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

October 9, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-09 (PDF)

L071 - Wed 9 Oct 2013 / Mer 9 oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 October 2013 Mercredi 9 octobre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

PAN AM GAMES

THUNDER BAY GENERATING STATION

AIR QUALITY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

VISITORS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

DEFERRED VOTES

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES GRANDS LACS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CLARINGTON SPORTS HALL OF FAME

HOMELESSNESS

SOUTH-EAST OTTAWA

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

COMMUNITY LIVING

KINCARDINE AND DISTRICT

BICYCLE SAFETY

ÉCOLE NOTRE-DAME-DES-CHAMPS

AUTOMOBILE SHOW

FRANCOPHONE SHELTER

FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

BRIGDEN FAIR

CHRIS LEWIS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ENREGISTREMENT

DES LOBBYISTES

MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY ACT

(HAND-HELD DEVICES PENALTY), 2013 /

LOI MANORANJANA

KANAGASABAPATHY DE 2013

(PEINE POUR CONDUITE

AVEC APPAREIL PORTATIF)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK /

SEMAINE DE L’AGRICULTURE

EN ONTARIO

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK /

SEMAINE DE LA PRÉVENTION

DES INCENDIES

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

AIR-RAIL LINK

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

DOG OWNERSHIP

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

AIR-RAIL LINK

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TIRE DISPOSAL

DOG OWNERSHIP

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 7, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

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

Loi sur l’impôt-santé des employeurs.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to get up and start the day with the ongoing scandals coming from the other side. It’s important on Bill 105, which is trying to help small business—one more example of a government that is basically out of control.

Some $1 billion—this is what the auditor said. This is the report. I encourage the viewer to have a look at it.

Bill 105 is really talking about tax policy—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Weaving in and out is one thing, but let’s stay focused specifically on the bill and avoid any other discussion, as this is the tradition of the House.

Mr. John O’Toole: Bill 105, of course, is a finance bill, technically, and it’s providing some sort of relief for small business.

But, really, I’m looking at the input costs in businesses themselves, and we know full well this employer health tax relief was brought forward by our leader, Tim Hudak. I can tell you that that relief is only a small part of what’s needed to fix Ontario—the jobs and the economy.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will link it to the scandalous increase in the cost of electricity. They have completely mismanaged that file, which is one of the significant input costs for all business.

We know that in northern Ontario, the pulp and paper industry—about 45% of their input costs are related to the price of energy. So Bill 105 is the first of many steps that are needed to take the foot off the neck of small business—small and large business. Let’s not discriminate. We need to have more jobs in the economy.

This bill—let’s be honest. Our significant decision was to eliminate it, this employer health tax. That significant decision has been delayed because of—I think as part of the budget process. The NDP got to them on a couple of things; bringing the Financial Accountability Office in, for example. This false suggestion in the budget that they were going to get a 15% cut in auto insurance, which is not going to happen—if you’re going to pay less, you’re going to get less. You’re going to end up paying more for lawyers than you would have saved in the $300 or $400, if you were to have a claim.

Bill 105, in my view, does not get close to what’s required in the economy today. Even if you look at it, the province itself is in a situation now where they have a significant revenue problem. So raising the ceiling by another half a million dollars, or whatever it is, that you don’t have to pay the employer health tax on—they’re capping it on the other end, because once your payroll gets to the level of, I think, $5 million, then you aren’t entitled to this relief in employer health tax. That’s basically all that’s in Bill 105.

I suspect there are other speakers who will bring other points of view to it, but I’d like to look at a whole range of tools in the tool box that the Premier—her famous term she’s using nowadays. But I still go back to the auditor, and his report has to be repeated because it’s in that context that you find out how much trouble we’re in.

Which is the biggest part of the budget in Ontario? The biggest part of the budget, of course, is health care. It’s probably about 40-some percent of the budget. But there was an

article in the Toronto Star the other day—this is related; this is employer health tax, Bill 105. This

article in the Toronto Star, entitled “Fundraisers an Increasing Necessity for Sick Ontarians,” goes on to say that a woman who had a stroke was sort of taken out of the hospital, and the option was that she could stay for $1,700 a month but get no treatment. This article, “Fundraisers an Increasing Necessity for Sick Ontarians,” is from the October 3 Toronto Star. This person and her family were spending—mortgaging their house to get therapy for a stroke victim.

I have one in my riding, a fellow by the name of Jim McEwan, an engineer who at about 50 years of age had a stroke. He was a significant partner in an engineering firm, and now he’s spending his lifetime savings to receive therapy as a stroke victim. He’s a very intelligent man.

This is what has happened to Ontario. Now, this employer health tax, Bill 105, they’re suggesting—if you go back to the way this thing started, it was implemented as part of the original budget in, I believe, 2003-04. That was another tax tool. They’ve now increased almost all the taxes on business itself. When I say that, I’m saying that if you look at the WSIB rates and the College of Trades, these are all basically taxes on jobs; there’s no getting around it. I know that the last time I was speaking on Bill 105, I wasn’t really allowed to get into some of this stuff, health care being the biggest one in the budget.

Another article, this again is in the Toronto Star: Ornge, the air ambulance business, plans an overhaul of how to bid and improve its service. A review that went on—an independent report—says, “The review examined 40 cases where a patient died and found eight cases where Ornge operational issues had some impact on the outcome.” That means a medical system that’s failed.

We’re talking about Bill 105, which is a modest little manipulation of taxes for very small business, but in fact it just shifts that tax to someone else. There’s no tax cut here for anyone.

If you don’t think that paying an electricity bill isn’t a tax, then you don’t know how it works. Electricity is a tax, because it’s non-discretionary consumption. What has happened to electricity in this province? The cost of electricity has doubled.

Now, that cost in Bill 105 does talk about the budget, and in that respect I’m relating elements that are not specifically in Bill 105, because Bill 105 only does one thing: It allows businesses with a payroll under $5 million not to pay as much in employer health tax, but it’s going to shift it to another class. So if you have a payroll of $5,000,001, you’re going to be paying more. That’s what it is, because revenue in Ontario is the problem.

Expenditures are the bigger problem. They’re spending more than they’re earning, and that’s really what the auditor is saying in all his reviews. Today I think they’re reviewing long-term care in the public accounts committee, another failed delivery in health care.

Does this relate to Bill 105? Every time you talk about the budget, you’ve got to talk about what the budget, the money, is being used for. I think we’ve made the point that health care is the largest one. The third-largest expenditure—the viewers should know this—is the interest on the debt. The interest on the debt is something in the order of $11 billion.

So I see a government in trouble. The auditor’s report yesterday with the billion dollars on the gas plants is just one more recent example.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: The opposition can speak in their two-minute responses, and I’d be pleased to see them explain it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: While I agree with the member from Durham, in part, that this is not a revolutionary bill, it is nonetheless a good one, and we support it because it makes a correction that I think is appropriate.

Currently, there’s an exemption for paying the employer health tax on the first $400,000 in an employer’s payroll, and this applies to a small business, but it also applies to big businesses. We argue that giving a break to big businesses where they are doing just fine was something that wasn’t necessary, but giving a break to a small business owner was a very useful thing and a good thing because we know and we realize that a whole lot of smaller companies are creating a whole lot of good jobs, and we need to support them.

But to give a break to a bank or many banks that are doing just fine in our economy just doesn’t make any sense. So we argued with the Liberals that we should support small business but let the big businesses survive on their own. They’re doing just fine without the support of our government and the support of our citizens in this particular example. We argued that while this exemption is appropriate for small companies, there is no reason to have the first $400,000 of a large employer’s payroll exempted from the employer health tax.

Therefore, one of the budget demands that we made was to have companies with $5 million in payroll or more no longer be eligible for that exemption, and that is included in this legislation. We think that is okay, and that is why many of us will be supporting Bill 105.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to stand today to speak in support of Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act.

I was very disappointed when the member from Durham did not focus on the debate today, did not focus on Bill 105. But more importantly, he is noticeably forgetful of what this bill is all about: supporting small businesses and the fact that this proposed legislation, if passed, will help more than 60,000 small businesses in Ontario, including roughly about 12,000 businesses that will no longer have to pay this employer health tax. Again, I want to remind the member from Durham that your party is supporting small businesses, and selectively you forgot what is fuelling the engine of this province: the small businesses. This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing here, and it is part of our government’s commitment through our 2013 budget, is to ask for a reforming of the employer health tax—again, targeting, helping and supporting small business across Ontario. As part of the reform, we are also attracting more businesses into Ontario, making it a place to work, a place to have a business—but more importantly, to attract growth in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are all here for one reason: one Ontario, to make sure businesses stay. More importantly, each one of us, all 107 of us, have a role and a responsibility to attract businesses, good businesses to Ontario. I think every one of us in this House has a responsibility to support bills that attract business to our economy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Huron–Bruce has the floor.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to see you in the chair. It’s going to be an interesting morning.

With that, I want to commend my colleague the member from Durham, because he is spot-on when he talks about what really matters for small business. Time after time after time, we’re seeing this Liberal government try and pull the wool over people’s eyes and tinker around the edges. When we look at this bill, for goodness’ sake—this is the Supporting Small Businesses Act. It’s, again, just tinkering around the edges.

I thought the other day, when we were addressing this very issue, my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke hit the nail right on the head when he said, “My goodness. All this government does is really take from Paul, and because they’ve dug so many deep holes, they can’t even give it over to Peter.” They have so many issues which all culminate today in the headlines, because the truth is finally out there.

This Liberal government has mismanaged for years and years, and finally enough is enough when yesterday the Auditor General outed this Liberal government for their absolute disregard for the Ontario taxpayer by relocating gas plants at a cost of $1.1 billion. It is absolutely abysmal. That’s why, when we have very thin bills like Bill 105 that just tinker around the edges, it’s unacceptable.

People go to the polls and they select people to represent them in this beautiful chamber because they think they’re going to make a difference. But unfortunately, time and time again, scandal after scandal, this Liberal government has proven they do not deserve the support of the Ontario taxpayer any longer, and we need to do more for small business as a result.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently, as I always do, to my good friend from Durham. He speaks in such a way—it’s just a rolling thought pattern, going from issue to issue to issue, but always staying around the area of what is being discussed. I commend him for saying that this is a very small and tiny issue.

I think the member from Huron–Bruce, in her comment, also hit the nail pretty much on the head: This is tinkering around the edges. But we, as New Democrats, are proud of this little tinker. It was part of those things that we insisted on being in the budget if we were going to support it last spring. It’s important for small business, and it is important, in fact, for the economy and for the government as a whole to take away this largesse from big companies that didn’t necessarily need the money or deserve the money.

I’m very happy that the government has come forward with this bill, but I will have a chance in my hour to speak about what the government should have really done if they were, in fact, looking for additional revenues to wipe out an abysmal deficit that’s rising and continuing at around $9.5 billion this year. I think that’s something that needs to be addressed far more than this tinkering around the edges, which is, in fact, revenue-neutral.

But I commend the member from Durham for what he had to say, because we need some real, healthy debate on this. We just can’t stand up and say this is a good thing that the government has done, because it is minimalist, as most of the things that are done here are minimalist.

What we need to do, I think, is to take some real, good action on the economy, and I commend my friend from Durham for talking about the actions his party would take. They might not necessarily be the actions that I would take, but we cannot any longer accept simply minimalist intervention.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to thank the members from Trinity–Spadina, Scarborough–Agincourt, Huron–Bruce and Beaches–East York.

Really, in fairness, to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, I believe that I did speak quite passionately about small business. I think of the farms in my community, which are small business, and I think of the businesses that are mom-and-pop. The people next door to my constituency office are new to Canada, but they’re the hardest-working people, day and night, running a small convenience store.

I really am concerned, though, that this bill itself—the people have to realize, too, that it is a tax, and it’s a minimalist response to it. If you look at it, the exemptions are provided there. The payroll is—I don’t know why they put that in. Either it’s a tax or not.

Now, big business doesn’t get any reward on this. In fact, they’re going to pay more, because the revenue has to come from somewhere. The tax tools that they’re talking about for transit—they’re talking about increasing consumption tax, which is the HST. It’s now 13%. I’m forecasting now, today, it will probably go to 15%. It’s a nice, round number.

The Liberals don’t look at making efficiency changes. They look at getting more money. Their problem isn’t “tax and spend”; it’s “spend and tax,” because they’re always behind. They’re in deficit almost since they got elected. It’s tragic.

I think the member from Scarborough–Agincourt—I’ve met a young constituent of hers, Liang Chen.

Interjection: A great lady.

Mr. John O’Toole: She’s a great lady. She has a PhD in finance. She would be pro-small business; you can guarantee that. I’d do anything to see a person like her in this chamber someday—really. I put that out there because Liang Chen, to me, is a name that the table Clerks and Hansard should get the spelling correct for, because she’ll be here shortly.

Potentially, others will speak today on this bill, and I’m going to be here to listen.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Not too diverse on that side. All white men and white women.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister is a little bit out of line there. I think the minister will retract her last comment about the people who are here.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I retract.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She has to actually stand—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): She did stand, and I’ll take care of it. Thank you.

Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: This is my leadoff. I have up to an hour. I’m not sure that I’m going to take the whole hour.

This is a relatively simple bill, but it needs to be discussed in terms of where it fits in the overall economic patterns of this government and what we could and should be doing in order to revive the economy of this province and pay down our deficit.

First of all, I’d like to give a shout-out to small business in Ontario, particularly the small businesses in my riding. What has been said many times by every single party over the course of my time here in the Legislature is that the backbone of our economy are those small business people who operate, sometimes on a shoestring, but who are the real engine of our economy, the ones who move it forward. When big businesses started to fail in the depression, it was the small businesses that brought things forward and kept things on a pretty even keel.

In Beaches–East York, we have a number of groups that I think are doing a really terrific job, and I’d just like to name them and talk about them for a second, before I get into the meat of the bill.

We have BIAs, business improvement areas, along Queen Street and the Beach. We have a very nascent one on Coxwell Avenue; we have one on Kingston Road. They’re trying to develop others along the Danforth, and in fact there is one along the Danforth as well. They do a terrific job in motivating small businesses, in keeping our storefronts alive, in inviting new restaurants—the community to get involved, to shop locally. They do that kind of job not only for themselves, but the benefits to our community are enormous.

When the storefronts were closing on certain portions of Danforth Avenue, close to where my constituency office is, the local business association and the neighbours came forward with pop-up stores. People go into the stores. The owner of the stores lets the people come in, clean them up—they don’t pay any rent—and start a new enterprise. As a result of those enterprises, those pop-up stores on the Danforth—some of them have been successful, so that after a couple of months they start paying rent, and the store is open and you don’t have sort of the blight, the urban blight, of empty stores along main streets. They’ve done a terrific job.

The BIA on Queen Street, on what I think is also a shoestring budget, is making major improvements with the street furniture and with the flowers, and making it inviting to walk along the street, to go into the restaurants and the small stores, to shop locally, to not have to get in the car or even on the subway to do your shopping but do it right at home.

Some of those monies, in fact, are coming back into the community, so we’re seeing community festivals as a result. You don’t see that with great, big, big-box retail—donating the same way to local neighbourhoods. You don’t see the same thing with giant corporations, for all that they might give to charity. It’s not local and it doesn’t come right back to the community.

Everything that we can do in the NDP to help small business, we want to do it. That’s why we are going to support this bill, even though the bill does not accomplish all of what we wanted to accomplish when we put it forward to the government as one of the demands leading up to the budget. Now, what does the bill do?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We have a mini caucus meeting going on over there. Maybe the member who is entertaining, from Agincourt, would like to take the meeting outside.

Ms. Soo Wong: I didn’t say anything.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Yes, you did. You were talking.

Continue.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I really don’t care what you’re talking about. You want to go outside with it. Go.

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for attempting to try to bring some order here. It is often difficult to make a speech, particularly a technical speech as this one is going to be, with so many people nattering on—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, we have a little comedy act going over here.

You stand up when the member is speaking. Did you want a point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, I was just—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, then I suggest you keep it cut back. Thanks.

Continue.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the member from Renfrew—with people nattering on and saying things and not listening. The important thing about this chamber, and we ought never to forget it, is that this is a place where we have debate, where we look at the ideas that other people are saying. If you don’t want to listen to the debate, I suggest it’s pretty easy not to be here. It’s pretty easy just to ignore it and do whatever you’re doing or quietly read your BlackBerry, which you’re not supposed to have in here either. But the words have to be spoken, and I would hope that they would be listened to.

Mr. Speaker, what we put forward is not exactly what’s contained within the body of the bill. I would like to outline the major and fundamental difference. What is here is that there will be an exemption for the first $450,000 of an employer’s payroll for small businesses of under $5 million. What we had proposed in the lead-up to the budget debate was to leave it at $400,000, not $450,000, and to abolish it for larger corporations that really didn’t need the money. That would have produced revenues of some $90 million for the treasury of Ontario.

It was part of an economic package that we put forward, because New Democrats do not believe that we can or should sustain deficits of the magnitude of what has been the norm here for the last number of years. We need to get out of a deficit situation, and we need to do one of two things. There are only two things that can be done. The first is that you have to increase your revenues; the second is that you have to reduce your expenditures. Reducing expenditures, many times, are very hurtful to people within the economy and can cause some serious repercussions to the economy itself.

So we are very mindful of reducing expenditures, and they have to be surgically done; they just can’t be across the board, as some would suggest. But increasing revenues can also be done surgically and selectively. One of the ways we thought that $90 million could have been made was precisely by leaving it at $400,000.

But having said that, I understand that this is a boon to some small businesses. It’s going to be an amount of money that they’re going to be able to keep, and we are very happy, if one group is going to benefit out of this, that it has been targeted to those small businesses that are less than $5 million a year.

We are also happy with another small thing that is contained within the body of this bill. That is, the government has also moved to close the loopholes that allowed employers to segment their workforce. People out there may or may not understand this, but it is a practice of some companies to break themselves up for the purpose of income tax. You would have a company that would have, say, $10 million or $15 million in total revenues for the year that might not be eligible for the employer health tax.

But what they do is they carve their company up into parts A, B, C and D so that each one of them only has, say, maybe $4 million in total revenues. Then they get additional funds from the government and they are eligible for extra things like relief from the employer health tax. We think the government needs to be very aggressive. A company that is a company ought not to be able to claim they are four companies simply by filing something for a couple of dollars with the Ontario government stating that they are something which, in fact, they are not.

So we are asking the government to move aggressively on this. It’s not contained within the bill itself, but it will be left up to regulation. But the government has to be very aggressive because there will be companies out there that see this employer health tax and see the revenue tool that they may be able to get at $450,000, and decide that they’re just—you know, “Let’s cut our company in half” or a quarter or three quarters or whatever number they’re going to choose in order to be eligible for it, and a great many other things.

So those are the two issues here. We are a little disappointed that there isn’t revenue here for the government, but if it has to go to somebody, please let it be the small business. We are also very mindful that the government needs to be far more aggressive than it has been in the past to close off all possible ways of segmenting the workforce for payroll reporting purposes. Because, to date, that has not been done.

Now, we have larger concerns. I’d like to deal with some of those as they’re related to this bill because, as I said, New Democrats think the bill is a good bill. It wasn’t 100% our idea, but it was mostly our idea, and so we want to take some credit for where we were coming from. We were looking for it as a revenue tool; you were looking for it as a way to help small business, and, in the end, I guess both ideas have their merits.

But there are larger concerns that we have. There are other tax loopholes out there that the government is not considering or the government ignores or the government thinks are perfectly all right, which New Democrats cannot and will not accept.

Let’s start with some of those. The Liberals claim that the provincial government needs to hit household budgets with new taxes to raise $34 billion for transit infrastructure by 2031. Do we need new transit in this province? Absolutely we need transit. If you live in Toronto, as I do, I will tell you, as you try to manoeuvre through Toronto, whether you’re on the TTC, whether you’re driving your car, whether you’re on a bicycle, the gridlock is enormous. With construction season upon us, it’s even worse making your way to Queen’s Park on days like this. A trip for me, if I’m in the car, which would normally be—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: In the car?

Mr. Michael Prue: Sometimes I’m in the car because I have things to do after work at night. You have to understand the nature of our job. And you know too the nature of our job is not necessarily just to be here, but the nature of our job is to go out from this place, from time to time, as I did on Monday, down to Niagara, much to the chagrin of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. But I also have to have the car because tonight I have functions after work in my riding, and I need the car to get there.

But as I came down this morning, the gridlock was oppressive at 7:30 in the morning. I could not believe, with the construction in the downtown core, how long it took me to get to this place. If I was on the TTC, which I often am as well—when I don’t have functions at night or places I have to be during the day, I take the TTC—I actually enjoy it; I get an opportunity to read documentation and newspapers and things that I don’t have a chance to do otherwise. It’s a very pleasant, for me, 45 minutes to an hour to come down on the TTC. It’s a half-hour by car, but the TTC is my preferred way whenever I have an opportunity to do it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Don’t forget, Michael, we don’t have clean buses on Dufferin.

Mr. Michael Prue: Well, no, I know—the clean buses on Dufferin. I’d like to give a shout-out to my friend from Eglinton–Lawrence, who always raises this issue. Perhaps he would be mindful of the number of buses—I think we said so yesterday—2,000-something buses that could have been bought had we not spent a billion dollars in other ways. That would have put a clean bus on every single street in Toronto for that price. So you have to know what you want and you have to be prepared to do it. You can either shut down a gas plant in Oakville or you can have a clean bus on Dufferin.

I would think my friend from Eglinton–Lawrence would have chosen the latter, and maybe should have been more vocal at the time for his clean buses instead of Oakville.

Mr. Mike Colle: Always have been.

Mr. Michael Prue: Always have been—and I agree with him, but I digress, Mr. Speaker, I digress.

This is what the government is saying: They need $34 billion. Do we need the infrastructure? Do we need the TTC? Do we need buses and GO trains, infrastructure and bridges and things all across this province? Of course we do. Do we need the $34 billion to do it? Of course we do. Do we need the $34 billion to do it? Of course we do. But the question is, where does it come from? The government is saying, as I understand their argument, that ordinary taxpayers are going to have to pony up this $34 billion.

I am reminded of a little meeting in my office some time ago with some business groups. They were coming forward to me to say, “We need infrastructure. We need infrastructure across Ontario. We particularly need infrastructure and money for subways and things in Toronto.” They were asking me to support the earliest machinations of the Premier to find $34 billion from general revenues from taxation. They were looking at a whole bunch of things that were all going to hit ordinary people and small business.

I had to remind them—I said, “Look, meet me halfway. You, as a big business group—you meet me halfway. You come up with $17 billion that big business is going to pay, and I will start to make the arguments for you about the $17 billion that citizens will pay, because we all use the roads. We all use the infrastructure.”

I pointed right out my window, as they were watching, to University Avenue. More than half the vehicles on University Avenue, as I pointed out to them, were trucks, taxicabs, delivery vehicles and other things that were business-operated. They weren’t people in their cars. I said, “Businesses use the roads half as much as people use it for transportation and transit. Therefore, I think that business should be made to pay half the amount.” You can understand that that idea was not broadly accepted around the table by anyone except me, because the big business that was there didn’t want to pay anything. We, as New Democrats, say that everything has to be fair.

I want to get to that next point. At the same time, the Liberal government has committed to a series of new corporate tax loopholes and giveaways to Ontario’s largest corporations and highest-income earners that will cost the Ontario treasury over $35 billion by 2031.

So there you have the choice: the corporate tax giveaways, the tax loopholes for those who earn huge amounts of money compared to the rest of us, and the amount of money, the $1 billion, between the two. You’re asking ordinary people to fork over $34 billion, but you’re letting $35 billion slip between your fingers from corporations and the very rich. Does this make any economic sense? Does this make any sense at all?

When we talk about this very small amount that’s revenue-neutral in this bill, we also have to look at what the government is doing, or not doing, to meet the needs of Ontario. If you’re going to give away $35 billion, and you’re going to tax ordinary people $34 billion, then I think there’s something wrong and I would think there is likely to be a revolution over such actions.

Just to be clear where this money you are giving away is in reality coming from: Beginning in 2015, the government will open a $1-billion corporate tax loophole that will give Ontario’s largest corporations an HST rebate on expenses like high-priced restaurants and box seats. The annual cost is $1.3 billion a year, and the cumulative cost by 2031 is $18.85 billion. Now, just so everybody knows about that bill—I mean, everybody knows what that involves.

The most egregious part, of course, is that big corporations go to fancy restaurants and down to the Air Canada Centre, down to the Rogers Centre, take their corporate clients out for a night of shows and wining and dining and everything else and don’t pay any HST.

I know that when I go out to a restaurant, I pay the HST. Everybody in this room pays the HST. When I go down to watch a Leafs game, which I only do sparingly because the tickets are so exorbitant, do I pay the HST? Yes, I pay the HST. Why don’t the corporations have to pay the HST? When I go down and watch the basketball game—and I haven’t been to one now, I must admit, for the last year or so—I pay the HST. Why don’t the corporations pay the HST? When I go to the show and see a production, I pay the HST. Why don’t the corporations pay the HST?

The Liberals have said this is not an issue. We think it is an issue. It’s a $1.3-billion issue. If you close that loophole, will some of the corporations not take their clients out and wine and dine them and do all those things? Maybe some will. Will there be a slight reduction? Maybe there will in the number of expenses that are actually out there in the economy. But will it hurt the restaurants and Maple Leaf entertainment? I don’t think so at all. I don’t think one whit will it hurt, because the corporations have that kind of money, and they don’t need a tax loophole to do it.

The second thing: Beginning in 2018, there are planned corporate tax cuts from 11.5% to 10%. It will cost the treasury about $800 million a year. This is according to the Globe and Mail, April 24, 2012. That’s what is anticipated: $800 million, or $0.8 billion a year, or $10.4 billion by 2031. And that’s because the government has said all of these cuts will resume as soon as we come back into a non-deficit position.

The government has said we’re going to be out of deficit by 2017, so in 2018 and beyond, we are going to start reducing the amounts of money that corporations pay to the point of some $800 million a year. Can we afford this? Can this be afforded when we have been running a deficit for so long, when we have debts that are starting to cripple this economy, this government and this province? We should be very mindful of simply giving away money to corporations that make a lot of money. I want to help those that are in some kind of trouble, and we have programs for that, but just to give it away is bizarre.

I don’t want to pick on the banks. The banks are there to make money, and the banks make money. I look at the quarterly reports; they make $1.3 billion, $1.5 billion, $1.8 billion a quarter. Each one of the Big Five sisters makes that every quarter in profit. I have to ask myself, do we need to subsidize them? No. Do we need to impede them and hinder them and treat them nasty? No, we don’t need to do that either. But why do we give tax money to them? Why do we give all of this money away that we so desperately need?

We have in this province many poor people. We have in this province families that live hand to mouth. We haven’t increased near enough the amount of money that children who have the misfortune to grow up in families with a parent or parents on ODSP—we haven’t given them near enough money, and they go to school hungry. Why do we need to allow that and, at the same time, feel that somehow in 2018 we’re going to give additional corporate tax cuts of nearly a billion dollars to those companies that don’t need it?

Beginning in 2018, there is also a planned tax cut for individuals earning over $500,000 per year. That’s going to cost the treasury of Ontario about $470 million a year, or approximately $6,110,000,000 cumulative by 2031. When the NDP—not this last budget, but the budget before—put as a condition that there would be a new income tax for those who earn above $500,000, at first the Liberals shied away from it. At first, they said no and thought it was a terrible idea, until editorial opinion and research showed that 85% or 90% of all Ontarians thought it was a good idea.

The Liberals then backtracked and put it into the budget, but they also put the caveat that that would end as soon as we got out of deficit position. Can we afford that? I don’t think so.

If you look at what is happening in the United States, what Obama is trying to do as the President of the United States around that very issue—and Warren Buffett, one of his chief spokespeople, one of the richest men in the world, says it’s categorically unfair that he pays a lower income tax rate in that country than his secretary does.

We are saying to the government that you cannot afford it if you have plans of building subways, if you have plans of new roads and bridges in rural Ontario, if you have plans of putting GO trains down to Niagara. If you have any plans at all for making Ontario a better place than it is already, you cannot forgo that money. We are telling you that it’s not contained within the body of this bill. Maybe this is the first of many bills, but we want to point you in the direction you need to go.

Now, the cumulative total of those things alone—those three ideas alone—is $2.57 billion a year or, over the life of the cumulative cost, by 2031 $35.36 billion. That could pay for every single idea for transit, for transportation that the Premier has enunciated. That could pay every single dime, in and of itself. Will the government do it? I don’t know. Would the NDP do it? I also don’t know. There is a role for ordinary people to pay something, too, because they are going to benefit, in terms of helping to ease gridlock.

I’m not going to say “end gridlock,” because Toronto is of such size and such sprawl that I don’t know whether it can ever be ended, but it certainly can be eased. I have, and we all have, a duty to pay for some of that.

But start looking to where that money is, start looking to the deficits we have been running, and start looking to the debt that we are accumulating. Start looking at all of these things when you come up with economic bills. If we make the ITC permanently delayed—they’ve been delayed for a couple of years—but if we permanently delay them, as I said, this is going to be $1.3 billion annually, and it should be done. We should consider it low-hanging fruit. It is one of the easiest possible things we can do.

I’d like to talk about some other things that we could do. Don Drummond said—and let’s use the Drummond report for a few minutes—where we needed to find some additional revenues. Now, he was very light on finding additional revenues; he was very heavy on all the things that we could cut. But let’s look at what he said about additional revenues. He estimated that we could get $50 million in year one and $200 million by 2017-18 by increasing corporate tax compliance.

Those are big words, but literally having the tax department—which we gave away to Ottawa and which now works in Ottawa and not for the province of Ontario. The people we used to have work here and look after Ontario’s interests now look after Canada’s interests, with Ontario secondary—in my view anyway. But we made that corporate decision, and I voted against it and still think it was wrong-headed idea. They’re in Ottawa now.

But if we asked the federal government to be part of this, of getting corporate tax compliance so that people can’t run around the tax system, we could get a minimum, according to Drummond, of $50 million to $200 million a year.

The federal government, to its credit—and I don’t often have very nice things to say about the Harper government in Ottawa—in the last budget closed some of those loopholes federally. If you look at what was done, you have to think it’s a good thing.

I was watching the CBC the night before last, and they showed tax loopholes and how Canadian companies located in Ontario primarily, but Canadian companies as a whole, picked Barbados, of all places, as the place to invest. They use the tax loopholes to set up sham and dummy corporations in Barbados, and the amount of money that is flowing between Canada and Barbados is phenomenal. It showed some of the income tax experts in Canada, caught on tape, telling people how to avoid paying income taxes and their fair share of corporate taxes in Canada.

It showed, as well, people in Barbados, lawyers and accountants in Barbados, bringing people from Canada to avoid compliance and to invest in Barbados. In fact, at the end of the television documentary show, at the end of the national news, it showed that Barbados, after the United States and Canada, was the third-biggest place in the world in which Canadians were now investing their money. A little, tiny place with less than a million in population was the third place in the world.

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s 280,000.

Mr. Michael Prue: My colleague here—280,000 people, he’s saying. You may be right. I know it’s less than a million.

There is the third place in the world that money is flowing into from Canada. We need to shut those things down. I don’t know that Ontario can play the entire role, but we have to have the finance minister dealing with the finance ministers of the other provinces and with the federal government to cut those kinds of things down, because that is money that is literally bleeding from Ontario, literally bleeding from the people of Canada.

They make all their money here, but they don’t want to reinvest back into the people who helped them make that money. They get all the roads; they get all the education; they get all the infrastructure that this wonderful province and this wonderful country can provide, and they don’t want to pay taxes on it.

I am sorry; we as New Democrats cannot countenance that. We will not accept that. We ask the government to start being more serious on this very point. It’s all well and good to help small business—and I’m back to that again—in this very small way that will help some of them with $1,000 or $2,000 a year, and I’m thankful for that and I’m sure they are too. But we have to start looking at the big players, and we have to start looking at those players that don’t want to play by the rules, because the rules should apply to everyone.

I don’t know of anyone who works in a factory, I don’t know of anyone who works in an office, I don’t know any schoolteachers, and I don’t know even any politicians in this room who try to funnel their money offshore for tax avoidance or who put it into another province for tax avoidance. It isn’t done by ordinary people. It’s done by those who have the wherewithal, the financial accounting, the lawyers and everyone else to tell them how to do it. We need to end it.

I’d like to just go back, because I don’t think I spoke enough about the HST delayed-input tax credits. I did talk about people going down to watch hockey games and going to restaurants and those kinds of things, but there are some other HST exemptions that exist today.

Large businesses, generally those making taxable incomes—including zero-rated supplies—worth more than $10 million, and banks, trust companies, credit unions, insurers, segregated funds of insurers, and investment plans are thinking that they’ve got it made. But we believe that the HST tax input should remain permanent, or should be made permanent, because some of the other things that this does for business, which I have some real problem with, is that a business can have the HST exempt for road vehicles that are less than three tonnes, including all parts, service and fuel.

Now, think about this for a minute. Probably everybody in this chamber has a car. Everybody in this chamber has a car, but not one person in this chamber and not one person that I know of the general public has an HST tax exemption for purchasing a car—anything under three tonnes—nor do they get any HST tax exemption for parts, if something goes wrong with the car, for service on the vehicle, or for the fuel that goes into the vehicle. I wonder: Why do people here want to include and continue that HST exemption? I don’t get it. Why should they get it?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Because they create jobs.

Mr. Michael Prue: Okay, here it is: My Conservative friend says, “Because they create jobs.”

Here’s the nub of it all: Do they create jobs with that money? If they did, I might say it was okay. But they don’t create jobs with that money. Even the federal finance minister, who used to sit here in this very House, has complained bitterly that all of these tax exemptions that have been given are simply pooled and kept in their profits and kept in their corporate pockets and are not creating the kinds of jobs they were intended to do. I have some problem with that; I have some problem.

What we need to do is we have to have—not just giving away the money, as some people in this place would want to do—conditions—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Durham might want to get in his seat.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Why? You know why.

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I couldn’t hear what that nattering was all about, but I’m sure it was—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Irrelevant.

Mr. Michael Prue: I’m sure it was intended to be funny, at least.

The second thing is, I think we have to start questioning, for corporations, on this HST exemption. They are also exempt from energy, from electricity, gas, fuel and steam, except if they’re in manufacturing. I find this amazing. I find this amazing that the Liberals have pooh-poohed the idea every time we talked about this. They are exempt from energy, electricity, gas, fuel and steam.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: They wrote a letter, though.

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, they wrote a letter.

But are people in this chamber exempt? Are teachers or truck drivers or cab drivers or people who work in the grocery store? If they turn on the light, they’re not exempt from the HST, I’ll tell you. They see that HST on every bill. When they fuel up their car, are they exempt? No, they’re not exempt; they pay it on every bill.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to be a corporation.

Mr. Michael Prue: But if you’re a corporation, this government has pooh-poohed the idea that they should have to pay. I think ordinary people think they should.

The telecommunications—we were arguing this just the other day. We had a bill here about telecommunications and some of the rip-offs, but one of the biggest rip-offs is that corporations are exempt for telecommunications except for Internet and toll-free numbers. They don’t pay HST. Why do I pay HST? Why do you pay HST? Why does everybody else pay, but they don’t pay? They don’t pay.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: I know it’s federal, but we need to talk about this. I started off my speech, if the member had been listening, by saying the federal Minister of Finance and the finance ministers from each of the provinces have to sit down and the HST exemption has to be taken away. This is not something that can be done unilaterally, but this is something that needs to have the guts—and not just pooh-poohing the thing. This has to be a concerted effort by the government and, indeed, from all sides of this House. That’s why I’m talking about it today.

I’ve already talked about the meals and entertainment.

This restriction is going to be gradually eliminated. Right now it’s 100%. They can’t claim the HST from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015. But starting on July 1, 2015, it’s reduced to 75%. Starting on July 1, 2016, it’s going to be reduced to 50%—starting on July 1, 2017, to 25%, and on July 1, 2018, to zero. What we are going to see over the next four or five years is a reduction of $1.3 billion until it’s down to zero. I don’t think we can afford it, and I don’t think it’s fair, and I don’t think for what it’s purported to do it’s doing a very good job.

Manufacturing jobs have declined. Many other jobs are in short supply. If there are any jobs being created in this province—and you can ask almost anyone—they are in low-paying, non-manufacturing jobs at minimum wage and are staffed primarily by young people who have no other choice because there’s an unemployment rate of 15% or so among the young. I ask the government to think about that.

Don Drummond also pointed out a number of problems with Ontario’s tax collection system. He said the greatest challenge to the province relates to the ability of corporations to eliminate or decrease payment of provincial corporate income tax through creative mechanisms, including the shifting of profits and losses across Canada and outside of Canada. Again, I refer to the CBC story of a night or two nights ago, and that, to me, pretty much says it all. Don Drummond recognizes that that’s a place we should go, and I’m looking forward to the future where the government looks at it as well.

A couple more things—and I’ll probably conclude before the hour is up. We need to do some aggressive international tax-planning strategies so that people who earn their profits in Canada, corporations that earn their profits in Ontario, pay taxes in Ontario and pay taxes in Canada. We can no longer afford to have this money shifting around the world.

Those who are infinitely better at computers than I have been able to uncover some of that tax avoidance. We have seen it. Of course, some of them are chased around the world by those who have a lot of money and who are pushing their respective governments to put them in jail for actually showing how this international money moves around.

So I’m asking not only the finance minister of Ontario, but especially the federal finance minister to meet with finance ministers from other countries. Just as we are suffering in this country—mark my words—people are suffering throughout most of the developed world because of those who would seek to avoid paying their fair share.

The federal government and budget went at least partway toward curtailing foreign-controlled corporations, with the introduction of the foreign affiliate dumping rules in Bill C-45. New Democrats support this initiative. We want to see much more from the federal government, and we hope that the finance minister will lean that way, as well.

In that regard, there are just a couple of things that need to happen. We need, as a province, to insist that there is additional data review and research to identify activities of concern to this province. Secondly, we need to enter into an agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency to invest resources in additional compliance efforts; that is, finding those companies that are going around the law and making sure that they pay.

We need to implement additional reporting requirements that disclose activities that cause income and losses to be allocated to a province where the underlying economic activity was minimal or did not occur. We know that there are corporations who’ve set up dummy offices or tiny offices in provinces where they have no economic activity in order to evade paying the taxes in Ontario. We need to make sure that that comes to a halt.

We also need to ensure that companies that take advantage of loans, grants, writeoffs and other Ontario corporate tax breaks, on the assumption that they will undertake certain activities such as job creation, new plants and machinery, research and development, actually perform those activities in Ontario. We need to do that.

My friend from the Conservative Party shouted out a while ago that they create jobs. Well, if they’re creating jobs, they need to create them, and if they’re not creating jobs, we shouldn’t be giving them money to do so.

Drummond recommended that Ontario collaborate with the federal government and other provinces to investigate options to tax corporations on a consolidated basis, with the purpose of ensuring a fair allocation of losses and income across Canada. I could not agree more.

Mr. Speaker, to wind up—see, I am going to be less than my hour—New Democrats support this bill, but we recognize that it is a relatively minor bill when we have major, major problems. We have problems because there is not enough revenue, and in

part I think the government is to blame for this, for wasting revenues, very precious dollars, that ought not to have been wasted. The Premier said as much yesterday.

It is a shame to waste a billion dollars when there is so much that could be done with it. It is a shame to have wasted a billion dollars on eHealth when so much could have been done with it. It is a shame to have wasted the hundreds of millions of dollars on Ornge when so much could have been done with it.

We need the revenues, but we also need to be mindful of how those monies are being spent. They need to be spent in ways that help everyone in the province of Ontario. We need to spend money on transit; we need to spend money on health; we need to spend money on education; we need to spend money on a thousand things that will help the people of this province. To get those monies, we need to make sure that everyone pays their fair share.

It is no longer acceptable to New Democrats and to the people of this province that ordinary people are being asked to pay again and again and again, when those who have the wherewithal and the money do tax avoidance by spending the money offshore. This is a land of opportunity, this is a province of opportunity, but it has to be a province of opportunity for all, not the selected few.

I commend the government for bringing this bill forward, but I also ask the government to please start bringing more meaty bills forward; have the finance minister, please, sit down with his counterpart from other provinces and with the federal government; have the government draft legislation, which, in conjunction with others, will make sure that there is no longer tax avoidance; and sit down and start really asking yourself the question about the GST/HST tax avoidance, which is going to be taken off over the next four to five years, costing the treasury $1.3 billion that we simply do not have.

That’s it in a nutshell: a small bill, a small help for small business, and part of a much larger problem where the solutions have not yet surfaced from the government bench. They need to do so and they need to do it with the next bill that they bring forward, that needs to be meatier, that needs to be more focused and that needs to actually deliver some results to the people of Ontario.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It’s a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill 105. I must commend the member from Beaches–East York for the good advice that he gave. I was very surprised. I was wondering, “Am I listening to an NDP member speaking?” I was not sure. But he brought a very, very good idea.

There’s something that we both agree on: We have to help small businesses. They are the ones who are creating jobs. They are the ones who maintain the economy that we have in Ontario. They are the ones that employ the most workers in Ontario.

Today, I want to commend the small businesses in my community of Ottawa–Vanier. They are everywhere. Like I said in the past, they are our community leaders, they are our volunteers, they are the ones who contribute to fundraisers for the hospitals, for the community centres. They are great people.

As I said before, I’m from a long line of small business. I am the only civil servant in my family. My family—my grandfather, my father and now his son—continues the business that was started in 1944 during the war, and it’s still in existence. They hired not many employees, but it made the difference in the small community where I’m from, about 300 in population. They do hire about—

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: With regard to Bill 105, this is just a small bill, really and truly. I believe it just really touches upon the edges. It’s a bill that, in fact, maybe gives the persona that this government is really trying to do something for small business, when, in fact, it’s merely a drop in the bucket.

Again, the legislation actually exemplifies what is wrong with this government and their approach to governing, really and truly. They’re unwilling to go far enough to take the decisive action which is really needed to provide real tax relief for Ontarians today.

Having been a small business owner for 25 years before I came to the Legislature, I truly believe that it’s the small businesses in Ontario that are the backbone of the economy here.

This bill doesn’t really go far enough at all. Again, it’s a perimeter bill which makes people think for a fact that this government is really doing something wonderful. Well, if they really wanted to do something wonderful, they’d do something about the skyrocketing hydro rates.

When I go along the streets and talk to small businesses back in the riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, they say, “Rick, we have to turn out half of the lights in our building during the day, because that’s when we’re paying the high rates. We’re finding the rates are becoming more and more expensive every day.” That’s crippling small business; that’s not helping small business. You take a look at, recently, the rate increases in WSIB—again, killing small businesses.

So, Speaker, although this bill doesn’t go far enough, we will support it in the long run.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I commend my colleague from Beaches–East York for a good lead: 45 minutes of information and well-informed commentary.

Like him, I agree that exempting small companies from paying the employer health tax on the first $450,000 is a good thing. We forced the Liberals to remove that from the larger corporations, which they agreed to, so those that earn over $5 million are now going to be paying that tax. We think it’s good, because those large corporations that make over $5 million are probably doing okay on their own. They don’t need a government handout, which becomes a citizens’ handout, to the big corporations.

But he added something else that we want the Liberals to pay attention to, and so far they haven’t taken it very seriously. Starting in 2015, the government will start offering input tax credits that will refund the HST paid by corporations on things like meals, entertainment and company cars. At the moment, they pay the HST. In 2015, they’re going to start getting a credit on those input taxes. The point that we make is, do we need to do that? Can citizens of Ontario afford to allow corporations to get a refund on the HST on things like meals, entertainment and company cars? I think it’s wrong.

The member from Beaches–East York thinks it’s wrong. But this Liberal government isn’t taking that seriously.

By the way, they will also refund the HST paid on office utility bills, the heating and lighting. And while it’s okay for manufacturers and factories, it’s not okay for banks.

The member makes great points.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I too want to congratulate the member for Beaches–East York for his speech. He highlighted very important points and gave us some constructive criticism, which is nice to see.

I want to say, especially for the benefit of the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, who called this bill peripheral, that this bill will exempt businesses with annual payrolls of under $5 million from paying the employer health tax on the first $450,000 of their payroll each year. So, Mr. Speaker, over 12,000 businesses in Ontario will no longer be paying this tax. I think this is significant; I don’t think that this is peripheral. So I wanted to make that clear.

Going back to the member from Beaches–East York, I was also glad that he spoke about BIAs. In a city like Toronto, which both he and I represent, BIAs really play an important role.

I know that in my riding of York South–Weston, I have BIAs such as the Eglinton Hill BIA, the Mount Dennis BIA and the Weston BIA. They all represent small businesses—they’re all small businesses—and they’re trying to revitalize areas of the city that are really in need of being refreshed. They do great work.

For those of you who may not know, this weekend, on Saturday, the BIA in Weston will be celebrating the harvest from 10 to noon. There will be lots of fun for all the families. Come on by. Come and take a look.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Beaches–East York has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Prue: I want to thank my colleagues—the Minister of Community Safety and Corrections, the members from Chatham–Kent–Essex, Trinity–Spadina and York South–Weston—for their comments.

The comments were very generous, and I thank you for them, but I also think that they all hit a common theme. We all support small business, or should all support small business, irrespective of which party you represent. Small businesses do a huge amount of good for our local economy. They do a huge amount of good for our local neighbourhoods. I would tell people that if you have an option of buying from the little guy or from the big guy, start looking at the little guy. Maybe it costs more; sometimes it does.

But the level of service and the strength of your community depend upon the support you give to small businesses. That’s why I support this bill. I’m looking forward to much more, but that’s why I support this bill: because it’s going to help those small businesses.

My colleague from York South–Weston talked about BIAs. Yes, BIAs are absolutely and fundamentally important. I don’t know whether they exist all across Ontario. I do know they exist all across Toronto, and they exist in many other of the larger municipalities—where the municipality, from its own money, funds half the cost of the BIA, and the local BIA, through a levy of their members, funds the other half. Where you see a strong BIA, you see wonderful shopping districts spring up and stay there. You see street furniture and flowers. You see places where people can eat outside on restaurant patios.

You see street life and a vibrancy of the city or town which, without the BIA, would not exist. So I take my hat off to them as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: I know we have lots of dentists in the crowd today because it’s ODA’s lobby day. I’m not going to introduce everyone, but I do want to make special mention of the president of ODA, Dr. Rick Caldwell. Welcome to all the dentists at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have a couple of people to introduce: first of all, Dr. Visconti, all the way from Timmins, Ontario, who is here along with all of the dentists, but also, I have Lucie Laplante, all the way from Kapuskasing. She works in my constituency office and has put up with me all these years.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome students from Don Valley East, from North Toronto Christian School, to the Legislature here today.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to introduce my constituent Guy Boone, who is a professional engineer and the chairman of Professional Engineers Ontario’s government liaison program in the Ottawa chapter. Welcome, Guy.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d also like to welcome the Ontario Dental Association and Dr. Rick Caldwell, the president, who happens to come from my hometown.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I want to introduce Dr. Roch St-Aubin, from Sudbury. His office is on the corner of Elm and Elgin streets. He’s also the chair of the political action committee of the Ontario Dental Association. We want to welcome him and his fellow professionals here today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome Dr. Kevin Roach, from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who is the Ontario Dental Association’s representative from my area joining us at Queen’s Park today. Of course, they’ll be welcoming us at a reception later today as well.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to welcome Sydney Brouillard-Coyle. She’s a 13-year-old from Essex, Ontario. I met her at We Day. She has been fundraising and volunteering since she was six. She wants to be the Prime Minister one day. She’s here with her parents. She’s right there. She is here with her parents, Christopher and Christine Brouillard-Coyle. They’re both here.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce a couple of constituents today. I’ve got Dr. Dave Jones, from the Dorchester area, visiting from the Dental Association, and Maggie Head, who is also a constituent of mine back home in Union, Ontario.

Mr. Bill Mauro: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House an old high school friend of mine, a basketball buddy and my current dentist, Peter Hryniuk, who is here as part of the Ontario Dental Association, in the east public gallery.

Mr. Frank Klees: We’ve all become very impressed with the exemplary performance of page James Prowse, from Newmarket–Aurora. I’m pleased to extend a warm welcome to his aunt Cheryl Deville and uncle Fred Gallagher.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted that Khalil Ramal, the former MPP from London–Fanshawe, is here with us today. He is joined by Dr. Mahmood Moshiri.

I’m also delighted to welcome Dr. Peter Fendrich and everyone here from the ODA—big smiles for everyone.

I’m also pleased to introduce Adrienne Palmer-Spafford and Joanna Rizi from the Ontario Long Term Care Association.

Welcome, everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Me?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s who you are.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Oh. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear you say it.

I’d like to welcome Dr. Jerry Collins, with the ODA, who is here—he has a dental practice in Orillia—and also Mrs. Balbir Gill, the mother of Gaggan Gill, who is my assistant here at Queen’s Park.

I should point out to you, ladies and gentlemen, that Gaggan will be leaving Queen’s Park shortly and finding employment with a cabinet minister in Ottawa. She’ll be sorely missed.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It’s a pleasure to introduce a gentleman I’ve known for many years who keeps me smiling. Here for the ODA lobby day is my dentist, Dr. Steve Lipinski of Mississauga.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’d just like to welcome Dr. Paul Giuliani from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, who is here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Everyone is being co-operative. I’m going to try to get through the rest of these introductions. Please make sure you just introduce your guests.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to welcome Dr. Christina Heidinger from the great riding of Kitchener Centre, who is here for the ODA lobby day.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome again the father of Ian, our great page from Prince Edward–Hastings: Simon Chapelle—and also, from the ODA, my good friend Dr. Bill Hern.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like members to welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Dr. Ivan Hrabowsky from the city of St. Catharines.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to introduce a good friend and the past president of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Art Worth.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Would you please help me welcome Dr. Waji Khan, who’s with the Ontario Dental Association, from the Kingston area.

As well, would you welcome, please, in the members’ gallery, from Professional Engineers Ontario, Annette Bergeron, the president, who is also from Kingston; Michael Price; Scott Clark; and their guest, well known to everyone here, Howard Brown.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome—and I’m sure there are others that I’m missing, so I apologize—my favourite dentist from Burlington, Dr. Larry Pedlar.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome another dentist, Dr. Brian Teneschuk—very active with the ODA.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’d like to welcome Dr. Murray Pearson, whom I’m having lunch with today.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’d like to welcome the parents and family of Ravicha Ravinthiran: mother Sonthy; father, Ravinthiran; sister Luckshika; and grandfather Sivanayagamoorthy. They’re not quite here yet; they’re on their way, but I want to welcome them here today.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Dr. Blake Clemons, who is from my riding of Perth–Wellington.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Please welcome Lynn Posluns, founder of the Women’s Brain Health Initiative. Many of us had breakfast to learn more about her project.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Dr. Totten, a dentist from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome a good friend of mine, the former president of the Canadian Dental Association and the Ontario Dental Association and a great dentist from Ottawa Centre, Dr. Don Friedlander.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome Mr. Alan Korell from the PEO, who is the city engineer in the city of North Bay.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait plaisir de vous présenter M. Roch St-Aubin, qui est un dentiste de la région de Sudbury and who is here with the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome the parents of page Daniel. His mother and father and grandparent are here visiting the Legislature for the second time.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to welcome Dr. Charles Frank to the Legislature today, who is sitting behind us here—a dentist from our area.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all members for their indulgence and appreciate very deeply that you just did introductions—it’s very helpful—and, as the Speaker always does, to introduce a former colleague, Khalil Ramal from London–Fanshawe in the 38th and 39th Parliaments. Welcome.

Another reason why I am very appreciative of your indulgence is there’s a method to my madness. I have some guests in the House today. This is a history-making organization from all organized support, six-times-in-a-row champions of the Intercounty Baseball League, the Brantford Red Sox—with my apologies to the member from Barrie—with owner Paul Aucoin, field manager Adam Clarke, general manager Mike Bonnano, and all of the staff and volunteers of the Brantford Red Sox championship team. Thank you for being here. The two children in the crowd also played first base and third base. Anyway, the players are here as well, and we appreciate your talents and skill sets.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. I watched your press conference last night in the wake of the latest revelations of $1.1 billion that you wasted to protect Liberal seats. You said that you’re sorry. Here’s the difference between your leadership and mine, Premier: Saying you’re sorry isn’t leadership.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I’ll be starting immediately. Member from Sudbury, come to order. I’m going to start right away.

Finish, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Your style of leadership is that you believe leadership is simply saying you’re sorry. I believe leadership is about holding people to account, holding people accountable for what they’ve done with taxpayer dollars. You failed to make this announcement last night; maybe you will this morning: Who got fired? Who is being dumped from cabinet? Who is being held accountable for this incredible waste of $1.1 billion?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have done exactly what I said I was going to do when I came into office. I campaigned during the leadership on opening up the process, making sure that the information was available, and that is what we’ve done. That’s why the tens of thousands of documents have gone to the committee: 30,000 documents from the Premier’s office. That’s why I asked the Auditor General to look at the Oakville situation and to report on that situation. We have that report now, so the information that I said needed to be available is available. From my perspective, that’s leadership. I said I was going to do it, I did it. You have the information. That’s been the process.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think the answer, Premier, is, if you will remove nobody from their job, it’s time to remove you from your job, and bring in a new team.

Let me see if I understand your alibi on this. Your alibi is that you’ve spent $1.1 billion in hush money to send to TransCanada and is you had nothing to do with it. You were out in the hallway when these decisions took place. You were out of the loop.

The reality is, Premier, your fingerprints are all over this. You actually signed the deal. You had a choice. You had an option. You could have said, “No, this is not in the interests of taxpayers. This is bad for the province of Ontario.” You could have set a higher standard, but you signed the deal, you signed the document. If you’re going to do that and sell us up the river, why should we trust you with the finances—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is really important that people understand we made a commitment, as did all the parties, to cancel and relocate the gas plants. That was our commitment. So as we followed through on that commitment, we took advice from officials. I have said that in the first instance—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shouting people down is not—I need to hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said, in the first instance, that there were decisions made that should not have been made, that we should have paid closer attention to the community. I have never said, as the Leader of the Opposition alleges, that I didn’t take any responsibility. In fact, I’ve said the exact opposite. I was part of a cabinet that made this decision, and we worked to make the decision in the best way possible. There were mistakes made. I have apologized and I do apologize for those mistakes, but my responsibility now is to make sure that this never happens again, that we have the processes in place to make sure it never happens—

Interjections.

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

The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order. The member from Cambridge, come to order. The member from Halton, come to order—second time.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s incredible that the Liberals give themselves a standing ovation and a pat on the back. All of you could have said no. Not one of you actually stood up and said no. Not one of the Liberal benches ever took a moment to say this was wrong—not a single one of you.

The choice is clear—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The same goes both ways. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Kick him out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member who just said that might find themselves kicked out.

Please finish.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Not a single one of you said no. The only choice is to clear out this entire corrupt lot, change the government and get this province back on track.

Here’s step number two: Call a judicial inquiry. Put the Liberals before the stand—the threat of jail time, the threat of jail doors closing—to compel them to tell the truth.

Premier, will you support our call for a judicial inquiry—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If I believed for one moment that there were anything criminal that had gone on, if I had seen anything in the Auditor General’s report that would have indicated anything criminal, I would order a judicial inquiry. I would be looking for that.

The fact is that it is very clear now, as a result of all of the documentation and all of the reports that have been done, that there were mistakes made. The people who were making decisions made mistakes in terms of some of the decisions and some of the paths that they went down. I’ve said that. I have taken responsibility for that as a member of the government. What I said I was going to do was provide that information to all of the people who were asking for it. That’s what I’ve done. We have the information, and now it’s time that we need to make sure it—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: When a group of people choose to misuse taxpayer dollars—$1.1 billion—and then cover it up and destroy evidence, do you know what they call that, Premier? They call it fraud. They call it perjury. That’s criminal activity. There is no more clear demonstration than that as to why we need a judicial inquiry. Put Liberals, put Dalton McGuinty, put Kathleen Wynne on the stand. Let’s actually hear you before a judge who can compel the truth. Maybe it’s going to take the threat of jail doors slamming shut behind the Liberals to get that truth, but I’m not going to give up on that.

I will do that as Premier. I’ll get the truth for taxpayers, and we’ll get some justice for what you’ve done to rip people off.

You signed the deal. You had a choice. You sold us down the river. Premier, why did you sign the deal? Why didn’t you say no?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I came into this post, I said that we were going to open up this process, and we were going to get all the information that we could, and we have done that. In fact, the Auditor General has credited our government. What she said is that it was good to hear we’re taking the report seriously and are taking some action and changing the way things are going to be done in the future. That’s our responsibility. That is what governments should do in response to information that determines that there were decisions made that shouldn’t have been made and that there were processes in place that should not have been in place. We’re taking that action.

There are two things that are very, very important in this. One is that we site energy infrastructure differently. The Minister of Energy is putting new rules in place in terms of working with the community. The second is rules around political staff relationships with third parties and their ability to influence those deals. Those are the changes that need to be made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, Premier, nobody believes that you happened to be out in the hallway when these decisions were made. You were co-chair of the Liberal campaign that chose to do this. You signed the key cabinet document that sold the province out and sold out taxpayers.

These things have real-world consequences: $1.1 billion could have built that subway to Scarborough; $1.1 billion could have built a new hospital in south Niagara; $1.1 billion could have built a new hospital in Vaughan, and you flush it down the drain to save Liberal seats.

Premier, the problem here is that you yourself signed the document. You sold the province down the river and the NDP sold their souls to prop you up. Isn’t it time for a change? Will you call the judicial inquiry? Let’s get the truth on behalf of taxpayers.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I went to committee. I answered the questions about my involvement. I made it very clear that I take responsibility for having been part of the cabinet that was trying to get a deal. There is no doubt about that. We were taking advice from officials.

John Kelly, who was counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General, said, “In my experience, after 40 years of litigating, if you can avoid litigation, you should. It’s a process that’s fraught with risk.”

Mr. Speaker, we were trying to make a deal. We were trying to avoid litigation. We were acting in good faith in an attempt to avoid future costs. That is the information that is available. I made it clear to the committee what my involvement was, and I take responsibility for being part of the cabinet that made those decisions.

Having said that, we all agreed in this House that those gas plants should be relocated. That was the agreement. We implemented that. I’ve said there were mistakes and I’ve taken responsibility for that.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here’s the reality. There are two important facts in the Auditor General’s report. Number one, Premier, with all due respect, you weren’t out of the loop; you were in the control room. You were calling the shots. They key decision, we find out on page 16 of the auditor’s report itself—it said that the key deliberate decision was made when you signed the document and you sold the province down the river. You signed away any of the protections that taxpayers had to give hush money to TransCanada Corp. to save Liberal seats.

Premier, you signed that document. You had an option; you chose to sign that document; you sold the province down the river. I have no confidence in a Premier that makes those decisions, that has a pattern of behaviour that puts the Liberal Party ahead of the taxpayers. Will you do the right thing today? Will you call our confidence motion and let this Legislature decide if you have the ability to lead our province?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I look at this whole situation, the thing that I think is the most problematic is that in the first instance, we did not get the siting of these pieces of energy infrastructure right. We did not listen to the communities. We did not do the right thing in terms of taking into account the concerns of the communities in the first instance. Had we done that, Mr. Speaker, had we had a process in place, as we do now, where we would take into account the concerns of the community, we would examine those and make sure we understood what those concerns were and have community buy-in in the first instance, then we would not be in this situation.

That is the problem. We are correcting that problem. It should not have happened, and I take responsibility for having been part of the government that made that mistake of not taking the community’s concerns into account in the first instance.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Auditor General found that the cancelled power deals will cost the people of Ontario almost a billion dollars. Does the Premier plan to challenge the findings of the auditor, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we’ve accepted the auditor’s findings. We thank her for the findings. I will say that the OPA has a different set of findings. They used a different set of assumptions.

One of the points of this whole exercise is that estimates of cost vary. When you look out 20 years and you’re trying to estimate what the costs are going to be, it is difficult. Witness the number of different numbers that have arisen over the past month even to today, where there are two different numbers in terms of the OPA number and the Auditor General’s number, using different assumptions, so the cost estimates vary. That has been one of the issues that has been very challenging, I would suggest, mostly for the people of Ontario, in order that they try to understand this situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It sounds to me like the Premier is saying that she doesn’t believe the numbers that the Auditor General put in the report yesterday. The auditor found very clearly that the Liberal government, in their rush to reach a deal, drove up the cost of cancellation by hundreds of millions of dollars.

As a member of cabinet, the Premier signed off on that decision. How does she justify that sign-off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that I did not say that I didn’t accept the auditor’s numbers; I said I did accept the auditor’s numbers. What I said was what she actually said, which is that there is uncertainty in these numbers. The Auditor General says that herself, and anyone who has spent time with accountants—and I love accountants; the father of my children is an accountant. But the fact is that numbers change depending on the assumptions, and that’s what the Auditor General said.

There has been confusion about the numbers. That is why I asked the Auditor General to look at the situation. I accept her findings and, as I said, I have done everything in my power to get information out to answer the questions that have been asked, and will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As co-chair of the Liberal Party campaign and as a cabinet minister who signed off on the decision, the Premier knew, or should have known, that the Liberal government was driving up costs, and that the public would be on the hook. When the Premier was signing off on those decisions, was she thinking as an elected representative of the people or in her role as Liberal campaign co-chair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have many times taken responsibility for my role as a member of cabinet in the process that took place. It’s true: We were attempting to get a deal and avoid litigation.

I will just quote from David Lindsay, who is a former Deputy Minister of Energy: “If you have a contract and you don’t honour the contract, the party on the other side can sue you for breach of contract and the damages would be all the benefits they were hoping to procure ... try to avoid litigation was the strategy ... what we in the OPA were trying to do.”

So there was an attempt to avoid litigation; that is absolutely true. I take responsibility for being part of a cabinet that was attempting to avoid litigation, and all the costs into the future that that would mean. I take responsibility for that. I have said that we need to have different processes in place, and that’s what we’re doing.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier as well, Speaker. I have to say that, no matter how hard she tries to muddy the waters about the real numbers, the auditor was pretty clear yesterday: The government cut a great deal for TransCanada and made it easier for the Liberals to hold on to power, but they stuck it to the people of Ontario.

Now, the Premier was one of four cabinet ministers who signed off on the arbitration preventing the OPA from defending the public interest. Why did she do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have answered questions about my role in being part of a cabinet that was attempting to get a deal on this. We were working to get certainty, and we were attempting to avoid litigation. That is quite clear. We have said that over and over again, because we believed—and, certainly, the staff in the Premier’s office believed—that to incur litigation or to go into a situation where litigation would be certain or probable was not responsible.

I’ve also said that we need to make changes. We need to introduce new rules that would limit political staff involvement in commercial third-party transactions. I’ve said that clearly. I said it yesterday. We’ll be bringing in policy in the next week or so that will put those new rules in place.

It’s very important that we learn from the findings of the Auditor General. That’s what we’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier likes to talk about how much things have changed or how much she might want to change things in the future, but she was part of a team that signed off on this crass decision in a desperate bid to hold on to power. So if the Premier thinks this was wrong, why didn’t she stand up and say so when she had the chance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to step back and remind everyone that the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Specifically, the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound—others, as well—will come to order, second time.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What we were doing was, we were implementing a decision that had been a promise of all three parties. We were determined that we were going to relocate the gas plants because that was the right thing to do.

Had we made the decision in the first place—had we listened to the community, had we examined the community’s concerns, then we would not have been in that situation. But we all agreed that the gas plants needed to be relocated. We were implementing that, and there was a cost associated with that. There would have been a cost associated with it whether the PCs or whether the NDP had been in office. That’s just the reality.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ll remind the Premier that I was the only leader during the election campaign who said I would not promise to cancel those plants until I knew how much it was going to cost the people of this province because that was the responsible position to take during the election campaign. I’m the only one that took it.

The people in Ontario are now on the hook for over $1 billion, and that much money could hire 18,000 nurses in Ontario. It could buy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Actually, on all levels here, all members, relax.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t use this as an opportunity to steal some comments.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That money could hire 18,000 nurses. It could buy 311 PET scanners. Instead, it’s going into the pockets of private power companies.

The Premier says she’s sorry today, but when she had the chance, the power, to actually do something, she chose the Liberal Party’s interests over the people’s interests, and she signed off. How does she explain that decision?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just first say that I have said repeatedly that the cost of moving these plants was unacceptable. She’s absolutely right that it was not acceptable, and it came about because of decisions that were made that should have been made differently and a process that did not work.

But the leader of the third party and her candidates opposed both plants. They said they would relocate them; they opposed those plants. That is the reality, and we have them on record saying that they would.

So what we need to do is make sure that we understand that, when decisions are made around large pieces of infrastructure, whether it’s roads or whether it’s energy infrastructure, when those contracts are entered into, when changes are made in those, there’s a cost attached to it. We had better make sure we’ve got better processes in place. That’s what we’re doing on the siting of infrastructure and on the processes to get out of them.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the auditor confirmed what Vic Fedeli had told this Liberal government all along: that their attempt to steal a seat in the last election cost $1 billion.

Let’s put this into perspective. Barack Obama spent less money campaigning to become the President of the United States than you spent to save the member from Oakville’s seat.

It’s absolutely shameful. What bothers Ontarians the most is that the Liberal campaign chair who signed that cabinet document either didn’t know what she was signing with a billion-dollar price tag, or she knowingly stood in this assembly and said it was only $33 million.

So, Speaker, my question is very simple: Is she incompetent or did she knowingly tell this House it was $33 million when she knew it was $1 billion? That’s why we need a judicial inquiry. Will she call it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to the supplementary.

I just want to be clear once again, Mr. Speaker, that at every juncture, when I reported on a number, I was taking that number from information that had been given to me by officials. That is the only way that I had access to numbers. Those are the numbers that I used, and I have said repeatedly that the numbers have changed over time. That has been one of the issues around this whole situation. It’s why, in fact, I asked the Auditor General to look at the situation in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, the number certainly did change. She said $33 million, and it was $1 billion. That’s 2,640% that she was off. It proves she’s got no plan, she’s got no mandate, and she has no credibility left whatsoever.

She knew all along what the true costs of those cancelled gas plants were. The auditor said it as much in her documentation yesterday. She said at the time this Premier was standing up, saying it only cost $33 million, that she had actually already paid $330 million of that cost. She already paid a third of what it had cost. That’s how much she knew when she knew it. Has she no shame?

She created the OPA to remove decision-making from the political sphere from energy decisions. Yet now she comes with her crocodile tears and says she’s going to prevent political interference. She’s already done it.

So, Speaker, the question is—

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please.

The Minister of the Environment will come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to take the opportunity to congratulate my new energy critic. It’s the first opportunity I’ve had in the House. She was one of three energy critics that were appointed at the time. Consequently, I asked the Premier if she could appoint two co-ministers of energy to match the three critics, but she turned me down, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West, come to order a second time.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —we’re talking about the costs that are going into the pool of costs that affect the rates. Yes, these additional costs will impact and put upward pressure on the rates. On the other hand, in the last five or six months, we have taken some decisions that are going to be very significant in pushing the energy rates down. For example, there was the $3.7 billion we saved on the Samsung deal. That $3.7 billion is going to push rates down over the next 20 years.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Ontario’s Auditor General said, “We believe that the settlement with TCE will not only keep TCE whole but may make it better than whole.” The Liberal government made sure that TransCanada would get every nickel of profit and then some, in spite of the fact there was no reason to do that.

When the Liberal government cancelled the Oakville gas plant to save a seat in Oakville, TransCanada ended up making more money, not less. And everyday Ontarians are paying those bills.

Why did the Premier and her government put private power profits ahead of everyday families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The plant in Oakville was poorly sited, and the government has accepted responsibility for that and has accepted the responsibilities for the additional costs. Indeed, the Premier has apologized for that.

In response to the people of Oakville, the PCs, the NDP and the Liberals committed to relocating the plant, and no party had precise costs at that time. The Auditor General, in response to the Premier, has now provided us with her estimate of the cost to do this.

Mr. Speaker, these involve difficult negotiations. There are expert people who came before committee and have said we ought not to be litigating this issue; it should be negotiated. The contract that resulted was as a result of the give-and-take of negotiations to avoid litigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, it’s a shame the minister wasn’t around when two parties in this Legislature told them, before they signed the contract, not to go ahead in Oakville. It might have saved some money.

The Ontario Auditor General said the reason that Ontario families are paying TransCanada more money for cancelling the Oakville power plant is because the government promised to keep TransCanada whole. The promise to protect every nickel of profit came out of the Liberal Premier’s office.

Why did the Liberal government put private power profits ahead of families, who are paying the bills?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Ontario Power Authority was negotiating with TransCanada Energy. The negotiations were tough. Estimates were made by OPA—and I want to quote from the Auditor General’s report. This is the Auditor General speaking: “Making assumptions about future events and their effects involves considerable uncertainty.” Those are the Auditor General’s words. “Accordingly, readers should be cautioned that while our estimates differ from estimates previously announced by the OPA, they will also likely differ from the actual costs and savings that will be known only in the future.” Those are the Auditor General’s words on page 3 of the report.

OPA made their best estimates on their assumptions. The auditor made hers, and the result is in the auditor’s report, which we accept.

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. For parents in Orléans and across Ontario, the health of their children comes first. But as we lead increasingly busy lives, it becomes more and more difficult to make sure we’re making the healthiest choices for our kids.

This spring, our government’s Healthy Kids Panel made a number of recommendations to fight childhood obesity. I understand that the minister made an announcement this morning in response to some of this advice.

Speaker, through you, could the minister tell the House about the government’s plan to help parents make healthier choices for their kids?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for this question.

We know that the healthier our kids are, the less likely they are to develop a chronic disease later in life. That’s why our government struck the Healthy Kids Panel: to give our kids the healthiest possible start. That panel provided very valuable advice, and this morning I was happy to announce that we’re taking the next step in moving forward on that advice. We will help parents and children make healthier choices by giving the information they need, by putting calories on menus and menu boards.

This month, we’ll begin consultations. We’ll listen to parents, health professionals and industry partners, and this winter I will be introducing legislation that would require large chain restaurants to include calories on their menus.

I know the member from Nickel Belt has already indicated her support for this. I urge all members in this House to support this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you to the minister. I know that parents across Ontario will be thrilled to hear that we are moving forward with menu labelling for large chain restaurants. This will certainly equip parents with more information to make better choices. But I think we all recognize that no one action will be enough to tackle the challenge of childhood obesity.

Could the minister tell the House about other measures the government is taking to give our kids the best start in life?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Last week, the Minister of Children and Youth Services and I announced the first initiatives responding to the panel’s recommendations.

We need to give our kids a healthy start in life, and that starts when they’re babies. So we’re focusing on the first days, weeks and months of a child’s life by enhancing breastfeeding supports in Ontario so that every mom in Ontario who wants to breastfeed will get the support she needs to do so successfully. This includes 24/7 Telehealth support because we know that babies are hungry around the clock.

As kids grow up, we know that good food at school keeps them healthier and boosts their academic success. That’s why we’ve also announced an expansion of the Student Nutrition Program, to provide breakfast and snack programs for about 30,000 more kids in high-priority schools.

Because of these initiatives, aligned with the panel’s recommendations to give—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. As I’ve indicated before, I don’t like it when members do drive-by heckling.

New question?

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Auditor General told us that the cost to cancel the Oakville gas plant is significantly more than it needed to be and that a number of questionable decisions caused this. The auditor states, “The province, the OPA and TCE entered into an arbitration agreement that laid out the framework.…” That’s what sent the price soaring. This is all thanks to you, Premier. You signed the cabinet document that gave them the power to do this.

The auditor further states this deal “waived the clause in the … contract that gave the OPA a defensible claim of not owing TCE lost profits.”

So, Premier, when you signed that cabinet minute, you wrote a blank cheque to TransCanada. Will you finally admit you are directly responsible for this scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The government House leader.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has addressed those questions. The committee has looked into it. The Auditor General outlined a possibility of what might have happened, but at the same time, we had dozens of witnesses in front of committee who spoke about the potential for litigation, that it was much better to negotiate than to litigate.

The fact of the matter is that at the Premier’s behest, we have put forward cost estimates provided by the Auditor General, and the Progressive Conservative Party—which aggressively made the same promises—will not furnish us with their cost estimates. We have asked for their candidates to come forward before the committee and talk about the costing that went to it. They have refused to come forward. We’ve asked the member from Halton, who stood in this Legislature day after day after day and asked for the cancellation of Oakville, to come to the committee, and yet he’s refused.

Mr. Speaker, we have given the information to the committee. It’s time—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, it’s obvious they have not learned any lessons from all this. The Premier herself said that we have 160,000 pages of documents, we’ve heard from 62 witnesses—yet with all of that, we still did not know the answer to the member from Cambridge’s original question: How much did it cost? It took an auditor’s report to tell us.

Liberal witness after Liberal witness testified under oath, yet they all denied that TransCanada was told they would be made whole.

Twice today, the Premier said, “We took advice from officials,” but we know from the Auditor General that it was the Liberal government that told the OPA to locate the plant in Napanee. That decision alone, that decision to move that plant so far away, the auditor told us, added $577 million to this bill, never mind that other issue.

Premier, despite your hollow apology, Ontarians want to know three things: Who’s paying the money back, who’s getting fired and who’s going to jail?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not impressed with somebody’s actions.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: You can’t rewrite history. The fact of the matter is that that party opposite made the exact same promises.

Daniela Morawetz, who’s the president of the Chartwell-Maple Grove Residents Association in the Oakville area, went on Metro Morning. Do you know what she spoke about in May of this year? She talked about going to Queen’s Park and the opposition parties being 100% behind her. She went on to say, “Nobody said, ‘How much is it going to cost?’ or put a maximum dollar value on cancelling it.”

Interjection.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll try, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you won’t. You will.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: Every single party in this Legislature made the same promise. We came forward with the Auditor General’s report, and more importantly, the Premier and the Minister of Energy yesterday outlined steps that they will take in order to make sure this does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, we call on the justice committee to undertake similar work and provide advice to this government and future governments. You cannot rewrite history.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the report yesterday from the auditor on the Oakville power plant was quite damning. A

section in the report says, “The Premier’s office committed to compensating TCE for the financial value of its contract for the Oakville plant, even though events occurred that we believe could have enabled termination” costs “at a much lower cost.”

My question is, why did the Liberal government commit to paying more money instead of paying less?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order, second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the contract had a provision called force majeure. Basically, it’s a cancellation clause that would come into effect at some future time. The cancellation clause date in the agreement at hand was February 2016. Notwithstanding that, the Auditor General calculated her costs and expenses based on a starting date of December 2015. So the auditor, on one hand, was saying, “This thing would be operational in December 2015,” and yet she’s relying on a cancellation date in February 2016. With respect to the Auditor General, there’s a significant inconsistency on that particular issue.

In addition, they were negotiating—all the parties on our side—in good faith.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s unbelievable that they’re challenging the auditor on her decision.

The fact is, your government had an opportunity to get out from underneath this at very little cost. For some reason—and we know what that is, because you were trying to save some seats in Mississauga—you ended up doing what was the most expensive alternative.

I ask you again: Why is it that you made a decision that committed Ontarians to paying far more than they should have for the cancellation of these plants?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, let’s be very clear. Three parties promised to cancel the gas plants—both of them. None of us had estimates at the time. In the meantime, the Premier, in her leadership, asked the Auditor General to do a report. Notwithstanding the fact that the auditor was taking nine months to prepare a report, the opposition continually tried to get the exact cost at committee.

In April, we asked the president of the OPA to come before committee with his most current estimate. That most current estimate was $350 million—or $310 million. The reality is, nobody knew what the cost was going to be. At that very committee hearing, I remember that the critic for the Conservatives was making an estimate of what the cost would be—

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

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Rural Affairs. Minister, when we were first elected in 2003, we inherited three deficits: a financial deficit, a services deficit and an infrastructure deficit. In the first seven or eight years of government, we committed about $60 billion to infrastructure, including major projects in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. We further committed another $35 billion over the next three years.

Now, small northern and rural municipalities, including those in my riding—Neebing, Oliver Paipoonge, O’Connor, Gillies, Conmee and Atikokan—have benefited greatly from our infrastructure announcements historically.

My question to the minister is, can you describe for me what your ministry and the Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure have done to benefit those smaller municipalities through programs like MIII?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I say good morning to the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and I want to thank him for his question.

Our budget in 2013—we put $100 million in for new infrastructure programs for small, rural municipalities right across the great province of Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Transportation and myself had the opportunity to visit Ontario—north, south, east, west—over this past summer. It was an opportunity for us to consult widely with mayors and reeves and wardens—a wonderful group of people—and to get their input on how we could allocate this $100 million to support roads and bridges in rural Ontario.

I’m pleased to say that, last Friday, the Premier and I had the opportunity to be in beautiful Simcoe, Ontario. A wonderful mayor was there, Dennis Travale of Simcoe, saying, “This is the right program, the right time for rural Ontario.”

Twenty-one communities across the province will be receiving—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, I stand up; you sit down.

Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thanks to the minister for that response.

This summer, Minister Murray was in my riding. He held a consultation on the longer-term infrastructure program, and he held that in Murillo, a small hamlet in the community of Oliver Paipoonge, in my riding.

Now, small communities have benefited greatly, as I said in my opening question, on previous infrastructure announcements. However, they are still very concerned with stability and permanency. These small communities, by and large, have very large geographic land bases; they have relatively small tax bases with which to support their infrastructure needs. One bridge in a small community like Neebing or Oliver Paipoonge could significantly skew their budget.

Minister, I’m asking you to tell me what we’re doing to ensure that small northern and rural municipalities have some ability to plan in a very positive, proactive way on a go-forward basis.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I do get excited about investing in roads and bridges and waste water treatment plants—great stuff right across the province of Ontario.

To answer my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Minister Murray and I travelled across the province. We met with over 500 municipal leaders to talk about the challenges they face. Out of this consultation, we are looking at ways for 2014 that will be a centrepiece of our budget to have—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we’re probably going to be doing some projects in the member’s riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to help that community out with their infrastructure needs. We’re looking forward to putting a permanent program in place. Hopefully we’ll see that in the 2014 budget, because that’s what AMO, that’s what ROMA and that’s what all the municipal leaders across Ontario are asking for, and we’re going to deliver.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question today is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday I asked why you were defending 200% completion bonuses for the already-grossly-overpaid TO2015 executives. You continued to rationalize wasting $7 million for people to simply show up for work and said that the compensation packages are based on the officials who hosted successful events like the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

That’s perfect, Premier. I’m going to hold you to that and insist that you follow suit, because the government of BC actually cancelled millions in bonuses for its employees working on the Olympics. Premier, will you shut down these inappropriate taxpayer-funded bonuses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said that the board negotiated these compensation packages. If you look at comparators with other games, they are consistent with those.

I just want to say that this morning the minister and I had the opportunity to open and welcome the PASO AGM, people from 41 countries who are here to be welcomed by Ontario—and the wonderful progress that we are making on the Pan Am/Parapan capital—the venues.

What is confusing to me and, in fact, embarrassing is that the party opposite is not going to take

part in the reception. They are not welcoming the people from these 41 countries to Ontario. I hope that both parties will reconsider and join us, because I would like to say that the whole Legislature welcomes the Pan Am/Parapan folks—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Indeed, they are all welcome, but not at any cost. We are just at the tip of the iceberg with the Pan Am expensing, partying and bonuses, and nobody is fixing it—no one. The Premier, the finance minister and the minister of the Pan Am Games all scapegoat the appointed TO2015 buffer board when things go south. We see this with eHealth, we saw it with Ornge, and we saw it with the gas plants. You need to take accountability, Premier.

Tonight you have the gall to celebrate, the day after the Auditor General’s report on Oakville—some $1.1 billion in waste that could have actually financed these very games. Tonight’s party will run another—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Tonight’s party will run another $500,000 for a good time, or up to $1,000 per guest. Does the Premier have no shame?

Will the Premier release all the budgets and total costs for Pan Am partying?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have said that the minister has spoken to the board. We are reining in the expenses. We are making it very clear that the judicious use of public dollars has to be the norm at the Pan Am Games. But, Mr. Speaker, part of the conditions of getting the games was hosting this reception, hosting the people from these 41 countries here in Ontario.

The Pan Am Games, for me—and I said this to the PASO AGM this morning—is about all the young people in those 41 countries who are training right now. They’re swimming, they’re stretching, they’re jumping, and they’re running. It has to do with why we went into this bid, why we wanted to bring the Pan Am Games here. Part of that is hosting the people who are involved in all of the 41 countries, bringing them here and—

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

THUNDER BAY GENERATING STATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday we learned that no price is too high for Liberals when it comes to courting votes in Mississauga and Oakville. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people in Thunder Bay are blowing a fuse today. Can the Premier explain how her government can blow $1 billion shuffling two power plants out of the greater Toronto area and not even have a penny left over to convert the Thunder Bay generating station to gas?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the plant in Oakville was poorly sited. The government has accepted responsibility for that and the additional costs incurred, and the Premier has apologized for that.

All parties committed to cancelling these two gas plants. We now have the price from the auditor. What we’re doing now, moving forward, is improving the siting of large energy projects. We’ve asked the IESO and the OPA to travel across the province and consult with people. They provided a report with 18 recommendations. We’ve accepted