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

March 3, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-03 (PDF)

L145 - Thu 3 Mar 2016 / Jeu 3 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 March 2016 Jeudi 3 mars 2016

Orders of the Day

Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux premiers intervenants de l’Ontario (état de stress post-traumatique)

2016 Ontario budget / Budget de l’Ontario de 2016

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Rare diseases

Health care funding

Health care funding

Ontario budget

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Rural infrastructure

Assistive devices

School closures

Transportation infrastructure

Accessible parking permits

Mining industry

School closures

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux premiers intervenants de l’Ontario (état de stress post-traumatique)

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Bert Reitsma

Gasoline prices

Nexxice synchronized skating teams

Complex regional pain syndrome

Hydro One

Business achievement awards

Réseau des femmes parlementaires

Tamara Jaworska

Refugee hub

Motions

Order of business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Canadian Agricultural Literacy Week

Petitions

Health care funding

Rural schools

Home inspection industry

Health care funding

Long-term care

Lung health

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Health care funding

Lung health

Private Members’ Public Business

Rare diseases

Licensed Home Inspectors Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les inspecteurs d’habitations titulaires d’un permis

Transparency and Accountability in Government Contracting Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la transparence et la responsabilisation en matière de marchés publics

Rare diseases

Licensed Home Inspectors Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les inspecteurs d’habitations titulaires d’un permis

Transparency and Accountability in Government Contracting Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la transparence et la responsabilisation en matière de marchés publics

Rare diseases

Transparency and Accountability in Government Contracting Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la transparence et la responsabilisation en matière de marchés publics

Orders of the Day

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux premiers intervenants de l’Ontario (état de stress post-traumatique)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and the Ministry of Labour Act with respect to posttraumatic stress disorder / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur le ministère du Travail relativement à l’état de stress post-traumatique.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Mr. Flynn has moved second reading of Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and the Ministry of Labour Act with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This will be deferred to after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

2016 Ontario budget / Budget de l’Ontario de 2016

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate.

Mr. Patrick Brown: First, I’ll be splitting my time with the great member from Leeds–Grenville. It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 173, the budget measures act or, as the government likes to call it, the Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act.

Mr. Speaker, I read the title because that’s exactly where I want to start today, the jobs of today and tomorrow. Before I do that, it’s important not to forget the jobs of the past. There are more than 350,000 manufacturing jobs lost under this government—the thousands of people working in the mining and forestry sectors in the north, or the thousands of nurses and health care workers let go because of the negligent freeze on hospital spending.

Even within that context, the government has the nerve to table a budget talking about jobs of today and tomorrow. But let’s look at the jobs of today. I direct your attention to page 247 of the budget document, Mr. Speaker. There it shows the newly adjusted job creation forecasts for the coming year. This budget revealed that the province will see 76,000 fewer jobs—fewer jobs—created between 2015 and 2019 than they thought last year. Further, page 246 reads “weaker-than-expected employment growth” until 2019.

Ce n’est pas seulement que moins d’emplois seront créés, c’est la perte d’emplois qui existent déjà.

The Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is slated to force 54,000 Ontarians to lose their jobs in the next few years. That’s not fear mongering, Mr. Speaker. That’s straight from the Ministry of Finance’s own internal documents.

Que ce soit le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario, le nouveau système de plafonnement et d’échange qui prend de l’argent, dont je parlerai bientôt, ou les hausses des frais d’énergie, la vie est plus difficile sous ce gouvernement, et il pousse les emplois hors de la province.

The budget may be called Jobs for Today and Tomorrow, but it’s really a clever way of saying that jobs that exist today won’t tomorrow.

It is that very concern that I have for workers and families in Ontario that brings me to our party’s three budget asks.

Ce sont des simples demandes que nous pensons que les gens de l’Ontario méritent de voir dans le budget mais que le gouvernement a choisi d’ignorer.

(1) Include a credible plan to make energy more affordable and to stop the fire sale of Hydro One.

(2) Stop the damaging cuts to our health care system in this province and properly manage health care.

(3) Include a credible plan—not a stretch goal, a credible plan—to balance the budget, including immediate action to pay down the debt; a debt, I remind you, of a staggering $308 billion.

But, when the Minister of Finance was asked what he thought about these three budget asks, he said, “That’s quite a fiscal fantasy world.” I don’t think an Ontario where residents can afford to pay their hydro bills is a fantasy world. I don’t think a properly funded health care system, and a properly managed health care system to boot, is an impossible task for this government. And I surely don’t think a balanced budget is lunacy.

We asked for a credible plan to make energy more affordable; instead, we got $2 a month worth of energy rebates coming from the cap-and-trade money collected from the very people who will get the rebate. It’s a classic bait and switch—not to mention the fact that hydro bills went up roughly $100 January 1. This new rebate won’t even cover the last Liberal hydro hike. That’s not a credible plan.

We asked for a properly managed health care system. We’ve continued to say that the Liberal government’s history of scandal, waste and mismanagement is taking funds away from essential services. This budget is no exception. This budget fails to reverse current and planned cuts to doctors, nurses and hospitals, all at the expense of patients. Not only are there no plans for more funding for long-term-care beds, which could help manage the system better, or for restoring funding for physiotherapy for seniors when we’ve seen falls spike at long-term-care facilities, but this budget also makes medication more unaffordable for most seniors.

We asked for a credible plan when it comes to dealing with having a balanced budget. Budget 2016 is simply a laughable response to that demand. They took $850 million out of the rainy day contingency fund to reduce the deficit. Over $1.1 billion was taken from the Hydro One revenue, which, by the way, the government had said again and again was for infrastructure. And the one-time $2.6-billion departure tax on the Hydro One sale was used against the deficit, despite the fact that the government said a hundred times that it was being used for infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the future plan needs better planning. We need a government that sees the big picture. The government claims they’re on track to balance the budget by 2017-18, but they also claim that they’ll bring in $4 billion more in revenue than the Financial Accountability Officer said was even possible under best case scenarios. Let me stress that: The office that the government created to verify their figures so the public can have confidence in their figures—that independent oversight—is saying that their numbers are wrong.

It is saying that the government’s numbers are $4 billion rosier in revenue than they should be. That should be astonishing to everyone in Ontario, because it says that the government’s numbers don’t add up. And if I’m going to trust someone—the Financial Accountability Officer, a non-partisan oversight office, or the Minister of Finance, who has a history of making mistakes on his numbers—I’m going to trust the Financial Accountability Officer.

This budget is simply another Liberal tax-and-grab. The budget forecasts an additional $3 billion in tax revenue alone: $1.9 billion in personal income taxes, $700 million in corporate taxes and $500 million through cap and trade. Doesn’t this government ever get tired of imposing new taxes and taking more from Ontarians? If the tax increases weren’t enough, this budget increases virtually every other government service fee. Fees for driver and vehicle licensing are going up. The price of cigarettes and wine will increase. Camping in provincial parks and fishing and hunting licences just got more expensive.

Everything from liquor licences to even event permits for charities will cost more. It’s that easy: This budget makes life more expensive for everything; this budget makes life harder for Ontario. It’s for all these reasons the PC Party has serious problems with this Liberal budget.

Les chiffres ne correspondent pas. C’est de la fumée et des miroirs à son meilleur.

All we requested was a budget that did what Ontarians expect, want and deserve. Ontarians expect a government to look after their tax dollars, not squander them on everything from gas plants to computer systems. Ontarians want a government that makes life more affordable, not harder. And Ontarians deserve to see the whole picture. When I say “the whole picture,” I’m referring to the asterisk that hangs over every Liberal promise in this budget.

The Liberal government will tell you that the budget funds for health care are unfrozen, showing that hospitals get $345 million in new funding, but that’s not the whole picture. Hospital budgets have been frozen for the last four years despite more patients—150,000 new patients—and inflation.

Dans ma circonscription de Simcoe-Nord, Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital a dû réduire le nombre de lits de soins continus, éliminer son hôpital de jour gériatrique et couper 20 infirmières à temps plein.

In fact, the Ontario Nurses’ Association details that 770 nurses were cut—lost their jobs—by this government in 2015 alone. As a result, patient care is suffering.

But it’s not just the past that needs to be discussed. Every give in this budget comes with a take. I’ll be very specific about what I mean when I say that every give in this budget comes with a take. The health care take is on page 289—the government wanted to hide it and make sure that no one noticed it. Page 289 quietly shows hospital revenue from gaming—$107 million that hospitals depended on—gone. The changes to hospital parking: Although providing much relief to patients, and we applaud the help to families, hospitals lose $28 million. It’s just switching envelopes. It’s smoke and mirrors.

So when the Liberals say they have increased funding for hospitals by $345 million, what they’re really saying is that they’ve increased it by $210 million despite a much more significant demand. While I applaud them for breaking their self-imposed funding freeze on the health care system in Ontario, this is simply a band-aid solution. It’s not dealing with the better management that we have been suggesting is needed in the health care system.

Nous avons besoin de plus qu’une solution pansement pour améliorer l’état sombre des soins aux patients dans cette province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s not just hospitals that are being duped; it’s seniors, too. This budget announces that the shingles vaccine will be free for those between the ages of 65 and 70. If you’re in that age bracket, that’s great news; if you’re not, too bad. But it’s not just age limits that are penalizing seniors in this budget; it’s also the ability to pay for their much-needed medications that keep them healthy and out of the hospital. For seniors in the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, their deductible will increase by $70, nearly double, unless they are low-income. What’s low-income to this government?

A senior making under $19,000 is low-income. The notion that a senior making $19,500 can afford these exorbitant increases in their medications, the fact that this government thinks a senior making $19,500 is affluent and rich is just ridiculous. The Premier has already acknowledged that this threshold was far too low.

Peut-être que si le gouvernement libéral avait consulté les Ontariens sur le budget, ils auraient réalisé cela plus tôt, mais je vais revenir sur ça plus tard.

Back to seniors, Mr. Speaker: Not only will they have to pay nearly twice what they’ve been paying now as a deductible but they’re also going to have to pay an extra dollar every time they get a prescription filled. Seniors don’t have a choice but to take their medication. We’re not talking about efficiencies or buzzwords; we’re talking about the health of our elderly. Government should be there to take care of those who need our help and make their lives easier, not more unaffordable.

This government claims the shingles vaccine will give some seniors a one-time $170 savings, but they fail to mention that most seniors will be paying a minimum of $70 a year more for drugs plus an extra dollar for every prescription. This government has made life harder for the vast, vast majority of seniors.

And it’s not just the cost of prescription drugs that is increasing. Seniors are already being hit with high hydro rates, especially those who have more serious conditions that require assistance to help them enjoy life. For example, should a senior who has poor circulation and has to keep their heat up be paying more for that heat? Should a senior with an at-home dialysis machine be paying peak rates? Health care can’t be turned on and off whenever it’s convenient for the government.

But it’s not just energy rates or drug costs, Mr. Speaker. This government took it a step further by cancelling the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit used by seniors to make their homes more accessible. So, sure, some seniors may save $170 on a free shingles vaccine, but every senior in Ontario will lose on renovations, prescription drugs and energy costs. The moral of the story is: If you’re a senior in Ontario, your costs are going up because of this Liberal government.

Comme je le disais plus tôt, chaque chose donnée est livrée avec une « prise ». Ce budget, tout simplement, va rendre la vie plus difficile pour les personnes âgées de l’Ontario.

Whether it’s seniors or health care funding, the government isn’t telling the whole story. It’s the same thing when it comes to the hallmark of their budget 2016: free tuition, as they call it, for students from families with under $50,000 in annual income. Mr. Speaker, our party supports increased access to post-secondary institutions, as everyone would. Easier access to education is a noble goal to pursue. The reality is that students in Ontario are already faced with the highest tuition rates in Canada. I repeat, students in Ontario are faced with the highest tuition rates in Canada, and 70%—70%—of the families are not eligible for the full benefit.

While Ontario students should be able to choose a career path that best suits them, there are certainly skills gap challenges needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow, and this government doesn’t address it. We must address the skills gap, which is costing Ontario’s economy $24.3 billion a year in forgone revenue and is forcing young Ontarians out of the province to find work.

I read one survey that said 52% of engineering and infrastructure firms have to hire young people from outside Ontario because we don’t graduate them here. This government is not willing to have that conversation. How about graduating young people for the jobs that exist in Ontario today?

When I speak about the full picture, whether it be on health care, jobs or deficit reduction, I truly believe the government should have understood the people of Ontario better. And they would have, if they’d actually listened—if the pre-budget consultations weren’t simply for show.

This government had the audacity to tour around the province—mind you, on taxpayer dollars—to hear concerns from concerned Ontarians without even waiting for that committee to produce a report on its findings. It’s unbelievable that they would use taxpayer dollars to go out and listen, and never bother to let the committee write the report. It’s shameful. We all know that this budget had to be written well in advance. After all, it’s 340 pages and had to be translated into French. That means that for it to be have been ready on February 25, it would have had to have been completed weeks before.

What about the feedback that this budget should be have been informed by? What about that consultation? This government is slow to act on many issues, yet they’re telling us that on the most important document of the year they were unable to reflect and hear the concerns that they said mattered to them—so hypocritical.

C’est évident que ce budget a été imprimé sans les opinions des Ontariens à l’esprit.

I’ve knocked on countless doors and visited every corner of this province and I’ve never heard a single Ontarian, in my riding of Simcoe North or elsewhere, say that they want seniors to pay more for prescription drugs. I’ve never met a single Ontarian who said that they want the government to announce action on the Ring of Fire three separate times but never actually spend a dollar on the project. I’ve never met a single Ontarian who says that they want our province’s debt levels to be beyond $300 billion. Mr. Speaker, this government is truly out of touch with the people of Ontario.

However, we in the PC caucus are listening to Ontarians relentlessly. In fact, at our convention this weekend, we will be launching our policy process. We plan to go to every corner of the province and listen—not listen for show like the government does, but listen to engage the grassroots, to engage stakeholders, to engage individuals on the front lines. That’s what real leadership is about. It’s about treating the people of Ontario with respect and attention. It’s about taking their concerns to Queen’s Park and advocating for the constituents who put you there.

Je suis fier de dire que notre parti prendra en compte les points de vue réels des gens de l’Ontario, pas seulement les vues de quelques initiés libéraux qui veulent prendre soin de leur propre survie politique.

That being said, if I may, I want to go back to the fiscal situation of the province. We have a debt that has eclipsed $300 billion for the first time in the history of any province in Canada. It’s scary—not just Ontario, but any province. In fact, we’re the most indebted state or province in the world. It’s astonishing. That is their legacy to future generations.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It compromises everything.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It compromises absolutely everything. It takes away our fiscal capacity to support what we care about in health care and education and the environment. We pay roughly $11.8 billion in interest payments alone. That’s almost $1 billion a month in interest payments. That’s more than we spend on our colleges or universities, which are apparently Liberal priorities, but they’ve removed the ability to support them. It’s more than we spend on our children and youth or agriculture. It is 22 times more than we spend on the environment.

We need to get our debt and deficit under control. We need a province that has its fiscal house in order so that we can fully invest in the things that Ontario need—not just band-aid solutions to systemic problems; I’m talking about efforts to improve the errors in the system, to improve our transportation corridors and to create less red tape. We have 354,000 regulations. We are the capital of red tape in Canada.

We need to have affordable energy so we can create an environment where businesses can flourish, where we can create jobs, where if you’re an investor, you want to be in Ontario. We can’t waste $11.8 billion a year on one hand and expect to have money to support the services Ontarians need and deserve on the other. When we are wasting that much money a year on interest payments, it’s unacceptable. It has left no room—no room—to support the social infrastructure of our province. This province is left with no choice but to turn to new taxes and sources of revenue, and that’s what we see in this budget.

Whether it’s toll roads on lanes and highways that people and families in Ontario have already paid for, or whether it’s the new cap-and-trade cash grab that doesn’t even contain guarantees that the money will actually go to reducing emissions, it’s getting to be too much. It’s not just the income taxes and corporate taxes I referred to earlier that the government is taking more in on; it’s increased taxes on a bottle of wine, and the reduction of several important tax credits—because the notion of giving Ontarians a break is not something this government would entertain.

Specifically on cap and trade, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know of anyone who trusts this government to invest $1.9 billion in emission-reducing technology. They have no track record of raising revenue for the proper purposes. They had the health levy, which was the largest tax in Ontario’s history. It didn’t go to health care; it didn’t go to supporting our hospitals. It went to pay for waste and mismanagement.

Climate change is a serious issue that requires a serious response from the government. There is no question about that. But this government has not presented Ontarians with a credible plan to tackle climate change. It’s simply photo op environmentalism. Instead, this cap-and-trade cash grab will finance a new Liberal slush fund that lacks any accountability.

While Ontarians are willing to do their part to reduce emissions, it’s wrong of this government to raise money in the name of the environment, taking advantage of Ontarians’ goodwill on the environment, goodwill in wanting to tackle climate change, simply to be what they call another revenue tool or, as I call it, a cash grab on the backs of Ontario families.

This is the same government that handed out billions in grants, through the Ministry of Economic Development to businesses to create jobs. But they didn’t actually keep track of the jobs; that would get in the way of their slush fund. Many businesses, because of Ontario’s skyrocketing hydro rates, had to leave this province with that money in hand, the ones that actually got grants. If they can’t hand out money to create jobs properly, why would anyone think they can hand out money to reduce emissions properly? They have no track record on this. They have no one’s confidence that they can get this right.

Despite this glaring fact, home heating and gasoline are going up 4.3 cents a litre—which will cost Ontarians $400 a year and another roughly $450 a year in home heating costs. That’s almost $900 for the average Ontario family. If we’re going to pay this type of money to fight climate change, it had better actually be going to fight climate change.

Needless to say, we in the PC Party have some serious concerns with the Liberal track record. This money cannot—I repeat, cannot—be used to pay for past scandals, whether it’s gas plants, eHealth or Ornge. This cannot be a revenue tool to make up for this government’s incompetence. We will call the government out on it.

That is what this comes down to: It comes down to trust in this government. Throughout my remarks and throughout this budget, we can see that the people of Ontario do not trust this government to get it right.

In the last few weeks, they realized they built a train storage shed too small and that their airport express train was too expensive for the average Ontarian to afford. Sometimes it’s the little things that are indicative of how this government manages our affairs.

But the direction of the province and the 2016 budget is no small thing. This is a critical document. This budget is too important to trust to a government that has been under investigation by the OPP on four different occasions.

Il est trop important pour faire confiance à un gouvernement rempli de scandales, de gaspillage, et de mauvaise gestion. Il est clair que les libéraux rendront la vie plus difficile pour les gens de l’Ontario.

The PC Party won’t stand for that, and they certainly won’t stand for a budget that has contents that aren’t in the best interest of Ontario.

In closing, I want to return to the title, Jobs for Today and Tomorrow.

Il est clair que la direction des libéraux pour l’Ontario ne mènera pas à une augmentation d’emplois et d’investissements dans cette province.

Why? It’s simple. The title of the budget is just like the contents within: It doesn’t tell the whole story. This is the budget of smoke and mirrors. The title doesn’t tell you everything you need to know. So when the people of Ontario, who are smarter than the government gives them credit for, voice their displeasure with this budget and its programs, we’ll be here to listen. We will be here to reflect their frustrations, to reflect on the Liberal mistakes, and to ultimately fix them. That’s what real leadership is.

In the meantime, I’d encourage the members opposite to take off their rose-coloured glasses for just a moment and see what this budget really is. Again, the budget may be called the Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act, but it’s really a clever way of saying that the jobs that exist today won’t be here tomorrow if we have more of this government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Merci, monsieur le Président. Bonjour. It’s a real privilege for me to rise and share our caucus’ lead-off debate on the government’s budget motion with my leader, Patrick Brown.

Off the top, I want to commend my leader; my seatmate, the member from Nipissing; and our entire Ontario PC caucus for their work this week on behalf of Ontarians in exposing the government.

The caucus has done a tremendous job showing that there’s more to this budget than the headlines the government is trying to spin. I know from my days in the newspaper business that there’s always a story beneath the headline. As we’ve shown, despite the grand pronouncements that this government has made, the real story in the budget is not good news for retired Ontarians on a fixed income.

It’s not good news for students or the 350,000 people who have lost a manufacturing job on this government’s watch, or, quite frankly, for anyone in need of a doctor, or in hope of trying to find improved health care services for a loved one, or families that are desperate to get a break on their hydro bill so they can make ends meet. For every item the government claims is in there to help, there are increased taxes, increased fees and deep service cuts that more than offset any gains.

In the end, a full reading of the budget, beyond its headline of Jobs for Today and Tomorrow, leads to just one conclusion: This government continues to make life more unaffordable for Ontarians.

Frankly, I would argue that Premier Wynne has reached the same conclusion. Well, she has at least with one item in the budget. She’s already made a major flip-flop this week on the budget’s plan to nearly double the deductible on prescription drugs for most seniors. Perhaps in the finance minister’s rush to get the budget to print, even before public consultation was ongoing, the Premier didn’t have a chance to actually read the budget. It gives me a new take on that old line that the government likes to use on opposition politicians every year at budget time: I guess the Premier was in favour of the budget before she actually read it.

I can tell you, when I was in the lockup and I found what the budget had in store for seniors on prescription drug costs, I was absolutely against it. I knew that seniors all across my riding—in Toledo, in Lyndhurst, in Maynard, in Oxford Mills, Prescott and Cardinal—would be outraged. I knew it. I knew it because they told me the struggles that they were having, the struggles to make ends meet, to keep up with the rising cost of life under this government.

Only a government so out of touch with the day-to-day struggles of Ontarians, stretching their household budgets tighter and tighter, would consider a senior making $19,300 to be well off—only a government that out of touch. This is such a disconnect that this Premier has, who actually likes to show—she likes to make a lot of pronouncements that she wants to have conversations, but she doesn’t actually listen to what the people are saying to her.

When the Premier found out that her own budget hiked the deductible for the Ontario drug benefit by $70 a year, do you know what she did? She didn’t apologize and promise to fix it. No. She promised to consult more to see if she got it right. That’s all she did.

First off, given the sham that the budget timeline made of the pre-budget consultation process, I’m not sure too many seniors will be eager to consult with this government. Really, if this Premier is so disconnected from reality that she needs to check with seniors to see if she got it right in raising the low-income threshold to $19,300, as our leader said, that’s absolutely ridiculous.

The issue of drug costs is just one example of something that you see in every

section of budget 2016. It’s the same theme over and over again: There’s something shiny to attract attention in hopes Ontarians won’t notice what’s really going on. As I stated earlier, they want to distract your attention. They don’t want you to take the time to look.

Again, I just want to compliment my caucus for exposing some of these issues this week. They’ve done a tremendous job.

For seniors, the headline the government wants you to read is “Free Shingles Vaccine.” The real story you need to read in the budget is the hike in drug prices and the loss of the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit.

For students, the government’s headline is “Free Tuition.” The real story: It’s two years away; it only applies to about 30% of students and covers only the average tuition and no other costs; and the government is taking away $165 million in financial support until it kicks in.

For hospitals, the government proclaims a 1% budget increase. The real story is, it’s the first increase, as we all know, that hospitals have had in four years. It doesn’t provide any catch-up, and almost one third of that increase—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: The member can heckle me all he wants, but one third of that increase is offset by clawing back $107 million in gaming revenue that previously went to hospitals. They don’t want to tell you the whole story.

For the north, the headline the government wants you to see is “$1 Billion for the Ring of Fire.” Meanwhile, the real story is that this is the third time they’ve included this line in the budget without actually spending a dime.

For farmers—well, the finance minister didn’t actually offer anything to Ontario’s agriculture sector other than a $28-million cut. I’ll get to that problem and the glaring oversight on the agriculture file a little later in my speech.

I’m so proud of our work on this side of the House in the past week to expose, as my leader said earlier, this bait and switch budget.

I want to put some comments on the record for some of my folks in Leeds–Grenville. Prior to the return of the Legislature, I had the opportunity to hear from some of my constituents. I held a series of pre-budget consultations in very small communities in my riding. Over two days, I held meetings in Gananoque, Seeley’s Bay, Merrickville and Spencerville. They were excellent discussions. I ended up sending six pages of recommendations to both the finance minister and the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. We know those recommendations were ignored by the government.

We know this because, as my leader said this morning, the budget was already drafted by the time I sent my letter to the committee—and I sent it before the deadline. It’s clear what was being ignored, because the priorities I heard from people in my riding, in particular in rural Ontario, were certainly not reflected in this budget. I don’t think anyone would describe this budget as a rural Ontario-friendly budget.

Even if the government ultimately tuned out the recommendations from my constituents, those meetings were really valuable to me. I found real value in having those four meetings and being able to be engaged with my constituents. It gave me the confidence to know that when I’m speaking here today, I’m speaking for the people that I represent when I stand in my place to tell the government that their priorities are wrong.

The budget speaks to infrastructure commitments but does nothing to address the concerns raised by local mayors and local council members at my consultation. They asked for a review of what they describe as the arbitrary manner in which grant program applications are reviewed for municipalities. It leads to a scenario where one municipality is turned down because they’re carrying too much debt while the neighbouring township loses out because they don’t have enough debt.

I think it’s like the Goldilocks approach to infrastructure: Municipalities are supposed to somehow get it just right for this government before they actually get a dime from them for their infrastructure. Instead of a lottery, these municipal leaders wanted some substantive changes to the process in the budget so they could better plan for their own spending.

Also in the break, I had a chance to have a wonderful speaking opportunity at a breakfast meeting of the Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce. It was a well-attended event. It also gave me a chance to talk about two reports from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, their Emerging Stronger 2016 report and Empowering Ontario, which they released last year.

Now, I’d like to think a government interested in kick-starting our economy and getting Ontario back to work would actually pay attention to some of those reports. Look at the chamber of commerce: They represent 60,000 small and medium-sized businesses. Those, I think, are who we need to engage to get our engine of job creation started again in the province of Ontario.

One of my favourite parts of the Emerging Stronger report is the Ontario Business Confidence Index. It provides some real insight into what these businesses are feeling as we head into the new year. As I told my chamber, the results for 2016 are not encouraging, and they reflect a clear desire by the business community to see our province go in a different direction. Actually, there’s quite a disconnect in the confidence index. On one hand, it’s encouraging to learn—here’s the statistic: 62% of those surveyed expressed confidence in their business’s economic outlook. That’s slightly up from about 58% last year.

It’s a positive sign that businesses feel good about what they’ve done internally to position themselves for growth.

Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. When it comes to expressing confidence in Ontario’s economy, just 30% like what they see going into 2016. It’s down from 47% last year. It’s actually quite a shocking decrease in just a 12-month period. Frankly, it’s a condemnation of this government’s performance. And with that lack of confidence, it’s no surprise that the survey revealed only 46% of businesses have plans to expand in 2016. That’s down from 54% last year: Again, it’s headed in the wrong direction.

What should be the take-away for us as legislators on this report? When nearly two thirds of our businesses feel good about the situation but they’re hedging their bets on Ontario, that’s a message that the government’s budget needs to do something different.

The reason businesses lack confidence in our economy is the result of what’s happened on this government’s watch over the past 13 years. Sadly, more of the same is found within the pages of the budget we’re debating this morning. There’s not much here to inspire confidence in Ontario. Heck, the government isn’t even inspired; they’ve reduced their own job creation projections by 16% over last year. Last year, they boasted our economy would create 93,000 jobs in 2016. Now that number is down to 78,000.

I always say that well-run businesses want to invest in well-run jurisdictions, and as we know, the words “well run” are two words I don’t think you’d ever use to describe Ontario under the Liberal Party.

Our leader outlined in his portion of this morning’s leadoff the three asks that our PC caucus wanted to see in the government’s budget. I think he did a great job outlining them so I’m not going to go into detail on them again. One of those asks was a credible plan to balance the budget. It goes to the very heart of that reluctance businesses surveyed by the Ontario chamber have when it comes to investing here and creating jobs. They’re not going to be fooled by the so-called plan to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18 tabled by the finance minister last week.

These businesses wouldn’t try to build their own budget by overestimating revenues as this government has done to the tune of $4 billion. For those watching at home, that’s not our caucus saying they’ve overestimated what they’ll take in; that’s in the words of the Legislature’s Financial Accountability Officer.

Then we have the inevitable $1.9-billion increase in personal income taxes factored into the government’s calculations. The rest of their so-called plan is cobbled together using $850 million from a provincial contingency fund and, confirming what we’ve been saying all along, taking revenue from the sell-off of Hydro One. As I told the chamber that morning, any business owner knows you can’t fix your bottom line by selling off your business assets. Eventually, you’re going to run out of things to sell. That’s what’s truly amazing here, Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: They get mad over there when we expose the truth.

For all the wishful thinking, tax grabbing and asset selling contained in this budget, it still doesn’t solve the problem with all that red ink. That’s because we now have a structural deficit, one they’ve managed to paper over with some one-time infusions of cash. As a result, we’re still going to watch this year as the province’s total debt climbs past the $300-billion mark for the first time, on its way to a staggering $308 billion. To put that into perspective, Speaker, that’s $22,103 for every man, every woman and every child in this province. And unfortunately, it’s growing. It’s shameful.

I can tell you that improving the confidence of our business sector and recruiting new ones to come here doesn’t start with being the world’s most indebted subnational. That means, even if the deficit is eliminated, interest payments on our debt remain the third-largest spending item in this budget. As I told the president of St. Lawrence College, Glenn Vollebregt, when he was at my speech at the Brockville chamber, how do you build a workforce for tomorrow when the budget for training, colleges and universities is $3.6 billion less than interest on the debt?

You don’t inspire confidence by refusing to get serious about the soaring cost of electricity in this province. I mentioned earlier the Ontario chamber’s Empowering Ontario report. I know the Minister of Energy likes to debunk any criticisms and concerns we raise about how the cost of electricity is driving businesses and industry out of the province and people from their homes. I want people to understand we’re not responding to information. The opposition is not just simply making this up, Speaker.

Our questions and concerns about Hydro One and the cost of electricity are based on reports from the Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer and the Ombudsman. Those are all independent, non-partisan officers of this Legislature, and they’ve exposed mismanagement of the energy sector and have let Ontarians know that rates are going to rise, as we’ve said many times in this House, 42% between 2013 and 2018. Remember, that’s on top of the already highest rates in North America.

It’s those increases, Speaker, that the Ontario chamber’s study found will lead to the following—here’s a quote from their report: “One in 20 businesses in the province expect to close their doors in the next five years due to rising electricity prices. In addition, 38% will see their bottom line shrink, with the cost of electricity delaying or cancelling investment in the years to come.”

Again, you’d think that an independent report like the one from the chamber would lead the government to provide cost relief in the electricity sector, and it should be in this budget. Instead, homeowners got nothing other than, basically—we’ve said it in the House—a $2-a-month reduction. It pales in comparison to the $100 increase that they’re facing because of rates. In terms of small business and industry, they don’t even get that. This budget offers no relief; it just offers more of the same. The take-away is that the government is happy to watch those businesses surveyed by the chamber close their doors and throw more people out of work.

I just want to take a moment to speak to something that really shocked me in regard to this report. It was the Minister of Energy’s response to the chamber of commerce Empowering Ontario report. The executive director of the chamber in Brockville, Pam Robertson, wrote to me for feedback on the report. She included a letter that the minister gave the chamber as part of this correspondence.

Here’s how he opened his response to the Ontario chamber on their survey and recommendations: “Many of the key aspects of electricity planning and system management were not captured in your report.” That sounds to me a lot like his response to the Auditor General.

He patted the chamber on the head and said, “This is too complicated for you people to understand.” I wrote back to my chamber, “I’d suggest the Ontario chamber and the 60,000 businesses it represents do understand the issue well—because their members are footing an increasingly larger bill for the decisions this government is making.” It was unbelievable to see that that was Bob Chiarelli’s response.

I want to now turn to something about the budget that is of great concern to the folks back home in Leeds–Grenville. That, of course, is that the budget absolutely ignores the rural communities and the province’s agricultural sector. Actually, I should correct my record. We would be better off if they ignored ag instead of cutting the budget by $28 million.

That cut to OMAFRA’s budget is from the same government, remember, whose Premier in 2013 challenged Ontario’s agri-food sector to create 120,000 new jobs by 2020—the same Premier who, a year after issuing that challenge, stood by as the University of Guelph closed the agricultural colleges in Kemptville and Alfred two years ago this month. They’ve since put no real money on the table to ensure the continued delivery of the agriculture degree and diploma programs at those colleges.

Look, I respect and applaud the work of the municipality of North Grenville and what they’re trying to do to revitalize the Kemptville campus. But I maintain today, as I have since March 12, 2014, when the closure of Kemptville College was announced, that those degree and diploma programs must be brought back. That’s the only way to do it. It’s not just to ensure that the campus has a future—but a guarantee that we’re producing the educated graduates in agri-food in Ontario that we need, to compete in that global economy. But there’s nothing in the budget for those programs, which are so vital to helping the agri-food sector meet the Premier’s 120,000-job challenge.

On the electricity front, rural Ontarians are hit the hardest by the soaring costs of hydro, because they pay higher delivery charges. But again, the OFA’s request for a farm industrial rate was ignored in the budget. I guess that 120,000-job challenge from the Premier was just another one of her stretch goals.

As for our agriculture critic, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk, he noted in a question this week to the minister that there’s just one reference to agriculture in the budget. It’s on page 346, the very last page of the document—almost an afterthought, I might suggest to the House today. But I was quite intrigued by the reference, because it concerns value-added farm activities and the property taxes that penalize farmers for investing in them. When a farmer, for instance, wants to create a product from what’s produced on the farm, the portion of their property used for that activity is taxed at the industrial rate. Talk about a disincentive for the farmer.

I raised this issue in question period and a late show in November 2013, in relation to a pair of farm operations in Leeds–Grenville: Bushgarden Farmstead Cheese in Rideau Lakes, and Edgewood Farms in Elizabethtown-Kitley. I told the story then, Speaker, of Nigel Smith, the artisan cheese maker, and what he went through to finally get his operation off the ground so he could start making world-class cheeses. It’s an incredible story of perseverance. Nigel spent three and a half years fighting this government’s red tape to make it happen.

When the big day finally came and he did put out that “open for business” sign, the first person down the laneway wasn’t a customer. It was MPAC, with news that his artisan operation was being classified as industrial and he’d be paying an additional $1,200 in property taxes.

Over at Edgewood Farms, Terry and Dave McGurrin were forced to close their pancake house due to harassment by MPAC. They demanded they pay year-round commercial taxes for a six-week operation. And if that wasn’t enough, MPAC showed up after the pancake house was shut down, to grill Terry about why she still owned a cash register.

This disgusting treatment of value-added farm activities by MPAC is something I’ve been sounding off on for about two years.

But even after all that time, budget 2016 is a disappointment because it doesn’t outline how the problem is actually going to get fixed. No, all the agri-food sector gets is a promise—another promise—to try to work out the solution.

I’d like to pick up the phone and make a phone call to both Nigel Smith and the McGurrins. I’m hopeful a solution is coming, but I know this government all too well, Speaker. Frankly, even if I did make the call, I don’t think they’d believe me, with this government.

On this file, I challenge the government: Follow through on your word. Don’t just put empty rhetoric in the budget. Actually move forward in the agri-food sector and recognize these on-farm-premise operations.

Speaker, the lead this morning by my leader talked about this government’s waste, their mismanagement and their scandal on a scale that I think is just unprecedented in our province’s history. Billions are wasted on gas plants, eHealth, Ornge, SAMS and, up next, a carbon tax scheme that promises to be this government’s latest debacle.

As I said in the media after the budget was tabled last week, what worries me is that this government has no idea how their plan will reduce carbon emissions. They can’t tell us anything about it. But what they’ve got all revved up, Speaker, are the details that they’re going to add 4.3 cents a litre to the cost of gasoline, which is so typical of this government—to figure out how to separate people from their money first and then worry about everything else after.

I heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change mention this week how he hopes that the increased cost of gas will lead more people to ride their bicycles to work. I’ll be sure, this weekend, to share his advice with the folks in my riding who commute from Brockville to Ottawa or to Kingston to work. That’s the kind of advice you get from a government that tables a budget that continues to grow the a debt that has increased by 91% in a decade.

Think about it for a moment, about having someone try to commute in a rural riding where there’s no infrastructure there to be able to support that. Think about the mismanagement of this government—so reckless that a $139-billion debt when they took over in 2003 has ballooned to $308 billion. Even a moderate level of incompetence over that time would leave more of that $11.7 billion in interest payments to go towards front-line services.

We hear government members always heckling us in opposition that we want it both ways. They say we want to balance the books while asking for improved hospital and home care services, more affordable electricity and investments in our rural communities. But it’s not an either/or proposition. We can do both, but only if we have a government that understands how to manage this province in the best interests of Ontarians—not the kind of government Ontario has today. They don’t make life easier for Ontarians, particularly for those of us who live with a rural postal code.

This budget offers more proof that life is harder under the Liberals. But there is some good news: People are getting wise to this government, and increasingly we’re hearing from every corner of the province that Ontarians won’t be fooled again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Further debate? The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just by tradition, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Timmins–James Bay has moved adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Orders of the day?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing as there’s no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 0957 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome the parents of page Richard Fan. His mother, Cherry Liu, and father, Jeffrey Fan, are here this morning and I’m looking forward to our lunch together.

Aussi, je veux prendre ce temps pour accueillir tous les élèves francophones de la 11 e et 12 e année qui sont avec nous aujourd’hui. Ces élèves, de partout en Ontario, sont à Queen’s Park pour le Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario. Bienvenue, chers étudiants et étudiantes, à Queen’s Park. Je veux dire un petit « shout-out » à Geneviève et Sylvain de la FESFO. Merci d’être venus.

M. Gilles Bisson: De la part du caucus NPD et de notre chef, M me Horwath, on aimerait, de la part de toute l’Assemblée, féliciter les jeunes qui ont été capables de venir travailler dans notre Parlement aujourd’hui. On leur souhaite une très belle session qu’ils vont avoir débutant ce soir.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, please help me welcome the grade 10 students from St. Augustine Catholic High School in the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I would like to welcome all the dietitians who are here today. In particular, Leslie Whittington-Carter is from my riding, and my niece Anne Fougere is down from my riding and is also a dietitian. Welcome.

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to welcome the family of today’s page captain Xavier Hollott-Lo: Ms. Chloe Hollott-Lo and Mr. Maxx Hollott. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome today, here with the francophone youth Parliament, a constituent of mine: Julien Leclerc from Jeanne-Lajoie school in Pembroke.

M. Michael Mantha : C’est avec grand plaisir que j’introduis un gentilhomme du Nord, défendeur de l’éducation, M. Larry French.

M. Grant Crack: C’est un grand plaisir pour moi de souhaiter la bienvenue à tous les étudiants qui sont ici aujourd’hui pour participer au Parlement jeunesse, et aussi à Jean-Sébastien Boyer, Jérémie Racine, Véronique Bureau Mortimer, Loïc-Arnaud Plouffe et Nataniel Quenneville, de Casselman et Hawkesbury.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Along with the other fellow dietitians that we’ve welcomed, I want to especially welcome Atheana Brown, from the City of Kawartha Lakes Family Health Team to Queen’s Park. Welcome, Atheana.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome a number of dietitians from my riding of Perth–Wellington to Queen’s Park today: Paula Seifried and Jenny Harrison from the Minto-Mapleton Family Health Team; Anna Maria Fruscione from the Star Family Health Team; Teresa Fowler from the Happy Valley Family Health Team; and Jessica Janssens from the Stratford Family Health Team.

M. Michael Mantha: Encore une fois, c’est avec grand plaisir que je veux introduire un bon jeune homme de Dubreuilville, M. Dany Raymond.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: C’est tout un honneur, au nom de la

section de l’Ontario de l’Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie, de saluer les 85 élèves qui sont ici avec nous pour représenter les futurs politiciens du Parlement jeunesse de la francophonie.

J’aimerais aussi saluer tout spécialement ceux d’Ottawa qui sont avec nous et que j’ai eu le grand plaisir de rencontrer.

Et, monsieur le Président, je suis désolée, mais je vais le faire : un ancien membre est ici présent dans la Chambre, M. Gilles Morin, le député d’Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, Mr. Lorne Given from the riding of Sarnia–Lambton, a guest of mine here at Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: Bienvenue à tous les étudiants du Parlement jeunesse francophone.

I also want to introduce Mrs. Hurley, a dietitian from my riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d also like to introduce and welcome to Queen’s Park the Dietitians of Canada, who are here with us in the public gallery. Many of them are primary care providers, and we’re just so pleased to have them here with us today.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have an introduction, on behalf of the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, for page captain Charlotte Fritz, who’s here with her mother, Wendy Ward. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to welcome to the Legislature dietitian Marg Alfieri, who is visiting from Kitchener Centre.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Angela and Heather Massel, from my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, as well as David and Alicia, as well as the others, for our rare-disease select committee debate today. Thank you for coming.

M me Sophie Kiwala: Je veux souhaiter la grande bienvenue aux étudiants qui viennent de Kingston et les Îles. Je crois que Nathan est là—bienvenue.

M. Lorne Coe: Je veux présenter une étudiante francophone de ma circonscription de Whitby–Oshawa. Son nom est Mélodie Ouellette, et elle est étudiante à l’École secondaire catholique Saint-Charles-Garnier. Elle est ici aujourd’hui avec la délégation du Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I am pleased to be able to welcome Deborah Burton, Gidget Herbet and Janice Muccio, all from York–Simcoe and surrounding areas, for the debate on rare diseases.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I am pleased to welcome grade 10 student Amira Gamute from École secondaire Gaétan-Gervais, who is here with the Parlement jeunesse.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to welcome Maya Chadha, a grade 10 student from London West, who is here for the Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is the custom of this Speaker, I would like to introduce, in the Speaker’s gallery, the member from Carleton East in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliaments, Monsieur Gilles Morin.

Interjection.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. This government has no credibility. They claim that they listened, but it is clear they did not. No senior in the province of Ontario asked for their drug benefit deductible to be nearly doubled. No parent asked for their child activity tax credit to be cut. No one thought that a toonie would help seniors struggling to pay their $800 hydro bill.

Why does the middle class have to pay for this government’s smoke-and-mirrors budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re very proud of the budget that the Minister of Finance presented last week. Clearly, there are several initiatives in that budget that help Ontarians, not least of which is free tuition for low-income families and more affordable tuition for middle-income families. That one initiative alone takes a tremendous burden off middle-income families.

We’re also creating 110,000 jobs through our $160-billion infrastructure plan; 110,000 jobs a year are being created because of our investments. I think that helps the middle class.

We’re increasing health care funding by $1 billion—$1 billion in one year. That’s the increase. That’s going to help every one of us who accesses our health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: The government only tells part of the story. It’s important to tell the whole story and actually read the fine print.

In the next two years, this government will take a quarter of a billion dollars from Ontario families by taking away their tax credits. The Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit—gone. That means Ontario seniors will now have to pay $19 million more to make their homes accessible. Families who have children in sports and arts programs will have to pay another $65 million. Going to university or college over the next two years—don’t be fooled—combined, those students will pay another $165 million because you’re killing the education tax credit.

Robin Hood didn’t steal from the hard-working middle class. Why is this government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’m pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has raised this issue, because we’re acting on a recommendation from Don Drummond’s commission on the reform of the public sector. One of the things that Don Drummond urged us to do was look at the tax credits that actually cost us a significant amount of money and ask ourselves: Are we achieving the outcomes we had hoped would be achieved with that tax credit?

When it comes to the home renovation tax credit, it actually turns out that not too many people were taking advantage of it, and those who were were people with significant means, and there’s a federal tax credit that does the same thing. So, yes, we eliminated that tax credit because it wasn’t having the outcome it was intended to have.

Interjections.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Similarly with the Children’s Activity Tax Credit, it wasn’t having the uptake. It wasn’t actually getting kids into sports. It wasn’t getting them into recreation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock, please. Before I move to final supplementary, two things: Interjections are starting to rise; I’m going to bring them down. Number two, I would caution the member on things you cannot say indirectly that you can’t say directly. I just caution among the last phrase that he used. So avoid that, please.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: I appreciate the government’s spin, but beyond the smoke and mirrors, the reality is, the middle class is paying more. For every bill and fee they’re seeing with this government, it’s all going up. That’s the reality of this budget. There doesn’t seem to be a fee that isn’t increasing. Camping, fishing, hunting, court applications, liquor licences, event permits, even for charity—it’s all going up. Heating your home and the cost of gas—going up. Everything is going up with this budget.

When will this government realize that they are breaking the backs of Ontario’s families? When will you stop this attack on Ontario’s middle class?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I guess, Speaker, the new PC Party is against helping those who are facing the greatest challenges. That’s, I think, unfortunate. But let’s talk about what we are doing to help the middle class.

We’re lowering hospital parking fees: 900,000 patients and visitors every year will benefit from lower hospital parking fees. The shingles vaccine—people have been asking us to fund the shingles vaccine and we are moving forward with that in this budget. We’re spending $100 million to help people lower their home energy consumption—$100 million. I think that’s helping the middle class. We’re eliminating the $30 Drive Clean fee. We’re continuing to lower auto insurance—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, and what about people on propane?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll start. Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Answer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —not to mention the 260,000 kids who are taking advantage of full-day kindergarten in Ontario.

Rare diseases

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Acting Premier: I’m going to ask for her sincere consideration. I’ve been clear that the PC caucus will support a good idea no matter where its origin is, no matter where and from what side of the Legislature it comes from. Today, the Liberals have a chance to do the same.

We’ve been joined by patients and their families struggling with rare disorders. They have travelled here today to show their support for the member from Kitchener–Conestoga and his motion to create a select committee to examine the enormous challenges facing the rare disease community. Will the government put their partisanship aside, recognizing that this will help these families and help these patients? Will the government support the member from Kitchener–Conestoga in this important motion?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to commend the member from Kitchener–Conestoga. He has been a tireless advocate on behalf of individuals in this province who do have rare diseases—and their families and their communities. He has done important work.

I was proud, earlier this week, to meet with many individuals from across the province that do have a rare disease or are advocates or family members of people with rare diseases. It’s clear that we need to continue to do more. I announced funding at University Health Network for a particular rare disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and funding for a centre of excellence at University Health Network and, quite frankly, a template that can be used—because it was evolved through an expert panel that we created of clinical experts; patients were part of that process as well.

We created a template that I think will be beneficial for other rare diseases as well. I’ll be happy to speak more in the supplementals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplemental: the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the minister: Minister, we’ve had people from across the province travel here today to mark their support for a united and transparent effort that will finally address rare disease suffering. Year after year, they’ve watched as the government has turned its back on their pleas for help. They have watched as this government acknowledges their challenges with stopgap measures and one-off announcements that have only prolonged the suffering.

Today I am proposing an all-party select committee process which every one of these people, and the hundreds of thousands they represent, are prepared to stand by. Minister, will you stand with them?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: One of the other aspects of the announcement on Monday—and I have to commend, among others, the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, that convened on Monday when many individuals, family members and advocates on behalf of individuals with rare diseases came to Queen’s Park. I met with them and talked with them about another important initiative that this government has taken. Building on the work that we’ve done through the expert panel on Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, we are creating a working group that will be focused solely on provincial efforts for rare diseases.

It will be comprised of clinical experts—experts in the field. It will be comprised of patients and patient advocates so that we can work on those fundamental issues of prevention, detection, providing the appropriate supports, and access to drugs as well—all of the elements that are important, as a government that we should be providing for these individuals. I am happy to speak once again in the supplemental that I know is coming.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, your working group announcement earlier this week was an acknowledgement of the need for a government response to the heart-wrenching struggles that inaction has allowed to fester for too many years. Later today, you will have the opportunity to build on that acknowledgement by supporting the open, all-party select committee process that has proven successful in leading to informed recommendations that demand government’s response.

Minister, don’t turn your back on rare disease sufferers. Will you support my motion today, yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think that those that have rare diseases and disorders would agree that it’s important to have a working group to begin action now, to bring together clinical experts, to bring together patients and patient advocates, to begin to take concrete steps like we did earlier this week in announcing the centre of excellence for a rare disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Quoting the Canadian—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Merci.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: After the government’s announcement, CORD, the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, said, “Today, on International Rare Disease Day, the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders (CORD) welcomes the announcement made by Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins to open a new clinic ... which could be expanded to other rare disorders, as well as his commitment to strike a working group to develop an Ontario approach to a coordinated provincial health care system for patients with rare disorders.”

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday I was in London talking to nurses about health care. Nurse Rebecca Smith told me that her shift at London Health Sciences Centre on Tuesday night was the worst shift she has ever worked in 16 years. There were 21 patients with psychiatric emergencies. Because of Liberal cuts, a hospital boardroom was turned into an overflow room. A hospital boardroom became a room for patients. Other patients were waiting over eight hours to be seen in emergency.

When someone is facing a psychiatric crisis, they deserve care, not an eight-hour wait in a makeshift, converted boardroom, followed by seven days stuck in the ER because there aren’t any beds.

When Rebecca left her shift the next morning, there were still 100 people waiting in the ER.

Will the Acting Premier acknowledge that Liberal health care cuts are hurting Ontario’s patients?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question.

It wasn’t that long ago—a couple of months ago, I think—that I had the privilege and the honour, with the President of the Treasury Board, the MPP for London North Centre, to be in London to announce the commitment by the government of $1.2 million toward the opening of a new mental health and addictions crisis centre in London that is going to do precisely the important work that the leader of the third party is referring to: providing crisis intervention for adults aged 16 and up living in London and Middlesex county; individuals who are experiencing a mental health or addiction crisis, who require that immediate response or support.

They can provide that in the community. It will be run by the Canadian Mental Health Association. It was a great announcement and an important investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Regardless of how privileged this health minister is, the psychiatric patients in London are still falling through the cracks.

Those are not the only health cuts that are hurting patients and hurting Ontarians. Last week, without any warning or consultation, struggling seniors across Ontario learned that the Liberals would be nearly doubling their drug costs.

Earlier this week, the Premier of this province had a eureka moment and suddenly decided that she would hold consultations and actually talk to people about her plan to make seniors pay more for prescription drugs. But so far, this Premier and this Liberal government have not promised the seniors of Ontario that anything will actually change.

Will this Liberal government make a clear commitment to seniors that they won’t be paying more for their prescription drugs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, per the question yesterday, I’m still confused as to whether the leader of the third party is asking for more consultation or less consultation. I would hope she would agree, now that we’ve actually posted the regulation, that it would be the appropriate thing for us to have discussions with seniors and seniors’ groups, their advocates and others across the health care spectrum to look at ways that we can make sure we get this right for all seniors.

Of course, our focus in the budget, as the Premier has said, is to bring 170,000 more low-income—the lowest income—seniors into a bracket where they pay no annual deductible.

I plead to the leader of the third party that she just simply reference those 170,000 more seniors who will benefit once. It’s an important acknowledgement that they actually care that we’re helping those who are most vulnerable to go into that bracket.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We know how confused this minister is, and it’s just too bad that it’s the patients of Ontario who are paying the price for his confusion.

Liberal health cuts are not just affecting prescription drug costs for seniors and care for psychiatric emergency patients. On Tuesday, I was at a rally with hundreds of Hamilton nurses sounding the alarm bells about further positions being cut at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. The meagre funding gestures in the budget were little more than tokens.

Will this government admit to Ontarians that they will continue to see an erosion of their health care system, including more firing of nurses and longer wait times for patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are investing a new $1 billion into the health care system this year, and we’re increasing our hospital funding by more than $345 million, which represents an over 2% increase to the hospital line in the budget. We’re adding new dollars into home and community care: $250 million. We’re adding $75 million more into hospice and end-of-life and palliative care. We’re adding money into mental health supports across this province. We’re adding money into a new shingles vaccine that we’ll make available free of charge to seniors between the ages of 65 and 70.

There are many, many new investments that add up to $1 billion more—nearly $52 billion this year spent on health care. I’m proud of the investments that we’re making. They’re making a real difference.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. It has taken less than a week for the Premier of this province to acknowledge and admit that her budget has serious flaws. Hospital funding is not keeping up with inflation. It is not keeping up with population growth. It is not keeping up with the pressures and demands of an aging population. This is another serious flaw in their budget that they introduced last week.

Will this Acting Premier admit that what this means to Ontarians is even less health care for them when they need it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, her numbers just don’t add up, Mr. Speaker: $345 million in new funding to our hospitals is a more than 2% increase in the funding that goes to the hospitals. It’s more than the rate of inflation. It’s more than the consumer price index. It’s an important investment.

That’s quite separate from the $12 billion over the next decade that we’re investing in new hospitals and improved hospitals, which doesn’t even include recently built, announced and opened hospitals like the Humber River Hospital or the new Oakville hospital; the funding that we’re providing to hospitals all over the province: Providence Care in Kingston, the Mackenzie Vaughan Hospital for York region, and renovations to acute-care and long-term-care beds at Atikokan General Hospital.

We’re also adding to the fund that we have for maintenance and renovation—

Mr. Paul Miller: You’re closing mental health care at St. Joe’s.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —an additional $50 million in that funding for renovation and maintenance in hospitals.

So our hospitals are growing. Their operating budgets are increasing. We’re adding to the capital investments that we’re making in our hospitals, and we’re seeing the improvements in outcomes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Health should darn well know what the inflationary pressures are on a hospital, including population growth and an aging demographic. He’s not telling the whole facts around what’s happening to the pressure in hospitals. Whether it’s 1% or 2%, he’s splitting hairs on the fact that hospitals are feeling the crunch and they are closing beds. They are firing nurses. They are postponing and cancelling operations and procedures.

Health care is supposed to be about people. That’s what health care is supposed to be about. Struggling seniors are being told that they’re going to see their medication costs nearly double.

Why is this government attempting to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and patients in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: A $1-billion new investment in health care—I know the leader of the third party might believe that our hospitals are the centre of the health care universe. They’re an important foundation of our health care system. Perhaps she doesn’t want to reform and transform our health care system so it truly is patient-centred, so that it truly does focus on outcomes.

The investments in the transformations that we’re making involve our hospitals, and we’ve reflected that in an additional $345 million, but we’re also moving patients and procedures and opportunities in care and support outside of our hospital environment.

To home and community care: an additional $250 million in the coming year, which was the new investment that we made this year, as well, in home and community care, as we continue to take advantage of the reality that we can provide support and services.

We’re making, and we announced in this year’s budget as well, further investments in long-term care.

We’re making investments in mental health services—where the evidence shows that the outcomes are better when we actually care for those individuals outside of the hospital environment when we can.

I would hope that the leader of the third—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, I heard stories of community care nurses who were finding IV needles still in the arms of patients who were discharged with those needles in their arms. That’s the kind of community care that is being provided because the hospitals are overloaded and can’t do the kind of job that they want to do.

People expect their health care system—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, they also told me of patients who are revolving back into emergency because they’re leaving hospitals too sick and they are not getting the kind of community care that they need and they deserve. That is not the kind of transformation that takes care of patients the way that they should be taken care of.

People expect the health care system to be there for them where they need it and when they need it. It is one of the basics that people expect their government to get right. Instead of getting it right, people see fewer nurses, closed hospital beds, cancelled surgeries, overflowing ERs, and more expensive medications for seniors. How has this government lost sight of the fact that health care is supposed to be about people?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Newmarket–Aurora will come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, just because she says it doesn’t mean it’s true.

I think it’s important that we look at the facts—the fact that we have some of the best—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The facts include that we have the shortest wait times in all of Canada; we have among the best cancer care in the entire world; we have the best outcomes, and outcomes that are improving. An independent study by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences has shown that we are getting, as a result of our changes—

Mr. Paul Miller: Put some mustard on that baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to accept that. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

You have 10 seconds.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: With our changes to health care, with our funding reform, an increased number of patients are being treated, a minimal impact on readmission rates and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s 10 seconds.

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today, the Financial Accountability Officer referred to the budget as “vague” and “uncertain.” That’s because last week’s budget confirmed that the government is using one-time revenues and contingency funds to make the deficit appear smaller.

One example is using one-time money from the brisk housing market: $500 million in extra sales tax revenue and $300 million more in land transfer taxes were booked as operating revenue. BMO Capital Markets wrote, “Asset sales of $5.7 billion ... are one-time in nature, and don’t address any underlying structural deficit.”

Speaker, I ask the minister: Why do you continue to use one-time money to artificially lower your deficit?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to begin by thanking the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. The FAO has an important mandate to provide forward-looking commentary. On page 1 of his report, the FAO confirms that we are on target and on

schedule to balance the budget by 2017-18: “Ontario’s 2016 budget reaffirmed the government’s commitment to eliminate the budget deficit by 2017-18, and to maintain a balanced budget going forward.” It’s also important to note that the FAO affirms key aspects of our plan. He specifically highlights the fact that our assumptions for new federal funding are prudent.

In our budget preparation process each year, we ask private sector economists to review our assumptions in order to ensure that they’re valid. In 2016, it was no different. Three economic experts reviewed our economic forecasts and affirmed that they are reasonable. That’s on page 245 of the budget, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: What we didn’t hear was that because of using one-time funding, the Financial Accountability Officer also said, “Maintaining balanced budgets beyond 2017 will likely prove challenging.”

This government is so desperate for cash they are threatening to go back as far as 1989 to target commercial entities for land transfer taxes. This is frightening the markets—they see through the desperation—and making Ontario less desirable for investment.

Bryne Purchase, Ontario’s former chief economist and deputy at many ministries stated, “The added revenue from cap and trade and the Hydro One sale helped to make the provincial numbers look better.”

Every expert sees through what this government is doing, Speaker.

I ask the minister: Just who do you think you’re fooling with this pre-election number fudging?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Guard your language in terms of what you’re supposed to say in here, please.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In preparation of the document and in preparation of the budget, you take forecasts. We have leading economic forecasters from across the country, over 15 of them, provide their projections. We then take them, average them, and taper them down. Furthermore, we look at experts and they review them.

Looking at the full outlook period for the 2016 budget, which covers chapters 16 to 19, our government’s average nominal GDP forecast is in line with those private sector forecasts. New economic data since the release of our budget confirms the economy is on track and advancing at a relatively robust pace.

Independent advice is important to the government and that is why we indeed value the Financial Accountability Officer’s input.

It’s important to note the budget assessments by two credit rating agencies, which the member opposite often refers to, and here’s what they say—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. We’re not going to hear that.

New question.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the minister for seniors affairs. All of us in this House have a duty to stand up for seniors in our ridings, but it’s the minister’s job to speak up at the cabinet table and ensure all seniors are protected. Speaker, this budget shows that the minister didn’t do his job and the Premier didn’t listen to the people of Ontario. Instead of helping people, the Liberals have chosen to force most seniors to pay 70% more for their prescription drugs, starting as early as this summer. Every member in this House should know that that’s wrong, and this minister should know better than anyone.

People deserve to know: Will the minister for seniors toe the Liberal line or will he do his job and stand up for seniors by telling this Premier she’s out of touch with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question. Let me deviate for a second before I answer the question: Tomorrow is the deadline for all the seniors’ community groups for submitting the seniors community application grant. I would take the opportunity to advise every member of the House, since we only have another day, to get on with their communities’ seniors’ groups, because this particular program is huge; 104 ridings out of 107 ridings are benefiting from this program.

I would hope that the members get busy and contact the seniors who we are helping, and I hope that they put in some applications for the benefit of our seniors in every riding of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, again to the minister: I am busy. I am busy worrying about what this Liberal government is doing to seniors’ health care.

Here’s what the Liberal plan to hike drug costs really means to seniors: It means more worry for seniors on fixed incomes. It means tighter household budgets and less retirement security. It undermines the principle of universal access to health care, which should include prescription drugs.

Worst of all, it means seniors can’t trust the Premier to listen and put their priorities first. Seniors deserve a minister who will speak up for them and say no to the Premier’s plan to hike the price on drugs for seniors.

Will the minister commit to seniors today by voting against the Liberal budget that increases costs for Ontario seniors? Do the right thing: Stop the increase in price to seniors’ prescriptions today.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, as I travel throughout Ontario, seniors’ groups are very delighted with what we are giving them to support them, to keep them active and engaged. The budget reflects and builds on what we have been providing for our seniors: $250 million, as the Minister of Health has mentioned, for health care and community care; $170 million for seniors between 65 and 70, for the shingles vaccine; an additional $75 million for three years, for community-based residential hospice and palliative care. The people in palliative and hospice are seniors as well. We are looking after those people there.

A 50% reduction in hospital parking prices—130,000 seniors are benefiting from that. And what do I have to say—173,000 seniors are saving $100 on their—

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

New question.

Rural infrastructure

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question today is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, we know that investment in infrastructure across our province is key to economic growth. Besides playing a big

part in our quality of life, investing in infrastructure is one of the most important things that we can do to stimulate the economy in the short term and improve our productivity and competitiveness in the long term. Whether it’s the expansion of a regional road or waste water systems running under our streets, we all depend on high-quality infrastructure to keep our communities functioning.

Despite their smaller populations, rural municipalities continue to have big infrastructure demands. People need their roads widened and their bridges secured. Rural and small-town Ontario cannot be left behind by investments in our big cities.

Minister, could you please inform the House on what this government is doing to improve rural infrastructure?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for his question this morning. As many in this House would know, prior to coming here in 2003, the member for Northumberland–Quinte West was probably one of the most popular mayors ever in the history of Brighton, Ontario.

He knows full well that that’s why, as part of our largest investment in infrastructure in Ontario’s history, rural municipalities continue to access funding under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund. OCIF helps small, rural and northern communities build and repair roads, bridges, water, and waste water treatment systems—projects that deliver on local community needs across the province.

I want to remind everybody in this House: In the late 1990s, we had the Who Does What committee. It was the “who got done in” committee. That was municipalities in eastern Ontario, where 43% of all the roads and bridges were downloaded.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad to hear—and I know my constituents in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, along with Cobourg mayor Brocanier, Mayor Walas from Brighton and Mayor Harrison from Quinte West, spoke very highly about this infrastructure funding, Minister.

You have made it clear that our government believes in working collaboratively with all levels of government to ensure we do what’s best for the province and its people. Rural communities have competing interests when it comes to deciding what local infrastructure projects to fund. They have a diverse range of needs, including roads, bridges and water supply networks. This funding will deliver on some long-standing municipal needs.

But, Mr. Speaker, municipalities need permanent, predictable formula allocations to help local governments plan accordingly. In order to protect their quality of life and foster new economic development, could the minister—

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

Minister.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for Northumberland–Quinte West for his supplementary.

On the Monday of the ROMA/OGRA conference, Premier Wynne delivered exceptionally good news to rural municipalities. We announced that OCIF will triple from $100 million to $300 million per year for 2018-19, with $200 million in predictable, formula-based funding to meet asset management plans for those municipalities; and $100 million available in application-based funding, allowing smaller municipalities to apply to invest in critical infrastructure needs.

Mr. Speaker, don’t take my word on how good this program is. I want to quote the mayor from Smiths Falls, Ontario, Shawn Pankow, who claimed: “For the first time that I’ve been to OGRA it was encouraging to come back with some positive news.”

Assistive devices

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

In June 2015, you cut $20 million from the Assistive Devices Program. We warned you then that this cut would result in long waits for service and damaging results for more than 300,000 Ontarians who depend on it. But, Minister, you disagreed and dismissed our concerns over the cuts as “providing them in a more efficient way.”

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: I want to know, what are the wait times for Assistive Devices after the government-imposed cuts from 10 months ago?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m very proud of our ADP, our Assistive Devices Program. It assists many, many Ontarians. In fact, there are 8,000 different supports and devices that are included in our ADP. Last year, we actually helped 350,000 Ontarians with support to obtain those devices and often to maintain them as well. In fact, that’s increased dramatically. It’s pretty well doubled since we came into office in 2003. In fact we’ve more than doubled our funding since we came into office and formed government in 2003. It includes a whole variety of items, from home oxygen to insulin pumps and ostomy supplies.

It is a program which is challenging because the need is great, Mr. Speaker, and we try to make sure that we provide the level of support that each individual requires.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Jeff Preston suffers from muscular dystrophy and has spent his whole life in a wheelchair. Jeff is one of those 300,000 Ontarians whose life depends on timely access to adaptive equipment through Assistive Devices. He has been waiting to be assessed for a suitable wheelchair for almost a year, wondering each day—and these are his words, Minister—“if this will be the day of his worst nightmare where he is made a prisoner in his own home.”

There are too many vulnerable Ontarians like Jeff Preston facing an intolerably long wait and left suffering. My question is, what action is the minister going to take today to remedy this inexcusable backlog so that Jeff and all other Ontarians needing repairs for their assistive devices, wheelchairs and prosthetics can live with dignity and independence?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to commend Dr. Preston as well—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Mr. Preston. Jeff Preston.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —sorry, Mr. Preston—

Hon. Eric Hoskins: My colleagues have just re-emphasized that he’s a tremendous advocate for individuals who do require—and in fact my ministry has reached out to Mr.—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Dr. Preston.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —to Dr. Preston. We have reached out to him, and we are listening to his advice and he’s providing a lot of very good advice. I’m not sure what more the member opposite would like me to do. We are working with him. He is providing good advice. He is a great advocate for this, and it works within the context of a program that is providing more than 8,000—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, you asked a question—listen.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —devices and supports to more than 350,000 Ontarians. It’s an important program. We’re proud of the fact that we have doubled the number of people who benefit and we’ve more than doubled the funding for the program.

School closures

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister claims that the potential closure of schools offering specialized supports has nothing to do with money. She even went so far as to say that it’s “for the sake of the children.”

Speaker, why don’t we let the children have a say in what’s best for them? A student at Trillium school said, “Please don’t let the Liberals close my school. The school gives people like myself hope, hope that we can get a job, hope that we can get an education so we could live a happy life.”

The closure of Robarts School for the Deaf or Amethyst school, both in London, would leave students in southwestern Ontario with nowhere else to turn.

Will the Minister of Education listen to parents, education workers and, most of all, students, and commit to keeping all specialized provincial and demonstration schools open?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I do want to reinforce that we are in fact committed to the success of all our students. That includes those who are deaf and hard-of-hearing and those who have severe learning disabilities. We are reviewing the programs for those students. Part of that is that we are going around and we actually are speaking with parents and students, because we do want their input.

It’s also true that we updated the definition of learning disabilities a few years ago. We’ve updated the provincial policy program memorandum on learning disabilities. But we never actually reviewed how we delivered the programs in our own provincial schools for children with severe learning disabilities. So, of course, we’re having a look at the programs to make sure that we are providing the best service possible for all students with severe learning disabilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s unfortunate that the Deputy Premier was laughing through my question, considering both schools named are in her city.

Ontarians are tired of hearing this government find any excuse to force schools to close. Now, they’re even suspending enrolment at specialized schools to build their case.

My office has been inundated with emails from parents wondering why specialized demonstration schools are being told not to let any more children in, if the government is only consulting. Usually, you consult first before you make decisions that impact some of our most vulnerable kids.

Students are emailing me, devastated that schools designed to help them succeed could be shut down. Families deserve more access to quality education, not less.

So I ask again, will the Minister of Education ensure that no provincial or demonstration schools will be closed as a result of the consultations?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Of course, the process that we are going through right now is a consultation. We are talking to parents and students, and no decisions have been made at this point.

But what I can certainly say is that I agree with one thing that you said, which is that we need to ensure the best special education services for all students. That’s exactly what we’re looking at: How do we provide the best special education services for all children? That is my commitment.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Last year, our government announced major investments in transit as part of budget 2015. By moving forward with our plan to unlock the value of certain public assets, we’ve been able to support those investments in transit infrastructure projects through our Moving Ontario Forward plan.

The residents of my community of Etobicoke–Lakeshore were extremely pleased to see our government announce a $13.5-billion—I say “billion”—investment in improvements across the GO Transit network last year as part of this plan. This year’s budget continues to build on these crucial investments.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House more about how budget 2016 will continue to build Ontario up?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for that fantastic question and for the wonderful job that he does not just representing his community, but as parliamentary assistant involved in economic development, employment and infrastructure.

As that member mentioned, last year our government announced unprecedented investments as part of budget 2015. This year, our budget builds on this important plan. As a first step to achieving regional express rail, we are already working to deliver a series of network-wide GO rail service improvements, including six new trips during the a.m. and p.m. for commutes on the Milton, Richmond Hill and Stouffville corridors; 10 new trips during off-peak hours on the Kitchener corridor, to and from Brampton; and 52 new trips on each weekend day on the Kitchener corridor, to and from Brampton, and the Barrie corridor, to and from Aurora.

This year, we are also announcing new and improved GO bus connections to the GO rail network for important communities like Cambridge and Brantford, along with a lot more.

I look forward to the supplementary answer, as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the minister for his response. It’s clear that our government continues to put a great onus on investment in transit across the province.

But transit isn’t the only type of infrastructure that is important in creating a connected transportation network in Ontario. Residents of Etobicoke–Lakeshore work and travel throughout the province, and they want to know that our government is committed to investing in our roads, bridges and highways throughout Ontario.

Can the minister please tell members of this House how this year’s budget will help us build and maintain critical transportation infrastructure across the province?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: A very important second part to the story of budget 2016, as it relates to highways, roads and bridges: for example, the improvement on the Highway 417 Ottawa-Queensway corridor; the widening of nine kilometres of County Road 17 in the united counties of Prescott and Russell; and funding support for an additional ferry in the Kingston area.

This morning, I spent some time with the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, we announced the expansion and extension of Highway 427. This morning, that important project saw us standing in front of literally hundreds of skilled tradespeople, whose jobs and livelihoods will depend on this kind of investment from this government, The one question those skilled tradespeople asked that minister and myself is: Will Patrick Brown and Andrea Horwath stand up and support them and help us build Ontario up?

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: He used our names, Speaker. You’re supposed to use the ridings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There’s a reason I’m standing. The minister does know better. I want people to address people in this House with their titles or their ridings. It stays that way. I cannot let it slip.

New question.

Accessible parking permits

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

The Toronto Police Service “Abuse It and Lose It” campaign has come to an end with shocking results. They inspected over 1,500 accessible parking permits to make sure they were being used properly. They issued 862 parking tickets and confiscated the permits of 293 individuals who were then charged. That was all in just two weeks.

The Liberals have said that they were taking steps to combat this problem, yet the steps seem too slow. Will the minister work with the Minister of Community Safety to organize another blitz, perhaps this time outside of Toronto?

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. As you know, my staff is working with her and her office to speak about what she may be bringing forward in the Legislature in the form of a private member’s bill with regard to a committee.

As I said earlier on this question, it is despicable that anyone in Ontario would use a permit that is not for them in the presence of an individual who has a disability, whether that is a visible disability or not.

One of the things I think we are finding, as the member knows full well, is that municipalities have decided that they would allow different areas where individuals can use these permits and they’re not consistent across the province, and that’s a municipal decision. But what we are also finding, as well, is that the enforcement is working, in that those parking permits that we are now putting forward, which are new and have greater security, will help us reduce the fraud in the system.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services: The “Abuse It and Lose It” campaign indicated a great need for enforcement and even more attention to accessible parking permit abuse. One in five permits inspected was being abused. The Toronto police did an amazing job here in Toronto.

What is the minister planning to do in order to crack down on accessible parking permit abuse across the province?

Hon. David Orazietti: Just to add further to what I was saying a moment ago, with respect to the new permits, the standards have been increased. Bar codes are being added; specific identification is now being required to be provided to have those permits released.

I’m happy to review how individuals receive those permits. There are a variety of health care professionals in Ontario who have the authority to issue those. That’s not a determination of our ministry. If it’s believed that an individual needs those permits, there are health professionals who make that decision.

We want to make sure, though, that what is being granted, as the member opposite is highlighting, is a secure permit. We also have to be mindful that there is an enforcement element to this; that we need to ensure that individuals are not using these permits who should not be using the permits.

I’m committed to working with the member opposite to improve this system for all Ontarians.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci.

Le ministre?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I would like to thank the member for that question.

We are not going to take a lesson from the NDP, when they created the Great Lakes College and then they shut it down. We are doing this very carefully.

Currently, we have 22,000 students that are studying in the French language in our universities and colleges. We are so proud of the good work that our colleges and universities are doing in terms of the provision of post-secondary education in the French language. We will continue our conversation with the stakeholders to make sure that French-language post-secondary education is available for our population and young people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Minister responsible for francophone affairs.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Ça me fait plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue à nos étudiants qui sont ici aujourd’hui.

On ne peut pas trouver un gouvernement qui a appuyé autant la francophonie ici en Ontario. Le premier pas pour l’université francophone a été fait depuis longtemps. On n’attendra pas leurs conseils et leurs projets de loi vides de sens, mais on a un ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités qui est très engagé. Il y a un processus qui est déjà en place.

Est-ce que ceux qui sont en 11 e année ou 12 e année vont aller à l’université francophone? Je ne crois pas, parce qu’on ne mettra pas une université francophone demain, parce qu’on devra l’établir sur des bases très solides pour s’assurer de la pérennité de l’université francophone. On ne fera pas comme le Collège des Grands Lacs qui a été mis sur pied sur le dos d’un « napkin » par les néo-démocrates et qui a été fermé par les conservateurs quelques années après.

Mining industry

Mr. Han Dong: My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

I’m very proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of the north and the importance of the mining sector for our province. I know Ontario is the top jurisdiction in Canada for mineral exploration.

As many of us know, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada will be holding its highly anticipated 2016 annual convention here in my riding of Trinity–Spadina this week.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Northern Development and Mines please update the House with respect to this annual convention and explain how it is showcasing Ontario’s mining sector?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks to the member for Trinity–Spadina for giving me an opportunity to tell the members of the Legislature about the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada—better known as PDAC—conference starting this coming Sunday.

It’s a remarkable gathering, with over 20,000 attendees from over 100 countries. It’s an opportunity for us to showcase the many successes of the province’s mining sector.

We will be kicking off PDAC with the annual Ontario reception this Sunday evening. We want to welcome every member of the Legislature to be there. We’ll certainly be welcoming delegates, including municipal and industry leaders, First Nations, Métis and a whole bunch of others to a great event and we encourage everyone to attend.

The one thing we really want to make clear is that the province remains very much one of the most attractive destinations for mineral exploration investment in North America. In 2003, explorations were $193 million; last year, they exceeded $390 million—all good news. Great work—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I thank the minister for his answer and the update, and thank him very much for the invitation to this weekend’s reception.

Our province’s mining sector is impressive. I’m certainly pleased that Ontario is hosting this important international conference. I know that the international delegates who are here will enjoy all that the city of Toronto has to offer.

As we all know, the mining industry is very important not only for northern Ontario, but for the entire province. I know our province and our government continue to engage both corporate and First Nation partners to make sure we’re creating the dynamic and innovative business climate that we need for this sector.

Speaker, through you to the Minister: How is our government showcasing our support for such an important industry?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks very much again to the member for Trinity–Spadina. You said it so well. Our government is absolutely dedicated to maintaining, if not growing and improving a business climate that attracts investment into our province. There are some great opportunities.

I do think it’s important to say that in our budget last week our government reconfirmed our commitment to the mining sector with the $1 billion for infrastructure development in the Ring of Fire, which was huge. I was most grateful to see that. We also made a strong commitment to the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program, a program we made permanent last year, with a $120-million investment every year, which is reducing energy costs for our major resource-based industries all across the north.

The fact is that Ontario remains the Canadian leader and one of the top jurisdictions in the world in exploration expenditures. We are going to keep doing the best job we can do to promote the mining sector, to build it up, create jobs and to build our economy up.

School closures

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Acting Premier.

Since 1870, a provincial school for deaf and hearing-impaired students has had a home in the city of Belleville. On Tuesday, the Minister of Education said that enrolment at the school was healthy and that the ministry was looking at other schools to close. Yesterday, she told my local media that no decisions have been made on the future of these provincial and demonstration schools.

Why is the minister of mixed messages playing games with the education—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, the member knows that is not acceptable. He will correct himself and withdraw, then he’ll ask his question.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

Why is the minister playing games with the education of deaf and hearing-impaired students? And will the government commit today to keeping the Sir James Whitney School open?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I am committed to keeping the Sir James Whitney School for the Deaf open. It has never been on the consultation list. The same is true for E.C. Drury School for the Deaf and the W. Ross Macdonald School for the blind. We have said from the very beginning that we are not consulting on those schools.

What we have said is that we are looking at CJL. In fact, the French Language Services Commissioner wrote a report on CJL a few years ago and asked us to review the whole governance issue at CJL, which is part of what we’re looking at there.

As I explained earlier in question period, we are also looking at the whole issue of how we deliver services for the severely learning disabled.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: I thank the minister for confirming the Sir James Whitney school will remain open, but the government knows that Sagonaska Demonstration School, which operates on the same campus and same site, is in question—its future is in question. That school provides education for children with special needs who require more attention than other schools or other boards can provide. Parents of children with special needs, like phonological dyslexia, are being told that registration for their children is frozen for next year. They’re worried that you’re going to force their kids into programs and schools that aren’t equipped to serve their special needs.

So my question for the minister is a simple one: Is she prepared to guarantee that Sagonaska Demonstration School will not close, and that our most vulnerable and deaf and hearing-impaired children will be able to get an education from one of these few schools in Ontario that actually is capable of meeting their special needs?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to confirm what the member said about the programs that are offered at the demonstration schools. I haven’t had an opportunity to visit Sagonaska yet but it is on my to-do list to get there. Certainly in the demonstration schools, it is very clear that they provide an excellent program.

That’s actually not the question. The question is, how do we best meet the needs of all children who have severe learning disabilities? Part of what I hear from parents is that they have not necessarily been well-served previously. That’s exactly why we need to do a consultation on the programming, to make sure that we are serving the needs of all children who have severe learning disabilities.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from London–Fanshawe on a point of order.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to introduce dietitians from my city of London: Carol Morgan and Kim Sandiland. Welcome to the Legislature.

Deferred Votes

Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux premiers intervenants de l’Ontario (état de stress post-traumatique)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and the Ministry of Labour Act with respect to posttraumatic stress disorder / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur le ministère du Travail relativement à l’état de stress post-traumatique.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1141 to 1146.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members, please take your seats.

On February 22, 2016, Mr. Flynn moved second reading of Bill 163. All those in favour of the bill, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Patrick

Chan, Michael

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Colle, Mike

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hudak, Tim

Jaczek, Helena

Jones, Sylvia

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLaren, Jack

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Nicholls, Rick

Orazietti, David

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wong, Soo

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 91; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated March 2, 2016, the bill is ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1150 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome students, parent volunteers and teachers from Withrow public school in Toronto–Danforth who are here today. Colleagues, please be on your best behaviour.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Where were you this morning?

Members’ Statements

Bert Reitsma

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I would like to give a statement in remembrance of Egbert Reitsma. Egbert Reitsma died on February 11. Bert lived in Fitzroy Harbour with his wife, Patricia, where they raised their children, Tricia and Greg. They also have seven grandchildren who they are very proud of.

Bert worked for Ontario Hydro for over 20 years and was a leader in his community, starting in his teenage years. He was a Boy Scout leader, president of the community association and a sports coach, organizer and referee. He was captain of the Fitzroy Township Volunteer Fire Department.

Bert enjoyed politics. He was a councillor in the township of West Carleton for 20 years and was an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

In recognition of his many years of hard work and volunteerism, he received numerous awards, including the Queen’s Jubilee Medal and Her Majesty’s commemorative medal for Canada’s 125th anniversary of Confederation, and he was West Carleton’s Citizen of the Year in 1986.

Bert’s family immigrated to Canada from Holland in 1950 when he was a young boy. Patricia told me that Bert believed that he had an obligation to give back to his country because Canada had given his family the opportunity to prosper. Bert Reitsma was a great Canadian.

Gasoline prices

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I’ve got to ask the question: How much longer is the government of Ontario going to allow consumers across Ontario to be ripped off at the pumps? We have seen the price of oil by the barrel drop from over $100 down to $30, and less, a barrel, and we’re still paying, in some cases, as much as a dollar a litre. There is no connection between the price at the pump and the price of the barrel. But it doesn’t stop there. If you take a look at the price of gas per litre across this province, the differential in gas is anywhere from about 15 to 20 cents.

I looked this morning just to double-check a few communities, and this is what I saw: If you look at the city of Toronto, 80.9 cents per litre, but if you look at the city of Ottawa, 87 cents a litre. Are you going to tell me it costs seven cents a litre to move gas across and through Toronto to Ottawa? Well, how would you explain, then, that the price of gas in Timmins is 95.9 cents and the price of gas in Kenora is 83 cents? There’s no correlation. Clearly, the gas companies are gouging the public and taking advantage of the consumer.

We, as a Legislature, and the government of Ontario have the ability to regulate them so that the price of gas in this province can be regulated across the system so that no matter where you live—Kenora, Cornwall, Timmins or Toronto—the gas would be somewhat similar, and not a 15- or 20-cents–a-litre difference.

Nexxice synchronized skating teams

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to rise in the House today to recognize Nexxice synchronized skating, an organization based out of the Burlington skating club in my riding. With six te