limits for campaign advertising.

This morning, the Liberals voted to appoint Mr. Dillon to his third government agency patronage appointment that pays him up to $500 a meeting. The groups that financed Dillon’s attack ads have received some $23 million in government grants. But what does the Ombudsman, André Marin, get for his exemplary public service? One of the dirtiest whisper campaigns in memory to sully the character of a highly effective public servant.

Premier, what does this say about the character of the Office of the Premier? Will you do the right thing? Will you apologize to—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague is very much aware of the statements that I’ve made regarding Mr. Marin and, if I dare say so, the tremendous respect I have expressed for the work that he has done in terms of ensuring that the greater public interest prevails in so many particular cases.

I would also say, my honourable colleague says that Mr. Dillon has somehow done something unwarranted and possibly even illegal under the elections laws of Ontario. I want to draw to my colleague’s attention a letter dated April 17 from Elections Ontario where it says, in part, “Our investigation did not show that the advertising was created or disseminated ‘on behalf of’ any registered party, candidate or association....” This—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: It is very clear that the Premier has a very cozy relationship with Patrick Dillon and the so-called Working Families Coalition. Basically, they scratch his back with a $7-million advertising campaign that advances the Liberal Party and you scratch theirs with government patronage appointments, millions of dollars in grants and legislation to satisfy their every wish.

Premier, we know that you don’t like the Ombudsman. He has been tough on you, no doubt about it, but even in your heart, you must know that this kind of smear campaign against this highly effective public servant is just plain wrong.

I ask you to do the right thing. Will you apologize for the smear campaign to the Ombudsman, and will you give Patrick Dillon the boot?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my honourable colleague is supportive of the process to deal with the next Ombudsman, and we welcome Mr. Marin’s application in that regard.

With respect to Mr. Dillon, I know that my honourable colleague, if he has such issues now with the qualifications of Mr. Dillon, might also ask why it is that his own government appointed him to an important responsibility. Why did Prime Minister Harper appoint him to an important responsibility? Why did the NDP government appoint him to an important responsibility? Again, I think his credentials speak for themselves. I think he’s a man of tremendous talent and ability. There’s no surprise whatsoever that all governments of all political stripes want to avail themselves of those talents and abilities.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question, as well, is to the Premier. Today, the McGuinty Liberals voted to approve the latest appointment for a senior member of the Liberals’ surrogate campaign team. Patrick Dillon appeared at the government agencies committee where he was handed his third political appointment in just three years. He receives $225 a day at the WSIB. He also receives $550 a day at Infrastructure Ontario.

What is Dillon’s price for helping the McGuinty Liberals break Ontario election laws?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: For a government that decries smearing, it seems to me they’re doing a pretty effective job at it right now and right here.

Again, we’re talking about an individual who the official opposition has turned its attention towards, an individual who began his career in the construction industry in 1961. Along the way—again, to restate it—he’s been appointed by an NDP government, by a provincial Conservative government, by a federal Conservative government and by a provincial Liberal government. If that says anything at all, surely it speaks to an objective assessment about the talent, abilities and capacity of this particular individual. I’d ask my colleague to again ask herself, if he’s so—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: With respect, Premier, this same individual ran $7 million in anti-Progressive Conservative attack ads in the last two elections.

This morning, Dillon refused to be sworn under oath. He was as evasive as a McGuinty Liberal cabinet minister on even the most straightforward of questions. He clammed up when asked about Working Families pollster Don Guy. Obviously, we all know that Don Guy was Dalton McGuinty’s former chief of staff and election campaign director, who advised Working Families on the anti-PC attack ad campaigns. They ran in both 2003 and 2007.

The question is, Premier, do you really expect Ontario families to believe you didn’t know that your chief of staff and campaign director advised Working Families on how to break Ontario election laws?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need any help from the government side, thank you very much.

I’d like the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Some of you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I want to remind you that many of you were in the chamber yesterday for a statement that I delivered, and if you weren’t here, I would encourage you to read the Hansard from the end of question period yesterday. I say this all around, whether it is somebody who’s asking a question or heckling that is coming from within the House as well, or somebody answering a question, remember the statement that I made yesterday. I caution all members that marring the reputation of an individual under the cover of privilege is not responsible. And I would—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, and I say this to heckling that comes from within the House too. Smearing the reputation of an individual under the cover of privilege is not responsible and I would discourage all members from doing so.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague refuses to accept a few important facts. One is that every government of every political stripe has hired Mr. Dillon based on his capacity. Secondly, they refuse to accept the finding found in a letter dated April 17, 2009, from Elections Ontario that specifically addressed the chronic complaint of my colleagues opposite and said that it was without foundation.

It seems to me they’ve struck out in virtually every capacity when it comes to their complaints that they continue to make. I would ask them to face up to reality. This man offers much to all governments of all political stripes. It is not surprising that we are all taking advantage of his talents.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They took advantage of his talents, all right: It was $7 million in anti-Progressive Conservative attack ads in the last two election campaigns. That’s an important fact, Premier, that you often like to forget.

Let’s go back to Don Guy for a moment. He has received over $3 million in public money since helping Working Families with its ad campaign. Arrow Communications and Policomm are ad firms run by another Liberal, Marcel Wieder. Also, he has cozy ties with Working Families. You handed his firms $2 million. Don Guy—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment of imputing motive.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

Why have you condoned your inner circle working with Working Families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, my honourable colleague may be setting some kind of a record here for the number of times she has called upon you to rise and intervene with virtually every statement that she makes.

I might say that families watching today might have a concern about the quality of their education, a question—

Mr. Jim Wilson: You skirted the law and you know it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe–Grey will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind you of my statement that I just delivered.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would think that families watching today would have an interest in the future of their education, an interest in the quality of their health care, an interest in the strength of their economy and our capacity to create jobs, and an interest in our environment. None of those seem to be of even passing interest to the official opposition, and I think that’s a loss to the people of Ontario.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. In mid-June, Canada’s finance ministers will meet to decide the future of retirement savings in this country. Last week, the McGuinty government voted unanimously against an NDP motion supporting public pensions and unanimously in favour of a Liberal bill that would mean billions more in fees that are going to be collected by banks and insurance companies. Is that the message the Premier’s finance minister is going to take to the meeting in June: that Ontario supports more ways for banks and insurance companies to skim money off of people’s retirement savings?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I really do appreciate the question. I think my honourable colleague understands that her

interpretation is not one that I share when it comes to what the vote represents and where we need to go.

To restate a couple of things: One, this represents a national challenge; I think it calls for a national solution. There’s a real problem associated with the adequacy of retirement income levels for all Canadians, not just Ontarians.

Secondly, I think it’s really important that we keep an open mind when it comes to the solutions. My honourable colleague is putting forward one particular solution which I think is important and cannot and should not be discounted. On the other hand, I think there are also some private sector opportunities. My instincts are telling me that the ultimate solution will be an amalgam of the public and the private, and I think we don’t enjoy the luxury at this point in time of excluding one or the other.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier can’t say it’s a national issue and then support a private member’s bill for an Ontario change. You can’t have it both ways.

In two votes last week on diametrically opposed pension motions, it became very clear that the McGuinty government favours a fee-laden retirement savings option being pushed by the banks and insurance companies, rather than building on the successful legacy of public pensions such as the Canada pension plan.

Last week’s votes are more than just a coincidence. So I’m going to ask the Premier again, is that the message that his finance minister is going to bring to meetings with other finance ministers from across the country: that the banks and insurance companies need new ways to skim fees off the retirement savings of hard-working Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In addition to what the Premier said, I’d remind my colleague opposite that we have engaged Bob Baldwin, a noted economist, to provide in-depth research to us. He has also done work in the past for the Canadian Labour Congress. I’ve had the opportunity to hold four public forums across Ontario that had representatives from a variety of sources interested in post-retirement income issues.

We are trying to develop as thoughtful an approach as we can to an important issue that I think affects—I think the member would agree—all members. I look forward, on behalf of the McGuinty government, to attending the finance ministers’ meeting in June as we begin the evolution of our post-retirement income system to help protect all Ontarians as we—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier and his finance minister are doing the best that they can to be evasive on this question, but last Thursday his caucus voted unanimously in favour of a bill that was lifted directly from an insurance industry proposal. His caucus did that very clearly. At the same time, that week, they opposed our Ontario retirement plan, the public plan.

Every year, $8.4 billion in fees is already being skimmed off Canadians’ retirement savings by banks and insurance companies. When the finance minister heads off to the meeting in June, will he be suggesting that the $8.4 billion coming out of the pockets of workers and pensioners just isn’t enough for those struggling insurance companies and banks?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In my 2010 budget, we outlined a variety of options available to governments across the country to the provinces, to the federal government. That member and her party have voted against that bill.

I would remind her that we have engaged a broad public consultation across Ontario, which is appropriate under the circumstances. There are a number of pillars to our post-retirement income system which provide Canadians with a range of options.

I welcome the input of the member opposite and her party to this important debate. We welcome the input of a variety of organizations. Canada has one of the most successful post-retirement income systems in the world. We’re committed to making sure that we build on that success and help ensure a better future—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier as well. Independent studies indicate that the HST and the end of point-of-sale exemptions will cost Ontario First Nations families up to $121 million a year. Why didn’t the Premier, his Minister of Finance or his Minister of Aboriginal Affairs at the time consult with First Nations before signing HST agreements with the federal government?

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: What is very important to recognize is that the government of Ontario stands shoulder to shoulder with First Nations in wishing to continue the point-of-sale exemption. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with Regional Chief Toulouse about that fact. The Premier has written a letter to Prime Minister Harper to continue that. In fact, we are working at every level—my colleagues Minister Duncan, Minister Wilkinson and myself—to make sure we continue that. It is a joint effort, and we will continue that for as long as it takes to continue the point-of-sale exemption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what the Chiefs of Ontario say about that agreement that the minister quotes from: This agreement “does not let the Ontario government off the hook for its failure to consult with and accommodate First Nations....”

The Premier had an opportunity to consult. He had an opportunity to include First Nations in point-of-sale exemptions in two agreements. He decided not to do it. Will the Premier now acknowledge and admit that his government utterly failed Ontario’s First Nations?

But the relationship is evolving in a very important and positive way through the efforts of Premier McGuinty and the relationship-building that has been undertaken by my predecessor, Minister Duguid, and the great work that he has been doing, and a number of specific initiatives, such as my colleague’s, Minister Gravelle’s, over the development of the Mining Act.

Relationship, consultation and accommodation is happening in ways that it did not five or 10 years ago. This is an entirely new era of relationship-building for the government and the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government’s relationship with First Nations is causing blockades across the province. Wait until you see what happens on July 1.

I was actually in Sault Ste. Marie just the other day and met with First Nations leaders, including the Union of Ontario Indians’ Deputy Grand Chief Joe Hare and Batchewana Chief Dean Sayers. They’re extremely worried about the negotiations with the Harper government on the point-of-sale exemptions, and they’re really concerned. What they want to see is something very specific from this government. They’re concerned that when the HST comes into effect on July 1, their point-of-sale exemptions will still be in place.

My question is: Will the Premier commit today to honouring First Nations’ point-of-sale exemption after July 1 if the negotiations with the federal government are still ongoing?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I made clear in my first answer, we stand shoulder to shoulder and are working every minute of every day with First Nations to make the federal government continue the point-of-sale exemption after July 1. They administer the HST; everybody knows that. But we have signed a memorandum of agreement with Regional Chief Toulouse and First Nations. We’re working at all levels: the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Revenue and myself. We are going to continue that work for as long as it takes and address every issue that’s necessary.

The relationship that used to exist, that was infused with centuries of unfortunate history, has completely changed. On this and so many other levels, we’re working with First Nations to build a more prosperous Ontario and more prosperous First Nations communities.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier: I guess Ontarians are asking what has happened to you after six years in office. The way you have approached the André Marin affair and the reappointment of the Ombudsman is very disturbing to the people of Ontario, to members of this Legislature and to independent officers of this Legislature.

As you claimed yesterday in this House, you do care about Mr. Marin and the fair process, but if you really cared about Mr. Marin’s reputation, why don’t you do the right thing and fire those backroom Liberals who have been defaming Mr. Marin’s reputation? Will you do that today, Premier, to clear up this incident?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that I’ve had the opportunity to speak, on a number of occasions, publicly about Mr. Marin. I think the record is very clear in that regard. I’ve expressed a tremendous appreciation for the work that he has done and for the positive influence that he has lent to the workings of our government. I think we have struck a good partnership that serves the greater public interest, and I stand by those comments today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: We’re highly suspicious on this side that one of the main reasons that the Premier wants to get rid of Mr. Marin as the Ombudsman of Ontario is that he did a rather scathing report on the LHINs. You want to not release that report. If you get rid of Mr. Marin you could put in a Liberal-backed Ombudsman, not so independent, to get rid of that report.

The media today says that you are trying to wash your hands of this incident. Rather than washing your hands of this incident, why don’t you show some leadership, do a search-and-destroy mission, get rid of those people who are defaming an independent officer of this Legislature, clear up this matter and bring some integrity back to this office, to this Legislature and to the Office of the Ombudsman?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure if I can state any more clearly what I’ve already stated.

I would encourage my honourable colleagues opposite to continue to participate in the process. It’s a fair process. It’s a good process. It differs, I guess, from the appointment process used in the past by the Conservatives, but we think it’s important to adhere to a process.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Ontario Ombudsman André Marin says that the Premier promised him a fair Ombudsman hiring process. Marin also says that the Premier’s word is gold. Is he right?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I didn’t know there was a question there.

I do want to quote, with approval, my honourable colleague, who said this not too long ago: “New Democrats are adamant that even upon the occasion of a reappointment ... notwithstanding the stellar capacity of a person who has served that role, there should be the same process,” and the process is pretty clear. You advertise the position, you see who’s interested in the job and you vet them. That’s exactly the kind of process that we are undertaking; that’s exactly the kind of process that we are pursuing. I would encourage my honourable colleague to continue to support that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Marin says the Premier’s word is gold, but just a minute: The Liberal member of the selection committee agrees to an advertising

schedule that, according to Liberal insiders and government sources, yields 50 applications. The same government sources tell us that four applicants were interviewed. Now government insiders slander and libel Mr. Marin, and the government House leader wants to scuttle—derail—the selection process with her bogus claims about improper advertising. Is that fair, or is the Premier’s word nothing more than fool’s gold?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s a process. My honourable colleague wants to make representations about the process in the Legislature. I think the appropriate forum for that is actually the committee itself that’s doing that work. I would encourage him to continue to work within the process and that we work together to ensure that the best result proves to be the outcome, because of our collaborative efforts.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. A prominent Toronto Star journalist recently spoke out about the ridiculous campaign against this government’s drug reforms. Let me quote from last week’s

article by Jim Coyle:

“How odd it is that the pharmacies apparently don’t have” the “money to hire pharmacy students as interns this summer, but have the coin to underwrite a bash-the-government bus tour of Ontario for a posse of them.

“Word is that independent pharmacies kicked in $1,000 to $2,000 apiece—depending on who’s telling the story—to fund a war chest that amounts to about $5 million.”

This smear campaign has deliberately targeted Liberal ridings like mine. In Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, seniors are getting voicemail drops from pharmacists, and telemarketers are hanging up on them if they voice their support for our government or are forwarding them to our—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for her question. I was very disappointed to see that big-chain pharmacies cancelled their student placements this summer, when clearly they have millions of dollars to spend on full-page ads, radio campaigns, glossy brochures and a bus tour around the province.

These students are the future of pharmacy. They would be much—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Like your HST ads? How many billions have you spent on your HST ads?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These students are the future of pharmacy. They would be much better off getting that work experience, getting a head start on their careers, rather than engaging in this campaign. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and I have sent a letter to the deans of the two pharmacy schools in Ontario expressing our concern and telling them that we are there to work with them on this issue.

Make no mistake about it: We are determined to get fair drug prices for Ontarians. Ontarians deserve—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I’m glad to see the minister is making it clear to everyone that this government will not be swayed by the latest blitz of propaganda. I certainly will continue to stand up for all Ontarians, who deserve fair drug prices.

Many of my constituents don’t have the benefit of a drug plan and have to pay cash for their medications, so they’re glad to hear that our government is working hard to ensure that all Ontarians have access to fair drug prices and quality pharmacy services.

However, among my constituents there seems to be ambiguity as to how far drug prices will fall as a result of our reforms. Could the minister please share with this House some of the savings that could be achieved from our drug reforms when they are implemented?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The government is taking action to get fair drug prices for Ontarians, and we will not back down. We will work on behalf of Ontarians. We will ensure that people pay a fair price for the drugs they need.

Let me give you some examples. Someone who pays out of pocket for simvastatin, a drug for high cholesterol, will likely save over $300 a year. A person paying out of pocket for metformin, a common diabetes drug, would save over $100 a year. If they are taking pioglitazone, another diabetes drug, they would save almost $8,000 a year.

People with drug plans would see either lower premiums or more services or both, and taxpayers will be getting better value for their precious, hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

This is the right thing to do for all Ontarians. I do not understand why the opposition—

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is again for the Premier. Patrick Dillon refused to answer even the most simple questions about the relationship between Working Families and Marcel Wieder. When I asked if Marcel Wieder and your former chief of staff Don Guy met to create anti-PC attack ads for Working Families, Dillon refused to answer. There are no minutes for meetings that senior McGuinty Liberal cabinet ministers had with Working Families in their ministerial boardrooms.

If you have nothing to hide, why will no one talk about what your campaign team and Working Families discussed in the months leading up to the 2007 provincial election?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can’t, frankly, understand the obsessive focus on Mr. Dillon, a man who has been appointed twice now by provincial and federal Conservative governments. I’ll take this opportunity to impress upon my honourable colleagues opposite our need for their support in our efforts to reduce drug costs for Ontario families.

I know of their alliance with big-box pharmacy in the province of Ontario. We choose to side with Ontario families. We think it’s important to stand up for our families. We think it’s important to stand up for Ontario taxpayers. We’re all paying for our drugs, either out of pocket, as taxpayers, or through drug plans at our place of work. We can come together and reduce drug costs for families. I think that’s the right thing to do and I invite them to join us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier has a chance right now to stand up for Ontario families. There are two key facts he must be aware of: Working Families added $7 million in advertising costs in the last two election campaigns; in addition to that, $29 million of public money has gone to Working Families contributors and their ad firms.

So I have a question for you Premier: Since Patrick Dillon refused to speak under oath at the government agencies committee this morning, and so did the McGuinty Liberals, will you agree to appear before the legislative committee to tell the story so that Ontarians will know where their taxpayer dollars are going and why this group, Working Families, is spending $7 million in anti-PC attack ads?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, on behalf of Ontario families, I’ll remind my honourable colleague that today one of the most common antibiotics for children is called amoxicillin. We’re going to cut the cost of that from $10.25 to $5.13.

One of the fastest-growing illnesses in Ontario today is diabetes. Metformin treats diabetes. Today, the cost is $177; we’re going to reduce that cost to $107.

Birth control pills—important to our daughters. Aviane 21—today it costs $123; we want to reduce that to $82. These are important practical measures to improve quality of life for Ontario families by getting their drug costs down. This is something of real and meaningful value to our families in this question period today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I will again remind the House of a ruling of Speaker Milliken in 2003: “Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual ... is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable”—I repeat, the person is unable—“to bring any action in respect of those claims.”

I say this to all members of the House: Please keep in mind the words of Speaker Milliken and let’s not degrade this chamber.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Last week, I questioned the Minister of Labour about sending injured workers to an unaccredited career college as part of the WSIB’s labour market re-entry scheme. The minister’s response was inadequate, so I asked for a late show where the minister’s parliamentary assistant gave even more inadequate answers.

This is a vital issue. I looked at just four examples of such private career colleges in Ontario: Grade Expectations, Summit Learning, Career Essentials and Niagara Retraining Facility. Among them, they have 109 colleges in Ontario that train injured workers; 94 of them are unaccredited.

The question and answer are very simple: Will the Premier direct the Minister of Labour to put an immediate stop to the practice of sending injured workers in the labour market re-entry program to unaccredited career colleges?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m happy to talk about the strides that we made in terms of private career colleges and the important work we’re doing with the Ministry of Labour. I’d like to remind the member that moving forward, the WSIB has indicated that it will only use private career colleges that are registered under the Private Career Colleges Act and are in good standing with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.

I’d remind members of the work that has taken place in our government in terms of private career colleges. For the first time in 30 years, our government has transformed the way in which we regulate private career colleges. If a PCC, a private career college, is found to be in non-compliance of the act, we will take the necessary steps to shut them down. I think members are aware, from debate and discussion in here, that we’ve recently introduced fines for PCCs operating illegally. Fines can range now from $250 to $1,000 per day—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Here’s one for the books, Minister: Last week, the Minister of Labour suggested that the new president of the WSIB is on the case; he’s investigating the use of unaccredited career colleges. But we actually heard from some of the injured workers contacted through this investigation that the WSIB investigator is employed in the WSIB public relations department, and is using Facebook to contact injured workers. Is using WSIB public relations staff to crawl through Facebook friends what the minister and the new WSIB president call an investigation into the scandalous use of unaccredited career colleges for the labour market re-entry?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I’d remind the member of the important work that’s going on with the Ministry of Labour and the decision that was made by the WSIB that they will only use private career colleges, moving forward, that are registered under the Private Career Colleges Act and are in good standing with our ministry. In the meantime, some programs are still under way in other schools and as the WSIB doesn’t want to disrupt the courses that students are taking, we are allowing them to finish their courses—or the WSIB is—but they’ve ensured that none of these schools are operating illegally.

Once again, I’m very proud to report to the House the measures that we have taken to strengthen private career colleges. I had an opportunity to recently speak to their annual meeting, and the private career colleges are grateful for the strides we have taken because they recognize that bad apples hurt them all. We have taken the necessary—

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

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today is Community Living Toronto’s Appetite for Awareness Day. For years, Community Living Toronto has been a source of support for thousands of individuals with an intellectual disability, searching for accessible and meaningful ways to live in the community. Whether it’s living alone or with a roommate, working in a supported environment or participating in community activities, Community Living Toronto is there to help individuals realize their full potential. Could the minister discuss how this government has worked with Community Living Toronto in order to support those who need our help the most?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to thank the member from Toronto Centre for this very important question. I’m so happy that Community Living Toronto is here again this year for their sixth annual Appetite for Awareness Day. I encourage all MPPs to take the time, after question period, to stop by Community Living Toronto’s box lunch event in room 228.

Community Living Toronto provides a wide range of services to adults and children with developmental disabilities, everything from residential care in group homes to specialized community-based support. Because of their work, individuals with developmental disabilities are actively participating in their communities, schools and workplaces. Today is a great opportunity to congratulate everyone who works so hard in this field.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Glen R. Murray: In the neighbourhoods I have the honour of representing, Community Living Toronto is integral to many families and individuals throughout my community. Thanks to the assistance of 1,200 staff and nearly 1,000 volunteers, individuals across Toronto are able to develop the skills that they need to live and thrive in this community. I understand this government has strongly supported Community Living Toronto since 2003.

Could you tell the Legislature what support the government has provided and continues to provide to that great organization, Community Living Toronto?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you for the question. Our government is committed to supporting the developmental services sector. Last year, my ministry provided over $51 million in annualized funding to Community Living Toronto. Our government also provided them with almost $560,000 in annualized—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, withdraw the comment.

Mr. Paul Miller: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Since 2003, we have increased funding to these agencies by 43%. Today, Community Living Toronto—and I want to welcome the president of Community Living Toronto here, Mr. Strutt—is the largest ministry-funded developmental services agency in Toronto and serves over 5,000 persons with developmental disabilities throughout the city.

We have a great working relationship with Community Living Toronto, and I look forward to continuing to work with them. Again, I’d like to thank them for everything they do and—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, representatives of hard-working convenience store owners were here to warn you that adding 8% HST on legal cigarettes is, in their words, “adding gasoline to the fire” that is the illegal tobacco trade, with its 50%-plus market share. It’s going to accelerate the number of convenience store closings in Ontario, now at 2,400 in the last two years. This is clear cause and effect. These small business owners are offering a revenue-neutral solution to the mess you’ve created. Will you give it to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question.

First of all, we have to remember what the problem is in contraband tobacco. It is a question, and I agree with Michael Perley, of supply and demand. What we’re doing in our ministry is being very clear that this is a problem that is unacceptable to the people of Ontario.

I say to the member that over the last two years, our convictions have tripled, our seizures are going up 50% year over year, and our penalties assessed now reach in excess of $14 million, because we are working closely with law enforcement to make sure that the laws of this province are being respected.

I do quote Mr. Perley, who has been a great advisor to this government in regard to a smoke-free Ontario. He says that the contraband cigarette problem is a problem of supply and distribution, not of higher taxes. I’d be interested to know from the member whether they believe we should have cheaper smokes and more expensive generic drugs in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Minister, what are you smoking and can I have some?

The problem is so out of control, 32% of butts sampled outside the Department of Finance in Ottawa were illegal themselves, and that’s a government building.

As Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair told me last week, the profits from illegal tobacco go directly to buy the guns and the drugs on our streets. Minister, put HST on legal cigarettes and you’re putting money in the pocket of organized crime. It kills small business and it buys the guns that kill innocent people.

Will you hold the line on taxes on cigarettes on July 1, yes or no?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Let’s be clear: I reject advice from the members opposite who believe that in this province what we should be doing is cutting the taxes on a product that kills people. Instead, I believe that our government is doing the right thing by reducing the price of drugs that actually save people’s lives. I can’t think of an issue in the province of Ontario today where there is such a clear division between what your party stands for and what we stand for on this side of the House. There are compounds that save people’s lives and the price of those are going down, and we will not take advice from you in regard to the fact that you believe that we should be reducing the price.

What I find interesting is that your colleague the member from Parry Sound said, “I think we can learn a lot from Quebec.” I might add that in their last budget, Quebec announced a sales tax increase and a corresponding increase to the tobacco tax. So you might want to talk to Norm Miller about your position.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. While patients at Ottawa hospitals are being warned they may be losing more front-line health care staff, the CEO of the Ottawa Hospital has seen his salary double in the last eight years. Under a compensation scheme that was introduced by the Premier and that he wants to see replicated all across the province, this kind of thing is going to happen again. If it didn’t work in Ottawa, why does the Premier think it’s going to work in the rest of the province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I look forward to hearing more about what is behind this question. I’m a bit puzzled, I confess, about the question.

We have introduced legislation that will tie CEO compensation and the compensation of other leadership in the hospital to achieving benchmarks when it comes to quality of care. We know that we can always improve the quality of care in our hospitals, and I’m delighted to have the support of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario as we work to improve the quality of care in our hospitals.

Will hospital CEOs have to show that continuous improvement to earn their salary? Yes, they will. It’s the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Patients are angry when they see front-line services vanish while executive pay continues to rise.

Last week, the health minister said that all of us who are paid by taxpayers need “to take a bit of a pause when it comes to increases in our compensation.”

Later this week, the House is going to be debating my bill that caps public sector executive salaries at twice the Premier’s pay. My question is this: Can I and the people of Ontario, the patients of this province, count on the Premier’s support in this regard?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to take the opportunity to talk about things that really matter to patients when it comes to health care. They care about getting wait times down.

At the Ottawa Hospital, they’ve been able to bring down the wait times for hip replacement surgery by 67 days; knees down 153—that’s half a year; cataract surgeries down 236 days; cancer surgery down 53 days; and MRI procedures down 285 days.

Things are working when it comes to getting wait times down for people in this province, including at the Ottawa Hospital.

We’ve made some important investments in the Champlain LHIN, in Ottawa. One that I’m very proud of is our nursing graduate guarantee. Six hundred and ninety-two—

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

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. May 18 is International Museum Day, a day that has been celebrated around the world since 1977. It recognizes the important contributions that museums, art galleries and heritage sites make to communities across the province and around the globe.

Today and throughout this month of May, Ontario museums are featuring hundreds of exhibits and events to showcase our diverse history and innovative future.

Days like today are important because they help us appreciate the important role museums play in our communities. They help us discover who we are and what brings us together.

Minister, what is the government doing to support Ontario’s museums so that they can promote and showcase our rich history and heritage?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Davenport.

It gives me great pleasure to speak about museums on International Museum Day. Museums play a critical role in our everyday lives. It’s a place where children can learn, families can connect and adults can engage. Museums are educational institutions that open windows for us to look back on to our past and to envision our future. This is why our government is proud of our investments.

Since 2003, we have invested over $232 million in museums and organizations across the province. Museums are treasures of this society, and we are committed to protecting and supporting them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker—

Hon. John Gerretsen: That’s a great museum tie.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: How did you know it’s a museum tie? You’re right: This is my museum tie.

The motto for International Museum Day is: “Museums are an important means of cultural exchange, enrichment of cultures and development of mutual understanding, cooperation and peace among peoples.” This speaks to the role that museums play in our lives.

Some have said that no trip to Toronto is complete without a visit to the Royal Ontario Museum, and I cannot agree more. With its recent architectural transformation and six million pieces in its collection, there is something new to discover around every corner.

In addition to being great cultural institutions, museums are also great tourism attractions. People from around the world travel to Toronto to see the unique exhibits held at the ROM.

Minister, what are you doing to ensure that local museums such as the ROM are competitive—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question.

Museums are much more than just educational institutions; they are experiences that we can share with our friends and family.

For the ROM to remain competitive, it must keep up with technology. This is why our government has invested $178 million to assist with the transformation of the ROM. The ROM is working on a project to allow visitors to personalize their tours online. This will enhance the visitors’ experience. Happy visitors are more likely to return. But more importantly, they will tell their friends and relatives, and this will help attract visitors and stimulate our local economy.

INFRASTRUCTURE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Premier, there seems to be some confusion as to who is in charge of your new Infrastructure Health and Safety Association. On March 26, in a public meeting with stakeholders, the CEO of the IHSA, Michael Delisle, shed some light on that confusion. He said that he was having “a separate, private meeting with Pat Dillon to work out the slate of labour representatives.”

Premier, why is the head of the Working Families Coalition deciding who represents labour in your government agency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: He’s not.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: That answer reminds me of that sage advice from Mark Twain: When in doubt, tell the truth.

In that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdrawn.

In that public meeting on March 26, there was one union present which did not donate to the Working Families Coalition, and that was the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which represents more than 10,000 workers in Ontario. At the public meeting, they asked Michael Delisle if they could participate in that meeting, where your hand-picked CEO had already confirmed that he and Pat Dillon were working out the slate of labour representatives. His response to that query was: “That’s not going to happen.”

Minister, why are Pat Dillon and the Working Families Coalition dictating policies at government agencies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, they’re not.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member from Beaches–East York.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Start the clock.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: “Tea Party” Tim, how’re you doing?

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

My comments, as I said earlier, are directed to all members of this House.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This morning, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the member from Haldimand–Norfolk and I had the privilege of addressing a large group of anti-poverty activists from across Ontario. The minister spoke about commitment, she spoke about co-operation, she spoke about sharing a vision, but she stopped short of admitting that affordable housing waiting lists, food bank lines and poverty rates are getting worse, not better.

She then dropped the bombshell: She admitted that the social assistance advisory council has presented its report to the government. Why hasn’t the minister tabled this much-anticipated document with the House?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I am very pleased to say that this morning, I had a chance to speak to 25 in 5 about the important partnership that we have with organizations across the province to reduce poverty by 25% in five years—90,000 kids to be out of poverty. It is with great respect for the work that they do and continue to do that we come to them in partnership to seek their advice, to work collectively, to determine what the next steps might be as we continue to tackle these important issues.

I had the opportunity to highlight to them where we were in the upcoming time period, and we do know that we’ve asked an incredible group to come and provide thoughtful advice to the government with respect to the social assistance review. We’ve had a chance to receive some preliminary information with respect to that ongoing report, and when the process completes itself and the documents are translated, I do know that these—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to what the minister had to say, and by the lack of applause from her own colleagues, it’s quite obvious to me—

Applause.

Mr. Michael Prue: Okay, go ahead.

It’s quite obvious to me that she has no intention of filing this report until after this Legislature is no longer sitting, sometime in June. The minister as much as apologized this morning for this government’s wrong-headed and cruel elimination of the special diet allowance; again, she stopped short of promising to reinstate it. The minister also didn’t mention that for the first time since 2006, social assistance rate increases have fallen below the rate of inflation.

My question again: Is this government keeping the contents of the advisory council’s report a secret until after this House ceases because they are afraid of what it says?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Absolutely not, and I am prepared to compare our record to theirs any day, my friend, any day: some $63.5 million in long-term funding to child care to help families in this province, and you voted against it; all-day JK and SK for Ontario kids to help lift those families out of poverty, and you voted against it. We are working with families to ensure that every year, those families and those working mothers have the Ontario child benefit so that they can lift themselves and their families out of poverty, and the members opposite voted against it.

We’re not scared of these issues. We’ve made a written commitment. We are tackling this issue publicly and in partnership with our friends and colleagues and also with those who might bring criticism to us. We look—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will come to order, please.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Tim, I just want to know if you write on your hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development, you can have that conversation out in the hallway with the honourable member.

Hon. James J. Bradley: She can go out for tea.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the Minister of Municipal Affairs can join her.

TAXATION

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, small businesses play an important role in my riding and in ridings all across this province. Jack Mintz, the economics chair at the University of Calgary, estimates that our comprehensive tax package will create 591,000 jobs, $47 billion in new investment and increase work wages. The president of the Canadian Auto Workers’ union, Ken Lewenza, has said, “We are arguing about elements of the harmonized sales tax, but brothers and sisters, don’t buy into this tax rage....”

Michael Oliphant from the Daily Bread Food Bank has said, “In terms of the net impact on sales tax harmonization, we think that overall it will actually improve the incomes of low-income Ontarians.” Who can Ontarians trust? Can they trust—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question and having me to his riding.

In particular, I want to share with the House that yesterday I was invited by our colleague the member for Oakville to visit a company called Entripy. Entripy is an amazing company started by a young man when he was still at the University of Toronto. Today in Oakville, after 11 years, they have 25 people there. I had an opportunity to visit that company, and the press then asked him that question: “These savings—what does that amount to for your small business?” He said, “Between $15,000 and $20,000 a year.” The media then asked him, “What are you going to do with that money?” He said, “Hire more people.”

That’s what our tax reform package is all about. I want to say to Jas Brar and the good people at Entripy that they understand that the nature of our tax reform is one that lowers the cost of business, which allows them to be more competitive. He has a vision now of not only serving Canada but also the US market—

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

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I rise on a point of order regarding order paper questions. According to standing order 99(d), “The minister shall answer such written questions within 24 sessional days, unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

While this may not be important for some people, it is very important to the constituents of Dufferin–Caledon. As you know, you had to remind a number of ministers last week that my order paper questions were now due, and I would ask for your advice on what I can do to ensure that they actually get answered.

I have submitted order paper questions two subsequent times and, in both cases, the replies have been standard ministerial press release quotes with no reference to my specific question.

I do not understand why I was late in receiving responses when it was obvious, by the lack of answers, that the ministers did not spend any time answering the questions I asked. In fact, for some questions the same answer was cut and pasted as a reply to other questions. Now I have lost 24 sessional days, in fact almost two months, waiting to receive answers to questions that are important to my constituents.

I believe that my privileges as a member of this House have been violated, and I ask that you review the answers provided—I have copies of all the order paper questions I’m referencing—and that you offer your advice on how I can assist my constituents with actually getting answers to the order paper questions submitted. If I could have a page, I’ll give that to the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member for her point of order. The point she raises is not a new one, and I will make some quotations in a few moments.

I’d just like to say to the member that numerous Speakers have ruled that during oral question period ministers may answer a question any way they see fit. It’s also the case that it is not the Speaker’s responsibility to ensure that the answer to a written question satisfies that question.

This is further supported by O’Brien and Bosc on page 522 where it says—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. It’s important to all members.

“There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

I’d say as an addendum that it is not a new issue, and I’m going to tell you why: because certainly it’s an issue that opposition parties have been concerned with since at least 1935. Speaker Hipel, a former Speaker in this chamber: “I have quoted May very fully to show that this whole matter of the reply to questions is within the jurisdiction of the ministers of the crown, that it is optional with them as to whether and how they shall answer the questions addressed to them and that the answers they do give are final subject to the their own consent to give additional information.”

I would say, though, that I would implore all ministers, when answering questions, to endeavour as much as possible. Let’s break the public’s feeling of this place and remind and demonstrate to the public that this is truly question period and that an important part of question period is answering questions. I would say as well that an important part of a written question is an in-depth answer to that written question, because as members we all want to do the best job we can to assist our constituents.

Thank you for the point of order.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We agree with the proposition that when the Speaker determines that offensive or disorderly language has been used, the member will be requested to withdraw the unparliamentary word or phrase and that the member must rise in his or her place to retract the words unequivocally.

The Speaker has been particularly vigilant about addressing unparliamentary, offensive or disorderly language. The difficulty that we have, though, is that the Speaker, and for reasons I think I might understand, has not stated what language, what word or what phrase is unparliamentary. What that does from time to time is leave the person who’s asked to withdraw in confusion about what specifically they’re withdrawing. Second, it eliminates the instructive quality or aspect of Speaker’s rulings in this regard.

Look, I understand that there’s a dilemma because, on the one hand, you have unparliamentary language that’s on the record, and you have unparliamentary language which everybody would agree is unparliamentary. For instance, if somebody were to address me by a reference to a body part, that would probably be unparliamentary. I may not necessarily be offended, but it would probably be unparliamentary. If it were on the record, it’s there, it’s too late. If it weren’t on the record—for instance, an interjection—the Speaker might be loath to put it on the record by virtue of drawing attention to it.

But at the same time, the confusion around what people are being called upon to withdraw prevails.

So I’m asking you Speaker—and I don’t know the views of other members of the House—if you could help us—seriously, help us—to identify what words are being deemed unparliamentary, offensive or disorderly, not just for the sake of the person who is being called upon to withdraw them but also for, I suppose, the educational function that those rulings ought to have when they’re made here in the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member from Welland.

I would say that there is no definitive list that the Speaker works from for what is unparliamentary. As I have said on previous occasions in here, often it is the context in which a word is used. Some may deem it to be unparliamentary, but in the context that it’s used I may find that it is parliamentary. By and large, I’m quite certain that when I ask a member to withdraw language that is unparliamentary, they understand why I’m asking them to do that. I will not, in my tenure as Speaker, be repeating what is unparliamentary. I will reserve that ability, that judgment, as my call as to what is unparliamentary. You may agree with me or you may disagree with me.

For myself, an important thing when a comment is made is, does it cause disorder within the House? My goal is to endeavour to do what I can to maintain order in the House. I am also conscious of the tone and the content of what is actually said.

I’m not going to repeat what I deem to be an offensive term. I come back to all members in the House that it does us all a disservice when unparliamentary language is used. We are working in the most unique work environment, and we are being closely watched by individuals.

I do thank the honourable member. I’d just ask that all members be conscious of the language they use, and I will be endeavouring, to the best of my ability, to enforce that.

DEFERRED VOTES

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIO