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

May 20, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-May-20 (PDF)

L036 - Thu 20 May 2010 / Jeu 20 mai 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 20 May 2010 Jeudi 20 mai 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOWERING ENERGY COSTS

FOR NORTHERN ONTARIANS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

POUR LES ONTARIENS DU NORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

WATER QUALITY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

RETIREMENT HOMES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

HEPATITIS C

HEALTH CARE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

TAXATION

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BUSINESS AWARDS

NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN’S DAY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH

FOOD BANKS

JUMPSTART

BRIAN TARDIF

YORK UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC TIPS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 ÉLIMINANT L’IMPOSITION AUTOMATIQUE DE POURBOIRES

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CONSEIL MUNICIPAL DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

PETITIONS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

POWER PLANT

NATURAL RESOURCES

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CAPPING TOP PUBLIC SECTOR

SALARIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DES HAUTS TRAITEMENTS

DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

BREAST CANCER

SCREENING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DU SEIN

CAPPING TOP PUBLIC SECTOR

SALARIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DES HAUTS TRAITEMENTS

DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

BREAST CANCER

SCREENING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉPISTAGE

DU CANCER DU SEIN

CAPPING TOP PUBLIC SECTOR

SALARIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DES HAUTS TRAITEMENTS

DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOWERING ENERGY COSTS

FOR NORTHERN ONTARIANS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

POUR LES ONTARIENS DU NORD

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 44,

An Act to implement the Northern Ontario energy credit / Projet de loi 44, Loi mettant en oeuvre le crédit pour les coûts d’énergie dans le Nord de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I will be sharing my time this morning with the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

It is certainly a privilege for me to speak today to

An Act to implement the Northern Ontario energy credit, which is incredibly important to the folks of my riding and all of northern Ontario.

One of the things we’ve heard loudly and clearly from the people of northern Ontario is their concern around high energy costs in the north. Our climate is such that our winters are longer and our heating bills are higher. We don’t have the same number of resources for heating as others do around the province, so people in northern Ontario have felt the pinch. We’re certainly delighted to see the focus that was placed on northern Ontario, particularly the energy credit in this spring’s budget.

Our government has brought forward a number of initiatives that are going to benefit northern Ontario in particular. In Open Ontario, our budget this spring and our throne speech we introduced a number of initiatives that we think are going to better the lives of northerners, not the least of which is the future development of the Ring of Fire, which is incredibly important to our region. I know that my colleague the member from Algoma–Manitoulin will no doubt speak to that a little bit, as it is closer to his riding than mine.

But with all the mining industry congregated in North Bay, so many companies—I think we have over 80 companies in North Bay that are related to the mining sector: mining engineering, professional mining retailers, equipment manufacturers. We are well situated to benefit from the development of the Ring of Fire and the initiatives that our government is putting forward.

The northern Ontario energy credit will provide northern residents who pay rent or property tax for their principal residence an annual credit of up to $130 for a single person aged 18 and older, and up to $200 for a family, including single parents. Northern residents who live on reserve and who pay energy costs for their principal residence would also be eligible for the credit. To target the assistance for those who need it most, the credit will be income-tested.

What happens in this case is that the credit will be reduced for a single person with adjusted net income over $35,000 and eliminated when their income exceeds $48,000, and for a family it will be eliminated when their income exceeds $65,000.

We’ve noted that this benefit will impact about half of the population of northern Ontario, which is really incredible. I think it is really important to the people of northern Ontario that we are helping those who need it most, but we are also helping such a vast number of people across the north.

The credit will be available to eligible residents in the districts of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Manitoulin, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timiskaming. I know that this is particularly important to the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka. He mentioned, when we were in Sundridge just a couple of weeks ago, how happy he was that this credit will be available to the people of Parry Sound.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Did he say that?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: He did, actually.

Mr. Jeff Leal: On the record?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: On the record, in front of a group of municipal leaders. I was delighted to see it. I was particularly delighted to see it because the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who is ostensibly their northern critic, is actually opposed to this initiative and spoke out against it here in this House, and when the vote was taken, he walked out. I think it sends a really mixed message as to where the Conservatives stand on this particular measure. I thought they were supportive of it; I thought they were supportive of the north. They say they are. They don’t have any members from the north other than Mr. Miller, who does yeoman service as their finance critic.

Mr. Hillier is not from the north. He doesn’t understand the people of the north. He has travelled up, I think, once. Have you heard, member from Algoma–Manitoulin—more than once? But certainly his press releases would indicate that he is out of touch with the concerns of the people of the north and doesn’t understand how much they appreciate and how delighted they are with this particular initiative and all of the initiatives that were set out in our budget.

Another important initiative for the north and for jobs in the north is the northern industrial electricity rate program. This will average about $150 million annually and it will provide electricity price rebates of two cents per kilowatt hour to qualifying large industrial facilities that commit to an electricity efficiency and sustainability plan.

Interjection: Sounds like a good idea to me.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: It’s an incredibly good idea and it’s certainly one that we heard loudly and clearly from our chambers, from our municipalities. They wanted to see some assistance for our large industrial facilities across the north to ensure that we are protecting the jobs that exist in the north and creating more jobs.

As we speak about creating more jobs, all minds in the north turn to the Ring of Fire, an area with potentially large deposits of minerals such as chromite, nickel, copper and platinum. We are providing, through our spring budget, $45 million over the next three years for new project-based skills training programs to help our aboriginal peoples and northern Ontarians participate in and benefit from the emerging economic development opportunities.

This is incredibly important as we partner with our First Nations communities and we look to new job opportunities for those northern residents who live in this region and who live throughout the north, as I said, and who are going to benefit because of this initiative. Through this investment we are also hiring a new Ring of Fire coordinator who will lead the collective effort in advancing the economic promise of the area while encouraging responsible and sustainable development.

Another initiative in the spring budget that was incredibly important to the north, and I know to my area in particular, was the additional $10 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund. I know that my friend from Algoma–Manitoulin will agree with me that the northern Ontario heritage fund provides support to some incredible projects across the north, including smaller projects for young entrepreneurs and new entrepreneurs who are seeking to start new businesses, to expand great ideas that they’ve had. I’ve had a number of small businesses—including a naturopath doctor who received $25,000.

She actually set up her shop on Fraser Street in my old office and a former office of one of your colleagues, and she is doing a thriving business and has succeeded in really entrenching herself—

Mr. Jeff Leal: What former colleague was that?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: That would be the former Premier.

She has entrenched herself as a health care provider in our community, a young professional who has come home to her hometown and, through the help of the northern Ontario heritage fund, has been able to set up shop and really do great business and provide a great service to our community. She is just one example of many.

We’ve also been able to help an entrepreneur in our community who is introducing solar panels to many of our businesses and to the residential component of our community. We’re very excited about the work he is doing. He is a huge proponent of green energy and is doing a great job leading the charge—front-page articles in the Nugget, showing off what he is doing at his home and also promoting it for other homeowners and residents across the region. Through investments from the northern Ontario heritage fund, he has been able to benefit.

We’ve also invested, through the northern Ontario heritage fund, in the waterfront. Many people in this House are familiar with North Bay and what a beautiful waterfront we have. But over the last 10 years it’s just grown leaps and bounds. We now have two lovely carousels, and a small train which opened two weeks ago on Mother’s Day. The train is run by volunteers who are all retirees of the Ontario Northland—most of them are. They are a wonderful group of people who welcome the children every day throughout the summer and run that train until dusk every day.

It’s an exciting little adventure down on the waterfront. The two carousels are spectacular. They were built by local volunteers as well; artists hand-carved the horses and painted them. It is just a beautiful work of art—both of them are—down on our waterfront. Those were all created by volunteers and were supported by investments through the northern Ontario heritage fund, which has developed our waterfront, which has allowed for these beautiful works of art to be showcased.

I just want to do a shout-out to Howe and to all the people down at the waterfront who are volunteering their time this summer. They are fantastic volunteers who really provide a welcoming atmosphere for our children and our visitors. I can tell you that my nieces and nephew, when they come to town, start talking immediately about when we’re going to the train and the carousel. If we don’t go pretty much every single day that they’re in town, they’re pretty disappointed.

And I see lots of my friends who have left town and now have children and live in different parts of Canada and the world who come home and we often meet at the carousel; they bring their kids down, because that’s where grandma and grandpa bring the kids. It’s a wonderful family experience. It’s through investments from the northern Ontario heritage fund that we’ve been able to really showcase our waterfront. Through this additional investment of $10 million, bringing the northern Ontario heritage fund up to—$90 million this year?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: It’s $90 million; that’s right.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you, member from Algoma–Manitoulin—we are able to make those kinds of investments across the north that are benefiting communities across the north.

I am so delighted that our government is moving forward with this bill and with the implementation of this credit for our residents. When I was travelling the riding over the last year, talking to people about various government initiatives, including our tax package, I hosted an information session at the library in Mattawa in February. It was kind of a cold night, lots of snow, but we had a good group out. We talked about the HST, we talked about the tax package, but we also talked about energy costs and energy prices, and they were certainly concerned about that.

It was one of the top-of-mind issues for them, and it certainly has been for a number of my rural residents across my region. When we brought this forward in the budget this spring, I was so delighted to be able to inform people of this new initiative that will provide an annual credit of up to $130 for single residents age 18 and older and $200 for families and single parents. It’s an incredible help for those families in the north.

I hope that my friends on the other side will settle on where they stand. I hope that they will stand up for northerners and support our northern residents, because this is an important initiative for them. I look forward to hearing from them on this bill as we go through third reading debate, and I look forward to hearing from my friend from Algoma–Manitoulin. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this bill this morning.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak this morning on Bill 44, the Lowering Energy Costs for Northern Ontarians Act. The government House leader, the member from Nipissing, just spoke, asking how the official opposition stands on the bill. I think we’ve already had one vote on it. We voted in support of the bill, so that’s fairly clear as to how the opposition stands.

However, we do question—this is a relatively small part of the budget, obviously, and I do wonder why it wasn’t part of the budget bill, Bill 16; why they needed a separate bill for this particularly minor part of it. Also, really, I wonder why—and the government House leader is here, so perhaps she—she won’t get an opportunity, because it’s time-allocated, to respond to any questions I might pose, unfortunately. But I do wonder why the government felt it necessary to time-allocate this bill and, in particular, why they used the most draconian time allocation motion I think I’ve ever seen.

I was at committee with this bill, a committee hearing that had no one, not one person from the north come to present to the committee in the public hearings—not one. I think there’s probably, and I would assume the government House leader would agree with me, somebody in the north who’s interested in this bill. There are people and industry; surely somebody would like to say how it might be improved, how it might be more efficient, because I will question the efficiency of the design model that the government has put forward. Surely there has to be somebody, some stakeholder, some individual in the north who would have liked to have had a say in this bill.

The way that it went through the process, with the government’s time allocation motion—I sat on the subcommittee meeting, I believe it was on the Tuesday, and we were setting the deadlines, as you do normally, for written submission and the time for public hearings etc. I thought we were talking about a week down the road, but actually, they were planning on the Tuesday afternoon for public hearings on Thursday with the deadline the very next day.

Of course, that means there was no time for advertising other than a few hours on the service we have here, the website and the internal TV service here at Queen’s Park, which lots of people in the north probably don’t have access to because it’s not carried now on satellite.

Surprise, surprise, we go to committee on the Thursday morning; we’re scheduled to have public hearings starting at 8 a.m. for a couple of hours, and guess what? Nobody shows up for public hearings, not one single person from the north. We have the technology to have them show up by video conference or by telephone as well. There was not a single presentation, not a single written presentation to the bill either, and not a single amendment to the bill.

The whole committee hearing process was a bit of a joke, to be honest. The former leader of the third party was there, and I think he was a little blunter than I was in committee. He called it a farce.

Frankly, I don’t understand, even from a political perspective, why the government is using the all-time most draconian time allocation motion on this bill. You’d think they’d want—the bill is about providing $130 to an individual to help offset the higher energy costs caused by this government, or up to $200 per family. It’s income-tested, so you receive the $130 per year in four cheques—those are not going to be very big cheques. If you make less than $45,000—if you make $40,000, you’re going to be seeing a $10 cheque four times a year. The same applies for a family: If the family makes more than $65,000, you could receive as little as—if you make $60,000, you’ll get four $10 cheques.

At the cost of doing government, it would be interesting to know how much it costs to send out that $10 cheque. It’s probably $100 per cheque to send the $10 cheque out. Surely there’s a more efficient way of doing this, if it wasn’t for the fact that the government wants to be seen to be doing something and wants people to see this cheque coming and be able to take claim for it.

This brings me back to the time allocation. If it’s mainly about politics and being seen to be doing something about the absolute reality of higher energy costs, not just in the north but across the whole province, then why wouldn’t the government want to have public hearings, bring in everybody from around and make very public what they’re doing? Not only that, maybe they could actually improve it and make it more efficient so that it’s not costing double the cost of the actual cheques to run the whole thing. I do question the whole way it’s being done, the efficiency of the way the government has decided to run this program.

The reality in the McGuinty government is that we are seeing a greatly higher energy cost. Unfortunately, that affects all residents in the province, not just those residents in northern Ontario. I would agree that in northern Ontario it’s a colder climate, so energy bills will be higher there. There’s no question about that, although I must bring my own riding up. The McGuinty government took Muskoka out of the north for Ontario government purposes but left Parry Sound in.

I would say that the weather conditions aren’t that much different from Muskoka to Parry Sound, yet if you happen to live in Huntsville or just south of the line, then you don’t participate in this program. If you live in Parry Sound, you would be able to participate in this program.

Unfortunately, if you’re looking at it from an income base, there’s really not a lot of logic that Haliburton or Renfrew wouldn’t be part of it. Those are a couple of the ridings that have lower average incomes in the province, lower than just about every northern riding. If you’re looking at the ability to pay, there should be some logic that some other ridings should be considered for this as well, because everyone is going to be facing higher energy costs in the province under the government’s programs.

Let me just illustrate some of the reasons why energy costs are going up. We’ve just seen the Ontario Energy Board approve a 10% increase in the cost of electricity. We also know there’s this backdoor green tax program the government is running; I think it’s to pay for energy audits. That is being challenged in court right now. That’s a backdoor tax that’s going to be $57 million, I believe, in total. That’s another additional new cost for people on their electricity bills.

Then, of course, we have the HST happening July 1, and I think the great majority of people in the province really aren’t aware that it applies to electricity, it applies to home heating oil, and it applies to gas in your car. Obviously, for all the people of Ontario, that’s going to be a very significant increase.

We also have the Green Energy Act. As the opposition, we had a company go out, because the minister at the time—I believe it was Mr. Smitherman—was saying that there was going to be a 1% increase to everyone’s bill as a result of the Green Energy Act. We had a company go out and assess whether that was, in fact, true, and also whether the government’s claim of—I believe—50,000 jobs was correct as well. London Economics did their study, and they came back and said that it could cost up to $1,200 per household, just the Green Energy Act.

Also, there was no validation for this claim of 50,000 jobs. In fact, I think the reverse is absolutely the case, because as we have higher energy costs in the province of Ontario, it makes our industry less and less competitive. That’s one of the basic building blocks of being able to compete and a reason why a company would want to locate in Ontario. We see it in the north right now; for example, in the Timmins area. I believe it’s an Xstrata copper smelter that just shut down in the last few weeks, in mid-May. That’s a lot of jobs in the Timmins area.

That smelting operation, they’re now concentrating the ore and transporting it to Quebec, where it will be smelted in a much dirtier smelter.

I met with some of the representatives from the union that came to Queen’s Park. They brought the environmental information and pointed out how the one that is closing in Timmins has a much better environmental record than where it’s now going to be processed in Quebec. There’s a negative effect for the environment as well. But for Ontario, obviously it’s the loss of 700 jobs, a major factor being the higher energy costs of the province of Ontario. That’s the track we’re on with the McGuinty government’s energy policy, or lack of policy, I should say.

In fact, a tomadamsenergy.com posting in May describes the energy policy for the province of Ontario: “The Ontario government is operating the province’s vastly complex power system without a plan.”

To illustrate that point of just doing things without really considering what’s going on: I met with the insurance industry recently, and they pointed out how people are signing up for the solar programs for their homes without realizing—it’s causing them insurance problems.

What happens is, when they put those solar panels on their roof, they are classified for their insurance as being commercial, not residential, so they either have to buy much more expensive commercial insurance because they have the solar panel on the roof, or they find out when they’ve had a problem that their insurance actually doesn’t cover the problem because they have these solar panels on the roof. That’s just one example of a poorly thought out policy of the government.

We are definitely seeing much higher energy prices. This is but one small part of it that’s going to help some of the folks in northern Ontario, but there are far greater problems in the energy sector.

I know the government has plans they’ve announced in the budget to bring in a reduction for industrial energy costs for northern Ontario. I haven’t seen a bill to that effect yet, so I’m not sure when they’re going to be doing that. But I also see problems with that bill in that, again, they’re drawing a line as to who receives the reduced industrial energy price.

In the case of my riding alone, for example, we have businesses that are essentially northern—what you’d call typical northern Ontario businesses—like Panolam, which makes fibreboard; they’re in the forestry sector. They’re receiving their raw material, in many cases, from mills in the north. You have Kimberly-Clark making tissue; you have Tembec making hardwood flooring. And they’re all just south—literally 10 kilometres south—of the border that has been drawn, this north-south border.

So when that new program comes into effect, they won’t benefit from it and they’ll be competing against companies 10 kilometres north that will receive it. That just seems to be a very unfair way and not a level playing field for businesses in the province of Ontario. In the opposition here, we believe in providing a level playing field for businesses so they can compete, and the strong ones survive and do the best they can.

I know that my colleague from Simcoe North would like to comment to the bill as well. We will be supporting it. I have lots of questions about the design of it. It’s too bad they didn’t take the time to hear from people so they actually could improve it, because there’s plenty of room for improvement on this bill.

We have a very short time because of the time allocation—only 20 minutes—so I will leave the last six and a half minutes for my colleague. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s always a pleasure to be here in the morning—nothing like a morning in the Legislature, debating energy bills. I’ve got to say, it just warms your heart, as a northerner.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The smell of napalm in the morning.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That was out of that movie, and we’re not going to go there.

Anyway, I just want to say up front that we, as New Democrats, will be supporting this bill.

But I don’t want the government thinking, because New Democrats are going to be voting in favour of this particular initiative, that somehow or other everything has been fixed in northern Ontario, that this 25% rebate that they’ve put forward, which I’ll explain in a couple of minutes, is going to just get northern Ontario humming when it comes to productivity and it’s going to get northern Ontario jobs going again and people will be working and they’ll be running down the streets with banners saying, “Yahoo, Dalton!” Because I’ve got to say, that’s not anywhere near what’s going on with this particular situation.

Let’s explain what we’ve got going on here. The government continues a policy that was started by the previous government around electricity. We have gone from a time when Ontario Hydro was a crown corporation that developed, produced and transmitted electricity at cost to consumers and the industrial sector. Why did we decide to do that some 100-plus years ago? Because we saw electricity as an economic development tool. We said that if Ontario is going to prosper as an economy in North America, then we have to be able to attract investment into Ontario.

The investment that we’re able to attract, because of all of the natural resources we have, is in mining, forestry and manufacturing, all of which are intensive users of electricity.

You have investments such as we had in the city of Timmins, where, at the time, Kidd Creek mine built a smelter and refinery. Why? Because, yes, the government was interested in making that happen in the day and the company was prepared to make that investment, but it made economic sense because electricity prices were reasonable and it would make money by way of refining and smelting copper and zinc in that community.

We built paper mills all across northern Ontario and into southern Ontario. Why were there so many paper mills? Yes, because the fibre is here in Ontario because of the forests, but also, it is a very energy-intensive industry and we were able to buy electricity, as producers, in a way that made some sense to the bottom line.

All of that got turned on its ear with the previous government, which decided to deregulate and started to partially privatize the hydro system in the province of Ontario. At the time, I remember Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party—my God, was he opposed. He was with Howard Hampton and he was just saying, “Man, it’s a terrible thing the Tories are doing around electricity.”

What the Liberals have done with electricity makes the Tories almost look as if they did nothing, because they have accelerated the privatization—

Interjection: I take that as a compliment.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was a bit of a backhand, Norm.

But my point is this: Where the Conservative government ideologically wanted to do some changes when it came to hydro—and the Liberals were on the opposition side of the bench—the Liberals have out-Conservatived and out-Toried the Tories when it comes to the mess they have now created in hydro. Electricity prices in this province are now among the highest in Canada. We went from being the lowest to the highest. We have a system now, at the end of the day, that is making companies such as Xstrata make decisions that they can’t do business in Ontario any more and have to move to the province of Quebec where electricity prices are cheaper.

Is it only electricity in that decision? Obviously not. But it’s a big part of the decision. So the government today, by way of this third reading time allocation motion, is going to get a piece of legislation that says, “We’re going to provide to industrial users such as the Xstratas, the Tembecs and the Domtars of this world a 25% rebate on electricity.”

Let’s first of all make very clear that they’re really not getting 25%, because there was already a program that was in place that provided them 18% when it came to a reduction of the electricity rate that is currently in place. This particular initiative is going to replace that particular program that gave 18%.

So is it better than 18%? Yes. The government is giving them 25% in reduction. Is that a good thing? Absolutely; it’s not a bad thing. But it is not going to fix the problem for industrial users of electricity in this province, because even with the 25%, we find ourselves uncompetitive when it comes to other jurisdictions.

I propose this—and I look at the member from Algoma going no, no, no. Liberal backbenchers are for anything the government does, even though it decimates their ridings, because they’re going to follow Dalton McGuinty. I’ve got to say it right up front.

But if this 25% were to fix the problem when it comes to electricity prices that are causing the closure of many of the jobs in northern Ontario, Xstrata wouldn’t have closed down. We sat with the Premier in his office—Xstrata, the coalition members and the mayor of the city of Timmins were all there—and put that on the table and said, “Is the 25% that has been put on the table by the government, as far as the reduction, enough for you to stay?” They said, “No, it will not change our mind.”

I want to make very clear up front that this 25% is not going to stop the exodus of jobs out of northern Ontario. Will it help? Absolutely, but don’t think this is a cure for the problem that you’ve caused in the hydro industry.

For the residential consumers, I was in my constituency office—well, I was at a funeral; my cousin Aline passed away and we buried her on Tuesday in Kapuskasing. While in Kap, I decided to do a couple of constituency appointments early in the morning. Who am I meeting with? I’m meeting with people who are getting their hydro bills and can’t afford to pay them, and they’re actually having their hydro shut down. You feel powerless to do anything, because here’s this poor woman with two kids who comes into my constituency office and she has her bill for three months—$1,800. She’s on mother’s allowance for $1,100 a month.

Tell me how you’re going to pay, on average, what works out to about $600 a month for electricity when you’re on mother’s allowance for $1,100 a month. Tell me how you are going to pay what works out to about, on average, $600 a month for electricity when you’re on mother’s allowance for $1,100? She was in tears. The government says that in this case she’s going to get a 25% rebate. She will. She will get a 25% rebate because she qualifies under the program initiated under this bill. But does that fix the problem with hydro? Will she still be able to afford to keep the lights on for her and her children after this bill comes into place? Absolutely not.

I just want to say it’s a step in the right direction, and that’s the reason I’m going to vote for it. I think it’s certainly not going backwards; you are going forwards. For that reason, I will vote for it, but I want the government to absolutely know this is not fixing the problem.

We still have a huge problem when it comes to electricity prices in the province, and I’ll just get to one of them. That is the global adjustment. The way the government has set up the rates of hydro is quite complicated, and you just have to look at your hydro bill as a consumer to understand that.

Simply put, all of the new investments that we are now seeing—the development of the Beck, the refurbishing of nuclear reactors, the green energy that’s all coming on line—all of that is being paid for by way of the global adjustment. The elevated contracts that people are signing to build windmills and solar panels and hydro dams or whatever it might be with the rollout of the FIT that we’ve just seen, all of that is being basically passed back into the global adjustment. There’s so much of it at a time where there’s actually less demand for electricity.

We have an increase in production that’s coming online once all these projects are coming, and we have a decrease in the amount of electricity being used because industry is shutting down and leaving Ontario. The price of all of that is now being put on the hydro bill, and it’s done through what they call the global adjustment. In the case of Tembec in Kapuskasing, the global adjustment has added to their bill, on a monthly basis, $1.8 million compared to just a year ago. An additional $1.8 million is what they have to pay for electricity as a result of the global adjustment.

I’m telling the government now, if you don’t get the global adjustment issue resolved and we don’t find a way to socialize some of the cost of this new generation—I’m not going to argue that we shouldn’t be investing in green energy—I think that’s a great thing—but the question is, how do we pay for it?

If you’re going to go out and sign contracts where people are getting huge sums of money to sell electricity to hydro from whatever type of generation, be it either the nuclear plants that they’re refurbishing or a private company that’s building some form of generation, you can’t throw that entirely on the hydro bill at this point. What it’s doing is throwing the global adjustment through the roof, and as a result we’re going to end up losing more producers in Ontario who will not be able to afford to keep their doors open because the price of electricity will be too high.

I propose that the government has to re-look at this whole issue and say, “How do we pay for all of this green energy?

Should it all be done on the back of the hydro bill, or should we socialize some of the costs through the general tax revenue in order to try to spread the cost of the green energy and the refurbishments of various reactors that needed to be fixed over a larger pool of people rather than just doing it on the hydro bills?” One could argue that green energy—and I would understand that argument—is a good thing; therefore, society as a whole benefits by having less pollution emitted into the environment. So is there another way of being able to recoup the cost if that’s where society wants to go?

But I’m telling you now, when you put that price on to the global adjustment as you are now, it is a huge problem for many, many, many of those who are having to figure out how they’re going to be able to keep their doors open a year from now, because—I want to be very clear—this 25% rebate that you are providing by way of this motion, although a good thing, doesn’t negate the increases in hydro that we’re seeing on the other parts of the hydro bill, including the global adjustment.

I think my colleague Mr. Hampton is going to be coming in to speak to this. I don’t want to take all the time, but I just want to end on this point: For the average consumer, I want to ring the warning bells. We’re now starting to see it in our constituency offices. Since the last bills have come out for hydro, especially those people who are on equal billing where they pay their adjustment every three months, I’ve got more and more people coming in to my constituency office talking about how they cannot afford to pay their hydro bills. Electricity prices from last year to this year have gone up tremendously.

Like I say, this poor woman who came in the office on Tuesday morning in Kapuskasing had $1,800 for a hydro bill for three months. You can’t afford to pay that when you’re on a fixed income.

What’s worse is now we’ve got the famous HST that’s coming on July 1, so we’re going to get an additional 8% tacked on to the hydro bill as a result of the HST, plus there’s an application for a rate increase of 9%, so we’re looking at a 17% to 18% increase in electricity prices this year alone, on top of what people had as an increase last year. So, yeah, you’re going to get the 25% rebate—that woman I met with on Monday—but it’s going to be negated by the HST and by the increase, should it be approved. I’m just saying people can’t afford to do that, and what we’re going to start seeing is all kinds of disconnections.

I look at the smile on the face of my colleague from northern Ontario who is looking there and saying, “Well, this is all made up; this isn’t true. Everything is fine in northern Ontario. People are absolutely excited and happy with everything that’s going on.” I’m telling you, it couldn’t be further from the truth. I have never seen, in my 20 years in politics, the type of reaction that you get from constituents as you walk around the riding. And you must be getting the same in your riding. People are spitting mad at this government, absolutely.

It surprises me because, you know, generally people across this province are pretty easy to get along with. If you don’t bug them too much, they don’t bug you, and they have, generally, faith in their governments. But I have never seen people as upset as they are with this government.

I’m not saying everybody that I talk to are all saying the same thing, but I don’t care; every time I’m back in the riding—if I’m in Kap or I’m in Hearst or I’m in Moosonee or Timmins—every day I get somebody who stops me on the street or in the store or wherever it might be that I bump against them, and they’re saying, “When is the next election? When can we throw those guys out?” I haven’t seen that. Why? Because this government, quite frankly, in response to the things they haven’t done around the northern economy, is absolutely devastating to northern Ontario.

For us in the Timmins area it’s a double-whammy, because now we see what’s happened with Xstrata and people are upset, rightfully so, because they know that if the Premier and the government had the will and the ability, they would have been able to save the closure of that met site, absolutely. Because at the end of the day, we had Xstrata at the table and all the Premier had to say was, “Listen, we’re asking you to stall on the closure of this place.

You tell us what your cost issues are when it comes to electricity, you tell us what your cost issues are when it comes to the environment, and we will sit down and figure out what can be done to make sure that we can keep this site open.” With a little bit of will, it could have happened. Unfortunately, this government doesn’t see it that way.

They’re non-interventionists; they are further right-wing than the Conservatives when it comes to the economy: “Whatever the private sector does has to be good, and we’re not going to get in the way of any decisions made by these guys.” And as a result of that, we’re into what we are now.

With that, I just want to say that, yes, we will be voting in favour, but I have to say it is not with pleasure that I see what happens across northern Ontario in regard to electricity rates in this province.

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I am pleased to continue and join the discussion on this bill. I guess, having just heard my friend the member from Timmins–James Bay and my friend from Parry Sound–Muskoka—who discussed this bill almost not at all—one would not really realize that they are both supporting this piece of legislation. It is a budget bill, and it’s really useful to find an opposition that will go out of its way to support a budget bill.

While they’ve talked about everything else under the sun, they have not chosen to speak to the particular bill that’s here in a way that is reasonable. I want to talk about what the bill actually does. It applies to northern constituents of mine, and the member from Timmins–James Bay’s and a good portion of the member of Parry Sound–Muskoka’s—and he’s wishing that it applied to the whole province. Of course, the policy of the Conservative government is to have fewer seats in northern Ontario. We know that; we’ve seen that; we’ve done that over time.

We know that the member for Timmins–James Bay, for example, and I both have hugely larger ridings because of the actions of the government that he supported.

But this is a bill that—I want to give credit to my colleagues the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, the member for Nipissing, the member for Sudbury, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan and our Minister of Northern Development, the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, who along with myself worked very hard to find something that would provide northerners with relief from energy prices—and it’s all about energy; it doesn’t say “electricity.” If you have natural gas, it helps you. If you have heating oil, it helps you. If you buy gasoline, it helps you.

It helps you with all of those kinds of things. While we have these discussions about one particular kind of energy, the bill is purposely designed to help people with the kind of energy they need the most help with. That’s what it does. I’ll just go over that because I think maybe that has been lost in the discussion here this morning.

Northern residents who pay rent or property tax for their principal residence in northern Ontario would be eligible for an annual credit of up to $130 for a single person aged 18 and older and up to $200 for a family, including single parents. Northern residents who live on-reserve and who pay energy costs for their principal residence would also be eligible for the credit. To target the assistance to those who need it most, the credit would be income-tested. The credit would be reduced for a single person with an adjusted net income of over $35,000 and eliminated when his or her income exceeds $48,000.

It would be reduced for families when adjusted family income is over $45,000 and eliminated for the family when it exceeds $65,000.

As noted in the recent budget, in order to provide northern residents with timely assistance—and this speaks to what the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka was saying—our government is proposing an interim method of payment this year so that this year, we can do it. I know we’re getting a lot of calls in my constituency office about it because this is a popular program that people want to take advantage of. They would apply to the Ministry of Revenue to receive the 2010 credit, which would be delivered in two instalments—the first in November and the second in February 2011.

Applications for the 2010 credit would be available in August 2010. Some applications would be distributed directly by mail and they would also be available on the Internet and in designated northern locations. More information about how to apply for the 2010 credit will be available once the application forms are ready for distribution.

That is important to the people I represent. It makes a difference. Neither of the two parties had any interest in proposing this credit. This comes because of the strong voice of the northern caucus and a Minister of Finance who understands and sat with us and talked about how this could happen. We had the Minister of Revenue; he came and supported our putting forward a proposal to help people with their energy costs in northern Ontario, because obviously, our weather is colder.

In the winter, our days are even shorter than they are in southern Ontario, and it means, quite clearly, that you need to use more energy. Our distances are greater. From Manitouwadge to Thunder Bay is a short drive of about 400 kilometres. From Hornepayne to Hearst, it takes you an hour and a half. There are huge differences in the price of some of our commodities. Gasoline, for example, is one we hear a lot about. This is not going to solve all these problems, but it is going to go a way that none of the other two parties even remotely suggested anywhere.

I’m really pleased as a northern member to be able to tell my constituents that not only did I vote for it, I helped propose it—a proposal that we did not hear from anybody on the other side, which would help consumers and residents of northern Ontario.

I really wondered why that wasn’t proposed. I’m proud of our electricity programs which—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I’m really pleased that the members chose—the NDP chose to vote against a rebate for large industrial consumers in our large factories and mills. They did that. People should know that the very thing that the member from Timmins–James Bay talked about as not being sufficient—he voted against anything, which I think members of the public would find to be extraordinarily confusing, at the very least.

We heard about the heritage fund. I think my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was talking about that. She talked about how this year alone in the budget, which both the Conservatives and the New Democrats voted against, there was an increase of $10 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund, bringing it to $90 million a year.

Mr. Jeff Leal: They didn’t support that?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: They did not support that. I find that kind of difficult to understand, and most northerners would find that difficult to understand—except if they’re talking about my friends the New Democrats, who had the opportunity to take $60 million out of the northern Ontario trust fund and put it into general revenues when they were the government, essentially picking the pockets of northerners at the end of their government.

I do not have the same kind of take out there on what my constituents are saying to me about life in northern Ontario. They are proud of northern Ontario. They are proud to live and work, and they are proud of the improvements that we’ve made in health care. My constituency, for example, is pleased that, over the past very few years, we now have six new family health teams—I think it’s six; maybe it’s seven—since this government has come into power.

I had the privilege of talking to the good folks in Mindemoya, in central Manitoulin, where they have a brand new family health team. A new one is going into Chapleau and a new one in Manitouwadge. Those folks are well on their way.

The government just announced another up to $85,000 each for those new family health teams, and that is something that’s going to make patient care in those areas very helpful.

I talked to Ornge the other day, the people who provide air ambulance services across northern Ontario, across the whole province for that matter, and I was interested to know that they provide 19,000 flights a year, often for people from Manitouwadge or from Hornepayne—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Hearst.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: —or from Hearst—to the places where they need treatment. The service is much enhanced, and land ambulance service has actually increased in the amount of funding that we’ve provided to them.

I would urge every member—I know they will vote for this even though they are showing at least some concern about it.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to respond or to speak to this bill, although it is a bit of a strange bill. You know what? We, on this side of the House, will support a bill that will help people out in northern Ontario. We understand that. Although, as we said earlier, it doesn’t help everyone out.

I did want to put something on the record right off the bat, though. I think we had air ambulances before Dalton McGuinty. Maybe I’m wrong; I could be wrong.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: So it’s just Dalton McGuinty who brought the air ambulance system in. Isn’t that wonderful?

This government wonders why we vote against the budget. You know what? They’re talking and bragging about how some of the people are going to get a $200 rebate back on their hydro. I’m not even going to get into all the costs around the hydro with the HST and the increases and all this green energy tax and everything, but if I could just point something out: They’re going into debt in the province of Ontario at $20 billion this year—$20 billion. Do you know what that’s going to cost every man, woman and child in northern Ontario and across this province? About $1,530 apiece.

For a family of four, there’s $6,000 in accumulated debt that this government is adding this year alone, and they sit there and brag about the $200 they might give back to a family. Give me a break. That is pathetic.

The other thing: It’s beyond belief when they spin these stories around and they try to actually make people think—they try to spin it so it makes everybody appear as if they don’t care about the north. The House leader talked about the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington only going to the north once. The reality is that he’s our northern critic, and he has been there about 10 times in the last year. He’s visiting a number of ridings. I’m going to tell you, when we’re talking politics, the House leader had better start worrying about her riding, because you know what?

We’re going after that riding, and we’re going to win that riding in the next election. We’ve got good candidates coming forward. I wouldn’t be picking holes in Mr. Hillier if I was the House leader.

One of the things I’ll be really interested in seeing is how the government will roll out these cheques, the administrative cost of it. It will be interesting to see how those cheques are rolled out, how many TV ads are put on, how many radio ads are put on, how many newspaper ads, these full-page stories about giving northern Ontario’s poor people $130. I dare them to not put one penny into that. We all know that every program the government has, they always find tens of thousand of dollars more to advertise their government program and brag about it so they can try to get those extra votes. That’s what it’s all about.

I bet you anything when the rebate cheque goes out, the $130 or whatever it is, there will be a fancy letter from Brad Duguid or the Premier saying what wonderful things they’ve done. Do you think they’ll actually do that? I bet anything they will. That’s what you’re trying to do. You’re playing politics with this legislation because you know how much trouble you’re in in the north.

The mining—the forestry industry in the north has never been decimated as badly anywhere by any government in the history of this country like the mining industry has been in northern Ontario under Dalton McGuinty. Are they bragging about that? No, they just pretend. They say, “That’s a world economic problem. There’s nothing we can really do about that.” The list goes on and on and on.

Of course, then, as the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka mentioned, the harmonized sales tax is kicking in on July 1. For anybody who was going to save $130, give me a break. They’re going to pay it right back on the harmonized sales tax on their hydro bills, on their gas bills, on everything they go to buy. That is going to have the single most negative impact that any tax has had on the province of Ontario.

The Premier likes to have that spin story every day. In fact, everybody’s getting a little bit sick of it. People are wondering where the 600,000 jobs are going to come from. If you believe that 600,000 jobs are going to be created under Dalton McGuinty, you’d better believe that Mickey Mouse will be the next governor of Florida, because that’s about the kind of spin he’s putting on this story. There’s absolutely no proof, no public plan, no public study, no business plan. He stands up each and every day and talks about 600,000 jobs with absolutely no proof how it will happen.

We’ve watched 300,000 manufacturing jobs disappear in Ontario because manufacturers have left here in droves because of the economic policies of this government—but somehow 600,000 new jobs.

We’ve been trying to keep track, on this side of the House, of how many jobs they’ve actually created. As far as I know, unemployment is down somewhat. Most of the jobs created are in the public sector.

Applause.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: The seals over there are clapping away, whatever they want to do.

I was told last night—it would be interesting to see the clarification. How many homeless people are actually in the city of Toronto? It would be interesting if somebody could respond to that with exactly the number of people, and then find out the amount of money the government has flowed to the city of Toronto and the fights it had with the city of Toronto. I understand that in that field alone there are more people on the affordable housing file than there are homeless. That is beyond belief, the kind of money that’s being wasted in some of the public service areas. That’s where your jobs have been created: in the public service.

You haven’t created any manufacturing jobs. You haven’t created anything in the small business sector; they’re all going out of business. They are fearing for their jobs.

When you look at what’s happened to First Nations, the First Nations jobs are coming from selling cigarettes. That’s where they are coming from, and they’re doing that at the expense of the small convenience store owners, who are basically in a very negative position as far as their business opportunities.

The government can brag about this bill and pretend they’re actually doing something, but it will be interesting to see how they roll out that money in the end. It will also be interesting to see how much government advertising is behind the rollout of this particular bill.

We can support this piddly rebate, but you know what? I’d much rather the people of northern Ontario not be facing a $1,500 accumulated debt this year for each and every man, woman and child.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s never a pleasure to speak to time allocation motions. Nevertheless, it’s here, and that’s what we are debating.

I have to say to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, we’ve got to put this rebate in context, and the context is what my friend from Timmins–James Bay was trying to do. He spoke directly to this energy rebate portion by talking about the context, and the context is that we’ve had a lot of job losses in the north. We have high unemployment. I think forestry is operating at a third of the capacity that it used to a long time ago, which means thousands of jobs have disappeared. We’ve lost pulp and paper mills—jobs have disappeared.

We’ve lost sawmills—jobs have disappeared, which means people do not have the capacity to pay for things that they might have been able to pay for but a short four or five years ago.

What we have contextually is that the harmonized sales tax is going to add 8%, which I think adds up to about $220 in energy bills. Energy bills will jump up another $220, $250, so that’s close to $500 for things I am aware of. It could be less; it could be more. I suspect it’s going to be more. So when you look at the context of how they’re going to be hit, having been whacked badly over the last four years, this is going to be very hurtful.

Now, the rebate is going to help a little bit. If it was you, member from Algoma–Manitoulin, who moved this motion and helped to craft this bill, God bless you. You’re going to help a few people; you’re right. So we have to thank you, I suppose. But we can’t thank the government for whacking the whole of the province, and especially whacking northerners, with a huge bill.

What you’re saying is, which you didn’t admit to, “It’s going to be a big bill. We are going to help a little bit. Yes, we’re whacking you. We don’t mean to, but we are. We recognize we’re going to whack you badly, and so we’re going to minimize the whack a little bit. We hope that northerners will appreciate the fact that some of us recognize the tremendous losses, tremendous hurt, tremendous pain of unemployment, and we’re going to help you a little bit.”

So thanks, Mike, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, for helping to the extent that you were able to.

Our problem is that the devastation is huge, and it’s getting harder and harder to deal with.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: So what’s your plan?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What’s my plan? My plan is to attack your lack of a plan. My plan is to attack you when you stand up with a nice smile, with you and the other members saying, “We’re cutting income taxes, and 93% of you are getting an income tax cut,” and you all smile from corner to corner. You whack them and then you say, “But we’re going to reduce income taxes.” Then you say, “We have a huge $20-billion deficit, but we’re going to”—with a smile—“cut income taxes; isn’t that great?

I remember when you guys were in opposition with the Tories, You used to say to the former Premier, who was a New Democrat, now turned Liberal, “You don’t have a revenue problem. You’ve got a spending problem” You guys used to say that, along with the Tories. All of a sudden, you’re in government and you say, “We have a globalized recession. We can’t help ourselves.” But when Bob Rae faced the free trade agreements that whacked Ontario badly, you used to say, “No, Bob. This is your problem, Bob. You caused this.” Now the Liberals are saying, “Oh no, we didn’t cause this. It’s the world that caused this.” I love to see those contradictions.

People in the north are hurting. People all over Ontario are hurting, and they’re hurting bad. The harmonized sales tax is going to whack them, and whack them bad. This is not going to be helpful. Your desire to cut progressive income taxes is a bad thing, not a positive thing. You are hurting this province in ways that you don’t understand, and then you stand up and say, “Well, what’s your plan?” Give me your cabinet seat, and we’ll discuss it. Move yourself away, step aside and we’ll discuss what we’re going to do. In the meantime, your lack of a plan is hurting and whacking Ontarians, and whacking them badly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The debate time for this bill has expired.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 10, 2010, I’m now required to put the question.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 44,

An Act to implement the Northern Ontario energy credit. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion

Third reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Orders of the day?

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): There being no further business for this morning, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1006 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I beg your indulgence: This is more like a message for Lars Moffatt, who is the page from Algoma–Manitoulin who turned 14 yesterday. His classmates and teachers at Arthur Henderson Public School would like to send him birthday greetings from the Hawk’s Nest, which is the nickname of their classroom, and wish him all the best.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I would like to welcome a delegation coming from China who represent the company Singyes Solar. They’re coming to Ontario to study our energy system here in this province and, also, a possible investment in the London area and possibly somewhere else in Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to introduce in the west members’ gallery Kevin Gaudet from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Most people here have heard of the Red Hat Society ladies. We have a group here today from Simcoe North: Marlene Heltcher, Margaret McBain, Della Durnan, Angie Pittman, Helja Adelson and Kathy Rainford. They’re known as the Decadent Dames of Lagoon City. They are over here in the members’ gallery. And just because they have red hats on doesn’t mean they’re Liberals.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would like to introduce to the Legislature Amanda Singh, who has joined our office at the ministry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce Jaafar Oleichie, who is the cousin of our page Jacob Alaichi. He’s here today, I understand, so we would like to welcome him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Ottawa–Vanier and page Caroline Robertson, to welcome her father, Hugh Robertson, to the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of the leader of the official opposition and member for Niagara West–Glanbrook, I’d like to welcome the grade 9 class from Heritage Christian School who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Monday, May 17, the third party House leader, the member for Welland, Mr. Kormos, raised a point of privilege concerning reports in the press about the recruitment process for the position of Ombudsman of Ontario. The member alleges that the leaks to the press of information about this confidential process constitute a contempt of the Legislature, and furthermore that published statements allegedly made about the current Ombudsman of Ontario are libellous and slanderous. The House leader for the official opposition, Mr. Yakabuski, and the government House leader, Ms. Smith, also spoke to the point of privilege.

An important fact in this matter is that the parent acts of the various officers of the Legislature are silent with respect to the method of recruiting officers. The officers are all appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on address of the assembly, but what is not spelled out is the process for the assembly itself to originate such an address. Therefore, in strictly procedural terms, the address is proposed with notice as a substantive government motion and, upon passage by the assembly, the Lieutenant Governor, on advice of cabinet, is in a position to effect the appointment of the parliamentary officer in a manner consistent with the stated wishes of the Legislative Assembly.

Over time, ways have been found to involve members of this House in the recruitment of various parliamentary officers, and within the last 10 years or so it has been the case that the Speaker has been called upon, through what one might call “the usual channels,” to compose a panel of three members, one from each recognized party, and chaired by the Speaker, to perform this task. This informal approach was again put to use on several very recent occasions to deal with pending vacancies in the positions of the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner and the Environmental Commissioner.

I consider it important to recount the general circumstances surrounding these recruitment panels because it confirms that, although a process of some long standing, it is an informal process that comes into being through the negotiations and the co-operation of the parties in this House. Its purpose is to involve the House in the selection of its own officers, to the extent possible, with the intent that the selection panel is able to recommend a candidate for appointment.

The member for Welland in his submissions likened this panel to a legislative committee, and asserted that the breach of confidentiality that he alleges has occurred is subject to the same potential remedies that would be in play in the case of, say, a prematurely released report of a committee of this House. The question for the Speaker, then, is, does this hiring panel have the same status of a committee of this Legislature?

No motion or other formal action of this assembly gave life to the panel. It had no independent authority, as a House-appointed legislative committee would have had, such as those conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act or the standing orders. It was an ad hoc panel of the members of the Legislative Assembly, but it was not a committee of the Legislative Assembly. The difference is substantive. A parliamentary committee is a creature of this House, subservient to the instructions of this House, and able to report only to this House.

An unauthorized or premature release of a committee report or in camera proceedings has indeed been found on certain occasions in this Legislature and in others to be a prima facie breach of the privileges of this Legislature.

The status of this panel was informal. While it engaged itself in an important advisory role to the guiding minds and leadership of the House, it was not answerable or accountable to the House per se. Indeed, it might be likened to the parliamentary caucuses or the House leaders’ group, each of which consists of members of the House and meets regularly to discuss matters of parliamentary business. These are not direct creations of the House, though, and are not subject to the conventions of parliamentary privilege, as a parliamentary committee indisputably is.

Unlike a committee of the House, whose existence and scope of activity is conferred only by the House, no such restrictions attach to the informal bodies I have just mentioned.

That is not to say, however, that the hiring panel’s deliberations should have been subject to any less rigorous an observance of confidentiality than should a fully fledged legislative committee. As chair of the panel, I can assure everyone that the existence of press coverage about the panel’s activities, regardless of its level of accuracy, is extremely distressing and disappointing.

The panel as a whole had a valid expectation that the confidentiality of its proceedings, discussions and decisions were to be held in confidence. Each member of the panel was justifiably entitled to a similar expectation and had a coexistent and mutual obligation to ensure it. This is not so because of the status of the panel, whether it be a parliamentary body or not, but because of the nature of the panel’s work: a human resources assignment.

From a normative point of view, in this case, privilege is beside the point. Nevertheless, what is before us is a matter of privilege. For the reasons already cited, though, I cannot find that a prima facie case has been made out.

Finally, the member for Welland essentially framed his point of privilege within the larger question of contempt and whether a matter of libel or slander is at play in this issue. As I’m sure the member can appreciate, allegations of libel are only that, and it is certainly not to the Speaker to adjudicate them.

It is, however, possible to imagine that an attack or obstruction of a parliamentary officer could give rise to a finding of contempt, in the proper scenario. The member for Welland has furnished the Speaker with numerous press reports to support his point. However, press reports are just that: reported—and sometimes paraphrased—commentary. They do not rise to the level of proved libel, and in the absence of a report or plea made to this House from one of its officers that such an occurrence has interfered with the performance of his or her duties, I cannot find that a prima facie case of contempt has been made.

I want to read a paragraph again, though, because I think it is important for all members: “That is not to say, however, that the hiring panel’s deliberations should have been subject to any less rigorous an observance of confidentiality than should a fully fledged legislative committee. As chair of the panel, I can assure everyone that the existence of press coverage about the panel’s activities, regardless of its level of accuracy, is extremely distressing and disappointing.”

I want to thank the member for Welland, the official opposition House leader and the government House leader for their submissions on the matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Acting Premier: Can the Acting Premier tell us how much revenue on gasoline and diesel the McGuinty Liberals will collect from the Premier’s new HST tax?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have detailed, in great detail, the fact that, overall, Ontarians will pay less tax. They will pay less tax because—the member opposite does not want to acknowledge the substantial cuts in personal taxes, the substantial cuts in business taxes, the substantial cuts through the sales tax credit and the substantial increase in the Ontario child benefit.

The member will also see outlined, both in last year’s budget and this year’s budget, details with respect to our projection on revenues received from the HST as compared to the PST.

Those are thorough, they’re full and they explain to Ontario the importance of creating 600,000 net new jobs over the next 10 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Since the Minister of Finance doesn’t seem to have the answer, Mr. Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation does, and he’s here with us today. Just minutes ago, the CTF released its 12th annual gas tax honesty report. Assessing HST on gasoline prices that hover at about a dollar per litre, the report concludes: “For the government it works out to a minimum of $1.6 billion in extra revenue....”

Based on that information, can the finance minister tell us what the impact of the HST burden will be on the average family in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I reject the work as being partisan and don’t accept either the underpinnings of it or its conclusions. Instead of Mr. Gaudet, I prefer to rely on the TD Bank econometrics, I prefer to rely on the Conference Board of Canada, on the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives—honest, unbiased and unvarnished opinions that recognize that overall, this tax package will create some 600,000 net new jobs over the next 10 years. It will identify another $47 billion in capital—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I recognize that it is a long weekend and a constituency week coming up. I would be very happy to facilitate an early departure for anyone.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: The attempt by the finance minister to characterize the work of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as partisan will be seen for what it is by the average Ontario family.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that a family driving a mid-sized car will pay an average of $246 a year more for the HST. Families in the GTA, rural Ontario and the north can expect the HST for fuel to cost them as much as $400 more. In addition, the province of Ontario, as the minister will know, has a huge fleet of vehicles, and every dollar of additional HST on that fleet comes out of where? The average family’s payment of their taxes and HST.

I ask the minister once again: How much more is this government prepared to take out of the pockets of hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me re-emphasize: I reject categorically that assertion by the member opposite and by the source he quoted. I prefer to rely on the good work of Mike Harris and Preston Manning with respect to this tax package. I prefer to rely on the support we had from Jim Flaherty, from Lois Brown, from Larry Miller, from Mike Wallace—from all of the federal Conservatives who I think have actually read and taken a balanced look at this issue.

This is absolutely the right policy for a stronger future for Ontario. Most Ontarians will see their taxes come down. Most Ontarians will recognize that our future will be better and bigger and stronger if we stand firm and do everything we can to create those 600,000 net new jobs.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Acting Premier. Why did the Premier sign the taxpayer protection pledge in 2003 and, in doing so, promise not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What I can say is that we committed to invest in health care, education and those services that the people of Ontario told us they valued the most—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I gave you the answer, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You did not ask the question; your colleague did.

Acting Premier?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I was just reiterating our commitments and priorities as government, and that is to invest in the services the people of Ontario said they valued the most.

When we were first elected to government—the members on the other side of the House don’t like to admit this—we inherited a deficit, something that was hidden from the people of Ontario and something that we were forced to deal with. Also, as we have been in government, we have been hit with the single most significant economic event—the recession. It has been global and it has required that, as a government, we look at how we can—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Actually, the Premier signed the taxpayer protection pledge at least twice, in 1999 and 2003. Since signing an oath that he wouldn’t raise taxes unless he had the consent of the people, the Premier has created the health tax, what amounts to a backdoor energy tax, taxes on electronics, plastic bags and now the HST. Voters of Toronto were not asked for consent to increase taxes for property transfers, vehicle registration and waste removal that the Premier knew he was enabling.

The Premier had a choice before he put his promise in writing in 2003. Why did he promise Ontario voters in writing that he would not raise taxes without their consent and then repeatedly do exactly that?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have this opportunity to remind the members opposite that what we have done in our most recent budget is deliver the single largest tax cut for the people of Ontario. We have reduced corporate taxes. We have reduced business taxes. We have eliminated the small business surtax. We have reduced personal income tax: 93% of Ontarians will receive a tax cut.

The people of Ontario understand that we have established a balance here. We will continue to invest in health care, in education and in those services that are most important to them. At the same time, we are delivering tax cuts to those who need them the most. We are stimulating our economy by providing tax cuts to our businesses and to corporations so that our economy will be sustainable going forward, that we will be able—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: In the coffee shops of Ontario, politicians who make election promises that they have no intention of keeping are called a word I’m not permitted to say in this House, but it begins with the same letter as Liberal.

The Premier’s track record fuels a cynicism that led the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to say in its report, “The only thing that should surprise Ontarians (about Dalton McGuinty) is if he doesn’t surprise them with new taxes after every election.”

The next time the Premier offers his solemn pledge to the people of Ontario on taxes, who on earth is going to believe him?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What our Premier and our government—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just can’t help but think of an interesting video I watched last night with a line that I use that says, “Take it outside.”

Acting Premier?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: What people in the coffee shop remember is when the party on the other side was in government, when they said they weren’t going to close hospitals, and they did; when they said they had balanced the books, and they hadn’t. At the same time, in the face of all of that, they decimated those services that the people of Ontario valued the most.

Since we’ve come to government, we have invested in those services that the people of Ontario say that they value. We have hired nurses. We have hired teachers. We’ve hired doctors. We’ve hired water inspectors. We all know what happened when water inspectors were fired out the door. We’ve hired meat inspectors. When we came to government, there were 10 meat inspectors in the province of Ontario; now there are over 130. Those are the kinds of investments that the people in the coffee shop are interested in. That’s what we’ve—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker’s almost at the point—although I don’t have a family, I understand that if a baby cries a lot, you just let the baby cry itself out, and it will fall asleep. Perhaps for members of all sides of the House, we’ll try something a little different today, and you’ll talk yourselves out, talk yourselves all into silence.

New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. This coming May long weekend is the last one that’s going to be HST-free. Come July 1, there will be no place like this. It will cost more to go for a weekend drive or take the kids camping.

Why is the McGuinty government making it 8% more expensive to discover Ontario?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Why did the NDP vote against a plan that would create 600,000 jobs in the province of Ontario? Why did the NDP vote against a plan that will attract $47 billion worth of new investment to this province? Why did the NDP vote against the HST rebate, designed to provide some $260 a year tax free to the people in this province who need the most help? Why did they vote against doubling the seniors’ property tax grant from $250 to $500?

I understand why they maybe didn’t agree with us in regard to the Conservatives, but I can’t understand why they would vote against tax cuts for the people in this province who need the most help. Really, that’s the question that we have. All of us on this side of the aisle ask: Why are you against 600,000 jobs? Why are you against new investment? We—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government is making long-weekend family outings more expensive. After July 1, taking the train to catch a show in Niagara-on-the-Lake is going to cost 8% more. The show itself, not to mention the accommodation for a night’s stay, will be more expensive too. So will taking the kids swimming.

What advice does the Acting Premier have for families this coming long weekend? Should they enjoy it while they can still afford it?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I know that we have been encouraging the good people of Ontario to go to a website; over two million people have gone to that website. It is ontario.ca/taxchange. You can find out about the benefits of our tax reform package. This is the type of thing that people are looking at. I was asked recently: “Why is there a different reaction here in Ontario than in British Columbia?” I’ve told people that our single sales tax is part of a larger tax reform package, a package designed to get people back to work.

I remember when the NDP used to think that we should have full employment in this province. On this side of the House, we’re doing something about it. We’re making sure that there are more jobs in the province of Ontario. We’ll do what is required as a government to ensure that we have strong economic growth. Maybe on that side of the House you don’t understand that Ontario is leading Canada and Canada is leading the world when it comes to economic growth. That’s—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: From enjoying a round of golf to a night at the theatre, from a visit to a fishing lodge to camping in a provincial park, the weekend adventure is about to get 8% more expensive. Yes, there’s no other place like Ontario for great thrills this summer, but how is the McGuinty government’s new 8% tax on just about all the thrills going to make things better for Ontario families?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The people of Ontario can’t enjoy the wonderful attractions in this province if they don’t have a job. This is all about making sure that we have people working in the province of Ontario. I can’t believe that a party that has always promoted the value of workers voted against a policy that will result in 600,000 net new jobs in the province of Ontario. Surely, they’ve lost their way over there when it comes to the importance and the dignity of a job.

I know that you’re purporting to represent the people on the golf course and at the fishing lodges. But on this side of the House we are focused on making sure that people have a job in the 21st century. That’s what our children and our grandchildren are expecting, and we will do what is required: working in partnership with the Conservative government in Ottawa to make sure that we have a strong Ontario, a requirement for an even stronger Canada.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is as well to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the unelected Metrolinx board approved a gutted Transit City plan, a plan that will delay long-awaited transit expansion for people in Toronto neighbourhoods like Rexdale, Malvern and Jane-Finch, a plan that will shorten promised transit lines by 22 kilometres and 25 stops, a plan that seriously puts into doubt the future of the whole Transit City plan. Was yesterday’s announcement supposed to be good news for long-suffering Toronto transit users?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday’s announcement absolutely was good news for transit riders in Toronto. Yesterday’s announcement commits to a plan that, instead of being completed over eight years, will be completed over 10 years, which is a pretty reasonable delay, given our economic situation. Yesterday’s announcement put forward a plan that will start working on all of those projects. Yes, there will be some delays, but there will be work done on all five projects starting immediately. Yesterday’s announcement reinforces our commitment to public transit in the GTHA.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The decision to cut this program, to cut the Transit City plan—and that’s exactly what it is; it’s a cut—rests at the feet of the McGuinty government. Toronto Mayor David Miller said it clearly: “This isn’t [Metrolinx’s] decision. It’s the Premier’s decision.”

The Premier made a promise before the 2007 election that he would build MoveOntario 2020. He supported Transit City plans in 2008 to great fanfare. He has now broken both of these promises, but he still wants Toronto voters to trust him. Why the heck should they?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think people in Toronto understand that following through on a $9.5-billion investment over 10 years, beginning the work right away, following through on a commitment to move on a regional build that is the biggest in a generation—I think that it is strange, actually, that the mayor can’t see that this is part of his legacy. This is part of the work that he has done. He has worked with us up until now; it would be wonderful for him to work with us going forward.

I think that people understand that to get started on this work right away, they will have a better transit system for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is no doubt that the recession has been harsh and that the provincial deficit is real, but how is slashing public transit funding the best way to stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit? This government refuses to discuss the true cost of its decision. From slowing economic growth to polluting the environment, this is a wrong-headed decision that will cost much, much more in the long run. Why won’t the McGuinty government realize its mistake and immediately reinstate the $4 billion that has been cut from public transit in Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There has been no cut to the transit projects in the city of Toronto or in York region; there has been a delay. That’s a commitment of $9.5 billion, and yes, we’re spreading that investment over a longer period of time.

But let’s talk about the other investments that we’re making in the city of Toronto. Let’s talk about the $172 million to revitalize Union Station; let’s talk about the $416 million that’s going towards replacing TTC streetcars; let’s talk about the $874 million that is going into the Pearson-Union air-rail link; and let’s talk about the fact that this is the party that has opposed that investment, that has opposed that work every step of the way. I am extremely proud to be part of a government that is making the biggest investment in public transit in a generation in the GTHA—

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

I remind the member from Hamilton East that it’s much preferable, if he is going to interject, that he be doing it from his seat.

New question.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Acting Premier. It concerns an abuse of trust in this House on three separate occasions in the last few weeks. First, the government House leader disclosed confidential details about an in camera process to the media. The Liberals seated behind her know that the late night sittings are because she tried to push too many bills through this House before the summer, begged the opposition to help her fix up her mess and then backtracked on the deal when the Premier didn’t like our HST motion.

Then, the government House leader tried to blame the OPP for blocking the Ontario PCs on budget day, but yesterday, under oath, Nicolaas Cliteur, the OPP sergeant in charge of lock-up security, repudiated everything she said.

Ordinarily, it’s three strikes and you’re out. Why does the Premier still back his minister?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On two issues you raised in your question, I’m quite comfortable having those put.

The last part of your question pertains to an issue based on a ruling of the Speaker that was referred to a committee for investigation, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to have two parallel discussions taking place. I’m going to allow the question to be put, but will not allow in your supplementary anything dealing with the investigation stemming from my ruling.

Acting Premier?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think that it’s important—for the folks who would perhaps be watching these proceedings, it may not be clear how we operate in this Legislative Assembly.

The House leaders do very good work on behalf of our respective caucuses. There certainly is an expectation that on every issue the goal is to ensure that the business of the province of Ontario is accomplished in a timely way. We know that the House leaders of all three parties have that goal in focus.

It does happen from time to time, however, that there is a parting of the ways in terms of how members of the opposition and our House leader may think the business should unfold in this place. We respect the consensus process that we have in this place. There certainly is and has been a great deal of respect among House leaders, and—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The three examples that I raised are really to illustrate our concern on this side of the House about the process not being followed. We thought we had an agreement in principle with respect to matters proceeding through this House, which was reneged upon with respect to—

Interjections.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: With respect to the government House leader, we thought we had a deal.

So my question is, how are we going to be proceeding in the future and can we rely on the word being given, when a deal is made, that will actually be followed through?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: For those who would be in this assembly today, it’s obvious that the member from the opposition has presented a statement around a supposed agreement, and I think there’s a disagreement on whether or not there was an agreement.

At the end of the day, what the House leaders focus on is ensuring that we accomplish as much business on behalf of the people of Ontario as we possibly can, and we try to get that done with a consensus.

I think it’s important for the people of Ontario to understand that as a result of the consensus that has been in place we have been able to pass our budget that would deliver tax—I’m sorry—that we have passed tax cuts for 93% of the people in the province of Ontario. That is our goal: to ensure that the work of this assembly carries on. There are some times that—

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

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Ontarians feel a very strong connection to Queen’s Park and this Legislative Building. They see this place as a reflection of democracy and a place that belongs to all of them. So why has the McGuinty government stood quietly by while the OMB approved a super high-rise condo development on Bloor Street, which will cast an ugly blight over the view of this historic Legislature?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Yes, that will go to the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. Our government is committed to protect heritage and heritage sites across the province. Speaker, let me read a statement here, through you, to the honourable member: “The primary Legislative Building is a listed property and is not an Ontario Heritage Act-designated property. It is listed on the register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest maintained by Toronto, pursuant to

section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act....”

Since 2005 we have strengthened the Ontario Heritage Act and we believe the best decision will be local government’s, which is the municipal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last fall, the NDP urged the Ministers of Culture and of Municipal Affairs to take some action on this very serious issue. While the Speaker’s office and individual members spoke out against the development, the McGuinty government refused—refused—to even participate in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. New Democrats are prepared, at this moment, to support legislation to protect the view and heritage of Ontario’s Legislature. We all know that a heritage building includes the views and the vistas of any said property.

What we’re prepared to do includes supporting legislation, consenting to legislation that would have swift passage in this Legislature, if the government is prepared to bring such a bill forward.

My question is simple: Is the McGuinty government prepared, finally, to do the right thing and—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. We believe the municipality is in the best position to make decisions about local heritage sites. Let me repeat: This is why in 2005 we strengthened the Ontario Heritage Act, to hand these municipalities the tools they need to protect heritage sites in their community. We believe this is the best decision and this is why we strengthened the act in 2005.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Ontarians know better than anybody how precious clean, safe drinking water is to our families and to our communities. They rely on your ministry, municipalities and their local public health units to ensure that water is protected and that swift actions are taken if there’s even the slightest cause of concern.

On Tuesday, when speaking about our proposed Water Opportunities Act, the leader of the third party raised the alarm about the quality of drinking water in four Ontario communities: Blind River, White River, Chatham and Wallaceburg. Would the minister tell the residents of these communities whether they need to be worried about their drinking water?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I appreciate the question from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. In fact, none of the communities that were mentioned by the leader of the third party currently have a boil-water advisory in place. All advisories associated with the four systems have been resolved and were of a short-term nature due to low exceedences or water main breaks. The only exception is Blind River, which was requiring treatment upgrades that were completed back in 2007. The drinking water advisory remained in place into 2009, until the system could provide proof that the annual average of THMs were under the Ontario drinking water quality standard.

We want to be clear to the residents of these four communities that they have an abundance of caution in our system and that their water is safe to drink.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Being the member who represents White River and Blind River, I want to tell you that the province of Ontario, as you know, has provided huge capital expenditures on both those water systems to bring them up to standard. I know the residents of these communities can be assured that their drinking water is safe, that the boil-water advisories were issued in an abundance of caution and that they were lifted as soon as it was confirmed that everything was safe.

Currently, we are marking the 10th anniversary of Walkerton, a tragic reminder of how sacred clean drinking water is. The Walkerton water tragedy sparked a massive transformation in how drinking water is protected in Ontario. Ontario went from a time when critical information was falling through the cracks in the system to being ranked as the best province in Canada for drinking water protection.

How does Ontario’s drinking water safety net protect Ontario families?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Once again, thank you to the member. First of all, we’ve implemented all of Justice O’Connor’s recommendations from the Walkerton inquiry. As a matter of fact, we’ve taken the following actions: drinking water standards and tough inspections by hiring 119 dedicated drinking water inspectors that did not exist at the time that the Walkerton tragedy happened; standards are met across this province in well over 99% of all the tests that are conducted on an ongoing basis; the Clean Water Act, protecting the sources of our drinking water; and the water protection committees are at work right now to make sure that plans are in place to make that happen in the very near future.

We have implemented the toughest training and certification rules in North America for operators of our drinking water systems. We’ve created the Walkerton Clean Water Centre, which so far has done more than 23,000 new and existing—

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

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Acting Premier. Ontario has a long history as a leader in science and technology and your government likes to claim some of the credit for that. Ontario is home to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a world leader in the nuclear industry. Ontario’s nuclear industry provides 50,000 highly skilled, highly paid jobs.

Acting Premier, why is your government so silent on the history of AECL and Ontario’s nuclear industry?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I really welcome this question, because I want to tell you that it’s time for this country to get a federal government in place that’s willing to stand behind the nuclear industry in this country. This province is investing billions of dollars in a refurbishment of our nuclear units. This province is engaged in a procurement process to purchase two new nuclear units.

We need our federal government, like national governments around the world, to stand behind the nuclear industry. You need to put in a call to Stephen Harper to tell him how important the 70,000 jobs in the nuclear industry are to us here in Ontario and to every Canadian.

This government stands behind the nuclear industry. It’s time for the federal government to provide some backstop to this very critical industry in this country.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: What a load. Acting Premier, your government’s lack of leadership and on-again, off-again decision on new-build nuclear at Darlington has contributed complete uncertainty—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That has contributed uncertainty around the future of AECL. Your Premier, who wanted to play Pontius Pilate in the André Marin affair, can’t wash his hands of this one. The nuclear industry in Canada is Ontario’s nuclear industry, and Ontario needs new-build nuclear and AECL is prepared to deliver.

Minister, what is your government going to do to support this important industry that adds $6 billion per year to Ontario’s economy? Ontario’s nuclear industry is Canada’s nuclear industry. What are you doing to show leadership?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This government stands with the men and women who work across Ontario and across Canada in the nuclear industry. Some 70,000 jobs are at stake here. We need you to stand up to the federal government, to tell them they ought to make the same commitment that we’re providing to those 70,000 men and women in this industry. We’re standing behind that industry. We’re investing billions of dollars in refurbishment. We’re purchasing two new nuclear units, but it can’t be done without the backing of the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Were they on sale at Future Shop?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew, I know, understands the standing orders: (

a) He should be listening to the answer, and (

b) if he is dissatisfied with the answer, he should be filing a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Every country around the world that has a nuclear industry has the backing of their national government. It’s what is required to make these things happen: to ensure that there’s a competitive price; to ensure that the challenges that come with these transactions can be mitigated. All we’re asking is for our federal government to do what has been done in the past, to do what other—

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

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. This minister, this government and seniors’ organizations know that sprinklers should be mandatory in every retirement home. Groups at committee hearings spoke of the need for sprinklers; the fire marshal, the fire chiefs, advocacy groups, the coroner, even insurance companies call for mandatory sprinkler systems in every retirement home. Just because the retirement home closest to your family was built before 1998 shouldn’t mean that your mother or father should be put at risk.

In the face of mounting evidence and support for mandatory sprinkler systems, why are the McGuinty Liberals refusing to make all seniors’ safety a priority?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: The safety of our seniors is a high priority for us. That’s why, for the first time in the history of the province, we have legislation before the House to regulate retirement homes. Part of that legislation is to set safety standards—care standards and safety standards. The member will know that part of the legislation is that, if passed, we then begin discussion on the establishment of those safety standards. My colleague the minister responsible for the fire code has indicated that no door has been closed on that.

So I would say to the member, if the legislation is passed, part of that will be to establish safety standards. It’s all about making our seniors safer. That’s what this legislation is all about, and there’s a logical next step in that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary, the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Bill 21 does not afford safety to seniors; it fails seniors. All the stakeholders will agree that the failure to limit the amount of care that can be delivered in a retirement home puts seniors at risk. The regulatory authority that you want to create hands over oversight of the industry that will put profits ahead of all else. I have been waiting for three years to get this piece of legislation. Why all of a sudden is the government in such a rush, willing to compromise the democratic process to rush this flawed, dangerous bill through?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: It’s not flawed and it’s not being rushed through. I would just remind the public that four years ago we said we would do this; three years ago we had consultations across the province. We indicated we’d be introducing legislation; we introduced legislation to the House. I will say that all three parties voted for the legislation at second reading. We then sent it to committee. The committee sat for two days at hearings, but only used one day but it accommodated everybody who wanted to speak. I reject somewhat categorically that we’re rushing this through.

Four years of work; we introduced the bill several months ago; both opposition parties voted for the bill. We sent it to committee and everybody who wanted to come and be heard was allowed to come and be heard. The advice I get is that it’s time to—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. My riding of Toronto Centre is at the heart of downtown Toronto. Many of my constituents prefer to hop on the streetcar, subway or bus to get around the city than to take their cars and sit in gridlock. I’ve heard from some of my constituents that they would like to see a more modern, comprehensive transit system that could easily take them to all parts of the city. The delay in funding of the big five transit projects, as announced in the 2010 budget, has made many of my constituents wonder whether these projects are at risk.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member for Toronto Centre is very committed to public transit, and I know he’ll want to reassure his constituents that Metrolinx has worked very hard with our municipal partners both in York and in Toronto to get a plan in place that’s rational and doable and that will allow the big five transit projects to be completed while slowing down the cash flow of $4 billion in the first five years. That report was presented at the Metrolinx board yesterday. It was endorsed unanimously. We’re reviewing it, and I look forward to getting started on these projects.

The plan recommends that we continue working on the Sheppard line immediately, we begin immediately on Eglinton and York Viva and we start to do planning and design work on Finch and Sheppard, and finish those in the 2015-20 period.

This is a $9.5-billion investment. I was at the Canadian Urban Transit Association yesterday—

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

Mr. Glen R. Murray: I know my constituents will be pleased to hear that Metrolinx has a plan to move forward and get these important projects constructed.

Minister, Metrolinx has said that the Finch and Scarborough lines are going to be staged and construction will begin in 2015. The delay in their construction has been interpreted by some as a lack of commitment on the government’s part to these two lines. The Scarborough Rapid Transit and Finch LRT are critical to help connect from those areas to the downtown and other parts of the city.

Could the minister please provide us with more details as to the government’s commitment to these two projects?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said earlier, we’re committed to all five of these projects in the next 10 years. Metrolinx is going to, in fact, be doing important work on the Finch and Scarborough lines in the first five years. What they will be doing is some design work, engineering, property acquisition and, in fact, will allocate $70 million for the Finch line and $100 million for the Scarborough line in the first five years. That work will be going ahead.

We’re also going to be ordering the light rail vehicles for all four LRT lines, including Finch, in the coming months. Those are very concrete examples of the go-ahead. Metrolinx will be starting construction of the joint Sheppard-Scarborough carhouse.

I wanted to say that I was in Ottawa yesterday at the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Transit officials from across the country were looking to us, were talking about what’s going on in Ontario, and they know that—

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

CEMETERIES

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. It concerns the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries. A number of concerned Toronto residents made a submission to the Premier, the Attorney General and to your ministry with concerns about the administration of this body. On December 4, 2009, your ministry promised to consider their submission and to respond early in the new year. More than five months have passed without a response. Please tell me when these Toronto residents will receive a response?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’m glad to respond to the member regarding the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries. First, let me just say that I understand that the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries is working to strengthen its community outreach to better inform residents, including publishing a report of their annual activities on their website, which is a great thing.

In terms of governance, I am advised that the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries will commence advertising board openings as they arise.

Thirdly, I encourage both the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries and the Moore Park Residents’ Association to work together to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I just want to clarify that the member for Durham asked your predecessor about this important issue last September, and at that time he asked about what measures the ministry was taking to increase transparency and public accountability. Today, though, Minister, what we’re asking is when you are going to provide a response to the request that was made several months ago.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Again, I thank the member for the question. Yes, we are looking at that. But again, let me just say that I do encourage both the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries and the Moore Park Residents’ Association to work together to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

TAXATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. I have here over 3,000 signed cards from First Nations citizens in northwestern Ontario demanding that the McGuinty Liberal government maintain the First Nations’ point-of-sale exemption from the harmonized sales tax.

When the McGuinty Liberals announced, with much fanfare, the HST, you also announced a number of HST exemptions. Later, when you faced political criticism of the HST, the McGuinty Liberals suddenly and unilaterally decided to exempt newspapers, the Tim Hortons $4 lunch and new homes costing under $400,000 from the HST.

What these First Nations citizens want to know is this: The McGuinty Liberals had time to consider and implement exemptions from the HST; how could you forget about the point-of-sale exemption for—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I’ve said to the House before, and as people throughout the province of Ontario know, my colleague Minister Wilkinson and I have confirmed the direction of the Premier. We stand shoulder to shoulder with First Nations. We have told the federal government that we wish to maintain the point-of-sale exemption for First Nations in the province of Ontario. The memorandum of agreement confirms many, many months of work. The Premier’s letter, the Minister of Finance, my colleague Minister Wilkinson, myself and my predecessor are all confirming, and we are calling on Prime Minister Harper and the federal government to continue the point-of-sale exemption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I hear the words of the minister, but here is the reality: You, the McGuinty government, have the unilateral authority to decide what shall be exempted from the HST and what isn’t. Economists who have looked at your agreement over the HST have concluded that you have the financial room to continue the HST exemption at point of sale for First Nations and you have the unilateral authority.

Again, what these First Nations citizens want to know is this: How could you put in place HST exemptions for buyers of new homes, book purchasers, newspaper readers and coffee shop patrons but, at the same time, completely forget about the point-of-sale exemption from the HST for First Nations?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: There’s the issue: On all of the exemptions my colleague touched on, the federal government has agreed. The federal government administers the HST. They must agree to administer this point-of-sale exemption. That’s why we’ve been working with the regional chief, with the grand chiefs, with the chiefs in communities. We stand shoulder to shoulder. We’ve signed the memorandum of agreement. We are calling on the Prime Minister to maintain the point-of-sale exemption.

I would simply add that there was much heckling from the official opposition during the course of my earlier answer. I’m looking forward to seeing the letters from them that call on Prime Minister Harper to maintain the point-of-sale exemption for First Nations.

HEPATITIS C

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, as you know, yesterday was World Hepatitis Day. In particular, hepatitis C may be considered a very serious virus in that there is no vaccine for it. Hepatitis C is currently the leading cause of chronic liver disease, cirrhosis and liver cancer within the province of Ontario. One in five people with hepatitis C will suffer severe liver damage as a result of the virus.

My constituents recognize the importance of addressing serious illnesses such as hepatitis C. Could the minister please inform this House of our government’s progress in dealing with this debilitating disease?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for her question.

I want to tell you that our government is strongly committed to fighting hepatitis C. Shortly after taking office, we established the Ontario Hepatitis C Secretariat and the Ontario hepatitis C task force. I want to thank the chair of the task force, John Plater, and the entire team for their exceptional work that has guided our strategy to prevent and treat Ontarians with hepatitis C.

In 2005, we launched a sweeping campaign designed to raise awareness through television and newspaper ads, over 100 prevention and educational materials and a website, hepcontario.ca. We’ve invested in the Ontario hepatitis nursing program to provide nursing support for physicians. There are currently 13 hepatitis support nurses in 11 sites across Ontario—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m certainly proud that our government is taking a concerted approach to preventing and treating hepatitis C and I’m sure that my constituents will be pleased to hear this as well.

Last year, we received the Hepatitis C Task Force’s recommendations for addressing the concerns of hepatitis C. I understand that their report has served as the foundation for our comprehensive hepatitis C strategy. In light of World Hepatitis Day, could the minister please inform this House of our government’s strategy for hepatitis prevention and treatment moving forward?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about our government’s plans to build a stronger, healthier Ontario. We offer children in elementary school immunizations at no cost to provide protection against hepatitis B and other diseases. This saves each family $580 for that vaccine alone in addition to the $1,000 that is saved by families on our other vaccines offered to Ontario’s children at no cost to them.

When it comes to hepatitis C, we’re establishing hepatitis support teams to bring a coordinated, comprehensive approach to helping people affected with hepatitis C through a social outreach program. We’re encouraging prevention through a harm reduction approach, which evidence suggests is one of the most effective ways to reduce infections.

I’m proud of the program—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Health. I recently received a letter from a constituent who needs frequent blood tests to control a serious health condition. Before you got into power and started bleeding the system dry, these blood tests were done efficiently by a local clinic just a 20-minute walk away. She got the results right away and got the medication the same day. These days, her local clinic doesn’t offer this service. She has to drive over an hour to Kingston General Hospital.

Minister, was it worth destroying this woman’s local care so that you could set up your friends in a LHIN and add a new layer of wasteful bureaucracy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On the issue of lab tests, I will be happy to speak to that more in the supplementary.

Your attacks on the LHINs continue despite the fact that we know and people in this province know that the integration of health care services is a key part of our strategy to improve health care in this province. In the past, we have had siloed services when it came to health care. Knitting those services together so that people can access the right kinds of health support at the right time, as close to home as possible, is the future of health care in this province.

The party opposite wants to go back to a system where all of the decisions were made in the minister’s office in the Ministry of Health. That is not the right place for decisions to be made. The closer to the community decisions—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, you talk about your LHINs as if they’re helping people get local care and providing integration. Instead of performing blood tests, our health care system is just plain bleeding. Blood test requisitions from family doctors are no longer accepted at the hospital, so so much for your integration.

Let’s face the facts: Since taking over this office, you’ve waged a war against rural health care providers. First, you snuffed out local clinics, adding layers of wasteful LHIN bureaucracy; now you’re going to decimate small, rural pharmacies, which provide much of Ontario’s front-line care.

In a document prepared by your office, you were warned that your reforms were going to hurt pharmacists. Why are you so adamant in your attack against good health care in rural Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would welcome the opportunity to talk with the member opposite when we have more time so I could tell him about the great things we’re doing for rural health care in this province. We have opened family health teams in rural communities right across this province. We’re on our way to opening nurse practitioner clinics in rural and urban areas across this province.

When it comes to health care, we are committed to providing health care for all Ontarians regardless of where they live, but when the member opposite talks about pharmacies, I cannot help myself. I have to say, why are you standing on the side of higher profits for pharmacies and against the people who need access to lower-priced generic drugs?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In 2008 your government, after years of lobbying, gave part-time college workers the right to vote on whether or not to join a union. It’s too bad that you didn’t include the right to have the votes counted. The workers have voted, but part-time academic staff have now been waiting for over 17 months and part-time support staff have been waiting for over six months to have their ballots counted. The colleges are currently using an expensive army of lawyers to exploit a loophole in the legislation to deny part-time college workers their rights.

Minister, the colleges are making a mockery of your legislation. When will the votes be counted?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member very much for the question. I’ll just speak to the question directly first and say, as he knows, the issue is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It is an independent adjudicative tribunal. We don’t interfere in their day-to-day operations; that’s not what we do.

But I will say to the member that our government is committed to promoting a very stable and constructive labour relations climate here in Ontario, and that’s why we did introduce the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, allowing part-time and sessional college workers the right to bargain collectively for the first time, I say to the member.

The new act modernizes our colleges’ collective bargaining to provide a fair and productive labour relations environment, to better serve the needs of students and the college system.

I say that to the member.