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

March 30, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Mar-30 (PDF)

L010 - Tue 30 Mar 2010 / Mar 30 mar 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 March 2010 Mardi 30 mars 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

SUPPLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2010

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

WEARING OF PINS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

SKILLS TRAINING

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HYDRO RATES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MINING INDUSTRY

MINIMUM WAGE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PASSOVER

VOLUNTEER AWARDS

DISASTER RELIEF

NORTHERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION FUNDING

VIMY RIDGE ANNIVERSARY

NORTHERN ECONOMY

CHILD CARE

PASSOVER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VIMY RIDGE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA BATAILLE DE VIMY

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME

DU DROIT DE L’ENFANCE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

JOHN BABCOCK

ORDER OF BUSINESS

VIMY RIDGE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA BATAILLE DE VIMY

VIMY RIDGE DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA BATAILLE DE VIMY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

RETIREMENT HOMES

YOUTH SCIENCE MONTH /

MOIS DU FESTIVAL SCIENCES JEUNESSE

RETIREMENT HOMES

YOUTH SCIENCE MONTH

RETIREMENT HOMES

RETIREMENT HOMES

PETITIONS

PENSION PLANS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD PROTECTION

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CARE

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

OPPOSITION DAY

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

SUPPLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2010

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Finance, and I move second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I will be gratefully sharing my time this morning with the member for Pickering–Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I thank the government House leader for sharing her time gratefully with me this morning. I’m pleased to be able to rise today in this Legislature this morning to speak to the Supply Act,

an act which authorizes the expenditure of a variety of sums for this current fiscal year, which ends on March 31.

The Supply Act is one of the cornerstone acts in the Legislature, because if passed, the bill gives the government the necessary authority to finance its programs and honour those commitments. I’m going to urge, when we complete this debate, that all members of the Legislature support the bill, because without this very necessary spending, the government would be unable to meet its obligations to the people of Ontario. For the benefit of my friends opposite, that’s page 1 of 44.

The government’s interim spending authority for the fiscal year ending on March 31 is provided through—and this is Colin, the page who’s delivering a bit of water to start the day—the interim appropriations act, 2009-10 and the supplementary interim appropriations act for 2009-10, pending the vote on supply and the enactment of the Supply Act.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, introduced the government’s seventh provincial budget in this Legislature. The 2010 budget builds on the progress that has been achieved since 2003 and puts the measures in place to sustain economic growth in this province.

Ontario, like the rest of the world, is feeling the impact of this global economic recession, and in spite of the good things we’re hearing today, clearly, this recessionary period and its impact is far from over.

The global economic recession hit Ontario harder than other provinces. Due to job losses in its manufacturing and forest sectors, government revenues have declined steeply. In fact, no other Canadian jurisdiction experienced a sharper decline in corporate tax revenues between the years 2007-08 and 2009-10 than did Ontario.

Families, communities and related businesses have been severely impacted. The McGuinty government had to make a choice between increasing the deficit or helping to lessen the impact of the recession on the people of Ontario. We opted for the people of Ontario. The government chose to invest in Ontarians as we build on the future well-being and economic prosperity of the province.

The government’s short-term stimulus investments are keeping families working in ridings throughout this province, and I can attest to that within my own riding. It is assisting in keeping communities running and businesses operating. Our investments in schools are preparing our young people for the future so they can achieve their full potential and contribute to Ontario’s economy in a fashion not seen in the past.

Our continuing investments in health care provide the medical care and assistance to keep Ontarians healthy. I had the opportunity over the past number of weeks to attend two different hospital-related functions that very clearly reflect on these commitments, one in the member from Oshawa’s riding, which had to do with a dialysis unit being opened in the Lakeridge health centre; and I had the opportunity, just in this past week, to attend the opening of a 30-bed complex and continuing care facility at the Ajax-Pickering site of the Rouge Valley Health System.

It gives you some indication not only of the importance of health care but of the diversity of health care expenditures that the people of Ontario, through us, have been making in securing the necessary health care—both immediate health care for things like diabetes and dialysis and also to ensure that those who have a variety of other needs of a more complex and continuing nature are also being provided service in our communities broadly.

Our infrastructure investments are supporting the programs and services Ontarians value most. Our objective is to build a strong Ontario.

When we came to office in 2003, we laid out what we believe to be a prudent and responsible plan to improve our schools, our hospitals and other public services throughout Ontario. That plan is delivering results.

Class sizes in Ontario schools are smaller, and test scores are higher. There are 120,000 more students in Ontario’s colleges and universities because of the government’s 2005 Reaching Higher plan, the biggest multi-year investment in post-secondary education in 40 years. Investments in skills training and employment supports are helping more than one million Ontarians a year to get the services they need to find and succeed in new jobs.

In the last six years, 900,000 more Ontarians obtained access to a family doctor, and patients have shorter wait times for cancer surgery, hip replacements and CT scans.

Investments in infrastructure are creating jobs while rebuilding Ontario’s roads, its bridges, its schools, hospitals and transit systems, which have been neglected for a number of years.

The government’s investments are protecting the environment and creating green energy jobs, including new jobs in the clean water sector. I want to speak briefly, if I can, about the clean water sector. I have an example within my own riding, a company that has been leading this field for a number of years. I know that they will welcome the government’s initiatives on clean water, and at the same time we will have the opportunity to capitalize on their expertise and ask them to share some of that expertise with the rest of Ontario.

The company’s name is Eco-Tec, and they’re located in Pickering. They produce high-quality industrial water. One might ask, “What’s high-quality water? What does that have to do with industrial applications?” I’ll give you a brief example. Among the things they do is they ensure and supply on-site clean water with no impurities in it for the purposes of the non-nuclear side of a nuclear plant. Within the boiler systems that generate the steam that drives the turbines—the energy coming from the nuclear side—obviously, they have to have water within those boilers.

Having extremely clean water ensures that those boilers can run for extended periods of time with less maintenance and limited shutdowns. Each time you have to maintain or close down a boiler to clean it because of impurities in the system, much like you might find calcium in your taps at home, it means you have to bring down the entire operation, thus not only removing power from the grid, but you also have to go through all of the efforts to bring down and stop a nuclear plant from producing power for the purpose of providing energy in the province.

This local company in Pickering provides exactly that kind of expertise. Providing highly pure water for the nuclear business, obviously, is a very specialized business operation. But they do the same thing for any number of other industries, providing extremely clean water. Not only do they operate in Canada, they also operate throughout the world. They operate in India and they operate in China. They’ve been selling their expertise and providing that expertise globally.

I’m looking forward to the opportunities that exist for a local company in Pickering to be able to share their expertise with Ontario, and the opportunities that will be presented to them by virtue of the government’s very proactive and aggressive approach through initiatives on clean water.

To move on a little bit to some of the more social functions, the Ontario child benefit, investments in social and affordable housing, increases to benefits under the Ontario Works and the Ontario disability support program, and other investments in the government’s poverty reduction strategy are improving the quality of life for Ontario’s most vulnerable.

We set out a strategy some years ago to address the matter of vulnerability in our communities. I recall early budget discussions and caucus discussions in which members of caucus and government members in the front benches spoke to the need to ensure that this government kept its eye on the ball in regard to those in our communities who are most vulnerable. We’ve done that when the economy is difficult. We haven’t lost sight of what that need is.

We’ve done that through a variety of strategies, everything from the Ontario child benefit, certainly unique to this province and unique in many ways, through to enhancements to the ODSP and Ontario Works on an ongoing basis, as well as a very direct effort in respect to the poverty reduction strategy.

That’s not even to comment on our increases to the minimum wage, because obviously the best way to reduce poverty is to provide opportunities for people to be able to earn a living wage and thus to be able to invest in the economy; it’s not just ensuring that people are meeting some minimum standard of living, it’s at the same time to ensure that what they’re doing is effectively re-investing in the economy, particularly in their own communities.

The government’s tax plan for jobs and growth, which was introduced to this Legislature a year ago, is transforming Ontario into one of the most tax-competitive jurisdictions in the industrialized world for new business investment. The tax plan that we put in place will replace the outdated retail sales tax with a modern, value-added tax and combine it with the federal goods and services tax on July 1 of this year—and that would be referred to as the HST.

It also includes significant temporary and permanent tax relief for both people and businesses, and we know that as of January 1 this year, there was a reduction in personal income tax for virtually all Ontarians.

The tax plan that we put together, with other recent tax changes—and this particular plan was not the only initiative we’ve undertaken; you might recall that just a couple of years ago we took some initiatives on the business education tax, to reduce that broadly across the province, to standardize it so there weren’t disparities, so one municipality wasn’t being treated differently than another municipality in that regard and so that businesses were able to compete on an equal footing across various jurisdictions in the province.

We took that initiative as one of the tax changes that we wanted to see put in place, and we are phasing that in over a period of time.

The tax plan, together with other recent tax changes, supports new business investment and is estimated to create nearly 600,000 net new jobs within 10 years. That’s part of the overall tax plan. Over a 10-year period, some 600,000 jobs are projected to be created.

Since 2003, the McGuinty government’s investments to support universal health care, public education, a modern infrastructure, our vulnerable citizens, a greener Ontario and lower business costs have protected and enhanced programs and services for Ontarians, both before, during and—they will—after the recession. These investments continue to strengthen Ontario’s economy and competitive advantage, boosting jobs and job growth.

We’re particularly proud of the progress that has been made to date, but it’s certainly not over yet. Many Ontarians are still coping with the uncertainty caused by unemployment or underemployment. Companies, big and small, in this province are still grappling with the new ways of doing business. Municipalities continue to struggle to respond to the increasing demands for services.

Our work here in this Legislature remains cut out for us. I’m proud to say that the 2010 budget, part of our Open Ontario plan, will continue to benefit Ontario’s families, its businesses and our communities. Open Ontario is the McGuinty government’s five-year plan to create new opportunities for jobs and economic growth. It will build on the progress that is slowly, but surely, making headway toward economic stability. It lays out the measures to manage spending, eliminate the deficit and secure the province’s long-term financial sustainability.

Six years ago, the government began building a solid foundation for economic growth and prosperity through its investments, particularly in education and the skills training areas. Our government recognizes the importance of developing a well-educated workforce to compete in the new global economy. Ontario’s colleges and universities play a vital role in equipping people for success and preparing them to generate the ideas, the products and the jobs that will ensure future prosperity. Today, more than 120,000 additional students are attending college and university, a 31% increase over 2002-03.

I had the opportunity last Thursday following the budget to speak with Ron Bordessa, who is the president of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. I see the member from Durham opposite knows Ron well and knows the work that’s happening at UOIT. I had the opportunity to chat with him following the budget, and I have to tell you how pleased he was. I think that’s reflective of the sector as a whole.

I had an opportunity yesterday to see Sheldon Levy, the president of Ryerson University, and he spoke in the same fashion about how pleased they were that the government saw the priority and the need, in spite of the economic climate, to make significant investments in this budget year in addition to the investments that have been made in operating, as well as the capital investments that are being made in post-secondary education and within the context of their particular part of the field in the university sector.

They know how important it is to build a strong future economy and that we provide the opportunities for primarily young people, but not always so, to have the education and the training necessary for both current employment as well as the economy as it evolves.

University per-student funding is 27% higher and college per-student operating funding is 44% higher in 2008-09, compared with 2002-03. Those are significant advancements in per-student investment, both in the university and in the college sector.

About 186,000 students are benefiting in the 2009-10 time frame from enhancements to the Ontario student assistance program that were introduced in 2004-05. We know how important it is to provide assistance to students who often can’t do it on their own.

In many cases those students have very limited capacity for support from family and other support mechanisms, so it’s incumbent upon the government to step up to the plate for the students who need our help, to ensure that qualified students, students who can meet those standards to achieve acceptance into our colleges and universities, have the opportunity that every other young Ontarian would have. I think we have a strong obligation to ensure that occurs.

The degree completion rate has increased to 78% from some 73% just five or six years ago for university students, and to 65% from some 57% for college students—the point being that graduation rates for both university and college students are increasing. I think that speaks to the investments that are made to ensure that they have the support mechanisms in place while they’re there to ensure that the staff who are there teaching, the professors who are there teaching, the support staff, can help the students—those who find themselves in some difficulty—to find their way through the system.

These are not easy times; it’s not an easy transition for a student to move into a university or a college, and we don’t want to lose them along the way because they don’t have the necessary supports.

A total of some 260 additional first-year medical student spaces will be created by 2011-12. That’s a 38% increase from 2004-05. Clearly, to have enough family doctors in place, we need to continue to increase the medical spaces available and ensure that those young people moving through medicine move into a practice that allows families to have the health care they need.

That’s why post-secondary education remains a top priority of this government. As part of the Open Ontario plan, new commitments to post-secondary education will add 20,000 new spaces to colleges and universities in the 2010-11 year, reflecting a new annual investment of $310 million in post-secondary operating grants. It’s exactly those dollars that I was referencing when I spoke about Mr. Levy and Mr. Bordessa in the context of their role as the presidents of two of our universities. Our government will also be aggressively promoting Ontario’s post-secondary schools abroad to encourage the best students from around the world to study and settle here and contribute to our economy.

Since 2003, the government has made tremendous strides toward helping students improve their reading, their writing and their math skills in elementary and secondary schools. These programs have helped more students achieve the provincial standard on province-wide tests. Additional annual investments to improve literacy and numeracy in 2009-10 totalled $95 million.

Since 2005, the government’s student success strategy has been helping students in the grades 7 to 12 area tailor their education to their individual strengths, their goals and their interests. Graduation rates increased to 79% in the 2008-09 year, from 68% in the 2003-04 year. That’s an increase in graduation from post-secondary education of some 11%. That’s not to be underestimated, the importance of those 11% of students who have graduated and are now graduating.

For us, often it’s numbers, but when it comes down to that individual student, the one who wasn’t graduating but is graduating today, that will make a difference in their life today and certainly make a difference in their life in the future. This means an additional 11%, or 16,500 more students graduating each year.

Students from junior kindergarten to grade 3 are receiving more individual attention from their teachers. We’re achieving our goal to reduce the size of primary classes: 90% of classes now have 20 or fewer students this year, compared to 31% in the 2003-04 year. All primary classes now have 23 or fewer students this year, compared to 64% in the 2003-04 year.

My wife, who retired just a couple of years back, spent virtually her entire career in the elementary system. She kids about the fact that she went from high school to the elementary system and taught grades 7 and 8 and 5 and 3, and ended up later on at grade 1. Once she was there, she spent 10 or 11 years, and at times she said, “I felt like I was going backwards,” in the context of the grade level. But the fact was that she was very good at what she did.

She stayed at that grade level because she understood the needs of young people at that level, and she relished the achievement of those students coming in at four and five years old—they’re into grade 1 at about six years old—and watching their growth in those few months she had them before her.

She’d come home at night and she would tell me about the challenges she faced in the classroom. I know there are other members of this place who have either been in a classroom or have family members, spouses or neighbours in classrooms, and they hear about the challenges that they have and that they continue to have in the classroom setting. During those years, her final years of teaching, the demands increased, the challenges of students increased, and it made the job that much more difficult.

The initiatives to reduce class size in those primary classes provide those teachers now with the opportunity to spend that more individualized time with each student, and particularly provide opportunities to spend time with those students with the greatest needs.

Early learning is also an important part of this government’s Open Ontario plan. Full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds will be phased in starting this September. Nearly 600 schools across the province, benefiting up to 35,000 children, will be covered, with a focus on those areas of lower income or greater challenge. A full implementation of full-day learning will employ up to 3,800 additional teachers and 20,000 early childhood educators and benefit about 247,000 children. Our goal remains to fully implement the program by the 2015-16 fiscal year.

Each year, more than one million Ontarians rely on Employment Ontario for help in finding work or acquiring job training. Over the past two years, demand for employment and training services has increased sharply. Obviously, that won’t be a surprise to anyone in this place or, I would suggest, anyone within the workforce in Ontario. In response, the government boosted Employment Ontario’s spending on jobs and skills training to about $1.6 billion in each of the last two fiscal years, with a special focus on workers affected by the economic recession.

Our Second Career strategy continues to provide financial assistance for laid-off workers to undertake longer-term training. Since its launch, over 27,000 people have participated, and another 30,000 participants will be supported over the next two years. This means nearly 60,000 participants in total since the program began in June 2008. These are opportunities for those who have been displaced in the workforce through layoff not simply to wait to be recalled into the role they had, but opportunities to retrain and prepare themselves for new careers.

By August of this year, a new one-stop access will be in place to make it easier for job seekers, employers and communities to obtain the full range of programs and services that are needed.

We’ll also launch the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers agreement to support skills training projects in hard-hit communities throughout this province. There’s no question: We’ve all seen the instance where older workers have even greater difficulty in reintegrating into the workforce if they find themselves out of the employment arena, through layoff or because a particular manufacturer or company discontinues providing any service.

Those older workers often will not have the skills necessary in today’s marketplace and won’t be conversant with the new technologies that are so important for employment in this province currently and which will become increasingly important in the years ahead.

The Targeted Initiative for Older Workers is a federal-provincial initiative to assist unemployed older workers in vulnerable communities. Any time this government can work with its federal or municipal counterparts in a co-operative fashion, it is good for Ontarians. It’s what Ontarians expect of their governments: the capacity to work together on initiatives that are important to Ontarians.

Our summer jobs program is helping youth, especially in those high-needs neighbourhoods. The program will support nearly 110,000 jobs and services for students this summer.

Additional support services include workplace-based pilots for literacy training, enhanced apprenticeship programs and improved training and employment supports for underrepresented groups.

The province has made a commitment to break the cycle of poverty. Families, children, and low-income working adults are already benefiting from our overall poverty reduction agenda. Our poverty reduction strategy has set out an aggressive target to reduce child poverty by 25% over five years. This means lifting 90,000 children out of poverty by 2013. Key achievements in the poverty reduction strategy include the expanded children in need of treatment program, which provides urgent dental and general anaesthesia service to children in low-income families until their 18th birthday, and Ontario’s after-school initiative, which supports after-school activities in high-needs communities.

To assist people on social assistance in becoming more financially independent, the government has taken a number of steps:

—first, allowing full-time post-secondary students who have employment earnings to keep all of their social assistance benefits. That’s certainly an inducement for those who find themselves on social assistance to re-engage in the academic sector, through skills training or college training or university training, to prepare themselves for a better future;

—secondly, changing the rules governing the receipt of earnings so that people can keep a larger portion of their social assistance benefits. To the extent that we can do that, it’s good for those Ontarians to feel that they can be contributing members of society from the standpoint of a work environment, but at the same time to not find that their social assistance benefits are dramatically clawed back;

—thirdly, extending health benefits to people making the transition from social assistance to employment. We’ve heard consistently that one of the very serious challenges for those who are wanting to move from social assistance into the workplace, particularly those with children, is the capacity to ensure that health benefits will help them bridge from the supports they have on social assistance to the supports they will get in employment. It has always been a grave concern of those on social assistance that when they move into the workplace they will lose those health benefits, either for themselves or for their children;

—fourthly, increasing the amount of social assistance benefits that parents can keep if they have employment earnings and incur unlicensed child care costs.

Those are just some examples of the initiatives that the government has been taking to assist those on social assistance as they take the necessary steps to move back into the workplace.

In our 2010 budget, starting this fall, we propose to increase adult basic needs and maximum shelter allowances by 1% for those Ontarians on ODSP and Ontario Works. This move will provide families and individuals on social assistance with additional benefits of about $57 million in total annually. We would suggest that it has been a hallmark of this government that we’ve made—although some will say modest—increases to ODSP and OW allowances on an annual basis.

My recollection over my time here is that, since 2003, there was one budget year in which we weren’t able to achieve that, but in each of the other budget years there has been an adjustment to OW and ODSP rates to ensure that those folks continue to move along in a fashion that keeps pace with the current economic climate.

As well, our government continues to review the social assistance programs to ensure that they are easier to understand and more transparent and sustainable in the long term, so the system can continue to support those who are most vulnerable in this province.

Ontario’s minimum wage will rise to $10.25 per hour starting on March 31. That would be tomorrow, I believe. This will be the seventh consecutive year that the minimum wage has been increased since we took office in 2003. I said in my opening comments that having a wage that becomes a living wage not only provides the necessary support to provide food on your table, a roof over your head, support for your families and a level of dignity about what you do, but it also allows for investment back in the economy. That investment back in the economy supports those who are in the workforce.

Among other key initiatives in the government’s poverty reduction area—certainly, an increase in the minimum wage moves people out of the poverty cycle by virtue of employment, but there are other initiatives we’ve taken within the poverty reduction strategy. These include an affordable housing agreement with the federal government, signed in June 2009, to deliver new affordable housing to Ontario and renovate existing social housing. More than 3,000 social housing renovation projects have already been committed as part of this federal-provincial stimulus package.

We also have ongoing funding for municipal rent banks to assist tenants who are at risk of eviction or homelessness. I recall that debate earlier on that we had both in here and within our caucus about the need for a rent bank to protect those who may find themselves moved out of the accommodation they currently have through eviction. It’s better to work to keep those people in some type of housing than have them put on the streets in some fashion—them and their families.

The McGuinty government believes in a strong, universal health care system. Since 2003, the government has taken significant steps to transform the health care sector while creating a system that is patient-focused. The government has acted on Ontario’s need for shorter wait times, better access to care, promoting health and preventing illness, and updating infrastructure. The government has implemented the wait-times strategy.

It was not that long ago that we didn’t know what the wait times were because nobody had taken the initiative to bother measuring them or even attempted to find out what those wait times were, let alone compare those wait times from hospital to hospital and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The wait-times strategy has made the wait for elective surgery, from cataract surgery to cancer, faster. Since 2008, patients with complex conditions are spending 8% less time waiting in the emergency room, and patients with minor conditions are spending a modest amount of time—less at this point.

But we need to do better in each area. One of the areas we need to do better on is emergency care. We need to have people moving through emergency care, either out of emergency care where it’s not necessary and/or into a hospital bed for acute care, in a more expeditious fashion. We need to see the backlog in emergency care cleared up.

An investment of $1.1 billion over four years, which began in 2007, provides funding for the unprecedented aging-at-home strategy, which helps seniors live with dignity and independence in the comfort of their own homes. Those of us with aging parents know how important it is for them to have the opportunity, if at all possible, to be able to age at home. The alternatives are not what seniors in our province want. They would prefer, given the opportunity, to have the support of their family and the dignity to be able to live in their own homes.

We’ve made tremendous strides to provide better access to health care since 2003.

As I said earlier, about 900,000 more Ontarians who did not have a family doctor now have access to one, 2,295 more doctors are practising in Ontario, and we’ve created 170 family health teams. I remember the early discussion around the family health teams as we launched the first 50 of those. I must say, as one member, I was anxious that my region, my area, was not in that first group of 50 health teams. Subsequently, I’ve seen the success of the Durham West health team operating their facility out of Pickering but servicing a much broader Durham West community.

I’ve seen the success—I’ve had a chance to meet with the doctors, the support staff and the nurses who are working in that environment—and the enthusiasm they feel for this model that we’ve put in place, their capacity to work together and provide support to patients and direct their services specifically to the needs that are there, and in many cases free up their expertise for other patients by using a team approach.

Canada’s first nurse-practitioner-led clinics were established, and 25 more will be open by 2012.

The Northern Ontario School of Medicine was opened. In 2009, the school celebrated its first graduating class of 55 students. Certainly, we understand the need for the provision of practitioners throughout Ontario, but even more so in northern Ontario. This can only go to help provide the doctors we need in that part of our province.

More than 8,200 beds were added to long-term-care homes across the province, and investments in home care have expanded services to about 500,000 Ontarians annually.

We’ve also managed the growth of health care spending at a responsible rate, including proposing reforms to Ontario’s drug system that will facilitate lower generic drug prices.

The government has toughened tobacco laws, including banning smoking in public places and encouraging more Ontarians to quit.

An expanded newborn screening program in 2006 makes it Canada’s most comprehensive, with three free-of-charge vaccines for families, saving them about $600 per child.

Twenty minutes of physical activity was introduced every day as a mandated part of our school program, as well as a new law requiring schools to follow new nutritional standards for food and beverages sold on school premises.

The government has invested significantly in infrastructure that supports the public health system valued by all Ontarians. Construction is under way or completed in more than 100 major hospital projects. These include, but certainly aren’t limited to, the Credit Valley Hospital redevelopment, four new floors at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, modernizing patient facilities and expanding the emergency department at the York Central Hospital, and expansion to various sections as well as construction, as I mentioned earlier, of the 30-bed complex continuing care wing of the Rouge Valley Health System.

Just this past late fall, we opened the new emergency facility at the Ajax-Pickering site, and that was most welcome. Those are the kinds of investments that people see. They may see a building going up at their hospital or an expansion going on, but most people for the most part don’t engage in that part of the facility on a regular basis. But families do see the ER—not by choice, mind you, but they do see the ER. I can tell you that within our community, the opening of the new emergency area within the Ajax-Pickering hospital was very well received.

Modern infrastructure boosts productivity, supports economic growth and improves the quality of life that Ontario enjoys. For almost 30 years, Ontario’s infrastructure has been neglected. Underinvestment, aging infrastructure and growth pressures have resulted in a substantial infrastructure deficit. In 2005, we committed $30 billion to ReNew Ontario. We are on a $32-billion program over two years for stimulus and infrastructure spending, and we plan on continuing that.

Being cognizant of the clock, even with my distance glasses off, because I can’t read with them on and I can’t see with them off, I’m noticing we’re down to about 30 seconds of time remaining. I wish there were more time. This is a topic that I would love to have the opportunity to speak to more extensively. Let me just say that I’m hoping that as this debate continues today, at the end of it, all members of the House will see the need to support the Supply Act and will vote in favour of that. I’m urging them to do that, and look forward to the debate as it continues.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It was interesting, listening to the member from Pickering–Scarborough East speak about this bill, the supply bill. Like all other Liberals we hear so often in this House, he spoke of building on the progress, and he spoke of the open doors, but he didn’t actually speak of what progress the Liberals have made.

I think it’s important that we put on the record some of the Liberal progress that we have seen here in Ontario. We have seen a $3-billion HST tax grab. We didn’t hear him mention anything about tax increases, but we all know there’s a $3-billion HST tax grab.

He didn’t talk about the earlier, $24-billion health care tax. Now, I know they sometimes call it a premium and they sometimes call it a levy—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Oh. Pardon me. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Thornhill and the member from Simcoe–Grey as well.

Mr. John O’Toole: And the member from Durham.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And the member from Durham.

They also cancelled, in the 2004 budget, the lower- and middle-income personal tax. They’ve increased business taxes. They’ve put on their new electronics tax, of course, for TVs and computers. They cancelled the seniors’ property tax credit. They brought in a $4-a-tire tax and a multitude of new taxes on alcohol and tobacco during their regime. And of course, there was that other little one last week, or the week just before the budget, the $53-million hydro tax. I think they called that one “an investment” but not a tax.

They’ve also delisted chiropractic services, eye care and physiotherapy, but there was never a mention of that in their talking about their progress. Of course, we’ve also seen this latest announcement that Ontario Hydro will be ramping up costs for all users of hydroelectric energy in this province.

They also talk about their Open Ontario plan, and it’s a wonderful, beautiful-sounding phrase: Open Ontario plan. But what they don’t talk about is how they shut the door on manufacturing, and killed our manufacturing and resource sector in this province. Did anybody hear them talk about the 62 mills that are closed in the north? Did anybody hear them talk about the 45,000 lost jobs in forestry? Did anybody hear them talk about the 210,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost? Nothing. That’s part of their Open Ontario plan. Open the door to the trustee, I guess, under the McGuinty plan.

And also, what about our have-not status? We know that there was a recession, a significant recession, but nobody weathered it worse in this country than Ontario. We’re the only ones to have fallen into have-not status during this recession.

Of course, maybe the Liberal government is pleased that they got a $300-million equalization welfare payment last year from the federal government, because next year they’re budgeting on getting a $900-million equalization welfare cheque from the federal government. Is this their idea of progress: getting a bigger welfare cheque every year from the federal government? That’s what we see on this side of the House. That is their progress: spending more, taxing more, delivering less and doing it in a poor fashion for the people of this province.

I also want to speak to one other subject in this supply debate, and that is the $25 million that this Liberal government is throwing down the drain—money from the hard-working citizens of Ontario. It’s on this tax collector severance. Of course we were told that harmonizing the sales taxes will be a great boon and a great benefit to the people of this province. There will be less administration cost; there will be improvements in delivery. Most people would have thought that we would have harmonized the bureaucracy with that but, no, we didn’t. We didn’t lessen the bureaucracy.

This Liberal government took 1,250 tax collectors off the provincial payroll and has deposited them on the federal payroll.

Interjection: They didn’t lose one day of work.

Mr. Randy Hillier: They aren’t missing a day of work; they aren’t missing a stride. They’re not missing anything. In fact, this Liberal government is giving them a reward for keeping their jobs. They’re rewarding them $25 million, up to $45,000 each. These tax collectors, members of the Ontario public service—many of them don’t expect this severance; many of them don’t want this severance. But this Liberal government figures, “Well, it’s just taxpayers’ money anyway. What does it really matter? We’re just taking money from people who worked hard and sweated and laboured to pay their bills.

We’re just going to take $25 million of it and give it to somebody for keeping their job.” This is the Liberal idea of saving the taxpayers money: saving them money by transferring those employees to the federal government and giving them a bonus out the door.

Everybody in this province knows that severance is intended for when you lose your job, to make up and mitigate some of the harmful effects of losing your job and not having an income. That’s what we all know severance is for. But this Liberal government believes it’s for something else. It’s there for a reward for some people—but not for most people. I know we’ve heard from the Liberal government that, “These were in the details and we didn’t really understand the details.” We often hear that the devil lives in the details in every agreement.

Well, I believe that the devil doesn’t read the details, and that’s what happened with this HST severance package: Nobody in the Liberal government actually read those details. Had they, they could have easily gone to the union, they could have gone to those tax collectors, and said, “Listen, we can either terminate your employment and you will get your severance, or, if you forgive that severance, the federal government will take you on in the same role.” But that didn’t happen, did it? Nobody looked at it. The devil was certainly in the details, and they didn’t read them.

We see the hardship that is happening in this province in our ridings; we see the high unemployment rates; we see the loss of manufacturing jobs; we see the declining revenues; and we see a declining status relative to others. Of course, in our own country we are now in the have-not status. Relative to other provinces, we are in worse shape. We lost more jobs than all the other provinces combined. We have an unemployment rate that’s higher than Alberta, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. We have the highest one here, under your guidance.

Our GDP, our standard of living, is lower now than one of the jurisdictions in the States that has been tremendously hard hit by this recession: Michigan. We have a lower standard of living now than Michigan, the famous rust belt of the United States. We have a lower standard of living than they do. And this government talks about Open Ontario and building on their progress. Well, I’ll tell you this, and we all know this: These people are living in a fool’s paradise. But what they have to remember is that a fool’s paradise is a wise man’s hell, and that is what they are creating in Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll be splitting my time with other members, I’m sure, who will be here a little bit later. Anyway, I want to say upfront that I must say this was a very interesting budget from a whole bunch of different perspectives.

As I look at it from the perspective of what it means to Ontario and what it means to northern Ontario, there are some quite interesting points that I think could be drawn from what the government has put forward.

I want to just say upfront that it’s unbelievable and quite interesting when you look at what the government has decided by way of fiscal policy, that it’s going to put off the decision about how they are going to balance the deficit to two Parliaments from now. I just think that is unbelievable. I haven’t seen anybody have that much chutzpah in a long, long time.

I’ve got to say that for the government to say, “We have a deficit today, and we’re not going to balance it in this Parliament, we’re not going to balance it in the next Parliament, but we’re going to balance it in the Parliament after that,” is almost like saying, “We’re going to pass the problem on to somebody else. We don’t know who, but we can fairly assume as Liberals that we won’t be the government at that point.” I just think that is really, really something, as far as chutzpah, that a government could put forward.

I think what people look to see is that this Parliament and this government make decisions on an annual basis as to what should be happening and what should not be happening to both revenues and expenditures in the province of Ontario. As I look at a number of things inside this budget, I can agree, but I can disagree also with other issues when it comes to overall budget policy.

We understand that we’re in a deficit. There’s nobody in this House who’s going to say, “There would be no deficit if it had been us in government,” or somebody else, because we understand there is a huge problem in the world economy. Ontario being an industrial province as far as output, as most of our products are through natural resources or through industrial outputs, we are greatly affected by what happens in the world economy. We trade with everybody from the United States to European countries and people on the Pacific Rim, so we understand it’s an interconnected global economy.

Ontario, as such, is going to have some difficulty trying to balance the books with the type of fiscal problems that we find ourselves in today on a world basis.

So I understand there was going to be a deficit this year as a result of what happened in the meltdown of about a year and a half ago. I also understand that some of the decisions that needed to be made were not going to be easy ones as far as how we position Ontario in order to balance its budget so that it can afford the programs that we so much want in this province.

For example, there’s not a member in this House who will say, “Well, let’s cut health care,” because at the end of the day we all understand that health care services are important to all of us. You may not need health care today, but you certainly are going to need it at some point in your life, and you want to make sure that when you get to the emergency room, when you get to the community care clinic or you go to the doctor’s office, the services that you are going to need to make you well and to manage your illness are there for you.

You don’t want to be in a position of having worked all your life and all of a sudden finding out that in some future Parliament, health care services are reduced to the point that you have a hybrid system like what we see in the United States, where those with a lot of money get better service than those with less money.

We understand there are challenges to all governments when it comes to being able to balance the budget, but what really is astounding in this budget is that the government is putting off the decisions that need to be made to a Parliament three Parliaments from now. I just think that is unbelievable. It seems to me that we should at least, in broad strokes, be saying what we’re going to do to deal with the revenue issues and what we’re going to do to deal with the expenditure issues that the government in this Parliament has to turn its attention to.

On the revenue side, what is this government really doing to deal with assisting those within our business community and entrepreneurs out there to invest in Ontario so that we’re able to build the wealth that is necessary in this province not just to provide jobs but also to provide the revenue we need from those jobs and the income from those corporations and small businesses that make up the budget of Ontario and allow us to pay for programs such as health care, education, plowing our roads in the winter and doing the necessary things that make infrastructure work in the province of Ontario? I would argue that that is where we need to put most of our emphasis in this Parliament.

If I was the Premier of Ontario, I would be looking at what I can do in order to try to prime the pump of the economy of Ontario, because I would recognize that we need to rebuild the revenues that we’ve lost and build them beyond the point that we have lost them. You would only do that in a strong economy.

What can Ontario do in order to get us to that point? As a northerner, I can tell you one very simple one: Ontario was built on natural resources. The mining, forestry and hydro developments that have happened in northern Ontario made up a large part of the GDP of this province. Ontario was built as a result of the wealth that is in the ground and in our forests, but we have managed, over the years, to change policies to the point that those industries and those sectors aren’t doing as well as they could.

You have to remember that if you have a mine operating in Sudbury, Timmins, Kirkland Lake or Red Lake, or a forestry company operating in Ear Falls or wherever it might be, the supplies and services that allow those places to run and operate, by and large, come from southern Ontario. Manufacturers and the service sector and the finance sector and others are residing here in Ontario. My point is that a strong resource sector is not only good for northern Ontario, it is good for all of this province, because we all benefit when there is a strong resource sector.

I look at what has happened over the past number of years and where we are today in the resource sector, and it is no surprise. The litany goes on. We look at community after community in northern Ontario where, in some cases, the only employer in town is shut down. If you look at Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, Opasatika, Hearst, Constance Lake, Thunder Bay, Ear Falls, Red Lake—if you look at almost every community in northern Ontario, there has been a negative effect to what has happened when it comes to resource policy in this province.

Their employers, in some cases, have closed down entirely or have reduced operations and have fewer people working for them, creating less wealth for the province of Ontario and the tax revenue needed for this province to provide those services that we think are so important to each other.

What has happened simply is this: There was a time when governments in Ontario understood that they needed to keep an eye to natural resource policy, that a provincial government needed to make sure that the mining, forestry, hydroelectric and agricultural sectors were taken care of in the sense of making sure that we had policies that allowed them to flourish. For many years in this province, governments of all stripes ensured that that was the case.

I would argue that Ontario started to fall behind some years ago. It started not entirely under the watch of this government, but I can tell you that it started under the Peterson government for darn sure and the Conservative government before that, and even ours to a certain degree. As a result of that, what we’re seeing is natural resource policies having morphed into something that has, at the end, really hindered the ability of the resource sector to weather the storm that we have gone into when it comes to commodity prices and what’s happening with being able to operate a plant in some of these communities.

But let’s look at us as Ontario and compare ourselves to other jurisdictions. If you look at Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec, I would argue that in those provinces, those governments still understand that you need to have good public policy when it comes to the natural resource sector. You look at the investments that are done in the exploration field and mining: We know that the majority of the Canadian and international dollars that are raised for exploration and the mining industry now are no longer coming to Ontario as they used to.

Ontario has some of the best geology in the world to find all kinds of mines, from gold mines to diamond mines, but they’re now going into the province of Quebec and yes, even into British Columbia. Why is that? Because money, when it comes to investment, goes to where they feel it’s the friendliest. Where are they able to get the best bang for their buck? Where is it that they’re more likely to get a return on that investment?

What has happened here in Ontario is we have turned our attention away from natural resource policies and we have made it more difficult for those investments to happen here in Ontario. As a result, other jurisdictions like Quebec and others are doing far better than us when it comes to attracting that money.

What are some of the policies the government has done that I think need to be addressed in regard to natural resources? There are many. Just on the question of environmental regulation in the province of Ontario, nobody can argue with me that if you compare the mining industry today to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, it is no longer the same. It has become one of the safest industries in Canada, and it has become one of the most environmentally responsible industries in Canada as well.

We are able to mine now like we never have before as far as productivity, but we’ve also decreased the impact on the environment, and we’ve certainly made it a safer place for workers to go. The difficulty is that government has not figured out ways of being able to do that in such a way that makes it financially more sustainable for companies to make this type of investments.

We’re looking now at a system that has become far more—how would you say? I don’t want to use the word “bureaucratic,” but far more difficult to navigate your way through when it comes to being able to get permits and when it comes to being able to even understand what the government wants at the end of the day. As a result, it is really making it difficult for people who are bringing mines online to work their way through. They’re having to spend far more money on permitting than they ever have before.

If you’re trying to invest in Ontario, you know that if you find a mine, it’s going to cost you more money to put it into production because of the way that we’ve organized our permitting structure and others for the mining and forestry sectors—far harder to get in.

Am I arguing that we should lessen the environmental regulation? That’s not my argument. My argument is, make clear and concise what it is that you want as a goal when it comes to impact on the environment, then ensure that they’re able to get there with technologies that exist, and make sure that they make those investments necessary. The way that we do it now, we spend more money with consultants going between the government and the industry trying to figure out what it is that they want in the first place and then trying to engineer a solution. We spend all kinds of money that, quite frankly, could be spent better.

Take a look at what’s happening right now with the start-ups of the Detour Lake gold mine and the Lake Shore gold mines up in Timmins. We have, interestingly, two premier ore bodies that are ready to go. Lake Shore has already made the decision to go forward with the expansion of their operations on the existing site and also for what they call Timmins West, an investment to move them forward into a production of a brand new facility, a brand new mine. If you look at the difficulty they’re having on the permitting side, it is really discouraging at times.

Because all that industry asks is, “What is it you want us to do? Let us get there.” Instead, what we have is a process that is quite user-unfriendly and makes it far more expensive for operators to get their mines into operation.

I know I’ll get a visit from my friends from the environmental community soon as a result of my comments this morning, but I remind people that when we had the old Detour Lake gold mine running, and it started I believe in the late 1970s early 1980s, that particular gold mine operated for 10 or 15 years. As a result of the laws that we have in this province, which is the mine reclamation act, when that mine shut down, we took apart the entire mine that was there.

We rehabilitated it to the ground, to the point that if you were to fly over that about a year ago—because now they’re back doing work there—you would have had a hard time knowing there was a mine there. We had revegetated the area, we had taken out the power lines, and we had tried to take the land back to the most natural state possible. My point is that we have good laws in this province that can allow us to do development in a way that makes some sense, but the difficulty is it is becoming harder and harder to achieve those goals based on how the government wants you to get there.

My point is that natural resource policies are important from the perspective of understanding that we have natural resource policies in this province that support our activities in mining, forestry, hydro development and agriculture so that we’re able to build the industry and strengthen it so that we have the jobs in northern Ontario and revenues for the people of Ontario. I say to my friends here in the House, clearly what has happened is that we have changed our attention from what used to be good natural resource policies to those of not paying attention to that as much as possible.

You take a look at some of the other difficulties that we have in mining and forestry, and I think the interesting one is the question of electricity prices. Up until about seven or eight years ago, Ontario had an electricity rate that was competitive with Quebec and Manitoba. Why? Because we had a public utility called Ontario Hydro.

It was run as a crown corporation, as an economic development tool in order to allow utility customers such as Kidd Creek Mines, Tembec pulp and paper and others to operate and keep their costs down on the energy side so that we could compete with other jurisdictions that are in the same business as us. It’s hard for us to compete with workers in South America who are making fewer dollars per hour in a paper plant than trying to compete in a paper plant in northern Ontario that pays a fairly good wage—you have to have something else to offset the overall cost, and one of those things was electricity.

The government, in its day, decided that it was going to change hydroelectric policy in this province. We’ve moved from a crown corporation to a partly privatized system that is now somewhat deregulated but re-regulated in a pretty difficult way. We find ourselves in the worst possible system of both worlds.

Electricity prices are more than double the rate that people have to pay in Quebec or Manitoba when it comes to electricity.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it’s higher than that. My point is that we’re way out of whack.

If you look at what you’ve got to pay here in Ontario, it is way, way higher than what you would pay in Quebec or Manitoba. Again, if you’re making a decision on where to invest and you’re saying, “There are dollars to build a sawmill, or there are dollars to build a new mine, because we’ve discovered one, and I can operate that in Ontario or I can do that in Quebec,” most will go to Quebec just on the price of electricity.

In fact, what we saw with the Xstrata announcement last December, when Xstrata decided it was going to close its smelter and refinery in Timmins, putting 700 people directly out of work—about 3,000 direct and indirect jobs—the key consideration for them leaving was electricity prices.

The government says, “Oh, those people from northern Ontario, they’re making noises about hydro power. Those pesky little mayors are organizing, coming together. The opposition and unions and economic development corporations and chambers of commerce are all speaking in one voice in northern Ontario. We’re going to try to silence those voices.”

What they announced in the budget last week was the northern industrial electricity rate. When you listened to Minister Duncan speak, he said it is going to reduce by 25% the hydro bill for an industrial user in northern Ontario. When I first heard it, I thought, “Well, that’s interesting. We’re still going to be higher than Quebec, but we’re not going to be as high as we were. That’s putting our foot in the door. The door is slightly open. Maybe we can push it open and get some more.”

Then we started looking into the details of what this is really all about, and it’s really a shell game. Currently, there is a program that provides roughly about a 20% to 25% reduction on hydro bills in northern Ontario—as I call it, the northern rebate program. It applies only to pulp and paper mills. On average, it means to say that if a qualifying mill gets into this program, they get about $18 per megawatt that they will receive as a credit towards their hydro bill.

This new program is being announced for three years, and it’s going to make a difference of $18 plus $2, which brings it to $20. What they’re doing is taking an existing program, renaming it as something else, and then they’re putting an extra $2 per megawatt into the system.

You say to yourself, “What is this going to do to change the economics of a pulp and paper mill in northern Ontario?” There’s not a pulp and paper mill in northern Ontario that isn’t already on the NR program. We were looking for a renewal of at least three years for the NR program. We’ve been trying for the last year or so to get the government to renew that program, because it is one of the key things that are allowing some of our remaining paper mills to operate.

What do we get? The government announces, yes, a three-year extension. They added $2, but it’s not a 25% decrease in electricity over and above what industry is already paying. What it works out to be is about $2 per megawatt. If you look at what it means to a paper mill that’s in Kapuskasing, currently it would mean that rather than getting a rebate of $18 per megawatt, you would get about $20 per megawatt.

Is it good? Sure, it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s certainly not anywhere near what the government has pretended to announce in its budget, which is a 25% decrease in electricity costs for industrial users.

I would argue that the $150 million added that was set in the budget, the $150 million each and every year for three years, so year 1, $150 million, year 2, year 3, they get $150 million into this program—I would be really interested in seeing if this includes the money that’s already being spent by the existing NR program. Is the government actually putting in $150 million a year? That’s what I ask myself. That’s something that we’re doing a bit of research on.

For the mining sector: Yes, the mining sector was not able to apply to the current NR program, and what the government is saying in this budget speech is that for the northern industrial electricity rate, any industrial user now may be able to apply. But I have a little bit of news for you: $150 million a year when it comes to reductions in electricity rates is not enough money to cover the electricity bill of all the industrial users. If you look at Kidd Creek alone, they’re using a million megawatts per year. If you figure out what that is worth, that in itself, just with that one company, if you were to apply the logic of the 25%, is a big dent in the $150 million a year. So—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I’m going to get to that in a second. I’m not even at that yet. But my point is, the $150 million a year, even if it was new money, does not cover all the industrial users in northern Ontario, so somebody’s going to get left out. As you take a look at what they have said in the budget, it is going to be a program that you’re going to have to apply to, and you are going to have to be accepted. Not every industrial user will benefit from this program, and most of them are already in the NR program, so it won’t mean a hell of a lot in the first place.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am pleased to welcome into the gallery the father and godmother of page Erin Gaudette: Matthew Gaudette and Lynn Gaudette, from Tecumseh, Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m pleased to introduce a couple of individuals, one from my riding and one from Windsor.

George Bahdi is here as my guest. I also want to mention that his son Lucas, for his birthday, raised over $1,100 for victims of the Haiti earthquake disaster. Congratulations to Lucas.

The other guest I’m pleased to introduce is Reem Bahdi, who is George’s sister. She’s an associate professor and a co-director at the University of Windsor.

I’m pleased to recognize both of them here with me today.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to recognize Professor Mark Langer, who is with us in the gallery today. Mark is the president of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations. He is kindly inviting all members to their third annual Queen’s Park reception from 3 to 6 today in rooms 228 and 230. Please come.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have the great pleasure to introduce two grade 10 classes from Oakwood Collegiate. They told me they’ve heard a lot about the MPPs here and they came today to see how real MPPs behave.

Mr. David Zimmer: It’s my pleasure to introduce two visitors from the energy sector here today: Mr. John Brace, the president and CEO of Northland Power; and Rick Martin, the manager of renewable energy. They’re here to talk about renewable energy projects.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member from Nepean–Carleton as she celebrates her fourth anniversary in the chamber, and the members from Whitby–Oshawa and Parkdale–High Park, as well.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On April 9, we will be celebrating the anniversary of the Vimy Ridge victory in World War I. Almost 3,600 Canadians died in that victorious battle, and 10,600 people were injured and wounded.

I have purchased from the Vimy Foundation 107 pins for all members of the Legislature to wear prior to April 9 to recognize this momentous victory and this very, very proud day for Canada.

Later this afternoon, I, along with my colleagues Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Prue, will be presenting a bill to the Legislature to recognize this day and to ensure that our flags at Queen’s Park will be flown at half-mast on April 9 to recognize the tremendous sacrifice that our veterans made for us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to wear this pin in the Legislature before and during April to recognize this very, very special date and the sacrifice of our wonderful troops in the past so that we will never forget it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the Ombudsman, André Marin, was looking into your LHINs and now you want to show him the door. We now find out that you’re still handing out untendered contracts to Liberal-friendly consultants through the LHINs, and now, all of the sudden, you want to kill the public review mandated by your own legislation of the LHINs.

Millions of dollars in untendered contracts have gone to Liberal-friendly consultants through the LHINs, including the Courtyard Group, and all we get from the Premier and his minister are more denials and excuses rather than accountability. This certainly looks a lot like eHealth. Premier, what are you trying to hide?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the importance of LHINs and the value that they bring to the integration of our health care system.

I know that all of us in this House—indeed, all of us in this province—understand that we have to do things differently in health if we want to maintain a very strong, universal health care system in this province. The LHINs are doing that very hard work that is driving the integration between our hospitals, our home care sector, our long-term-care sector and our community services, supports like Meals on Wheels, for example, that keep seniors in their homes as long as possible.

I completely support the model of the LHINs, and we will continue to strengthen the LHINs as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, your LHINs are an absolute mess, and all you’re doing is looking the other way.

Our freedom-of-information records reveal that your LHINs have ignored your so-called new rules against untendered contracts on at least six different occasions to date. When the Premier said that the government and all of its agencies will no longer allow untendered contracts for consultants, you didn’t actually mean all cases, you meant when it was convenient; you meant some cases.

Back to the Premier, who dodged my first question: Where exactly are the exemptions to your rules in untendered contracts listed, so the public can find them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do welcome the opposition doing their job and shining the light on aspects of our government that we need to look a little more closely at.

As a result of yesterday’s questions, I did look more closely at the six contracts they were referring to—let’s have a little clarity here—all of which were extensions of existing contracts to allow a certain project to be completed. There were extensions granted so the job could be completed. For example, the Waterloo Wellington LHIN had a project on rural health. They need a little more time to finish the project; that extension was granted.

We have clarified with the LHINs that that transition time is now over and that all new contracts and existing renewals will be going through the tough new protocols we have established.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now we understand: The Premier’s so-called new rules apply only when the Premier wants them to apply. We have seen abuse at the LHINs—these creatures are a mess—and we see again that there was no asterisk, there was no separation clause, there was no way out when the Premier made his announcement on his so-called on-again, off-again ban on untendered contracts. When we find out the LHINs have ignored this, the minister seems to just shrug it off.

Our FOI requests show that now, some $7 million in untendered contracts has been handed out to Liberal-friendly firms through your LHINs. This has become some kind of second career program for disgraced eHealth consultants.

Minister, why did you cancel the mandatory review of your LHIN? What exactly are you trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the people at home who are watching this need to understand there are two elements to the Conservative Party’s health platform. One is to freeze spending or cut spending, depending on which document you look at; the other is to abolish the local health integration networks and bring all of that decision-making back to Queen’s Park. That puts them in a very strong position to close more hospitals and to decimate the health care system, to continue with the work they did when they were in office to really undermine the foundation of the health care system.

That is not our approach. Our approach is to make decisions as close to home as possible. The best decisions are those that have the buy-in of people in the communities. That is the work the LHINs are doing, and I support that.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. I hope the Premier will answer my question about the growing scandal at his regional health bureaucracies.

Speaker, you’ll remember when we brought up the $15 million that the Premier gave to the Toronto Central LHIN during the mayor of Winnipeg’s by-election campaign, and you will remember the name Barry Monaghan. Barry Monaghan, Premier, as you well know, is a well-connected insider who collected $351,000 from the Toronto Central LHIN a year after he resigned as its CEO.

Premier, are you at all concerned about the fact that Monaghan handed out an untendered consulting contract to the Belcourt Partners just months before he left the LHIN to take up a job with the Belcourt Partners? How can you justify that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to take this opportunity to object to what the—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do want to take this opportunity to take a moment to talk about the calibre of the person that the member opposite chooses to once again embark on a smear campaign on. Barry Monaghan is a highly respected health care professional in this province. We in Ontario are very lucky to have his services available to improve health care for patients in this province.

Some time ago, the member opposite raised the issue of Mr. Monaghan and described him as a Liberal-friendly consultant. Indeed, when we actually looked at what party he had donated to in the past, we found that he had made a political contribution—to the Conservative Party.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister, and I know the minister sounds like she is a friend of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development.

Start the clock. Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the minister wants to defend Mr. Monaghan. He may be a friend of yours, Minister, but that doesn’t mean that you exempt him from the rules. The rules apply to everybody equally.

We saw that your friend Mr. Monaghan handed out $300,000 in untendered contracts, including a deal to Jan Walker of Belcourt Partners. Previously, Jan Walker had been the chief information officer for Mr. Monaghan when he was CEO of West Park Healthcare Centre. After Mr. Monaghan left the LHIN, Jan Walker rewarded Mr. Monaghan with a job. So here’s the bottom line: Barry Monaghan handed out an untendered contract to himself.

Minister, how are you going to hold him accountable, or are you going to look the other way?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will definitely look into this situation. The rules are very, very clear. They apply to everyone. If there has been a problem, I will learn about it and we will take the appropriate steps.

Mr. Monaghan, just for the information of the people in this House, has an exemplary career in this province. Before taking on the position of CEO of the Toronto Central LHIN, he was the president and CEO of West Park Healthcare for 18 years. Before that, he was the CEO of the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital for five years. He was chair of the pediatric Cardiac Care Network of Ontario and also a past chair of the Ontario stroke strategy. Under the Conservative government, Mr. Monaghan served as chair of the Cardiac Care Network for seven years. I take objection to the smearing of people who are working very—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question is, what is the minister going to do about it? I will note that the Premier has dodged five consecutive questions on the growing rot in his LHINs. This is looking an awful lot like eHealth, where the Premier denied and dodged and handed off the tough questions to his health minister. Your failure to address these serious problems shows a growing stench at your LHINs that smells a lot like eHealth. They stood by their CEO at eHealth, Sarah Kramer, when she handed out untendered contracts to Liberal-friendly consultants, and now you’re standing beside Barry Monaghan, who one-upped Sarah Kramer by handing out an untendered contract to himself.

I ask the minister, why are you stopping the review of the LHINs? Why are you sidelining the Ombudsman? Why won’t you stand and fight for Ontario families and get those dollars into front-line care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are absolutely working to get dollars into front-line care. We are working very hard to integrate services so that the patients of this province get the services they need when they need them, as close to home as possible. That is what we are striving for and that is why we have put in place local health integration networks, to really help us drive that change.

Speaker, I’m sure that you and others will be interested to know that the examples that the member opposite has raised all happened before the rules were changed. There are new rules in place. The rules we inherited in 2003 were no longer acceptable; we changed them. We’re enforcing them, and that’s the way forward in this province.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. A report yesterday by the Toronto Board of Trade said that this city ranks dead last in commuting times. Toronto needs investment in new light rail to help people get around the city. Instead, the Premier is threatening the Finch and Eglinton lines, the Scarborough RT and Viva bus service in York region.

My question is a simple one: How can the Premier justify a move that leaves people in some of Toronto’s hardest-hit communities waiting and waiting and waiting?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to take the question. I note with some passing interest that there’s an apparent change of heart on the part of the NDP. We have invested some $9.3 billion in public transit during the course of the past six or seven years, and on each and every occasion the NDP voted against those measures. Notwithstanding that, I welcome her support for public transit now, particularly in the GTA and in Toronto itself.

What we have decided to do, just to be perfectly clear, is we have not cut or put a stop in any permanent way to any plans for our investment in public transit in Toronto. What we have decided to do, given our economic circumstances, is to take a bit more time to make those investments. We think that’s responsible and we think that’s reasonable and in keeping with our circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The board of trade says that the average commuter here spends 24 minutes longer in her car than a commuter in Los Angeles, a city defined by highways and smog. That’s “embarrassing,” says the board of trade, who gave Toronto a D—a D—in their transportation report card. How can the Premier slam the brakes on better public transit for working women and men who were promised it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just so we get a good sense of what we’re talking about here, we put in $9.3 billion, and if you compare that with the previous government, that’s about $9.3 billion more that we put in on our watch. I think you should also understand what we’ve done when we’ve had occasion to do so. In 2006—that was a year that the economy performed better than we anticipated, so we had about an extra $650 million, and we decided to put that into public transit.

This year, the economy is not performing as well as we would like it to. We needed to find about $4 billion in savings. We decided not to find that in our schools, not to find that in our hospitals, but instead to merely slow down our investments in public transit. I think when Ontarians understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, they’ll agree that it’s reasonable and responsible.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the province wants to make this particular city a world-class city, which they often talk about, transit actually needs to be a big part of that; not just for the people who can pay for a private train to the airport, but for the working mom who actually wants to get home before dinner so she can have dinner with her kids.

Instead of replacing MoveOntario 2020 with “SlowOntario to Whenever,” will the Premier keep his promises on jobs, on the environment and on the future?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I welcome my honourable colleague’s belated support for public transit, especially in the city of Toronto.

I do want to assure the people of Toronto in particular, and of the greater Toronto area insofar as they’re affected by these investments, that these investments will continue, but given our economic circumstances, we cannot proceed as quickly as we would have liked to. We have decided to slow these down rather than make cuts to our schools and hospitals. Those are the choices that we made. We think they’re reasonable, we think they’re responsible, and we believe they’re in keeping with the values shared by Ontario families.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Congestion costs $3 billion each and every year in lost productivity, and the Premier wants to somehow talk about the economy in the context of pulling $4 billion out of this project. Transit gets people to work on time, makes shipping more efficient and creates jobs. When the Premier announced his support for Toronto transit, he said it would create 175,000 jobs. How many jobs is he killing with this wrong-headed budget plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very clear from the work that’s going on in the city right now, whether you talk about the $874 million that’s being spent on the Georgetown South corridor to support the Pearson-Union air-rail link, or the $416 million for TTC streetcars, or the work that’s being done on the Sheppard light rapid transit line right now—all of those projects are going to add to the transit infrastructure in this city.

The party opposite did not support those investments. They have not supported investments in public transit that we’ve made. We’re going to continue to put those investments in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, there’s a lot of talk going on over on the other side, but according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities infrastructure calculator—this is an infrastructure calculator that that organization puts together—taking $4 billion out of a transit system is going to cost 0.5% in GDP and almost 50,000 jobs. How can the Premier tell Ontario families that a plan that increases commute times, kills 50,000 jobs and hurts our competitiveness is actually good for us?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What’s good for us is that we provide the public services that the people in Ontario need. So as we made our decisions regarding the budget, we had to protect those schools and protect those hospitals; we had to look for a way to slow down some of the investments that we’ve made.

Before we came into office, there was no investment going into public transit in the city of Toronto; there was no investment going into public transit across the province. The gas tax alone has provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to municipalities around the province to allow them to grow their transit infrastructure. In Toronto, we provided $172 million for the revitalization of Union Station. On the Sheppard East light rapid transit line we’re going to extend from Don Mills to Meadowvale Road—it’s on that line that the people whom the member opposite—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that the Premier’s move will have a real impact on jobs and the economy. People will wait longer to get to and from work, small businesses will struggle in a city with North America’s worst gridlock, and the good jobs lost will hurt families from Toronto all the way to Thunder Bay.

Why is the Premier abandoning a commitment that families across this province were counting on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are following through on our commitment to build public transit in the GTHA over the next five years. What we have said is we need to slow down those investments. I think the people of Ontario understand that in order to be responsible, facing a $21-billion-plus deficit, we had to make some difficult decisions.

We are not backing off on our commitment to build public transit in the GTHA. We continue to make investments in the city of Toronto, and there will be hundreds of millions of dollars going into public transit today, next year and the year after that.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, Premier McGuinty’s excuse for breaking his own law and cancelling the review of the LHINs was that his unaccountable, unelected and anonymous bureaucracies have yet to take on all of their responsibilities. But according to the home page of the Ontario local health integration networks, the LHINs took “full responsibility for health services in their communities” on April 1, 2007.

You want to fire the Ombudsman. You want to cancel the public review of the LHINs. What do you have to hide?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the decision to delay the review of the LHINs until they have had the full mandated responsibilities.

As I said earlier today and other days, the importance of the LHINs cannot be overstated. The future of health care demands that we integrate services at the local level. We cannot continue with siloed services, where the hospitals do one thing and the community care does another and long-term care does another without the integration that really works for the patients to smooth the transition from one level of care to another.

It’s important that we take the review of the LHINs very seriously. When the legislation was passed, I think it’s fair to say that we underestimated—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would like to point out that this is the seventh consecutive question we have asked on the LHINs that the Premier has refused to answer. Why is he letting the minister respond for his words in this House?

The LHINs say that they assumed responsibility for their full mandate three years ago. Premier McGuinty has become so tired and arrogant that he can’t be bothered to get his story straight with his accomplices at the LHIN. Meanwhile, the culture of rot is spreading right across the McGuinty Liberal government.

You want to fire the Ombudsman, you want to cancel the public review of the LHINs, and you have run out of excuses.

Will you scrap your ill-conceived schemes and let Ontario patients see exactly what you’re trying to hide in these bureaucracies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Just to correct the member opposite, the LHINs have not yet assumed full responsibility for all of the aspects of care. Indeed, they get responsibility for long-term care this coming July. So that is in fact after the deadline for the review in the act.

We don’t think it’s in the best interests of the people to Ontario to embark on a review of an organization that has not yet taken on their full mandate. It will be an all-party review, a select committee of the Legislature, that will look at the act to determine what improvements we need to make to the act to provide the kind of integrated care we are determined to provide.

But we are continuing to work to improve the LHINs as we go along. KPMG has completed a review of the LHINs. That report is posted online. Twenty-seven recommendations—they’re all being implemented.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A question to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Minister, are your projections that the Second Career program will train an additional 30,000 unemployed workers based on the old criteria for applicants or the new criteria you imposed in the fall of 2009?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m very happy to respond to the question.

I’d first like to announce to the Legislature that I got news this morning that we have hit over 28,000 individuals who have benefited from Second Career.

As the honourable member is aware, the success of the program, despite the criticism—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: As the honourable member knows, despite the criticisms of the opposition, the program is a great success. We hit 20,000 last fall, and we redesigned the program, promising another 8,000 spots that we’ve met. In the budget, the Minister of Finance indicated funding for a further 30,000 spots.

The member asked about the criteria of the program—

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

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That’s why I asked a simple question: because I hoped he would be able to answer it. Instead, he avoided the whole thing.

Your projections reflect the old rules, not the new ones. We have heard from many unemployed workers over the last year, workers who invested time and energy applying to get into the Second Career program, only to be rejected and abandoned by your ministry. There is no way that 30,000 unemployed workers will be approved by the Second Career program in the next two years under the current criteria.

Are you prepared to change the qualification criteria to guarantee that 30,000 unemployed workers will be approved for the Second Career program?

Hon. John Milloy: The targets that were brought forward in the budget are based upon the existing program. That being said, we have always said to all stakeholders that we want to make sure that we get Second Career right. We continue to meet and consult with individuals to find out ways in which we can strengthen the program and ways in which we can provide training and retraining opportunities to Ontarians. I repeat again: 28,000, when that member and members of his party were standing up—and members of that party—and asking us to scrap that program.

I have met dozens and dozens of individuals in the Second Career program who tell us about the success, the way their lives have taken on new meaning because they have completed training programs and moved on to jobs. During the throne speech, we had the privilege to have Jason Boylan here, an honourable young man who, after being laid off in the auto sector, has gone and rebuilt his life at Fleming College, is moving on to a job—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, our province, like many other jurisdictions around the world, has felt the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m finding it difficult—I would ask the members to remember what the member from Davenport said. Order.

Please continue.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Our province, like many other jurisdictions around the world, has felt the negative effects of the recent global economic downturn. A number of Ontario industries were hurt as a result. Production was down, and people were out of work.

Ontario’s automotive sector was particularly affected by this recession. Employment in this sector fell and production lines were idle as auto companies scaled back to make up for lagging demand. The downturn in the auto sector was felt right through the supply chain as well. The auto parts sector was forced to make cutbacks in order to adjust to the dwindling demand for their products. More people lost their jobs. My Durham constituents were particularly sensitive to and impacted by this.

As our province begins to emerge from the recession, we have seen progress in a number of industries. It is for this reason that I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: What is the current state of the automotive sector amidst all of this recovery?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I appreciate the question from our member from Pickering–Scarborough East, whose area has a number of people who are totally engaged in the automotive sector. Why this is especially a happy day for us is that we’ve had yet another good-news announcement, this time from Honda Canada. This morning, they did announce that they will be adding 400 people to their operations in Alliston. We want to congratulate them.

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: It is encouraging to see such developments in the province’s auto sector and to hear about Ontarians getting back to work. In light of this news, I’d like to take the opportunity to congratulate Honda Canada on their announcement this morning. This is definitely welcome news for the people of Ontario.

Minister, in your response you mentioned that a number of key announcements in the auto sector have been made recently that indicate there is a recovery taking place within the auto sector.

Beyond the announcements made today by Honda Canada, could the minister give this House further examples of such announcements from major auto companies that show Ontarians that our auto sector is on the mend?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: You know that today’s announcement, with Honda adding 400 jobs in Alliston, increases production by 50%. We’re delighted by that. The Acura, those vehicles, are doing very well in our market and beyond.

In addition, General Motors is recalling 600 workers in Oshawa to meet demand for the Equinox. They’re adding 70 more people at the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. We are delighted about that addition.

We have seen the Chrysler plant—in particular, the Windsor van plant—running flat out to meet demand. That is a very good sign. We know that people are starting to buy cars again. Thankfully, they are buying great Ontario-made vehicles.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, and even today, your excuse for breaking the so-called tougher rules and handing out untendered contracts was because these were contract extensions for work that couldn’t wait.

Minister, I don’t see where in the Premier’s get-tough message there is any room for that excuse. Exactly what were Beth Snyder Coaching or Batchelor and Associates doing that was so urgent that their contracts could not be put through a competitive process?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I again welcome the opportunity to talk about the nature of these contract extensions that happened after the rules were changed.

There was a period of time where it was appropriate that the work that was under way be completed. That time is over. All new contracts now are going through the rigorous procurement process that we have put in place, and that includes renewals.

I’m more than happy to talk about some of the work that was being done. The Waterloo Wellington LHIN had a rural health review under way. They need a little more time to complete that review. The Erie St. Clair LHIN had a contract to complete their integrated health services plan. That’s the foundation of the LHINs’ work, to bring the advice they receive on their public consultations into a document that’s—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Two particular contracts that I referenced earlier—our freedom-of-information records reveal that the Central LHIN handed an untendered contract to Beth Snyder Coaching and Consulting for administrative consulting. She invoiced for board meetings and a “consensus discussion on accountability.” Freedom of information also reveals that Batchelor and Associates was contracted for communication and media relations, specifically, newsletters, annual reports and brochures. Neither of these consultants improved front-line care for patients, and there’s no excuse for avoiding a competitive bidding process.

You want to fire the Ombudsman and cancel the public review of LHINs. Minister, exactly what is your government trying to hide here?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Just to be clear, no one is talking about firing the Ombudsman. His term is up, and there is an all-party process that will put a new Ombudsman in place.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

As I was saying, the Ombudsman is not being fired; his contract is up. In fact, what we have done is extended it because we believe in the idea that there should actually be an opportunity for others to apply for the job. It will be an all-party committee that will decide who the next Ombudsman of this Legislature is.

When it comes to understanding the work of the LHINs, I think people understand that the LHINs’ function—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I’m sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s a little late. Members, particularly from Lanark and Renfrew, need to be more respectful of this House.

New question.

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This morning, Ontario’s fairness commissioner released a report that shows the so-called Open Ontario is closed to many new Canadians. Skilled immigrants who come here with the promise of work in their field instead find endless roadblocks and frustration. Only one in four skilled immigrants find work in their field, and those who do find work in their field earn half what their Canadian-trained counterparts do. This is a disgrace. Will this government admit that its system is failing new Canadians?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First, I want to thank the fairness commissioner for her report that she’s issuing today and the recommendations contained therein, and particularly for her commitment to this issue. Over the coming weeks, certainly my ministry and my office will carefully review this report and its recommendations, which include not only recommendations for this government but also the regulatory bodies and the assessment organizations that are responsible as well for this process, and for the federal government.

Helping newcomers succeed in our province is not only good for them, but also crucial to our economic prosperity. I should remind the member opposite that Ontario led the way: We were the first in Canada to introduce legislation, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, to ensure that the process of getting licensed in a regulated profession is transparent, fair, objective and impartial.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: It appears that this government has moved straight into damage control. Today’s event with international medical graduates is nothing more than a last-ditch effort to deflect attention from your very real failures. The commissioner’s report finds that international medical graduates are the least likely to complete the Ontario licensing process: Only 18%, or one in six, do so. In August, the practice-ready assessment program closed—your ministry closed it—leaving even more IMGs without opportunity. This government talks a good line, but in reality it does nothing.

Why won’t this government confront its obvious failings and commit to opening Ontario to all of our citizens?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There’s no question that all of us need to do more to help our newcomers integrate successfully, including into our workplace here in Ontario. That is what this government is doing, not only through the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, but we need to work hard and we are working hard with employers to ensure that they are providing the opportunities for our newcomers and those who are in the regulated professions, as with all newcomers.

We’re working closely with our arm’s-length agency and the fairness commissioner, Jean Augustine. The report that she issued today is certainly a big step in the direction to provide ourselves as well as the regulatory bodies with the information that we all need to make a difference and improve the situation. Unlike the member opposite and his party when he was in government, who did nothing to introduce a commissioner to review such practices or legislation to help newcomers, this government is serious about helping our newcomers integrate successfully.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the government, we have the responsibility to provide Ontario families and taxpayers fair, accountable and sustainable programs that deliver results. Importantly, we must also help people facing challenges by giving them the tools they need to get ahead.

In the recent budget, it was announced that the special diet allowance program will be eliminated. Can the minister tell us directly why the special diet allowance has been eliminated?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you to the member from Brant for his question. This government’s Open Ontario plan and the poverty reduction strategy are about results. The special diet allowance was originally intended to assist our special assistance recipients with the extra costs of a special diet due to a medical condition, prescribed by and approved by health professionals.

As I have highlighted in the Legislature before, the cost under the special diet allowance went from $6 million in 2001-02 to over $200 million this year. Should the program have continued in its current form, the special diet allowance would have reached an expenditure of $750 million by 2015-16. This program was no longer sustainable and was not achieving its—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the minister’s response and I know there are some concerns that have been raised about this. I also appreciate the government’s continued commitment to increasing social assistance, even this year, despite the economic downturn. But we must also ensure that those vulnerable in Ontario who need assistance for severe medical conditions receive the help they so desperately need.

Can the minister tell us what this government is doing to ensure that those with severe medical conditions receive the assistance they need, and what other measures is this government taking to ensure that we continue to remove those barriers that exist for those on special assistance? I need to know those answers for my constituents.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This government is committed to ensuring that those most vulnerable with severe medical conditions receive the additional assistance they require. This is why our budget announced that we will be establishing a new nutritional supplement program over the next few months to allow for a transition period that will be administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Also, we will be implementing a number of changes as a result of the recommendations from the Social Assistance Review Advisory Council. Initially, policy work will focus on exempting small payments and in-kind gifts, shortening the suspension period for non-compliance with participation requirements, clarifying the rules for disposing of assets in relation to eligibility and changing the shelter allowance calculation—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Today we find that you’re asking ratepayers to pay an additional 9.6% for electricity next year. Every time you speak, it seems it’s going to cost Ontario seniors and working families a lot more for basic services. This latest shock is just one in a series of ongoing increases. You’re no longer nickeling and diming Ontarians to death; you are now relieving them of loonies and toonies.

Minister, when are you finally going to admit that your energy policy is strangling—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Finance will withdraw the comment he just made.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Withdrawn.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, when are you finally going to admit that your energy policies are strangling the people in Ontario who can least afford it?

Hon. Brad Duguid: One would think, as critic for energy for the number of years that this member has been critic, that he would understand the role of the Ontario Energy Board. This is an application that is before the Ontario Energy Board. It’s a very normal process to go through. It is not a 9.6% increase for all consumers. It’s an increase they’re applying for for their portion of the bill. That being said, it’s an application. This isn’t an automatic approval process. It’s not unusual at all for the Ontario Energy Board to take a very good look at these increases—and often they drop them down.

Sometimes they don’t allow them at all. The member is absolutely jumping the gun here. I’m not sure what his motivation to do that is. But the fact is, this is not an increase; it’s an application.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister would like to pretend that these things aren’t going to happen. People out there know they’re going to happen. They’ve been happening.

Your former colleague told us in this Legislature that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean–Carleton will withdraw the comment. My back may be hurting, but my ears are good.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Your former colleague told us in this Legislature that the Green Energy Act would only amount to a 1% increase in energy bills per year. What a bunch of hooey. Let’s look at the facts: This latest increase, together with the 8% you’re going to whack people with on July 1 with the HST, double-digit increases in the distribution rates and the sneaky $53-million increase you put through the back door last week have brought seniors, families and small businesses to the breaking point. This amounts to an over 41% increase in electricity bills in Ontario. How much more can they take of the scam you call an energy policy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I could respond in many ways to that last comment, but I think I’ll refrain from doing it because I think it’s important that the people of Ontario, after hearing what the member just said, understand what he’s really talking about, because he clearly doesn’t.

We’re talking about an application that’s before the Ontario Energy Board by Ontario Power Generation. It’s not unusual for applications to come forward. The Ontario Energy Board has been put in place to ensure that any of these applications are looked at with regard to the interests of consumers and with regard to the future sustainability and reliability of energy in this province.

We’re going to let them do their job; that’s what they’re there to do. They’ve often looked at these applications and made decisions that roll them back or cancelled them altogether. We’ll let them do their job.

The member can say what he wants; he can try to tell people information that may not—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Each and every day, millions of Ontarians depend on local transit to get to work, to their shopping, jobs, and all kinds of other things. Municipalities rely on the Ontario bus replacement program to upgrade aging buses and improve services. Now the McGuinty government is cancelling this program completely.

In Ottawa, the average age of buses is 16 years, and many buses are close to the end of their lifetimes right now. Thanks to the McGuinty government cuts, riders in Ottawa will face increased breakdowns and service interruptions.

My question is this: Why is the Premier undermining public transit by cancelling the bus replacement program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member opposite is aware that the Ontario bus replacement program has allowed municipalities to replace a substantial percentage of their bus fleet over the last few years.

I know the member opposite is also aware that the gas tax, the two cents per litre of gas tax, flows to municipalities. In fact, although we did make a decision that we had to change the Ontario bus replacement, we’ve opened up the gas tax so that now municipalities can actually use that gas tax in the way that they need to, to supplement the replacement of their fleets.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I know the minister knows that municipalities are still being strangled by downloading in this province as well, and it’s not just Ottawa that’s being affected by this bus replacement program cut. Thanks to this government’s cuts, the city of London is going to lose half of its replacement budget for buses. Windsor riders will see $2 million a year pulled from their transit system.

Municipalities need long-term, stable funding to plan new routes, to buy new buses and to build new garages. Will the Premier admit that it is wrong to cut a program that is so vital to transit users, and when will he reverse this very wrong-headed decision?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite asks the question about a specific program but neglects to look at the entire picture, which is that the gas tax funding is distributed to 92 transit systems in 118 communities across the province. That gas tax, that two cents on the litre of gas tax, provides hundreds of millions of dollars to municipalities to allow them to increase transit ridership. The whole point of the gas tax program was to provide funding to allow that ridership in public transit to increase.

We have changed the rules around the gas tax funding so that municipalities will be able to use that money to supplement the replacement of their fleets in the changes around the Ontario bus replacement program.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. As spring arrives, we begin to put the winter behind us and the heating season behind us.

Northern Ontario boasts fabulous winter recreation opportunities, from skiing to snowmobiling and everything in between, but it does have a longer, colder winter.

The north has also been impacted more severely than the rest of the province by the global economic climate. Its resource, tourism and manufacturing sectors have been hit hard.

Last week’s budget proposed much-needed help for individuals and families through the northern Ontario energy credit. Could the minister elaborate on that proposal?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely right: Residents of northern Ontario do have very different energy needs than those in the rest of the province. The McGuinty government recognizes that there are some very unique challenges faced by northerners. That’s exactly why the 2010 Ontario budget is focused on making life better for northern residents.

The northern Ontario energy credit will undoubtedly play a

part in that plan. This credit would be offered to both homeowners and renters and would allow for significant yearly savings. Families, including single parents, would save up to $200, and individuals could see up to $130 back in their pockets.

For 2010, about a quarter of a million families and individuals, over half of northern Ontarians, would benefit from about $35 million in assistance.

I want to commend our northern caucus for the leadership and—

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I’m confident that my constituents will receive this credit very well and it will no doubt make a difference in their day-to-day lives and improve the quality thereof. But there is an important group in the north that could also benefit from the energy savings; namely, industrial businesses.

During this economic downturn, jobs were hard hit in the north, with employment falling at more than twice the rate of the rest of the province. The cost of running a large industrial facility in the north is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with, particularly when it comes to energy costs. The cornerstone of this government’s new Open Ontario plan is the creation of jobs and economic growth. What is the plan to address these issues in the north, especially as they relate to direct and indirect costs of electricity?

Hon. Brad Duguid: In addition to the northern Ontario energy credit for residents, our government is introducing the northern industrial electricity rate program. It’s a three-year program that would average about $150 million in annual savings. By providing electricity price rebates of two cents per kilowatt, large northern industrial facilities will be able to reduce their electricity costs by 25%. All we ask in return in order to qualify for the credit is for these facilities to commit to an electricity efficiency and conservation plan for the future.

Not only will this program help northern industry to create jobs, it will also help protect jobs as well. Right now, what northern Ontarians need most is certainty in uncertain times.

Again, I want to thank Minister Gravelle for his leadership in coming forward with this northern Ontario growth plan. I know this new northern industrial electricity program will contribute—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. I listened with some interest to the Premier’s response to questions earlier today regarding the $4-billion cut to the Metrolinx budget. He stated very clearly that it was intentionally a slowing down of the implementation of the transportation plan. I know that the Premier agrees with all of us that the issue of gridlock is essentially important to Ontario and that we should not be slowing down in any way the plan that the province has through Metrolinx to deal with that issue.

I want to ask the Premier this: Would he not agree, rather than slowing down the funding of Metrolinx, to slow down the $7-billion subsidy to Samsung under which there are no guarantees of jobs, under which there are no guarantees of benefits to—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I gather that this is a spend question, that my colleague is in favour of us in fact elevating the level of our deficit and perhaps even requiring that we take longer to eliminate the deficit than we have planned. We can’t agree with that.

I say to my honourable colleague—I know he’s open to these kinds of reasonable arguments—we feel that the best thing to do in the circumstances, instead of making cuts to our schools or to our health care, is to extend the time frame to stage these projects in a way that is better suited to our economic circumstances. I think our record on public transit demonstrates our commitment to that, and what we’re prepared to do, in keeping with the circumstances, is just stretch this out a little bit longer. We think that’s fair and reasonable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I want no cuts to health care and I want no cuts to education. What I do expect from the Premier, however, is that he would prioritize his former commitment of some $9.3 billion to Metrolinx and transportation infrastructure over subsidizing an offshore company that has no guarantees for the people of Ontario either in jobs or benefit. That’s what I would ask.

Failing that, I would ask the Premier, will he at least mandate Metrolinx to pursue alternative financing arrangements so that these projects can proceed with private sector funding support, so that we don’t have to slow down the infrastructure projects in the province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are two dimensions to this that I want to speak to. One is, it’s an interesting day in Ontario when the Conservative Party stands against a $7-billion investment in our economy which will create 16,000 manufacturing jobs and also position our province and our economy to take advantage of a burgeoning green economy south of the border. That’s something new.

Secondly, we have asked Metrolinx to take a look at these projects—the ones that we’re talking about at the TTC, the ones that we’re talking about extending. We’re asking them for their very best advice as to how we can proceed as expeditiously as possible with these investments, being mindful of our economic circumstances today. That includes, I say to my honourable colleague, taking a look at alternative means by which we can pay for these projects.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you would know that last week and again this week I requested, on behalf of the coalition to save the closure of the refinery/metallurgical site at Xstrata, to meet with you in order to discuss possible ways to keep that facility open. You have refused to meet with that coalition. I wonder why you would say no to the mayor of Timmins, who is requesting, as a member of that coalition, to meet with you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this question.

A few things on this: I have had an opportunity to chat with the mayor of Timmins, and I’ve had an opportunity to meet with some representatives from Xstrata.

My colleague and I have been exchanging notes, as recently as 30 minutes ago, on this very issue. It has been brought to my attention that there is a group of elected representatives who will be coming to Queen’s Park. I want to say to my colleague what I said in my note: If that’s in fact the case, I think I have an obligation to meet with that group, and I’d like to be able to arrange that, working with my colleague so we can find out who’s coming and get it at a time that is, obviously, in keepin