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

September 29, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Sep-29 (PDF)

L049 - Wed 29 Sep 2010 / Mer 29 sep 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 September 2010 Mercredi 29 septembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

HYDRO RATES

PEST CONTROL

PEST CONTROL

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

WATER QUALITY

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

FARMERS’ MARKET

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGH SCHOOL IN STITTSVILLE

ULTIMATE FISHING TOWN

COUNTY OF ESSEX

TENANTS

OVER 55 LONDON

LEADING GIRLS,

BUILDING COMMUNITIES AWARDS

TRANSIT FUNDING

ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS

OF PAKISTANI DESCENT

OF NORTH AMERICA

CITY OF PETERBOROUGH

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,

AUDITOR GENERAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH

OF PETERBOROUGH ACT

(TAX RELIEF), 2010

PETITIONS

ORGAN DONATION

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

KIDNEY DISEASE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 22, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit / Projet de loi 99, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour les activités des enfants.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to provide a few further remarks on the child tax credit.

As I listened to the government yesterday talking about the fact that they are now going to look at seniors and the energy bills, it seemed to me that the most recent flurry of activity by this government has been government by sectors: Who gets a piece of the action in this case? Who gets a tax credit?

We know statistically that a relatively small number of people actually go through the process of keeping their invoices and bills and remembering at the right time to fill out their tax return in the appropriate manner. We also know that it’s a small token, a very small token, of the cost of providing these kinds of activities for children in this particular case. It seems as if it’s very hard to look at this without the kind of cynicism that I’ve suggested: that the government has decided who the winners are and who the losers are in this lottery of who gets tax credits.

As I say, in theory, of course there’s nothing wrong with recognizing it. I think, though, that the timing demonstrates a certain reaction of the government and so does who they choose to be the winners and the losers in this lottery of who gets a tax credit and for what.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to respond to my friend the member from York–Simcoe’s comments. Certainly, this is not a bad thing, but when you consider that the HST on about $500 worth of children’s activities is $40 already, it’s not much of a good thing either. I’ll be speaking at some length about this a little later.

Suffice to say that we’re looking at a credit of about $75 million on the average expense across the province of about $150 million. So really, this is paying back the voter with their own money and not giving all of it back, either. It’s certainly a credit that’s going to go to middle-class and upper-middle-class families far more frequently than it will go to lower-middle and lower-class families and the poor because of the way that it has been instituted, and I’ll speak about that as well.

But let’s face it: At its hub, this is an election ploy. This is the first of many election ploys; we’ve seen another coming out just this week. Over and over again you’ll see this government essentially giving back a small amount of what they’re taking from the electorate in the way of the HST. We’re going to see more of this, I’m sure.

Is it a good thing? Will we vote for it? Of course we will. Is it enough? Absolutely not. We have families that are struggling, that can’t pay the rent and feed their children. We have families across this province that have to choose whether their children are in extracurricular activities or not, all because of the HST. We proposed taking it off the hydro bills. That’s significant. Had they proposed taking it off children’s activities, that might have been more significant as well.

I look forward to speaking more about this. I commend the member for her comments. Shame on this government for the little that it is doing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning to make some comments on the speech from the member from York–Simcoe.

We have been debating this now for a while. This credit was part of something that we talked about in the past, and I keep on hearing, “It’s not enough. It’s not enough.” I would urge the members across the aisle to tell us what is enough.

We talk about this partially giving back the HST that is being collected. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that they need to be fair to their constituents and to Ontarians by telling the whole story, because part of the tax reform, which includes the HST, meant a substantial reduction in personal income tax, and it meant the reduction for low- or no-income families—a PST rebate that they never had before that they will get every three months. They need to talk about the child benefit that this government introduced a couple of years ago that means over $1,000 per child per year if they qualify. They’re not saying that.

I would say to the members opposite that—you know what?—there are challenging times. I’m not sure there’s anybody out there, regardless of what income, who’s not facing some challenging times. That’s not unique to Ontario; it’s not unique to Canada. It’s unique to the world. The majority of the economists in Canada, and probably in the world, are telling us that the steps that Ontario has taken are probably the right steps.

This is one of those things that—we’re cognizant that raising families is challenging. It was challenging when I had four little kids. But this is another one of those steps that helps those families meet those daily requirements.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: First of all, Bill 99 and yesterday’s Bill 109 are an admission of guilt by Premier McGuinty: guilt that they’ve hit the tax ceiling on the people of Ontario. We heard that from the New Brunswick election, that they also recognized that Liberal governments have a predictable history of tax and spend—in excess, really.

When I look at this bill, I say that, fundamentally, it’s sort of like social engineering. Premier McGuinty, in all fairness, is doing it with the children and those young families that can’t afford to register for hockey, and yesterday he did it with the seniors. He’s giving them a tax credit. Again, an admission of guilt—too much tax. He’s picking off focus groups so that he can try to swing their vote back, because he’s losing the confidence of the people of Ontario. I don’t know what has happened to the Premier. He was always such a nice guy, sort of like Ward Cleaver. But my point is this: You are, as the member from York–Simcoe said, really picking them off.

What I think you could do is accomplish two things in this Bill 99 that would help all the people of Ontario. First of all, you could, for instance—a friendly amendment to the House leader—actually extend this to seniors who register for a program in tai chi. Think of the quality of life that you would be offering them: a tax break for the HST they’d be paying on a physical fitness program, a wellness program, a program on nutrition, a program on using medications wisely.

These are extensions that could easily be extended to seniors with very little cost, but it would show a sign of sympathy and compassion for a group of citizens who are no longer able to afford to live in Ontario under Premier McGuinty.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m delighted to rise and add a few comments about this.

I want to say to the good people of Ontario that there is an existing federal credit, and the nature of that credit is that it helps save income tax if you owe income tax. But there are many people in Ontario, those with the least, who don’t actually pay income tax. Under our proposal, this credit goes to people whether or not they actually owe income tax.

I want to thank the minister for bringing this measure in, because it ensures that there is a certain amount of equity on this to make sure that children, and particularly the parents who are paying for these programs, receive a benefit. And it is not just restricted to those who are in the middle class and above, because it’s important for all of our children to be able to participate.

That’s why I’d say to our friends in the federal government that they may want to consider changing their model to more reflect the progressive piece of tax policy we have here in Ontario, which ensures that all people who support their children by way of enriching their lives are able to receive the benefit of this important new tax credit.

The other thing I would commend to the federal government, and something I’m very proud of as a member of our government, is that we’ve gone beyond sports. As someone who, growing up, was an athlete and also a musician, I remember how much money my parents spent for me to have my music lessons. So I’m delighted by the fact that those young people now have the ability, with the support of our tax base, to ensure that they’re broadening those activities that are so important to children. Again I would say to our friends in the federal government that this is something we think they should consider as well.

I think we’ve taken a new leadership position in Confederation on this matter, and we look forward to the federal government following our progressive lead on this—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for York–Simcoe, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to thank the members from Parkdale–High Park, Northumberland–Quinte West and Durham, and the Minister of the Environment for their thoughtful comments.

I would just say, in the moments I have, that I’d like to take up the challenge provided to me by the member for Northumberland–Quinte West, who says that we say “Not enough,” and what answer I have to that. Well, the answer is very, very simple. The member referred to the challenging times in which we live. I don’t think there is anyone who would not agree. But I think the difference on the two sides of the House is that so much of the challenging times in which we live has been provided to us thanks to the government and its responses.

Obviously, the eHealth scandal comes to mind, and the scandal that the OLG provided to us a few years ago, which, by the way, we’re going to learn more about in 45 minutes—chapter 2 on the OLG and the scandals that rock it.

The local health integration networks have demonstrated themselves to be ineffective as carriers of money and as being able to work within their communities, maybe partly because of “local.” When you’ve only got 14 in the province, it’s a demonstration of a definition of “local” that few of us would agree with.

So, in other words, what I have to say to the member across is that many of the things that have made Ontario’s challenging times greater are because of what the government has done.

By taking the HST and not making any kind of accommodation with provincial—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents and the folk of Ontario to speak to government Bill 99.

First of all, for those who are watching at home, you should know that what this does is provide up to $50 for each child for household spending on children’s activity programs. It’s designed as a 10% credit on spending up to $500. It’s rebatable if you don’t pay income tax. That’s the gist of it.

The context in which this bill is brought forward, however, is very different. Again, to go back to the comments by the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, the challenge of how would we do it better: Quite frankly, we on this side of the House and in the New Democratic Party would have done it better by not introducing in the first place a regressive flat tax like the HST for which we have to provide subtle corrections.

This is an extremely subtle correction for an extremely big tax grab. That’s what is happening here. By best-guess estimates of economists, the average HST tax grab on family recreation will be about $150 million. This gives back about half of that.

The HST alone on $500 a year is $40, so really it’s only $10 a year they get back—I mean, $10. Considering the grab on hydro rates, the not-so-smart meters, the HST itself and its impact, this is pretty small. I mean, this is pretty niggling. I can tell you, on behalf of my constituents, that they are suitably underwhelmed.

For one thing, we know—this is a fact; this has been proven in government studies. I point to the study done in Alberta, which shows that any tax credit you have to keep all your receipts for and then apply for at the end of the year is much more likely to be taken up by middle-class and upper-middle-class families than it is by working-class families and lower-income people—much more likely. First of all, there’s that. Quite frankly, very few people are even going to apply for it. Those who apply for it are going to get very little back out of the huge tax grab that’s going to be asked of them. This is in a province where we have one in six children living in poverty.

Many of the families in my riding would love to be able to take music and ballet lessons. They’d love to be able to take after-class lessons of any sort, including tutorials to help them with what they’re not getting in the classroom. Again, we’re dealing with classroom teachers who are overwhelmed with workloads. There’s a lack of adults to help them. There are families across Ontario—the family bite to raise money just to keep the educational system going is about $600 million a year.

I just went to the ribbon cutting for a playground in one of my public schools. It cost the parents $50,000. When I was in school, we didn’t have to raise money like that just to pay for public education. This HST is on top of everything else that is besieging families with children today in the province of Ontario. Really, when you see the big picture in which Bill 99 sits, it’s a pretty small recompense.

I could go on; I could talk about the lack of daycare in this province, that it costs the average family at least $1,000 per child, and that’s if they’re lucky enough to get a space.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I know that the member for Parkdale–High Park, when she’s going on, will not want to go too far from the bill we are discussing this morning.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Never would I do that. I am taking what the member from Welland would call a scenic route to get back to Bill 99, the children’s activity tax credit.

We are speaking about the children’s activity tax credit, an amount up to $50 and, by the way, lest I be corrected, $100 provided to a child with a disability. Rather than this, the folk in my community who have children with disabilities at home would beseech the government to please take the HST off hydro rates, because they’re at home with their children with disabilities all day. They have a far larger share of their hydro being used during the day, especially if there are machines involved—oxygen machines and whatnot—in trying to keep their children or family members healthy. So this is little salve to families with disabilities.

My families with children with disabilities would prefer increases to Passport funding. That would be nice, because they don’t know what they’re going to do with their children once they finish high school. I have a number of families who have children—one family in particular—in a wonderful high school, Lucy McCormick, which deals with children with disabilities in my riding. Their child is about to graduate. What then? Where is the help then? They’ve been here several times sitting in the visitors’ gallery. They’ve been asking for help for their children with disabilities.

I’m telling you, please, this isn’t enough. This isn’t enough—not even close. Not even remotely close, particularly considering the bite of the HST generally.

We in the New Democratic Party are not anti-tax. We’re not. We are anti flat, regressive taxes. The HST is a flat, regressive tax. What do I mean by that? A flat tax taxes poor and lower-income people proportionately more than upper-income people and middle-class people. That’s why we oppose it. It’s not a fair tax.

Interjections.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: There is such a thing as a fair tax, my friends across the aisle. There is such a thing. This is not it. The way to correct an unfair tax is not by giving people back a soupçon of what they pay out to you, just before an election. That’s not the answer to a regressive flat tax; it really isn’t. But that is, in effect, what Bill 99 does.

When I say “fair taxes,” the New Democratic Party is also against giving away the people’s money—and it is the people’s money, our constituents’ money—to the tune of $2 billion a year to corporate tax breaks at a time when people are struggling, at a time when people in my riding are struggling.

I received a letter from a young woman. She’s a ministry candidate. She does pulpit supply, she teaches music and she takes in lost and stray animals; she feeds them and fosters them. She said that the difference to her hydro rate and the difference in terms of HST have made it impossible for her to feed her animals and feed herself on what she brings in.

We’re talking here about people with very little income: seniors who are on fixed incomes. G99, the children’s tax credit, is not going to help the seniors in my riding who are opening up their hydro bills and are appalled by what they see—and neither will your seniors’ credit, by the way.

We have asked you to take the HST off hydro—a very simple request—and you won’t. You won’t.

Interjections.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Minister of the Environment, who’s heckling me, seems not to understand that the HST, as a regressive flat tax, hurts the poor and middle-income and fixed-income people more. It simply does; all flat taxes do. That’s really undebatable. I mean, that’s just a fact, right? Progressive taxes: different matter.

But to get back, because I want to get back to Bill 99, the children’s activity tax credit, which gives $50 back if you spend $500—and keep all your receipts, mind you—on your children’s recreation; that’s after-school programming.

Whereas we know that families, just in HST alone, spend $150 million a year on their children’s recreation, this will give them back $75 million. It basically takes a dollar and gives them back 50 cents. That’s what this credit does, at best. That’s if people apply for it.

To rehash what I was saying, we’ve been shown by study after study that this kind of tax rebate, where you have to keep your receipts, is much, much more likely to be applied for by middle-class and upper-middle-class families than it will be by working-class families or lower-class families. They won’t take advantage of it, and even if they do, they’ll get very little back for the amount of money they’re paying out. Again, that’s an undebatable point.

Again, to go back, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West asked what we in opposition would do better. Whoa. It’s a challenge; I’ve only got 10 minutes left. We’ve had a government that has been in place for seven years, so it’s seven years to cover here, but let’s just try. Let’s end this on a positive note.

What would we suggest? First and foremost, we would suggest—and we have—that you take the HST off the hydro rates. There you go. That would help families. That would help families that cook dinners at 6 o’clock, that run their laundry, that look after their seniors, that look after their children with disabilities during the day. That would help families.

What could you do? Hey, you could look at a daycare program. We’ve long been advocating that in the New Democratic Party. They have one in Quebec; they have it in other places—Manitoba, for $17 a day; $6, $7 a day in Quebec. Here, $1,000-plus a month, if you can find a space. You could do that.

You could maybe fund the public education system so that parents didn’t have to raise $600 million a year in fundraising just to keep the public education system going. You could do that.

Passport funding: My folk have been asking, “Where is the Passport funding for our children?” You could do that and a myriad of other moves.

Quite frankly, the problem of tax credits for people who enrol their children in recreational programs—it’s something that many families in my riding wish they could do. They wish they had the $500 to put out, on top of everything else, to enrol their children in extracurricular activities. They wish they had that: people who are living on social assistance, people who are living on ODSP, people who are living on minimum wage. These folk in my riding—from around the world, because, face it, in south Parkdale, we have 65 mother tongues spoken in our high schools.

People from around the world, some working two or three jobs just to get by, wish they had the $500 extra to spend on extracurricular activities so that they could collect this credit in the first place. This isn’t speaking to them. I get it. In fact, it’s very rare that this government does speak to them, except perhaps on ODSP to claw back the special diet allowance, which is the most egregious act I think I’ve witnessed in a long time in this place.

But even for middle-class families that have the wherewithal to think to keep all their receipts, who want to put those receipts in, who want to do the right thing and get every tax credit that’s coming to them, this won’t come close to matching the HST bite that they’re going to be paying for recreational activities for their children. Anybody here who has had children, who has put them in ballet or music lessons or anything else, knows that you’re spending at least $30 a week on those lessons—at least $30 on those lessons. Five hundred dollars a year? It’s not going to go far.

A $50 tax credit when actually your HST bite will be way more than that is not going to help very much, particularly in an environment where you’re being hit by higher hydro bills, where you’re being hit every time you go to the store. Particularly in that environment, this is pretty small.

Are we going to support it? Of course, because anything is better than nothing. This is like a mantra on this side of the House. Anything is better than nothing, even when it’s crassly put forward in the year before an election when the polls are falling and everybody on the government side knows that people out there hate the HST, don’t want to pay it and are hurting. Even when it’s crassly put forward, even then, we in opposition will support it, because anything is better than nothing. Quite frankly, for my families, they are desperate enough that anything is better than nothing, but it ain’t enough. It’s not enough. It’s not nearly enough.

The message I would like to leave with those across the aisle is simply the message that comes to us in letters every day, and I know it comes to you, too: You, who care about your constituents, who care about those people in your ridings who are suffering, who can’t make ends meet and who just can’t take another hit, know as well as I do that this isn’t enough.

I trust that you will be working with your cabinet, and I trust that you will be trying to get your Premier and leader Dalton McGuinty’s ear. I trust you’ll be trying to do that to really make the case for those like the woman I brought before you who can’t feed her animals and herself anymore; the seniors who can’t pay their taxes, who can’t pay their hydro bills, who may lose their houses and have to go into a residence because of the extra bite on their hydro bill.

Perhaps you will bend the ears of your cabinet members so that your constituents will also have a voice—the same voice they used to speak to us. We hear it. We hear it and we bring it here. We have lost track of the tens of thousands of emails that we have received about the state of the province of Ontario—everything from post-secondary education to the special diet allowance. You name it; people can’t pay it. They can’t pay it anymore. And $50 is not going to cut it as recompense for that.

I hope, for your sake, but really more for your constituents’ sake, that you will not speak with one voice across the floor but that you’ll break rank and speak on behalf of your constituents for a change, because that’s what is needed here. We don’t need rank partisanship in this place. People and the electorate of Ontario have no patience for that anymore.

They would like to see real action from the government—for which we, in the opposition, would support you—on behalf of their constituents who are hurting, who can’t pay the bills and who are driven more and more to the use of food banks because they can’t pay this extra bite. It’s just that extra bite that makes all the difference. This little, tiny recompense—$50 back to the people who are hurting the most, those with families—isn’t the answer.

This is seen, by my constituents anyway, and I’m sure by some of yours, as a cynical pre-election ploy. Again, we are voting for it because this little bit of something is better than nothing. Hopefully we will hear from those across the aisle that they are in agreement and that they are in agreement with their constituents that far more is needed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The minister of innovation—I’m still having trouble with that.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Research and Innovation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The Minister of Research and Innovation; thank you. I won’t make that mistake again.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I stand here very proudly as a member of this Liberal government when it comes to children. A $50 tax credit leveraged against a federal tax credit is, for many working families, real money in my constituency. But they don’t look at it as if the only thing the government is doing is giving them a tax break.

Day-long learning, in my community—and when I listened to the member from High Park-Parkdale, I was wondering what city she lived in. Day-long learning is an unprecedented commitment to children and families. This is a government that also underwrote the loss and federal withdrawal by the Conservative Party of 8,500 child care spaces. Day-long learning—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister of Research and Innovation, I remind you that the questions and comments relate to the speech of the member from Parkdale–High Park.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Day-long learning, replacing federal cuts to child care, a $1,200 child tax benefit, recreational activities like music and art—I could mention many more; I only have 45 seconds.

I don’t know of a government in Canada that is doing that kind of work. The $50 in that context is very good. It’s very rich coming from parties opposite that have done full-frontal assaults on childcare, nearly left 8,500 children without daycare, and a party who can’t match that record. It’s just a little rich.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: The Minister of Research and Innovation didn’t even use the 45 seconds; that’s how much he has to say on this topic.

My point is this: The member from Parkdale–High Park I think speaks with reasoned and considered passion, and makes informed comments with respect to this, like most of the comments that she makes in this House as a pastor and a person of deep spiritual conviction.

But the issue here really comes down to—first of all, some of the members on the government side don’t really understand the bill. First of all, you get the money whether you pay income tax or not. Secondly, you have to spend $500 to get the $50 credit. When you spend $500, you’re actually spending about $40 in HST. So they’re giving it back, plus you have to file for it; you have to keep the receipts. It’s full of red tape and you get a measly $6 back. That’s what would actually go in your jeans—$6.

We are trying to be reasonable here this morning. We will move a friendly amendment with your indulgence, and that would include seniors. Seniors should be entitled to an active tax credit as well. Imagine seniors who may have osteoporosis or who want to take a fitness or a walking program for their health and their own quality of life. Why should they be burdened with an HST when they’re trying to avoid costs to the health care system? It’s a simple thing here: Extend it to seniors.

The minister of innovation has the right to speak for 20 minutes here on this topic. I’m very passionate about this. It is a very tokenistic amount. It’s populist politics at its worst. Even yesterday, they tried to trivialize seniors by giving them—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s tragic.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I am so glad that I have an opportunity to respond to the comments made by my colleague, because she’s right. What you’ve got is a provincial government that is out of control when it comes to taxing and imposing user fees on the average person on the street. They’re trying to find ways to soften the impact so that when the election happens a year from now, they’ll be able to say, “Oh, yeah, we raised your taxes with the HST. Oh, yes, we raised your hydro bill. Oh, yes, we had property taxes go up because of the things that we’ve done. But don’t worry. We’re going to give you some tax credits that will make it all go away.”

But the reality is, I think, that people see two things. One, it’s a government desperate to hold on to power, which quite frankly has done some things that are quite wrong, and it’s trying to figure out how it can soften the impact on the electorate. The other thing is that I don’t think the public is buying it.

I think the public understands that this government has made some pretty bad decisions, and at the end of the day, all the tax credits that you want to give in regard to, in this case, the child activity tax credit or the one that was announced yesterday, are not going to buy the love of the voter in the next election. I think people see it for what it is. This government, quite frankly, is a government that has been—to excess—into the pockets of hard-working people, and people are fed up.

If you see what’s happening in the mayoralty campaign today in the city of Toronto, with Rob Ford, that’s what this is all about, and this government hasn’t figured it out. People are hopping mad—it’s as simple as that—and they’re tired of having their pockets picked. People are saying, “Enough is enough. We need to have some civility when it comes to how our governments treat us.”

To my friend the minister across the way who talks about the stellar record of this government when it comes to daycare: Listen, I was a member of a government that expanded daycare to unprecedented numbers in this province. I take no lecture from the member across the way, who tries to say his government did something on daycare, because, quite frankly, it doesn’t measure up to what we did in five years in government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m very pleased to support this act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. If you have a conversation, take it outside.

Mr. Phil McNeely: On page 2 of the act, which I have here—this is the first time that the federal program did not include these—are music, dramatic arts, dance, activities with a substantial focus on wilderness and the natural environment.

I’ve always felt that there was a difficulty for dancers, who provide such great physical fitness in their programs, whether it’s step-dancing, Highland dancing or the other dancing that we see in our communities. We have a lot of that in Orléans, yet there’s no help for them. They provide their own space. So this is great. This is a step forward. Unlike the federal tax credits, we are including these excellent activities in this program.

The other activity that I’m very pleased to see as well is the natural environment—“a substantial focus on wilderness and the natural environment.” In our riding, we have a program spirit—Sunshine families, and of course we’ve also got all the Scout groups. This program will help them. The dollars will be there to help them grow their programs and really offer programs to our children which are very important, especially today when we have all the issues around water pollution and air pollution. We will be able to get our kids out on the Ottawa River in Orléans. They’ll be able to use those programs.

This will help. This will grow the number of kids who can participate. I’m very pleased that our government has come forward with this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parkdale–High Park, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to rise and to respond to the members who have made comment, particularly my friend who’s the Minister of Research and Innovation.

The challenge that this government has a stellar record on children is, quite frankly, laughable. If you just compare our neighbours Quebec and Manitoba—one has child care for about $7 a day; the other, child care for about $17 a day—my families would love to have that here, and don’t.

The simple response to the comments from across the aisle is this: Why are families so angry, then, if this is such a gift? If this is such a gift, why do I hear at the door that to spend $500 and get $6 back, as the member from Durham mentioned, is really not much of a gift at all, that in fact they’re spending way more and that many of them can’t even afford the $500 a year to receive the credit at all. And we know that even if they spend it, they have to save their receipts, and they probably won’t claim it. We’ve seen studies that have shown that.

This is simply a ploy, and everyone sees it as such. They see it as trying to make up some ground that has been lost, and they’re angry. They’re angry at this government. You see it in the polls, you see it at the door, you see it in the malls, and you see it in the schools: Families are angry. They can’t afford it anymore. Not only families; seniors and single parents, who are just struggling to get by. We have in this province one in six children living in poverty. It’s an unprecedented level of poverty we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. And this government crows about how wonderful they’ve been for children? Please. Methinks they speak too much.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Do we have a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is there a quorum present?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It is indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 99 this morning,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit, brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Finance, Mr. Duncan.

I would be remiss this morning—just to put in a plug for Peterborough Day, Mr. Speaker; I know you will give me a little latitude. In room 247 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. today, there’s a good opportunity to see what the riding of Peterborough is all about.

In the members’ east gallery today, I would like to introduce a good friend of mine Mr. Jay Amer—Jay, it’s good to have you with us—who is a former senior executive for the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp. He now has his own consulting firm in Peterborough, specializing in airport and manufacturing development. So it’s great to have Jay with us today. He’s also entering into the political forum. He is a candidate for trustee for the Kawartha Pine Ridge school board, and I know we wish Jay all the best in that endeavour.

I’ll get back now to Bill 99, Mr. Speaker. I know you’re trying to corral me here.

In the riding of Peterborough, of course, we have a reputation as a great sporting community. Just recently, of course, our Peterborough Lakers senior A lacrosse won their 13th Mann Cup. What is significant about that is that many of the players who play for the Lakers were products of Peterborough’s minor lacrosse system, and it’s all those volunteers who have spent countless hours to develop young men and women, to introduce them to Canada’s national game, lacrosse, to provide those skills necessary to teach them to be part of a team.

This tax credit will certainly facilitate the opportunity for more and more young people in my community to enrol in sports, to take the opportunity to play in one of Canada’s great games—and conversely, hockey. We all know that when you go throughout Canada, the Peterborough Petes are one of the most distinguished junior A hockey franchises in Canada. Indeed like the Peterborough lift lock, the Peterborough Petes are one of those enduring symbols of Peterborough that everybody seems to know about.

Again, many of these players who come up to play for the Peterborough Petes have come up through Peterborough’s minor hockey system, whether it’s the church league or the city league, an opportunity for kids to be enrolled in hockey. Again, this tax credit will facilitate that.

Just recently we’ve witnessed that Cito Gaston, the great manager of the Toronto Blue Jays, will be retiring, and Mr. Bautista hitting 52 home runs. Again, there’s an opportunity through Peterborough minor league ball to bring our youngest citizens into that organization. It’s not a question of whether they’ll become professional players in any given sport; it’s the opportunity to be part of something, to reach out in a community and make kids part of something, which I think is so very important.

I’ll just get a plug in for my own children this morning.

Mr. Mike Colle: You talked about everybody else; you may as well talk about your kids.

Mr. Jeff Leal: My son Braden, who is 12, plays both soccer and basketball. And my daughter, who is 10, Shanae, plays soccer, basketball and hockey.

I had a conversation with many people in early September—you know, you’re starting to sign up for the fall sports like basketball and indoor soccer—and many of the parents at the registration desk were saying, “It would be good if the government of Ontario could come forward and give us a little assistance to help us sign our kids up for sports.”

I’m pleased that the Minister of Finance has responded to that, but indeed broadened the number of activities that are available. We have aerobics, badminton, ball hockey, baseball, basketball, biking, curling, dodge ball, figure skating, floor hockey, football, golf, gymnastics, hockey, horseback riding, ice skating, karate, kick-boxing and other after-school extracurricular activities such as cadets. We have three cadet corps in Peterborough; we have an army cadet corps, a navy cadet corps and an air force cadet corps.

We have chess, we have choir, and something that I probably should have enrolled in many years ago: cooking for kids. We have cardiopulmonary-resuscitation programs, CPR, that I think are very valuable programs for our youngest citizens to be enrolled in.

We have crafts, dance, drama, drawing, first aid, gardening for kids, Girl Guides, languages, leadership development, lifeguarding, musical composition and theory, musical instruments, non-medical therapeutic activities for children with a disability, lacrosse, running, skiing, soccer, snowboarding—which is becoming very popular—squash, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball, water polo, painting, photography, poetry, public speaking, Scouts; sculpture, sewing, tutoring, voice lessons, and it goes on and on and on.

The other thing I’d just like to comment on is something our government did a number of years ago. I believe it was when the member from St. Catharines was the Minister of Tourism. We brought back a program that allowed for dollars to be used to keep gyms open on Saturdays and Sundays. The previous Conservative government just whacked those fees on the weekends, and I heard from basketball groups and indoor soccer groups; they just couldn’t pay the dollars that were necessary to rent those gyms on weekends.

That was quite sad, because schools are hubs of community activity, particularly my rural high schools in places like Lakefield and Norwood. It was the opportunity to keep those public buildings open on weekends—to provide those dollars, because you have to hire caretakers, usually at time and a half. So these dollars were utilized to keep gyms open, to encourage our young people to participate in programs.

From a preventive health perspective, we want to keep our young people very active. There are a number of reports that have come out over the last number of years indicating that child obesity is becoming a very serious problem in North America. We have the opportunity, I believe, to make sure that our kids stay active in a wide variety of areas. Enrolling them in sports, of course, is a good way of doing this.

Also, one of the things that I particularly think is important is the fact that we’re providing $100 per qualifying child with a disability. Mr. Speaker, I know you’ve spent time with Community Living in your part of Ontario, in the riding of Essex, and I know one of the things that all members of this House have encountered through meetings with Community Living and other groups within our ridings dealing with children who have disabilities—and we know the unique challenges that presents.

So I think one of the really big advantages of this piece of legislation, Bill 99, is that we’re providing special recognition for parents or guardians who have children with physical disabilities and an opportunity to allow those citizens in our communities to fully participate in a wide variety of activities. I know this is something that’s been acknowledged far and wide as a very positive initiative.

I’ve listened to the opposition; I’ve listened to the third party. While there are some concerns that they’re legitimately raising, I think this is an opportunity—this piece of legislation—to have all parties in this House come together to support it. We all want to do what’s best for our youngest citizens. As I often say, children represent about 10% of the population but 100% of our future, and anything we can do to keep our kids involved in a wide variety of activities will certainly bode well for the future.

I think what’s very important about this piece of legislation is that if you don’t qualify to pay income tax in the province of Ontario, you will still receive the benefit. It makes this comprehensive in nature, and recognizes all income groups within the province of Ontario.

The other area that needs some discussion this morning is the impact of the HST. People who are listening to this discussion this morning will know that municipalities can rebate back for GST expenditures. They will also get a rebate back on HST expenditures. I’ve certainly talked to officials within the city of Peterborough—my former good friend Brian Horton, the director of finance, whom I worked with for many years.

There will be the opportunity, as the HST rebate comes back to municipalities—that we will not see some of the, I believe, exaggerated increases that have been talked about in this House in terms of rentals of facilities that are owned and operated by the municipal level of government. I know a report was done for Peterborough city council a number of months ago that actually outlined in detail how the HST rebate back to the city of Peterborough would work and offset any potential costs on ice rentals as long as it’s a municipally operated facility.

We’re extremely pleased in Peterborough, along with other communities, because we have an extensive number of arenas in our community. There are also a number of soccer facilities, tennis courts and basketball courts operated by the city of Peterborough. We’re really blessed in our community to have these kinds of facilities, and there is an information program going out from the city of Peterborough to inform parents who are enrolling their kids in recreational programs that are utilizing city of Peterborough facilities in terms of rentals.

My friend from Durham is here this morning, and I know he’s going to drop by for Peterborough Day. Just to let the House know, the member from Durham played for the Peterborough Petes a number of years ago.

Mr. John O’Toole: Not on the ice.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He learned his minor hockey in Peterborough. He’s a good example of someone who came up through the system and played for the Petes. I don’t know how long his career was with the Petes—

Mr. John O’Toole: It was about an hour.

Mr. Jeff Leal: About an hour? He thought he was ultimately going to the Toronto Maple Leafs, but—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Yes, that’s right; the Montreal Canadiens owned the Petes in those days, but I think that’s an example of someone who played minor hockey.

Because my wife is a teacher at St. Catherine’s in Peterborough, I have the opportunity to talk to parents who are enrolling their kids in a whole variety of programs. There is a threshold level of spending of $500—I recognize that—but between what we’re offering and what is offered by the federal government, it indeed does provide some offsets for those costs.

With regard to keeping receipts, a number of the sporting organizations in Peterborough now, as they sign people up, are reminding parents to hold on to those receipts. Indeed, one of the things that worked particularly well was, during the federal home renovation tax credit, Home Depot would actually provide an envelope to customers where they could keep their receipts. So this may be an opportunity for a number of sports organizations—as they sign up young people, they might, in a proactive fashion, provide an envelope to provide safekeeping for those receipts that one would accumulate as one signs up their youngest citizens.

I note here that the bill is pretty specific. It:

“(

a) includes the cost to the qualifying entity of the program in respect of its administration, instruction, rental of required facilities, and uniforms and equipment that are not available to be acquired by a participant in the program for an amount less than their fair market value at the time, if any, they are so acquired, and

“(

b) does not include,

“(

i) the cost of accommodation, travel, food or beverages,

“(ii) any amount that is an eligible fitness expense,

“(iii) any amount deductible under,

“(

A) section 63 of the federal act in computing any person’s income for any taxation year, or

“(

B) subsection 118.1(3) ... of the federal act in computing any person’s tax for any taxation year, or

“(iv) any amount that may be claimed by any person under subsection 102(1) of this act for any taxation year.”

It clearly outlines ineligible activities. It talks about ineligible programs. It talks about qualifying activities. This lays it out pretty clearly. It can’t be something that’s involved in the normal part of a school’s curriculum, but I know that in my area, the schools that are operated by both the separate and public boards have after-school programs that indeed would be eligible for this.

I think this is pretty comprehensive in nature, and I know that if I take the opportunity, and if you have, Mr. Speaker, to chat with your sports organizations in your community and those organizations that have drama and theatre—this is something that’s well received.

It may be that we’ll perhaps look at some amendments. I know that the member from Durham has mentioned tai chi. That’s an activity haven in Peterborough. Certainly at the Mapleridge seniors’ centre, there are a number of those citizens who are involved in tai chi. It’s a wonderful program. It involves many seniors. Through the committee stage, there’s always the possibility to look at these kinds of things.

We do know that keeping our seniors active is crucial. There are many indicators today that keeping seniors active is particularly helpful from a preventive health care perspective.

I don’t want to digress too much talking about seniors this morning and not get back to a number of other organizations. The fact that Scouts, Guides, Sparks and Venturers are all included in this shows that we want this tax credit to be very comprehensive in nature, an opportunity to encourage people to sign up for these various groups.

It’s interesting too: We’re seeing a kind of rebirth of cadet corps in communities. I notice in Peterborough that the army cadet corps is growing. The Navy League, which sponsors navy cadets in Peterborough, is growing, and certainly the air force cadet group is growing. I think there’s a renewed interest in pursuing careers in the Canadian Armed Forces. These young pages right here may want to consider serving their country in the Canadian Armed Forces.

One of the ways we can instill citizenship in our youngest citizens is by encouraging them to look at cadet corps or Scouts or these kinds of organizations where they get the opportunity to pursue their citizenship badges and really appreciate what the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship are all about.

I see my time is running down. I could probably spend a couple more hours on this piece of legislation, but that’s it for today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I’m finding it hard to respond because not a lot of what the member from Peterborough said had anything to do with Bill 99. But what I do know is that providing this tax credit is a clear admission of guilt on the part of this government and that they got it wrong. Not only that, but by giving the tax credit the government has raised the consciousness of the electorate. They get it. They now know you got it wrong.

What you have to understand as a government is that, first, families have to have the $500 to spend to get the $50 back. But with all the increases—layer upon layer of health tax, HST, of whatever is going to come of the eco tax, the absolutely incredible amount of money that people have to pay in their energy bills every month—people are falling short of being able to send their kids to hockey or ballet to get any tax credit back. People have finally woken up to what this government is about.

You know what? This tax is a tax on health promotion. We’re trying to keep our kids well rounded and healthy, and this government is taxing them out of that possibility.

While I feel this $50 is not enough, this government feels like this is the best thing since sliced bread. When will we find this out? We will find it out on October 6, 2011, when all the chickens come home to roost and this government will have to answer for the number of tax increases, fee increases—all the increases they’ve added—and for handing back money to people that is their own and should have been kept in their pockets in the first place.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I listened to the government and their defence of this particular initiative. Is giving a tax credit to individuals a bad thing? Absolutely not. But let’s see it for what it is. This government has had its hands in the pockets of the people of Ontario for the past eight years. Dalton McGuinty ran, I remember, in the first run-up to the election to his first term on “I will not raise taxes” and put his hand on the pledge and pledged that he would not do so. What is the first thing he does when he gets elected?

He imposes the highest tax that citizens have seen in the history of this province, with the health tax premium that was put on people’s paycheques, and it’s been the same thing all the way through.

People’s hydro bills have gone through the roof. Just recently, there’s been an OEB increase on the hydro bill of 9%. The OEB has allowed an 8% increase in the profits of private utilities and public utilities. There has been an HST increase on the hydro bill. So we’ve got about a 30% increase just in the past six months, and people are saying, “Enough is enough.”

And what’s the government trying to do? They recognize that they’ve got a problem. They say, “Jeez, we go back to our constituencies on the weekend and people aren’t happy about getting whacked”—not once, not twice, not three times, but four or five times in the last couple of years by this government picking the pockets of people dry. And the government says, well, you know, rather than stopping their ways of picking money out of people’s pockets, they’ve decided that they are going to put forward some of these tax credits. Well, they are what they are.

They are an attempt on the part of the government to say, “Look at us. We’re dealing with your issue. Don’t be mad at us. Re-elect us for a third term.” I think it’s not in the cards. I think what’s clear is that you’re starting to see an anger that’s palpable in Ontario, because people have caught up to what this government’s all about and they’re looking, quite frankly, for somebody who is not going to pick their pockets—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased this morning to have an opportunity to speak briefly in support of the comments made by my colleague from Peterborough on Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit.

The part that I want to focus on a bit—I know the member from Peterborough had an opportunity to mention this towards the end of his remarks, and it’s probably the piece that I get the most questions or calls about in my riding association office—is how this has the potential to help them when it comes to facilities that are owned by municipalities. We’re seeing that a lot of people are feeling that there are going to be significant increases.

A lot of people are linking this back to the implementation of the HST, that when their kids enrol, whether it’s in a hockey program or whatever it may be that is in a facility that’s municipally owned, somehow this is going to have a severe impact on the fees charged by the municipality back to the association using the municipal facilities.

It’s important to know and underscore, for those people who are interested in this issue, and I know the member from Peterborough talked about it briefly at the end of his remarks, that when it comes to the implementation of the HST, for municipalities, by and large, I don’t think it’s incorrect to state that it will be revenue-neutral when it comes to municipalities and the HST.

So in fact, when they apply for their rebates, for any costs that accrue to a municipality, they’re going to get almost all of those costs back, and therefore any increases in the use of municipally owned facilities, when it comes to offering programs, will be increases only as a result of a municipal decision. They will be unrelated to the implementation of the HST.

This particular tax credit that we’re offering is going to further enable parents to enrol their kids in programming: $500 of eligible expense, up to a $50 rebate, for those under 16, and $1,000 of eligible expense for a child with a disability under the age of 18, for a total of perhaps as much as $100 back on programming that’s eligible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

The member for Peterborough, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the comments from my colleagues from Burlington, Timmins–James Bay and Thunder Bay–Atikokan to my remarks this morning.

We’re all in ridings and we all have the opportunity to look at minor sports organizations, and people who are involved in Cubs and Scouts and Venturers and Sparks and all those kinds of activities.

The volunteers who come forward, year in and year out, the individuals who take their time to share their life experience, to share their skills, to share their leadership qualities with the next generation, is something that is very important to us all, because we need to remind ourselves, the 107 of us who are in this chamber, that there will be a new generation—we’re probably looking at some of them in our pages just today—who will take these seats. One of the ways that they hone their leadership skills over a period of time is to be involved in many organizations within the community.

Bill 99, I believe, is a vehicle to make that happen, to provide a rebate for parents, for guardians signing kids up, be it a sports activity or a non-sports activity, which I think is so important to keep vitality within our communities.

I’d be remiss if I did not recognize in the members’ east gallery Bette Jean Crews, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who is here at Queen’s Park today from the great area of Northumberland. Bette Jean, we give you a hand. It’s good to see you. She’s a good example of somebody who shows leadership each and every day in our farm community, and a good example of the future leaders.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): My trusty pocket watch would indicate that, pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s my pleasure to introduce the parents, brother and grandmother of our page Christopher Millar. We have with us Eric and Maureen, his parents; Scott, his brother; and grandmother Marion. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce the grandparents of page Thomas Davidson, who lives in Ottawa Centre. Ross Davidson and Doris Davidson are here, who live in the great riding of Don Valley West, represented by Minister Wynne.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m sure that many of the members of the Legislature are aware of the great breakfast that was served this morning in the dining room by the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition. They provided it to us to make a presentation on the state of agriculture in the province of Ontario. The president and chair of the committee is in the gallery today, Bette Jean Crews.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Well, I’ll tell you, this is Bette Jean’s day today. I also am so pleased to be able to recognize Bette Jean, who is the president of the OFA, and I just want to thank her for all the tremendous work that she does on behalf of agriculture. Thank you very much, Bette Jean.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure as well to welcome to the Legislature, from the Ontario duty-free association, Ms. Tania Lee and Mr. Peter Brain from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton. They will also be joined by Mr. Guy Langevin, Mr. Chris Foster and Mr. Jeff Butler, representing all the duty-free stores across Ontario. There’s also a reception today from 11:30 to 2:30 in room 228.

Mr. Jeff Leal: This being Peterborough Day, I invite everybody to room 247 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

In the members’ east gallery, we have the reeve of Douro-Dummer and the warden of Peterborough county, Mr. J. Murray Jones. His claim to fame is that he was in elementary school with the member from Pickering–Scarborough East. So there we go.

Mr. Steve Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce representatives from the Ontario East Wood Centre and Eco-Industrial Park, located in the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal. I’d like to introduce Sandra Lawn, the project leader, who is also the former mayor of the town of Prescott; Councillor Hugh Cameron from the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal; and Michael Wildman, the chief administrative officer from the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John O’Toole: With your indulgence, I’d like to introduce in the visitor’s gallery Doris and Ross Davidson, who are from Toronto. They’re here to celebrate here with their grandson Tom Davidson, one of the pages, who is the lead today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters say that your expensive energy experiments, tax grabs and smart meter tax machines will add some $732 a year more to hydro bills that Ontario families pay. Last week during question period, you said that you did not believe their numbers. I suppose this is part of your more intelligent understanding of the issues than the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters’. Premier, if you don’t take their numbers at face value, can you then please tell the assembly and families in Ontario exactly how much more hydro bills are going up?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: During the course of the past few days, we’ve been having a very important discussion about electricity, electricity rates and the commitment that we’ve made as a government to act responsibly and invest in the modernization of a dilapidated electricity system.

My colleague opposite maintains that he stands four-square against smart meters, so I want to remind him of some of the things said by representatives of his party in this regard. The member for Durham said the following: “I believe you should be focusing” on “providing tools to consumers like interval meters and time-of-rate meters in their homes so that they can actually determine when to shut off the air conditioner, the television, the freezer and other appliances that are high consumers, like hot water heaters.”

One day they’re in favour of smart meters; when it suits their fancy, they’re not. I think Ontarians want to know: Where do they actually stand when it comes to important issues like the rehabilitation of electricity in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Ontario PCs stand for choice, to give families the option of whether they want to participate in time of use that would actually encourage conservation, or not. Just like in British Columbia, just like in California, just like in Florida, Illinois and other jurisdictions, we think families can make the best choice, as opposed to Premier Dad across the way, who knows what’s best for the rest of Ontario families.

Let me ask the Premier a question that he dodged the first time around. The Ontario Energy Board recently wrote a letter to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. After originally denying that they had any forecasts of hydro rate increases, their letter backtracks and says, “Board staff has in fact conducted a preliminary analysis and forecast of electricity costs.” Premier, you have the report. Will you make it public today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it’s important that we continue to help Ontarians understand where the Conservatives try to be at different times. In their 2007 campaign document Energy for the Future, co-authored by the MPPs for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Carleton–Mississippi Mills and Durham, they said Ontario should “invest in conservation—to offset demand” and “demand management—to shift peaks in consumption to off-hours.”

Again, one day they’re in favour of something; one day they’re against something. I think what Ontarians want to know is: What do they actually stand for?

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know, Premier, that you are obviously refusing to answer my very direct question. You can choose to answer it here during question period, you can choose to answer to the media, but Premier, you need to come clean and answer this question.

The Ontario PC caucus has uncovered a letter from the Ontario Energy Board that acknowledges that they’ve done the study of exactly how much more energy costs are going to go up for Ontario families. You have chosen to bury it. You refuse to release the Ontario Energy Board’s study on how much rates are going to go up for Ontario families.

Premier, you have changed. What’s with this secrecy? Why won’t you come clean? Answer the question Ontario families are asking. Release that report. How much more are hydro bills going to go up under Dalton McGuinty?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please. I just remind the honourable members that it is important for all of us to hear the questions that are asked and the answers that are given. I found it difficult to hear the question that was just being asked and I also, on the previous answer from the Premier, had some difficulties listening to the answer. I would just remind members on both sides to be respectful to all members.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what we’ve uncovered here is the flipping and flopping of the Conservative Party, flipping and flopping like a freshly landed pickerel in northern Ontario on a hot August afternoon. It’s not a pretty sight. There’s lots of energy but there’s not a lot of light coming from that.

I want to quote one other important representative of the Conservative Party, and that is the former Ontario Minister of Energy, John Baird, who said the following: “If we could get everyone in the province to turn their dishwasher on in off-peak hours and do their washing in off-peak hours, that would have a huge consequence.”

One day they’re in favour of smart meters; another day they’re against smart meters. I think what Ontarians really want to know is where they stand when it comes to electricity in the province of Ontario.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, three times I’ve asked you about your buried report from the Ontario Energy Board on how much higher hydro prices are going to go because of your expensive energy experiments. Three times you refused to answer—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry to interrupt. The Minister of Economic Development will please come to order. I don’t need to hear about breakfast.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you have changed. The same kind of secrecy when you buried your sex-ed curriculum that would start sex classes in grade 1—buried it on the Internet—just like we saw how you hid your eco taxes behind the shadow of the HST, just like we saw with your G-20 law that you refuse still to this day to come clean about, you’re trying to bury this report of the Ontario Energy Board on how much higher prices are going to go. Why won’t you come clean, Premier? Table that report today so Ontario families can see exactly what you’re up to.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a responsible, transparent, arm’s-length relationship with the Ontario Energy Board. That member opposite sat at a cabinet table when they decided to artificially freeze electricity rates. That cost the people of Ontario $900 million. If you want to talk about dealing with the OEB in a way that is less than responsible, then I would put that forward to my honourable colleague.

He says that he’s in favour of families having a choice, so I ask him, did they have a choice when they shut down 28 hospitals, when they fired thousands of nurses, when we lost 26 million school days, when they fired meat and water inspectors, and when they allowed our electricity system to fall into decay? Ontario families had no such choice. We’re choosing a responsible electricity future so that when we go to the wall and flick on the switch, the lights will come on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Four times, Premier, I’ve asked you the same straightforward question. Your Ontario Energy Board admitted in a letter that the Ontario PC caucus has uncovered that they’ve done a study of how much higher hydro rates are going to go. I’ve asked you four times, and four times, Premier, you have refused to answer a simple and direct question. Premier, you have changed. People want straight answers. Tell them how much higher their bills are going to go.

I’ll ask you for the fifth time. I hope you give an answer on number five. Will you release that report so Ontario families can see it for themselves?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In addition to sitting on their hands when it came to presiding over the gradual decay of our electricity rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: You used to answer questions.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: He answered one from me once.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the member from Halton again. That’s two times.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In addition to quietly presiding over the gradual decay of Ontario’s electricity system, they also, with their “leave it to the next government to take care of” approach, left our children and grandchildren with a $20-billion stranded hydro debt. Working with Ontarians, we have reduced that debt by $5.4 billion. But that stranded hydro debt is still costing Ontario families $60 a year on their energy bill. Again, that speaks to their record of mismanagement when it comes to electricity in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Five times I’ve asked the Premier of the province a clear, straightforward question: Will you release the Ontario Energy Board report on how much higher prices are going? Five times, Premier, you have refused to answer the question. I don’t care if I have to ask you six times, seven times, eight times, nine times or 10 times; we’ll drag you kicking and screaming to the truth to make that report public so that Ontario families can see exactly how much higher bills are going to go and how much more you have up your sleeve. Will you release that report today? Will you stand—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member, you just asked a question and we’re about to hear a response.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members from Halton and Durham—and the Minister of Community Safety.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague is uncomfortable when he’s confronted with his record with respect to mismanagement of Ontario electricity. But I think it’s important that he be made to revisit that from time to time as he adopts a shifting position with respect to electricity policy today.

Here’s the truth: The fact of the matter is that they quietly presided over the gradual decay of the electricity system in the province of Ontario. They refused to make essential investments in new generation and in new transmission. They refused to work with Ontarians so that we might together conserve electricity and reduce demand. They refused to make all those investments, and today that has caught up to us. So now we’re making dramatic new investments.

This is the good news: billions of dollars of investments in new generation, in new transmission and in conservation programs. We’re creating new jobs at the same time and cleaning up our air. This is good news for Ontarians. There are costs associated with that. We will continue to work with families to help them manage those costs.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Premier: Last year, the Ontario Energy Board held a hearing on changes to the return-on-equity rate for electricity and gas utilities. Independent Canadian experts and consumer and business groups said that no change was needed, but American consultants, paid for by the big utilities, said that Ontario consumers should pay an extra $240 million a year for their electricity and gas. And what a surprise: Under the Liberal government, the big utilities won.

Today, a number of consumer protection groups are asking the Premier and his government to review the flawed decision of the Ontario Energy Board. My question is this: Will the Premier order that review and save Ontario consumers $240 million a year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m very disappointed that the NDP would continue to put out information that the Ontario Energy Board, the EDA, Toronto Hydro and other local distribution companies last week clarified to them—they made it very clear to them that their numbers are dead wrong, that their numbers are not incorrect but that they are a gross exaggeration of the facts.

To keep spouting out a number that you know is not double the expectation, not triple the expectation, but five times off the impact that the Ontario Energy Board has indicated directly to your leader is wrong, and for you to continue to put that wrong information out is not only incorrect; I think it’s totally inappropriate and irresponsible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I’ll tell you what’s irresponsible: for a McGuinty government to consistently line up behind the big utilities at the expense of consumers and businesses who already can’t pay the hydro bills.

This is from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an organization that represents consumers who can’t pay. They retained economic experts, not a bunch of hacks hired by the big utilities. This is what the independent economists say: “The decision by the Ontario Energy Board is flawed. The decision by the Ontario Energy Board is going to give the big utilities $240 million a year they don’t deserve.” The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is asking the McGuinty government, on behalf of low-income consumers: Will you review the flawed decision of the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What’s flawed here is the NDP math. What’s flawed here is the lack of responsibility of that party to speak with few true facts—to speak in keeping with the facts. That is a responsibility I think you have; I think it’s a responsibility that we all have.

This is a complex calculation. The Ontario Energy Board has issued a clarification of exactly what went into this calculation, and if the member wants to know what the numbers are, I’ll tell him: They’re five times less than the numbers that his leader was out spouting off about last week, trying to garner headlines on false information. That is totally inappropriate.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Sure, Mr. Speaker, I’ll withdraw.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: One of the letters I have is from the Consumers Council of Canada, and this is what they say: “The Consumers Council of Canada is very concerned about the decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to allow utilities to increase their return on equity to 10%.”

I gather the McGuinty Liberals think the Consumers Council of Canada is wrong and that only the big utilities are right.

The Consumers Council says this: “The Consumers Council of Canada urges you to review the recent decision of the OEB in the light of the fundamentally flawed process through which this decision was made. Any decision affecting rates requires a proper hearing, which, in turn, allows cross-examination.”

I say again: Are the McGuinty Liberals with the big utilities who want to gouge consumers another $240 million a year, or are you going to listen to the Consumers Council of Canada, who had—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll tell you one thing we’re not going to do: We’re not going to take advice from a member who was in a cabinet that raised electricity rates 40% when they were in office. We’re definitely not going to take advice from him.

I think the NDP have an obligation to apologize to the people of Ontario. Ontario families are going through challenging times. Ontario families are struggling as we’ve come through the toughest recession in recent memory, and Ontario families are working very hard to deal with increasing energy rates. The last thing they need is for a political party to try to get headlines by coming out with incorrect information, but not just incorrect information—information that is grossly inadequate.

That’s not coming from me; that’s coming from the Ontario Energy Board, it’s coming from Toronto Hydro, it’s coming from the EDC, it’s coming from local distribution companies across this province, who are saying—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Many Ontarians can’t afford their hydro bills. Hydro rates are high, in part, because Ontarians are paying off debt from over-budget nuclear plants. You just said, Premier: $60 per year. Now this government is plunging ahead with the Darlington refurbishment, even though the costs are “uncertain.” Why is the government rolling the dice again on our hydro bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’ll try to pull together the various components of the NDP electricity plan. So we should not shut down coal-fired generation; we should not pursue energy conservation; we should, apparently, freeze rates; we should not continue to invest in clean, green energy and the jobs that come along with that. They also want us to shut down nuclear generation in Ontario. They might as well just hold up a big sign saying, “Let’s turn out the lights in Ontario.” That would be irresponsible. It is not in keeping with our expectations and our needs at the beginning of the 21st century.

We need a responsible plan to ensure that we have a clean, reliable, stable electricity system in place to meet the needs of our families, our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. At the same time, we’re going to clean up our air and create new jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: As you well know, Premier, nuclear energy is not emission-free, it is not reliable and it is not affordable. A report by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance indicates that cost estimates for rebuilding Darlington are overly optimistic, that Ontarians could be on the hook for overruns of up to $21 billion.

Ontario families are having enough difficulty paying for their hydro bills. How much higher will those bills get if you proceed with your Darlington plan and don’t put the burden of overruns on the shoulders of those who do that work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, if we combine the collective wisdom, shall I say, of the opposition parties—they don’t want us to invest in smart meters; they don’t want us to invest in new generation; they don’t want us to invest in new transmission; they don’t want us to invest in clean, green energy; they don’t want us to invest in new jobs. They want us to shut down nuclear; they want us to find ways to continue to burn dirty coal. I think that combination represents a terrible, irresponsible approach that is out of keeping with the desires and the needs and the values of Ontario families. So we’re putting forward a thoughtful, responsible plan.

We know that there are costs associated with investing heavily in the modernization of our electricity system. We understand that. But it’s a plan that we absolutely need to move forward with so we have the reliability. At the same time, we’re going to clean up our air and we’re going to create new jobs in a clean, green electricity sector.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Last week, the Premier was described as ducking the question by many a reporter, and I think this week the Premier has been consistent. Ontario Power Generation is seeking another rate hike to cover $1.1 billion just to start planning the Darlington refurbishment. That’s another charge on hydro bills for people who are already making it very clear to everyone in this Legislature that they are being pressed, and pressed hard.

There are less expensive and cleaner ways to meet Ontario’s energy needs. Why won’t this government submit its plans to a public review, an environmental assessment, so that people can question the assumptions and put forward the alternatives that will make a difference in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The refurbishment of our nuclear units is one of the most significant projects that this province will be embarking on, something that is absolutely necessary if we’re going to ensure that we can keep the lights on for future generations. Now, the NDP doesn’t support nuclear power; we recognize that. But Ontario Power Generation has an obligation to ensure that as we embark on this very significant project, they do adequate planning leading up to that.

They will be applying to the Ontario Energy Board as they move forward, and this project is pretty far down the road still, but they will be applying to ensure that they can recover the costs of the planning and the work that goes into this project, and the Ontario Energy Board will do their job to ensure that what they’re applying for is appropriate.

Let them do their job. Let them ensure that the costs are appropriate. And let us get on with ensuring that we have a strong, reliable and clean system—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. The Premier likes to talk about the importance of families and neighbours. A recent newspaper column last week reported that when your children years ago asked why you made them shovel a neighbour’s driveway, you replied: “Because we can.”

Premier, will you show that same can-do attitude today to your neighbours who are struggling with their hydro bills, your neighbours, families all across the province, who want to know what is in the OEB report that should tell them what is going to happen to hydro rates and how much they are going to go up under your so-called long-term energy plan? Will you show that can-do attitude today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: For a very long time now we’ve been joining with Ontarians to ensure that indeed we can turn around this energy system that you left Ontarians in, a system that was in decay.

Ontarians, this government, all of us within the energy sector are working very hard to undo the damage that that government did. That involves building a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy. That involves building 8,000 new megawatts of power, a 20% increase. Ontarians are involved in that. That’s ensuring that they have a stable supply of energy. That’s important to the very families you’re talking about. They are involved with ensuring that we’ve upgraded 5,000 new megawatts of transmission and distribution. That’s like going coast to coast in the country of Canada. That’s a very significant contribution, something that you obviously do not support.

We stand with those families to ensure—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Seven times, and now for the eighth time: Initially, the Ontario Energy Board denied it had done any forecast of how much your energy experiments and taxes on hydro are costing families—neighbours. This is a bit odd because forecasting hydro costs is exactly what the OEB does. The letter uncovered by the Ontario PC caucus shows that the OEB corrected the record by admitting that a forecast report was done, but added that your report won’t be shared with the industry or families who pay the bills.

For the eighth time, it is now time that the Premier or the minister share the OEB report with their neighbours. Why? Because you can.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton, the member from Lanark, please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We have continued to be very, very clear with Ontarians. We recognize that there is a cost to building that stronger, cleaner, more reliable—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I’m just going to let the clock run.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve been very clear to Ontarians. There is a cost to building a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy. We have had to make investments. We have had to play a lot of catch-up because that party opposite failed to make investments when they were in office.

We’re working with Ontarians to ensure that we do plan into the future. That’s why last week we announced that we’re moving forward with a long-term plan for our energy system, building on the plan that we’ve put in place. We’re looking 20 years ahead. We’re seeking the advice of Ontarians across this province to make sure that we can build a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy not just until—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians are getting ripped off on their hydro bills. Patricia Morris of Hanover, Ontario, can be fairly described as an energy miser. She consumes only $22 worth of electricity in an average billing but she gets billed nearly four times that amount—more than $85. Miss Morris feels that she’s getting gouged and wants to know why. She especially wants to know why she has to pay HST on her entire hydro bill and, most egregiously, on the debt retirement charges.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Premier, myself, this government have been very, very clear. We really do get it when we understand the challenges facing Ontario families today as a result of the global recession and as a result of the need to make further investments in our energy system.

Just yesterday, the Premier met with a number of seniors as he announced that 740,000 Ontario seniors will see an increase in tax relief. Under the Ontario energy and property tax credit, 2.8 million Ontarians will see tax relief totalling $1.3 billion annually. This represents an increase of $525 million over the 2009 property tax credit. This is going to help the very families the member has raised with those increasing energy bills. It will be of significant assistance to seniors, to low- and middle-income—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Miss Morris isn’t alone. We have received and heard from thousands of Ontarians who are sick and tired of being gouged on their hydro bills. The debt retirement charge is neither a good nor a service. Why are Ontarians like Ms. Morris forced to pay the HST on hydro debt, and why won’t this government do as New Democrats have suggested and remove the HST entirely from hydro bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I really wish we didn’t have to deal with the debt that the Tories left us—that $20 billion that, unfortunately, the NDP would like us to wish away—but we need to deal with that debt and bring it down. That $20 billion has come down. We’re working hard to try to get the burden off the backs of Ontario ratepayers, and that is a challenge.

One of the things that we have done, recognizing that families are struggling these days given the global recession as we move through into a slow recovery, is an announcement the Premier made, as I shared with you earlier. That announcement will ensure that seniors will receive up to $1,025 in tax relief. That’s going to help. Other Ontarians who own or rent a house are going to receive up to $900 in tax relief. That’s going to be of great assistance to those families. We’re going to keep working with Ontario families—

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

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. David Orazietti: My question’s for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Given the economic challenges we continue to face in mining, forestry and pulp and paper, it’s important that we ensure provincial infrastructure is modernized to support economic development that we all want to see take place in northern Ontario. The northern Ontario growth plan articulates the vision that northerners have for the region, and a key part of resource development is having secure, reliable rail transportation to move these products to other parts of Canada and throughout the world.

Minister, last Friday, as you know, we took a historic step to improve rail infrastructure in northeastern Ontario. Can you elaborate on this important investment and why it was important to make?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the honourable member for the question. I’m pleased to say that he was able to make the announcement on behalf of our government last Friday—a $30-million investment. I want to thank my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin as well for the support and advocacy.

Certainly the member is quite right to note the importance our rail lines play and how that ties into our strategy in northern Ontario, providing reliable transportation for resource development, but also the economic importance this brings. Indeed, this announcement will mean that Huron Central will basically save 140 direct or indirect jobs, something that will make a great deal of difference in terms of the economic future.

But perhaps what I’m most proud of is that the province made its commitment early. We came to the table in our last budget, thanks to Minister Duncan, and made that $15-million commitment, which helped ensure that the federal funds came forward as well. Certainly this is a very important investment in terms of our northern growth strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: On behalf of our community, we thank you for this tremendously important investment that supports thousands of jobs at our steel mill and other businesses in our city and region.

In fact, in Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro, chair of the federal all-party rail caucus, said, “No provincial government has ever directly invested in a freight line.” The CEO of Huron Central, Mario Brault, said, “This is an exciting day for us ... this announcement is so important to the survival of the rail line.”

After decades of deterioration, our community is relieved to know that the renewal of this vital infrastructure will take place. Minister, can you tell us how specifically your ministry has assisted and how the funding will be used for Huron Central?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, thanks so much for the question and the great work done by my colleagues from Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma–Manitoulin.

Indeed, you’re right: This is very important in terms of Essar Steel and the thousands of jobs that are connected with that.

The fact is, the province has invested in Huron Central before. When this first became a real issue a year or so ago, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. was able to invest $1.5 million in, quite frankly, crisis funding that was needed for urgent repair to the rail line while we worked to make sure we came together with this agreement.

This major capital investment is going to upgrade the railway line’s existing infrastructure by repairing and replacing rail ties, anchors and bridges and certainly improving the railway so that the service can remain profitable; so we can continue not just retaining jobs in northern Ontario, but create jobs. It’s a tremendous announcement, and I’m most grateful for the assistance of my colleagues from northern Ontario.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Eight times now, Premier, you’ve been asked to release the Ontario Energy Board’s report about what the future cost of power is going to be to consumers and businesses in this province. I say to you, as a former Minister of Energy: First of all, I take offence that you say we left the place in shambles. We have always had the most reliable and affordable electricity system in North America, and you know that that is a fact of life.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Health, Minister of Education, Minister of Community Safety, Minister of the Environment, member from Sault Ste. Marie, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Please continue.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It is you, sir, who are taking us down a path of grand experimentation, at a huge cost to jobs, families and seniors in this province. You refuse to release your energy plan, and now, for the eighth time—ninth time, I assume—you’re going to refuse to release the Ontario Energy Board report.

You represent the shareholders of the system; the shareholders are the ratepayers of Ontario. They own the system; you do not, sir. You have the responsibility to report to them in an open, honest and transparent way and tell them what they’re getting for their money and how much it’s going to cost.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I have a different take on this, of course. What I think Ontarians find offensive is that this former Minister of Energy presided over the quiet demise and dilapidation of their electricity system. They refused to invest in generation. They refused to invest in transmission. They ramped up coal-fired generation. They ramped up the stranded debt. They refused to do all the things that were needed to do to ensure that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren—

Interjections .

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Simcoe North will withdraw the comment he just made.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw it.

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

Interjections.

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

Member from Halton—twice, the member from Halton. I would appreciate some respect for the chair.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m done, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, your—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Your own member is about to ask a supplementary question. He is sitting right to my left and I can’t hear him because he’s being shouted down by his own party.

Please continue.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, your rewriting of history is very interesting and very inaccurate. The only coal-fired plant that’s ever been closed in this province was ordered closed by my honourable colleague to my left here, and she was Minister of the Environment under a PC government. That is a fact of history.

The stranded debt of $35 billion that I inherited when I became Minister of Energy in the PC government came directly from David Peterson and his decisions around Darlington, which racked up at least $14 billion of it, so you can’t blame that on us. We had a plan to pay that debt off in 15 years. That deadline is quickly passing and you don’t have a plan. You won’t release your long-range plan, and now you won’t tell consumers, upright and forthright, what the future holds: whether they’re going to have a job; whether factories can afford to be open, because they don’t know what their power rates are going to be and you are refusing to tell them.

You should resign, and your energy minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s been a while since we’ve heard a rant from the member. It doesn’t shed a lot of light on the issue, but it’s always entertaining, so we appreciate the entertainment value in that.

He wants us to talk about what happened in the past. He wants us to talk about what happened when they were in power, when he was a minister. This is important: The Conservative government, when they were in power, changed the freedom-of-information act to exclude Hydro One and the OLG. At the time, they said it was to secure competitiveness. The only thing you ended up securing was sole-source consulting contracts to Conservative insiders like Paul Rhodes, Michael Gourley, Leslie Noble and Deb Hutton. That was their way. They want to take us back there.

The member mentioned coal. Coal went up 127% when they were in power. We brought it down 70%, and very, very soon, this government will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

PEST CONTROL

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Landlords are renting units knowing that the units have bedbug infestations. We have nothing to force landlords to clean up their properties. Work orders are routinely challenged and left undone because of endless appeals. Why is this government refusing to support landlord licensing as a way of ensuring that landlords keep units bedbug-free?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Our government recognizes that there is a social, economic and psychological cost associated with this type of infestation. That’s why our ministry and several ministries in the government are working with the lead ministry, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, at arriving at some recommendations.

In this part of the question, I want to commend the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, Mike Colle.

Mr. Bob Delaney: There’s a guy who’s taken real leadership.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: He’s shown real leadership in this. It isn’t about political opportunism for Mike Colle, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence; it’s about coming up with recommendations. It’s about finding solutions. That’s why I’m very proud that he’s leading this summit, which will come with some concrete recommendations we can react to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The minister knows that there is inadequate response by his government to the growing bedbug problem. The member for Eglinton–Lawrence’s Renters’ Right to Know Act will have little real impact on controlling the spread of bedbugs unless there is a requirement to certify that previously infested units are bedbug-free before they’re rented again. When will this government come forward with such a certification requirement? Show some leadership, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: What the member fails to tell the House and the people of Ontario is that under the City of Toronto Act, under the amendments made to the Municipal Act, municipalities across Ontario can do what she’s asking. It’s up to the municipalities. We give them that responsibility.

You see, there’s the difference: It’s all about political opportunism over there. On this side of the House, with Mike Colle, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence—he’s about finding solutions. He’s about finding recommendations. He’s about coming up with concrete ideas to solve this infestation, not political opportunism. It’s all about real solutions. The member from Eglinton–Lawrence deserves an awful lot of praise for the great work he is doing.

PEST CONTROL

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): At this rate, we’re not going to finish question period and you will all be in your beds by the time it does get done.

Member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When my children ask, “What did do you in the war, Dad?” I guess I’m going to have an interesting answer.

The question I have is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I think all members of the House really are deeply concerned about this. Throughout the province, we’ve seen a growing concern about this infestation. In my own riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, I’ve seen real live people come to tears over this: the stress, the anxiety—never mind the bites—the lack of sleep. You can’t go to work. It really affects everybody’s everyday life.

As you know, later today, we’re convening a summit here at the Macdonald Block, where we’ll be looking for real suggestions and solutions from front-line workers like the WoodGreen Foundation and Toronto Public Health. We’re looking for some solid solutions.

I’m just wondering, Minister—and I’ve talked to you about this before: How can your ministry really help in—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question, but most importantly for his advocacy, his leadership and his responsiveness to his community on this issue. Thank you for hosting the summit this afternoon.

This is one issue where we all need to work together to find solutions. So my ministry is working with other ministries—municipal affairs and housing, community and social services, health promotion and sport, environment, tourism and culture. We’re all working together to find solutions. We know that this is a problem that is multidimensional and certainly reaches beyond the borders of Toronto.

Our ministry will be an ongoing support to this initiative. The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, my parliamentary assistant, and the associate chief medical officer of health, Dr. David Williams, will be attending this afternoon. We will be working together to act on the recommendations.

Thank you again to the honourable member for—

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

Mr. Mike Colle: To the minister: Across the province, it’s clear that we need to step up our efforts to inform the public and to try and prevent and eradicate these bedbugs with a comprehensive strategy.

There are a number of existing resources out there for help such as Toronto Public Health and the helpline, but people have been saying we need to do more. We need standardized information and research. Basically, there are no benchmarks. There’s no tracking. We don’t really know what’s happening out there.

I’ll ask the minister: Can we get a real, hard look by your ministry to help us find out how we get these bedbugs, how we can prevent them and what we can do to inform people to ensure that they don’t come into their homes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely agree with the member: Public information is a critical part of the solution here.

There is help available now. Toronto Public Health has a helpline—416-338-7600—to get information about bedbugs. A public health inspector will provide information over the phone about bedbug identification and what is needed to treat the infestation and prevent it from coming back. Public health inspectors are also available to present educational seminars on the issue.

But we know there is more to do, and we also know this is more than a Toronto issue. That’s why the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and I have written to our public health units across the province, and we are requesting their attention to this issue. We are asking that they ensure that appropriate information and measures exist at the local level across the province.

We’re very much looking forward to—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: Carillion Canada has been awarded multi-million-dollar contracts by the Ministry of Transportation. Carillion enters into agreements with subcontractors to perform the work, Carillion gets paid for the work and then refuses to pay the subcontractors, forcing them into costly court proceedings, and then proposes settlements for pennies on the dollar.

The ministry turns a blind eye to these unethical business practices, claiming it’s strictly a contractual arrangement between Carillion and the subcontractor. Would the minister tell us how she can possibly justify doing nothing while Ontario businesses are essentially being extorted by one of the ministry’s largest contractors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows quite well that our ministry complies with the provisions of the Construction Lien Act in all cases, in all of our construction contracts. In fact, the member opposite has had the opportunity to come in and to be briefed on this subject in our ministry. We’ve tried to provide him with all the information that we could on this subject, and certainly with the individuals who are concerned.

We have a legal agreement in place with our primary contractors and we ensure that all our legal obligations are met. As I say, the member opposite has had opportunities in the past to come in to talk with us in the Ministry of Transportation, and that offer stands, for him to come in and ask further questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister knows full well that this is not an isolated occurrence and it goes beyond what the contractual arrangements are. She knows that these unethical business practices are common to Carillion in every jurisdiction where they do business.

According to a survey by Top Service, the credit reference agency, Carillion “paid one in 100 subcontractors on time ... last year.” Chief Minister Fleming of Anguilla referred to Carillion’s dispute with workers as “a matter of national urgency.” The Edinburgh Evening News reported that Carillion “has been failing to pay its subcontractors for weeks.” From the UK: “Subcontractors ... will have to wait twice as long as usual to be paid, now that sites have been taken over by Carillion.”

My question to the minister is this: At the very least, knowing the unethical practices of this major multinational corporation doing business in the province of Ontario, will she at least—because she has the ability to do this—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If there are concerns about a particular contractor or a particular issue, we will obviously be willing to look into any of those concerns. As I’ve said, the member opposite has had the chance to come into the ministry and has had a conversation with our ministry officials.

But this process and these rules have been in place for many, many years. The member opposite was the Minister of Transportation, and he knows full well what rules are in place. He knows full well that the ministry complies with all of those rules. He also knows that if there is a concern, then I will absolutely be willing to look at it.

But I think it’s very, very clear that the member opposite seems to have forgotten that when there are rules in place, those are the rules we have to follow. Those are the rules that protect companies in the province, and in the case where there is a problem, obviously we will look into it. If the member opposite has more information he’d like to share—

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

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I am advocating on behalf of a constituent from Kapuskasing who finds himself in quite a tough situation. It’s a case of “penny wise and pound foolish.” He’s a gentleman who’s visually impaired and also has issues with regard to physical impairments both with his arms and his hands. In order to be able to live independently in his own home, he needs to have software that goes on a computer that allows him, first of all, voice recognition so he can speak to his computer and type can come out, and screen-reading software to read it back to him.

Your ministry has funded both those types of software, both the voice-recognition and the screen-reading software. Unfortunately, what he’s missing is a software that bridges those two pieces together. As a result, he is not able to do what needs to be done to communicate, and he might end up having to move out of his own home because he will not be able to live independently.

My question is, are you prepared to assist?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a very good question, and thank you for asking this question.

I’m very concerned about this gentleman having to move out if he doesn’t have the proper tools. I would like to know more about this gentleman and I would appreciate it if both of us talked directly about this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Madam Minister, it’s a question of $1,400, and we’re going to provide you with the details so that you can follow up. But just to be clear, for $1,400 we can make sure that this man is able to live independently in his home. If we don’t pay the $1,400, he’s not going to be able to communicate with anybody, and as a result, he’s at risk of having to move into a group home in order to be able to live.

I say again, we’ll send you the information, but we’ve been working on this for the better part of 10 months and have yet to find a resolution with the ministries and at the minister’s level as well. We’ll send this back to you, and we’re asking: Please do the right thing. For $1,400, he gets to stay at home. If you don’t pay, he lives in a group home. Which do you want?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I can say to the member that I will look into it and make sure that this individual can live as independently as he can.

Again, this government has adopted this beautiful piece of legislation. We’re the leader here in Canada and in the world. We are developing standards, and a lot of people with disabilities did help us to develop these standards to make sure that we have it right.

I hope that I will never have a question like this in the future because Ontario will be fully accessible.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Last week, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario released his annual report. A

section of his report commented on Ottawa’s recent experience with beach closures due to sewage overflows following rainstorms. The health of the Ottawa River is a very important issue for my constituents. They should be able to enjoy the beaches, like Westboro Beach in my riding, without worrying about pollution.

In July, I attended the commissioning of two combined sewer regulators in Ottawa. They are part of the Ottawa River action plan to reduce sewage overflows.

In his report, the Environmental Commissioner applauded the action plan, stating, “Ottawa will be an Ontario leader in controlling overflows into its water.” However, he also noted rightly that “New infrastructure comes at a cost.”

Could the minister share with my constituents how the Ontario government is helping the city of Ottawa to upgrade its waste water infrastructure to fix these chronic problems?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: This is an important issue for Ottawa. I thank the member from Ottawa Centre for the question.

The city of Ottawa has become a leader in this area, and we are proud to be part of Ottawa’s success. We invested $33 million in the Ottawa River action plan through the Investing in Ontario Act, which, incidentally, both opposition parties opposed. Plus, we invested $21 million of stimulus funding for 13 waste water projects to improve environmental efficiency. These projects involved separating aging combined sewers into separate storm water and waste water sewers so that even after major storms, treatment plants are not overwhelmed.

The Environmental Commissioner noted, “New infrastructure comes at a cost.” Protecting the public health and quality of life of Ottawans is worth every penny of the cost.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It’s no surprise that issues like this are very important to Ontarians, who, like all Canadians, value the sanctity of the natural resources that we are so fortunate to have. Moreover, I know my constituents will appreciate these local investments that will help keep the beaches they enjoy clean and the waters they swim in safe.

The Environmental Commissioner’s report also raised concerns about the Great Lakes, about water quality standards and aging waste water infrastructure, and it challenged us to do more. The Great Lakes are literally an enormous part of our province’s identity. More importantly, they are an integral part of the day-to-day life of countless Ontarians who not only use and enjoy their waters and shores but rely on them through municipal water services.

Could the minister tell us what our government is doing to ensure Ontario is making progress on Great Lakes water quality? Can Ontarians still have confidence that the lakes and beaches they enjoy are safe?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. We have some of the cleanest water and some of the highest standards in North America. We’re proud of that. We’ve had the same standards as our friends to the other side of the Great Lakes, the Americans, since 1983, but we have much more stringent posting requirements in regard to E. coli, because the protection of human health is paramount to our ministry.

Working together with the Ministry of Infrastructure, we have made an investment of some $1.5 billion by way of grants and some $1.8 billion by way of secured loans from the province to our municipal partners, because they too believe in the sanctity of our water and how important it is that we protect it today and for future generations.

I’m pleased to announce to the House that the remaining six primary centres for water treatment have now been upgraded—

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

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. Today is World School Milk Day, and I want to commend the Ontario dairy farmers who have joined with people and organizations around the world to give students nutritious, fresh milk free of charge.

Can you explain to them why you are banning 500-millilitre containers of chocolate milk in schools, even though studies have shown that doing so will reduce student milk consumption by 30%?

Premier, I have a copy here of a document paid for by the provincial government, and I quote from the document: “Children need two cups”—500 millilitres—“of milk, chocolate milk or fortified soy beverage every day.”

Can you explain why you are spending taxpayers’ dollars to tell parents that their children should drink 500 millilitres of chocolate milk while banning the same thing from your schools? Is it just because you can’t resist banning things?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I would like to say that our government very much appreciates the very good work of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and all of their efforts to promote milk within our schools. They have a long history of that. We know that many students right across Ontario have benefited from that.

I can say to the members of the assembly today that for all families in Ontario, we are going to do everything—first of all, chocolate milk is available in our schools. We want to ensure that students will be able to access that fine dairy product in whatever container they would like to purchase it in. That’s our commitment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended and there are no deferred votes.

FARMERS’ MARKET

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to remind the members that today is the second annual Speaker’s Queen’s Park farmers’ market. It just began on the front lawn and runs until 2 p.m. today.

Come out to meet local farmers and enjoy some fresh local produce. I would encourage all of our guests and all of our friends and all the staff within the Legislature and the government precincts, who I know are glued to their computers and televisions watching their ministers in action, to come and join us on the front lawn at Queen’s Park.

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s an honour for me today to introduce Sister Dorothy Ryan, who is in the east members’ gallery. She is the Superior General of the congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph in my hometown of Peterborough. Shortly, I’ll be introducing a private bill dealing with the Sisters of St. Joseph in Peterborough.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGH SCHOOL IN STITTSVILLE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Stittsville. The former village of Stittsville is a growing community in the west end of the city of Ottawa. It currently has a population of 26,000, and planned development includes approximately 16,000 more homes.

Stittsville is a great place, but it is missing one important institution: a public high school. Students and their parents have to choose between travelling 15 kilometres to South Carleton High School in Richmond or going to Sacred Heart Catholic High School in Stittsville, which now has a student population of 1,800.

Twenty-five per cent of the students who attend public elementary schools in Stittsville change to the Catholic high school because it is in their community. I might add that it’s a pretty good high school as well.

The Ministry of Education has recognized that Stittsville is growing, and is starting construction on a new elementary school, with the sod-turning next month. This is great news, but students who attend that new elementary school will grow up and need a high school.

The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has identified a high school for Stittsville as a top priority and submitted a business case to the ministry. I have met with local trustee Lynn Scott on this issue and have spoken informally with the Minister of Education, but I hope for a formal meeting in the very near future to discuss this very important need for the people of Stittsville.

ULTIMATE FISHING TOWN

Mr. Howard Hampton: Imagine a small, tourism-based community in northwestern Ontario winning the title the Ultimate Fishing Town in Canada. Well, that is exactly what can happen over the next 24 hours. The World Fishing Network is conducting an online contest to select the ultimate fishing town in Canada. The contest ends to