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

June 2, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Jun-02 (PDF)

L039 - Wed 2 Jun 2010 / Mer 2 jun 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 June 2010 Mercredi 2 juin 2010

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

TAXATION

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

WATER QUALITY

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

PUBLIC HEALTH

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SOCIAL SERVICES

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

TIME ALLOCATION

TIME ALLOCATION

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

KIDS’ FISHING DAY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

MORRISBURG GRANNIES FOR AFRICA

ELK MANAGEMENT

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

VE DAY

THAMES VALLEY

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

ITALIAN REPUBLIC DAY

LAKE SUPERIOR

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ACCESSIBLE PARKING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE STATIONNEMENT ACCESSIBLE

NEWCOMERS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA CRÉATION

DE DÉBOUCHÉS

POUR LES NOUVEAUX ARRIVANTS

HEALTHY DECISIONS

FOR HEALTHY EATING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES CHOIX SAINS

POUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(SEWAGE SLUDGE), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

(BOUES D’ÉPURATION)

MANDATING SPRINKLERS

IN ALL ONTARIO RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’INSTALLATION OBLIGATOIRE D’EXTINCTEURS

DANS TOUTES LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE DE L’ONTARIO

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION AMENDMENT ACT (FIRE SPRINKLER RETROFITTING), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE (INSTALLATION RÉTROACTIVE D’EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROBERT EATON

PETITIONS

TAXATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

POWER PLANT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

WIND TURBINES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L’ENSEIGNEMENT POSTSECONDAIRE

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

OPEN FOR BUSINESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT UN ONTARIO PROPICE AUX AFFAIRES

ORDER OF BUSINESS

962 BLOOR STREET WEST

LIMITED ACT, 2010

962 BLOOR STREET WEST

LIMITED ACT, 2010

DURHAM REGION CLASSIC

MUSTANG CLUB ACT, 2010

DURHAM REGION CLASSIC

MUSTANG CLUB ACT, 2010

DEEPA GAS LIMITED ACT, 2010

DEEPA GAS LIMITED ACT, 2010

SANDRINGHAM DEVELOPMENTS LTD. ACT, 2010

SANDRINGHAM DEVELOPMENTS LTD. ACT, 2010

LUSO CANADIAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY ACT (TAX RELIEF), 2010

LUSO CANADIAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY ACT (TAX RELIEF), 2010

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF THE PURCHASING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA INC.

ACT, 2010

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF THE PURCHASING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA INC.

ACT, 2010

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 2009-10, and they are in the members’ desks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 18, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les organisations sans but lucratif.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 1, 2010, I am now required to put the question.

On May 17, 2010, Ms. Aggelonitis moved second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

Mr. Phillips moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes / Projet de loi 21, Loi réglementant les maisons de retraite.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton West.

I’m honoured to participate in this debate on Bill 21. It’s a bill that for the first time in the history of this province will regulate retirement homes. We estimate there are roughly 700 retirement homes in the province of Ontario. There are 40,000 residents in those retirement homes, the vast majority being seniors. For the first time, Ontario will regulate those.

Bill 21 is a sound piece of legislation that provides important protections for the residents of those homes. The proposed Retirement Homes Act respects the need for independence and respects the need for those residents to make informed decisions. If passed, the Retirement Homes Act would importantly create a regulatory authority. It would have strong powers to license retirement homes, conduct inspections, investigate and do other enforcement activities and, if need be, issue monetary penalties or revoke the licence.

We also will establish mandatory care and safety standards, which has been a subject of some debate. We will require the homes to have emergency plans, infection control and prevention programs, assessment of care needs and care planning, police background checks, safety standards and training for staff.

The third key segment of this is that it will enshrine the residents’ rights to many things, including the right to know the true cost of care and accommodation, the right to register complaints, the right to have those complaints dealt with, and the right to live in an environment that promotes zero tolerance of abuse or neglect.

I think every single member of the Legislature has a significant number of retirement homes in their riding. We all know they provide a variety of care, and there are a variety of sizes. This bill is about making sure that those retirement homes provide a safe and secure environment for our seniors.

This bill is a result of four years of hard work by many, many people. It was in 2006 that we, the government, made a commitment to regulate retirement homes and started the process for consultations. I’ve heard some say that we’re rushing this; in my opinion, it’s been a pretty orderly process over a four-year period.

In early 2007, we conducted consultations in 12 different communities across the province, and many members of the Legislature participated—

Interjection: I remember that.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: —including my colleague beside me here. We talked with well over 800 groups and individuals: seniors, their families, consumer advocates, municipalities, seniors’ organizations, community service providers and retirement home providers. We also received over 200 written submissions. We heard feedback on a number of issues: how retirement homes should be defined, what regulations should cover and who should be responsible for enforcing the regulations.

The

summary of those consultations has been on our website now for, I think, close to three years, so that information has been publicly available. What did the participants say? First, almost all groups we spoke to agreed that a third party regulatory authority was the best way to enforce the standards. Secondly, most groups told us that there should be standards for whatever care is provided in a retirement home: food preparation, staff training and safety, including the building property. Finally, the groups gave us their perspective on the definition of a retirement home.

Following those consultations, our staff set to work on analyzing the recommendations. You can imagine that preparing a piece of legislation that encompasses a pretty diverse set of circumstances out there is not particularly easy. We had many ministries involved, and I want to just pay tribute to a couple of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker: Jim Bradley—if you don’t mind me mentioning their names; I should be saying their ridings—and Aileen Carroll, who were both ministers responsible for seniors and did a lot of the heavy lifting that I now am able to bring to conclusion.

We also worked, obviously, with a lot of our partners: seniors’ advocates, seniors’ groups and others, and I want to thank all of them who participated in that.

We then prepared the legislation. It was introduced in the Legislature here in March, and we began the appropriate process then for debating it. We also briefed many of our stakeholders on the content of the legislation. Then we began the debate at what we call here second reading, as you know, Mr. Speaker. There was a good debate here in the Legislature, and the Legislature then voted on second reading, without objection from anyone. It went to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

I’m going through this because it’s helpful, I think, for the public to understand that this has been a pretty thorough process.

The committee, of course, orders its own business and established the rules for input. They advertised in, I think, six, seven or eight newspapers across the province from Huntsville to Niagara Falls. The committee heard from 22 presenters at public hearings a couple of weeks ago and reviewed more than 20 written submissions.

Following the public hearings, the committee had clause-by-clause debate, and there were 15 amendments that were adopted as a result of that debate, including some amendments that were raised by the opposition.

I just want to comment on a couple of areas that have had some debate publicly. One is on the regulatory authority. There are some who have mistakenly called it a self-regulating body. It is not a self-regulating body; it’s the regulatory authority. It will not be, and it cannot be, dominated by the industry. That’s a concern that has been raised, and I want to provide assurance to the public that that’s not the case.

This regulatory agency will, as I said earlier, license retirement homes, conduct inspections and investigations, require the retirement homes to meet the prescribed care and prescribed safety standards, will make sure that the residents are informed of their rights and make sure that if they have a complaint, the complaint is heard properly. There is an appeal mechanism if the person is not satisfied about that complaint.

Just to provide, further assurance to the public of the fact that this will not be an industry-dominated board, there will be an interim board initially established to get it rolling. That will have five members. All five members will be appointed by the government. Once the board is up and running, there will be nine members. Four of them will be appointed by the government, including the chair. The other five must follow a series of things, including—the board must develop a bylaw for how they are going to appoint these delegates. They must follow a code of ethics for every director and employer.

There is an officer, called the risk officer, who must report publicly, annually, on how well the authority is carrying out its legislated mandate. The authority has the legislated mandate to represent the interest of the residents, making sure that the care standards, the safety standards and the residents’ rights are properly, adequately and completely looked after.

I wanted to review that because, as I say, there have been some who have expressed concern that this would be a self-regulatory body and would be dominated by the industry. I just want to assure the Legislature and importantly the public that that is not the case.

There’s also been a good deal of debate around what’s called the care standards and the safety standards. Again, I want to provide some comfort to those who have raised concerns about it in this respect. If the legislation is passed, which we hope will occur, we then begin work very quickly on the development of those care and those safety standards, including fire safety and public health. I want to assure the interested parties out there that we will be working with them and consulting with them to address the concerns they may have about the bill.

I’m about ready to turn it over to my parliamentary assistant. I’ve now been the minister for four months. I happen to have landed in this job at a very good time as we are, for the first time in the history of the province, going to, if passed, regulate, license and oversee retirement homes—very important.

There have been concerns raised, as you might expect when you have something as diverse as 700 retirement homes of a variety of sizes and offering a variety of care. I’ve listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised. I’m satisfied that the legislation allows us to address those concerns. Concerns about the regulatory authority: I’ve talked at length about that, but I think we can provide assurances that this will be a board that will represent the interests of the residents. Concern about the care and the safety standards: They will be developed and we will have ample opportunity for input into them.

The concern about this being rushed: I actually think it’s been quite a long—I don’t think; it has been. We’re now more than four years from when we announced that we would be dealing with legislation on this; consultations right across the province; broad, broad discussions, particularly by our staff; introduction of a bill here; a good debate in the Legislature; public hearings. Everybody who wanted to be heard at public hearings was heard—everybody.

I actually do appreciate the comments by those who have concerns about the bill, because I think it has helped. We have clarified some parts of the bill. But in total I’m very satisfied that this bill provides the appropriate protections for the residents and it’s a major step forward in providing quality of life for the people of Ontario. With that, I turn it over to my parliamentary assistant.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Gerry’s parliamentary assistant.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I would like the honour to have Gerry as my parliamentary assistant—he’s a very capable individual—at some point in the future. He’s just the type of person who is flexible enough to make the right decision.

But on this bill, this is the one time I have a serious disagreement with his

interpretation of Bill 21. When I say that, I say that respectfully, because on this side we know that the needs of the aging population in Ontario are great. We’re hearing from them on the cost of their electricity bills. We’re hearing from them their concerns about property taxes. We’re hearing their concerns about the demise of health care in Ontario. We’re seeing it in the lack of access to long-term care in Ontario. There’s just simply no respect for seniors, it seems.

Everything that they’ve done to make this province and this country great is being taken away from them because they’re not part of the vision of Premier McGuinty. In fact, I think they’re victims of Premier McGuinty’s plan. I don’t say that with malice; I say it as, the reality is that they are being left behind.

We see it in the attack on the pharmacists. We see it there, where there’s going to be less access to health care, whether it’s the emergency room in Peterborough, the one at Northumberland Hills, and I am surprised the member from Peterborough, Jeff Leal, and Lou Rinaldi aren’t standing on our side with us, in solidarity, to defend against the destruction of the hospital system in Ontario. Coroner’s reports have mentioned it as well down in the Niagara region, the implications for those decisions. It comes right down to our problem with Bill 21.

I want to make it very clear: Our critic, Mr. Martiniuk, and our former health minister, Elizabeth Witmer, see some value in regulating retirement homes. Now, let’s put it on the table here. Retirement homes, for those viewers listening today or reading Hansard in the future, are not long-term-care facilities. Each bed in long-term-care facilities in Ontario is funded to some extent by the province of Ontario, probably between $15,000 and $20,000 per bed. We know we have an aging population.

We also know that one of the problems in our hospitals are the alternative-level-of-care beds; that’s the long-term-care, complex, continuing care beds in hospitals. We know they’re in hospitals where there are all sorts of antibiotic-resistant viruses and things potentially out there to risk these vulnerable seniors, but there’s no place to put them. They haven’t built any long-term-care beds. They’re refusing to fund any of the long-term-care beds.

So what Bill 21 does surreptitiously is this: It’s acting like they’re going to regulate something that they haven’t got five cents invested in. Premier McGuinty and Mr. Phillips do not have five cents invested in retirement homes, and now they are going to tell these retirement homes some rules. The rules are fine. Where are the resources? The resources are only there in the extent of the law, and I suspect more inspectors. I think they should own up to it and say that the extension of long-term care is our ultimate goal.

I know first-hand about this because I’m dealing just now with my wife’s mother. I’m going to give you an example. In long-term care what it would cost her is this: They would take her old age security—she’s 85 years of age—and they would take their CPP portion. To that, they would add, if you had a private room, about $800 a month that you would have to pay out of your own money, and any other personals like grooming, cable television or phone, and it might cost you an additional $1,000 a month possibly. You take your CPP; it’s about $900. So it could cost $2,000 a month, and the provincial government funds the rest of it.

The argument by the NDP and others is the hours of care in long-term care. How much care is actually provided? It does probably cost $40,000 or $50,000 a year for each bed in long-term care, part of it funded directly by the province and partially funded by the individual.

Now, if you’re in long-term care and you are destitute—all you have is CPP or OAS—then you won’t be in a private room. The new standard is a shared suite with its own washroom, but there will be two people in the room.

In my mother-in-law’s case, under the discharge plan from her physician she’s not in long-term care, but she’s unable, because of lapses in memory and energy levels—I guess looking at retirement homes. She’s looking at two or three here in Toronto. Bayview Village is one, and she’s looking at one in Peterborough. We’ve actually visited it. It’s quite nice—Canterbury Gardens.

Here’s what it costs: The suites basically start at $5,000 a month. If you want a double room, like two bedrooms with a balcony, it’s about $7,000 a month. Let’s do the math: $7,000 a month. There’s no provincial money in it. Yes, there should be standards on that part. Our critics and our former health minister are fully supportive of having standards and working through the standards, whether it’s in the care section, the meals

section or the responsibilities of hygiene, maintenance, cleanliness or whatever. But when you are paying $5,000 a month, that’s $60,000 a year. If someone in their 80s is on a fixed income with a modest pension—their pension wouldn’t be any more than probably $25,000 or $30,000 a year. Because of the inflationary influence from 65 to 85, over 20 years, they’ll be lucky if their pension was $25,000, if they had one.

But the real issue is that the premium rooms are in the $6,000-to-$7,000 range. That’s $84,000. If you’re living out of your RRSPs or a RRIF of some sort of collapsed investment fund, for every $50,000 you want, you have to take about $100,000 out of the fund. So if you’re 85 and you’re going to live to be 95, you better have $1 million in your RRSP or your RRIF fund, because it’ll take $100,000 a year to produce $50,000, so you’d need $1 million to last 10 years. Is there any Premier McGuinty money or Dwight Duncan money? No, there’s not one cent. They’re ignoring the plight of seniors and the backlog in demand for home supports.

We know the Minister of Health talks often about the aging at home strategy. What is the aging at home strategy? We call it the aging alone strategy; that’s what we call it. The aging at home strategy is the CCACs, community care access centres, working with the discharging physician to assign home supports for persons being discharged from hospitals. I think the maximum amount of home supports you can get is about three hours per day. If someone is incontinent or cannot feed themselves or is on very complex medication—it could be somebody who’s diabetic or on dialysis—there are all sorts of things that could need support. It’s going to be downloaded to the family. That’s who’s doing it.

So they’ve admitted two things: Aging at home means staying at home. It also means they’re not doing one thing for long-term care. It further means that this Bill 21 is a public admission that they’re going to allow you to pay for your own care. That’s two-tiered health care by any definition or disguise. The question then becomes, any of the services that you pay for, whether it’s physio other treatments—you’ll be paying the HST, 8% more, for physio or for hygienic care or any other personal care that you get. In a retirement home, you would be paying for that yourself.

If you need private duty nursing, you’ll be paying probably $100 an hour, and on that you’ll be paying 8% HST on private duty nursing in a retirement home.

I see the Minister of Revenue there, shaking his head, which would mean he understands, probably with some stress, that indeed all the seniors in his riding are going to be paying 8% more for everything, because the heat in those retirement homes is going to be 8% more. The maintenance, snow removal, grass cutting, hall cleaning, food preparation or other kinds of services will all be payroll-taxed and there will be HST on it. So somebody who’s paying $5,000 a month now—and that would be a modest one, by the way; it’s up to $7,000 or $8,000, and some are $10,000—I just can’t believe it. They seem to be ignoring the plight of seniors completely, and it’s discouraging.

If I look at the bill itself, it does a couple of things, as I said before, that are important; that is, there is some accountability and some transparency in the process.

If I look here at

part V of the bill, it “allows the registrar to appoint inspectors who have certain powers to enter and inspect a retirement home both without a warrant and with a warrant....” There you have it again: the warrantless entry provision. I suspect that the registrar—that’s a new level of bureaucracy that I can see, another person who will be on the sunshine list, the $100,000-plus a year. It’s quite discouraging.

The registrar—I’m reading from

part V: “Upon receiving a complaint about an alleged contravention of a requirement under this act with respect to a retirement home, the registrar”—this is their new, non-medical bureaucrat—“is required to review the complaint”—he’ll probably have a bit of staff, investigators and complaint-takers—“and can exercise certain powers, including having an inspection done of the home.” There will be a charge laid, for sure. You can count on it; there will be a charge laid. “A complainant can require the complaints review officer to review the complaint if the registrar, after considering the complaint, decides to take no further action.”

Another one: “Independently of receiving a complaint”—this is without a complaint—“if the registrar believes on reasonable grounds that a licensee has contravened a requirement under the act, the registrar has the power to make certain orders, such as an order to require the licensee to do something”—fix something or change something—“to refrain from doing something or to pay an administrative penalty”—here we are, a little tax or a fine—“or an order to revoke the licensee’s licence.”

They’re going to put a framework around here, have a new bureaucracy in the long-term-care section. They won’t have five cents of public money to help seniors age in grace.

It goes on to say, “It is an offence to contravene a number of provisions of the act or a provision of the regulations made under the act that the regulations prescribe for that purpose.”

Here’s

part VI: It “deals with the right to appeal certain decisions or orders of the registrar to the Licence Appeal Tribunal and subsequently in certain circumstances to the Divisional Court.”

So they’re in court now, and that’s more money that will be paid by the consumer at the end of the day. There’s no provincial money. We’ve got lawyers into it now investigating or fighting or appealing these complaints.

“Part VII deals with general matters, including the following:

“1. The requirement of the registrar to maintain registers of information.

“2. The obligation of licensees to provide information to the registrar”—more red tape; that’s what I see.

“3. Restrictions on the disclosure of personal information or personal health information by the licensee of a retirement home.”

This bill, on its exterior for the general public, sounds quite acceptable, quite in order—regulating retirement homes. There are more of them growing. Some of them are corporately organized and have several. They operate under a charter kind of atmosphere. They often have residents’ committees that consult. Customer service is a big issue in the newer ones, certainly. As I said, I myself have inspected from the point of view of a consumer, not with any requirements. I suppose they’ll have to train these inspectors.

I would say also that the issues here are more complicated, because if the province was to give seniors tax credits for care that they’re purchasing, that might have some value to it. I don’t see those sort of inventive approaches to this bill. I ask Mr. Phillips, who’s certainly a very worthy finance critic—some would argue he should have been the finance minister, but that’s another debate. I suspect he’s happy with the one cabinet position he has. But here’s the point: He can see that seniors’ incomes are not going to keep up with these pressures, because in this environment of private long-term care—really, what they’re doing here is privatizing long-term care. Let’s be honest about it.

With the aging at home strategy, we were told by the CCACs—most MPPs have been briefed—the money was cut from the LHINs: 15% was cut from the CCACs, 15% of the funding. That’s cutting services directly to seniors. Someone who has personal hygiene issues where they must be, in the morning, toileted and bathed and prepared and, in the evening, probably the same—washed and put to bed properly—I think it’s tragic, and now they’re going to be paying more for that. They’re going to be paying. This is what happens if you’re not getting support from the CCACs.

They’re telling us that patients are being told, “You’re no longer entitled.” For instance, people who are on dialysis three times a week in a hospital or being dialysed at home, who have no one there and need someone to hook them up and monitor what’s actually going on, are no longer going to get the amount of care they need.

So that’s all part of Bill 21. Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric, if you will, by Mr. Phillips, the member from Agincourt—I should get that properly here, to be honest; it’s Scarborough–Agincourt—a respectable member, who is telling you that he’s supporting the bill in the hope that it’ll become law. It’ll become law because they’re the government. They’re ramming this stuff through in the last few days, in the last few hours of this session of the Legislature, and to me, it is a very serious disappointment.

Our member from Cambridge and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo are perplexed by this bill. On the content of the idea, we’re in support of regulating retirement homes that may not be regulated today, working with the industry to make sure that that’s done in a seamless way so that they can report what’s necessary and have annual inspections.

I would say that the long-term-care facilities themselves today have inspections, unannounced, and they have an index of waiting—the care level that’s required and the average care level that’s required. It used to be called the case mix index. It has another acronym now, but it’s roughly the same thing: determining how much is paid by the province to the long-term-care facilities. But, again, there’s not one nickel of support in this for seniors in retirement homes, and that’s an admission that the government is moving ahead with a plan that provides less for seniors, and it’s going to cost them more. It fits very well with what I call “taxing seniors out of their homes.”

I’m surprised there aren’t some tax measures in here that would be much more harmonious with us. I’ve looked under the Income Tax Act; there is a topic under line 315, the caregiver amount. I would ask the provincial government to look at those provisions under line 315. They can claim caregiver amounts, which I think would make this a much more digestible piece of legislation.

You cannot be ignoring the fact that the seniors in this province are not being respected. It’s quite frankly the truth. It’s an admission here that they’re doing nothing for long-term care and nothing for the hospitals in terms of providing solutions to—respite services, at least, for complex continuing-care patients in hospitals.

I would say that the proposed Retirement Homes Act that we’re debating this morning, which was introduced on March 30 and debated on second reading on April 13—today, we’ll probably be hearing the last of it.

I would only encourage one thing: that it should go for public hearings. If I had that admission, I think there would be general support that we would still have hope that they can turn this thing around and have some time for seniors who could be suffering and aging in their own home, who need to be in a place where there’s some care provided—a modest amount at the beginning, but as they age perhaps they’ll need more care.

You have to do something for long-term care in this province. Please admit that and work with the industry, and I’m sure that we will have much happier seniors and a much happier opposition.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I must say, I’m quite disappointed in the refusal of this government to come clean on this bill. The minister repeats the same mantra every time he’s questioned about the bill’s failings. He doesn’t seem to want to hear from many of the professionals who have solid advice to give. It seems that his mind is made up and that he doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.

Well, Minister, the fact is that this is an extremely flawed piece of legislation. It is geared to self-regulation of what should be a completely Ontario-owned and -operated industry. But offshore multinational corporations are the winners in this. They get to decide what happens to our most vulnerable citizens, and this government is aiding and abetting this travesty. This is patently clear to me in your refusal to listen to and act upon the advice of so many firefighting professionals.

You won’t even offer up a partial solution in ensuring that our seniors in every Ontario retirement home have equal fire sprinkler protection. You simply ignore these seniors living in older retirement homes. Why won’t you think of their safety? Are these multinational corporations so important to you? The hard-earned money that these seniors pay to live in these older places should be spent on their safety, not on excessive profits for the homes’ owners. This is absolutely scandalous, and you should be completely ashamed of your obvious lack of concern for seniors, especially during Seniors’ Month in Ontario.

I’ll read to you from a letter I received this morning, Minister. “It is my understanding that Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes, will be tabled for third reading this week before the Legislature adjourns for its summer recess. I strongly urge you to defeat Bill 21.

“It is alarming that of the 92 amendments brought forward by the NDP, only one amendment was adopted,” and it was a housekeeping amendment. “Bill 21 allows private retirement homes the ability to provide medical and nursing care similar to long-term-care homes and public hospitals. If adopted, the legislation will allow for these homes to become long-term-care facilities, with minimal regulations.

“Bill 21 creates a second tier of lesser-regulated long-term-care facilities in Ontario because the homes, which are largely owned by large, multinational firms, will be allowed to self-regulate. Our elderly people deserve nothing less than the finest care we are able to provide, but Bill 21 puts corporate profits ahead of quality of life.

“I strongly urge you to vote against” this bill.

In this Legislature, in committee and wherever I’ve asked, I’ve expressed my concerns about Bill 21 and its complete silence on the issue of mandatory sprinkler systems in all Ontario retirement homes. Mine has not been the only voice on this issue. The Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, the fire chiefs of Ontario, the Ontario fire marshal’s office, the coroner’s office and many, many articles in newspapers have spoken on these problems.

The Minister of Community Safety, in response to my question, quoted from a single source to support the government’s not requiring sprinkler systems in all retirement homes. But, by selecting one small quotation, he did not put the position fully into perspective, rather leading one to believe wrongly. That letter from the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario also mentioned that they were on record as supporting mandatory sprinklers in all residential buildings. That would include, Minister, retirement homes.

We have retold the stories of several retirement home fires. We have tried to get through to the government that the cost of rebuilding a burnt-out retirement home is far greater than the cost of installing the proper sprinkler systems. One example: the fire in Mississauga. Total damage: $8.2 million. The cost of a sprinkler system for that facility would have been $43,000—a drop in the bucket for protection. People died, Minister.

The real cost is the loss of life, the permanent damage to the elderly and their families. It is beyond all comprehension that this government is taking the position that it is, that it’s turning its back on seniors’ safety. This is shocking enough on its own, but tomorrow starts Seniors’ Month in Ontario, and this government will be celebrating by leaving our vulnerable retirement home residents even more vulnerable.

Can the lobby of the retirement home industry really be stronger than basic, common decency, than the reality of what will happen when the next older retirement home goes up in flames and loss of life? Will this government be held responsible because they had the opportunity to change it? Will there be liable actions? I think so.

I will put on the record the letter sent to all MPPs from Tim Beckett, the president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. Here is the letter:

“To all members of provincial Parliament

“Re: Bill 21....

“It is of extreme disappointment that we find Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes, has passed through committee without a vital amendment that was to include mandatory automatic sprinkler retrofit for those retirement homes that do not currently have them installed.

“This bill in its true meaning is intended to protect seniors in a place they are to feel the safest: in their home. It, however, falls measurably short of doing that and leaves our most vulnerable population vulnerable.

“Between 2008 and 2009, Ontario has witnessed three catastrophic fires in retirement homes. There was the Rowanwood retirement home in Huntsville that caused over $8 million in damage; luckily, no one lost their life thanks to two off-duty police officers that were able to alert the residents, and all 56 seniors escaped.

“A month later in Niagara Falls, the Cavendish Manor retirement home saw a fire that resulted in 11 seniors being transported to hospital, three in critical condition.

“Six months after this tragedy, the Muskoka Heights retirement home in Orillia had a fire that resulted in four seniors dead and three permanently brain-damaged. All this occurred in the last 18 months.

“This province has witnessed two of the largest retirement home fires in the history of North America. In 1980, 25 seniors died at Extendicare in Mississauga and in 1995, eight died in the Meadowcroft, also in Mississauga.

“Three other seniors died in the veterans’ wing of Sunnybrook hospital. These three fires that resulted in the deaths of 36 seniors dying had three separate independent coroner’s inquests all calling for the retroactive installation of sprinklers in retirement homes and long-term-care homes. Sprinklers save lives! The National Fire Protection Association ... reports that there have been no”—I repeat, no—“multi-fatality fire deaths in retirement homes that are protected by sprinklers.

“This is an opportunity for the members of provincial Parliament to make a big difference in the safety and protection of seniors. Using the words of Premier McGuinty when speaking on the HST, ‘It may not be a popular decision but it is the right decision.’

“This too may not be a popular decision, but it is the right decision to make for the protection of our seniors.

“Until retrofit sprinklers for retirement homes constructed prior to 1997 are introduced in the Ontario fire code, more of our seniors will be injured or die. This tragedy is preventable.

“Members of provincial Parliament have the duty to protect these seniors and should vote against Bill 21 until sprinklers are included.

“The OAFC continues to recommend public fire and life safety improvements at all levels of government. Our advice is given motivated solely by protecting Ontarians from the devastation that fire causes, and for the sake of Ontario’s population of all ages, it is now time for this government to take heed, listen and make the right decision.

“The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs is available to provide any assistance to any member on this issue.

“Sincerely,

“Fire Chief Tim Beckett,

“President,

“Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs.”

On behalf of all Ontario seniors and their families, I implore this government to wake up, to stand up, to finally put the safety of all Ontarian seniors before any industry lobby, and implement mandatory sprinkler systems now.

I’m going to share the rest of the time with the member from Nickel Belt to talk about the health aspect of this also.

This is a terrible bill. The minister stands up and says how wonderful it is. I can tell you, the NDP will not support this bill.

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

Mr. Vic Dhillon: It’s an honour to speak in support of this proposed Retirement Homes Act.

I want to thank Minister Phillips for explaining the journey this bill has taken in the last four years. The minister also did an excellent job of outlining the many provisions of the bill that deal with accountability, transparency and appropriate government oversight of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

I want to echo my colleague’s appreciation of the feedback we’ve received from various partners, including seniors, community groups, businesses and government colleagues, on this bill.

This proposed act will improve the lives of approximately 40,000 seniors living in retirement homes today, and that number is expected to increase significantly as our senior population doubles in the next 20 years.

For the first time in Ontario, we’re providing legislative protections for seniors in retirement homes. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that the care services that retirement home residents are currently able to receive are delivered in a safe, transparent manner.

Our government will continue to work closely with seniors, retirement home operators and various community and health organizations to develop comprehensive, flexible regulations, including care and safety standards, that all homes will be required to meet in order to be licensed in this province.

We also listened carefully to standing committee presentations a few weeks ago, and have made important amendments to reflect the feedback we heard. In the definition of retirement homes, we have made it clear that our act and regulations will apply to retirement homes and only the retirement home portion of mixed-use facilities. Those parts of mixed-use facilities that are governed or funded under the legislation, such as long-term care, will not be required to comply with the Retirement Homes Act. However, I want to make it clear that they would be required to continue to comply with other applicable acts.

We also received input about the residents’ bill of rights that is enshrined in Bill 21. The following rights would include:

—the right to clear information about the contents of a resident’s contract with the retirement home, specifically the different types of accommodation and the care services provided in the home and their costs;

—the right to an individualized plan of care based on an assessment of a resident’s needs;

—the right to contract with external care providers and apply for publicly funded care services if residents so choose; and

—the right to raise concerns or recommend changes in care or services to the authority or any other person without interference and without fear of coercion, discrimination or reprisal from the retirement home operator or staff.

Residents who are not satisfied with the authority’s decision would be able to escalate the complaints to a complaints review officer, who has considerable independence from the board of directors. The complaints review officer would review how the complaint was handled and refer the matter back to the registrar for further action, if necessary.

The issue of restraints was raised by many groups during standing committee presentations. We heard from several presenters that our bill needs to be clearer about prohibiting restraints in retirement homes. We have made an amendment to the act to make it absolutely clear that restraints are not to be used, with the exception of common-law duty to restrain a person when there’s an imminent harm possible to the person or others.

We have strict criteria for the use of personal assistance services devices, such as temporary supports to help keep a person upright during feeding. These criteria are not inconsistent with those set out in the Long-Term Care Homes Act. Personal assistance services devices can only be used if they are included in a resident’s plan of care. The use of these devices would have to be consented to by the resident or the resident’s substitute decision-maker and used according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The devices must be recommended by one of the following: a legally qualified medical practitioner; a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario; a member of the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario; a member of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario; and no other person unless government agrees to pass regulations to allow it.

To conclude, I want to say that many groups deserve thanks—seniors’ groups, those who advocate on behalf of seniors, health care experts, community groups and, lastly, the retirement home industry—for their work to help bring this legislation to life. We recognize that the feedback provided so far has made our bill that much stronger, and for that, we thank you.

For this first time in this province, we’re providing protections in legislation for seniors living in retirement homes. I think we can all agree that this is the right thing to do.

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

M me France Gélinas: Since I have been elected, I have asked in this House many times: When will this government bring regulations on retirement homes?

We all agree that retirement homes need to be regulated. There have been far too many tragedies happening to frail, elderly people who are living in retirement homes and who did not get the protection they needed. Terrible stories: stories of starvation, stories of people being detained—that is just incomprehensible in today’s Ontario.

So, finally, on March 30, the government brought forward first reading of Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes. It was supposed to be a happy occasion. We had been waiting for this for so long, but quickly we realized that they had lost their way.

We will tell the world, we will tell the people of Ontario, that retirement homes are not regulated by the government. People will feel safe putting their vulnerable, elderly parents and relatives into retirement homes; they will be regulated by the government—but none of that is true. They will not be regulated by the government. They will be regulated by an industry-dominated authority. What this bill really does is it creates an authority, and that authority will regulate retirement homes.

The problem is, that authority will be dominated by for-profit retirement home owners, whose number one goal will be profit, not quality care, not anything else.

We have seen tremendous growth. I’m sure every one of the MPPs in here can name growth in the retirement home business in their riding. Those things are popping up everywhere, and for good reason: The demographics are changing, and people like this type of accommodation.

If you are able to make your own decisions and look after yourself, you don’t need this regulation. You were doing well before, and you will continue to do well. But for this critical mass of frail, elderly or disabled people, for that mass of Ontarians who need government protection, we’re not going to do this. We’re going to pretend that there is protection, but there’s not going to be.

The government says, “Oh, we will make sure that we appoint people.” I would love to be able to trust them at their word, but what’s to say that in three years the same minister is going to be there? Why not put it in writing that it will be government supervision? They’re not ready to do this.

We’ve tried really hard. I’ve put in 92 amendments to this bill, to try to take this from an industry-dominated authority to a government-supervised, government-controlled, government-informed—heck, any kind of government supervision. They refuse all of this.

They refuse things as simple as, if the retirement home has to provide information to the possible tenant or to the people who live there, I wanted to make sure that this information would be free. They refused. They don’t want to get involved with the business model. That means that mandatory information that the government says every retirement home will have to give—well, the retirement home will be allowed to charge for this. What does that mean? That means that some people won’t get it. This is mandatory information that every tenant in a retirement home must have. But if you don’t pay, you won’t get it.

What kind of a mandatory requirement is this when the government is so intent on protecting the for-profit model of retirement homes that it forgets its responsibility to the frail elderly of this province? That’s one big problem with the bill.

The second, just-as-big problem with the bill is that there is no cap on the amount of care that can be delivered within a retirement home. What does that mean? That means that what we are really setting up is a parallel for-profit system of long-term care.

Let me be clear: In Ontario we have laws for long-term-care homes. Long-term-care homes are things like nursing homes, homes for the aged, charitable homes for the aged, municipal homes for the aged. Those are all called long-term-care homes in Ontario, and they are regulated. We make sure that the quality of care that is delivered is delivered in a way that is regulated by the government, because we know that those are frail, elderly people.

You can have the exact same amount of care, the exact same needs, as a person in a long-term-care home that has all of the government’s protection—you can have the exact same thing in a retirement home and have no protection whatsoever, have no regulation of care whatsoever. As long as you have the money to pay, you can buy care that not only should be delivered and paid for by a government-sanctioned agency—a long-term-care home—but that you would see in a hospital, in a complex, continuing care bed.

As long as you have the money to pay, you will be allowed to do this, and there will be this retirement home legislation that will mean absolutely nothing. There will be no standard for the care that you are given. There will be no cap on the amount of care.

Frankly, if you need care, the government should be the one paying for the care. This is the way it works in Ontario. This is the way it works in Canada. It’s called medicare. Care is delivered based on your need, not on your ability to pay.

We are throwing medicare out the window and coming in with this act to regulate retirement homes with a parallel fee-for-service model dominated by private industry. If you have the money to pay, you can buy yourself the equivalent of what you would get in a complex continuing-care bed in any one of the 157 hospitals in Ontario. You can buy this in any retirement home that is willing to offer it to you. This is not acceptable to me, to have a piece of legislation that in black and white says, “We can do away with medicare, as long as it is your choice to pay for care.” What kind of a choice is that?

Haven’t we made it clear that medicare is a fundamental value of the people of Ontario, that we want care to be available based on need and not on ability to pay? We go to great lengths to say that this is a Canadian value, this is what defines us, this is what makes us different from our neighbours to the south, the fact that we have medicare. Well, we now have a bill here that says, “If you have the bucks, you can buy yourself care—no questions asked, no regulation.”

This is terrible, that a piece of legislation that is about to pass third reading right here, right now in Ontario, in this day and age—we’ve seen the battle that happened down south. We’ve seen President Obama trying to bring medicare to the people of the US. Not much luck there, was there? But now we are opening the door. The door has swung wide open to have a parallel system: Buy yourself the care you want, sanctioned by the government under the regulated retirement homes act.

There are a number of other flaws with this bill: the fact that they will have contained units. Think a bit about a cell within a range within a jail. You will be allowed to have those in retirement homes. If the owner of the retirement home decides to have a locked-in unit, they will be allowed to have this and the government won’t have any regulation regarding those. This is appalling. This should not be happening in Ontario. If somebody has a level of need that requires seclusion, they should be in a long-term-care home. They should be in complex continuing care.

They should not be a tenant in a retirement home. To me, this is like opening up many jails in the retirement homes for people that are difficult. I’m on the select committee for mental health. How many of the mental health patients that the province has let down will find their way into those locked-down units in retirement homes, where we will feed and water you a couple of times of day and that will be the end of you?

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 20, 2010, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Phillips has moved third reading of Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today Andy Soumbos from Curves Fitness Group, who has been with us in this Legislature before. Also, Paul Bailey of the Police Pensioners Association of Ontario, Vic Dybenko from the Police Retirees of Ontario, and Al Olsen, the president of the Police Retirees of Ontario.

I want to thank our retired police officers for all they’ve done and I want to thank them for their diligence in fighting the HST.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind members: The intent is to introduce guests and not to engage in debate during introductions.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to introduce Victoria Lavine-Groves and Lottie Lavine, who are the grandmother and mother of one of our wonderful pages, Tristen.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Today is a special day at Queen’s Park. I’m delighted to welcome the united counties of Prescott and Russell: Warden Conrad Lamadeleine and the mayors and councillors of the eight municipalities in the most beautiful area of the province. I have to say, when you get the beautiful sun here in Toronto, the sun has risen in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell first.

Mr. Frank Klees: We’re joined in the House today by the following representatives of the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum. As you know, they’ll be hosting a reception later on this evening and will be meeting with members throughout the day. I’d like to welcome Mr. Tim Heney, Allister Patterson, Wayne Smith, Bruce Hodgson, Bruce Wood, Ray Johnston, Mike Kirkpatrick and Pat Loduca. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to introduce a number of parents of children with autism who are here with us today, as well as some of their children: Paul Ceretti, Norrah Whitney, Lucas Whitney, Mary Kay Whitney, Maria Bundha, Sebastian Bundha, Debra Campbell, Gail Geller, Lorraine Lajeunesse, Renita Paranjape, Barry Hudson, Susan Fentie, Sandy Senko, as well as a couple of other folks in from Ajax: Kevin Rauer and his sons Dillon and Drew.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Along with the Minister of Health Promotion, Minister Best, I want to welcome Amy Wanounou and Denyse Boxell of Safe Kids Canada to Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature—they’re joining us a little later—Tania Lee Hartmann and Peter Brain from the Sarnia–Lambton duty-free stores, Chris Foster from the Queenston-Lewiston duty-free stores, and Abe Taqtaq from the Windsor duty-free stores, who are here to meet with members today.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: It’s my pleasure today to welcome our stakeholders, Safe Kids Canada, to the Legislature.

I also want to take this opportunity to welcome two interns from the Ministry of Health Promotion, Ms. Kartiga Thavaraj and Ms. Kadijo Afrah. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. They are in the east members’ gallery today.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to extend a special invitation to the Legislature today to my very good friends Wendy Davies and Sylvia Gualtieri, who are here to observe question period, take a tour of this great place and observe how respectful question period can really be. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just want to introduce Charles and Allison Smith. Charles is my EA, and his wife is here for the first time. I want to congratulate him on his tenure track position in Saskatoon. They’re moving; we’re losing him. Anyway, I just want to welcome them.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Legislature Tiger Jeet Singh and his sons Tiger Ali Singh and Rob Hans, who are also accompanied by Troy Newton. Tiger Jeet Singh had a great wrestling career which lasted nearly 40 years. Tiger Jeet Singh has recently been honoured in Milton. A public school has been named after him for his family’s contribution, and his other activities as well.

His son Tiger Ali Singh has followed in his father’s footsteps and has become a very successful wrestler himself, wrestling in the World Wrestling Federation. He is a two-time IWA World Tag Team champion, and is also the winner of the World Wrestling Federation’s Kuwait Cup.

I want to welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I have two interns here from my office: Sean Torrie and Kevin Leung. I’d like to welcome them here today. I don’t know where they are, but they’re here somewhere.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of the member from York West to welcome the Italian heritage class from St. Simon Catholic school in York West, and Noreen and Samanthi Wi-jay-sin, to the Legislature today.

Also on behalf of the member from York West, I’d like to welcome a 19-member Ghanaian delegation visiting Queen’s Park today. Those in attendance include Osahene Kwaku Atekyi, president, Brong-Ahafo, Regional House of Chiefs, Ghana; Nana Abena Boatema Domase, Number One Hemaa; Henry Peprah; Alex Kwaku Anokomoah, chairman of the planning committee; Mr. Thomas Toa, president of the Ontario Brong-Ahafo Cultural Association; Claire Budziak, manager of individual services, human rights advisory services; and Roseanne Reech, manager of corporate services, human rights advisory services.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Ontario families look to the summer for mum and dad to get away with the kids for a bit of a break. But in less than a month’s time, your greedy HST tax grab is going to take even more money out of the pockets of Ontario families. The Premier will begin taxing kids’ camps; he’ll be taxing the family vacations.

Premier, you’re going to make families pay more for gas or transportation to get to their destination, you’re going to tax them on the accommodation at the hotel or motel when they arrive, and then you’re going to raise the taxes on the arts or cultural events they want to enjoy with the kids this summer. Premier, why are you trying to tax the fun out of Ontario families’ summers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s always a pleasure to receive the questions.

I want to begin by thanking the leader of the official opposition for his solemn undertaking and honourable commitment to keep the HST in place. He understands how important it is to families that we have in place a strong economy that creates good jobs and gives us the capacity to support our schools and our health care and our supports for our most vulnerable and protections for the environment.

In my supplementary, I’ll talk a little bit about the objective information that is out there which I would recommend to Ontarians when it comes to getting a better understanding of the rationale for the HST and the actual consequences.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, with each and every passing day, the Premier continues to demonstrate how dramatically out of touch he has become with the lives of hard-working Ontario families and seniors.

Premier, families will now see that your HST will make it more expensive to register their son or daughter for soccer or baseball, it will become more expensive to rent ice for hockey school, to pay for the ballet lessons, green fees or other recreational activities. Parents now are learning that Dalton McGuinty plans to thrust the HST down on summer camps. One parent wrote to us to say the HST will cost her $84 more to send her son to camp for just one week. Parents of children who have special needs will find that their costs increase even more for camps for special-needs children.

Premier, are camp and summer sports what you had in mind—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague tells us that he’s very concerned about these kinds of issues, which I believe lack a foundation in fact, yet he’s also committed completely to maintaining the HST once it’s in place. I’m not sure how he can have it both ways, and I think Ontario families are entitled to ask some important questions on that.

There are some objective assessments of the HST in our full package of tax reforms, and one of those that I’d recommend to Ontarians is called Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario’s HST. It’s put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I’ll quote it in part. This paper concludes that the government’s HST plan “is virtually revenue-neutral.” Generally speaking, no one in Ontario is dramatically better off or worse off as a result.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier is now back to his original spin that this is somehow not a tax grab. I thought you had a moment of cleansing clarity a couple of weeks ago when you admitted that your HST is nothing but another tax grab on the backs of hard-working families and Ontario seniors.

Your tax grab also threatens another mainstay of Ontario summers: agricultural fairs and exhibitions. Agricultural fairs are important not only for the tourism they draw to rural communities but also for the money that they raise to support training for junior farmers and for 4-H. The Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies say that they are volunteer-run and that they have razor-thin budgets. Premier, they cannot afford your HST on everything from the trades who set up the midway to entertainment on the stage.

Premier, won’t you admit this is a massive tax grab that will hurt Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Ontario Conservatives for all of their support and encouragement when it comes to moving ahead with this important initiative. I thank Minister Flaherty, former Minister of Finance Ecker, John Baird and Tony Clement. I want to thank former leaders of the party, including John Tory and Mike Harris, as well, for their support for this initiative. I thank Senator Runciman and I thank Prime Minister Harper.

This is an issue that transcends partisan politics. We have all known for a long time that this is a difficult but important step. It’s something that, over the long term, will ensure the health of our economy. It will have in place good jobs for our families and our capacity to support good schools and good health care for families, as well.

If it were not for the support of Conservatives in Ontario, we could not move ahead. Again, I want to thank that party.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here is the difference between Ontario Conservatives and Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals: Premier, you believe that you can continue to increase taxes on the backs of Ontario families. We stand on the other side of the argument, that taxes need to come down for Ontario families to give them a break, to help them spend money in local economies and to create jobs again in the province of Ontario.

Come Canada Day, Premier, you’ll also have brides and grooms in your crosshairs for weddings across our province. You’re going to increase taxes on hall rentals, on DJs and bands, on photographers, on wedding planners and on decorators. You’re even going to increase the cost of a glass of wine or a bottle of beer at the bar at the end of the celebration.

Most people want to give newlyweds a hand up when they start out their lives together. Why are you loading them up with an even bigger—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I tried to catch the ear of a number of ministers, but they were so loud they couldn’t hear me. I would encourage them to tone—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I encourage both sides to tone things down.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s a lot of volume on the part of the leader of the official opposition when it comes to objecting to the implementation of our tax reforms, but he is absolutely silent when it comes to rescinding it. I think families should keep that in mind.

He says he’s concerned about some of the costs that our families have to bear. But when we moved ahead with a personal income tax cut for 93% of Ontarians, he voted against that. As we move ahead to reduce drug costs for Ontario families and save them millions of dollars, he’s voting against that. When we move ahead with full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds that will save a family thousands of dollars for one child when it comes to daycare costs, again, the leader of the official opposition and his party don’t support that.

Again, I’m glad that we have the support of the Conservatives. We look forward to moving this initiative, because it stands to benefit families.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Every bride and groom will see Dalton McGuinty as an unwanted guest at their wedding this summer with his hand in their pockets. Do you know what? When it comes to the honeymoon, Dalton McGuinty is going to be standing there, too, putting a HST on their airfare, hotel and motel rooms, gas for their car as they drive to their destination and anywhere else the couple may stop for that night. If they want to go for a boat trip along the Niagara River, see a play at Stratford or go to a music festival in Toronto, Ottawa or Kingston, Dalton McGuinty is going to be sitting right there next to them, too, taking more money out of their pockets.

Premier, will you please RSVP “no” to your HST tax grab?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I will remind you of the message I delivered yesterday: If somebody wants to leave early, I can easily facilitate that.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the creativity that goes into these questions. They’re nothing if not entertaining. But I think what Ontarians would look for from time to time is the occasional fact.

If we pursue this particular line, I think one of the things that newlyweds would be looking to is the future and possibly the beginning of a family, wondering what kind of a world they’ll be bringing their kids into. I think they want to ensure that we have a strong economy here, where there are good jobs so mom and dad can work, if they choose to do so. They want to make sure we’ve got the capacity to support good schools for the kids. They want to make sure that we’ve got the capacity to support good health care for everybody in the family.

They want to make sure that we have special supports for people if they become vulnerable. They want to make sure that we protect the quality of our environment.

This plan of tax reforms is all about 600,000 more jobs. That’s really important to parents today, and it’s important for our kids tomorrow.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you will tax every young couple at their wedding this summer. You will tax them at their honeymoon. And when they try to buy a home together, Dalton McGuinty’s hand will be in their pocket once again. Buying a new home will be hit with the HST. Real estate fees will go up with your HST. Condo fees will go up with your HST. When they see a lawyer, an accountant, a financial adviser; try to exercise at Curves; or sign up the kids for soccer, hockey or ballet down the road, Dalton McGuinty’s hand will be in their pocket.

Premier, whether I am in Niagara, Ottawa, Toronto or North Bay, I’m hearing more and more people saying, “Enough is enough.” The Ontario PCs will put all options on the table to lower the tax burden for families to help them spend money in the local economy.

Premier, why are you bound and determined to make life so expensive for Ontario families?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sandra, the Speaker was looking at you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker is ignoring her.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d be very appreciative if the government members would come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that, as a result of the tax reforms that we’re putting forward, we are cutting taxes for people over the course of the next three years by over $11 billion. I think that we can lose sight of that, and that’s pretty important.

My honourable colleague has very easy answers for very complicated problems, and one of those that he is going to dangle before Ontarians, it’s become quite obvious now, is that he’s going to cut their taxes; he says he’s going to cut them dramatically. I want to remind Ontarians that, overwhelmingly, the amount of money that we invest through government goes into our public servants through their public services that they deliver. You can’t cut taxes without firing nurses, without firing teachers, without firing water inspectors, without firing meat inspectors, without compromising the quality of the public services that we believe families have a right to in this province.

They can stand for reckless tax cuts. We’ll stand for quality public—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the opposition side: Please don’t egg them on.

New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty cabinet went on the road yesterday to defend their unfair tax scheme, and as often happens at these HST events, real families were nowhere to be seen.

Will the Premier or his HST team be sitting down with real families in Ontario any time soon?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m really pleased that we are engaging in this conversation and this important debate about a very important public policy initiative. One of the things I would hope that we can convey as members of the government, and I would list my colleagues opposite in this cause, if they might be so inclined, is to explain to Ontarians why it’s so important that we do this. I think Ontarians intuitively understand that our world has changed, that there was a recession. They may know that we’ve lost over 250,000 jobs, and we need to make some changes ourselves so that we can grow stronger.

When we host the G20 very shortly, each and every one of those countries has an HST equivalent in place; 140 countries have this in place. Soon, six out of 10 provinces will have this in place. Anybody who has done it has never undone it because it works; it makes our businesses stronger; it gives us more money to fund our schools and our hospitals and create good jobs for our families. That’s fundamentally what this is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the gallery today from Ajax are Kevin Rauer and his two children, Dillon and Drew. Kevin is one of a quarter of a million people who have signed the NDP’s HST petition. He and his wife, Michelle, work hard to put food on the table for their kids and provide a comfortable home.

Kevin’s question is a simple one, and it’s a question many, many families are asking: Why is the Premier about to make his life more expensive when he should be concentrating on making his life more affordable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it’s understandable that families, in particular, can be confused by the conflicting information that’s being introduced in the public realm. I understand that. That’s why I’d ask them to take a look at some of the objective assessments that have been put forward. The University of Calgary—it’s a university that is not even based in this province—is saying that this will create some 600,000 new jobs. I’ve never met a mother or a father or a grandmother or a grandfather who doesn’t want to ensure there are jobs for us today and jobs for our kids tomorrow.

I’d ask families to ask themselves, again: Why is it that food banks support this? Why is it that businesses support this? Why is it that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supports it? Because it’s the right thing to do for our families.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The rising cost of child care and commuting have already put the squeeze on the Rauer family budget. The McGuinty HST will add another significant financial burden. An average family with two kids, like the Rauers, is going to be paying more than $1,200 extra in taxes each and every year. Kevin and Michelle won’t be eligible for low-income credits, and the tax cuts are not going to cut it.

Can the Premier actually look at Kevin and his two kids and tell them why they should believe that he knows best? Why should they believe that you know best? They know best. The HST is going to hurt them.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think it’s really important that we find a way to land on some objective, reliable information. I want to come back to this report called Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario’s HST by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Page 4, item 7: “The net combined effect of all the changes—new HST plus sales/property tax credits plus personal income tax reductions—is very close to neutral, a $27 annual loss in income when averaged over all families in Ontario.” On the whole, it works out to be a wash.

Again, I’ve never met a mum or a dad who doesn’t want to do everything they can to ensure that there are jobs today for themselves and jobs tomorrow for our kids.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier as well. For every story like Kevin’s, there are thousands and thousands more. Because the Premier isn’t willing to listen, I’m going to share some more of those stories.

Janet Croce writes this: “We have a small beauty salon in Toronto. I have been in business in the same place for 42 years—our clients are mostly seniors—we have grown old together. With the PST now being added to their hair services, we are already hearing them say that they will have to cut back. I believe that this could possibly be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so to speak. It is the small businesses like ours that will suffer.”

How can the Premier claim that his HST will create jobs when small business owners like Ms. Croce are saying the exact opposite?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a few stories, of course, on this side of the House, that we’d like to share. One comes from John—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members from Renfrew and Lanark will please come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to make reference to a story told to us by John and Marie Voortman. They are the owners of Countrywide Recycling Inc. They are in the riding of Niagara West–Glanbrook. They said, “The HST will benefit us in the building of our plant and in buying our equipment. The money we’ll be saving will enable us to do more business and hire more employees.” More specifically, they say that they can hire 50 new workers. That’s 50 new jobs. That’s 50 families that stand to benefit as a result of those new jobs.

We have always maintained that what we are asking of Ontario families—

Mr. John Yakabuski: What did you pay them to give you that quote?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Renfrew will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What we are asking of families is not an easy thing to do; we understand that. But we also understand that collectively, as Ontarians, we will do today what we’ve always done. We will do whatever it takes to secure a bright future for our children and our grandchildren. That’s fundamentally what this is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think it’s fundamentally important that the Premier hear from people who can’t afford tickets to Liberal Party fundraisers.

Rhonda Peart writes this: “I am 52 years old and unemployed. I was laid off from manufacturing a year ago January. We will be paying $92 more per month.”

Kathy Mireault from northwestern Ontario adds: “My husband and I … live paycheque to paycheque.… We cannot even afford to put away for our retirement and this HST is going to hurt us even more.… We have had mill shutdowns and layoffs. A lot of people are struggling.”

Will the Premier finally acknowledge that the HST actually kicks people when they’re already down?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Families want to ensure that we have a strong economy. They want to ensure that we have the capacity to support their health care. They want to ensure that we have the capacity to support schools for their kids. They want to make sure that we can continue to hire water inspectors and meat inspectors and pay for our roads and bridges and the like. They want to make sure that our businesses are strong and growing.

Here’s another example: Tomlinson construction in the Ottawa area. They’ve got 1,000 employees. They’re telling us that they will be able to buy about 20 new trucks a year as a result of the savings that we will bring about because of the huge savings on their input costs. That’s going to stand for more employees. That stands for more families that are led by somebody with a job. That stands for a stronger local economy. That stands for a capacity to support our schools and our health care and build a brighter future for our families. That’s fundamentally what these tax reforms are all about. It’s a better and brighter future for Ontario families.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here is what Fred VanSickle, a Hamilton Pilates instructor, says: “The HST will affect by business ... [it’s] going to add more financial hardship to the senior citizens in my studio who exercise with me to keep themselves out of the health care system.”

Leigh Davies from London says the McGuinty HST will cost him $50 more per month.

Families say the McGuinty HST is going to hit them hard. Small businesses say the McGuinty HST is going to hurt their bottom line. If his HST is such a good deal for families and businesses, then why is it—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I apologize. I would suggest that the three members—the Minister of Finance, the member from Renfrew and the member from Hamilton East—who want to have this cross-debate please take it outside so that the other members can enjoy question period.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the HST is such a good deal for families and small businesses, my question to the Premier is: Why is it then that they are writing to me by the thousands upon thousands to tell me that they think it isn’t?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague raises some questions, and I would put some other questions to her. Why is it that the University of Calgary is telling us we’ll create 600,000 new jobs? Why is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives telling us that this works out to be revenue-neutral? Why is it that we’ve had so much support from so many groups that transcend partisan lines?

If you take a look at what’s happening in Nova Scotia, not only do they have the HST in place there, not only have they had it for some time, not only do they have an NDP government, but they’re going to actually increase it from 13% to 15%. That’s not something that we’re prepared to adopt in the province of Ontario, but again it speaks to an issue that it’s something that’s an important policy. It’s something that you have to do to strengthen the economy. It’s something that you have to do, especially given that we’ve come out of a recession. We’ve lost 250,000 jobs. We need to grow stronger.

Not everything that we need to do is necessarily easy, but we need to grow strong, we need to build that bright future for our kids, and that’s fundamentally what this is all about.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Premier: In what could be considered a desperate panic attack yesterday, a band of desperate Liberal cabinet ministers took a travelling road show to a number of Ontario PC ridings at taxpayer expense to contain the mounting anger at Dalton McGuinty’s greedy HST tax grab. But this latest tactic is proving less successful—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again, they are pretty desperate. But this latest tactic is proving to be just as ineffective as the sales job they’re trying to do in this chamber. Only 10 people showed up for Minister Duguid in Whitby. Are these staged taxpayer-funded HST events with hand-picked audiences intended to boost the morale of your cabinet, of your caucus or both?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Somebody has got to stand up for the Conservatives in Ontario who are supporting the HST. We’re proud of Minister Flaherty and the position he has taken on the HST. We’re proud of Minister Baird. We’re proud of Minister Clement. We’re proud of the former leaders, John Tory and Mike Harris. We’re proud of Senator Runciman. We think it’s time that somebody in the province of Ontario finally stood up for Ontario Conservatives who are standing up for the HST in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to invite the Premier to come back down to earth and meet the people on Main Street. After almost seven years, Dalton McGuinty is too tired and out of touch to hold real consultations with seniors and families in Ontario, and he’s making them pay his greedy $3-billion tax grab.

The McGuinty Liberals fought against holding legislative hearings here in this chamber in December. You were too scared to debate a motion of mine that would call on delaying the HST until after the next election. You should come to the Barrhaven Legion. You should come to Moncion’s grocery in Riverside South. You should come to the French Café in Manotick.

I have a question: Will Dalton McGuinty host the HST travelling road show so that everyday families and seniors in Ontario can meet their ministers and share their real-life concerns on what the HST is going to mean to them?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Take that, Dalton.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just like how children anticipate Christmas, there’s just one more sleep.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we’re prepared to act as an honest broker to help resolve the differences between the federal Conservatives and, in fact, so many provincial Conservatives as well. I am prepared to use the auspices of my office to arrange a meeting on neutral territory for the honourable member opposite and Minister Baird so they can reconcile themselves to the differences and hopefully find a way forward. They can have it out in a civilized way. We’ll make sure that no harm comes to either side.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Offer espresso.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ll make espresso available.

Once again, I want to thank Minister Baird, so many on Parliament Hill and so many former leaders of the party for their strong support of this initiative.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Premier: Your open-for-business legislation contains some truly anti-worker provisions. It contains employment standards changes that would force workers to disclose to the employer the details of workers’ employment standards claims even before an investigation has begun.

My question is: How does getting the employers carte-blanche power to intimidate their workers into withdrawing their employment standards claims even before an investigation has been held do anything to create jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: With the modernization of employment standards, what it could deliver for all parties would be faster, smarter, more streamlined ways of getting employment standards claims dealt with. In many instances, those claims are because the parties don’t have the information beforehand where they can resolve the claim before it has to be dealt with by one of our employment standards officers.

We have met with stakeholders; we have consulted on this. This will help address the time it takes to deal with an employment standards claim. It’s good for all parties, and we’ve ensured, working with advocacy groups for workers and working with employers, that this new process—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The last time I heard that rhetoric was when the Mike Harris government took their axe to the Employment Standards Act.

This government clearly doesn’t understand how much power employers have and how little power workers have, especially in non-union workplaces. Forcing vulnerable workers to disclose to their employer the details of their employment standards claim before an investigation of the claim has even been held will inevitably intimidate workers into withdrawing the claim or never putting in a claim in the first place.

The question is this: How does putting vulnerable workers in an even more vulnerable position do anything to help workers and do anything to create jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We have worked closely with workers’ action groups and labour groups as we work through modernizing our employment standards. This is so that we can help those who make claims to get those claims, those monies that are owed to them, paid much quicker. We also have put in provisions to address any vulnerable workers in Ontario where they may have difficulty in terms of filling out those claims. We have the supports at the Ministry of Labour, through our employment standards office, to provide those workers with those supports.

So we will be working with all stakeholders to ensure that workers’ rights are upheld through employment standards and that claims are dealt with in a much quicker manner, so those monies—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Small business plays an important role in the communities of my riding of Toronto Centre. Small businesses are one of the leading employers in Ontario and provide jobs to people across the province. These jobs allow people to provide for their families and contribute to Ontario’s economy.

Jack Mintz, the economics chair at the University of Calgary, estimates that our comprehensive tax package will create 591,000 jobs, $47 billion in new investment and an increase in working wages. People understand that the HST is implemented to help people get back to work. What they are looking for is how the tax package is going to create jobs. Minister, could you please explain to us how—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. There are a couple of things. First of all, we’re lowering the cost of business for every small business—and every business—in the province of Ontario by billions of dollars starting on July 1. What we’re doing is we’re taking those savings and we’re putting that money into the wallets of consumers: the people whom you represent. For example, millions of Ontarians are receiving over a $1-billion personal income tax cut that came in on January 1.

On July 1, millions of seniors will receive some $800 million more by way of an enhanced property tax credit. Millions of Ontarians will be receiving $270 million by way of enhanced tax credits. Millions of Ontarians with the least will receive billions of dollars in the new HST rebate, and just a few weeks from now, millions of Ontarians will receive billions of dollars, tax-free, by way of a transition.

Putting money into the wallets of consumers is always good for small business.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Glen R. Murray: Groups from across the spectrum have voiced their support for our comprehensive tax reform package because it will make Ontario more competitive, create jobs and protect services. The president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Ken Lewenza, has said, “We are arguing about elements of the harmonized sales tax, but brothers and sisters, don’t buy into this tax rage....”

Bell Canada, on the other end of the spectrum, has stated that the implementation of a single sales tax structure in 2010 means Bell can accelerate jobs and its investments in this province from Ottawa to Hamilton.

Michael Oliphant of the Daily Bread Food Bank has said, “In terms of the net impact of the sales tax harmonization, we think that overall it will actually improve the incomes of low-income”—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: It’s quite simple: We have a plan to have 600,000 more consuming families in the province of Ontario because a member of that family has a job, a job that would not exist if we didn’t take the bold step of reforming our antiquated tax system and getting it into the 21st century so we can compete for 21st-century jobs.

Some 600,000 jobs is good news for small business. Lowering the cost of their business is good news for small business. There is not a single large business that wasn’t at one time a small business. They generate the new jobs. According to Dr. Mintz, this will attract some $47 billion worth of new investment but result in almost $30 billion worth of more income.

I know that small business people want to see a market where there’s more income and—

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

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. Premier, you have overseen an appointment process for Ombudsman André Marin that is nothing short of a three-ring circus. It is a 17-week fiasco, where you initially tried to replace Ontario’s watchdog with a Liberal lapdog, a former Liberal MP. When that tactic didn’t work, you wanted to call for a new round of advertisements. Then you wanted to re-interview candidates. Then you wanted to introduce four candidates, then just one candidate.

All the while, Premier, the Liberal government engaged in an unprecedented smear campaign against the character of the Ombudsman. You either looked the other way or you green-lighted this attack. Premier, will you stand in your place and do the right thing? Will you apologize to André Marin and the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take this opportunity to thank the selection panel for the work that they did. I’m pleased that there was unanimous support ultimately for this reappointment. I want to congratulate Mr. Marin. I want to undertake to him personally to continue working with him and working well with him. He has served our government well in the past in pointing out shortcomings. We do all kinds of good things in government, but we do nothing perfectly. He has the responsibility to point out those imperfections, to provide us with recommendations, and our responsibility is to act on those recommendations. We have done that and we look forward to continue to do that in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, this gets down to a question of your leadership. Ontario Liberals engaged in an unseemly and slanderous attack on a well-respected officer of the Legislature. Ontario Liberals engaged in one of the dirtiest whisper campaigns against a public servant in memory. Premier, you have yet to hold a single person accountable.

Even after you told folks to heel, to pull your attack dogs back, Warren Kinsella, the man you picked to run your campaign war room, kept at it. Even after members of the assembly agreed to reappoint André Marin, where the PC party has stood, Mr. Kinsella even last night attacked the character of the Ombudsman. Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you apologize and will you chastise your attack dogs—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the work that they did. I want to thank Mr. Marin for reapplying, for the work that he’s done in the past and for the work that I know that he will continue to do for us into the future. These things are not necessarily easy things, and like democracy itself, they can be a bit slow, they could be a bit messy and they can sometimes be cumbersome, but at the end of the day, they always give us the right result. I have every confidence in this result, as I do have confidence in Mr. Marin himself. I look forward, as I say, to continuing to work with him.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, People for Education state that school boards continue to report that they must ration services, deal with funding shortfalls and figure out how to support an ever-increasing proportion of students with increasingly complex needs; 86% of the schools continue to report waiting lists for special education services. While these kids are waiting, they’re falling further behind. There are 32,000 students in the province waiting for special education services. When are these students, 32,000 of them, going to get the service that they are entitled to?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I would like to thank the People for Education for their report. We always welcome receiving—it’s a very considered and thoughtful document. We also appreciate the good work that we do with the People for Education.

With respect to the highlight on special education services, that has been a priority for our government since we came to office. That is why, since coming to office, we have actually increased funding in special education services to the tune of 42%. I would offer that that has been in the face of declining enrolment across the province.

We do recognize that there are challenges, certainly, in a range of localities across the province where engaging specialized services to support special education students is a challenge. But we will continue to—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The truth is that the 32,000 number is only the tip of the iceberg. The report states: “Waiting lists shrink when fewer students are referred for assessment,” which suggests that the number of 32,000 is a low number, that there are more and more students waiting for services. This has created a system where there are not only fewer services for students, but there is no accountability for the progress of special students. These are the neediest of the needy, and they are being left in classes without support.

When will the government create a new delivery system that will meet the needs of special needs students across the province and help those desperate parents who are looking to you for help?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I also want to recognize the work that’s being done by our teachers in the classrooms, by the administrators at the school level, certainly by school boards, who continue to do everything they can to engage families to understand how we can best support the needs of their students.

I think it’s also important to remind the honourable member that, with regard to the students who are in need of services, some of those services are actually provided by professionals outside of the school system, so there are wait-lists for students to be seen by professionals who are not employees of school boards but who are health professionals in our communities. We continue to work with community partners to ensure that those students receive the services in a timely way so that the professionals in the classrooms are going to be able to put a plan in place to best meet the needs of those—

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

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. For generations, Ontarians assumed that we would always have the safest and cleanest drinking water in the world. This month, as we mark the 10th anniversary of the Walkerton tainted water crisis, we are reminded that clean and safe drinking water can no longer be taken for granted.

A key recommendation from Justice O’Connor’s review was for stronger training and certification rules for the operators of our water systems. Earlier this month, the Premier visited the Walkerton Clean Water Centre, which is a key part of the efforts to ensure that we have the most thoroughly trained water operators anywhere in North America.

Minister, how does the Walkerton Clean Water Centre help to protect our drinking water?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me, first of all, congratulate the member for her advocacy on behalf of clean water in the province of Ontario on an ongoing basis.

The Walkerton Clean Water Centre was created in October 2004 to coordinate and deliver training for owners and operating authorities of drinking water systems with a focus on smaller, remote and older systems, as well as systems that are operated by First Nations. This new centre has followed through on a key O’Connor recommendation, and to date, over 23,000 individual water operators across this province in both the public and the private sector have been trained at the centre.

The centre delivers the ministry’s two mandatory courses: one entitled entry-level drinking water operator; and the second, preventing water-borne illnesses. It does so not only at the centre but at various locations across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: We rely on the operators of our drinking water plants to keep our families safe, and I know the centre was initially established in a temporary site to ensure that the training could begin as soon as possible. I understand that a permanent facility will be established in Walkerton to continue this good work. This new facility will also be a flag in the ground for drinking water protection in Ontario and the transformation of the community of Walkerton to a centre for drinking water excellence.

Minister, when will the permanent centre be complete, and how will the new centre further improve drinking water quality in this province?

Hon. John Gerretsen: All of us look forward to the official opening of the new permanent centre later on this month, which I will be attending as well.

The new facility delivers on the promise for a permanent clean water centre in the town of Walkerton. It will provide an anchor to our commitment to the delivery of clean, safe water. It’s a state-of-the-art technology to provide hands-on training to deliver every aspect of drinking-water-operator training.

The new facility has state-of-the-art video conferencing equipment so that they can provide access to remote communities for training. It also has three permanent classrooms, which will have the ability to expand. The centre has a technology demonstration facility which provides a state-of-the-art educational opportunity for hands-on training, technology demonstration and research.

It’s a great occasion for the centre to be opened this month.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. The results are in: Your new school bus tendering process means higher rates eventually, less competition, putting safety into the hands of the lowest bidders as well as driving small operators out of business.

As a result, yesterday, you know that the Independent School Bus Operators Association protested the process. They staged a demonstration at your office with over 40 school buses there. At the same time, they held a press conference here to shed light on this new, unfair process, which is forcing small operators out of business.

Minister, why are you not addressing this issue and making sure that small business people don’t lose their livelihoods?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I think that it’s important that I would remind the honourable member that the priority with respect to transporting children to schools is safety. We want to ensure that we provide the safest means possible for our children to get to school. We also spend annually some $800 million in providing I think it’s 17,000 buses to carry our children to school.

We want to do this and we want to engage these businesses in a fair, transparent, open and accountable process. I believe that the taxpayers of Ontario have an opinion about sole-source contracts. We want to be able to say to them that we have exercised due diligence with a process that (1) considers safety and (2)—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I go back to the minister. The reality is, this new process can well result in putting safety in jeopardy if it goes to the lowest bidder and maintenance becomes an issue. I want you to know what you’re doing to people, and you’re not dealing with it.

Lesa McDougall, owner of Cook School Bus Lines of Mount Forest—her family business had 19 bus routes. As a result of this new process—and she is just one of many independent operators who have lost business—they have gone from 19 to one route. They’ve gone from employing 25 people to only two. This is in Perth-Wellington. Lesa and her family have lost their business to the large operators because of your policy.

Why are you so determined to destroy small business bus owners like Lesa McDougall?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What we are determined to do is ensure that our children get to school with the safest means possible. We are determined to ensure that we provide these services in an open, accountable and transparent process. That is why we continue to work with the Ontario School Bus Operators’ Association. We very much value the points that they make to us.

I would also remind the honourable member that we have done a pilot project in Waterloo region and that there are small and medium bus operators who were actually winners in that pilot process experience. I would say to the honourable member that if you’re going to present examples, let’s present all the examples. Let’s be open and tell the whole story that the process that we’re working on, and continue to work on, with the school bus operators—

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

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. In March 2009, an RFP was issued for an independent review of this government’s new practice of benchmarking children with autism. Oddly, this RFP was not broadly circulated or posted on the MERX website, as is standard practice. After going through the FOI process, my office found that the RFP was highly restricted and invited one bid, a bid raising questions of conflict.

How did such an important RFP become a sole-source contract?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to acknowledge the parents of children with autism who are here today in the gallery with their children. I very much appreciate the insight they gave us as to how we can better support their children so they can reach their full potential.

We are working closely with parents and clinicians to develop a system of supports that provide services for as many kids as possible. We have much more work to do, and we are already doing that work.

I want to take a moment to talk about the progress we have made since 2003. We’ve removed the previous government’s age six cut-off and almost quadrupled spending, from $44 million to $165 million. We’ve doubled the number of kids getting IBI treatment, up from 500 four years ago to 1,370 now. We’ve introduced a respite program, and we have established Connections for Students so that—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps I’ll get an answer this time. A contract valued at more than $118,000 on a subject as important as benchmarking children who might have their autism therapy terminated as a result should be filled by the best and most qualified candidate. But there was no competition. The ministry handed the contract to its invited applicant, Dr. Louise LaRose. She had a number of conflicts, like her close ties to the chair of the benchmark panel itself, but omitted this on her RFP form.

In light of these issues, my question to this Premier is a serious one: Will he issue a new RFP to obtain an independent review of the autism benchmarking policy for this province?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Dr. LaRose was selected to analyze the impact of the proposed benchmarks through an invitational request for proposals. The ministry followed all required processes in selecting the expert, and we are reviewing Dr. LaRose’s analysis and considering our next steps. As I said, we know there is much more work to do, but I am proud of our record, and I will contrast that record with that of the NDP any day.

Our record is one of action; theirs is one of talk and inaction. We promised to end the age six cut-off, and that’s exactly what we did. When the NDP was in office, they did not set up any programs to support kids and families with autism. Since we have been in office, we’ve doubled the number of kids getting IBI and almost quadrupled spending. When the NDP was in office, they cut funding to children’s treatment centres. We have increased funding to children’s treatment centres.

We know there is more work to do. We continue to do that work with parents and experts alike to find a pathway to better serve these children and ensure that they—

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

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. With the passing of the 2010 budget, members of my community were pleased to see the budget’s

schedule 2, creating a new independent board of health in the city of Ottawa.

Currently, our city council in Ottawa acts as the board of health for the city of Ottawa, a situation created when the city was amalgamated under the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. In October 2008, Ottawa city council passed a motion to call on the provincial government to amend the act to authorize an independent board of health under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Recognizing the benefit of independent governance of public health in Ottawa, I was pleased to champion the idea on behalf of my community and introduced Bill 194.

Minister, please share with my constituents and with Ottawa city council why your ministry agreed that Bill 194 was of great importance and ensured its passage by including it in the 2010 budget?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The McGuinty government has made it a priority, of course, to work alongside our municipal partners to create a good working relationship. We’ve provided municipalities with the tools they need to serve their communities better. We recognize that municipalities are responsible and accountable levels of government. We understand that municipalities are better able to determine appropriate mechanisms for delivering their local services.

The request to create a new independent board of health came from the city of Ottawa. I would like to recognize the member for Ottawa Centre for his advocacy on this matter. The province is providing the city of Ottawa with the tools and flexibility required to meet the needs of its citizens. I’m confident that an independent board of health in the city of Ottawa, with mixed membership of community members and council members, will lead to better governance by promoting—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Besides major episodes like the most recent H1N1 pandemic, many routine or community-specific public health programs also require a consistent and thoughtful approach to ensure that the best possible public health outcomes are the goal. Clearly, politics and emotional opinions can sometimes cloud decisions that need to be taken in the best interests of public health.

I commend Ottawa city council for actively seeking to improve the way we approach public health in our city. I’m pleased to have been the conduit for this important change in our provincial legislation, and along with the community, I am certain of the necessity of it.

Minister, could you please tell this House and my constituents about the importance of public health and what this new change will mean for the city of Ottawa?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to congratulate the honourable member for being such a champion of health care in Ottawa.

The changes to the City of Ottawa Act allow for the creation of a semi-independent board of health responsible for the important health policy decisions. City council will retain responsibility for the financial decisions. The board will function under the framework of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, and the structure of the board is modelled after the city of Toronto Board of Health. The board will make recommendations to the city council on any issues within Ottawa’s jurisdiction involving public health considerations. They will report annually to the city council on board operations.

This is good news for the city of Ottawa. It will eliminate the conflicts between the management and the funding of city services and will allow for more specialized health care decisions in Ottawa.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. In a letter to all MPPs yesterday, the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition told members of this House that “the economic situation facing Ontario farmers is dire.” Agriculture income was negative $50 million in 2009. This year, that loss is projected to be a record 10 times greater, at half a billion dollars. In their letter they say that “the future of food and farming in Ontario, without a workable risk management program, is clearly bleak.”

Premier, tomorrow this House will debate my resolution that calls on your government to implement the business risk management program that farmers have been asking for. My question is simple but very important for farmers: Will you support the business risk management program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I sincerely want to thank the member for the question because it is a very critical question. Before I go into my supplementary, which I’m looking forward to, I want to speak to what our farmers want today. They want predictability, they want stability and they want bankability. They want to know what the future holds for them. Our government has been working with the coalition to develop a risk management program and take that forward to the FPT. There is much good work that is happening with the coalition and the McGuinty government.

One of the things that I want to speak to specifically is that letter. The letter speaks to—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Madam Minister, farmers have asked that both levels of government fund the program, but right now neither one has any money on the table. You haven’t budgeted a single dime to implement this program this year. In fact, according to your ministry’s own estimates, you have actually cut $144 million from the program that provides direct support to farmers.

Minister, will you lead by example and support the resolution and commit that Ontario will fund its share of that program this year?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’ve got to say, that’s pretty rich from that side of the House. When they were in government they did not provide any income stabilization. We have put on the table $1.7 billion. We understand that the business programs today, the pillars of agri-stability, are not working. We are working with the coalition. I can tell you that one of the things in the letter that was addressed is that these programs have always been funded fed-prov together, 60-40 splits. We recognize that, and that is why we’re working with the federal government. And the coalition recognizes that.

I ask the members, when they write a letter, why would they not write a letter in support to the Minister of Agriculture at the federal level? I don’t know why they won’t. We recognize that in order for a program to work it has to be all levels of government working together. Our farmers recognize that. They—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I really think that the members need to go visit the Glengarry–Prescott–Russell reception and have some really good St-Albert cheese curds. There’s another very good business from Vankleek Hill that they might want to go visit as well, too.

New question.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, the Massey Centre strike is going into its sixth week. Nerves are frayed. There have been several reportable incidents. Parents, workers and administrators are living with incredible strain. There’s fear that the centre may not survive in its current form. If this centre is damaged, your government will be accountable for that. Will you act now, today, to address the funding shortfall that has put this centre into crisis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I know I’ve had an opportunity to speak with the member opposite about the important services that the Massey Centre provides and the fact that, in the context of this labour dispute, the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Labour. But let me assure you that my commitment to the women and children who use the services of this community remains steadfast. The Toronto regional office is actively working to ensure that every parent, every young mother, every individual who is served by the Massey Centre continues to get those services.

If that is not the case, they should connect with my Toronto regional office. It is absolutely a firm commitment that the women and children who use the services at the Massey Centre will continue to get the support and services that they need, as they have throughout this strike.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of students who are visiting from Pope John Paul II school in Lindsay to the Legislature today, and also to welcome and to introduce once again our visiting delegation from Ghana. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 and the Ontario College of Art & Design Act, 2002.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On June 1, Mr. Milloy moved government notice of motion number 27.

All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Elliott, Christine

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Sterling, Norman W.

Tabuns, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 27.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 191,

An Act with respect to land use planning and protection in the Far North.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjection: Same vote.

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 27.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 68,

An Act to promote Ontario as open for business by amending or repealing certain Acts.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjection: Same vote.

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 27.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declared the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Deferred vote on