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

December 11, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Dec-11 (PDF)

L099 - Wed 11 Dec 2013 / Mer 11 déc 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 December 2013 Mercredi 11 décembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

SERVICEONTARIO

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SENIORS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TRAIL SYSTEM

SCHOOL BOARDS

AUTISM TREATMENT

VISITOR

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHRISTMAS PARADES

SUNFEST

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES /

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NANCY MUTCH

SANTA’S PARADE OF LIGHTS

IDIOPATHIC PULMONARY FIBROSIS

DANFORTH GARDENS PUBLIC SCHOOL

OUTSTANDING CITIZEN AWARDS

ANNUAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORDER OF BUSINESS /

TRAVAUX DE LA CHAMBRE

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES COMMISSIONER), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

(COMMISSAIRE AUX SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING

GOVERNMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

ET L’AMÉLIORATION

DE LA GESTION PUBLIQUE

FUNCTIONING MUNICIPAL

COUNCILS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE FONCTIONNEMENT

EFFICACE DES CONSEILS MUNICIPAUX

COMPLYING WITH INTERNATIONAL

TRADE OBLIGATIONS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 DE CONFORMITÉ

AUX OBLIGATIONS COMMERCIALES

INTERNATIONALES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ENERGY POLICIES

FIRE SAFETY /

SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE

ENERGY POLICIES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

FIRE SAFETY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ENERGY POLICIES

FIRE SAFETY

PETITIONS

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DOG OWNERSHIP

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CANADA PENSION PLAN /

RÉGIME DE PENSIONS DU CANADA

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 10, 2013, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’impôt-santé des employeurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke still has the floor.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I believe I get another 20 minutes—oh my goodness, I’m down below two. I do not have as much time as I expected. I finished the debate yesterday, but I wanted to start it today.

Of course, we saw the auditor’s report yesterday, and that doesn’t give us a whole lot of solace as to the kind of mismanagement and blindness that’s going on in this government.

I think at the end of the day, when it comes to the electricity bill, this government is going to regret their arrogance, is going to regret the way that they treated the people of Ontario, particularly last week, when it was the government’s position that they as much as scoffed at the public, saying, “What’s the problem? So we blew $1.1 billion on some gas plants. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it. It’s only a cup of coffee a year.” First of all, the numbers are wrong. But, Speaker, it’s the attitude of those people over there that somehow $1 billion should just be forgotten.

Let me put it to you this way, Speaker. If the Royal Bank is robbed—a guy comes in and steals $1 million from the Royal Bank; let’s say $1 billion—across all the depositors, it may not mean much to each depositor. There’s a lot of money in that bank. But I’ll tell you this: When they catch that crook, he’s going to jail.

What happens to the people in this government when they take $1 billion and put it onto the ratepayers? Apparently nothing. They laugh and say, “Don’t worry. Be happy. It’s a cup of coffee a day.” I think they will rue the day that their arrogance got the better of them.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always an honour to speak in the House and to follow the whip of the Progressive Conservative Party, whom we affectionately call “miracle whip.”

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s cool whip over there.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Cool whip, here.

In speaking about small business, what I would remind my friends to the right here is that, really, what we want to do is see this bill move along at this point, so we’re happy to do questions and comments. We will not be putting up other speakers to it; we would like to see this put into action before the break.

If this Liberal government really wanted to do something for small business, there’s a whole lot of things they could do, this bill being a very tiny step in that direction. In fact, small businesses are hurting way more than they ever have. All you need to do is speak to small business to discover that simple fact. We had pushed for a lessening of the business education tax. They met us halfway on that. But certainly more needs to be done. MPAC assessments on businesses are now completely outrageous and through the roof. That is an agency that needs overhauling. Other agencies do as well.

This is a government—and of course the Progressive Conservatives are in league with them—that can quickly get together their forces to pass a bill like the EllisDon bill. That can happen in a couple of weeks. But when it comes to doing anything for small business, of course it takes months, if any action is taken at all. We know this is a government of the mall and not of Main Street. We know that the Progressive Conservative Party says they are for small business but actually support big business; i.e., again back to the EllisDon bill. What we would really like to see is somebody standing up for Main Street, and that’s what we in the New Democratic Party stand up for.

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

Hon. John Milloy: I’m pleased to comment on the honourable member’s speech. I unfortunately did not hear the first part of it yesterday, but listening today, what I didn’t hear him mention was the fact that if this bill is passed, 60,000 small businesses in Ontario will have their taxes cut starting January 1, 2014—it actually seems to be a cry that I hear from the opposition all the time, to lower taxes, particularly for small businesses. So I’m standing here a little bit confused as to why the PCs are not wrapping up third reading debate.

We’ve had several hours of third reading debate. I stand to be corrected, but I believe there were 16 hours of debate at second reading and the bill has not been amended at committee, so it’s essentially the same bill. My question to the honourable member is: Can we wrap this up? Can we pass this bill and allow small businesses to have their taxes cut?

I totally respect the fact that the opposition may have more things to put on the record in debate, which is why I gave them an opportunity on Monday night and Tuesday night, and indeed, I will give them an opportunity tonight to sit till midnight, with a commitment that we will call this bill so that every member of the PCs can put their thoughts on the record about how important it is to cut taxes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, questions and comments: My question is, why can we not either let this bill pass or allow us to sit till midnight so they can all speak and then allow the bill to pass?

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I was here for the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke yesterday, and he was, to some extent—there was so much yelling back and forth that he was distracted, unfortunately. I hope I didn’t participate in that, although he did give me a little slap on the wrist on my way out.

But he did make the point that if this reduction in the onerous taxes on small business in Ontario was that good, our position was that they should have increased the threshold. Our critic Mr. Fedeli said it in committee. We moved eight amendments, all of which were turned down. One was to increase the threshold. This bill does $400,000 to $450,000. Our suggestion: If it’s that good, increase the threshold to be exempt up to $800,000.

But the really punitive measure in this—it’s very important for the viewer to understand this, because most of the Liberals don’t understand it—is that once you reach a threshold of $5 million in payroll, you don’t get any of the exemption. So it’s actually an increase on the upper scale. Now the reduction in taxes they’re talking about is about $60 a month, which won’t pay for the global adjustment on their electricity bill. So it’s a tax on a tax that they’re doing in the first place.

I think that even the NDP, in all fairness, realize that small business in Ontario is the only business left. I looked at the media today. The latest headline—important, if people get their Globe and Mail; a good

article here—talks about “Kellogg Plant a Casualty of Changing Tastes.” Well, the changing tastes are the taste of this government’s punitive action on business in Ontario. That’s the story.

The electricity bill—electricity is non-discretionary consumption, meaning you have to use it. Now they’ve increased the price to the extent that it’s putting people out of business. That’s the reality. It’s putting people out of their homes, potentially, and I’m quite disappointed. Bill 105 should pass if, for instance, they’d just look at some of the amendments we put forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s always great to stand here. I’ve listened with some intent here this morning to the comments made by my fine whip, Mr. Yakabuski, from the great riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and of course Mr. O’Toole, from the great riding of Durham. We had a lovely breakfast this morning, and I want to thank him for his companionship on that.

The NDP pointed out that our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, is against small business; we’re for big corporate business. Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party is for all business. We’re for employment; we’re for getting good jobs back here in the province of Ontario. The policies that the Liberal Party is putting forward are detrimental, and I’d like to say what the member from Durham pointed out: that the high, skyrocketing price of electricity is driving manufacturing out of this province.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, made the very good point that these are not jobs that are going to Indonesia, China, Brazil or developing economies; these are good, middle-class, paying jobs that are going to Ohio, Michigan, New York, stateside, into the province of Quebec and elsewhere.

This Liberal government shows no responsibility, no accountability to the taxpayers. We’ve seen scandal after scandal come forward in this House, whether it’s Ornge, eHealth or the gas plants. Mr. Speaker, this government needs to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has two minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Parkdale–High Park—the whip of the third party, who I affectionately call cool whip—and the government House leader, as well as my colleagues from Durham and Northumberland–Quinte West, for their comments.

I want to respond most directly to the House leader, who didn’t hear the address yesterday, but we talked about it extensively. First of all, we made an offer to the government to pass this bill yesterday. The government turned us down. We understand that. So we offered yesterday. The other thing is, we also brought amendments to clause-by-clause when it was in committee—government House leader, you must be aware of that.

We were going to raise that threshold not to $450,000 from $400,000, where you’re changing it by $50,000, but to raise it to $800,000 so that all payroll up to $800,000 would be exempt from your punitive health tax—which, by the way, you brought in as the biggest tax increase in the history of Ontario.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I remember that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I remember when you promised not to raise taxes.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You have a very selective memory, I say to the House leader.

We brought in that amendment. You know what happened? The government said no. They turned us down. We brought in a further amendment—because they made a change here so that everybody who has a payroll over $5 million—which is like those folks who are losing all the jobs at Heinz and Kellogg’s etc. They’re going to lose any exemption for the punitive health tax that the McGuinty Liberals brought in so many years ago, after promising not to raise taxes.

So if you’re going to have a memory, I say to the House leader, you can’t be so selective. Your record in supporting business of all sizes in this province is deplorable, and they’re voting with their feet. Shame on you.

It’s about time to bring a jobs plan into this province. Tim Hudak has one. Why don’t you take a look at it?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act. Of course, that’s the tax that the McGuinty government imposed in their first term in office, as was mentioned by my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. When they were just elected, they imposed this tax on the people of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member for Nepean–Carleton.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Explain it outside.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I spoke to this bill during second reading debate. At that time, I spoke about the wide array of problems with this bill. Sadly, through the whole process—and we had hoped this would happen in committee—nothing changed; no amendments were accepted.

For instance, first the government has not addressed the new limit on exemptions. With this bill, any company with a payroll over $5 million will no longer be eligible for the employer health tax exemption. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a company that’s looking to expand and their payroll is $4.5 million? They can’t afford to expand because at the point they get over $5 million, they now have to pay the employer health tax for all their employees, and that increases their cost of production. Again, that was an amendment that needed to be made and nothing was done. In other words, it’s a tax increase for companies that employ many Ontarians. The more they employ, the higher the tax rate.

Just yesterday, we saw another 500-plus jobs lost at Kellogg’s in London. That is on top of the Heinz closure in Leamington, devastating a town and costing nearly 1,000 jobs because the climate for doing business in Ontario was not conducive to keeping those plants there. The closure of CCL Industries in Penetang, costing another 170 jobs—and just last week, we lost another 650 in Bradford with the closure of the Faurecia auto parts plant. Again, all these plants are closing and the production is going somewhere else, south of the border.

These are all large employers that would see their taxes increase with the passage of this bill. If these large companies are leaving now, imagine what will happen when we increase their taxes again, Mr. Speaker.

When policies like this are combined with increasing hydro costs and red tape, it’s amazing any of these businesses can survive in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sit down, please.

I don’t get it. They’re quiet; the third party’s quiet. Your gentleman’s standing up doing it, and to three people I’ve had to say, “Be quiet.” Let’s have a little respect for the person speaking. Come on, you guys know better. You can go outside and talk about this. I can’t even hear him for you two are right beside him—and he’s in your own party.

Carry on.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate those comments because I do believe it’s an important issue, and I would hope that my colleagues would be listening.

I just want to say that when policies like this are combined with increasing hydro costs and red tape, it’s amazing any of these businesses can remain in Ontario. We should be encouraging growth and creating policies that welcome investment and business to our province, not new taxes like the ones in this bill that drive companies away.

I just want to point out, as was mentioned by the government House leader about not talking enough about the benefit in this bill for small business—I want to say that I do support the bill based on it will help small businesses. But I’m pointing out the challenges we are facing with businesses that are not small or small businesses that are trying to become larger businesses.

A few weeks ago, when I spoke to this bill at second reading, I brought up the story of Dale Hurley, a local entrepreneur in Oxford. He started off by sorting pop bottles and then opened his own grocery store in Ingersoll. That store grew into a superstore that employs 185 people. With the new limit on the employer health tax exemption in Bill 105, Mr. Hurley would no longer be eligible for the tax credit. Why? He employs too many people.

Our province is in a time of need. We’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs under this government and had the lowest wage growth of any province in Canada. Instead of encouraging local small business owners to become successful like Mr. Hurley, we’re telling them, “Grow, but not too much.” Mr. Speaker, this bill will cost a lot of jobs.

To fix this, we proposed an amendment to eliminate the $5-million cap on the tax exemption; however, the government voted down that amendment in committee. The government voted to raise taxes on our province’s largest employers.

The second major problem with this bill is that the increase in the employer health tax exemption is so small. It will only raise the exemption by $50,000. At a decent job, that’s one employee. That is not significant to help people stay in business; that’s not enough to help Ontario’s companies. This bill is not a plan for revitalizing the economy; it’s just grandstanding.

The exemption was created to help ease the tax burden on small businesses. If a company is on the brink of closing, this increased exemption will do very little to help.

The non-taxable $50,000 in this bill wouldn’t have kept Kellogg’s in London; it wouldn’t have kept Heinz in Leamington, CCL in Penetang, Xstrata Copper in northern Ontario, Faurecia in Bradford, US Steel in Hamilton, Caterpillar in London, E.D. Smith in Seaforth or CanGro in St. Davids. Not one of those would have been saved by this bill or would have been positively impacted by this bill. Every one of those would have been negatively impacted by this bill. Sadly, they’re not there anymore to be impacted at all.

If a slight increase in tax exemption is the best this government can do to keep jobs in Ontario, sadly, we’d better get ready for more closures. Instead of just pointing out problems with Bill 105, our party put forward solutions. Instead of a meagre $50,000 increase, which may save some companies a maximum $1,000 a year, we proposed an increase of the exemption to $800,000. By doubling the exemption, thousands of additional businesses would experience savings. Imagine how a small business would benefit from a $400,000 increase.

We are not just putting forward bills with nice names. We’re not just focusing on public relations. We’re not just holding conversations. We are putting forward concrete proposals that would help businesses grow and create jobs. Our party continues to bring forward policies that have a meaningful, positive impact on Ontarians. We have released 14 white papers with detailed plans for improving our province, including the manufacturing sector. Businesses agree with our position on this bill.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote in a letter that “Ontario’s employer health tax exemption threshold should be comparable to that of other provinces and it is our standing recommendation to have it gradually increased to $800,000 over time.” That’s from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Despite our efforts to help strengthen our manufacturing sector, the Liberal members voted down our amendments in committee.

So let me sum it up. This bill will tell small businesses that growing is a good thing, unless you grow too much. This bill should be renamed. This bill should be called the “supporting small businesses unless they become too successful act.”

I ran a small business in Oxford for nearly 30 years. I never had to operate a business with all this unnecessary red tape and today’s skyrocketing hydro costs. The average Ontario household will see their hydro bill increase by $30 a month, according to the Minister of Energy. That’s $360 a year for the average home that uses 800 kilowatt hours a month. Businesses and manufacturers use far more than 800 kilowatt hours a month; Heinz used more, CCL Industries used more, Kellogg’s used more. For the few companies that qualify for this exemption increase included in this bill, the minimal savings will not be offset by the extra hydro costs.

I’ve heard from many farmers in Oxford—some of our very small businesses—about the rising cost of hydro. They are affected by these burdens, too. Some 97% of Ontario farmers reported that they are affected by the recent hydro increases, and 60% said that the impact was going to be significant. The point is that increasing a tax exemption for small businesses by $50,000 is nowhere near enough when the government is still increasing operating costs for those very same businesses.

The Premier has told the agri-food businesses that they need to double their output, yet she is doing nothing to address the challenges that they’re facing. Some 70% of them told me in our survey last year that they are significantly impacted by rising hydro rates. One of those, incidentally, was Heinz in Leamington. They filled out a survey and said they had problems with red tape and they had problems with the escalating hydro costs and it was becoming harder and harder to maintain their status in our community in Leamington.

When asked about the closure—and this is to Heinz—Warren Buffett, who owns Heinz, said, “It’s really a question of having an unprofitable plant and concentrating production in a more profitable plant.

“The tomatoes are going to go to the plants that have the low production costs.”

Since it wasn’t Leamington, again, we must remember why it was that they left. It was because of the burden that government puts on that plant.

Ontario hydro prices are too high and still increasing. That is directly responsible for the loss of jobs in our province. Despite this, the government wants to raise taxes on large employers with this bill. It just doesn’t add up.

Another burden small businesses are facing is the increase in red tape. As I mentioned, that was one of the things Heinz said was problematic for them. There are over 380,000 regulations on small businesses. There are countless government forms to fill out. For small business owners, every minute they spend filling out government forms is a minute they spend losing money. This bill does nothing to address these problems.

The Alliance of Ontario Food Processors recognized this when they wrote in their October report that the regulatory burden “often obstructs growth initiatives, investment, and speed to market.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business agreed. In fact, this January, they will be promoting the fifth annual red tape awareness week. Red tape suffocating small business is a massive problem. The CFIB reported that 68% of farmers and 62% of small business owners are discouraged from growing their businesses.

The increase of a tax exemption does not address the fact that small business owners are being tied up in red tape. On average, an Ontario farmer spends nearly four standard 40-hour workweeks on government forms. The employer health tax exemption should be raised because the businesses are having to hire people just to fill out this paperwork.

Red tape and hydro costs are two of the major burdens hurting small business. Although the tax exemption may help, it is far too little. It’s a band-aid solution to a significant problem.

The PC caucus recognized this. We tried to fix this bill through amendments by doubling the exemption from $400,000 to $800,000 and eliminating the cap on larger employers. Both of these amendments were rejected by the government, at the expense of our small business owners. Bill 105 does not address the larger core problems business owners are facing every day. Before any more businesses close their doors, this problem needs to be solved today. Standing here talking about making these small changes is not going to help save the businesses that are on the verge of going out of business.

The act may have a good name, but it’s not good policy. Ontario’s small business owners and taxpayers expect more from this government. They have a right to expect more from any government. They have to have a plan, a jobs plan that will help them not only maintain—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville—a little loud.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: —maintain their status as of today, but to create more jobs. As was mentioned in a number of the other ones I’ve already mentioned, if we have an environment in this province that is not conducive to investment, not only will we not get new investment to get more jobs here, but we will even lose the investment that we already have.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the last day this Legislature will be sitting before Christmas, unless of course the government agrees to extend the session, as we’ve asked.

For many people this is a happy time of year, but not for the families in Leamington who are facing unemployment; not for the families of those who work at Kellogg’s—people like the woman who tweeted yesterday, “My dad amongst 600 fathers/mothers who just lost their job announced in the holiday season from the billion dollar company—Kellogg’s,” people like the single mom who said yesterday, “We were told a month ago there would be some layoffs and cutbacks but everything would be ok. Now they tell us right before Christmas. Where are we going to go? There’s no jobs around here.”

They’re wondering how they are going to pay the bills by this time next year. These are the people who got their notices this week at Kellogg’s. They don’t want to spend money on Christmas presents because they don’t know if they need to save the money to keep the lights on or to keep the house heated.

It’s not just the employees; it’s the small businesses that are suddenly seeing that customers aren’t coming in and aren’t spending money, and wondering if they will survive. It’s the farmers who no longer have a market for their tomatoes. It’s the many suppliers to the plant—this is, of course, to the Leamington plant for the ketchup factory. This bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help those people.

Instead, I want to repeat the request our leader, Tim Hudak, made yesterday: Let’s extend the session for a week so that this government can finally table a real jobs plan, one that will help those families.

Every week, it seems that we hear of another plant closing, another business leaving Ontario. The government has said that Bill 105 will help these companies but, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard from a single company that has said, “I was going to close my doors, but now that the government is increasing the exemption just a tiny bit, I’m going to stay.” It just isn’t happening. Instead, I’m hearing from businesses who are saying, “With these high hydro costs, with the red tape, with the cost of doing business in Ontario, I just don’t know how long I can keep going.”

One of the Kellogg’s employees said yesterday, “There will be a trickle-down effect on the whole area. There seems to be a mandate to bring a lot of business back to the United States.”

I heard from one food processor who said he and his wife are struggling to keep the company going, and that he hasn’t been able to buy a new suit in years. That’s the sacrifice that our hard-working small business owners are making, Mr. Speaker. They deserve more from this government. They deserve a real plan to help grow business and create jobs. They deserve a government that is willing to make the tough decisions, put off Christmas break, and for once put the interests of the people first.

Red tape and hydro costs are two of the major burdens hurting small business. Although the tax exemption may help, it is far too little; it’s a band-aid solution to a significant problem. The PC caucus recognized this. We tried to fix this bill through amendments by doubling the exemption from $400,000 to $800,000 and eliminating the cap on larger employers. Both of these amendments were rejected.

Bill 105 does not address the larger core problem business owners are facing every day. Before any more businesses close their doors, those problems need to be resolved. The act may have a good name, but it’s not good policy. Ontario’s small business owners and taxpayers expect more from government; they expect a plan.

I would hope that my presentation will have helped further the mindset of the government, that they will consider making sure that we stay for another week and they come forward with a jobs plan that will actually address some of the challenges that we’re facing—not only to have a plan that will help the people who have already lost their jobs, but to do everything we can in this place and in the province of Ontario to make sure that we stem the tide of the ever-increasing speed by which our plants—particularly our food processing plants—are closing in this province of Ontario.

I would hope that we can work together to help those people so at the very least, next Christmas season is a little brighter for the people who will be losing their job between now and then.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to have a few words on Bill 105.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents in Timiskaming–Cochrane. And for myself, it’s an incredible honour to be able to follow my uncle. Over the years, I have often asked my uncle for advice, and I’ve listened intently to his words—some of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. But I’m going to ask a few questions.

He said several times that this bill is not good policy. Yet yesterday, his party moved a motion to pass it, and because they put a couple of other things in, the unanimous consent motion didn’t go through. If they are intent or satisfied to pass this bill, why do they continue to put speakers to it? Perhaps he could explain the procedure to me, but if they quit putting speakers to it, debate would collapse and we could have a vote.

Interjections.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, they are saying they have to debate the bill, but yesterday the party was willing to let the bill go through without further debate. Yet today, we are back to debating.

Mr. Michael Harris: John, nobody cares about the process.

Mr. John Vanthof: And obviously, some of the members of the Conservative Party say that no one cares about process. Some of us, who actually take this Legislature seriously—the New Democrats do take this process seriously. And I also believe that my uncle takes this process—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sit down.

It’s getting a little loud in here. I’m going to yell order, then I’m going to start getting a little serious, okay? So cut it back a bit, and no cross debate. You know to go through me. Okay? Continue.

Interjection: You’re out of time.

Mr. John Vanthof: Oh. Sorry, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to agree with the member for Oxford. He made a very important observation. He was talking about Kellogg’s, and he said—and he’s absolutely right—that one of the big factors in the closure was government red tape. And I have to agree with him. Government red tape is a huge problem. It’s interesting: In the Globe and Mail today, in the business section—it’s page B10, second paragraph in the bottom article. Mr. Myers, the senior executive at Kellogg’s, describes Ontario as very competitive and fairly competitive on all fronts.

He said that we’re one of the best jurisdictions to do business in in the world. When asked about why Kellogg’s was closing, he pointed to the federal government.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Now the Tories hate to hear this, but let me say why he’s closing. It is the federal government’s red tape at border crossings and foreign affairs and international trade that is obstructing—the third paragraph, the president. So it is the federal Conservative government’s border regulations that are causing the problem. He then identified the second reason why they’re closing: the higher Canadian dollar and federal fiscal policy and monetary policy.

So if you are so possessed and you think—and you’re right. Why don’t you phone your federal cousins? These people in the opposition want us to adopt the American policy—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: A 7% reduction in Kellogg’s US operations, a closure of a plant in Australia—we have twice the job creation rate of the United States: a 173% recovery compared to 85%. What they’re producing and what their federal cousins have already caused is a growth job rate that is half of what ours is. They want us to go back and adopt the policies of Mr. Bush and the right-wing Conservatives that plunged us into this recession.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You’re right. It’s all about your red tape.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The minister, when I say “thank you,” knows what he has to do, doesn’t he? Thank you.

The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened carefully and respectfully to the member from Oxford, and I have great regard for his concern and his understanding of the agricultural or agribusiness sector, having served for some time as the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario and worked, indeed, with the federal government on many of the risk management programs that we do enjoy in Ontario today. But he does make the relationship for jobs in agriculture, when he’s trying to tie it in to the unfortunate Christmas decision at Kellogg’s.

I would say the Minister of Infrastructure had part of the story—it was two lines in this half-page article, which I’m reading. This is the

article in the Globe and Mail that he referred to—and I have great respect for him. Now the headline in the paper—the minister should be listening to this, through the Chair, of course. It says, “Rising Energy Costs a Concern for Ontario Manufacturers.”

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: He skips over the real evidence from all of the businesses in Ontario that we’re hearing.

We’re fighting over the newspaper. I read as well as you do and have great respect—and I think he’s ignoring—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister had his time, and now he wants to take the member from Durham’s time. So we’ll be quiet, won’t we? Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. John O’Toole: I think, really, another point that was made here was the sort of thoughtless response by the Minister of Energy. The Minister of Energy, when asked about the 42% increase in energy costs, in his response to the poor people at that time—I’ll read it here shortly. It says that “Minister Bob Chiarelli said last week that for the average family, the $675-million cost of cancelling the Oakville ... plant works out to a cup of Tim Hortons coffee—or a ‘miniscule’ $2 a year....” That’s how they think of things—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. John O’Toole: —and that’s why we’re still talking about this bill.

Thank you for the extra couple of minutes—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for stretching it another 10 seconds.

The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I did listen to the speech made by the member from Oxford, and one of the points that he and many of his Conservative members have proposed is that we increase the exemption of the employer health tax from $450,000 to $800,000. This is the party that eliminated $13.4 billion of corporate tax cuts in an eight-and-a-half-year period, including income tax cuts to the very wealthy, and they are now pursuing the same course by saying that the exemption should move from $450,000 to $800,000, which would be a loss to the treasury of half a billion dollars every year.

Now, I know these folks believe themselves to be good fiscal managers. They haven’t been, in our experience in this Legislature, and they’re proposing to add half a billion dollars to our debt without any evidence that in so doing we would be creating jobs. There has been absolutely no evidence that in having lost $13 billion under their watch by their former Premier Mike Harris, it created any jobs whatsoever, and they continue to pursue a logic that simply hasn’t worked and doesn’t work.

I wonder whether the member from Oxford could cite any evidence that could show us that perhaps they’re moving in the right direction with that proposal, because we New Democrats believe it’s wrong-headed. We think that keeping the threshold at $450,000 is a good thing. We had proposed $400,000; the Liberals decided to move it up to $450,000, but to do anything more than that, we believe, is not reasonable, sensible or practical, and I wonder whether the member from Oxford could speak to that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oxford has two minutes.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation, the member from Durham and the member from Trinity–Spadina for their comments.

Obviously, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane was very generous in his comments on a personal basis, so we will have a pleasant Christmas dinner at least over that. But I just want to point out that he mentioned the fact that we should quit debating because everything had been said.

As I said in my presentation, I will be supporting the bill when it gets to third reading, but I think it’s really important, I’ve learned over the years that I’ve been here, to talk for the people who are negatively impacted by this bill and who would be losing their jobs or have lost their jobs and to talk about what we could do to prevent that from happening.

That’s why I think it’s so important that we have this debate and continue to have this debate, so that every member who wishes to speak to it has that opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents and the constituents that are affected by these things. So thank you very much for your kind comments, but I thought I should explain that.

The member from Trinity–Spadina asked a question, too, and I would ask him, in turn, to point out where tax increases on business have ever created a single job. I can say and I can assure you that your number will be lower than where tax cuts have created jobs—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oxford might want to talk through me.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: —and a comment to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation: I think it’s rather interesting that he did miss the main part of the story, which is the ever-increasing cost of doing business in Ontario. In the Heinz survey I got back, that was the number one thing they said was going to make it difficult for them to maintain their business or to grow their business in Ontario, and obviously the end result of that was, it didn’t happen.

The other thing I would just point out to one of my colleagues—and I just want to put it on the record. He talked about the exchange rate. I want to point out that in 1977, the Canadian dollar was worth $1.15. Both Heinz and Kellogg’s—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: —survived that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: —and they can’t survive this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you means thank you.

Point of order from the member for Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ll ask for unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oakville has asked unanimous consent to move a motion regarding Bill 105.

Is it the pleasure of the House that it carry? I heard a no.

Now we have another direction to go in: Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Yes, debate should continue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Harris: The government has asked for more debate, so we’ll give them that.

It’s an honour to stand here and speak to Bill 105. I think, as my colleagues have previously stated this morning, including the member from Oxford, it’s our opportunity to actually speak on behalf of those folks who are affected by the bill. I’m glad I have the opportunity to stand and speak to this bill, as it actually does impact many of the folks in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga in a variety of ways. Obviously, the bill would propose to increase the exemption amount from $400,000 to $450,000 for the 2014 to 2018 calendar years, with the amount to be adjusted each year starting in 2019.

It was interesting, though: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure talked about the fact that he’s blaming the federal government for some of the previous plant closures we’ve heard about this week. It’s quite sad. Over the last few weeks, in fact, we’ve heard about the plant closures of Heinz, putting some 400 people out of work in Leamington, Ontario; and yesterday, of course, the 500-and-some hard-working Londoners who will be displaced at the Kellogg’s plant.

That announcement came right before Christmas, obviously, throwing a wrench into hard-working families’ plans as they come upon the Christmas season, a season of spending time with family. I know the member for Oxford had an opportunity to dialogue with his family member here, and I’m sure there will be more vigorous debate over the turkey and stuffing in his household with regard to this bill.

I find it interesting: In fact, I believe we were to debate Bill 91 this morning, the Waste Reduction Act, but that was pulled for some strange reason. I really do believe it’s the cumulative effects, such as Bill 91 or Bill 105 or the Green Energy Act, that actually are driving businesses out of Ontario into other jurisdictions. The member for Toronto Centre talked about the fact that it’s the federal government’s fault.

You know what? I’ll give you an

article that was posted by Chris Vander Doelen on Saturday: “Who Really Killed Heinz?” It talks about Bill 91. “Was Ontario’s blue box recycling program the final blow that killed Leamington’s Heinz factory and its 740 jobs? It was at least a factor in the company’s decision.” We’ve talked about Bill 91 being a massive new regulatory scheme that will impose massive new costs on food producers, manufacturers and consumers, just like Ontario’s Green Energy Act killed potentially four jobs for every job it created, according to former Ontario—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, folks, here we go again. Your member’s up, and we’ve got three sidebars. The member from Halton, the member from Burlington and the member from Durham, we’ve got three sidebars when your member is speaking. I can’t even hear him. It just seems to be a pattern. Can we please keep it down? If you want to have sidebars, go outside. It would be nice to hear your member speak. Thanks.

Go ahead, member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Thank you, Speaker. It actually gave me an opportunity to notice the clock. I initially thought I was speaking for 10 minutes, but I’ll take the 20 for sure. I know my colleague from Durham is always looking for more time, so he did pass off a few articles here. Hopefully, I’ll get a few of those on the record for him.

What I was really going back to was an

article by Chris Vander Doelen in the Windsor Star on the weekend, talking about the unfortunate loss of 740 jobs at the Heinz plant and a new bill that was potentially to be debated this morning, Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act—that cumulative impact, adding a new regulatory burden on perhaps manufacturers, especially within the food and processing segments of our economy. We heard the devastating impact of more jobs being lost out of Kellogg’s yesterday in London.

Chris Vander Doelen goes on to write here, “As I wrote about Bill 91 back in August, ‘It will probably cost thousands more Ontarians their jobs in the private sector when its full effects finish cascading through the economy.’”

It goes on to talk about the fact that the government hasn’t performed a cost-benefit analysis on particularly Bill 91. As I had mentioned earlier, the auditor stated in his report on the Green Energy Act that there was no cost-benefit analysis done.

You look at Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act. It’s those cumulative effects that eventually—businesses look at their overall expenditure in each jurisdiction and say, “Hey, listen, we’re no longer competitive here compared to plants elsewhere.”

Look at some of the local manufacturing facilities in my area of Kitchener–Conestoga. Long-time, entrenched employers in my community like Kitchener Frame, formerly known as Budd Automotive, just down the street from my place on Homer Watson—you drive by, and the plant is levelled; there are heaps of concrete and rebar. They’re ripping that place down. At one time, it employed 3,000 people. They shut down April 23, 2009.

You look at the BFGoodrich plant around the corner from my house as well. It made tires for years, employing thousands of people. Where did they go? They moved to the United States.

Just recently also, just down the street, Knape and Vogt, formerly Waterloo manufacturing—over 230-some people—the plant has relocated. Where? Grand Rapids, Michigan.

We’re shedding these jobs left and right out of our province, and why? Well, of course, the minister will blame it on the federal government, but we have to take into consideration high hydro rates and the regulatory burden on employers.

Bill 105 actually discriminates against or impacts employers with a payroll over $5 million. These folks are the ones employing people in communities like London or Leamington.

So back to the bill: We talked about the fact that the Ontario PC caucus is the only party with a real plan to free businesses from the tax and regulatory burden this government has placed upon them so that they can actually create new jobs and make investments—not only creating new jobs, but retaining the ones we have. Sometimes we hear about creating new jobs, but what are we doing to retain the jobs that are here? Time and time again, we’re hearing small, little announcements here and there, but what is the government doing to retain those good jobs in communities like Leamington, Windsor, London, Kitchener–Waterloo, Belleville and northern Ontario?

We need an actual plan. We’ve actually called for the House to continue sitting next week so that the government can bring forward a jobs plan that addresses the real concerns, the real issues that employers in Ontario actually are facing—not symbolic bills that do nothing, like shutting down the coal plants, which is already happening by the end of 2014, to make sure Al Gore and his friends are happy. That’s a symbolic move that isn’t really required. They already have the tools necessary. We don’t need symbolism; we need action—today, now.

As I said, this bill—we obviously have some issues with it. We’ll be addressing it as we continue on further.

As my colleague from Nipissing stated in his time, he rephrased the bill and called it the “supporting small business while we stick it to them in a hundred ways act.” That’s what I would officially call the bill. I know the government likes to throw these fancy names on the bill, but that’s what I would call it.

This government, day in and day out, dreams up new revenue tools. This is a tax-and-spend government or, more precisely, a “spend first, tax later” government. This government in the last 10 years has doubled our debt. It took 20 Premiers and 136 years to reach a debt of $139 billion. Today, in just 10 years, our debt is $273 billion. That’s more than double, Speaker.

I know the temperature dipped quite low this morning on my walk in to work, so folks will have their heat, no doubt, fired up right now at home. We naturally expect our energy bills to rise, but this government decided to tack on an additional cost to our energy bills, starting back on November 1. How is this government supporting small businesses when actually, they’re taking two blows to the knees, in the month of November, for businesses’ energy bills?

Ten years ago, we paid just 4.4 cents a kilowatt hour. With the global adjustment, we now pay double that at 8.72 cents a kilowatt hour. You know what? It’s like telling mom or grandma to do their laundry at 2 in the morning. We can’t go to our manufacturers and say, “Hey, put everybody in the lunchroom during peak hours and we’ll come back and make the cereal at off-peak hours.” It just doesn’t make sense. In fact, the government is using our electricity sector to support a range of shifting policy objectives without credible examination of whether burdening the electricity ratepayer with the cost of such initiatives is economically efficient.

Just yesterday, we heard about the waste at OPG, top executives making an absurd amount of money. The pension ratio of 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 is insane. I mean, hard-working Ontarians having to foot the bill for that is absurd. They come to me and say, “What the heck is going on? No wonder my hydro bill is going up.” These guys are making crazy amounts of money. They reduce their overall employee base by 8.6%, yet the pay for these high-paying executives goes through the roof. The waste is unbelievable.

The power plants: People say, “A billion dollars to not even generate one kilowatt of power? What is that going to cost me?” Somebody should be in jail, yet not one person was demoted or fired; yet you, the taxpayer, will continue to pay.

I talk to a lot of folks, small business people. When we bring up the health tax credit, we talk about the College of Trades. This is another government priority that, unfortunately—they should be encouraging good job creation and stimulating economic growth, not creating new fees and more barriers for our workforce. Instead, the Liberals created yet another organization with additional fees for small business called the College of Trades. This trades tax has driven up the cost of doing business for professionals working in more than 155 skilled trades. Barbers, hairstylists, they’re like, “Why do I have to pay this? This is crazy.”

WSIB premiums—this was last January: WSIB coverage for independent operators, sole proprietors, partners and partnerships, and executive officers of corporations is no longer optional; it’s now mandatory. Bill 119 captured more small business people to pay mandatory premiums, who would be unlikely to ever claim for injuries. It’s small business people who have construction companies. Office employees, who will never go to the site, are now forced to pay this. Many of them complain, saying that they’ve already calculated this risk into the cost of their business and have their own insurance to cover them, should there ever be an incident.

We talk about Bill 91. Of course, we heard earlier this year about the tire tax, another tax targeted onto hard-working Ontario farmers—the massive tax hikes this year that we’ve seen, the Drive Clean program continually gouging Ontarians when they go to renew their licence. I mean, the cost goes up and up.

But Speaker, I want to go back to Bill 105. The proposed bill, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, just doesn’t do the job of fixing the last 10 years of wasteful spending and the price we’ve had to pay on countless Liberal scandals. Perhaps the Liberal government should be more interested in helping small businesses than in putting their own interests first.

Apologies do not get us out of the red. Unfortunately, the Premier has had many of these to give, but I don’t see our credit rating going up each time she holds another press conference to say sorry. Instead, a culture of entitlement has been fostered by this government at the cost of hard-working Ontarians—as I had mentioned, the $1 billion-plus cancellation of the power plants, but also the $1 billion wasted over at eHealth to fund flights around the country and PhDs, and the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted over at ORNGE.

We’ve heard more about that, and I’m sure we’re going to hear more about ORNGE this morning. This is truly disturbing, when people are dying because of improper decisions made by executives, who shouldn’t be spending our tax dollars on lavish Christmas parties or fancy boats or Harley-Davidsons. Speaker, this is not only backwards, but it’s just plain wrong.

As I mentioned, the Auditor General reported yesterday on the waste over at OPG. But her first opportunity to speak before the Legislature was a report that she had done on the cancellation of the Oakville gas plant, the seat-saver program that cost roughly a billion dollars, tacking it onto the hydro bill of Ontarians and those small businesses and employers across Ontario who will eventually have to foot that bill.

Speaker, overall Bill 105 hurts the ability of businesses to compete in the global marketplace by adding to their input costs. It supplies special rules for registered charities and for a group of employers associated with the registered charities. It allows the minister to make regulations providing for special rules that apply to employers who are or are associated with registered charities. We have concerns, of course, about the minister’s ability to make subjective changes through regulations around these charities when they cannot properly manage the public purse.

It’s similar to Bill 91. We asked the government to table a cost-benefit analysis, or asked them if they’d done one before tabling such legislation. We have not been able to get an answer, of course, on that, and that’s probably why the bill was pulled today: a lot of negative publicity with regard to adding more costs to manufacturers, especially in the food processing industry, which we’ve heard has shed some major jobs this past week at Kellogg’s and Heinz just a few weeks ago. To do these cost-benefit analyses, to do the proper research—they’re like, “Hey, don’t worry. We’ll figure this out later.” Well, that’s not good enough.

Businesses need certainty. The uncertainty of new regulations is truly what’s frightening employers across the province. It’s that uncertainty that could come at any time—hydro rates, regulatory burden, administration and paperwork—that’s all involved in this.

So we talked about those concerns. This bill, like hundreds of Liberal self-serving policies, doesn’t support small business like it should. We talked about the changes—in fact, we asked for the bill to be passed yesterday, but we talked about the changes that we felt were necessary to bring that threshold up much further so that we’re not penalizing those employers who actually pay the bills and support hard-working families in Ontario. By bringing it from $400,00 to $450,000, you’re actually hurting the folks that have payrolls over half a million dollars. It’s crazy to think.

The member for Oxford mentioned some comments from some folks within the riding and some of the comments on the hard-working folks at Kellogg’s who have worked for decades at the plant and who will, unfortunately, have to weather the storm and will be out looking for new jobs. In fact, London, Ontario, is one of the jurisdictions that has one of the highest unemployment rates within Ontario. We hope for the best for those folks to ensure that they’re able to support their families throughout the year.

Again, we’ve called for a jobs plan. We’re asking the government, let’s sit another week. Let’s see what they’ve got. Instead of tabling symbolic legislation, we’ve asked for a credible jobs plan. We’ve even said, “Hey, steal ours.” We’ve talked about this. We’ve proposed our ideas through our recent white papers. I encourage the government to have a good look at those, and we’re happy to have them steal our ideas.

Now is the critical time when we need the government to act. Far too often, we read headlines: in Windsor, talking about the departure of Heinz from Leamington’s; just yesterday, the Kellogg’s plant in London; Bick’s pickles, gone; Knape and Vogt, from Kitchener; Kitchener Frame, formerly Budd; Schneiders Foods, a major local employer in my area, and more than 1,200 hard-working folks within the Kitchener-Waterloo area will be affected by that; John Forsyth Shirt Company; as I’d mentioned before, BFGoodrich, which made tires; E.D. Smith; Sunoco; Lance Canada; Ledco in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, just around the corner. These folks are packing up, not to ever be back.

You drive down Homer Watson Boulevard in Kitchener and you see the old Budd plant that employed up to 3,000 at one time. I remember the guys just packing the Tim Hortons in the morning, going for coffee; they’re nowhere in sight. It’s being ripped up, and they’re putting a commercial plaza in. Those well-paying jobs will never be back there again, employing some 3,000 people at one time.

That’s why we’re asking the government to bring forward a plan. We’ll give them an extra week to see it. They can steal our ideas all they want, but we have to act now. To sit there and blame the federal government on border crossings and the high Canadian dollar—as my colleague stated, in the 1970s the Canadian dollar was over $1.15. Did you see Heinz and Kellogg’s running out of the province then? What is the dollar today? It’s below par and yet they’re departing. That argument is not valid.

Interjection: It’s moot.

Mr. Michael Harris: It’s moot; you’re right. It’s a moot argument.

What’s more important is the regulatory burden that we hit to our businesses; the high hydro rates; the labour policies that we have in Ontario that are archaic. It’s just a cumulative effect that eventually drives these businesses out of Ontario.

I’ll wrap it up there. I look forward to hearing comments from my colleagues, and we’ll go from there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents in London West and respond to the comments from the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

I’ve only been in this House since September, so a relatively short time, and I have to say, I’ve seen some wonderful things happen. I’ve seen members from all three parties join together to identify priorities and to move forward to make sure that there’s legislation in place to address those priorities.

But I have to say, I am somewhat confused by the process, by the political games that have been played on this important piece of legislation. We’ve all agreed that it needs to move forward. The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has commented that this Legislature should be focusing on jobs. My community has been devastated by the loss of jobs at Kellogg’s. We need to make sure that the business of the House is moving forward. Instead, despite all the debate that has taken place, we see the PCs continuing to put up speakers to this legislation when we have all agreed that it’s important, that small businesses need it and that it should move forward.

I’m learning a lot about what goes on in this place. I’m not too sure about the strategy that’s behind this, but I really think that we have identified something that would help small businesses in this province and that we have an obligation as MPPs who represent our communities to try to move forward and take action when we can. This legislation should be passed now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important matter in response to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

There is an

article from the Globe and Mail that has frequently been mentioned as it relates to Kellogg’s. Let me read the entire paragraph for fairness’ sake, so that we’re not picking and choosing a sentence here and there. This is what this very important, critical paragraph says: “Energy costs, which are relatively high in Ontario and going up, are a concern in Ontario, Mr. Myers said.” That’s Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. “So are labour costs, though he said the province is fairly competitive with other jurisdictions.

The bigger factors are the still-elevated currency, which has put companies at a competitive disadvantage, and regulations surrounding border crossing that drive up costs for businesses.”

That’s the quote, Speaker. I just wanted to let you know that even the business groups are saying that federal jurisdictions around border crossings is a major concern.

Now, this is comments and questions, so I do have a few questions for the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, through you, Speaker, and also to the other members of the PC caucus who have been talking about this issue of taxes in Ontario.

I want to know: How did the PC Party vote when it came to Ontario reducing its corporate income tax rate from 14% to 12%, and then to 11.5%? I would like to know how the PC Party voted when we reduced the small business corporate tax from 5.5% to 4.5%. I want to know how the PC Party voted when the Ontario government totally eliminated the small business deduction surtax from 4.25% to zero. I also would like to know how the PC Party voted when we totally eliminated the capital tax on all businesses, whether they make money or not.

I would like to know the answer to these questions, because the answer is “no” every single time. I would like to know why they voted against those tax cuts that would help businesses in our province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen respectfully to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga. He did speak and tried to relate the impact on families at this time of year, not just at Kellogg’s but Heinz and other people who employ good-paying jobs in Ontario. Let’s keep it at that level, because, quite honestly, the Minister of Labour just spoke; he doesn’t realize just how hard it is for the people of Ontario.

It’s not just the electricity price. It’s not the cup of coffee that the Minister of Energy said. Even your remarks are inaccurate. You actually had promised to reduce the corporate tax rate and backed away from it. You should understand your own policies. It’s a failed experiment. They actually have no consistency and certainty in their policy. That’s the real issue here: Consistency, certainty and stability would encourage investors in the province.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga, in fairness—and, I thought, with a very positive tone—talked about the 15 white papers that we have out there. We’ve actually cleared the decks legislatively, as has been said many times. Yesterday, a couple of bills put forward by our House leader, Jim Wilson, and our deputy House leader, Steve Clark—in all good sense, these were bills that the government had messed up administratively.

On the law society reforms, they should have had that in here and done with long ago. They left it to the last minute because they’re managing in chaos. That’s the lack of stability and certainty here, and that’s what’s driving investors out. That’s not specific regulatory issues; this is a government that has no plan.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, raises the question every day. In fact, he has offered, as you know, Speaker, to sit an extra week to work on the jobs plan for Ontario, yet they won’t even give us the time of day. On this bill, we moved 10 amendments to increase the threshold. They turned them all down.

I can’t trust this government. That’s the problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments. Questions and comments. Seeing none—you just made it under the bell, the member from Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Speaker. I will try to get up a little bit sooner next time.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: His knees are bad, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Yes, I’m having some difficulties.

I have this report in front of me this morning. It just tells the people of Ontario how well this government is doing—all the waste and all the scandals they’ve been involved with, and it just keeps growing. They have no jobs plan, and certainly this Bill 105 doesn’t help that situation at all in Ontario.

I don’t know what the definition of a small business is. My friend who sits to my left here said that if you want a small business in Ontario, you start with a big one first, because under these policies you’re going to get a small one.

I want to tell you about a business that I know a lot about, that was started in 1993 and had as many as six employees working for this small business at one time. It was just a mom-and-dad business. When 2008 came along, it was the first time they ever had to lay off their employees—the first time.

Now, I’m not blaming the government for the recession of 2008-09. However, I must say that every year since, these employees have had to be laid off. Thankfully, they come back, and this business is very thankful for that, but the business still has to lay these employees off, because some of the bigger businesses that this company used to do business with are cutting back. There’s no incentive to spend any money for this small company to work for them, because they’re trying to save their dollars.

There is no confidence in the economy of Ontario right now with all these plant closures going on, so that trickles down to these smaller companies. I know this company rather well because it’s the company that we have; it’s the company that my wife runs right now.

I need to sit down. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Harris: I do appreciate the comments from the members from London West, I believe the Minister of Labour chimed in, of course the honourable member from Durham—always thorough with his questions and comments—and of course the member from Perth–Wellington giving a real-life example of a long list of scandals that this government has had happen over the last 10 years. I said, “Randy, you’ve only got two minutes. The list could go on and on and on.” But I think it’s important.

I know I had an opportunity to speak to Bill 105. I know Bill 91 was up for debate this morning, but I’ll give you a bit of an insight as to the type of legislation these folks are bringing that actually impact businesses. I’ll go back to the

article written by Chris Vander Doelen in the Windsor Star on the weekend. That’s got a lot to do with Bill 91. In a letter that was actually written to the environment ministry from Heinz—and I’m going to quote the managing director of Heinz. He called it “‘unacceptable’ that the Wynne government intends to pass Bill 91 before its new regulatory powers are defined, and before the industry can figure out its significant effects on production, operations and their legal obligations.

“Basically, Bill 91 throws food producers into a complex and expensive new regulatory world that nobody yet understands. As an example of how vague the law is, he points out that it even lacks the definition of a food ‘producer,’ and does not define who will be affected by its powers.

“While the government says it will set those

definitions after the bill passes into law, ‘the process of consultation cannot proceed without knowing clearly who is obligated by the act….’”

So they’re always, like, “Let’s legislate first, ask questions later.” No, that’s not how it works. That’s how you’re affecting businesses. The member from Windsor should be concerned about this. It is concerning that the government has no intention of considering those economic effects before they bring in such legislation.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am pleased to introduce my nephew, Liam Bradford, who has joined us in the gallery today and is a constituent from the great riding of Parkdale–High Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? I’m guessing maybe the member from Parkdale–High Park? No? Okay. The member from York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park today Constable Jim Lambe, crime prevention officer at 12 Division in Toronto; and Barbara Spyropoulos, head of the community police liaison committee at 12 Division and resident of York South–Weston. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome to the chamber this morning my executive assistant, Merv Richards. Although Merv has worked for the party in various capacities for over 20 years, he’s never attended question period in the chamber. It’s his first time today and I want you to give him a big welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to again welcome Harold Wilson here from Thunder Bay. He made the trip in from Thunder Bay to be here in the Legislature today and is sitting in the members’ west gallery.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome a number of young people from the Iranian Canadian Youth centre in Richmond Hill and Thornhill. They’re students at Richmond Green and Thornhill secondary schools: Shahab Ghayumi, Milad Eghdami, Amir Saman, Saeed Eghdami, as well as Arshia Rahimi, Sohrab Esmaeil-Pour, Kiana Esmaeil-Pour, Mahnaz Zandvakili and Alborz Arshak, as well as Shahram Saremi.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome the family of the Ottawa–Centre page, Amy Falkner: Amy’s mother, Julia Martin; grandmother Elizabeth Martin; and aunt Kathy Lacroix are here in the chamber. They were here earlier in the morning. I’m sure they’ll be back for question period.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome to the chamber today Joell Ann Vanderwagen. Thank you for coming and welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today we have Olga Radchenko, who’s with the government relations firm of Hill and Knowlton. We want to welcome her to Queen’s Park today.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais présenter à l’Assemblée aujourd’hui M. Denis Vaillancourt, qui est le président de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, avec Peter Hominuk, qui est le directeur général.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It gives me great pleasure to welcome kids from the Iranian Canadian Youth Organization, sitting in the gallery. The organization provides a forum for youth to come together and to engage in community work.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: As I look around, I notice that these people aren’t here yet but I would like to mention them. We’re having Rondeau day here at Queen’s Park with Dr. David Colby, Dr. Mike Newell, Keith Graham, Brian French, my executive assistant from Chatham, Larry Landry, and the president of Union Gas, Steve Baker.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome students from Langstaff Secondary School in my riding of Richmond Hill sitting in the west gallery.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I know they’re not in the chamber yet, but they will be here momentarily. I’m proud to welcome my aunt and uncle to Queen’s Park today, Karl and Joey Nevin. Karl served formerly as a warden in Middlesex county.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I also would like to welcome Byron Behnke, who is the father of my legislative intern Jessica Behnke. I’m just delighted to welcome you into the chamber today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Mississauga–Erindale, for page Spencer Johne, mother Marjo Johne is here in the members’ gallery today. We welcome you.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, as leaders, we’re judged by the decisions that we make and the standards we set for those around us. As Premier, that sends a signal to job creators and investors about what it’s like to do business in the province of Ontario. For those who are desperate to get a steady job, they look to the Premier for leadership. I’ve asked you day in and day out; I’ve suggested extending the sitting for at least an additional week so we can come up with a jobs plan. You’ve decided not to do that. But I also want to talk about the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I will have order today.

Leader.

Mr. Tim Hudak: But this is more so on the standards that you set—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sudbury will come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: That Auditor General’s report last night should keep you awake at night—the grotesque waste in our hydro system. This is about your leadership and your standards. After that kind of abuse, no wonder hydro bills are going through the roof. I’ve just got to ask you, what’s going to happen to your energy minister when you see this kind of debacle on his watch? How can you set that standard? Where is the bar? What’s going to happen to Bob Chiarelli after this incredible mess at Ontario Power Generation?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My desire for quiet is for all of the House. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition to use either titles or ridings, and that goes for anyone who decides to interject. I will be strong on that issue today.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to thank the Auditor General for her report. I think it’s a very important part of our system, Mr. Speaker, that we have the oversight and that we have the analysis of government organization. The Auditor General has done a very good job, and the OPG and the government take very seriously the findings that she has outlined.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when we learned of the auditor’s findings, we expressed our concern to the OPG’s board chair and CEO. We informed OPG that a plan of action had to be implemented to correct all the issues that have been identified in the report. It’s clear that Ontarians should expect better and can expect better.

The board has terminated the employment of its chief financial officer; the executive vice-president, strategic initiatives; and vice-president, internal audit. OPG will reduce the eligible amount—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Very respectfully, hold on a second here. This report, you had in your possession for months; the energy minister has been there for 10. These jobs don’t pop up like mushrooms in the dark. These are jaw-dropping figures: 8,000 people making $100,000 a year or more on the hydro system; 60% of the workforce are in middle and upper management. It just makes no sense to those people who are struggling to pay their hydro bills to see this kind of scandalous mess.

The only time you react is when you see there are issues of management. Once the horse is out of the barn, once the report comes out, you’ve got to respond to the newspapers, and you make something up.

Why wasn’t something done sooner? Some 8,000 jobs don’t pop up overnight. Was he asleep at the switch? This is the guy who famously said: “Don’t worry about the gas plants. It’s all just a cup of Tim Hortons coffee,” in his own Marie Antoinette moment last week. Premier, the standards you set send a signal to investors and job creators about who’s in charge here.

So let me ask you: Who is in charge, and what are you doing with your hydro minister for the incredible mess at Ontario Power Generation?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have taken action, and I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the specifics.

But let me be clear: There has not been a government in Ontario that has had the controls that I believe need to be in place to control overcompensation in this agency. There has not been a government that has put those controls in place—not the party opposite, not the third party. We are putting those controls in place. It is very important to me that Ontarians can expect better, and the culture that has developed over subsequent decades—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West will come to order and the Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order when she’s answering.

Please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The challenges with energy sector compensation existed when the Leader of the Opposition’s party was in government. He didn’t change it. He was in cabinet. His leader didn’t change it. I’m not making excuses for the behaviour. What I’m saying is: We are changing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Honest to God, only the Liberals would give this kind of incredible waste a standing ovation.

You’ve been there for 10 years. Again, Premier, this is about the standard that you set for your leadership team. How can they get confidence in the province? Energy is one of the most crucial ministries when it comes to job creation. It’s a scandalous mess, and it’s costing us jobs like Kellogg’s, like John Deere.

Your health minister, similarly, is failing a very crucial test. I just find it absolutely—I’m incredulous that the health minister didn’t know that Chris Mazza had a $10-million salary coming his way. She said she left it sealed in the report. I actually find that hard to believe. I think it’s probably easier to say that than to say that she didn’t act. Either way, it’s inexcusable.

Energy is critical to jobs and investment. Health is critical to our most vulnerable populations. If you see this happening—I know you’re close; I know you’re friends, but that’s not what decisions should be about. It should be about competence: Who is doing the best at watching out for taxpayers in the province of Ontario. What are the standards you have for your ministers when you see this type of scandal, and you’re looking the other way?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would want to move off energy because he knows full well that government after government has not taken action in terms of making sure government has the mechanisms and the levers to pull to take control over those compensation packages. We are taking that action.

In terms of taking responsibility and taking action, every situation that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to, we have dealt with. We have learned from those situations and we have put in place a new regime, whether it’s in the specific situations in health care or whether it’s in energy. But the Leader of the Opposition needs to accept that the culture that he is talking about in the energy organization is one that has been in place for decades.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. The health minister this morning, when asked what the budget of Ornge was and whether she knew what the annual payments were for the $275-million bond offering, responded by saying “Is this a quiz?” It’s actually very serious business.

I want to know from the Premier, does she think it’s acceptable for her health minister not to know what the annual budget of Ornge is and not to know about a $20-million annual payment that Ornge now has to make on a $275-million bond offering? Is that the kind of competency, transparency and oversight that she expects from her health minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite has been a minister of the crown. He knows what’s entailed in doing that job. He has not been the Minister of Health, which is a $48-billion ministry, so he actually doesn’t understand what it takes to transform a system like that. He actually doesn’t understand what’s necessary in terms of the ability to evaluate evidence and understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment will come to order. The member from Cambridge will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I think he does know is that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has a responsibility to make sure that we have a health care system that is sustainable over the long term. In order to do that, we have to make changes, and those are the kinds of changes that this Minister of Health is making so that the member opposite’s children and grandchildren who live in Ontario will have a health care system when they need it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, I think the first change that should be made is a change of the Minister of Health because for the Minister of Health not to even know what the annual budget of Ornge is—this is an agency, an organization, that has been under the scope of the public accounts committee for two and a half years. One would expect that, at the very least, she would know what’s going on in that agency, but she doesn’t.

So I’m asking the Premier one more time to transform the health ministry of the province of Ontario. How can she count on a minister who doesn’t know the fundamental issues relating to Ornge? How can she expect that minister to do her job when she demonstrates that kind of incompetence every day, every hour of the year? How can she possibly expect transformation to happen?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because the fundamental issue that this Minister of Health and Long-Term Care had to deal with was to make sure that the changes were in place so that there would be the appropriate oversight at Ornge. That’s why we reintroduced Bill 11. That will mean that Ornge is more accountable, that there is a system in place that makes sure that the correct monitoring is there so that that situation won’t arise again. That’s the fundamental.

That’s the policy issue that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is responsible for, and that’s the policy issue that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is dealing with. That’s why she reintroduced Bill 11. The member opposite knows full well that it’s support for that kind of oversight that he should be putting forward.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s interesting that that bill has not been called back for the Legislature to deal with. Why not? There has been lots of time. We haven’t seen this bill in this House—if that bill is so important. Again, why isn’t the Minister of Health doing her job? Why isn’t that bill in the House for debate? Why hasn’t that bill been passed if, in fact, it’s going to make the difference?

I’m going to ask the Premier to refer this question to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health tell us if, between the public accounts hearing this morning and now, she has found out what the budget of Ornge is for this fiscal year? Can the minister tell us?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care gave the number. She said $152 million in committee. My understanding is, if you check Hansard, you will find the number there.

The member opposite talks about bringing a particular bill forward. What he doesn’t talk about are the procedural games that are being played in the Legislature. It’s very difficult from the outside to look at what’s happening within House leaders’ meetings and across the floor, but the reality is that there is procedural wrangling going on. It’s very unfortunate. We are working very hard to make the minority Parliament work. It would be fabulous to have two partners in that, in the opposition and the third party.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last March, the sunshine list showed hydro executives receiving massive compensation that broke the million-dollar mark by a mile. Did the Premier bother to even look at that sunshine list?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said many times in this House, we are introducing legislation, we are acting on our commitment to put controls in place on executive compensation, but we are going to do it in a way that recognizes the complexity of the various sectors, that recognizes that there need to be ranges in place, including hard caps, and recognizes that we have to look at the total compensation packages.

As I have said, subsequent governments have not put in place the mechanisms and levers to make sure that government has the control over those compensation packages. I’m not talking about a 10-year situation. I’m talking about decades, tens of years where those controls have not been in place. The parties opposite did not make those changes. We are, Mr. Speaker. We will put those controls in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order. Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, while most people were reacting with shock to those reports of sky-high salaries last March, the Premier mused about raising the reporting threshold, and there’s not any evidence that she did much else. Did she call the head of the OPG or any hydro agency to ask on behalf of ratepayers what was going on with these sky-high salaries?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The very point I have been making is that government after government has not put the controls in place to be able to ask those questions and get that information. I’m not excusing that, but I’m saying that there is a culture that developed that needs to be changed. Government after government did not make that change.

I’ve been in this office since February. We’re going to make that change so government will be able to have direct control over those compensation packages.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: May I remind the Premier that for 10 years there has been a Liberal in the Premier’s office and a Liberal at the Ministry of Energy.

The OPG has one shareholder; it’s the province. The Premier’s job is to be a voice for the people who are paying sky-high electricity bills. That’s part of her job. People have watched the salaries and the perks grow for years. Is she telling the people paying the bills that she didn’t place a single call to find out what the heck was going on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report was over a period of 10 years. It’s important to note that in 2007, in response to the Agency Review Panel report, the ministry reduced OPG’s executive salaries by 25% to 30% for new executive contracts. They couldn’t change existing contracts.

In addition, the OPG executive compensation envelope has decreased by 9% since 2010 and is continuing to replace exiting executives at a lower cost. Base pay for OPG executives, including vice-presidents, has been frozen since 2010 and continues to be frozen. And through their business transformation plan, between 2011 and 2015 there will be a reduction of 2,300 full-time employees, with 1,500 FTEs already happening.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. OPG is owned by the people of Ontario. It’s the job of the Premier to speak up on behalf of people paying the highest electricity bills in Canada. Instead, the Premier defended the same old policies. People have watched year after year as CEO salaries grew and grew and grew. The Premier knew what was happening; she just chose to do absolutely nothing about it.

Is she ready to admit that, once again, the Liberals completely ignored their responsibility to the people who are stuck paying the bills in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The premise and the substance of the leader of the third party’s question is just not accurate, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Energy has just outlined, there have been actions taken, but as I have said, I believe that there need to be more controls and there needs to be more authority on the part of government in order to take control of those compensation packages.

From my perspective, this is an issue that has developed over decades—not over the last 10 years, but over decades—and that means that there have been subsequent governments that have not taken action. We have taken action; there have been changes made. But the fact is, there’s more that needs to be done. That’s why we’re going to change it. That’s why we’re going to put controls in place so that government will have more direct control over those compensation packages, and I would expect that the leader of the third party would support that change, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While the Premier and her party were letting OPG executive pay skyrocket and helping executives buy million-dollar homes, people have been watching their bills go up to pay for the sky-high pay and perks.

Ron from the Niagara region writes this: “I live in an apartment which is heated with electric heat. My [old age security] and [Canada pension plan] have increased by less than 1%. [The government has] no concept of what their hydro increases do to the average senior.... The management system in hydro is so far away from the reality others live under….”

What does the Premier have to say to folks like Ron?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There is pressure on prices; however, when it comes to Ontario Power Generation, they have received no rate increase since 2008. In 2011, Mr. Speaker, they made an application for an increase of 6.4%. The Ontario Energy Board gave them a reduction of 0.8%.

Ontario Power Generation produces 40% of the power in Ontario, and their rate base is less than the other 60%. In addition, over the course of the last eight years, they have generated $7 billion in net transfer dollars to the province of Ontario to help pay for schools, hospitals and colleges.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are paying the highest electricity bills in Canada, and instead of taking action, the Premier has turned a blind eye. People are tired of being stuck with sky-high bills because the Liberals simply can’t be bothered to give a damn. New Democrats have been calling for a hard cap on CEO salaries for years. Is this Premier ready to admit that the Liberal government is responsible for driving up the hydro bills that people in this province are paying?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Is the leader of the third party prepared to accept the fact that she has no plan for hydro rates in the province of Ontario? She has no policy with respect to renewables. She’s refusing to say yes to not going ahead with nuclear. And speaking of nuclear, Mr. Speaker, we have taken some very significant steps to moderate rate increases for the next 20 years. That includes deferring new nuclear, which—the Leader of the Opposition would invest $15 billion on hydro that we don’t need.

We have a 20-year plan. It projects an increase of 2.8% over that period. And for the short number of years leading into that 20 years, we have created mitigating programs for energy consumers, including the 10% discount, including the energy tax credit, including the seniors’ energy credit.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus today to ask a question of the Premier regarding OPG. Obviously, OPG has just made the Senate of Canada look like good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars.

Here we are today. I have so much material and questions that I don’t know which to ask. The first question I might ask the Premier is: How could she let handsome pension plans like those that are occurring at OPG still continue? Another question I might ask the Premier today is: How could she only fire three executives when the rot and the corruption at OPG have gone so deep into that organization? I could also ask her how she could allow nepotism to occur to the level that it has at OPG, but, Speaker, I won’t.

The question I’m going to ask is on behalf of the Ottawa Council of Business Improvement Areas. Nineteen business improvement areas in the city of Ottawa have asked the Premier this question: “We urge you to please work on the side of Ottawa retailers, on the side of job creators and on the side of Ottawa employees and reconsider your … crippling hydro increases.” Will you do it?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked if he would freeze or lower rates, he said, “No, I cannot do that.” That’s for starters.

But let’s talk about his policy with respect to Ontario Power Generation. His policy is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got them up here.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —he would privatize Ontario Power Generation, and the Toronto Sun said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order—last time.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: “Hudak should keep in mind the last Tory government in Ontario that tried to do that with electricity generation, promising it would lead to lower hydro rates.

“Instead, it led to the exact opposite—rates skyrocketed amid rampant Tory patronage, and the Conservatives, faced with rising public fury, abandoned the scheme, leaving a financial disaster in their wake.”

His policy is to privatize, to try to do what he did last time, and that’s what his Toronto Sun says about his—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This minister has a lot of nerve, on a day after what was I think the most damning Auditor General’s report since I have been in this chamber, three terms, to stand in his place and talk about a public policy initiative a decade ago, before his government was in office, before the taxpayers of this province were paying for their boondoggle—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The Minister of Energy will come to order. Thunder Bay–Atikokan, come to order.

Finish, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Let’s just stick with the facts, Premier, Minister, government over there. The people of this province are stuck with your energy policies. Last week, it was the long-term energy plan which is driving up rates. The week before that, it was the $1.1-billion gas scandal. This week, it’s the OPG—the new Senate of Canada—that is wasting taxpayer dollars and hurting the ratepayers of this province.

My question is, will he listen to the ratepayers in our city, the Ottawa Council of Business Improvement Areas? Will you listen to them? Will you scrap your long-term energy plan? Will you put OPG in its place and fire more than three people?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, first of all, to correct the record, the policy that I referred to was not 10 years ago; it was his white paper that he issued about 12 months ago.

The Tories’ failed attempt to privatize the electricity system in the late 1990s led to a sudden price shock; in only a few months, the price increased by 30%. And it gets worse: The Leader of the Opposition’s proposal could mean that OPG would have to sell off the Niagara Falls generating station, one of Ontario’s greatest assets.

The last time they tried to privatize, top advisers were at the trough. Well-connected Tory insiders received nearly $6 million in untendered contracts from Hydro One. That’s from the National Post.

Tom Long, this leader’s co-campaign manager, made off with $1.3 million in Hydro One contracts—from the Toronto Star, June 10, 2004.

Leslie Noble: The firm of Hudak’s other co-campaign manager—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. In 2012, the government tried to kill the ONTC without any consultation, any planning or any policy. It claimed that it would save the taxpayers of Ontario $265 million. What it didn’t tell Ontarians was that in the same budget, this government allocated $325 million for divestment costs. Yesterday, the Auditor General’s report outlined that if the divestment goes ahead, it will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $800 million.

Will your government once and for all admit that it was wrong and announce the halt of the divestment of the ONTC?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: My friend and colleague across the floor knows very well that the estimate of that large dollar figure is not an accurate reflection of our government’s approach to transforming the ONTC. That is indeed an assessment of the potential associated liability. And may I say that the Auditor General says that herself. It assumes the worst—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The Auditor General said, “This estimate assumes the worst-case scenario for severance cost estimates and that no employees would be retained after divestment.”

Mr. Speaker, that is not our government’s approach. We are very clear about how important the ONTC is in terms of an economic development agency in northeastern Ontario. That’s why we are committed to a transformation of the ONTC.

Our minister’s advisory committee has recognized that the status quo will not work. Everybody, I think, understands that the status quo will not work, and that’s why we’re committed to—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: Let’s talk about this government’s approach to the ONTC. They announced the divestment, yet the Auditor General’s report showed they didn’t even bother to crunch the numbers for four months after.

Let’s talk about this government’s record on the ONTC. They’re scrambling once again to come up with weasel words like “transformation,” and you know who is left out in the cold? Northerners, seniors, the people who use the train, the customers, small business, big business.

The divestment is wrong. It could leave Ontarians with $820 million in costs for a train that no longer stops anywhere. Is this government still planning on spending $800 million to deny essential services to northern Ontario? Premier, is that your one Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are absolutely committed to seeing a sustainable, efficient, well-run Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. May I say, Mr. Speaker, the members of our ministerial advisory committee are in agreement with us on that.

I’ve got some extraordinarily important quotes. How about this from Mayor Al McDonald: “We all agree, including the union, the management, the stakeholders, the business model is broken and it needs to be restructured. The focus is on transformation, not divestment.”

Back in May, at the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities’ annual general meeting, I publicly said that divestment was no longer the only option on the table. That’s why we’re working so hard to see the ONTC transformed. It has got a bright future if we make the right decisions. There are some tough decisions. We’d love to have your help in that regard as well, like all other people in northern Ontario.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In the last three years, $85 million in settlement funding to our province had been cut by the federal government. Settlement services play an important role in the lives of newcomers as they adjust to a new life in Ontario and start making valuable contributions to our society.

Federal cuts have changed the level of service that community agencies are able to provide for newcomers, and I have noticed the effects in my riding. York South–Weston is home to thousands of newcomers, and among them, many Somali Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you inform the House what kind of assistance your ministry is providing to help newcomers from the Somali community and the east African communities?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member for her question.

Here in the province of Ontario, we believe in one Ontario. We believe that everyone in this province should have the opportunity to contribute, connect and achieve their goals. We also believe in investing in people through settlement services.

Midaynta Community Services and the Community Action Resource Centre are located in the member’s riding and provide services to more than 1,000 people of Somalian background.

Midaynta is one of the eight settlement agencies in Ontario that are now receiving a grant to look at new and innovative ways to deliver settlement services to vulnerable immigrant populations and underserved communities. This organization’s work focuses on the integration of Somali newcomers and youth.

This year, our government will invest $7.6 million into newcomer settlement services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Speaker, for that response, and thank you to the minister. The settlement services that are provided to newcomers are life-changing.

While many new Canadians continue to choose Toronto as a destination, others are choosing to settle in smaller communities across the province, communities like Essex county, Sarnia or the Niagara region. Newcomers who settle outside Toronto need access to the same services and programs provided in larger cities in order to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of our province. They need places that will provide them with services like language training and employment counselling.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what newcomer settlement programs are available to newcomers across Ontario, more specifically to those who settle in smaller communities?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member again for her question. This year, our government will fund 98 community organizations across this great province to help 80,000 newcomers here in our province. Province-wide, 89% of clients surveyed last year reported that they can make more informed decisions about their new life in Ontario after receiving such services.

I’d like to highlight one of the organizations that provides newcomer services here in our province, and that’s the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre. Since 2009, we have provided over half a million dollars to this organization so that they can deliver newcomer orientation sessions. These important services are used by a broad range of clients, including permanent residents, refugee claimants and provincial nominees.

This government believes in helping newcomer settlement services in becoming a functioning part of what we do here in this province, because we know that, at the end of the day, when newcomers succeed Ontario succeeds.

SERVICEONTARIO

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. As you know, this is my first term in the House, but I can tell you that a lot of people have asked me how things are going and what I think of the management of the government.

Well, I can tell you that I’m taken aback. It’s absolutely deplorable, the things that have happened in this term of this Legislature. I used to tell them at council that they could take a barrel of money and go down Bay Street and throw it in the lake, because that’s what they were doing; here, you’d need a huge dump truck. You seem to have no idea of tax dollars and the value of them whatsoever.

Mr. Minister, ServiceOntario pays their employees an average of $145,000 a year, and they take off 25 days, on average, sick. What this means is that, when you combine vacation days and statutory holidays—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. How about quiet? I remind all members, when I stand, you sit. Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: We appreciated the Auditor General’s report. I had a chance to meet with the Auditor General, where she congratulated me on the good work that ServiceOntario has been doing. The Auditor General’s report noted a number of areas for improvement; that’s why we have the auditor. We accept those, and we’re moving forward.

The fact of the matter is that ServiceOntario is a service, as it would suggest, which is across this province and which has been working over the past number of years to bring more private sector involvement and at the same time to make sure that it offers efficient services to the people of Ontario.

I am pleased with the progress that we have been making. As I say, when I take a look at the Auditor General’s report, she makes a number of suggestions that we will certainly be following up on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: ServiceOntario operates some of its facilities with private operators and some of it is operated by the government, but according to the auditor’s report, the costs of the government operations are almost three times what the private operator pays.

Now, this again is another huge waste of money. You’ve got to remember the fact that we have a deficit of $12 billion. We’ve got a debt of $273 million. If we’re ever going to get that reduced or eliminated, we’ve got to deal with things like this. We can’t have this kind of over-expenditure and waste of money. It has gone on far too long, and I want to know when the government is going to put a stop to it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, we’re very happy to follow up on what the Auditor General said.

But the honourable member knows that there is a system of private sector offices which handle high volumes, high transactions. Yes, we have some that are run by the government, which are in small communities and offer a wide range of services, not all of them as popular and used as often, which causes higher costs.

Perhaps he wants to talk to some of his colleagues, because I sign letters all the time from his colleagues complaining about the fact that they don’t have enough ServiceOntario in small, rural communities.

We are trying to find a balance here between making sure that the people of Ontario can access these services in their communities as well as finding efficiencies through an involvement with the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member should get his facts straight.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. In 2010, the government slashed statutory accident benefits—those are the benefits that accident victims receive—by 50% across Ontario and 70% in the GTA.

Now, in her report yesterday, the Auditor General confirmed that province-wide benefits were slashed by more than 50% in 2010 but added a new number. During the exact same time period, when our benefits were slashed by more than 50%, our premiums went up by 8%. Our premiums went up by 8%.

How does this government explain to the seven million drivers in Ontario why 8% more has been taken out of their pockets at the same time that their benefits were slashed by 50%, all with the permission of this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite knows fully well that the cost of our premiums is something that our government has been addressing since 2003. We have taken measures, and a number of our members have been advocating and leading the charge, to find ways to reduce auto insurance premiums. It is why our government quickly took on the auto task force to clamp down on fraud.

One of the initiatives that the member is talking about is the increasing cost of claims. That has to be addressed, and that’s why we’ve brought forward legislation, in co-operation with the member opposite, to ensure that we get those costs down and get those premiums down as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The reality is that in 2010, $2 billion has been saved by the insurance industry: $2 billion of savings, of which the people of Ontario have not even seen a penny of savings in terms of their premiums.

The Auditor General made it very, very clear that there has been an 8% increase in premiums at the same time that costs went down by 50% when it comes to the benefits that we receive.

Drivers are getting frustrated with broken promises. When will this government actually do something to bring down premiums, to give some relief to the seven million drivers in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: Ontario has some of the most comprehensive benefits anywhere in Canada. We have been taking extraordinary measures to support and help our drivers and those that are affected during these accidents.

But more importantly, it has also been very clear that these rising costs have affected our premiums. It’s why they are too high, and it’s why we’ve taken the necessary steps to clamp down and get them reduced, and they have started to reduce. We have competitors right throughout the system that are now advertising lower rates.

The strategy is working. We are bringing down those rates, and we’re doing everything that we can to protect those drivers, and at times we do so without support from the opposition, and that is shameful.

SENIORS

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. There’s a very important statistic I’d like to share: In Peel, in the year 2017, there will be more people over the age of 65 than children under the age of 14. Think about that: more people over the age of 65 than children under the age of 14, in three years. So I really laud and applaud the minister responsible for seniors for showing such leadership on this file.

As the constituents in my riding age, the fact is that many of them do approach me and ask me for advice on the various options when it comes to the issue of long-term care versus retirement facilities. They’re looking for some valuable information that will help them make that decision.

Speaker, through you to the minister, my question is, what kind of information is out there that could help my constituents make this decision?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I’m very grateful to the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville for this wonderful question. I believe that she’s not the only one with seniors looking for proper accommodation. I think every member has that particular problem.

In Ontario, we have some 700 retirement homes with some 55,000 residents, and every home offers different levels of care. They have the option and the choice of where and how to live. Also, through the Ontario Retirement Homes Act regulatory authority, we provide all kinds of information to anyone—seniors or family members—who wishes to look into aspects of a particular retirement home. We provide information on the web, through the Seniors’ INFOline. We have the seniors’ guide as well, and we provide that information on several levels.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I thank the minister for that answer. Once families have made that decision, what they are really looking for is peace of mind that their loved ones are safe. I’m wondering if the minister could respond and just tell me and my constituents what we are doing to make sure—what kind of oversight is there, especially when it comes to licensing? Who is issuing these licences, and what action is taken if trouble is noticed?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Again, I have to thank the member for a good question. I think this is a concern that every member of the House has when they have to look at a particular home and how they view and assess the particular house and where to put their loved one. It is the information that we provide and it is also the safety that we provide for the seniors when they look for a particular home. Through the Retirement Homes Act and the regulatory authority, we provide all the necessary information so seniors and families can make a choice: what they want to do, where they want to live and how they want to live.

Also, let me say that every resident is notified when a house may be in difficulty. We don’t rest on our laurels, if you will, but we take immediate action. We notify the local authorities, the CCACs, the LHINs—the local health networks—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Housing and make sure that the housing fits the needs of the particular seniors.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

Premier, yesterday, the Auditor General confirmed what we’ve told you from day one: There would be no savings from your fire sale of Ontario Northland. In fact, as you now know, instead of saving $265 million—the auditor dropped a bombshell—it will cost you $820 million. That’s a difference of a billion dollars.

When we first disclosed that you knew this last summer, you changed your tune. You then said, “Divestment isn’t the only answer.” But it was only after you saw the draft of the auditor’s report two weeks ago that you came up with a new phrase: “transformation.” Premier, why is it that you only change your direction on Ontario Northland after you get caught?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Is it parliamentary to say that’s malarkey? The member knows very well that last May at FNOM’s AGM, after a couple of months working with the Premier on this plan, we made a determination that divestment was not the only option, so we moved into the transformation phase of our approach at ONTC.

We’re determined to find a sustainable, long-term future. We’re absolutely committed to making that happen. The fact is, the member also knows very clearly that the figures that are cited are actual total potential associated liabilities; again, an approach that does not reflect the direction that we’re going in. We are going to come up with some very good decisions, we believe.

The ministerial advisory committee—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —work together. Mayor Al McDonald is on that, president Alan Spacek, industry leaders, First Nations and Métis nation leaders. We are determined to see a long-term, sustainable future for the ONTC, and we’re doing some great work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I think what “malarkey” is is trying to weasel out of $820 million.

Let’s look at the facts. The freedom of information showed us your goal was to divest Ontario Northland and, if that failed, liquidate pennies on the dollars. Through the gas plant scandal documents, we learned there would be no savings. Instead, there would be a billion-dollar hole in your budget, and it was only then that you began trotting out these weasel words.

But the auditor told us—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I withdraw. “Wiggle words” is what I meant to say—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s just continue with no other editorial, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: For 18 months, Speaker, this government has continued to leave, as the auditor said, uncertainty in the marketplace. You left 1,000 families in the north unable to make key purchases or life decisions.

Premier, how can you be so heartless to northerners? Will you do as we’ve asked in letter after letter to you and stop the divestment today?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: You know, Mr. Speaker, I think the member from Nipissing just might want to get off his high horse. The fact is, northerners have not forgotten that it was his party, when they were in government, that tried to sell off the ONTC. The member for Nipissing himself has said some pretty amazing things publicly. How about this, what he said to the ONTC workers who were gathered outside his office: “I’m going to be straight with you. I’ve always been straight with you,” said the member from Nipissing. “I can’t tell you what you want to hear. I can’t say I’m opposed to privatization”—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —these guys are unbelievable.

We are determined to move forward for a sustainable, long-term Ontario Northland Transportation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, yesterday members of this House learned that more than 500 workers at the London Ke