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

April 7, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Apr-07 (PDF)

L105 - Thu 7 Apr 2011 / Jeu 7 avr 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 April 2011 Jeudi 7 avril 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER TOMORROW

FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR DES LENDEMAINS

MEILLEURS POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

TAXATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

NUCLEAR ENERGY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO FARMERS

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

FOREST INDUSTRY

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

WASTE MANAGEMENT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

PRATT AND WHITNEY CANADA

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

BOB MACKENZIE

AL HEBBURN

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

JOHN ARNOLD TORY

ARMY CADETS

HIS EXCELLENCY KAORU ISHIKAWA

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL

PARKWAY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA PROMENADE

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

RURAL SCHOOLS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HOME CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DOCTORS’ DAY

AGENCIES, BOARDS

AND COMMISSIONS

SUNSET REVIEW ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÉEXAMEN

DE L’UTILITÉ DES ORGANISMES,

CONSEILS ET COMMISSIONS

DOCTORS’ DAY

AGENCIES, BOARDS

AND COMMISSIONS

SUNSET REVIEW ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÉEXAMEN

DE L’UTILITÉ DES ORGANISMES,

CONSEILS ET COMMISSIONS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER TOMORROW

FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR DES LENDEMAINS

MEILLEURS POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act respecting 2011 Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires de 2011, l’affectation anticipée de crédits et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments? The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m doing the reply.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pardon me.

The member from London–Fanshawe.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Durham yesterday speaking about many different issues, especially about the budget matter. I know he’s not happy about many different things, but as a matter of fact, this budget was an incredible budget. It tackled many different issues in our lives: education, health care, infrastructure, farming.

It’s very important for all of us in the province of Ontario to strengthen our ability as a community for education, for health care and for infrastructure, to build the future for the people of Ontario, to build the communities, to build schools, to invest in our education system, to increase the capacity in colleges in order to host many different, talented students in the province of Ontario, and also to expand our health care, to open more hospitals and provide services for nurses, and through screening for many, many people facing cancer, breast cancer—potential cancer patients.

All these elements were in the budget, and I hope the member opposite, when he decides to vote, votes in support. This budget is important to all of us to maintain our ability, to maintain our prosperity and to build a good future for the province of Ontario, to build a solid future by supporting all the elements, not just the cities but also the farming communities.

I know that the member from Oxford was happy for the component of support for the farmers. Hopefully, he’ll stand up and support this budget, because it will mean a lot to his people in his riding. I had the chance to work in his riding for many years. I know how happy the people of Oxford would be if the member from Oxford stood up and supported the budget, because it supports this community; it supports the farming community. I know he’s in touch with the farming community a lot.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Despite what the government says is there, I would say to you that the feedback I’ve had from the people in my riding of Kitchener–Waterloo is that this budget did not address the issues that were important to them. And I would say for them, at the current time, that they’re simply trying to catch up.

This government has hit them hard. Since 2003, they have introduced a health tax, even though the Premier indicated he wasn’t going to raise taxes. And so again, there wasn’t honesty on the part of the government. Since that time, we’ve seen the introduction of the HST, which, again, has created tremendous hardship for people in the province of Ontario. They’re now being forced to pay the HST, particularly on the energy costs and on gas and on many, many other aspects of their life, and it’s causing extreme hardship. In fact, I know they’re looking for relief, and this budget just pretended people were not suffering.

Also, you didn’t really deal up front about what you tried to do, and that was the introduction of the eco tax. So when people take a look at your budget, they see that you’re not able to address the deficit. In fact, we know now that missing from your numbers was any money that was going to be required for capital for the rollout of full-day kindergarten. In fact, that’s in the newspaper today.

How much else is not in your budget? How much additional spending is there going to be? How much is that deficit going to increase? How much is the debt going to increase, and who’s going to pay for it? You have no plan. You only have a reckless spending plan and to tax—

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

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: It’s my pleasure to respond to the member for Durham and his words yesterday, and also to address the words that were just spoken by the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

To set the record straight and to let the people of Ontario know how the people of Waterloo region are feeling, I have a quote, a comment here from the Waterloo Region Record. As reported in the Record, John Colangeli is the CEO and the director of Lutherwood. Lutherwood does great things for children in the community, certainly children’s mental health. He is a community activist. He works very hard to stand up and support the people of Waterloo region. This is a not-for-profit health and social service organization.

John Colangeli had this to say in the Waterloo Record: “It’s pretty rare that you see children’s mental health in a provincial budget. It’s wonderful news.” So the people of Waterloo region are, in fact, saying this is wonderful news.

This budget not only addresses mental health for children and youth; it also looks at health care. Supporting more than 90,000 breast screening exams for women is actually monumental. It means so much for women aged 30 to 49 who are at high risk. We know that one in nine women in Canada will face breast cancer in their lifetime, so this is something that speaks directly to them and supports them in their lives.

In terms of education, over 60,000 additional post-secondary spaces are going to be made available, and of course in my riding, Kitchener–Conestoga—the three townships of Wilmot, Woolwich and Wellesley—the farmers are happy. The risk management program, extended for grain and oilseed and now for sheep, hog and cattle, is a very good thing and the farmers are happy in Waterloo region.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: First of all, I want to commend our critic for the Ministry of Finance for his presentation and explaining what is not in the budget.

What is in the budget is bad news for the majority of citizens. What is not in the budget is what we have to worry about even more, which is that the budget is written in such a way that it’s a recipe for taxation. That will be done after the money has been spent.

I want to speak quickly to the comments from the member from London–Fanshawe. He talked about the risk management program and that the farmers in Oxford county and the rest of Ontario are pleased with that. I would agree with him that farmers are pleased with that, but I would point out to the member that that’s not in this budget bill. There is nothing in this budget bill about risk management at all.

One of the things that is in

schedule 1 is that subsection 25 of the agricultural and horticultural act is being changed. The act “currently deems a local organization committee that hosts the annual International Plowing Match to be an agricultural society for the purposes of a tax exemption under the Retail Sales Tax Act. The tax is no longer applicable and, consequently, subsection 25(4) of the act is repealed.” That sounds kind of benign, except that up until now, admittance to the International Plowing Match was tax exempt. They’re taking the tax exemption away and applying 13% tax to the admission into International Plowing Match.

I’m not sure why the members opposite didn’t mention that they have tax increases in this budget that, in fact, are going to hurt agriculture.

They don’t speak about the business risk management program in this bill at all. The reason that they don’t speak to business risk management is because the minister could have implemented that any time in the past four years without the budget and without the fanfare that they made out of it. They just decided that this was a great time to announce it, and then hopefully she will proceed to implement it, but we’re not so sure that’s going to happen.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I first want to pay some respect to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka and, of course, the member from York–Simcoe, who spoke yesterday and, I believe, outlined some of the gaping holes in the promises and the expectations in this budget. In fact, if I could be more specific, they clearly said, first, that there’s no respect for the taxpayer in this bill or our youth in the future. There’s growing debt, growing liabilities.

The second thing: They saw through this clearly, and the people viewing today or yesterday would know that this is an election budget. They’re not telling the whole story, and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo just said it. She met with the education community yesterday. The money simply isn’t there for the programming.

The member for Haldimand—our critic for agriculture, Mr. Hardeman, said this morning, just now, that the risk management plan is another gaping hole.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: I just know him as the Minister of Agriculture because that’s what he always was, and that’s what he should be. You don’t call ministers “the member from Oxford”—and most of southwestern Ontario.

The point I want to make is, there are several troubling schedules. I think one of them is

schedule 15. It’s something that you should be very, very concerned about.

Schedule 15: Take a close look at it. It’s an exemption for disclosures in health care. I looked at Ron Sapsford’s salary that was discussed here—$765,000. What’s the minister saying? Nothing. That’s almost a million dollars. Imagine how many children with autism could be helped with that, how many emergency procedures in hospitals could be done with that, how many long-term-care beds that would provide.

The fact is, they’re spending the money so recklessly and so carelessly, with so little respect for the taxpayer, it’s no wonder that our leader, Tim Hudak, has urged us to speak loud and long and vote against this budget: because it’s a disguise.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my privilege today to address this budget bill. As you’re well aware, Speaker, the budget that is brought down by a Minister of Finance, by a government, expresses its priorities, says what’s important to it and tells us what its strategy is for the province, whether that is a strategy to build the economy, a strategy to address social services or both together. The budget is a fairly critical document.

I’m going to talk about three fairly large pieces in this document that I think reflect the strategy of the government, and then there are a number of items that I want to address in somewhat more detail.

But before I do any of that, I want to note that in this budget, in an election year, there is no mention of climate change or action on climate change. At this point in 2007, the Premier was coming out and saying that action on climate change was the moral challenge for our generation. The moral challenge for our generation seems to have disappeared from the government’s priorities and books. Not in this budget, even though the last report that we got from this government on climate change made it very clear that the government was not going to be able to meet its targets, even implementing every program that they brought forward. We’ve heard virtually not a word from them since then.

Today we have a budget from Minister Dwight Duncan, whose strategy for dealing with Ontario’s economic problems can be summarized as tax cuts, the building up of public-private partnerships and the cutting of public services. That is not a strategy for this century. That strategy is one that we’ve seen implemented in other jurisdictions. We’ve seen it implemented in

part in Canada before.

The reality is that that is not a strategy that will build up your economic base. That is not a strategy that will deal with your social problems. That is not a strategy that will rebuild the infrastructure and the well-being of the people of Ontario. That is a strategy that, more and more, Americanizes our society. When I say “Americanize,” because there are many aspects to American culture and society, I mean one that will increase inequality, have the market further dominate the relations between people in society, and a society in which there will be more conflict and more tension.

I want to go first to the whole question of corporate tax cuts. As I had an opportunity to say earlier this week, I was able to see the Minister of Finance make his presentation to the Economic Club of Canada last week—a well-done presentation; can’t argue with that. But over and over and over again, the point that was made by the minister was the centrality of corporate tax cuts to his economic development strategy, without a doubt, saying that without corporate tax cuts there would not be investment, there wouldn’t be jobs and we wouldn’t have the kind of development and manufacturing economic infrastructure that we need here in Ontario.

So it was with some real interest that I saw the

article in the Globe and Mail yesterday, front page, byline Karen Howlett. The headline was, “Corporate Tax Cuts Don’t Spur Growth; Designed as Economic Stimulators and Job Creators, They’re Going to Cash Reserves Instead, Analysis Shows. That’s an analysis that in fact we’ve seem from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We’ve seen it from trade unions. We’ve seen it from a variety of academics.

But it is not common for that to show up on the front page of the Globe and Mail—quite an analysis to put forward. Frankly, when you look at what they had to say, in many ways, they had gone to the data that had been presented by the academics, verified it for themselves and presented that case to the Canadian people. The case they’ve made to the Canadian people is one that can be made to the people of Ontario specifically as well.

I’m going to quote some of what they had to say. They write, “Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses.”

So as we ignore the child care sector, as we see more and more child care centres facing rising fees and disruption because they don’t have the money to make capital investments, as those child carers struggle with the introduction of all-day kindergarten—a good thing but one which is being implemented in a way that undermines the child care sector outside of schools—we are engaged in giving away billions of dollars to major corporations that are not creating jobs with that money. They’re socking the money away.

You have to ask yourself, why is it that the people of Ontario are making these sacrifices? Why are they going without in their daily lives? Why are they sitting for hours in traffic because the transit that’s needed to move people along isn’t being built? Why are they dealing with long periods in emergency rooms? Why can’t they get child care? Why can’t they get daycare for their elderly parents, many of whom are struggling with dementia? Why are those pressing social needs being set aside just so some of the richest corporations in Canada can sock away more money and pay bigger bonuses to their CEOs?

You really have to ask yourself that, because this government, this McGuinty government, has decided that it is good public policy to make wealthy corporations even wealthier and to starve the public sector, starve the people of this province of the services they need to get on with their lives.

The Globe mentions that corporate tax cuts are becoming a major issue in the federal election, and they’re quite right.

It’s entirely reasonable that they should become a major issue because, in fact, it isn’t just Ontario that has engaged in this policy that leads nowhere; the Harper government is deeply committed to a policy that leads nowhere with corporate tax cuts, just as the federal Liberals, who, under Paul Martin, introduced the biggest corporate tax cuts in Canadian history—so they claim—are currently, for entirely opportunistic reasons, saying, “That’s where we get the money for the social programs that we promised when we were in government and we never delivered on.

Now, okay, we can see a source of cash.” You can assign the credibility to those comments that you want to.

But I want to say that if you look at the reality in Canada, those corporate tax cuts have not led to investments in machinery and equipment that would make Ontario workers more productive. They have not led to investment in factories, in workplaces that would give them more work. They have not led to an increase in wages. They have led to enrichment—enrichment not of the population as a whole, but enrichment of those at the very top.

The Globe and Mail writes here: “Successive federal governments have chosen the latter path”—that’s the path of additional corporate tax cuts—“in recent years in a bid to make Canada more competitive and attractive to international investors. In 2000, the combined federal-provincial tax rate was just over 42%, ranking Canada near the top among industrialized nations. The combined rate has since fallen to 28%, placing the country in the middle of the pack, and Conservative leader Stephen Harper’s goal is to reduce it to 25% by fiscal 2013.”

They go on to write: “Businesses were widely expected to use the extra money from successive rounds of tax cuts to build factories and offices and buy new machinery and equipment. At one time, they did just that. From 1960 until the early 1990s, corporations invested almost every penny of their after-tax cash flow back into the business.”

But that was then and this is a very different now. The Globe and Mail goes on: “But the tax cuts appear to have reversed decades of tradition. Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5% in 2010 as a share of Canada’s total economic output from 6.8% in 2005 and 7.7% in 2000, the Globe analysis shows.”

From the time that Paul Martin gave the biggest corporate tax cut in Canadian history, investment in Canada by corporations getting those tax cuts has dropped dramatically. This government, following Paul Martin, following Stephen Harper, has decided that even more tax cuts is the answer, is the way forward, when in fact even the recent history of the last decade makes it very clear that that is not going to give us jobs; it’s not going to give us investment; it is going to give us eye-popping bonuses for CEOs and extraordinary amounts of cash in those corporations.

The Globe says, “The McGuinty government doled out $4 billion in tax breaks over three years to businesses in its 2009 budget as part of a package of reforms to help kick-start an economy hit hard by the global economic recession.

“Ontario represents just under 40 percent of the national economy, so its cuts went a long way toward lowering the overall Canadian rate, Mr. Duncan said.”

Our party leader, Andrea Horwath, countered by saying, “The focus … should be on making life easier for families, not harder.”

She rejects those corporate tax cuts. The NDP rejects those corporate tax cuts. This is a pathway that leads to a society with unrepaired bridges and health care that is not sustained by public funds, a place where schools crumble and students—young people—are paying tuition that is a huge burden on their lives. That is the effect of this decision. It does not give us the kind of life that we expect or that we deserve. The McGuinty decision to follow Stephen Harper’s options is one that everyone in this province should reject.

Now, I want to note as well that Erin Weir, a prominent economist, has written about this whole issue of corporate tax cuts in Ontario. He notes on April 6: “The latest Statistics Canada figures indicate that private non-financial corporations have stockpiled $456 billion of straight cash (Canadian dollars plus foreign currency). That total does not include cash stockpiled by banks and crown corporations or near-cash items like short-time paper.”

Corporate tax cuts that lead to half-trillion-dollar cash balances in the hands of corporate Canada are not building our economy. They are leading to increasing division in this society: extraordinary wealth at one end, growing poverty at the other and stagnation for the middle class at the centre. Middle-income people ask, “Why is it that we can’t get ahead? Why is it that we are hard-pressed? Why is it that we can’t afford to send our kids to university or to college?”

They wonder why, with two people working, they can’t cover their bills. Well, when huge volumes of cash are taken out of society, when social services are reduced, when social supports are undermined, it’s no surprise that middle-income families find they are struggling just to stay in place and low-income families find that they’re falling behind. That’s the reality.

There have been arguments made that perhaps corporate tax cuts do a good thing. We’ve seen, in some areas, purchases of equipment. The reality is that if you have a higher Canadian dollar and you can buy some things more cheaply, you will. The corporate tax cuts lead to cash in hand, not jobs for people in this province.

I want to note that Mr. Weir also gives his incoherence award to Dwight Duncan. He says, “In an interview on Tuesday, [Ontario] Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said he supports Mr. Ignatieff’s policy” of opposing corporate tax cuts “even though he himself is under siege by opposition members for presiding over corporate tax cuts.”

This is pretzel contortion time. It is an impressive feat to put forward a policy wholeheartedly at the centre of your budget at this level and to say at the federal level, “No, no, the policy doesn’t work.”

He goes on, “‘The feds could have actually taken their foot off the gas pedal in terms of corporate tax cuts because of what we’ve done,’ Mr. Duncan said.”

This is fascinating to me and to Erin Weir. He says, “So, the purpose of provincial corporate tax cuts is to reduce the need for federal corporate tax cuts?” There is no logic in that. There is no logic. In fact, there is a huge lack of principle.

This budget is a mimic of the neoconservative agenda that we have seen in so many places, and this budget is one that is not going to deliver the jobs or the services or the economic future that the people of Ontario deserve and hope for. This budget is continuing to pave the foundation for the decline of Ontario as a major economic power.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives just recently released a study, authored by David Macdonald, actually looking at the impact of tax cuts on companies: What happened when they got that cash? He was looking at the argument that corporate tax cuts create jobs—a big argument made by the Conservatives in this election. That whole assertion has come under increasing scrutiny, taken from various angles.

CCPA focused specifically on job creation. They looked at “Canada’s biggest public companies, those on the S&P/TSX composite and tracked them over the past decade to see how their taxes and profits changed.” He writes, “At the same time, I also tracked how many employees they had and therefore the number of jobs they created. These are the companies that benefit the most from corporate tax cuts because they declare the largest profits.

“There were 198 companies that had data from 2000 through 2009.” He writes further, “What readers should find shocking is just how dramatic the transformation in corporate taxation has been in the past decade. The effective tax rate that these successful companies have paid has been cut in half. Imagine if, as an individual, your personal income taxes had been cut in half over the past decade; well, that’s what happened in corporate Canada.

“With such a dramatic change, it should be no surprise that compared to 2000, profits are up 50% while taxes paid are down 20%. The tab for corporate tax cuts for just these 200 companies is $12 billion a year in lost provincial and federal revenues. To give readers a sense of scale,” he writes, “that much money could buy us a national $10/day child care program and wipe out poverty among seniors, with money left over.”

We are talking about a vast transfer of wealth that the McGuinty government is not simply abetting; it is putting forward that transfer of wealth; it is undermining the basis for existing social programs; it is undermining the basis for those services that the people of this province need. Child care, health care, education, the ability to get to work on transit that you can afford—all of those things are undermined by this strategy.

Mr. Macdonald goes on to say, “The bargain that Canada made with its most profitable corporations was that if we give them dramatic tax cuts, they’ll use that money to create jobs. We’ve cut the cheque, worth $12 billion a year in 2009, so did we get the jobs?” Apparently not. He writes, “The Canadian economy as a whole has increased the number of jobs by 6% since 2005. However, the 200 companies that are receiving the $12-billion-a-year tax break have only increased their job numbers by 5%; in effect they are pulling down the average.”

You would think, with $12 billion a year, as the most outstanding recipient, the recipient who gets the most from these policies, that you’d be able to pull ahead of the average, that you would be creating more jobs—at least, that’s the mythology that’s promoted in this chamber by the McGuinty government. But in fact, that’s not what the numbers show. That is not the reality in this province. That is not the reality in this country. Why this government is following a discredited policy is a question only they can answer.

All I can say is that if you look at the numbers and the real historic experience, this is an investment that undermines our economy, undermines our society and undermines our families and leaves some people, some companies, extraordinarily rich.

I’ve heard the argument that we need to have lower tax rates so that we’re competitive with other jurisdictions. I just want to note that in Canada, without these changes that have been coming forward, Ontario is already equal to or lower than almost all provinces except for BC, Alberta and New Brunswick. These are not our major competitors for new manufacturing. There are competitors that are around the Great Lakes: Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania. On average, the combined tax rates for those jurisdictions is about 36%; Ontario’s down at 28.5%.

It’s one thing to be competitive. It’s one thing to be within the range of those who are near you. It’s another thing to undermine your financial base, your ability to educate and to provide health care and child care, your ability to provide a safe and secure society that comes from social spending. That’s one thing. It’s another to make our society one that will be far more uncertain in the future because, increasingly, wealth is concentrated in a small number of hands. The majority of people are finding themselves stressed, carrying a huge economic burden, all for an ideology of lower corporate tax rates that doesn’t deliver the goods.

There are a number of people who had comments on this budget. I’ll give you a few comments from stakeholders. In the labour sector, “three years of corporate tax cuts have bled the public coffers dry and manufactured a recession in the public service. The government’s plans to cut another 1,500 public sector jobs, on top of the 3,400 that were axed in the last budget, will deprive many—including the unemployed—of the services they rely on.” That’s OFL secretary-treasurer Marie Kelly.

Or, “How can the government identify children’s aid as a source of savings at a time when programs for abused and neglected children need a major infusion of cash just to keep afloat?”—Smokey Thomas, president of OPSEU.

I have a few other stakeholders’ comments as I go through, but I have to say, the reality is that this government has decided whose bank account they are going to magnify and whose they are going to pillage. For most of Ontario, most families and most working people aren’t the people whose bank accounts are going to grow. They’re the ones who will get pillaged.

The next piece I want to address is the proposed merger of Infrastructure Ontario, the Ontario Realty Corp. and the Stadium Corp. This Bill 173 provides the enabling legislation for the merger of Infrastructure Ontario, the Ontario Realty Corp. and the Stadium Corp. I’ll read out precisely what the budget says. “Building on Infrastructure Ontario’s success: Building on IO’s track record and success at delivering infrastructure projects on time and within budget, the province intends to expand the role and mandate of IO into new sectors and a broader range of projects. These changes will result in greater efficiencies and more savings for the province.”

We in the NDP are very worried that a form of infrastructure financing that is considerably more expensive than the traditional public model will be expanded into energy and municipal projects and used at a far greater scale than in the past.

Up until now, the government has been implementing a $2.5-billion, five-year capital budget of projects structured as public-private partnerships, P3s. The majority of P3s have been large hospital projects, as well as justice projects, such as courthouses—one of which was cancelled in this budget, leading to further delays in adjudication of cases.

Under the Liberals, P3 deals are done under the direction of Infrastructure Ontario. This agency supports ministries, municipalities and the broader public sector in their transactions with private sector consortiums that finance, provide project management during the construction phase and almost always assume at least some ongoing property management and maintenance functions once the project is completed.

In some hospital P3s, these private consortiums assume responsibility for food preparation, cleaning, laundry and even payroll-related services, although, frankly, this varies with each project. A typical consortium consists of at least one major financial institution—a bank or a pension fund—construction companies and property management concerns. Traditional non-profit hospital boards run the core health functions of the P3 hospitals, but exactly where these core health functions end and functions such as cleaning and maintenance begin is open for negotiation.

The money for P3s is borrowed from the private sector financial institutions that are part of consortiums and is paid back over a 25- to 30-year period. The principal-plus-interest payments are funded out of the operating budgets of relevant ministries, for instance, hospitals or the Ministry of Health. The government admits that financing costs will be greater under the P3 approach because the projects will have to borrow at higher rates than the government.

The actual interest rate spread between P3 rates and the government borrowing rate may not be great, but the extra interest and principal costs add up substantially over a 30-year period. That means that the public, the people of this province, pay more for those projects. More money comes out of their pockets when, in fact, as you well know, Speaker, there’s not a lot left in there now. That approach is one that makes this province poorer.

The biggest extra costs associated with P3s are the risk premiums paid to the consortia in return for the consortia assuming various sorts of cost overrun risks. These risk premiums actually add more to the cost than the higher private sector borrowing cost.

I have to say that we had the opportunity recently to hear from a fellow named John Loxley. He came and made a presentation at the Legislature in one of the committee rooms. A number of MPPs were there. His book is entitled Public Service, Private Profits: The Political Economy of Public/Private Partnerships in Canada.

I’ve had the opportunity in estimates to question previous Ministers of Infrastructure about these public-private partnerships, and I have looked at the cost difference between the public-private partnership projects and a publicly financed project. There’s always a big cost difference that’s called “risk,” because if you do 50 or 100 projects, after a while you get a sense of what kinds of overruns are common.

I’ve pointed out to previous Ministers of Infrastructure that that risk number is awfully big. It’s very useful for saying that, in fact, a public-private partnership is a better deal, but where does that number come from? Who actually does that analysis? What Mr. Loxley had to say to us, and he’s well respected for the work he’s done in this sector, is that it was Andersen accounting that did that number that all these public-private partnerships are justified by.

For those who don’t remember Andersen accounting, now no longer with us, they were the auditors for Enron. And if people remember Enron, with its extraordinary funny-money approach to financing energy deals, one knows there’s all kinds of fun that can be had with numbers. Andersen accounting doing the estimates upon which hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds are allocated, Andersen accounting providing the backdrop to a policy that results in higher costs to the people of Ontario, gives me no comfort, should give you no comfort, Speaker, and should not give the government of Ontario any comfort.

But, in fact, their analysis is used to justify public-private partnerships. That analysis should be thrown out the window.

Set aside risk for a moment. Let’s look at the cost just coming from interest, an analysis of the Brampton P3, public-private partnership, hospital deal based on a spread of 6.73%, the actual Brampton project borrowing rate, versus 5.56%, the Ontario government bond rate at the time, over a 27-year period. For those who are watching at home who don’t like hearing speeches with lots of numbers in them, my apologies, but it’s important to get on the record exactly what the numbers are.

Based on borrowing $536 million and a repayment period of 27 years, interest and principal payments would total $175 million more under the P3 model than under a traditional public sector model—175 million bucks. That’s of consequence: $175 million gives you a fair amount. Just in comparison, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, in its pre-budget submission, said that in order to stabilize the daycare system, what was needed in this year’s budget was $100 million and in next year’s budget, $200 million. The amount of money that we have overpaid in one hospital is equivalent to one year of making sure that the daycare system in this province functions properly.

That’s the scale of public money that is wasted. That is the scale of public money that is put into the pockets of very profitable companies when the people of Ontario go without in health care, education, child care and environmental protection.

Experts in the field of infrastructure finance have suggested that the interest rate spread between the actual public-private partnership borrowing rate and an Ontario government bond will be in the 0.5% to 1.25% range. On a $500-million project paid off over close to 30 years, this is likely to mean anywhere between $60 million and $165 million in extra repayment costs by going the public-private partnership route, the P3 route. That’s a 15% to 30% premium. That’s a lot. These are substantial numbers.

You may ask, and sometimes, Speaker, I know you do ask, “Where is the money going? Why can’t we provide these services? I have constituents who have problems that are not addressed by this government. Why can’t they afford it? What kind of waste and inefficiency do we see coming from the McGuinty government?” Well, I can tell you right now: Look at how they deal with these projects, and be well aware that they’re making sure that we are spending more than we need to spend.

Payments under the P3 schemes start on the completion of the project and, as indicated above, the cost of the project will hit the province’s books over a 25- or 30-year period. Taking that approach of P3s that has been used in hospitals, that are costing Ontario dearly, and expanding that into the energy field, expanding that into the municipal field, dealing with a broader range of infrastructure projects, will undermine public finance and reduce the services that the people of this province can receive. This is one of the more disturbing pieces of the budget. Corporate tax cuts: wrong idea. Expansion of P3s: an expensive idea. It’s not good for us, not good for Ontario.

This government has also decided to look at not just having P3s for large infrastructure projects but also to look at a variety of alternative delivery mechanisms for public services. If you read the budget, you’ll see that there are a variety of nice phrases about non-profits, government to government.

But I’ve watched these processes before, and my expectation, and the expectation of people in this province, should be this: that, more than anything, this will be the basis for privatizing the delivery of public services—delivery that people in this province will pay for through both reduced services and increased costs. This government is continuing to add to the growth of inequality and the undermining of public services in Ontario.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union wrote a letter to Premier McGuinty and Minister Duncan about the commission on broader public sector reform, the vague title that this whole effort is covered under. Smokey Thomas, the head of OPSEU, wrote that he was very, very concerned about this commission, as was I. He’s put together some good arguments here that I want you and the public to be aware of. There’s no doubt in his mind that the commission is what he calls “a search-and-destroy mission” when it comes to public services. He writes:

“Your plan in the budget to wipe out 1,500 jobs in the Ontario public service in addition to the 3,400 job cuts previously announced means that entire programs will be eliminated. The Ontario public service is already” struggling. “It cannot deliver the programs it does now with fewer staff. Your government has been given that message by deputy ministers and other senior staff.

“The commission”—the Don Drummond commission—“will finish the job—not only for the Ontario public service but for the rest of the broader public sector. We will undoubtedly see recommendations calling for cuts to public programs and services, privatization on a large scale and new schemes to reduce wages and benefits for a downsized public sector workforce.”

I want to say this to you: Most people don’t see public services as distinct entities. As long as they’re functioning—as long as the roads work, the hospitals are running, the schools are open, the universities are open; as long as someone is out there dealing with any oil spills or environmental problems—they’re largely invisible to them. But underneath all of that, when you cut those services or when you privatize those services, failures start to become visible.

During the SARS epidemic, I had an opportunity to talk to a number of friends who, involved in the public health departments in this province, were struggling to deal with what was before them. They were stretched to the limit. If another crisis had occurred, they could not have dealt with that.

The reduction in services—one part—and the privatization of services, which I think will assist with the first, is not going to help people here in this province. Families want those services to be invisible. They don’t want a public health crisis. They don’t want headlines in those areas. What they want is their families protected and their health safeguarded. They want things to function in a way that doesn’t cause drama in their everyday lives.

But a program of privatization and cuts in the public sector, in the services that people depend on in their daily lives, is one that, unfortunately, really has the opportunity to introduce drama into their lives. They don’t want that. We shouldn’t want that. This government shouldn’t want that, but in fact, their approach is going to deliver that.

OPSEU asks, “Why do we say that we’ll see more privatization and a reduction of wages and benefits for a downsized public sector workforce?” He writes, “Because this is exactly the vision laid out in one of the business-funded reports quoted in the Ontario budget, Shifting Gears: Paths to Fiscal Sustainability in Canada.

“This report, written by University of Toronto faculty and ‘supported’ by accounting firm KPMG, envisions a provincial government that solely sets policies and standards. The report advocates that other ‘actors’ deliver services and, alarmingly, ensure compliance with government standards.”

The authors of that report cited in the government’s budget, in the McGuinty budget, talk about it as an equity issue. They think that we should be underpaying public workers, just as private workers are underpaid.

That is not the goal. We in this Legislature should be fighting to make sure that people who work in the broader economy—farmers, small business people, people working in factories, people who work for the broader public service—have a higher standard of living in common. That’s what we should be looking for. Attacking, undermining, downsizing, cutting public workers who deliver the health care, education and child care that families in this province depend on is not going to help the people of this province, not going to help our economy and not going to build for the future.

Don Drummond, TD Bank economist, was appointed chair of this commission—not a good sign. For the last year, Mr. Drummond has been putting out misinformation, trying to get public acceptance for increased privatization of our health care system.

“His predictions that health care would take up 80 cents of every program dollar gained widespread coverage”—I’m quoting Smokey Thomas here—“despite the fact that the trend line was actually going in the opposite direction. Health care has declined from 46 cents of the program dollar to 42 cents within the last three years.

“As a percentage of our overall economy, public spending on health care has been stable for close to a decade.”

This budget approach of privatization, of shrinking public services, of shrinking services families need, is one that we will regret as the years go on, one that will undermine our ability to build a 21 st -century economy in Ontario. This budget did not put families first and did not make life more affordable for them. In fact, it put corporate taxes first and leaves families paying more.

Liberals have said that they’re turning a corner, but in fact, they’re on a road that is not going to take us anywhere. It leaves families behind in the dust. It’s a budget that defends a status quo that isn’t working. It’s a budget that this government cannot be proud of, a budget that, in fact, this government should be ashamed of.

What’s missing from this budget? Nothing to make life more affordable: Instead of taking the HST off hydro and home heating, the government ignored household budgets. Nothing to create jobs: Instead of tax breaks for companies that create jobs, the government is sticking with their strategy of no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways. Nothing to protect front-line patient care: The budget has a vague plan to cut $800 million from health budgets, and hospitals are getting a cut in real terms, but the government still won’t cap health care CEO salaries.

What kind of budget is this, given the state of this province, given the state of our economy, given the social problems that we’re facing? Not a budget that will be remembered fondly, not a budget that will be seen as solving the problems of the people of Ontario, but simply adding to them.

There are a number of things that concern us, and I’ve addressed a few of them. This is a budget that simply preserves the status quo. While life gets more expensive for families and other provinces create more jobs, the Premier and his finance minister insist that their plan is working. Well, talk to people out there who are trying to make a go of it. I think you’ll find out they don’t believe that their plan is working.

Their plans to look at privatization, as I’ve outlined, are not a good direction to take. We’ve learned from Highway 407 what that means.

Health cuts: The Liberals are proposing 60,000 new post-secondary spaces—proposing; they haven’t delivered. But they don’t mention that Ontario has the highest tuition fees in Canada, and there’s nothing in the budget that addresses the cost of post-secondary education. Talk to young people anywhere in this province. Talk to them after they’ve graduated from university or college. Talk to them about the burden that they are carrying from those high tuition fees. It is not a pretty picture.

It is a picture of people whose early work years are burdened with huge debt payments, debt payments they’re trying to make to avoid even more interest costs in the future. This government has not addressed that issue.

The Liberals are proposing a “deficit review committee” that will report after the next election. That’s the kind of thing you do when you know you’re going into an election and, when asked about something, say, “I have appointed a committee. They will look into it and they will report”—conveniently, after election day. What will the plan be? Who knows. Will it protect the people of this province? Will it be one that actually engages in totally irrational and destructive deep cuts to the services people depend on? Who knows.

What we have got with that is a commitment to fill a campaign flyer with a little piece that keeps whatever speaker from the Liberal Party is on the spot with some material they can use.

Liberals are proposing a new risk management program for farmers, but farmers have been waiting for help for nearly a decade. Thank goodness that occasionally elections come along so that this government feels some vulnerability and feels they have to in some way address the concerns of the farming community. The Liberals are promising more breast cancer screening, but they don’t mention the clinics in London that were closed or how they forced breast cancer patients to fight for treatment. That’s the reality.

This government, as we skate towards an election, is looking for all the pieces that it’s got to put into its campaign flyers and putting those little bits forward: little promises, little dodges, little bits of wording that will help them, they hope, slip forward, slip through.

Liberals tout statistics to say their jobs plan is working. They commit $175 million in funding to a value-added job program led by the Ministry of Economic Development. In accordance with the federal-provincial arrangement, stimulus money will be extended into the fall. The government revised their 2011 job creation numbers downward from 139,000 to 116,000, and from 155,000 to 118,000 in 2012. That’s 60,000 fewer jobs than previously projected.

The government has confirmed its corporate tax schedule. Between this year and the next, the government is wasting another $400 million on corporate tax giveaways, part of the overall $4 billion. Our response to that is that the plan they put forward is not working for families. Ontario lags behind most provinces in recovering the jobs lost in the recession. Three years later, 16,000 jobs still haven’t come back. Ontario lags behind provinces like Manitoba—which, by the way, rejected the HST—and is holding the line on corporate tax giveaways.

The government’s own estimates show they’re projecting 60,000 fewer jobs than previously expected. Narrowly targeted tax credits for training, innovation and investment will create jobs; broad-based corporate tax giveaways won’t. At the beginning of my remarks, I went through those numbers, and I want to re-emphasize this: A strategy centred on corporate tax cuts only undermines the government’s ability to provide the services that businesses and families need to live well and to prosper. They don’t build an economy.

This government did not take the opportunity with regard to infrastructure to provide a comprehensive program that would ensure that whenever it’s economically feasible, provincial and municipal procurement projects give preference to Ontario- and Canadian-made projects, Canadian-made goods and services, like streetcars or subway cars from Bombardier in Thunder Bay. If we’re going to build our economy, we need to have that kind of focus on Ontario investment and purchase. We need to use the purchasing power of the government of Ontario—of the governments in Ontario—to build our manufacturing, to build our own economy.

The government has said that the HST leaves most people better off. The reality—and I had the opportunity to go through this in estimates with successive Ministers of Revenue—is that the HST is a $7-billion tax shift from businesses to people, $7 billion that used to be paid by businesses, now paid by the people of this province. The new tax on everything from gas to home heating is hurting already-struggling families. The government’s estimates are based on unbelievable claims about businesses passing along savings to customers.

Speaker, have you seen your gas bill reflect a passing-on of savings by those gas companies? Has your home heating bill gone down because of the generosity of those gas companies? I don’t think so. There are a lot better ways of creating jobs than providing large-scale corporate tax cuts or putting in place an HST.

It’s interesting, in terms of expenditure management. The budget states that expenses are lower than previously estimated and thus says, “We’re great managers.” Just the other day I was reading about Paul Martin and how he had the very conscious strategy during the 1990s to consistently underestimate his revenue and overestimate his expenses, so that—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I hear some howling from the other side—so that they could look as though they were performing so well. Paul Martin shifted the deficit down to the provinces. Paul Martin did an extraordinary job of impoverishing the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec by making them assume more of the costs that the federal government had covered in the past. We had a massive shell game, and at the end of it all, when the federal books looked better—not the provincial books but the federal books—then he gave what he called the biggest tax cut in Canadian history.

That was not good management. It may have been useful political management, because the heat was taken off him. Many major corporations became extraordinarily happy that they got all this cash, and as you are well aware, Speaker, over this last decade that cash was not used to actually put in place the equipment and machinery to make this country more prosperous; it wasn’t put in place to make Canadian workers more productive; it was put in place so that Canadian corporations could accumulate almost half a trillion dollars in cash. That doesn’t sound like a successful policy to me; it sounds like a bad policy to me.

I was around for the Canadian health and social transfer that Mr. Martin brought in, which led to an ongoing decline in funding for social programs and health care. This province complains that Ontario is paying too much of the health tax bill and the federal government not enough. Well, you know, that reflects the strategy of Mr. Martin to shift the cost of the deficit down onto the back of the province. That’s the reality.

This is a budget that does not deserve support. This is a budget that will mean harder times for most people in Ontario. This is a budget that sets the stage for privatization of public services, far wealthier corporations and more expensive hospitals. It does not set the stage for a province that needs to prosper in the decades to come so that young people have a future and families have decent lives.

Everyone in this Legislature should vote against this budget.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask all members to join me in welcoming to the Speaker’s gallery and the public galleries today Mr. Don McCumber, president of the Army Cadet League of Canada (Ontario); Marian MacDonald, executive director of the Army Cadet League of Canada (Ontario); Mr.

Ed Pigeau, president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Ontario Provincial Command; Lieutenant Colonel James Shields, deputy commander office, Regional Cadet Support Unit (Central); and cadets, officers and members of the Army Cadet League of Canada (Ontario) and parents, representing 106 army cadet corps in the province of Ontario who are here today to mark Vimy Ridge Day. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Ça me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de souhaiter la bienvenue en Chambre aux gens du Centre Pauline-Charron dans ma circonscription, avec leur directeur général, Léo Lavergne.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce some folks from the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. First of all, as you mentioned, Mr. Don McCumber—he is also the chair of the Vimy kickoff committee; a job well done, Don and your group—and also the cadets, with special mention to the newest cadet corps in the province of Ontario, from my hometown of Brighton.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, it has been seven days now since questions have been raised about the three quarter of a million dollars paid out to Ron Sapsford, the deputy minister who left under the shadow of your eHealth scandal.

Yesterday, the health minister told the media that questions about the sweetheart deal for the former deputy “should go to the Minister of Government Services because that’s where the arrangements are made.”

Minister, this is not a tricky question. Who actually cut the deal with Mr. Sapsford? Was it the health minister or was it you?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

The member from Durham. The member from Halton.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We need to have a little review of salaries and severance packages over the years, and I’d like to remind the members opposite of some of them. Let’s talk for a moment about a fellow named Gord Haugh, who billed, with the approval of the government and without a tendered contract, $25,000 a month to the Ministry of Health—$300,000 a year—to serve as a press secretary. And let’s not forget Eleanor Clitheroe, who was paid $2 million a year and $6 million in severance. Here is another old, familiar face to this House: Paul Rhodes, who billed Ontario Hydro—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Government Services: What an embarrassing merry-go-round of denying any kind of responsibility. The Premier points to the health minister; the health minister points to the Minister of Government Services; now you fob it off to the finance minister, and Ontario families get saddled with the bill at the end of the day. Who’s in charge over there?

Minister, yesterday you were thrown under the bus by the health minister. The health minister said that you sign off on deals like the one with the deputy minister, Ron Sapsford. Mr. Sapsford was paid three quarters of a million dollars. We don’t know if he worked for a single day, if he quit or what the reason is. Minister, if you weren’t accountable for the deal to Mr. Sapsford, exactly who was?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the first three years of the Harris-Hudak government, they paid out—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member of the fact of who was the Premier at the time. Thank you.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the government that the now-Leader of the Opposition served in—and listen to this number—they paid out $360 million in severance payments in three years. And who did they pay that to? They paid it to a whole variety of people, including civil servants whom they fired, then hired back as consultants at higher rates.

Let’s just review a few more. Former Ontario Hydro president Allan Kupcis got nearly $1 million in 1998 after he left. Carl Andognini: $1 million and a lifetime pension of $12,500 a month.

I’ve got a whole list. We’re going to keep reviewing them. You’ve got a horrible record—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, what about Ron Sapsford and the deal you cut with Mr. Sapsford? We’re seeing the same pattern of denial, of stonewalling, of dodging, of not talking about the questions that have been asked for seven straight days.

The minister seems to forget what this is all about—that money that was supposed to go to hospital services at Hamilton Health Sciences was used to pay off some kind of backroom deal to Mr. Sapsford for three quarters of a million dollars.

All we’re asking, Minister, is a very simple, straightforward question. The Minister of Health says that you signed off on these deals. The Minister of Government Services: You’re saying no, you didn’t sign off on these deals. You’re shaking your head “no.” Let me get you on the public record: Did you sign off on the deal? Was it the Minister of Health? Was it the Premier? Exactly who signed off on this deal with Mr. Sapsford?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Severance packages are based on contractual obligations and are signed off on by all the appropriate authorities.

But let’s talk again about transparency and accountability. What we did with Mr. Sapsford was in full public view. It was not hidden; it was in full public view. Each one of those hydro executives was expressly kept out of freedom of information and privacy by that leader and his party. They were a party of secrecy, of big expensive deals that went right to the bottom line of people’s hydro bills.

We have cleaned that up. We’ve brought transparency, and the people of Ontario are much better served by this government than they were by that government that gave away tens of millions of dollars.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: I will ask again of the minister who is supposed to be the integrity czar in this Legislature, the Minister of Government Services. Sir, this is your responsibility. You can answer the questions here during question period or you can answer them in the hallway. I will give you a chance to answer a very basic question. Was Deputy Minister Ron Sapsford, who resigned in the wake of your eHealth scandal, fired, did he quit or did he remain on the provincial payroll? Minister, kindly answer that simple question.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Oxford and member from Durham, please come to order. Your leader wants to hear.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I wanted to review some other contracts that were let that were a lot more money, even in current dollars—

Mr. John O’Toole: I hear a bus coming.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I think there’s a second bus coming.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Halton, we can secure him a seat on that bus back to Milton.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Durham; member from Halton.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Under the Leader of the Opposition and the government he served in, a gentleman by the name of Tom Long was granted $1.487 million by Hydro One at the time—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Your leader asks questions, and I trust that you do want to hear from the government. It’s extremely difficult for me, in my position, to hear from where I am, and I’m sure it must be for you.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A gentleman by the name of Michael Gourley—people will remember him—was an adviser to former Premier Eves. He received $3.7 million in untendered contracts. What makes this story even more interesting is, they paid him before the contract was signed. So a little perspective on these matters is always important, because a number of the members opposite signed off on all of those deals; a number of the members sitting opposite, who are now critical of our transparency and accountability, are just not being completely candid about their own record.

They gave away tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money. This government’s record—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: We’re seeing the exact same dodge, delay, dither and deny tactics that this government used during the eHealth scandal two years ago—a scandal, by the way, that saw the mother of all untendered contracts, that saw an absolute feeding frenzy of Liberal-friendly consultants for money that should have been going to health care. Two years later, Ontario families continue to pay the price for the eHealth boondoggle, and they haven’t learned their lesson; they’re using the same tactics. That’s why it’s time for a change in the province of Ontario.

I will ask the minister a very straightforward question, if he’ll answer one question: Did this deal go to Management Board, and who was there?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the Leader of the Opposition’s last year in government, their party—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We don’t want to hear about that.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They don’t want to hear this, but perspective is important—$662 million in untendered consultants, and they actively encouraged that.

I remind the member opposite that when we brought in the Public Sector Expenses Review Act in 2009, which requires expenses to be posted by ministers and their staff, they voted against it. There are a whole range of these; I’m looking forward to discussing more of them.

What’s important, is this party has invested in better health care, better education. We’re not going to let them and their friends cut all the—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, we understand your game here. You’ve dodged questions for seven straight days. You’ve had the Premier, the health minister, Minister Takhar, and now yourself refusing to answer basic questions. You can answer them here in the assembly; you can answer them in the hallway from the media; you can answer them from families, but you are trying to run from the eHealth scandal. But, sir, that is an albatross around your neck, and rightly so, because of the egregious waste of health care dollars to go to Liberal friends.

Let me ask you one last question. Ron Sapsford got a sweetheart three quarters of a million dollars. You tried to confuse the issue by saying it was severance, but obviously it was not. Is he still on the payroll? Did he quit? Why did he get expenses? Won’t you say one thing about what happened with Ron Sapsford and put the truth before the people who pay the bills?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s all in the public record; it’s in two spots in the public record. But what wasn’t in the public record and what constituted, to use the leader of the opposition’s language, “a dodge,” was when that previous government refused to put the hydro agencies under freedom of information and accountability. We did that. When we did it, we discovered a range of things. I remember the Air Canada Centre box that that member and his party purchased. A number of now-members of the opposition attended that box. We got rid of it after about two weeks in office.

What’s really important to the people of Ontario is, they know the investments we’ve made in health and education. What they want to know is: Why do they want to cut $3 billion from education and health care? How are they going to do it? How many hospitals will they close? How many nurses will they lay off?

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s a lie and you know it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The leader of the third party.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Here’s how things look in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario: Former—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member about the use of names.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s how things look in the McGuinty Liberals’ Ontario: Former Deputy Minister of Health Ron Sapsford pocketed more that three quarters of a million dollars in wages and benefits last year, even though he didn’t work a day as the deputy. At a time when Ontarians are struggling to pay the bills, how does this government justify paying someone three quarters of a million dollars for not working a single day?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The contractual obligations that we honoured were published in the public record. We have worked hard to make the investments that we need to make in health care, and those investments are yielding real benefits to all Ontarians. I had a chance to tour the new angioplasty unit at Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital a number of weeks ago, and a range of other opportunities over the course of time.

So I think we need to keep these things in the context of the enormous achievements we’ve made in health care over the years, achievements that I know the Minister of Health will speak more about later in question period. We’re proud of our record in health care. We have worked hard to deliver the best health care and education system this province has ever had. We’re going to continue to build on that record of achievement.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ron Sapsford’s golden handshake might just be the tip of the iceberg here. Today we’re learning that the former CEO of Ottawa’s Montfort Hospital got an even sweeter exit package. He left in 2009 but got paid more than $550,000 in 2010, and he will get the same in 2011. With emergency rooms closing, nurses being laid off and seniors being threatened with $1,800 a day just to stay in the hospital, how on earth can this Premier sit idly by while millions of dollars are shovelled out the door to executives?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me begin by saying that we welcome transparency and accountability. We have taken significant steps to improve the transparency so that we can have exactly this kind of conversation. The member opposite knows that arrangements regarding hospital CEOs are arrangements made between the board and the hospital CEO. I do want to say, though, that I think it’s very, very important that we remind hospital boards that they have a responsibility to the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer who is paying for these salaries and for these severance packages.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What we would welcome is some action on these fiascos; that’s what we would welcome. This Premier and his minister can’t continue to defend the indefensible. So instead, what does he do? He rewards it. How else can we explain the appointment of Rosemarie Leclair as the new head of the Ontario Energy Board? This is the same Rosemarie Leclair who, as head of Hydro Ottawa, spent almost $30,000 of ratepayers’ money on corporate box seats at Ottawa Senators games.

Things are clearly out of control and Ontarians are being fleeced. When is this Premier finally going to stand up and say enough is enough?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m delighted to stand in this place and talk about the credentials of Rosemarie Leclair. She served as deputy city manager of the city of Ottawa for a number of years. St. Joseph’s Women’s Centre gave her the quality of life award. She’s an honoured champion of the United Nations Association in Canada. She sits on the board of directors for the United Way and the board of governors of the University of Ottawa. She’s one of Canada’s most powerful women, as recognized by the Women’s Executive Network in 2010.

This is one qualified woman whom we’re very proud to have as our chair of the Ontario Energy Board, and I defy the NDP to find a better candidate.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. The Premier’s poor decision-making extends beyond the outrageous salaries and questionable appointments. He’s also stubbornly clinging to the notion that massive corporate tax giveaways will help Ontario’s economy, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

With so many Ontario families struggling to make ends meet, why is this Premier insisting on putting the needs of big corporations and profitable banks ahead of the needs of Ontario families?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These questions are kind of going all over the place today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The question was to the Premier.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thought it was the supplementary.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m delighted to take the question, and I’m always interested in the enthusiasm expressed by my colleagues opposite.

My honourable colleague has raised this issue a number of times over and that is the merit of, as she describes them, corporate tax cuts. I’d ask my colleague to bring some fresh perspective to our government’s plan when it comes to reducing the tax burden: not just on our businesses, but also on our families.

We also have in place a measure, the clean energy benefit, to reduce the burden on our families as we, together, restore vitality to our electricity system. We’re renewing 80% of it over the course of the next 20 years.

What we have is a comprehensive, thoughtful plan that is reducing the tax burden on families and our businesses in order to ensure we have a strong economy that supports our health care and our schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Globe and Mail’s analysis of Statistics Canada data proves what New Democrats have been saying all along: Corporate tax giveaways don’t create jobs. In fact, yesterday the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives issued its own study looking into 198 of Canada’s top corporations. They found the same thing.

When is the Premier going to come to his senses and realize that massive corporate tax giveaways aren’t the way to bring good jobs back to Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m sure my honourable colleague will recognize that we’ve entered into an era of hypercompetitiveness; an era of globalization. We’re no longer just competing with the folks across town or the people in Quebec or Manitoba or BC or the US; we’re now competing with the Chinese and the Indians and other parts of the world. So it’s very important that we do everything to ensure that our businesses are competitive.

I think results speak volumes. We have recovered 91% of the jobs lost during the recession. In the United States of America they recovered 17%, and in the United Kingdom they recovered 40%. So that speaks to, I would argue, the merit of the plan that we have put in place. Of those 91% of jobs that we’ve recovered, 84% of those jobs are in fact full-time jobs.

So we’ve put that in some perspective, and in the supplementary I’ll speak—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Clearly the Premier just doesn’t get it. Here are some of the results he should be paying some attention to: According to the CCPA, these large companies reported a 50% increase in profits and paid 20% less in taxes while growing their employment by only 5%. That’s less than the 6% employment growth for the entire economy.

From outrageous compensation for health care executives to questionable appointments to nonsensical tax policy, why can’t this Premier and his government get anything right?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts, so let’s revisit a few more of the facts.

Private sector investment in building, machinery and equipment rose 10% in the third quarter of 2010. That’s our strongest gain since 1998. Manufacturing sales are up 24% year over year. If we look at the auto sector, where hundreds of thousands of families earn their living, GM sales are up 26% year over year, Chrysler has recorded a 16th consecutive month of year-over-year sales growth, and Ford has had its best March in a decade.

By any objective measure, our plan is working, the economy is growing, jobs are coming back and Ontarians have every reason to believe they can look forward to the future with optimism.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. All week, the Premier and the health minister have let the media and the public believe that the three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar payout to Ron Sapsford was severance. The health minister and, apparently, the finance minister say that you are really the one to ask. We know, from the guide to preparing the sunshine list, as well as from Ministry of Finance spokespeople, that this can’t be severance.

Minister, this is really about ministerial accountability. You can either answer my question or you won’t. Do you want to be accountable to this Legislature or not? Ron Sapsford was paid three quarters of a million dollars for what? People in Ontario would like to know.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me say this: I’ve had the privilege of working both in the private sector and in the public sector. I want to tell you that, based on my experience in the public sector and the private sector, we have very outstanding individuals working in our Ontario public sector, and I’m very proud of the work that they perform.

We are a large and complicated organization with a $120-billion-plus budget, so we want to attract the best talent that we can find in Ontario, and the Ontario people deserve nothing less than that. When you do that, you go and look for people outside. If, for any reason, the employees are terminated, I can say that the employees have the option to remain on the payroll utilizing entitlements such as accumulated vacation and severance instead of receiving a lump sum payment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Minister, you didn’t tell us what Mr. Sapsford is getting paid for. You’re trying to justify a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar payout and you’re trying to conceal that from this Legislature.

The McGuinty Liberals—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

The McGuinty Liberals act as though the money they handed out to Ron Sapsford was theirs to use as a personal slush fund, but it’s Ontario families who are footing the bills for your sweetheart deal and they’re getting cheated out of front-line health care, particularly in the city of Ottawa.

The Ontario PC Party will undertake a sunshine review that roots out the McGuinty Liberals’ mysterious sweetheart deals. We think that three quarters of a million dollars is better spent on front-line health care. Why do you think it is better spent on the sweetheart deal to Ron Sapsford?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: As I was saying, we are a large, complicated organization and we need to attract the best talent. When you attract the best talent, you need to then pay the people based on whatever the market rates are. Let me tell you that the average salary of the broader public sector has decreased, and average OPS salaries on the list dropped by 1%; the use of secondment has decreased from 8% in 2008 to 2% today in the health sector. The 400 top-earning OPS employees on the list saw their salaries decrease this year.

We have done everything to contain salaries based on our economic circumstances, but we still need to attract the best-qualified people we can find to the Ontario public service.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Hearings on plans to build a new nuclear plant at Darlington conclude tomorrow. Last week, Greenpeace stated that the McGuinty government decided not to participate in the review panel in order to ensure that the hearings would not consider alternatives to nuclear power.

Why is the McGuinty government so afraid of considering cheaper, safer and cleaner alternatives to a $30-billion-plus nuclear power plant?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re leading the world when it comes to building cleaner, cheaper renewable energy in this province. We’re a global leader when it comes to that, and your party has not supported the investments we’ve made to get out of dirty coal and to invest in clean, renewable power in this province. You can’t have it both ways.

We’re making these investments because they’re very important investments. We’re building a clean, reliable and modern energy system, and they have blocked us every step of the way. They have not supported those investments in any way, shape or form. And now they get up and tell us we should be doing more of something that they didn’t support in the first place.

We’re leading the world. We’re proud to be leading the world. We’re creating thousands of jobs and we’re helping Ontario families adjust to the costs with our clean energy benefit.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Perhaps a nice speech, but not an answer. The McGuinty government’s long-term energy plan says nuclear power has to continue to provide 50% of Ontario’s electricity for decades to come, without giving any rationale.

A recent poll by Abacus found that more than half of Ontarians now oppose building more nuclear power plants. When will the McGuinty government finally listen to Ontarians and at least allow a discussion of alternatives to nuclear power?

Hon. Brad Duguid: When the NDP are in opposition, they oppose nuclear power, but when they’re in government, what do they do? They build it. Prior to the NDP’s term in government, they opposed investments in nuclear power, just like—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to have to take this opportunity to warn the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Please continue.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think this is really important. In the NDP’s first three years in office, they brought online over 3,500 megawatts of nuclear power. No other party in the history of this province, in such a short period of time, has ever brought on that amount of nuclear power. Yet when they’re in opposition, they continue to oppose it. What is it? Does the NDP support nuclear power? Do they oppose it? Or does it depend on whether they’re in opposition or government—

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, it is clear that the McGuinty government is delivering on high-quality health care. The 2011 budget committed additional funding to a number of important health care services, including mental health and addictions and breast cancer.

The opposition parties voted against these very investments yesterday when they voted on the budget motion. As a member of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, I was shocked that they could vote against such an important part of our health care system that will help improve the lives of so many Ontarians.

Can the minister tell members in this House in more detail just what commitments have been made for mental health and addictions in the 2011 budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for the question. I am very pleased to outline some of the health care investments in the 2011 budget.

One initiative I am enormously proud of is the investment in mental health. The budget commits to strengthening services for children’s mental health with immediate funding and funding that will grow over the next three years. By 2013-14, the funding to support the mental health and addictions strategy will grow to $93 million per year. These services will help improve the lives of children and help improve the lives of their families in Ontario. It’s something we’re very proud of, especially in these very challenging fiscal times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m incredibly proud to be part of a government which chooses to ensure high-quality health care, even in tough economic times.

Minister, another area of concern for many women and men is breast cancer screening. I understand that there will be further funding in this area as well. Unfortunately, during debate on the budget bill yesterday afternoon, the member for Durham didn’t seem clear on these investments; in fact, he said, “There’s nothing in Bill 173 on breast screening.”

Can the minister explain to this House just how the funding for these programs works since the opposition don’t seem convinced?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to outline additional investment in Ontario’s health system. The Ontario breast screening program will receive an additional $15 million. That is an expansion that means 90,000 more breast cancer screenings. I am delighted with this initiative.

For the last 20 years, the Ontario breast screening program has been providing high-quality scans for women aged 50 to 74. This investment means that we will be expanding breast screening for high-risk women between the ages of 30 and 49. So this truly is an advancement when it comes to protecting people from breast cancer. Early detection, as we all know, is a very important contributor to getting our survival rates as high as they are, and we can—

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

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is again to the Minister of Government Services. Even if the Minister of Health is prepared to throw you under the bus for making the arrangements to pay—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Interjections.

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

I just want to remind all members that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I wanted to remind members of something, and the Minister of Energy was interjecting.

It is very common in this chamber to criticize government policy, and I think it’s certainly the opposition’s role to do that, but I just remind all members that when we start to bring it down to a level of making a comment directly at another member—and I’m hearing it from both sides; it’s coming from this side too—it’s not healthy for anything and any of the business within this chamber. I just remind all members: Let’s not make comments of a personal nature—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not personal.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, perhaps you might like to sit in this chair at some point.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My job is to try to facilitate the business of this House and ensure that we do so in a respectful way.

Please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The reality is that you sit on the Management Board of Cabinet that approved the sweetheart deal. So does the finance minister, the Attorney General, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the members from Kitchener–Conestoga and from Guelph. Why didn’t you blow the whistle, any of you, on the three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar payout to Ron Sapsford after the eHealth boondoggle?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Management Board and treasury board of cabinet exercise due responsibility in honouring legal agreements and respecting contractual obligations that were entered into. Then Management Board, treasury board, ensured that this was published in the sunshine list so that it could be seen by all Ontarians.

We will continue to build on our success in health care, to build the best-quality health care we can, by making investments in the services that people across this province want: better access to health care, shorter wait times, more nurses, more doctors and more options for a better future for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The more we see these three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar or million-dollar payouts from the health care budget means there’s less money going into front-line care.

Ontario families are shocked to learn that you buried the sweetheart deal with Ron Sapsford in the budget of a hospital. When they look at hospital budgets, they expect to see that every dollar is being spent on front-line care, not payouts to bureaucrats to run the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. The Ontario PC caucus believes that three quarters of a million dollars is better spent on 10 weeks of surgery at the Queensway Carleton Hospital, which is being threatened this year with rolling shutdowns and closures in their surgical unit.

My question is, why did the members of Management Board think it was better to spend this money on a mysterious payoff to former health bureaucrats than the hospital in my community?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government reopened the Montfort and Ottawa Hospitals that that member and her party cancelled. Let’s talk about that party’s record.

I understand your outrage about $700,000, but you were part of a government that gave $917,000 in severance to one Mr. Michael Gourley. You know what? You ought to look at your own track record. Why did you do it? Do you know what the total payment to him in untendered contracts and severance was? It was made by the Leader of the Opposition and by a number of members of that caucus—$4.6 million. You should be outraged about that. You should stand up for your constituents. Tell them what your colleagues did.

You can yell all you want; the record speaks louder than the loudest voice in this Legislature—

Interjections.

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

Member from Oxford; Minister of Finance.

Perhaps with our great guests here from the cadets today, it might be a wonderful opportunity for members to go and visit some of our local cadet corps around the province and get a better understanding of discipline and respect.

New question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Housing. The government’s affordable housing bill, Bill 140, will gut what little provincial oversight currently exists to prevent the sale of public housing to private for-profit interests. This is exactly what’s happening in Toronto with the sale of much-needed TCHC public housing properties.

Is this the government’s housing strategy—stand by while public housing is sold off to the highest bidder?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The fact is that nothing could be farther from the truth. We’re very, very proud of our long-term affordable housing strategy, should it pass into law. At this point in time, it has received first and second reading. Then, because we want to make sure we’re getting it right, we send it off to committee. We had public deputations. Now we’re at the amendment stage.

What’s happening here is, we’ve listened to the official opposition and the third party; we’ve listened to public providers; we’ve listened to the public at large. We’ve gone clause-by-clause. We’re making amendments. Those amendments are being debated now. I would suggest to you that, at the end of the day, we will have the strongest long-term affordable housing strategy in place across Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Ontario now has 152,000 families on waiting lists for an average of 10 to 12 years. Each and every Ontarian should have a right to affordable and quality housing. That’s what the United Nations says, by the way, which finds Ontario in breach of international law. What’s happening in Toronto with the sale of TCHC properties could just be the tip of the iceberg.

This morning, I put forward a motion that would prohibit selling social housing to the private sector. The government committee members voted against this motion. When will this government take action to stop the privatization of the few remaining affordable housing units we have?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It was interesting: In the supplementary, she mentioned the legislative process that we’re going through right now with this legislation. I think that’s very, very healthy.

We will continue to debate those amendments that are being made by this side of the House, the official opposition and the third party. At the end of the day, we’re going to make sure that when we bring back a bill for third reading it is the strongest possible legislation. Why do we do that? Because we understand that there has to be a provincial affordable long-term plan in place.

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

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, you know this: Along with the Premier, myself and many caucus colleagues attended the seventh annual Premier’s summit on agri-food. The summit provides an excellent opportunity for partners in the agri-food industry to come together, to sit down with the Premier and yourself and to discuss the many challenges and opportunities that exist within that sector. By working together, we build on the partnerships, innovation and economic opportunities that already make this industry very successful.

This sector is an extremely powerful economic engine that helps and needs our attention. Can I ask the minister: Can she please share some of the highlights that have happened at the summit this year?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you very much for the question. I can tell you that it’s my pleasure to share that the winner of the 2010 Premier’s Award is Willowgrove Hill from Perth county. The Hill family are the first pork producers in North America to enrich their pork with DHA omega-3 fatty acids. I tell you, it’s innovation on the family farm.

The 2010 Minister’s Award was presented to Duzier Farms from Brant county. They were recognized for their innovative robotic dairy barn design. The design enables a single producer to manage a milking herd of up to 120 cows. For the smaller dairy producers, it means less time in the barn and more time spent with family.

I’m also pleased to say that not only are we encouraging innovation on the family farm; I’m very pleased to report—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: Ontario farmers continue to show outstanding leadership when it comes to innovation, and we all know that. I’m very proud to say that the Duzier family farm in my riding’s recognition by the minister was very deeply appreciated by the family.

Minister, I’ve met with the farmers in my riding on an ongoing basis. I believe our government is on the right track, and so do they: investments in programs such as the establishment of the Premier’s award for innovation and excellence and, recently, the risk management program announced in last week’s budget. This risk management program is the number one ask for the farmers in my riding, and they did so together. Knowing that you can count on stable financial support means an awful lot. Sandra Vos, the president of the Brant County Federation of Agriculture, said, “This will go a long way in increasing the sustainability of Brant’s largest industry.” Could the minister—

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

Hon. Carol Mitchell: We count on our farmers, and we believe that our farmers should be able to count on us. We’re supporting the family farm. This budget supports the hard work of our Ontario farmers. With the leadership of the Ontario Agricultural Sustainability Coalition, commodity programs and organizations, they developed their programs: programs by farmers, for farmers.

But I really do believe that we need to look at how the previous government treated our farmers. I tell you, they sat idly by while they let the land—they cut the ag budget; they shut down 42 offices. But what they really want to have an answer to, for our farmers, is why they voted against risk management in the budget. That program is designed—

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

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Education. Two weeks ago, I asked the minister to clarify whether the York Region District School Board’s direction to trustees to not meet with parents in private was a direction from her office. She confirmed that it was not, and she rightly reaffirmed in the House the appropriate role of trustees as representatives of the parents who elected them and that in fact the administration is accountable to elected trustees.

Today, I want to ask if it’s a policy of the Ministry of Education to censor the websites and Facebook and Twitter accounts of elected trustees. Is that in fact a policy? Because at the York region school board, that is exactly what has happened.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I would say to the honourable member that I had an opportunity to speak with the chair and trustees from the York region school board just this week. I was at a wonderful school opening at Bond Lake. We talked about the role of trustees and their responsibilities; to the people who voted for them in the municipal election in October. I have to say that, in my view, they were very clear about their responsibilities, they were very clear about the importance of working with administration to ensure that the wishes and the needs of students and parents in their communities were looked after.

I have to say that I’m surprised the honourable member is bringing this to me, because from the conversation I had with the elected trustees, they were very eager to ensure that they were available—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Yes, the elected trustees want to be available; it is the administration that directed trustees not to be available in private with parents, and I thank the minister for clarifying that.

With regard to the issue I’m bringing to her today, the reality is that trustees have been directed by the administration to remove information from their personal websites. This is information that was on those websites while they were seeking office and informing the very parents who voted for them about their positions on various issues.

I’d like to ask the minister: Will she agree to clarify for the director of education and his administration what their role is and put an end to this gag order that the director of education and the administration are putting on elected trustees?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s very unfortunate when people in this assembly use this place to cast aspersions on the work of people who’ve been hired by locally elected trustees. When there are statements in this assembly that someone is not fulfilling their role appropriately, that is in fact the case.

I have had the opportunity just this week to speak with the elected leadership of the board as well as the director of education. They’ve certainly indicated to me that they work well together, with the best interests of their students and parents in mind. They are focused on ensuring that their policies enable them to go forward in their operation, in their duties, in an open and transparent—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This government stood by while northern communities like Wawa and Dubreuilville lost their wood supply, putting at risk not only the jobs of those employees directly affected but the viability of entire communities.

Dubreuilville is a community of less than 1,000 people who directly depend on the forestry industry. The community has suffered enough during the recent economic downturn while their sawmill was temporarily closed, but now they are denied by this government the ability to resume work.

Why does the Premier not support the community of Dubreuilville in their bid to hold on to their wood allocation?

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: The goal is to modernize the Ontario forest tenure and pricing system, and I think the member opposite knows that. We will make the licensing of crown forests more efficient by opening them up to new businesses to generate new and diversified investments. We are improving and increasing the market mechanisms and the pricing and allocation of crown timber. We are increasing the involvement of aboriginal and local communities in the forest industry, which will contribute to their economic development.

Bill 151, as the member opposite knows, is open for public hearings. We will be holding public hearings next week, and we look forward to hearing from a wide variety of stakeholders and individuals across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Dubreuilville are shocked that the government would take away their wood allocation. They didn’t even have the decency to go and consult with the community. Then they sit on their hands while the forestry industry and those who depend on it suffer. The northeastern Superior region has been one of the hardest hit during the recession, losing 1,000 direct forestry jobs.

Why is this government allowing local mills to close while entire communities suffer? Do they just not care about northern Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: To the member opposite: We care passionately about northern Ontario. We have many advocates on this side of the House who speak of northern Ontario incessantly, as many of my colleagues will attest to.

With respect to this legislation and our changes to the forest tenure act, we began our review in 2009. Since then, the ministry has held consultation sessions throughout northern Ontario, including in Beardmore, Bower, Cochrane, Dryden, Fort Frances, Hearst, Hornepayne, Kapuskasing, Marathon, North Bay, Pembroke—although we wouldn’t all consider Pembroke in the north—Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins and White River. We have conducted over 116 consultations in total, and we have offered Web-based engagement tools as well. We are continuing to offer that openness. People can participate—

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

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Education. I’m hearing from parents in Peterborough who have their children enrolled in full-day kindergarten. They are pleased with the program and the progress that their children are making while learning in a positive environment for the entire day.

Part of the reason I’m hearing that parents think this program is so successful is because of the extended day portion of the program. Parents can drop off and pick up their children from the same location and their children are provided with programming that reinforces the play-based learning that they take

part in during the day.

I’ve had parents who have heard that there may be changes coming to the extended day portion of the program. Could you please inform me what I can tell the parents about these changes and how they will affect the lives of hard-working families in the wonderful riding of Peterborough?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m delighted to, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the fact that I’ve been to schools in Peterborough and I’ve seen first-hand the wonderful results of full-day kindergarten.

With respect to the changes that we have proposed, families have said that it’s very important to them that they have access to extended day programs, both before and after school. There are many examples in the province of Ontario where those programs are being delivered by independent third parties like YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs. So we have introduced amendments to the act that will enable boards to engage those independent third parties.

I’m really surprised and disappointed, though, that the members of the opposition voted against that yesterday, again blocking opportunities for families to access quality—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Minister, I will provide that clarification about the proposed changes to the extended day portion of full-day kindergarten to the parents in Peterborough. I think the parents will be pleased to know that the government is moving forward in a practical manner which will allow parents to continue to have their children at the same location for full-day kindergarten and the extended day program.

Minister, you stated that the opposition voted against full-day kindergarten, though just yesterday, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo said they would implement the program. Minister, parents in the wonderful riding of Peterborough are concerned about the future of full-day kindergarten and the contradictory comments that have been provided by the opposition from one day to the next.

Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that full-day kindergarten is implemented in a responsible way across this great province?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Families have made it very clear that full-day kindergarten is a priority for them. That’s why it is a priority for this government and that is why we are committed to fully implementing it by 2014. That is also why we are providing school boards every year with the capital dollars that are needed to create the spaces. We have done that this year, and we will do it next year and for the third phase. We are taking a responsible, measured approach to this.

And we are providing capital dollars. I was very surprised that, again, the opposition voted against that investment to provide those capital dollars. In my view, it just reflects that they are in disarray, they have no plan and they are very, very uncertain about a lot of things. Certainly in—

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of the Environment: Your continued inaction on waste diversion and waste management has left Ontario on the brink of a garbage crisis. Edwards landfill, in Haldimand county, is a prime example of your government’s oblivious lack of action. After years of questions, petitions and local protests, landfill operators have been handed provincial orders requiring 37 items to be complied with by May 20. Haldimand Against Landfill Transfers, also known as HALT, has written you requesting that the site be closed until these 37 items are dealt with. Will you be closing the site, Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to assure the member opposite—and I thank him for bringing the issue to my attention, of course—that we expect companies and municipalities to comply with provincial orders. It is not a question of whether they decide or not to comply with orders; they must comply with provincial orders. We’ll continue to work closely with companies and municipalities that are dealing with municipal waste and requiring them to make sure that they always come in compliance with the law.

I find the question odd, on this side of the House. There are seven million litres of used paint that is not in our landfills because we’re taking action when it comes to household hazardous waste. There are 33,000 tonnes of waste electronics that are not in our landfills because we have taken action. There are almost a million tonnes a year through the blue box because we believe the blue box is a way for people to—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Look: You’ve been asked to close the site. These are significant issues—issues of asbestos, leachate levels and spill contingencies. There have been questions and concerns at this site since it began to receive garbage again, back in 2009.

While people see the issuing of orders as a step forward, they’re naturally sceptical given the history and given the ineptitude of your government when it comes to waste diversion and waste management.

Recognizing the seriousness of these questions, could you please provide people in my riding, at minimum, an update as to the work at Edwards to meet these compliance orders? What will your ministry do if those orders are not fulfilled by the May 20 deadline?

Hon. John Wilkinson: We’ll do what we always do, which is ensure that people are actually respecting and complying with the laws of the province of Ontario. That’s why we have environmental protections.

I can, though, assure the member and his constituents that there have been no environmental impacts from the leachate breach. We ordered the landfill to submit an odour management plan and a proper application of cover to stop the dust. It also requires that the old hazardous waste site is to be cleaned up. We are routinely inspecting the Edwards landfill.

They also conduct periodic sampling and monitoring, ensuring that surface water controls remain effective and the site is secure. I assure the member that we have placed orders and we expect them to be complied with, and if they are not—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Michael Prue: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: For the past two days, we have heard about people whose housing is at great risk. TCHC’s new mandate seems to be to sell off housing stock and privatize.

Mrs. Janice Hatfield and her son, a student—my constituents—live at 2 Wineva Avenue, and they’ve been given notice that she will be losing her home of nearly 20 years. Her housing is threatened because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has the final authority, has, to this time, taken no action to stop the city of Toronto from selling its housing stock and privatizing public housing.

My question is: Will the minister commit today that he will protect Mrs. Hatfield?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: There are two parts to the question. The first one I’m going to deal with is with regard to the Toronto Community Housing Corp. First of all, the member knows full well that that is an entity run by the city of Toronto.

Secondly, he would know that some of the units that are up for sale do not need ministerial approval; others will need ministerial approval. I think that this government has a record, before making decisions, to ensure that there is a very thorough review of each of those units before a determination is made.

But this is all hypothetical, because the city of Toronto, the council of Toronto, will determine which houses go on the market.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Mrs. Hatfield and her son have lived in their home for nearly 20 years. She has many elderly neighbours who find their homes at risk as well. She worries for them and for herself; she broke down in tears yesterday.

Royson James of the Toronto Star described this charade of a hearing yesterday. He said:

“Absurdity piled on top of arrogance....

“Such is the case when a public body is reduced to the farce of one-man rule....

“Such arrogance. Such autocratic excess. Such unnecessary and undemocratic indulgence.”

This minister can put a stop to this with the stroke of a pen. Will he do that and stop this cruel charade in its tracks?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The second part of the question that I want to deal with now is our long-term affordable housing strategy as it ties into ensuring that those protections are built into a new long-term affordable housing strategy.

We’re very confident that this strategy is a very powerful document, but do you know what? We want to make sure that we’ve covered all the concerns that may be presented in the future, so we opened it up to committee hearings. We heard deputations from the providers, the different people involved in affordable housing. We’re going through those amendments right now. At the end of the day, the legislation we bring forth for third reading will be very strong legislation.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I refer to standing order 23(f):

“In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she....

“Reflects upon any previous vote of the House unless it is the member’s intention to move that it be rescinded.”

On two occasions today, both in lob-ball questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and then, subsequently, a lob-ball question to the Minister of Education, they referred to the vote in the House yesterday on the budget motion. They specifically indicated in their answers about specific items relating to their ministries. The vote taken in the House yesterday simply stated “that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.” There were no details in that motion whatsoever.

Back to 23(f): The standing orders are clear that, unless you intend to request that that vote be rescinded, you not refer to it when talking about how members in this House have voted.

I know you have ruled on it or you have at least ventured an opinion on it, because I have raised—or maybe we haven’t got it back yet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s what I’m just going to get to.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m raising it again. Thank you very much. I forgot you haven’t given us a ruling yet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As the honourable member in the House is aware, this is an issue that was raised last week. I took it under advisement at the time and want to take the opportunity to assure the members that it is under currently under review, the points that had been raised, and I will be reporting to the House with a ruling.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With reference to standing order 37(e), I advised the government House leader that I would be rising on this point of order a few minutes ago when the incident occurred.

The leader of the New Democratic Party, in her question number five, put the question to the Premier about wood allocations in northern Ontario, especially Wawa and Dubreuilville. The Premier referred the question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, also government House leader.

I look at standing order 37(e): “A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject-matter to which the question relates.”

Unless something has happened overnight with respect to the status of the government House leader and her status as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I can’t for the life of me understand how her ministerial responsibilities relate to the subject matter of the question put by Ms. Horwath. I seek your guidance and ruling on that matter, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on the same point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thank my colleague from the third party for raising this point of order and share his concern that it is not the area of the minister’s responsibility to be answering questions of the nature that were asked today. If the Premier does not—he has the choice, I suppose, of directing them to the minister who is directly responsible for that area, as is provided for in the standing orders. But I don’t know that he’s allowed to pass them on to any minister that he wants to, because that minister has no responsibility for that ministerial level at all. So I do share my concerns with the House leader of the third party.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister without portfolio.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: A little-known fact, probably, is that I’m the deputy House leader, so I’m responding on behalf of the House leader just to say, Mr. Speaker, that we’ll be providing you with a written response to the point of order raised by my colleague here.

Mr. Peter Kormos: If I may speak directly?

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I appreciate that, and I had no intention of trying to ambush either the government House leader or the deputy House leader.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: She had to leave on—

Mr. Peter Kormos: And that’s fair enough. Perhaps, if there are written submissions made, the opposition parties could have an opportunity to respond to those written submissions before the Speaker makes a ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to thank the member from Welland, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the minister without portfolio.

I was prepared to rule on this, but having heard from the deputy House leader of a written response coming forward and now hearing from the member from Welland that they would welcome the opportunity to comment on that response, I will reserve my decision and await the submission from the government and the comments back from the two parties.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1141 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce two guests from the Momiji Health Care Society in Scarborough: the executive director, Ms. Birgitte Robertson, and the director of residence, Yoneko Westergaard. Momiji residents and staff have raised over $31,000 for Japanese victims of the recent earthquake and tsunami, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their generosity. I also want to express my sincere sadness and to say to the Japanese people that my prayers and thoughts are with them.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It is my distinct pleasure to introduce the following guests: from York Central Hospital, Dr. Larry Grossman, Ms. Elizabeth Barnett, Ms. Melina Cormier, Ms. Arlene Webster; from the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Mark MacLeod, Ms. Emily Bullock, Ms. Emily Jephcott; from the Hospital for Sick Children, Dr. Nana Bit-Avragim; and Dr. Saeid Hatami. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, Karra Wesley from Haliburton. She owns the Haliburton Language School and is down to visit today. Welcome.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park and introduce, in the gallery, an old friend of mine and an ex-colleague, Diana Dai. She’s a TV and film producer, winner of a 2009 Gemini Award, and a 2010 Yorkton film award for best history documentary for China’s Earthquake, the People in the Pictures. Welcome, Diana.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I make this statement on behalf of the member for Durham, Mr. O’Toole, who couldn’t be with us this afternoon.

“I rise again to draw attention to the ongoing soil disposal operations on Morgans Road in the riding of Durham. Every day that passes without action from this government brings more truckloads of fill on to this site. With every truckload comes more anxiety and worry to those families who live in the area. They worry about what is being dumped at the site. They worry if what is being dumped could impact their drinking water. But most of all, they worry about the safety of their families and children.

“A full month before any permits were issued in June by the conservation authority, filling was taking place on Morgans Road. To date, this illegal fill has not been removed. To make matters worse, this fill was dumped in a protected source water area on the site.

“Our party wants to thank the Clarington Citizens for Clean Water and Soil for their advocacy on this issue. We also want to thank a number of residents, including: Gerry Black, Michael Clay, Sherry Ibbotson, Ted and Beth Meszaros, Lou Speziale, Donna Middleton, Kerry Meydam and Debbie Gordon from the STORM Coalition, and Councillor Wendy Partner. All have taken action on this issue. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for this government.

“I call on the Minister of the Environment to take control and ensure the soil and material being moved on site is not harmful to residents and their families.”

PRATT AND WHITNEY CANADA

Mr. Kuldip Kular: On Friday of last week, I was joined by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to announce that our government is making strategic investments in the renowned aerospace company Pratt and Whitney Canada.

The benefits of this partnership include creating 80 high-value jobs and preserving 49 others; reducing the impact of air travel on our natural environment; and raising Ontario’s profile as an economic and technology leader, not to mention an outstanding place to do business.

Our grant of $13.9 million and Pratt and Whitney’s