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

May 6, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 May 2008 Mardi 6 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND

INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

POVERTY

BROWNFIELD SITES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

COLORECTAL CANCER

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HIGHWAY 35

FIREARMS CONTROL

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

HIGHWAY 138

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FUSION YOUTH CENTRE

SAINT BERNADETTE

COMMUNITY LIVING WORKERS

POVERTY

HEART DEFIBRILLATORS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

POVERTY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND

INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS

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

Bill 44,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters / Projet de loi 44, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be sharing my time with the member from Pickering–Scarborough East.

It's a pleasure to be here to speak to this bill, obviously part of our supply process, part of our appropriations process. It allows, among other things, for this House to scrutinize the financials of the government of the day. It's the means by which our government in fact is held to account, not only in the Legislature but through committee processes and otherwise. It's the means by which, among other things, the public has an opportunity, through the media and otherwise, to assess and probe and test how the taxpayers' money is spent.

I do want to share my time with the great member from Pickering, and I'm going to do that right now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: It's Pickering—Scarborough East now. With all of the boundary changes that occur, the ridings keep shifting, and I now have the pleasure of representing both areas in Durham and areas within the city of Toronto.

It's a pleasure to be able to rise today on third reading of the Ontario budget bill to speak about the initiatives that will make Ontario yet a better place to live, to work and to do business. Let me say it's so nice to be here bright and early on this Tuesday morning, starting the debate at a time that reflects on the business hours that most people are familiar with—although, as has been said here, we're all often busy at this time of the morning regardless of when debate begins.

Ontario's economy has continued to grow even in the face of rather significant challenges, despite an external environment that includes weakened US growth in their economy, higher oil prices and a much stronger Canadian dollar. The government, though, has been prudent with the province's finances and will continue to exercise caution while remaining optimistic and positive about the economy of this province. We're on track to produce six balanced budgets, while investing in this province to build a better future for all Ontarians.

We have said before that our government has the right plan to lead this province both in good times and times that are more challenging. Our plan balances prudent financial management with vital investments that build on the strengths of this province. We're investing in health care in a very substantive way, in public education and the environment, because these foundations make Ontario a better place to live. The government is investing in people and in our communities to improve the quality of life for all Ontarians, including families and our most vulnerable citizens.

There isn't one simple answer to attract growth and investment to this province. We recognize that the people of Ontario, though, are our greatest strength in the long term. Giving people the tools and opportunities to succeed will help with our future prosperity.

The McGuinty government is making major investments in Ontario's infrastructure that will build stronger communities, improve the quality of life and attract new business investment to Ontario. Our infrastructure initiatives will create jobs and a more productive, competitive and green economy. This budget includes $1 billion in new funding for municipal infrastructure in this budget year. Municipal roads and bridges are the backbone of Ontario's transportation networks. They connect communities and provide access to economic opportunities.

This year, the McGuinty government is investing some $400 million for municipal roads and bridges to help communities outside of the city of Toronto. They're investing $150 million in the municipal infrastructure investment initiative, the MIII, building on the $300 million already committed in 2007 for municipality priority infrastructure projects, including those very same roads and bridges. Some $16 million is being invested for 35 different projects to help municipalities invest in local roadways designated as connecting links.

Our government recognizes that, just as investing in our roads and bridges is important, investing in public transportation is equally important. A fast, effective public transportation system is vital to the future prosperity of this great province. Expanded public transit will reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of the air that we all breathe. So we have expanded our investment and targeted priority projects, which include some $497 million for public transit in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton, and $314 million this year to municipalities in gas tax revenues for public transit.

Speaker, you and others will recall our commitment in 2003 to invest two cents per litre of the gas tax in municipal transit. That initiative was delivered early on and is paying dividends throughout Ontario. We're investing $382 million in 2008-09 to improve GO Transit, including investments in Union Station, really a symbol, a hub of activity for public transit in this province. We're replacing and renewing GO Transit's equipment. We're investing some $166 million over the next five years to expand GO Transit's bus rapid transit system to augment the existing rail and bus transit systems.

Just as it is important to move people easily around the province, we have to move goods swiftly and efficiently. International trade is an integral part of Ontario's and Canada's economic prosperity. The McGuinty government is committed to ensuring efficient and uninterrupted trade with the United States, our greatest trading partner, through Ontario's borders, its gateways and its trade corridors. That's why the Windsor gateway and border crossing will be a pre-eminent example of these levels of co-operation.

To further improve the flow of goods around Ontario, we're improving our highways throughout the province. The budget has earmarked some $448 million in new funding over the next five years to accelerate projects to rehabilitate bridges that are part of the provincial highway network. One only needs to take a look at the 401 east from Oshawa through to Cobourg to see the type of work that's going on in many areas of this great province.

The government is also making progress on commitments including the ReNew Ontario plan, with overall investments of $927 million in this budget year in the southern Ontario highways program and $557 million in the northern Ontario highways program. So investments are being made, not only in the south part of the province where the population is more dense, but in the northern part of the province where the demands are just as great, if not greater, for improved highway access.

As you know, our three-year, $1.5-billion skills-to-jobs action plan was a major component of this particular budget. Ontario's skilled and highly educated workforce is a key economic advantage of Ontario and will continue to be so, when the economy is at its most robust, or when it faces challenging times. Our investments will position Ontario as a destination of choice for global investment.

Many high-growth industries, such as information technology, construction, energy or health care, face a shortage of people with the right skills in place. The challenge is to ensure that workers with the right skills are available when growing industries actually need them, while also giving unemployed workers the retraining opportunities they need to get good jobs in expanding areas of the economy. The government's new skills training program will give Ontario's workforce the knowledge, the skills, the innovation and flexibility to compete with the world's best.

Our new second-career strategy will help some 20,000 unemployed workers who have to commit to a long-term training plan to make the transition to new careers in growing areas of the economy.

We'll further expand the number of apprentices. The goal is to reach some 32,500 apprentices annually, an increase of another 25% by the 2011-12 budget year. The apprenticeship enhancement fund will help buy state-of-the-art equipment essential for technical training.

Our strategy involves investing in our students and post-secondary institutions so they can remain competitive well into the future. I've estimated that 70% of new jobs in the next decade will require post-secondary education. That's up a further 10% from just 10 years ago. It's indicative of why we need to have a strong post-secondary education system available to young people and those who are retraining or continue training in the workforce.

We also understand the importance of attracting students from around the world. We want to build upon the cultural and intellectual mosaic that is Ontario, that's reflected right here in this assembly. So the government is investing more than $7 million over three years for an international Ontario strategy to attract talented post-secondary students from around the world, raising the level of research excellence in Ontario's universities and contributing to our economic prosperity.

We're also creating what's being called Global Edge, a program that facilitates international work and learning opportunities for enterprising post-secondary students, so that Ontario students have the chance to study abroad, to share the Ontario experience with the world.

Ontario's competitive strengths attract business investment and create jobs. So we're recognizing those areas that strengthen our economy and give our province an edge in that global marketplace. The McGuinty government is also investing in key sectors and making the tax system more competitive to promote investment and encourage economic growth.

Ontario's entertainment and creative cluster is a cornerstone of the province's new innovative economy. So we're providing $4 million over the next four years to support international marketing initiatives and increase the profile of Ontario's artists and cultural industries.

The government is also supporting tourism in Ontario with new investments. We're investing some $8 million over the next two years to conduct research on new tourism markets and determine the steps necessary to increase visits to Ontario and visits within Ontario.

The McGuinty government is continuing its support for the successful festival and events attraction and support program. We've heard about those in members' statements and in communities throughout Ontario, where we're providing support. I've had the pleasure over the last few years to attend the Durham highland games, which has been the beneficiary of those types of funding programs.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Did you wear a kilt?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I didn't wear a kilt on that particular occasion, but the organizers certainly did.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Excellent.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Just as we're helping other industries to modernize, the government must do its part to modernize itself. Ontario's goal would be to lead all Canadian jurisdictions in efforts to measure and reduce the regulatory burden that business faces. The government's regulatory modernization will start with an aggressive cap-and-trade initiative for government regulation so that when new regulations are enacted, others must be eliminated.

We'll also create a new independent agency, Investment Ontario Inc., to respond to intensifying global competition for new business investments and jobs. This will help the government become more strategic in targeting markets and sectors on which to focus investment and trade activities, and improving Ontario's international recognition.

We're on track to produce six consecutive balanced budgets, and our accumulated deficit-to-GDP ratio is forecast to improve to 16.2% by 2010-11 from over 25% in 2003-04. The McGuinty government is paying down debt, we're balancing budgets and we're investing in Ontario to build a better future for all Ontarians. That really does need to be repeated: We're investing in Ontario, we're balancing the budget and we're paying down the debt to build a better future in Ontario.

We have the right plan to lead this province in good times and in times that are more challenging. Our plan balances prudent financial management with vital investments that build on the strengths of this great province, because we know that there isn't one simple answer to attract growth and investment in Ontario. It takes a comprehensive approach. Our quality of life is affected by a great variety of things and the people of this province agree with the approach that we're taking.

The government has invested and continues to invest in tax cuts for businesses. However, simply lowering taxes is not enough to ensure that an economy can compete in global markets. According to a recent 2006 competitiveness study by KPMG, the combined total of all taxes imposed by all levels of government represents only 3% to 13% of location-sensitive costs. As KPMG notes, selecting the best site for a business operation requires balanced consideration of many factors, including business costs, business environment, personnel costs and quality-of-life issues.

That's why our government has created a five-point plan that factors in all of these considerations, a plan that will attract investment and help grow the Ontario economy. The plan includes investments in skills and knowledge and speaks to our $1.5-billion investment in the skills-to-jobs action plan in this budget. It accelerates investments in infrastructure, and that speaks to the hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in our road and bridge systems. It supports innovation. It lowers business costs.

Those in northern Ontario this year will be a benefactor as we accelerate the reduction of the business education tax for northern Ontario. It strengthens key partnerships to maximize our future potential.

Attracting business investment now and into the future requires an environment that supports business and people in all areas of their lives. We must continue to build on our strengths, because businesses are run by people and the citizens of this province want to live in a modern, well-run, competitive province. They want solid infrastructure, they want good public health care and they certainly want excellent education. Ontarians want a government that supports business and supports people.

We believe the key to success is in building on the strengths of this province and supporting an environment where new expertise can grow. In fact, just a few short months ago, we proposed a package of business tax relief worth $1.1 billion over three years and, in this budget, a further $750 million in business tax relief starting in 2007-08. We're proposing to eliminate the capital tax retroactive to January 1, 2007, for manufacturers and the resource industries. It's a clear reflection on the challenges that these sectors are facing. This would entitle those sectors to an additional $190 million in tax rebates for the period from January 2007 forward.

The government proposes to extend the acceleration of the capital cost allowance rate for manufacturing and process manufacturing and equipment investments made before 2012. This will save businesses some $433 million over three years and encourage Ontario manufacturers and forestry companies to invest in new equipment.

To help modernize northern businesses, as I mentioned, the business education tax cuts will be accelerated and this will create a savings of some $70 million over the next three years for small business in northern Ontario.

The McGuinty government recognizes that supporting key sectors in the economy will encourage growth and innovation. To encourage innovation, we're proposing a 10-year Ontario income tax exemption for new corporations that commercialize intellectual property developed by qualifying universities, colleges or research institutes. This is a unique tax measure. Our income tax exemption would help educational and research institutes to create meaningful public-private partnerships. Small and medium-sized firms in Ontario employ over 60% of private sector employees. We want to continue to support an environment where they can flourish and grow Ontario's economy.

With only a couple of minutes left, I have much more that I would like to be able to say this morning, but in the interests of ensuring that all parties have an opportunity for the full debate that they would like: With this budget the government is reaffirming its support for all of Ontario. We're moving forward with the strategy that builds on Ontario's strengths. The government is investing in those sectors, communities and families not currently sharing in Ontario's prosperity.

This budget package moves forward on the government's five-point plan for economic competitiveness. It's a plan for now that will build a better Ontario for the future. It's about investing in today to strengthen our position in the global marketplace tomorrow, a long-term strategy for Ontario's success. Our government takes immediate action when it's needed and builds on our skills. We are leading this province through some difficult times. The budget will further enhance the province's tax competitiveness and build on the areas that make Ontario a success.

The McGuinty government is providing immediate strategic investments and tax measures to stimulate economic growth. We're investing in the building blocks of tomorrow. We're investing in innovation, in infrastructure, and we're investing in skills development. In the foundations of our economy today, we're investing in manufacturing, in the forestry sector, in agriculture and in tourism.

Our budget provides a solid economic package that starts right now, when it's most needed. I would encourage all of those in this House, when the time comes, to stand and show their support for Ontarians, the people, the communities and the businesses that make this is a great province, and to support the budget of 2008-09.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to respond to the member from Pickering—Scarborough East, who is the parliamentary assistant to the minister. He had no content, technically. With about 40 minutes left to speak, he said he had no time to speak. In fact, he really should have said he had nothing to say.

I'm very surprised, quite honestly, when I look at this. This government has been here since 2003. They've increased spending by some 44%. I ask my constituency regularly, is it any better? With the largest tax increase in history as part of their record, the health tax, is it any better? Do we have problems in the emergency room? Do we have problems in long-term care for our seniors, our frail elderly? Do we find communities that still can't find doctors? With the increased spending, you would think you would find better outcomes, but in fact it's not the case.

The treachery of this discussion is really more profound when you look at the issues that they put in the budget which we would support. I call them poison-pill mechanisms. They're token amounts of recognition for relief for hard-working Ontarians. In the form of tax cuts for seniors, that's a worthy thing. It's certainly not enough relief for seniors. What it is, is giving them back their health tax money.

When you look at the implications of the 10 years tax-free for new, innovative companies in R&D, commercialization—most companies fail in the first three years, the majority of them. We will not see any of that money, that commitment, spent. I put on the record—the next election is 2011—none of those companies will be commercialized and have income that will taxable in any case. Even the tax relief for the business education tax is only for northern Ontario. So these are half measures. There's no strategic plan here.

When you have 200,000-plus people out of jobs in the forestry sector, the manufacturing sector and even the IT sector and the agricultural sector, I'm concerned about the lack of vision, the lack of commitment for the longer term for the people of Ontario.

I can't support this budget, and I know our party is concerned that there are no decisions that affect the ordinary working people in this province, except more spending and more taxes.

Mr. Paul Miller: Obviously, I concur with the former speaker. This budget doesn't meet our needs in this province. It just touches on some of the more important things. You're talking $1 billion for infrastructure when we're about $60 billion short. I'm not sure if that would even take care of Hamilton's needs, one city in this great province.

Where is this 2008 budget? What's amazing about the Liberals' 2008 budget is that most of the spending announced has already been done. Budgets are supposed to be forward-looking documents to give citizens a sense of direction the government is taking. Budget 2008 made countless re-announcements of decisions presented in December's fall economic statement. Bill 44, the omnibus budget bill, contains, word for word, the proposal presented in Bill 24, the fall economic statement legislation.

For example, the government announces over and over its decision to accelerate the capital tax reduction and tax changes for small businesses. What is clear from these re-announcements is a lack of a plan, no plan for a troubled economy, and disappearing manufacturing jobs—no plan to bring people out of poverty and no plan for an ever-worsening environment.

Speaking from the perspective in Hamilton, there are no new companies opening in Hamilton; there are no jobs coming to Hamilton. In the last 15 years, we've lost almost 20,000 manufacturing jobs, and as of just yesterday, National Steel Car is now having more layoffs—100—and they're talking about moving to Alabama. So I'm not quite sure where this government is headed with these so-called jobs, and I'm not sure where the jobs are happening, because it sure isn't happening in my part of the province.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm pleased to offer a couple of minutes of comment on budget Bill 44. I listened intently to the comments of the member from Durham, who talks often in his comments about the largest tax increase. I always feel the need to remind him about the incredible tax shift that occurred under the eight years or so of the reign of the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves governments in the province of Ontario.

Like many other members who sit in this Legislature, I was a municipal councillor—in Thunder Bay—at the time that that exercise was unfolding, and am fully and acutely aware of the impact that had on our municipal budgets, as it did on the municipal budgets of many members around this Legislature. Not only was it downloading of social services, but they like to not remind people about the downloading of infrastructure costs. I have a wonderful little example from Timmins, where I once took a ride from the airport all the way into the community of Timmins, a small community of about 50,000 people.

A highway about 30 kilometres long was downloaded onto the backs of those municipal property taxpayers. They like to talk about tax increases, but they don't like to talk about the tax shift.

In this bill, there are a lot of really good pieces, especially for me as a member from northern Ontario. We remember the three-legged stool that we inherited from the previous government: a services deficit, a fiscal deficit and an infrastructure deficit. Everybody is very clear on those, and they don't want to talk about it. On infrastructure, I can tell you, we have great news in this budget, great news for northern Ontario and specifically northwestern Ontario communities. Small communities in my riding, like Oliver Paipoonge, 3,000 or 4,000 people with huge geographic areas to support, end up with about $2 million in infrastructure money.

These are communities that oftentimes even have a hard enough time finding the fiscal capacity in their municipal budgets to make the applications and spend the engineering costs necessary to apply to these programs in the first place. These infrastructure dollars in our budget, through the MIII program and through the formula-based program in the budget, are wonderful things, especially so for small rural northwestern Ontario communities.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I listened carefully to what the government members had to say about this bill. I think they don't really tell the public the whole story when they use things like debt-to-GDP ratios rather than actually talking about the real debt. Since 2003-04, your first year, we had a public debt of—it has gone up about $47 billion dollars in the time you've been in office. You forget to tell the public that.

The honourable member from northern Ontario just spoke about infrastructure deficits. You're not even paying for your infrastructure. You're borrowing pretty well all of it from third parties. If I look at the Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corp., it had a debt of $323 million when you came in and set it up; it now has a debt of $1.95 billion. Sorry, $1,950,000,000. That would make more sense. So it has gone up several hundred per cent.

The seniors' tax credit: My colleague for Durham points out constantly that you're just giving back the health tax to seniors. You're not even doing that. My mother, as a retired schoolteacher, paid $600 this year in health tax. The maximum she'll get back in three years' time is $300. So that's a bit of an insult.

There's really no plan here, either, to look after the 200,000 people who are unemployed. You're spending a record amount of money on skills training, but skills training for what? For jobs out west. That's a shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concluded the time for questions and comments. The member for Pickering-Scarborough East has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I appreciate the comments coming from the members for Durham, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Thunder Bay—Atikokan and Simcoe—Grey. I'm always surprised, and maybe I shouldn't be, when members from the Tory caucus and some members from the NDP caucus are actually in agreement on things. I'm not quite sure what they're in agreement on.

I heard a lot about spending on health care from the member from Durham. Then I heard about tax cuts. I'm not sure what it is he wants to speak of, if he wants to speak to spending or speak to tax cuts. You really can't be doing both in an effective way.

With the 90 seconds or so that might be available, I do want to comment just briefly on the proposal we have in respect to poverty reduction in Ontario, dealing with those who are the most vulnerable as part of this budget process. We're making investments in this budget on our proposals for dental services for low-income Ontarians, which is a very important part of our campaign platform and an important part of what Ontarians of low income need. We've committed to raising the minimum wage. That, effective just last month, was raised to $8.75. We're on our way, on a structured plan, to get to $10.25 by March of 2010.

We're investing in a variety of other initiatives, including tax relief for moderate and low-income seniors on the property tax bill, to help offset things like general property tax or their school taxes as part of that. We are enhancing the Ontario property and sales tax credit program for seniors as part of that overall strategy as well.

So we're doing a great variety of things in the budget. We're dealing with infrastructure, we're dealing with innovation, and we're dealing with the economy. And we haven't forgotten those in our communities who are vulnerable, whether those be children; whether they be lower-income adults who may need dental services; whether it's seniors who need some degree of tax relief, but at the same time maintaining a property tax system that's fair to all. Thank you so much for your time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'm pleased to rise on the third reading of Bill 44 this morning. I want to offer a few comments on the state of the economy as we contemplate the final reading of Bill 44. I want to address some of the amendments that we brought forward in committee as well, which we think would have substantially improved the bill.

But surprise, surprise: One by one, the Liberal members of the committee—almost like they were whipped—voted them down, even though they were generous amendments to help seniors with their costs of living, for example, to encourage exercise, which you would think would be something that the Ministry of Health Promotion would have supported. But again, they all got voted down, I suspect because they came from individual MPPs as opposed to coming from the minister's office.

So I'll talk about that a little bit, and talk about the difference in economic approaches that we're seeing in Dalton McGuinty's old-fashioned tax-and-spend Ontario versus what other provinces have pursued successfully.

I do want to note as well at the beginning of my comments that today marks the second day of the new Liberal-friendly rules changes. There was a very good

article today in The Toronto Star by Mr. Benzie, a very talented, insightful journalist whom members know in the Queen's Park press gallery, talking about the rules changes and how it's impacted on debate. I think it's important as we consider Bill 44 today. It didn't seem, as Dalton McGuinty promised, that we've seen the Churchillian rhetoric in these morning debates. In fact, this is about as exciting as the 9:20 p.m.—

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you; that's nice of you to say, Mr. Milloy. It was so exciting this morning in debate that John Milloy actually cracked a smile and giggled over there. It was the first time to see such a sight.

So it's not exactly much different from what you see at 9:20 p.m.; maybe we'll see some improvements here. What I found interesting about Mr. Benzie's article, I say to my colleagues, is that Liberal members have been saying off the record that they're concerned that this will impact their ability—because usually at this time of day, members would be addressing constituency issues and doing their roles as parliamentary assistants or critics; committees would be meeting; you'd be on the phone a good part of the morning trying to solve issues on behalf of your constituents and interacting with the ministers, their staff and ministries to get that job done.

Liberal members have been saying—rightly so—that that makes it much more difficult for them to do, and they seem to have pinned the tail on the proverbial donkey. I give credit to the Liberal members who had spoken with Mr. Benzie as part of the article.

The real goal of moving question period to 10:45 was to do two things. The goal was to limit the ability of the opposition to hold the Premier and his cabinet accountable, because it limits the time to prepare for question period. Granted, sometimes you have days ahead of time to prepare questions, and we'll still do that. But the other side of the coin, I would say, is that sometimes there's a story that's moving and you need to do the research. It does take time, whether you're contacting a source, through a library, a municipal partner or a hospital, to get an answer in time to propose your question for question period, and then get it on the list for 10:45.

I agree with the Liberal members mentioned in the

article that the goal was to allow the government to kill issues early in the morning and to control the spin coming out of Queen's Park, so those stories don't get on the 6 p.m. news.

It also limits the availability—

Mr. Bruce Crozier: The

article doesn't say that.

Mr. Tim Hudak: My colleague says the

article doesn't say that. He can stand up in his time of the debate and quote Mr. Benzie's article. That's my recollection when I woke up this morning after Miller had been up and got to my Toronto Star and my National Post.

At any rate, the other point, obviously, is to limit the access that the press has to the Premier and to various ministers. So they've made that change, and I guess we'll see how this works out. I figure the deal has been cooked to move the question period to that particular time for those two purposes.

In reality, my colleagues know that all you really need to do is move the night debates into the morning. We'd have orders of the day, continue that debate in the morning and then hit question period at a fixed, predictable time. We've suggested 1 p.m. That gives the opposition the opportunity to get good questions, do the research and bring them forward. It's a fixed time, to allow individuals and those with young children to adapt their schedules to a fixed time.

I think it also would assist the press because they'd know exactly what time question period would be, the post-question-period scrums, and it would allow them to file their stories both for the noon news—the morning news of the day—and then following question period if there's a follow-up to those stories.

I want to read back some Hansard, because I think it's important that we talk about Bill 44 and we have a substantive debate about the merits of the bill and the proposals therein. But I don't think I can pass without comment, noting that Bill 44 is being debated in a morning session. I want to reach back to Hansard from April 16, 2008. Premier McGuinty said, "I had the opportunity earlier today to speak with a group of representatives of various farm organizations.

I'm not sure I could ever muster up the courage to tell them that we are, as a sacrifice now, about to begin work in this place at 9 o'clock in the morning. In our original proposal, we talked about working on Fridays. They said no to that," and the Premier goes on.

So the Premier is basically saying that now, all of a sudden, we're going to start work at 9 a.m., and I know my colleagues opposite start their days far earlier.

Mr. John O'Toole: Where is he? He's not here.

Mr. Tim Hudak: My colleague notes that the Premier is not even in the Legislature at 9 a.m. We're not sure what he's doing. He's certainly not in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I would ask you not to make reference to the absence of any other member in the House.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the point.

There's a good interjection here, by the way, from the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook to the Premier's comments, saying, "That's an embarrassment. How can you demean your members like this? You should turn around and apologize for that"—

I was called to order by the Speaker, rightly so. But I think it was a good point, because the Premier is basically standing here, saying to his members, like the member for Peterborough, that he doesn't start his workday at 9 a.m.; presumably he started his workday at 1:45 or 2 o'clock, when question period would often occur.

I find it very unfortunate that the Premier has that kind of attitude toward members of the assembly and his own members, basically insinuating that his members are not working at 9 a.m. when I know very well they are and have been, trying to solve issues for their constituents, doing their business as parliamentary assistants, committee work or in their role as critics, if they are in the opposition.

Again, the Premier said during that response in Hansard, April 16, "I just don't see how starting work here at 9 o'clock in the morning is such a tremendous sacrifice." Again, it's unfortunate—I bet some of you had the guts to stand up in caucus and call the Premier on this—that he would insult you in such a way as to suggest that you weren't working in the mornings merely because orders of the day weren't happening. We know full well, as you would, Mr. Speaker, that members of all parties would be working hard on behalf of their constituents much earlier than 9 in the morning.

I wanted to note that as we began debate on Bill 44 and to remark on the unfortunate, demeaning attitude the Premier has exhibited even toward his own MPPs in the debate on the sitting times in the Legislature.

We address Bill 44 today, about a week after the Toronto Dominion research dropped a bomb on the province of Ontario. You'll remember that report. The report basically said that Ontario was heading toward have-not status. I was back in my riding this past weekend and I spoke to the Rotary Club in Grimsby, actually on Thursday evening, and this was the number one issue. Rotary, a very active group as a whole in the province and especially active in Grimsby, brought up this issue of Ontario having have-not status, which was shocking to them.

Some members of Rotary are younger, some members of Rotary could probably be described as senior citizens, and they had never contemplated in their lives the notion of Ontario being a have-not province, begging thy neighbour for funds to come into our province.

We have always known an Ontario that was a leader in Canada—actually, under the previous PC government, a leader in North America—in job creation and in growth, the kind of province where people came from St. John's in Newfoundland, Victoria, BC, Yellowknife. They came to Ontario to make their way, to find a good job, provide for their families, buy a nice home, climb their way up the ladder. That was the Ontario we've always known: an Ontario that, because of its wealth and potential, would share with other provinces.

Now, after just four short years—well, in some senses, long years—of the Dalton McGuinty government, we find Ontario contemplating have-not status, meaning we're at the bottom rung of the ladder. This great province, with vast potential and incredible entrepreneurs, a hard-working, well-trained workforce that is accustomed to leading the country, is now laid low by Dalton McGuinty's tax-and-spend policies, at the back of the pack. We've gone from the powerhouse of Confederation to a poor cousin in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

So those watching at home now, who have moved off from—who would be on at 9 a.m.? They've moved away from Regis and—is it Kathie Lee still?

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Kelly. My apologies. The Regis and Kelly show—

Mr. Jim Wilson: I'm at work.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Members are at work, as my colleague from Simcoe says, so he wouldn't know, but I guess the Regis and Kelly show. They've changed their channel now to the Legislative channel.

I want to refer to the TD Economics special report released April 29, 2008, the highlights of the report on the first page: "Ontario set to receive payments under the federal equalization program."

"Based on TD Economics' economic and revenue projections, Ontario is projected to qualify for equalization payments of $400 million in fiscal year 2010-11 and $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011-12."

They go on to talk about how the other provinces are doing and that "Ontario's advantage has been slipping." They show the growth of Ontario's economy relative to the rest of Canada.

As I mentioned several times in debate before, and I want to stress this: For the first time ever, as far as I know, Ontario's per capita GDP, a measure of our wealth, has fallen below the national average, I believe, in 2006. When Dalton McGuinty came into office we were about $2,000 above the national per capita GDP, and now we have slipped below the national average for the first time. I think that gives reason to think, why is Ontario in the situation it is in, contemplating have-not status?

That's because our wealth relative to the rest of the provinces on average has declined, fallen behind the pack; our job creation, as TD has pointed out, among other institutions, is now last in Canada when it comes to private sector job creation.

All of these measures have shown that Ontario's economy is facing significant challenges. I'll argue that it has been hobbled by Dalton McGuinty's policy of having business taxes that are the highest in North America, by having government spending increase, program spending, by some 42% under his mandate, without any real results that I believe taxpayers would say they have seen. Red tape has increased, throttling innovation and job creation in the province. That's underlying why TD Economics has noted that we have slipped in our GDP per capita relative to the national average and relative to the provinces that are doing much better than Ontario.

I do want to note as well that the Premier's reaction to this news was disheartening, to say the least.

Mr. Jim Wilson: "Don't worry; be happy."

Mr. Tim Hudak: My colleague from Simcoe—Grey says, "Don't worry; be happy." There's no doubt: One of Dalton McGuinty's typical responses to bad economic news is to replay the old Bobby McFerrin hit from the 1990s, "Don't Worry, Be Happy." He tries to change the channel by talking about other things like banning pesticides or allowing clotheslines—

Mr. John O'Toole: Sushi.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —or banning sushi, as my colleague from Durham notes. The reality is that Dalton McGuinty's response is either "Don't worry, be happy," or, "We need more money from Ottawa."

You would think that a Premier worth his salt in the province of Ontario would say, "There's no way that I would let Ontario slip into have-not status, come hell or high water." A Premier worth his or her salt would call in the top ministers on the economic files: finance, economic development and trade, and energy, to name a few. He or she would call them in immediately and say, "How are we going to reverse this decline?

There is no way, under my mandate, that I would allow Ontario to become a have-not province." That's what I expected Dalton McGuinty to say, to show some bit of leadership and say—this is a loud warning cry by TD Economics; this is an alarm bell that they hear from Ottawa to Niagara to Kenora—"There is no way, come hell or high water, that Ontario will be a have-not province." That's what a Premier showing some modicum of leadership would say.

What did we see from Dalton McGuinty? Instead of saying, "We'll try to combat this. We'll turn the economy around. I'm calling in my top ministers. We're going to have a plan. We'll get out of this rut. We'll move back to Ontario's proper place as a leader in Confederation," Dalton McGuinty was just so anxious to get his hands on more money.

Dalton McGuinty loves to spend taxpayers' money. Let's not forget that one of his first moves while in office was to break his famous promise where he said he wouldn't increase taxes on working families and seniors, yet one of his first bills did just that: up to $900 per individual and up to $1,800 per family, depending on income—a substantial increase on the backs of middle-class families and seniors in Ontario, one of the first things Dalton McGuinty did in office.

Combined with that, he increased taxes, despite warnings from economists, despite warnings from business groups, despite warnings from Roger Martin, his own economic policy adviser at the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity. He increased taxes on business investments to now the highest in all of North America, chasing jobs out of our province. Some 200,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs, by way of example, have left in the last two years alone.

For every dollar Dalton McGuinty can squeeze from taxpayers, he's got three or four ways to spend it. Instead of talking about attacking the underlying problems, turning the economy around, making Ontario open for investment and private-sector job creation, reducing the red-tape burden and trying to give consumers a break so that they can spend in the local economy, Dalton McGuinty is more concerned about spending as much money as he can.

In a way, that's a bit duplicitous. He talks about the $20 billion that the province sends to Ottawa, and he makes it sound like if that money came back, it would all be in provincial coffers for the next Dalton McGuinty spending program. The reality is, unless it was transferred back and Dalton McGuinty increased taxes by that much—he may very well do so—it's a fallacious argument that those funds would go to the provincial treasury and then be parceled out in new spending programs.

Let me talk a bit about what consumers are facing in the province of Ontario under Dalton McGuinty. We did a bit of a research project, the PC research services. These numbers are relatively current; they're a little bit outdated. The values that I'll talk about have become slightly worse, but we found that a typical family of four earning $75,000 per year has seen their out-of-pocket expenses rise by $2,045 under the McGuinty government. A typical individual, sole-income earner, not a family, earning $35,000 per year in case 2 has seen her expenses increase by $1,110 under Dalton McGuinty.

When you work through the numbers on these examples, the health tax on the family of four would be about $750. Energy prices have gone up because Dalton McGuinty has increased them, I think despite campaign promises to the contrary. Yes, he did; he promised that hydro rates would be frozen at a certain level for a number—was it three years or so, Mr. Speaker? He broke that promise upon coming to office.

Mr. John O'Toole: Doubled.

Mr. Tim Hudak: My friend from Durham says that the cost of energy has increased significantly.

Mr. John O'Toole: Doubled.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The member from Durham says "doubled."

He's also planning on shutting down about 20% of our power by closing down the coal plants without any real plan to replace that power. That puts upward pressure on energy prices as well, and Dalton McGuinty has locked himself in as well to some long-term, expensive contracts to try to make up for that closure of 20% of our power supply through closing down the coal plants. The bottom line when we did this research was, the cost of electricity for that typical family was up about $140.

If this family used natural gas in its household, which a lot of families do—we're on propane in my home in Wellandport and natural gas when we're here in Toronto. The typical family of four in our example would have seen, in this time period, their natural gas costs go up $250 annually.

Gasoline has gone through the roof. Whether you're here, by Queen's Park, if you're back in Wellington county or if you're in Mount Hope, you're seeing prices at the pump of $1.20 and upwards. In fact, CIBC is predicting they'll go as high as $1.40, $1.50 this summer and even higher in 2009. At any rate, the calculation is that the typical family of four now is paying $490 more in gasoline costs than they had paid previous to Dalton McGuinty, so approximately $500.

New driver's licence renewal charges were brought in, which is a cost of $25 for an annual exam. I remember famously when Dalton McGuinty brought in the infamous health tax, which we know doesn't go to health care; it just goes to general revenue. He delisted, at the same time, health services from the OHIP stable, including annual eye exams for adults, which now would cost $150, to this typical family of four. The foregone tax cut was $240.

Again, this was work we had done a couple of years ago, so I suspect the numbers are even higher now, because gas prices are higher than they were two years ago, as are energy prices, and there have been additional fees imposed on Ontario families. At any rate, when you add all those numbers up, I say to my friend from Peterborough, you get $2,045 in more expenses for this family of four. Now, does Dalton McGuinty tell Esso where to put their gas prices? No, we're not saying that. We are simply pointing out—you know what? My friend brings up an important point.

Dalton McGuinty did say, when he was in opposition, running to become Premier, that he had three great ideas to hold the line on gas prices. Remember that?

Mr. John O'Toole: Name one.

Mr. Tim Hudak: He said he had three great ideas to hold the line on gas prices, and this was at a time when I think gas prices were about 70 cents a litre. Dalton McGuinty said that was outrageous and he had three great ideas to hold the line on gas prices. But again, once elected Premier, these promises and these ideas had been forgotten.

So we have seen the cost of living increase by over $2,000 for the typical family. Some things were in provincial control, like the health tax, like the delisting; they passed on some through the OEB, like energy costs, and they are about $2,000 behind where they were in 2003. So you would think that there would be pressure from the Liberal caucus. I know there's pressure from small business groups, the taxpayers' federation etc., to lower the tax burden, to give middle-class families and seniors a break, because it's awfully difficult to make ends meet in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, particularly when you look at those numbers.

For the sole-income earner—I gave that example as well—she would face a health tax, in our example, of $300 per year if she's earning $35,000. Energy costs, natural gas, gasoline—we allocated $245 in increased gas taxes. The delisted health programs, driver's licence renewal etc. works out to an impact of over $1,000 on the bottom line of a single-income earner in the province of Ontario.

Back to the issue of transfers, by the way. I do want to point out for the record the increase in federal transfers that has taken place. In 2005-06, maybe in the last year of the Martin government, annual federal transfers to the province of Ontario were $11.28 billion. There was $7.7 billion in the Canada health transfer, $3.1 billion in the Canada social transfer, $379 million for infrastructure, to $11.28 billion. In 2006-07 that was up about $600 million, to $11.8 billion.

And then a substantial increase in 2007-08, the Harper government in Ottawa making good on its commitment to increase transfers to the provinces. It was $12.5 billion in 2007-08, and for 2008-09, $13.9 billion. That's with a $2.6-billion increase from transfers in 2005-06. I think anybody on the federal side, members of the opposition, I'm sure, and members of the Liberal caucus are wondering, with the $2.6 billion in increased transfers from the federal government to the province of Ontario, where did the McGuinty government invest this money? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth?

I don't think we have seen a $2.6-billion increase in the quality of services. When we hear about wait times to offload ambulances in emergency rooms, when we hear about the backups in emergency rooms, about patients in beds in the hallways because they can't get a bed, when we see the lack of investment in the long-term-care sector, by way of example, when we see more students in portables than ever before—Blessed Trinity in Grimsby, by the way, has the sad distinction of having the most portables of any school in the Niagara Peninsula—you wonder where the $2.6 billion in federal transfers has gone.

I think one of our major challenges is that Dalton McGuinty goes to Ottawa cap in hand, as opposed to reacting to the have-not status by saying he's going to do everything he can to rejuvenate our economy and get people working again, and attract more jobs to our province. When he goes to Ottawa cap in hand, I think the challenge we face is that our chief salesperson for the province of Ontario has a briefcase full of broken promises. He will say one thing, and has a reputation of doing the opposite.

When we've seen the transfers increase by over $2.5 billion, I think we in the assembly need to hear from the Premier exactly where those funds have flowed so we know we are getting an impact from that. I think if you ask my constituents in Niagara West—Glanbrook, they would say they have not seen that.

Instead, what do we see? Well, the sunshine list of 2008 came out. If you look closely, the number of individuals on the sunshine list—these are government employees who earn more than $100,000 per year—has increased by over 42,000 since Dalton McGuinty came to office. I think a lot of the growth—well, we haven't seen much growth in job creation, as TD points out and I'll point out a bit later. Dalton McGuinty has increased the size of government by some 42,000 workers making $100,000 or more. That is about the size of Welland in the Niagara Peninsula, to put it all into perspective.

Let me give you some examples here. I mentioned that 42,000 Ontario government employees and workers in crown corporations, municipalities, hospitals, and colleges and universities are on that list. Ministry staff, by the way—these are political staffers who are on the sunshine list—have increased by 84% since 2003, ministry staffers who are making $100,000 or more per year. The chief of staff in Dalton McGuinty's office, for example, now hauls down $203,000, I guess heading up the 72 political staff who work in Premier McGuinty's office.

One of the rare growth sectors in the province of Ontario is Dalton McGuinty's office, by the way: 72 employees, with the top dog making $203,000; I'd point that out. There are seven individuals who either work in the Premier's office or work for various ministers who make substantially more than your average MPP makes. I thought I would point that out for the Liberal members. I think they do know this, but I thought it was an important thing to raise as part of the debate, when we're wondering where additional spending has gone.

The local health integration networks, the LHINs, are the middle managers that the McGuinty government created as opposed to investing in front-line health care workers—more doctors and more nurses. It created these bureaucracies throughout the province of Ontario to administer funds. A new level of middle management was created at substantial cost to the health budget and to the taxpayer. I don't think they could show in this Legislature that as a result, health care has improved.

I think there have been a lot of meetings held, there has been new investment in furniture and new offices, and a lot more staff hired. But I don't see how these funds are translating to reducing wait times at West Lincoln Memorial Hospital or getting more doctors into the Mount Hope area. The local health integration networks, the LHINs, have seen the people making $100,000 a year increase from 13 to 53 from the time they got set up in 2006-07; 13 to 53 is a substantial increase. These salaries are typically in the $200,000 range.

I think most taxpayers would see these salaries and wonder why they couldn't be going into front-line health care as opposed to this level of middle management.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation makes an important point on this—I think the central difference between the approach the McGuinty government would take and the approach that Progressive Conservatives would take—that Dalton McGuinty's job creation has been primarily, over half of it, in government jobs. We've seen a very anaemic growth in the private sector, one of the reasons why we are on the verge of becoming a have-not province. Kevin Gaudet from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in the National Post on April 7, 2008, had a very insightful column.

This is a release I'm quoting from, actually; similar thoughts were in his column in the National Post recently: "McGuinty Grows Public Service by 16%: Private Sector Grows by 2%." Quite a disparity.

To read from Mr. Gaudet's release: "'Jobs, jobs, jobs' was a catchy refrain during the federal election of 1984. Nearly 25 years later, the slogan may be making a comeback in Ontario. Yet this time, thanks to Premier McGuinty, it is the public sector rather than the private sector leading job growth. This approach cannot succeed because it does not add up."

Mr. Gaudet's central argument is that if public sector growth outpaces private sector growth, that is not sustainable. He backs it up with some interesting statistics: "During Premier McGuinty's tenure, Statistics Canada reports that private sector job creation has grown by 2.1%," which again, I remind you, is, if not last, close to last in all of Canada, "whereas the public sector has grown by 15.5%. There are now 101,882 more people employed by the provincial government than when Mr. McGuinty took power. That is triple the provincial population growth rate, which only grew by 5.3%. Over a similar time frame, the private sector only generated 108,000 net new jobs."

So the government jobs are approximately at the same level, for the provincial government, as private sector jobs, according to Mr. Gaudet. As I raised with the sunshine list, as I raised with the political staffers and such, I don't think taxpayers would be convinced that those jobs are being created in front-line services. Instead, we're seeing more folks in middle management—more spin doctors, so to speak—than those who are delivering services.

Another important comparison Mr. Gaudet brings up: "Notwithstanding the different economic challenges each faced"—here he compares Premier Bob Rae, Premier Mike Harris and Premier McGuinty—"it is interesting to compare Mr. McGuinty's performance on the job front to some of his predecessors." This needs to be underlined. "Mr. McGuinty has grown the public sector more than Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves—combined." I don't know if you knew that. It bears repeating. "Mr. McGuinty has grown the public sector more than Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves—combined.

Over five years, Bob Rae shrank the public sector by 21,673 jobs and his high taxing and high spending policies drove net private sector job growth of a meagre 12,500."

It's an interesting point, when you see over the course of the Bob Rae mandate what happened with public sector jobs. They actually shrank by 21,000. Private-sector job growth over approximately five years was a very "meagre 12,500."

"...Mike Harris (and Ernie Eves), grew the public sector by 47,235." You always hear the Liberals say, "You cut this; you cut that." The reality, from Stats Canada data, is that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves "grew the public sector by 47,235 jobs."

"Of note is that the Harris growth came outside the main departmental bureaucracy, which declined by almost 10,000 during his tenure." When Mr. Gaudet talks about "departmental," he's talking about ministry staff, what we see as the layer of bureaucracy, the middle management. He says that Mike Harris reduced that by 10,000, but overall public sector job growth was 47,000, indicating the trend there was towards front-line delivery services as opposed to those working around Queen's Park—StatsCan data.

"Premier McGuinty may defend his record of public sector job growth saying he promised more nurses, more teachers and more doctors. While this is true," Mr. Gaudet says, "the data reveals that departmental staff has also ballooned—up by 8.8% to 102,180." So while McGuinty talks a good game, the reality is that the departmental staff—the term he uses for middle management—not front-line services, have increased by 8.8%, to 102,180.

Mr. Gaudet's concluding points are that it's important to note that "this increased burden on taxpayers comes at a time when the economy is facing trouble." He makes the correct point that, "A healthy private sector that creates wealth and a tax base is what provides for jobs in the public sector, not the other way around."

So there is this fundamental difference in philosophy. Dalton McGuinty's tax-and-spend approach would be to grow as quickly as possible—since he's already left previous Premiers in the dust, so to speak—the public sector; therefore, buoy or juice a little bit the job creation statistics, and then hope that the private sector will follow.

The best approach that we've seen here in the province of Ontario and other jurisdictions is that you need a strong private sector creating new jobs, new companies, creating wealth. Then, when more people are working, more businesses are hiring and businesses are expanding, tax revenue increases and the province can invest in health care, education, police and other important services.

If you throttle the private sector economy, as we've seen Dalton McGuinty's tax-and-spend approach do, you have much slower growth—again, now at the back of Canada—which makes it unsustainable to continue to invest in needed public sector services. In a sense, it's a bit like David Peterson, déjà vu all over again, where spending got out of control, and then, when the economy slowed down, they had no room to adjust to stimulate the economy. As a result, he handed off to the NDP a significant deficit.

I do hope, and I could have expected in Bill 44, to see some approach by the government to reverse that trend, to say, as I mentioned before, "No way, come hell or high water, will Ontario ever be a have-not province; we're going to turn this ship around, help create jobs in the province of Ontario by creating a positive environment for business investment and expansion, so when 2010-11 comes around, the TD economics would be very wrong, they would be way off the mark, and their prediction would not come true." You would think that would be the approach of the Premier and the approach in Bill 44, but sadly, it's almost like he is looking forward to collecting equalization payments to fuel this runaway spending that I mentioned earlier on, rather than pulling out all the stops to halt Ontario's slide and put us back to the top of the pack in Confederation once again.

We brought forward a number of amendments to this bill. Hard-working members of the finance committee—my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk—brought forward amendments suggested by the PC caucus and suggested by me, as the finance critic. They were very reasonable, thoughtful amendments, but, as I mentioned, all of them were shot down.

Not everybody sees what happens in committee, so I thought I'd bring to the floor of the Legislature what some of those amendments were to make the case for them, and perhaps my colleague the parliamentary assistant—because I know he cares about working families and seniors in the province of Ontario—will help improve this bill. And if it's not going to be in Bill 44, maybe a subsequent bill will amend Bill 44 and bring in some of these good ideas.

Schedule A was part of the bill that we felt really missed the boat, so to speak, when it comes to assisting families and seniors in the province of Ontario.

Schedule A of Bill 44 dealt with the Assessment Act and consequential amendments. Members of the assembly, like my colleague from London—Fanshawe—because I know he follows this issue very closely—will tell you that one of the results of Dalton McGuinty's freezing assessment increases is that Ontario homeowners are going to face a triple whammy of property assessment increases for the 2009 tax year. Those assessments will be coming out this fall.

Just by way of background, you will remember that the debate of skyrocketing assessments consumed this Legislature for some time back in 2005-06.

All of us were getting tons of calls and e-mails from our constituents who saw double or triple per cent increases in their assessments and said, "How can I afford to stay in my home?" It was a real burden on young families with children to see their assessments going through the roof and the resultant tax increases they were paying; or seniors, particularly seniors whose spouse has passed away and who had lived for a long period of time in the family home which happened to be in a neighbourhood that was improving, and she or he had seen the house value improve to the point where they couldn't afford the property taxes because of the assessment increases.

Their income was fixed, but their assessments and taxes were going up simply because of the neighbourhood they lived in.

The Ombudsman, André Marin, did a scathing report on the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., MPAC. Before Mr. Marin's report, the McGuinty government was not going to make any substantive changes to the way assessments worked, in the face of tripling assessments in the province of Ontario, until pressure here in the assembly and, I suspect, pressure in the caucus room from the Liberal members—I would certainly hope—and Mr. Marin's report moved the government to action.

The problem was, instead of addressing the underlying problems in the system, the Liberal government decided to, in what I would call a cynical move, postpone the pain until after the election. So, conveniently, assessments were frozen until after the 2007 election; new assessments would come out in September 2008. Because assessments were basically frozen for three years, that means that homeowners, in the fall, will open up their mailboxes, take out the envelope from MPAC and see three years of assessments hitting them all at once. As CAPTR and WRAFT, two groups for homeowners, have pointed out, substantial increases of double or triple percentage values are coming forward.

When the business sector faced similar increases in assessments, as we adjusted to the new system, the then PC government did bring in a capping system to help address and transition to the new system. At that time, in the late 1990s, we didn't see the spiking assessments that we do today, and I think that a sensible response would be to bring in assessment caps.

I've brought forward a bill called the Homestead Act that would put a cap of a maximum 5% on annual assessment increases. It would also provide a modest but helpful property tax break to seniors and those who are disabled. It would also allow a deductible on home repairs, because there's a bit of a disincentive when you improve your home; you see an increase in value and therefore an increase in taxes as a result. So there would be a deductible to support home repairs.

That bill actually did receive support from many members of all parties. Here at the PC caucus we supported it, the NDP caucus supported it, and I think I had about 11 or 12 Liberal members who defied the Premier and the finance minister to support the bill. Unfortunately, it never proceeded to third reading. As a result, that is not the regime that we have in the province, even though I believe we should.

I think you'll know that populations representing probably half or more of North America do have some kind of capping regime. They have it in the province of Nova Scotia. We proposed it for Ontario. New York state, California, Florida, Michigan, Iowa and Texas, to name but some, have a form of capping regime—some lower than 5%, some higher than 5%, but they have a capping regime.

States that have faced similar pressure on property assessments have tended to react and bring in these caps, some through voter initiatives, some through legislative initiatives and referenda, but nevertheless, they do exist. I do hope that the government will consider that again when the triple-figure increases come out this fall.

We brought forward a motion to

schedule A of the act to bring in that cap of 5%. It seemed very reasonable. I know that my colleagues presented it well and explained what the motion would do, but unfortunately, the members of the Liberal caucus did vote that down.

We brought forward a subsequent motion that said, "Okay, if you don't agree with 5%, if you think it should be higher or you think it should be lower," we were ready to give cabinet the regulatory authority to determine what that cap level should be, to give flexibility. If I'm wrong and if CAPTR is wrong and if WRAFT is wrong and assessments aren't going through the roof this fall as three years of assessment increases hit all at once, then cabinet would have no need to bring in caps.

However, if we are proven to be right—and CAPTR has done a lot of research on this with a known real estate firm—then cabinet would have the ability to act to bring in caps of whatever percentage they deemed to be appropriate for the circumstances. But unfortunately, that amendment was defeated as well.

Basically, we brought forward a series of amendments to

schedule A, the Assessment Act, to try to anticipate the skyrocketing assessments that homeowners will see this fall, but unfortunately, each of those was defeated, as was the proposal to allow a deductible for home repairs and home improvements.

We made some suggestions, as well, to the timing. We want to make sure that if homeowners disagree with their assessment notices, if they think the number is way off and they want to make an appeal—you certainly do need time to consider this. You need to look at like-valued homes. You may want to consult somebody who has some degree of expertise to give you advice whether it's worth pursuing or not. So we had made some suggestions for improvements to

schedule A to extend the time period for appeals for various homeowners, but unfortunately, they were defeated as well.

I'll move on from

schedule A for the time being and look at

schedule B.

Schedule B would give the Minister of Finance a new ability to make grants to various groups. It would be a new function for the ministry. It wouldn't have legislative debate; the minister would just be able to make these grants. We certainly have seen what happened with that abuse of power in the run-up to the last election, with the infamous slush funds scandal that saw a cricket club, to use the most famous example, that asked for $100,000 receive over $1 million in funding.

We had a simple suggestion that we certainly thought was of merit, that these proposals for the grants in the Ministry of Finance would first go to the assembly for the assembly to approve on motion. They have the votes; we recognize that. They have a majority government. They could vote these things through. But at the very least, why not bring some scrutiny by the Legislature of these new grants, so that they would receive approval by motion in the assembly, as opposed to simply being signed off by the minister in a backroom?

We also expressed concerns about

schedule C of the act.

Schedule C, of course, amends the City of Toronto Act, 2006, for reasons that aren't entirely clear. Andrew from the finance minister's office and representatives from the civil service came in and took the time to brief the PC caucus on this and respond to our questions; I do appreciate that. I want to thank them for that courtesy. It helps us to ensure that the amendments we bring forward are sensible and are addressing the purpose of the legislation.

But

schedule C, if passed as is in Bill 44, would basically allow the ministry to put a wide range of information into city of Toronto tax bills. These are municipal tax bills that are going out which indicate the level of tax, the value of the property. The city of Toronto may put some things in there about what they're spending money on, for example, but this would give the province of Ontario the ability to add things to the envelope.

If there are specific purposes that the government had in mind and it was made clear they were doing this for purpose A—to inform the residents of the city of Toronto of plans to expand the subway north toward York University—I don't think members of the caucus would object to that. It's an important service for those in the city of Toronto and the GTA, and those visiting the city. I don't think we would object to something like that.

The problem is that they're asking us to buy a pig in a poke and give them blank authority to slip anything whatsoever into the tax bills under

schedule C. We brought forward an amendment to make sure this new power would not be abused by this government or any future government. Clause 309(3)(

a) of the City of Toronto Act would be amended under our motion to say that the minister would have to sit down with the city of Toronto and consult with them before they would insert whatever piece of propaganda into a city of Toronto mail-out on the taxes.

I don't know if time will allow me to get to subsequent amendments of this kind, but there are also amendments under this bill for municipalities outside of the city of Toronto. If you're worried about Elmira, by way of example, this bill would allow the minister to slip whatever he or she sees fit into a tax bill in Elmira. The amendments the PC caucus brought forward were that they should consult with the local municipality to make sure it's a shared purpose before inserting something willy-nilly into a tax bill. So we do worry about what the government's plans are because it was never made quite clear what the true intent of

schedule C was and why they needed this new power. They didn't give us any particular examples of what they intended pursuing in the time ahead.

There was some debate here in the assembly and in committee over our amendment to

schedule E.

Schedule E, of course, amends the Corporations Tax Act. We moved that the tax rate for 2008 and later years would be at a rate of 12%. As I've said many times in the assembly, as my colleagues have said and as Roger Martin, the Premier's economic adviser, has noted, we have the highest rate of taxation on business investment in all of Canada. In fact, we have the highest rate of taxation on business investment in all of North America. Saskatchewan used to be ahead of us. Saskatchewan used to have the highest rate, and we were number two after Dalton McGuinty raised taxes on businesses.

And then believe it or not, a New Democrat government in Saskatchewan lowered their corporate tax rate, leaving Ontario with the rather ignoble distinction of having the highest taxes on business investment in all of Canada.

I mentioned at the opening of my remarks the TD report warning that Ontario was on the downward spiral to have-not status. If you book-ended five days on either side of that announcement, you saw a worrisome trend. In Listowel, Ontario, a town of just a few thousand people, Campbell Soup, which employed 500 people, announced it was closing its doors. A major employer, a good corporate citizen in the Listowel community, affecting Lord knows how many homes, announced 500 layoffs. Can you contemplate the economic impact on a town of Listowel's size?

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, by the way, asked a very good question to the Minister of Research and Innovation, who happens to be the MPP for that area, asking what he was prepared to do in his capacity as minister to save those jobs. Interestingly, that very day, the minister dodged the question and referred it to a colleague, which I thought was unfortunately instructive.

In the same week that we saw the Campbell's layoffs, some 500, we saw 900 announced layoffs at GM in Oshawa. Within a week, we saw Dell in the city of Ottawa announce about 1,100 layoffs. Very sadly, in Niagara we saw the announced closure of CanGro, which is a fruit cannery in St. David's. It employed, at one point in time, 150 people. I think 120 were told, around the time of the have-not report, that their jobs would be lost.

It's not only devastating for those families, it has spin-off impacts on about 150 growers of peaches and pears in the area who will now be hard pressed to find a market for their product. People watching CHTV would have been greeted by the very sad image of tender fruit trees being uprooted, creating a brownfield in Dalton McGuinty's much-vaunted greenbelt. It takes six, seven years or more once you invest in a new tree before it starts producing fruit for market. It's particularly challenging for peach growers, because the clingstone peaches are meant for canneries, not for the fresh market.

I do hope that the province, which failed to save that plant, will at least help the tender fruit growers transition and help them to find markets.

We brought in an amendment to

schedule E which would at least have lowered the corporate tax rate to 12% from where it is today as part of the highest level of business taxation on business investment in all of North America, but unfortunately this is a government not interested in reducing the burden of taxes on businesses or working families and they, of course, voted down the amendment to the corporations tax rate.

We also proposed an amendment under

schedule E to eliminate the capital tax altogether. It would have seen the capital tax, no matter what the business, eliminated by January 1, 2007, retroactively, to help stimulate job creation in the province. We're one of the last provinces, I believe, to have a capital tax. It's a tax on jobs; it's a tax on investment. It was originally scheduled to be eliminated at the same time as the federal capital tax, which would have been, if I remember, back in 2006.

Of course, as part of Dalton McGuinty's bill that increased taxes to the highest level in all of North America, and part of his famous broken promise not to increase taxes on working families and seniors, we thought at the very least we could accelerate—

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: My colleague has an opportunity to correct the record, I guess, but I've seen time and time again that Ontario has the highest rate of taxes on business investment in all of North America. In fact, Roger Martin, the Premier's own economic advisor, has talked many times about the high rate of business taxation in the province of Ontario.

At any rate, we had proposed that the capital tax be wiped out in its entirety as of January 1, 2007. There's certainly the capacity in the budget to do so, but again Liberal members, I think taking their cue from the Premier and the finance minister, were not interested in reducing the tax burden in the province and they voted that one down as well.

We had some other amendments to

schedule E. In the interests of time I think I'll move on, but basically they are a compendium of amendments in

schedule E to help reduce the burden of taxation on businesses, to help stimulate job creation.

Schedule L is quite interesting, and I believe it's

schedule Q that went along with it. We brought forward amendments in both respects.

Schedule L would call upon the LCBO to borrow for major capital projects. I think it uses the word "shall" as opposed to "may," so it's forcing the LCBO. If I recall,

schedule Q would impose the same thing on the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. We have concerns that this is an attempt from the government to hide its borrowing in its agencies and to inflate the revenues that are coming into the province for additional spending. Again, we didn't suggest that this

schedule be eliminated altogether. We thought we'd be reasonable about it, so we said in our amendment that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs would review these major capital projects, or even minor capital projects. The bill leaves it in the minister's hands to define, rather than forcing them to go into debt to finance them if they could finance it through cash flow.

My colleague from Simcoe North noted earlier on why we have this concern. If you look at page 156 of the government's recent budget, the net debt and accumulated deficit tables as of interim 2008, you'll see that the publicly held debt by the province in 2003-04, the first year that the McGuinty government came into office—that was split a bit between the Eves government and the McGuinty government, the McGuinty government, of course, being elected in October 2003.

The level was $121.992 billion. I'll saw it off at $122 billion in publicly held debt. The plan for 2008-09, so within five years, is that publicly held debt will increase to $149 billion. As my colleague from Simcoe North pointed out rightly, we're seeing a $28-billion increase in publicly held debt under the Dalton McGuinty government. And we know what that means. That means a greater burden being placed on children and grandchildren in the province of Ontario.

At a time that revenues are at record levels, largely due to Dalton McGuinty's tax increases and increased federal transfers, despite the fact that we have record revenues, the province of Ontario continues to borrow, which is actually amazing.

A $28-billion increase in debt, a new burden on future generations—interest payments will go up as a result—taking money that could be used in the budget for health care or education, now towards debt repayment: So how they score that circle, how they can say, at a time that their revenues increased by $25 billion or more, that they see fit to borrow an additional $28 billion beyond that, is simply breathtaking. My colleague from Simcoe North was absolutely right in calling attention to that. That's why we brought forward these amendments to

schedule L of the act, and

schedule Q when it came to the OLGC, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., now known as Ontario Lottery and Gaming, OLG.

Schedule O: As I mentioned, we brought forward an amendment not to eliminate but to restrict the ability of the minister to put whatever he or she chose into a municipal tax bill, whatever piece of propaganda the government wanted to put out there. We asked the minister simply to consult with the affected municipalities. It seemed very reasonable. I know reasonable members of the committee would probably, deep down, agree with this proposal, especially former mayors and municipal councillors, but unfortunately, this very reasonable amendment to

schedule O of the act was shot down.

Schedule P: We also brought forward amendments basically saying that no order in council authorizing borrowing under this act shall be made after March 31, 2009. The reason we brought forward that amendment was that we were concerned with the level of borrowing that the McGuinty government is doing to fuel the runaway spending. As I mentioned, public debt has gone up by some $28 billion under the McGuinty government, so we weren't willing to give them a blank cheque when it comes to future borrowing that the McGuinty government might contemplate, and we made some companion amendments to that.

I mentioned as well

schedule Q, dealing with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., and our concerns that the government will try to put more debt on the backs of its public agencies. We certainly have seen some accounting trickery by the McGuinty government. We'll have a chance, I think, in the next few days to debate Bill 35. The time allocation motion was struck on 35. We went to committee and, as you may recall, the Auditor General had offered pretty strong criticism. It is not every day, in fact it's a relatively rare occurrence, that the Auditor General writes to a committee to the Legislature raising concerns about the accounting principles in a government bill.

We thought it very reasonable to suggest, and my colleague from Beaches—East York, Mr. Prue, had brought the motion forward—and we supported it—that we simply hear from the Auditor General. That would give members of the committee from all three parties a chance to ask the Auditor General and decide for ourselves if his critique of the bill—that, in his view, certain sections should be deleted—was meritorious or not. But, unfortunately, Mr. Prue's motion, that we supported, was voted down by the Liberal members, and the Auditor General was not able to come before the committee to raise his concerns in person.

We've raised our strong reservations about the accounting voodoo in that legislation. We feel strengthened in that because of the Auditor General's concerns in his letter, that this basically legalizes a slush fund that allows the cabinet, in the summertime, to allocate funding from a previous fiscal year to whatever group it deems appropriate—particularly when you think the government may be politically motivated. It's hard for me to say such a thing, but that would be potentially in the run-up to the 2011 election when they could disburse these slush funds, and that's why we raise our objections to Bill 35, as well as Bill 44, before the assembly today.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'm just going to read a few facts here. This sort of sums up how we feel about this budget.

Since Dalton McGuinty came to power, Ontario has lost 18% of its high-paying manufacturing jobs. That's $6.6 billion in wages out of the Ontario economy. That very scary number of 18% sounds good compared to the absolute devastation of the manufacturing sector that communities such as Hamilton have endured, where 30% of the manufacturing jobs have been lost. Outrageous.

But all this pales in comparison to the hit that Windsor has taken, where close to 40% of the manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Windsor now has the second-highest unemployment rate in Canada.

Here are some other numbers that demonstrate the depth of the job crisis in Ontario manufacturing and resource sectors. Under Dalton McGuinty's watch, 10,000 forest sector jobs, worth $869 million to the Ontario economy, have been lost. Northerners have lost seven out of 10 jobs. Ontario manufacturing employment stood at 913,000 in February 2008. That's a loss of almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004, or about 18% of the total manufacturing jobs in our province. Auto—parts and assembly—steel and forest products have been particularly hard-hit.

Stats Canada has found that the average worker who lost a job in the manufacturing sector suffers a 25% drop in wages in his or her new job. That's a loss of $10,000 in wages per worker. I guess those are some of the 147,000 jobs that this government likes to announce, while these people lost 25% of their income—not exactly something to be proud about.

I guess I'm finished with the time. Thank you.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I listened with interest to the speech from my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook. It was an interesting view of history, so I would just like to get the correct history on record.

Ontario, technically, was in a position to be a have-not province from 1977 to 1982, when William Davis was the Premier of Ontario. Why that happened at that time was because that was the first oil shock in the world. Oil prices have moved up rather dramatically, and because of the technical definition of the way equalization was formulated back then, Ontario was technically a have-not province and would have qualified, between 1977 and 1982, for $100 million under the equalization program. The government of the day, of course, changed the formula so Ontario would not get that $100 million.

What's interesting is that Mr. Davis was a huge supporter. As we can remember, Mr. Trudeau came back in 1980, won the federal election and brought in the national energy program. The premise of the national energy program was to have a two-tier price of oil—one domestic and one foreign. That would give the national economy a break by having a domestic price for oil, benefiting the economy of Canada.

It's interesting. I'd like to hear today—perhaps the official opposition would like to go back to that position. Perhaps they want to go to Ottawa and chat with Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister, and say: "Perhaps we need a two-tier price of oil, something that's half the price of the world price, so that the Ontario economy would get a benefit." I would like to see that happen. They should go to Ottawa today and demand from the Prime Minister that we really need a domestic price for oil, to give the central provinces of Canada a break, to cope economically with the high price of the dollar.

"Give us a break on the price of oil," and then we would have those additional revenues to try to fund other things.

Every day, when they come in the House, the first question says, "You should cut back this and that and every other thing," and the second question is, "Spend more."

Mr. John O'Toole: I would like to respond positively to the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, our critic for the Ministry of Finance, as he watches this diligently. If you're looking at it as you would a report card, you would really come to one line that would summarize the outcomes after five years of Liberal reign. You would have to say taxes are up, jobs are down. Let's recall that: Taxes are up, jobs are down. Spending is up, jobs are down. Those are the numbers.

Actually, if you look at the experts—and much has been mentioned about this important report, called Path to the 2020 Prosperity Agenda. This report is non-partisan. Just a few of the members that I have to celebrate here: Roger Martin, who I believe is the dean of the Rotman School of Business; Jim Balsillie, who's from the Research In Motion group; as well as David Johnston, who's president of the University of Waterloo. These are leaders giving advice in Ontario to Dalton McGuinty.

What are they actually saying? Roger Martin and the other experts on the panel are saying—and this is on page 45 of the report. It says: "Motivations: Pursue smarter taxation." One of the recommendations they give here is, "The incoming government"—meaning the McGuinty government—"needs to pursue tax reform as high priority to raise Ontario's competitiveness and prosperity." It's an important report.

In fact, what are they doing? They're doing just the opposite. If you look on page 47—here's the chart for all of the viewers—it says, "Taxation of new business investment is higher in Ontario than nearly all OECD countries." So the evidence is there: Taxes are up; jobs are down. Almost every sector is affected by this.

I'm very disappointed that there doesn't seem to be a plan here to address the young people here today and their future.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's certainly a pleasure to speak about the do-nothing, accomplish-nothing budget of the McGuinty Liberals. This is a budget that has no new dollars for housing, in a province that has 170,000 households waiting for affordable housing. It has no dollars for a so-called anti-poverty program, despite the rhetoric to the contrary. It has no dollars for child care, despite being bordered by a province that has $7-a-day, quality child care and which brought in 20,000 more spaces for child care. That's the Quebec example, but that's Quebec; that's not Ontario.

We don't care about children here, we don't care about the poor here and we don't care about housing here. The McGuinty Liberals have made it very clear in this budget.

Instead, of course, what we do get in Ontario is 200,000 lost good-paying manufacturing jobs and a government that has made it even more difficult to unionize by voting down our bill for card-check certification. What we do get in Ontario is handouts to corporate friends of the government, like GM, with no strings attached, so that we see jobs lost as a result of the corporate handouts. What we do get from this government is handouts to the wealthy at the expense of benefits for those who are middle-class or poor.

So again, what I would say about this budget, what we in the New Democratic Party would say about this budget, is that this is an accomplish-nothing, do-nothing budget, a budget I've characterized as the Oliver Twist budget, where those in need go cap in hand to the master's table and say, "Please, sir. Please, sir. Just a little bit more, sir." In fact, with this budget, they don't get anything.

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

The member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, final comments?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I appreciate my colleagues' comments in response to mine on Bill 44. I never thought I'd see the day, though, that the member from Peterborough is calling for a national energy program, part two. I've been criticized for resurrecting the spectre of Bob Rae. Holy cats, Trudeau has made a comeback here in the Legislature today, calling for the NEP, which was disastrous for Canada.

My recollection—it was a while ago, back in the day. He references 1977 to 1982, when he said that Ontario qualified for equalization—which they never took, by the way. In fact, one of the reasons why Ontario did not receive money is because our income per capita was above the national average. That ain't true in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, my friend from Peterborough; that is not true anymore. Our income per capita now is below the national average for the first time in memory, and perhaps ever. We've always known that Ontario was a wealth creator, a province of prosperity, not below the average when it came to income levels for families in our province.

The other important distinction, by the way, to my friend from Peterborough, is that, if memory serves, Bill Davis said no; he did not want to take the equalization payments. He wanted to fight.

I would have expected that Premier McGuinty, when he got the word that Ontario was heading to have-not status, would have stood in his place and said, "No way will I let Ontario slip to have-not status.

No way, come hell or high water, will I accept Ontario as a have-not province." I would have called in my finance minister, my economic development and trade minister, my energy minister, and I would have said, "By God, we're going to turn this province around and make it strong again, create jobs, and take us to the top of Canada." Instead, Dalton McGuinty says, "Don't worry; be happy." It's almost like he wants to bring in more tax dollars to spend rather than to turn our province around and make us friendly for job creation.

That would be real leadership from the Premier, not this "Don't worry; be happy" attitude we see from these guys.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate on Bill 44 stands adjourned.

Third reading debate adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Oak Ridges—Markham, in the east public gallery, I'd like to welcome the students from Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School in Markham.

In the Speaker's gallery, we'd like to welcome Ms. Debra Broderick, senior Hansard editor with the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly. Welcome today.

On behalf of page Hannah Jansen, in the west public gallery, we'd like to welcome her grandmother, Nancy Millson.

On behalf of page Cali van Bommel, in the Speaker's gallery, we'd like to welcome her mother, Suzanne, and her sister, Petra.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the Premier: Premier, this weekend we learned about the tragic death of 87-year-old Florence Coxon, a resident of a nursing home. She is an example of the fact that today our long-term-care residents are older and they require more complex care than a decade ago. Today, 68% of long-term-care residents suffer from dementia or some other form of cognitive impairment. Considering these changes, why have you not implemented all of the recommendations of the Casa Verde inquest, which you know was called following the death of two residents in a Toronto long-term-care home?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: Let me repeat, as I had a chance to say yesterday in response to questions from the third party, that any loss of life is of course a very challenging and tragic circumstance, particularly for family members, and we are awaiting some of the results of the investigation into the particular matter that you referenced at the top of your question.

With respect to long-term-care overall, our priority in the long-term-care-home environment is clear: It's to continue to add more staff. We have staffing levels at all long-term-care homes in the province that are much higher than those which we inherited in 2003-04.

With respect to the Casa Verde inquest, on matters like enhanced training for individuals working with a client load that has dementia, we've invested millions of dollars in enhancing their capacity to care for that part of the population.

I look forward to providing more information in the supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: What the minister didn't understand is that over the past 10 years, we have older residents and we have residents today who require a more complex level of care. There needs to be more staffing. There need to be more human resources.

He has not implemented the recommendations of the Casa Verde inquest. In fact, one of the recommendations in 2006 was to increase the level of personal care to an average 3.06 hours per day. Minister, why did you not respond to this recommendation for more hours of care for our frail and vulnerable residents?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member references the higher levels of care required for patients over a 10-year period, which reaches back to cover her term in office as Minister of Health; it covers three of those years. But when her party was the government in Ontario, they eliminated all of the standards with respect to provision of care in our long-term-care homes. The standard they inherited from the prior government was 2.25 hours, and they eliminated that standard.

Through the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and 6,000 additional people on the front line, the standard of purchased hours of care on a daily basis for our residents is nearly three hours—very close to the recommendations that the honourable member mentioned. We intend, through the budget that's been debated today, to continue to add resources, 2,000 additional nurses and 2,500 additional personal support workers, building to a standard of 3.25 hours—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: This minister ignored the pleas of the residents, families and staff for 24 more minutes of care, and you only gave them 4.42 in your recent budget. Furthermore, it was you, in 2003, who cried crocodile tears and who promised a revolution in long-term care.

You received a letter from the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors. They told you in December that they were finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the volatile and aggressive behaviour for which they're not trained or resourced.

Minister, not only have you not implemented the recommendations of the Casa Verde inquest, we have now learned that you have been sitting on an internal report from 2006 outlining the models of care needed for patients exhibiting aggressive behaviour. Why have you sat on this report since 2006 and not helped our residents?

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm not aware of any report that the honourable member is mentioning, but I do know that within a few short weeks Shirlee Sharkey will author a report that we've asked her to do.

The honourable member uses expressions to question my sincerity, but it was on her government's watch that standards in long-term care were eliminated. But there's a bigger question that I think must be asked in the circumstances. On this side, we agree we must have more care in long-term care. That's why our budget contributes nearly $300 million this year in new funding for long-term care while her party continues to propose a $3-billion cut to health care. They eliminated the standards. They eliminated the number of baths per week.

There were no standards in long-term care when we came to office, and through hard work we brought 6,000 additional people to the front line. We continue to add to those in a budget that they will inevitably vote against, it would seem—

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

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Premier. Agencies and professionals are telling us that children's mental health in Ontario is in crisis, and this government is refusing to take action. In York region alone, 39,000 are on waiting lists and only 5,000 children are being treated. They face wait times for child psychiatric services of more than a year—devastating to children and their families.

Children with mild to moderate problems linger on these lists until they are in crisis. They have to get worse before they can get help. Why does your government refuse to provide enough money for children to get the services they need?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll allow the minister to deal with some of the specifics, but let me just say that this is another "spend" question, and it is difficult from one question and one debate intervention to the next to figure out where the Conservatives are coming from.

I don't doubt the member's sincerity when it comes to her concern for children's mental health issues and our shared responsibility to do more together, but how can she say that on the one hand, while her party holds the position that we should be taking $3 billion out of health care in the province of Ontario? It just doesn't make any sense. Either you're committed to this issue or you are not.

I'm proud to say that we are providing kids with the support they need to achieve their full potential. We have ended the 12-year freeze under both the NDP and Conservative governments. We've invested another $106 million in new funding since taking office, and 10,000 more children are being served.

The member is right: There is more to be done. But she can't say that we need to do more and take $3 billion out of health care at the same time.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Premier, early intervention is crucial, because a child's brain is still developing. Dr. Fraser Mustard has pointed out how we spend too little in the early years of life, when we could make the most difference. Dr. Rod Evans of the McMaster Children's Hospital says that children's mental health must be dealt with promptly to prevent greater suffering in the long term, yet in his city of Hamilton, the public school board has lost four support programs over the last three years, all under your watch.

Reach Out Centre for Kids in Halton estimates the needs in the millions to provide proper services. Minister, why are children with mental health problems such a low priority for your government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm in a privileged role of working alongside the Minister of Children and Youth Services in enhancing capacity for access in the province of Ontario. But I do think it's interesting that the honourable member who asked the question didn't have any vociferous voice on behalf of these same children when she was in government. For eight years under that party, mental health at the community level didn't receive a penny.

We're expanding the number of doctors who can work with this client population. In York region, where the honourable member hails from, there's been a 36% increase since 2003 in the resources that flow to those agencies that work at the community level.

With respect to the early intervention and forming the child's brain, that's why we're making a substantial investment in expanding full-day kindergarten for four- and five-year-olds.

Again I say to the honourable member: In one voice they call for reductions in health care spending; in the next voice they call for increases. That seems rather incoherent.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I just want to clarify that health care spending always increased under our government.

In Halton region, children are waiting, on average, 250 days for a preschool psychological assessment—250 days—and nearly a year for family counselling. In the minister's own town of London, parents had to fight to save the early intervention program at Vanier. Children across Ontario sitting on waiting lists are becoming worse and worse. When will you take action and spend the money these services need?

Hon. George Smitherman: We anticipate that with a question like that the honourable member will be supporting our government's budget, because it continues to make investments in health care, and she's abandoning the policy of her party, which is to call for a $3-billion cut to health care.

She says that in every year that they were in office they increased funding for health care. Ask the people at Southlake hospital whether they received more money every year. They'll tell you about 1995 and 1996 and about direct cuts. Ask anyone in the community mental health sector, bring them to the gallery, introduce them to the House, show us anyone who received a penny of increase for community-based mental health services for the eight long years that they were in office. You can't find one.

We've made substantive increases in this area. We agree that there's more to do. That's why we stand, as a party, prepared to make a commitment in expanding health services, rather than advance a $3-billion cut to health care, which is their plan.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: The recent census data shows that the McGuinty government's failure to take the loss of manufacturing jobs seriously has resulted in far more damage than the loss of 200,000 manufacturing jobs. In the greater Toronto area, where about four million people live, median family income has dropped an astounding 5.8% in just five years. In Windsor, median family income has dropped an even more astounding 9.8% in the last five years.

The Premier tells us that things are getting better. If that's the case, why are so many Ontarians experiencing a decline in median family income under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important to understand what's happening to the economy. The price of oil is up; that's great if you're an oil-producing province, but in Ontario it's driving up our business costs. The dollar is up; that makes our products less attractive to buyers from outside the country. The US economy is down; that means there is less demand for our products. That makes a real challenge, particularly for the manufacturing sector and people working in that sector.

That's why we've been very aggressive in terms of the kinds of support that we're making available. For manufacturers themselves, we have eliminated the capital tax retroactive to January of last year. That means $190 million immediately in their pockets at a time when they need it. When it comes to workers who have lost their jobs, we have placed, through our recent budget, $1.5 billion by way of an extraordinary measure into long-term training opportunities. We understand and we recognize that it's a challenging time. That's why we have risen to the occasion as a province and placed our investments where they need to be.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier talks about rising to the occasion. What ordinary people experience is an increase in the hydro bill, an increase in the heating bill, an increase in food costs, an increase in the cost of gasoline, an increase generally in the cost of living, yet a decline in the paycheque. The Premier says that cutting the capital tax is going to make a difference. Banks and insurance companies love a reduction in the capital tax, but banks and insurance companies aren't suffering, not the way working people are suffering.

Premier, we've put forward a number of suggested proposals, proposals that have been adopted by other provincial governments; Manitoba and Quebec, for example. Why does your government continue to fail to take the loss of manufacturing jobs seriously? Why do you seem to be even unconcerned about the decline in median family income for so many Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Facts are not unimportant in this place. We have the second-highest median income in Canada, behind only Alberta. So I would ask the leader of the NDP to recognize that and to admit to that.

Again, with respect to helping manufacturers, we have done a number of things that are lending real support to them. I mentioned eliminating the capital tax retroactive to January 2007. That provides them with $190 million in immediate rebates. We're also cutting their business education taxes. We're extending the capital cost allowance to 2012. We've extended digital media tax credits to 2012 as well.

Again, one of the things of which we are most proud is the continuing level of high investment we make in our workers. We have the highest rate of post-secondary education in the western world. But, clearly, that's not enough when it comes to the challenges faced by our manufacturers. That's why we put in place extraordinary long-term training opportunities.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think the Premier struggles to miss the point. The point is that, since you've been the government, declines have happened for the majority of Ontarians in terms of their median family income. Almost everything that you've offered here as a solution—the situation has gotten worse since you've made those announcements or put those proposals on the table.

We put forward some very practical things: Reduce industrial hydro rates so manufacturers can continue to operate is one. Introduce a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit, so that manufacturers will continue to invest in their operations in Ontario. You refused that. Last week, we pointed out that allowing workers to join a union merely by signing a union card would help them to fight to protect their own wages. But you've rejected all of those suggestions.

Premier, why does the McGuinty government continue to take the loss of manufacturing jobs—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just don't see it that way, and I know it's not a surprise for you to hear me say that. We've got a different perspective in terms of the best way to help.

The leader of the NDP believes in manufacturing tax credits. We believe in retroactive tax cuts. That puts $190 million into the hands of manufacturers immediately. Now is when they need it. The leader of the NDP is fond of attacking financial services in Ontario, but that's our fastest growing employment sector. I'd ask him to keep that in mind as he levels his continuing barrage at the financial services sector.

We have done much to help families. Whether you're looking at seniors and the enhancement of property tax credits, helping families with the cost of new vaccinations—saving them $600 per child—or the new investments we're making in nutrition programs in all of our schools, all those things are designed to provide some support to our families, who in many cases, I agree, are experiencing some challenging times.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier. We see a barrage against working families in this province. That's who we're concerned with, more than we're concerned with banks and insurance companies.

What I also want to raise here is, in 2005, with much fanfare, the McGuinty government signed an agreement with the federal government that committed $678 million for affordable housing. The federal government would provide some money; the McGuinty government had to match. Shockingly, the McGuinty government used only $285 million of the federal funds, which meant $300 million of available federal money for affordable housing has not been used.

Premier, with thousands of families in Ontario looking for affordable housing, how could you leave $300 million of federal money on the table and not use it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: Once again, the NDP is completely wrong, and I would suggest that they get their facts straight. We have, as a government, allocated our $301 million, which is the matching money from the federal government—the previous federal government, I might add—and the response we have received from stakeholders and service managers throughout the province of Ontario has been very positive. To date, 4,774 units have been built, 2,537 are under construction, 3,800 are awaiting planning approval and 8,149 are with local service managers making sure they get those projects right.

It takes time to plan, to get the zoning, to build these houses. Every single cent of the federal money will be spent in the province of Ontario, providing affordable housing for those people in need. We're proud of the program and we hope the federal government comes to the table and renews the agreement, as it expires on March 31—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Here is the reality: The agreement has expired and $300 million of federal affordable housing money has been left on the table by the McGuinty government. What this means is that the McGuinty government promised over 20,000 units of affordable housing but, as the minister himself admitted, you've barely got 4,000 units of affordable housing. Meanwhile, we have 170,000 people in the province of Ontario looking for affordable housing.

I ask again: With so many people looking for affordable housing, in desperate need of affordable housing, how could you leave $300 million of federal affordable housing money on the table and not use it?

Hon. Jim Watson: I would suggest that the honourable member put a little bit more money and effort into hiring better researchers, because he's got it completely wrong once again. We have taken a holistic approach to housing in the province of Ontario. Not only are we building new affordable housing—and I just gave the honourable member some of those numbers—we're also putting a substantial amount of money into rent supplements. In fact, over 14,000 individuals have already applied and received $100-a-month ROOF cheques from the province of Ontario.

We also have the DOOR program, that has gone to providing rehabilitation and repair on some of the units. We put in $100 million that the NDP—only the NDP, only socialists would call $100 million meagre, but we consider that $100 million significant in repairing some of the stock that, quite frankly, is not in very good shape.

We still have $80 million that we are working with the aboriginal community with to ensure that they—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: It is interesting that the McGuinty government would mention the rental subsidy program, because that also expired on March 31, 2008. It was an $80-million program from the federal government, of which the McGuinty government used only $25 million. That means that there are low-income people out there who should have been able to access rent subsidy and they've had to do without. Fifty-five million dollars has been taken out of their pockets by the McGuinty government because you didn't take up the federal rental subsidy money. Now, on March 31, 2009, the other $300 million that is sitting on the table for affordable housing will expire as well.

I just say again: With people facing reduced wages and higher costs of living, how could you leave hundreds of millions of dollars of federal affordable—

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

Hon. Jim Watson: For the third time, the honourable member, the leader of the third party, has it completely wrong. The March 31 expiry date is for federal programs such as the RAP program. The affordable housing program does not end on March 31. It means that there's no new money coming forward. That's why I, along with other provincial and territorial housing ministers, have taken the lead to pressure the federal government to come to the table. The money he speaks of with respect to ROOF does not expire on March 31. In fact, it's a five-year program. It goes for another four years.

I encourage the honourable member (

a) to get his facts right, and (

b) to encourage his federal cousins in the NDP to start putting some pressure on the Harper government. Stop being an apologist for the Harper government and get them to come to the table and support affordable housing in the province of Ontario.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the Minister of Health: As you know, on the weekend, Dr. Ken Arnold, the new president of the OMA, called on your government—and by the way, Minister, he didn't go back five years to ours; he called on your government—to tackle the critical doctor shortage, which is estimated to be 2,000 physicians. He also stated that there are about one million Ontarians without a family doctor. As you know, that's the same number as in 2003. Minister, how are you going to respond to this cry for help from the doctors and from residents without a family doctor?

Hon. George Smitherman: We want to congratulate Dr. Arnold. He's come into life as the one-year president of the Ontario Medical Association, following on the heels of Dr. Willett of Sault Ste. Marie. I've enjoyed a privileged relationship with—I think he's my sixth president of the OMA.

Since our government came to life, we've dramatically renewed efforts in Ontario to train doctors, something the previous government wasn't particularly committed to. We've introduced new models of care—the family health units—and we've done a substantially improved job of taking advantage of the skill set of foreign-trained doctors in Ontario. That means that 550,000 additional Ontarians gained access to care. But the number of unattached patients is decidedly below one million, and of those, many are not even looking for a physician today in the province.

We've made tremendous progress, in partnership with Ontario's doctors, and we have every intention of continuing to move forward and provide care to a higher number of Ontarians, something the honourable member's party wasn't capable of.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I think the minister has a selective memory. He doesn't remember the two medical schools we announced or the expansion of the program for foreign-trained doctors and many other initiatives, but that's not new. This person has been here for almost five years and, I'll tell you, we also know that under his watch—again, he can't go back and blame anybody else—the number of underserviced communities has jumped to 142, from 122 in 2003.

In fact, here's an example of what's happening because we don't have the doctors. The Richmond Lodge, a 42-bed retirement home in eastern Ontario, has been looking for a doctor for over a year. Lots of long-term-care