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

March 25, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Mar-25 (PDF)

L117 - Tue 25 Mar 2014 / Mar 25 mar 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 March 2014 Mardi 25 mars 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ENERGY POLICIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PAN AM GAMES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

ENDANGERED SPECIES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION /

PROPANE SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL ALLIANCE

ARTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS

BLIND HOCKEY TOURNAMENT

ROAD SAFETY

FUNDRAISING DINNER

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

PREMIER’S COMMENTS

INCOME INEQUALITY

DAVID EULER

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOB MACKIE ACT, 2014 /

LOI BOB MACKIE DE 2014

REDUCING GRIDLOCK AND

IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 VISANT À RÉDUIRE

L’ENGORGEMENT ROUTIER

ET À AMÉLIORER L’ÉCOULEMENT

DE LA CIRCULATION

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

LONG-TERM CARE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

CHARITABLE GAMING

GASOLINE PRICES

TAXATION

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIGHTING FRAUD AND REDUCING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RATES ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 DE LUTTE CONTRE

LA FRAUDE ET DE RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Mr. Sousa, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s a pleasure to put a few thoughts on the record on this bill. I just want to say at the outset, I’ll only be speaking for a minute or two, and sharing my time with the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Finance, who introduced this bill, the member from Vaughan.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very simple; it’s very straightforward. As part of our government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management, this bill would extend the pay freeze for all MPPs until after the budget is balanced in 2017-18. I’m suspecting, I’m hoping, that we will have a very quick debate and quick passage of this bill. I suspect every member of the Legislature is in support of what’s behind it.

I think we all understand that, like governments around the world, we have just gone through a very, very serious recession. All of us are facing tremendous fiscal pressure. I can speak as Minister of Government Services, who oversees the negotiations that go on with our many labour partners, that over the last few years, and certainly going forward, as we sit down at the table we are going to ask them in the negotiations that they recognize that they’re taking place in a context of restraint. It’s simply a time when all of us have to do more with less, when all of us have to recognize the fiscal realities.

I think every member of this Legislature knows that it’s hard for us to ask our partners who are employed by either the government or the broader public service, to ask our partners who receive funding from the government—which has been restrained and may be restrained going forward—we can’t ask them to make those sacrifices without leading by example.

All it is, is us leading by example by stating that our pay will remain frozen until the budget is balanced several years from now. Mr. Speaker, it’s a very, very straightforward bill. If you saw it physically, it’s just a few lines, but I think it speaks volumes about leading by example.

I look forward to hearing the comments by my colleague the member from Vaughan, but I do hope, and I do call on all members—let’s have a quick debate on this and let’s move forward with this piece of legislation, which I imagine will garner unanimous support here in the Legislature. With that, I’d like to yield the floor to my colleague the member from Vaughan, who is sharing my time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Vaughan.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking my colleague the government House leader for his opening remarks in the discussion and the debate this morning. I want to begin by echoing some of the comments that the minister made with respect to this particular bill, Bill 177, otherwise known as the MPP Salary Freeze Act. This is a relatively straightforward undertaking on the part of our government, as the government House leader mentioned a second ago.

This is simply a move to demonstrate that we continue to lead by example for the people of Ontario, who, generally speaking, have been wrestling over the last couple of years—working with our government to make sure that we bring the government of Ontario’s budget back into balance, something that we’ve been working very hard on, but working very hard on it in a balanced and reasonable and responsible way.

This particular bill, Bill 177, is simply a measure designed to demonstrate that those who have the privilege of serving as members of provincial Parliament take the opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that’s important to the people that we represent and that the compensation for MPPs continue to be frozen until the province’s budget is balanced, as the government House leader mentioned, in 2017-18.

I’ve said this many times in the past when we’ve discussed other somewhat similar or analogous legislation, that this is yet one more undertaking on the part of our government to demonstrate a fairly significant degree of leadership around bringing transparency and openness not only to the government’s finances but generally with respect to how we govern the province.

Many who are watching at home today or are in the galleries or in the House serving as members will know that, shortly after the 2003 election, this Ontario government decided to proceed with creating legislation that would no longer make it possible for any future government in the province to go into an election campaign without having the books of the province open and exposed to the people for scrutiny, because of what had taken place prior to the 2003 campaign.

There have been many moves undertaken by our government over the last decade or so to make sure that we are administering or producing that kind of balance and responsibility with respect to restraint, and making sure that we keep the government’s fiscal House in good shape.

There have been some extenuating circumstances. Everyone, of course, will be aware of the worldwide economic, let’s call it “crisis,” that engulfed the globe back in 2008, something that governments of every stripe and every jurisdiction around the world wrestled with aggressively to ensure that a standard of living was maintained in their respective jurisdictions.

Here in Ontario, our government—not always, but often in combination or in concert with the federal government—made decisions to invest significantly to keep the economy growing, to keep people employed and to provide stimulus with respect to the economy. Those measures obviously required a significant amount of deficit spending. We’re now in a position, and have been since 2008-09, of gradually, slowly but surely reducing the deficit. As the government House leader mentioned, we are on track to balance the province’s books by 2017-18.

What we’re doing with this particular piece of legislation is to make sure that the people of Ontario, of whom we are asking a lot with respect to restraint not only in the public sector and in the public service but across the board, understand that the 107 women and men who represent them here in this chamber are walking in lockstep with them when it comes to restraint and when it comes to demonstrating that we have a balanced and responsible and reasonable approach to making sure that the government’s books are balanced, and to make sure at the same time that we are not doing anything to threaten our economic recovery.

Now, I know that there will be discussion and debate coming from members of opposition caucuses, both the official opposition and of course the NDP caucus, the third party’s caucus, and that’s the way it should be. Certainly, over the last number of weeks—frankly for the 18 or 19 months that I’ve served here as the MPP for Vaughan—these kinds of bills and discussions have often descended into opportunities for opposition members to go off on significant tangents.

While I respect the right that they have, the privilege they have, to represent their communities and to add their voice to the debate and discussion that takes place in this House, I would sincerely ask members on the opposition benches to provide us with constructive discussion today around what is actually being asked for in this bill, which is simply an extension of the MPP salary or compensation freeze that has been in place for a little while, and that we believe, on this side, should continue to be in place until the government’s books are balanced, as I mentioned.

I would sincerely hope, as the government House leader said just a few moments ago in leading off the debate this morning, that opposition members would resist the temptation to try and turn this into something that it’s not, and that they would resist the temptation—try not to grandstand on this issue.

As the government House leader mentioned, it is a very straightforward bill. It is very straightforward legislation. It is simply trying to sincerely demonstrate that the 107 women and men who serve in this particular chamber, who have that—we all have that responsibility—take that responsibility seriously and demonstrate that we are going to move forward with continuing this freeze.

We’ve all had the opportunity, I’m sure, to have various conversations with the people that we have the privilege of representing in our respective communities; I certainly have. Just last night, for my riding of Vaughan, I was very proud and very happy to host a virtual town hall. It gave me the chance to hear, over the course of an hour last evening, from literally somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6,000 or 7,000 people who joined that virtual town hall from my community.

Over the course of the hour, I had the chance to hear some very direct questions, questions that were all very pointed and from a very interested audience. I can tell you that, generally speaking, the notion that we’re all in this together is something that’s fundamental to the people out there who we have the chance to represent.

Certainly, in the call in my virtual town hall meeting last night, and in other discussions I’ve had with people—not just families, but also business owners in my community—there is an understanding that as we continue to move, as I’ve said, in that balanced and responsible and fair way, back towards balancing the books over the next couple of years, again the target date being 2017-18, we will continue to work on this together.

We are only here, in Bill 177, asking the 107 members of this Legislature to share in that restraint, which I think is a fairly straightforward request and I think something that’s not only defendable, but something that’s quite sensible and responsible, and it’s the prudent and right thing to do.

Once again, I would strongly encourage the members opposite, as they join the debate today, to obviously do what they need to do to represent the views and the hopes and aspirations of their constituents, but at the same time I would ask that they understand what the larger picture is here. The larger picture is that this is a simple and straightforward measure that is simply asking us to work together, as I believe the people of our communities expect us to do, so that we can move forward and we can continue to extend the MPP salary freeze.

I sincerely do look forward to hearing what members opposite have to say with respect to this bill, but I would only point out once again that over the last decade we have consistently, on this side of the House, laid out a balanced and responsible path forward in all areas relating to the government’s fiscal house but also all matters relating to the economy. This is one more step in that direction.

I mentioned earlier the legislation we introduced back in 2004, I believe it was, regarding making sure that the province’s books are held up to scrutiny before elections. We also made the decision to ban what previously had been fairly extensive partisan advertising that took place with taxpayers’ dollars. There have been other measures that we’ve introduced in the past decade around various forms of restraint.

This is part of that natural evolution; this is part of demonstrating that the people who have the opportunity to come here to Queen’s Park to represent their communities, their neighbours, their friends, continue to show the leadership that the people of our respective communities expect.

With that, again, I look forward to the discussion and the debate around Bill 177. I don’t personally believe this is the kind of legislation that warrants extensive, never-ending, ongoing discussion and debate. Having said that, I do respect the rights that every member of this House has with respect to the comments they want to make, to whatever they would like to add to the discussion.

I hope, again sincerely, that it will be high-level, that it will be constructive and that the discussion and debate today will be consistent with what the people of Vaughan—my community, and the people of all the communities that we represent—have in terms of the expectations that they have for the people who represent them.

With that, Speaker, I will take my seat by saying that I encourage everyone to support Bill 177, to get it moving forward so that we can continue to extend the MPP salary freeze.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments? The member for Pembroke-Nipissing—I’ve forgotten—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Proud to be here, but proud to be from there. Thank you very much, Speaker.

I appreciate the comments from the member from Vaughan on this bill. Of course we’re going to support the legislation. I think we’ve indicated that from day one. But I think there is an opportunity to have some discussion about it, about how, perhaps, the government could have gone further. I mean, we have been advocating for some time about—if you really want to get the financial affairs of this province in order, you’re not going to do it by freezing the salaries of 107 people. That’s just not going to make a big enough difference, freezing them. There are 107 of us.

We’ve got got hundreds of thousands of public servants. We have advocated for an across-the-board wage freeze for two years for everyone who is employed either indirectly or directly by the province of Ontario. That would have a $2-billion impact, on an annual basis, on the budget of this province. That’s significant.

I mean, this is largely symbolic. It is important for us to show that, as the legislators of this province, as the people who make the laws and the people who are supposed to lead, we’re going to set an example. It is true, in fact, that the members of the Legislature have not had an increase in their wages since 2008. When this is extended to 2019, that will be 11 years without an increase. I wonder how many people out there in the public sector would agree to an 11-year salary freeze.

We’re in fact doing that, as members of this Legislature, to show that we are going to take this head on, this issue of the financial malaise that the current government has us in. We’re going to take it head on.

But the government could have gone so much further. Don’t just make an example of members of the Legislature. Show some real leadership. Take control of the governance of this province and have a legislated wage freeze across the board.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you for the opportunity to be able to respond to the member from Vaughan with respect to this bill on MPP wage freezes.

The member talked about the government wanting all of the MPPs and parties to share in the restraint, and that the government has had a balanced fiscal house. They’ve been working on a balanced fiscal house over the last six to 10 years. You know, some of that I found to be very interesting, because, in fact, when we go back and we look at cancelled gas plants where we’ve spent $1 billion of taxpayers’ money, it’s hard for taxpayers to want to share in that restraint, when the government has spent the last at least three years that I’ve been here actually wasting taxpayers’ money.

Our job in this process is to hold the government to account. We’re elected here to represent our constituents. We are elected to come out and debate issues, and there is a legislative process in place that when bills are tabled and come for first reading, they generally get passed, but at second reading we have the opportunity to actually debate issues. I think that we’re going to debate this issue. We want to see it move along to committee where we can really have a fulsome debate on this issue.

Families in this province are feeling the squeeze and companies in the province are feeling the squeeze—small business. I think it’s too bad that the Liberals aren’t focusing, in this short time that we’re here between March and June, on capping CEO salaries, and actually going out and having a look at all of those big CEO pays and big VP pays in public sector areas that—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m pleased to stand today in support of Bill 177. I think we all know that, as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing said, we need to lead by example. I also agree with the member for Welland that we do need to debate these things, but let’s be realistic. This is simply an extension of a piece of legislation that freezes our wages. If we’re going to lead by example, we need to do this.

Another thing I’d like to point out in terms of leading by example: We have Bill 179, which was introduced yesterday, which is the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. There are a number of measures in there that will allow us to lead by example. I can see nods from members on the other side that they agree, and I look forward to that being debated.

Mr. Todd Smith: We like our examples better than your examples, though.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, you know, we don’t have a monopoly on good ideas, nor do others on the other side.

Again, to the member from Welland, whom I respect a great deal, we do need to debate these things, but it’s fairly straightforward what we’re talking about. We’ve debated this before. What we’re talking about is an extension. It has to do with the 107 of us. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing is right: It’s just 107. But if we’re going to lead by example and lead the way, then we need to do this and we need to get this out of the way and dispense with it in a timely fashion. So if we all agree on this, let’s not delay it, and that’s what my concern is on this side.

I again appreciate the remarks from the member from Vaughan, the member from Welland and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing. There’s no reason to delay this—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Don’t forget Pembroke.

Mr. John Fraser: Pembroke, I’m sorry. My apologies, I’ll withdraw that. Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—and we should lead by his example.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: To carry on with the leading by example, I’m happy to lead by example. We’ve been doing that since 2009. But I must remind everyone, particularly the minister who just introduced this piece of legislation, that we began sitting in this session mid-February. If this is a priority, if this was important to the Liberal government, I would suggest to you that you would have wanted to introduce it, debate it and vote on it before the end of March. The fact that we want to talk about leading by example—again, there’s no issue with it.

As MPPs we have a responsibility to focus on the Ontario economy, to focus on how to build business and job creators in Ontario. I would suggest to you that that has not been happening under this current Liberal government.

If you want to talk about leading by example, maybe we have to actually talk about which examples we’re referring to. Are we referring to the examples where so much money was spent in the Ornge scandal? Are we talking about so much money that was wasted in eHealth? Are we talking about a cancellation of $1.1 billion on two gas plants? Which leading by example would you like to talk about? Because while the MPP salary freeze is good in and of itself, it is by no means going to deal with the systemic problem that we have here in Ontario under the McGuinty-Wynne leadership that talks about spending far more money than we can ever imagine recouping through taxes.

What we’re faced with is a budget, some time off in the distant future—perhaps May, perhaps never—where they will once again come to the taxpayers, come to the job creators and say, “We need more money.” If you want to lead by example, let’s talk about systemic issues and deal with that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Vaughan has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank everyone who stood to comment or ask questions, though I don’t think I actually heard any questions, except for the last speaker, the member from Dufferin–Caledon, when I was asked, I guess, which “leadership by example” I was requesting. The leadership by example that’s germane to the actual bill we’re discussing today, just in case that wasn’t completely clear to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. I think it’s important early on a Tuesday morning to provide clarity.

It’s clear, Speaker, members of the official opposition are a little unclear as to the discussion that we’re having. So no, I don’t want to talk about the $6-billion hidden deficit. I don’t want to talk about Walkerton. I don’t want to talk about the sale of the 407. I don’t want to talk about any of that stuff. The clarity that I want to bring to the discussion today is Bill 177. It’s actually what we’re talking about.

I do want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for talking about symbolism. Symbols are important. They’re important to people in my community. They’re important, I’m sure, to the people of his community. I thank him for keeping the debate this morning and the discussion today at a certain altitude, let’s call it. I also want to thank, of course, the member from Welland for her comments with respect to the right that she and the rest of us have in this House to debate and discuss and analyze legislation. She is 100% right.

As my colleague, the member from Ottawa South, suggested in his debate, in his discussion and his comments, that is quite rightly the responsibility of all of us in this Legislature. I do look forward to the discussion.

I hope that I didn’t imply in my opening comments that I didn’t think we should debate and discuss. I just didn’t want us to be in a world where the debate and discussion became circular and that that somehow delays passage of this bill—let’s call it unnecessarily—given that it’s relatively straightforward. But the member opposite is 100% right: We do have a responsibility to debate and discuss, but this is relatively straightforward.

To my colleague, the member from Ottawa South: I do want to conclude by saying thank you, not only for the comments today, but thank you for the leadership that you’ve shown with respect to increasing the accountability and the openness that we bring to all matters in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll try to keep the first part with a semblance of a straight face after listening to that, talking about keeping it at a high level and then getting right into the usual mud from him.

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address Bill 177, the MPP Salary Freeze Act, today in the Legislature. As I stated in my remarks last week, it’s our firm belief that all of us in Ontario have a part to play in turning our province around and getting our finances headed in the right direction again. Sadly, this government continues to feel that it’s more important to appear to be doing something than actually taking real action. Our caucus continues to support an across-the-board public sector wage freeze, so the burden is shared equally. Instead, this government’s failed wage freeze saw increases given to eight out of 10 contracts over the past three years.

Now, I know he enjoys reading my Fedeli Focus on Finance so much that, for the next section, I am actually going to read the entire first Fedeli Focus on Finance, which dealt with an actual wage freeze.

Mr. Todd Smith: This is volume 1, number 1.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: This is volume 1, number 1 October 16, two thousand—

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Is it leather bound?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I could have it leather bound for you if you would—actually, you’re going to see it printed in a small book form very shortly.

“Over one million people work for one of Ontario’s thousands of government employers. These range from your local school and hospital to the provincial bureaucracy, our casinos and liquor stores. So it’s not surprising that salaries and benefits for government workers are the single biggest expense in the provincial budget. Controlling these costs was the primary tool the government said it would use to wrestle down Ontario’s historic budget deficits by 2017-18. However, recent research—using Ministry of Labour data—reveals the government has not succeeded in freezing wages for government workers.

In fact, there are hundreds of examples of deals agreed to by the government that have resulted in wage increases.”

I go on to suggest seeing the accompanying spreadsheet. Those spreadsheets are available. They are only from the Ministry of Labour website and they show a surprising result. This is a quote from the Minister of Finance on July 20: “We can’t manage the deficit without addressing what is the single biggest line in our budget—public sector compensation.”

Speaker, “Public sector compensation costs make up 55 cents of every dollar spent on programs. Prior to the recession the government had been exceedingly generous in handing out pay increases.” And we show the annual growth here in pay increase percentage from 1991 to 1995 of 1.9%; 1996 to 2003, up 2%; and then we get from 2004 to 2009, up 2.9%.

“Instead of using legislation, the government sought to achieve its pay freeze through thousands of individual negotiations. Remember—there are 4,000 collective agreements in Ontario’s government sector. Seven out of every 10 public employees are members of a labour union.

“The 2010 budget did legislate a freeze for non-unionized employees, which it claimed would save $750 million. It was only revealed later by the Canadian Press that the government’s freeze did not include things like performance bonuses, which went to 98% of eligible managers.

“In the 2012 budget, the government reiterated its commitment to freezing compensation, estimating this would save $6 billion over three years.”

There is an accompanying chart here, Speaker, with the backup showing how they estimated the $6 billion in savings.

“However, without using legislation to enforce it, the freeze was always going to be difficult to implement. Even with respect to legislation used to freeze teacher compensation—known as Bill 115—approximately 40% of teachers continued to move through the salary grid, collecting pay increases. And in an effort to repair the relationship between the current government and Ontario’s teachers’ unions, the Premier promised elementary teachers they would receive a 2% wage increase next fall, without asking for concessions or offsets. According to the Globe and Mail, the deal ‘will cost the treasury $112 million every year.’

“Numerous exceptions were made to the government’s wage freeze, including:

“MPAC: Employees at the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. received wage increases of 2% in the first two years and 2.2% in the third and fourth years.

“Metrolinx: Workers at this provincial transit agency saw wage increases of 2% in each of the first and second years, and 2.3% in the final year.

“Ontario Medical Association: In November 2012, the government handed out a $100-million compensation increase.

“LCBO: This summer, employees received ‘signing bonuses’ of roughly $1,600 per employee.

“OLG Slots at Woodbine: A week after the LCBO deal”—naturally—“employees at OLG’s Slots at Woodbine were given ... $1,200 signing bonuses over two years.”

So despite saying one thing, as we’ve heard from this government, they actually do something completely opposite. They said that there’s a wage freeze, but then they have all these exceptions.

The list of exceptions goes on and on: University of Windsor, OPG, Niagara Parks Commission, Royal Conservatory of Music, Alcohol and Gaming Commission, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan board, the Pan Am Games committee—we’ve heard so much from our MPP from Barrie on that—Ryerson University, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation, Hydro One—we’ve heard so much from our member from Nepean–Carleton on that one.

“Since a wage freeze went into effect in 2010, approximately eight out of 10 collective agreements in the broader public sector have included compensation increases.”

Again, I’ve asked that you look at the accompanying spreadsheets. You can go on fedeli.com and download the spreadsheets from there. I know you’ll be rushing to do that—F-E-D-E-L-I.com—and you will be able to download the Focus on Finance numbers 1 to 6, and the accompanying sheets. I know you’re dying—you can head out right now and download that.

“A wage freeze is still necessary. The government set a target to eliminate Ontario’s enormous budget shortfalls by 2017-18, but it never laid out a plan to do that.

“This work was contracted out to independent economist Don Drummond, formerly of TD Bank, who warned that, instead of balancing, the current plan would actually triple the province’s debt to $411 billion by 2017 if the government kept spending on such a huge scale.”

Of course, since then, we have now seen that the budget deficit is even greater than was forecasted, and we’re well on our way to reaching Don Drummond’s sad projection.

“Even before the release of the Drummond report, the government had been warned its fiscal plan was unlikely to balance the budget by 2017-18.”

Here’s what the Auditor General had to say: “In past negotiated settlements, public sector salary increases have often exceeded the inflation rate. Even after the government’s announcement in 2010 that it would not fund such increases, most collective agreements negotiated since have still resulted in wage increases.”

“Provincial revenue forecasts are no better than when the government said it required a wage freeze to meet its balanced budget targets. No further expenditure restraint has been announced to offset these increases, and the government has already backed off of some of its existing plans.

“Before stepping down last year, the previous Premier and finance minister went so far as to draft legislation to provide a legal framework for enforcing the wage freeze, since negotiations weren’t working. Entitled the Protecting Public Services Act, this 84-page piece of legislation has not been tabled by the current government. In fact, the 2013 budget removed all references to a wage freeze and instead proposed to ‘work together’ to achieve desired outcomes.

“Rather than a wage freeze, per se, the finance minister now says the government will ‘advocate for wage constraint,’ refuses to use the term ‘wage freeze’ and appears to be explicitly backing away from the policy of his predecessor.”

Let’s hear a little bit of then and a little bit of now. In budget 2012: “Where collective agreements cannot be negotiated that are consistent with the fiscal plan ... the government will consider all options to meet its fiscal goals, including intervention through legislation or other means.” That was their budget plan.

Now, in the September 2013 document: “We’re working closely with the stakeholders involved to administer negotiations within the pay envelope that we now have.”

In the conclusion of this document, Speaker: “Ontario has a serious problem and the government is not being honest about it.”

The key questions that remain are: “If the government’s wage freeze has failed, does the province’s fiscal plan still include the estimated $6-billion savings from this measure?” And finally, “If the government’s wage freeze has failed, does it still expect to balance the budget by 2017-18?”

I have put those in as order paper questions, Speaker. You can only imagine the response that I received to both those important questions.

This past weekend, in fact on Saturday, the National Post published an op-ed piece that I penned. The original title was Ontario’s Wynne-Loss Record, Wynne spelled: W-Y-N-N-E. I thought it was a catchy title but the National Post decided to change the title. Nonetheless, the column did run. It highlights the hole the Liberal government has dug us into over the past decade. I’d like to take a moment and go over it as it pertains directly to Bill 177.

“In the 2013 budget, the Liberals stressed they were ‘on track’ to balance the province’s books by 2017-18.” In fact, the Premier and finance minister “continue to repeat the claim. But much like the gas plant scandal, we’re being misled by this government.

“Newly released internal documents confirm the government has no plan to stop their Greece-style accumulation of debt. One 2013 Ministry of Finance document stated that for 2014-15 and 2015-16, Ontario is ‘not on track to meet 2012 budget deficit targets.’” Again, Speaker, I’m quoting from the National Post op-ed that I penned.

“The documents also show the government was at least $3.6 billion off the pace needed to balance by 2017-18. Cabinet, which is well aware of that fact, knowingly decided to increase the shortfall to $4.5 billion at its March 2013 pre-budget retreat.”

Coincidentally, that difference is the same value of concessions made to ensure NDP support of the budget. Did the government and the NDP have a budget deal in place in March 2013, and is a similar deal already in place this year? Speaker, I asked the question: Why is that important?

Well, last week’s Fraser Institute report illustrated that while California took necessary steps to improve their debt situation, “Ontario government spending remains out of control. Debt and deficits are a major and immediate threat to our ability to attract jobs as high taxes and user fees drive businesses out of the province. Without urgent action, Ontario will lose more jobs, and the government will not be able to afford our health and education programs.

“California’s debt is $144.8 billion; Ontario’s is $267.5 billion. But as a percentage of GDP and per capita, Ontario’s debt is five times greater than California’s. The report warns that, ‘Recent trends have put Ontario on an unsustainable trajectory of ever-higher debt’” and that “‘spending restraint is the key to restoring fiscal sanity.’

“Economist Don Drummond warned the Liberals two years ago that we must change course”—in his words—“‘swiftly and boldly.’ But only now is Premier Wynne planning another conversation on whether to take any of the urgent actions he recommended” two years ago, and thus Ontario staggers in the wrong direction.

Some “600,000 men and women woke up today without a job. Heinz, Kellogg’s and Caterpillar abandoned Ontario for greener pastures. They still make ketchup, cereal and earth-moving equipment—just not here. Skyrocketing energy rates, high taxes and crushing red tape are killing jobs and ripping families apart.

“The Premier can’t credibly insist she can balance the budget when her own internal documents show she has ‘no plans.’ This is irrefutable proof that this government can’t be trusted. We need a government that will implement a turnaround plan immediately.”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also chimed in on Bill 177, and I wanted to bring some of their concerns to the floor of this Legislature now. This was written by Candice Malcolm:

“The Wynne government announced again this week that it wants to continue its wage freeze on MPPs until the budget is balanced. If passed, the MPP Salary Freeze Act would stop the scheduled pay increases set for this April and would put off any wage increases until the public accounts confirm the budget is balanced.

“Not a bad idea. But why stop with just elected officials?” As the member from Nipissing–Renfrew–Pembroke said, why just 107 people? Candice Malcolm says, “Everyone knows the real driver of the deficit in Ontario is the broader public service and government employee compensation. Premier Wynne is freezing the wrong wages.

“There is little concern about runaway compensation for MPPs at Queen’s Park, who are already capped at earning 75% of their federal counterparts. MPPs have been under a wage freeze for eight of the past 11 years. And thanks to a compensation overhaul by former Premier Mike Harris, when MPPs leave office, they receive a defined contribution pension instead of the overly rich defined-benefit scheme received by most other government employees.

“While it is good news that taxpayers will not be obliged to foot the bill for big pay increases for politicians, this wage freeze will save taxpayers approximately $390,550 in 2014. Heck, you could make every MPP work for free and it would only save taxpayers $12.5 million. These are drops in the bucket of the $11.9-billion provincial deficit.

“The real problem for taxpayers in Ontario is covering the tab for compensation packages of over 1.35 million provincial government workers in Ontario, and the vast benefits that exist in the Ontario public service. Employee compensation accounts for half of the provincial budget, without including most pension costs.

“On paper, the last two Ontario budgets have included a wage freeze for government workers. To quote the 2013 budget on government employees, ‘all aspects of compensation plans are frozen, and base salaries cannot be increased.’

“Unfortunately, the Wynne government continued to negotiate with unions, and caved on a number of deals leading to higher compensation through loopholes, blurred lines and broken promises. The government has handed out signing bonuses, lump sum payments in return for deferred raises in 2015, and a flat out wage increase for the elementary teachers federation.

“The wage freeze in Ontario meant nothing.

“If the Ontario government were to actually, honest to goodness, freeze all government employees wages for the next year, it would save taxpayers an estimated $2 billion. That would start to take a real chunk out of this year’s deficit—a deficit that sees no end in sight.

“New information on the state of Ontario’s finances came to light thanks to PC finance critic Vic Fedeli. Among other revelations, we learned that not only is this government well short of its projections to balance the budget by 2017-18, but they are not being transparent with their books.

“According to documents prepared for the Wynne government by officials in the Ministry of Finance, the ‘key actions to eliminate the deficit’ include ‘reducing pensions expense through agreements and pension reforms’ and ‘no funding for incremental compensation increases for new collective agreements. Salaries for designated groups frozen until 2017-18.’”

Candice Malcolm continues in her column: “These are their words. The Wynne government knows exactly what it needs to do to balance the budget. We just hope they eventually come to terms with their own advice.

“You cannot manage the deficit without addressing the largest line item in the budget: government employee compensation.”

Speaker, as you can see here, the government continues to tinker around the edges, and as we proved through their own documents last week, the government has no plans to balance the budget.

I’d like to go into some of those details with the latest Focus on Finance. For the member from Vaughan, it’s volume 1, number 6. You can look it up. It’s March 17, 2014.

Mr. Todd Smith: Saint Patrick’s Day.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It was a lovely St. Patrick’s Day presentation.

Speaker, I will read from the published document:

“In the 2013 Ontario budget, the current government went to great pains to stress that it is ‘on track’ to balance the province’s books by 2017-18. In fact, the Premier and the finance minister have repeated this in the Legislature and put it in writing as recently as this month.

“However, there is much evidence that casts serious doubts about the validity of this claim. For instance, as raised in a previous edition of Focus”—the one I read earlier—“there was no mention in the 2013 budget of the $6 billion of savings the government had previously booked from an across-the-board public sector wage freeze. There is no explanation as to whether this was still being factored into the government’s planning, or conversely, if it wasn’t, how the government plans to make up for that $6 billion discrepancy.”

Speaker, we have now confirmed that the government is not being honest about the state of the province’s finances. This issue will highlight many other budget shortfalls that have been released. This will prove what the government is saying publicly about eliminating the deficit and what they discuss internally are two very different things.

We have a serious financial challenge ahead of us. We know they’re forecasting a deficit of $11.7 billion this year, $10.2 billion next year and $7.2 billion the year after. Now, of course, we understand there’s a further $4.5-billion gap.

As Candice Malcolm pointed out, the savings of this is $390,550. She also calls it, again, a drop in the bucket of the $11.7-billion provincial deficit. That’s just the deficit forecast this year, never mind the fact that our deficit this year will be larger than every other provincial deficit and the federal government’s deficit put together. That’s how serious a crisis we’re in. The government thinks they’re going to solve it with a $390,550 fix—a drop in the bucket. This is not going to do it.

In February 2013, the Ministry of Finance clearly identified the government is at least $3.5 billion off the pace needed to balance the budget by 2017-18. That’s another billion dollars in the 2014-15 budget and a further $2.5 billion in the 2015-16 budget. The fiscal gap came from the existing ministry plans that fall short of managing within allocations. Even two days later, they grew that to $3.6 billion. This is a tax-and-spend government that does not understand the serious implications that that taxing is having on its citizenry and the problems that are created by this massive spending.

The other provinces are beginning to balance. The federal government is forecasting to balance, and these guys are going from a $9.2-billion deficit last year to a further forecasted $11.7-billion deficit this year. Now, I’m quite sure that in the budget it will magically be reduced an amount, but they’re going the wrong way—a $10.1-billion forecast the year after, a $7.2-billion deficit forecast the further year.

Now, cabinet was well aware of that extra $3.6-billion gap when they went on their retreat in the third week of March last year. But instead of taking, as Drummond called it, decisive action on the problem that we have in Ontario—the problem that everybody understands—they went the wrong way. Instead of reducing the massive hole in their budgeting, cabinet actually increased the shortfall $900 million more, as I said earlier, coincidently, the same number that they gave in concessions to the NDP. This is a $4.5-billion discrepancy. Instead of fixing the problem, these guys are adding to the problem.

This is unconscionable. When you have a family where one of the family members may lose a job, that’s like us losing our revenue. When one of the family members loses a job, you tighten the belt. You don’t go out and put an in-ground pool in. That’s what these guys are doing.

The Bank of Canada told us that we will not meet our revenue forecasts for 2013 and, by the way, we will not meet them for 2014 either. Like a family where one of the members loses a job, when their revenue is down, our revenue is down. Your family would cut back.

These guys went on a spending spree—another $900-million spending spree with our money—tax-and-spend. “It needs to be noted that the difference in the shortfall pre- and post-cabinet retreat—$900 million—is the same value of concessions offered to the third party in order to ensure passage of the budget (Canadian Press, May 2, 2013)”—put that number at $900 million—a heck of a coincidence. “It raises the question of whether the government and third party already had a budget deal in place March 2013, if not earlier.”

Perhaps equally troubling is that there are still no projections in any of the government’s numbers for 2017-18. In the fall economic statement, they gave us a document with a big hole. There were no numbers for any of the ministries, yet magically it balanced. We have to trust them. We have to believe them that it’s somehow magically going to balance. This is unprecedented: a fall economic statement where the last two years has N/A. They just don’t give you any numbers.

I’ve asked them in this Legislature day after day after day, what are you hiding? What is in those numbers that you don’t want us to see? It’s a fall economic statement without a statement. If you got your statement from your credit card and there were no numbers but just a total that said, “Send us $7,000 this month,” why would you do that? You want to see those numbers. You want to see, “What numbers did you use? What line did you use for health spending? What line did you use for education spending? What line did you use for justice spending? What line did you use for social spending?” We want to know.

They just say, “We’re not going to give you any individual numbers,” just, “Here’s the bottom line.” It balances in 2017-18, magically.

Meanwhile, none of the other numbers this year are balanced. We have an $11.7-billion deficit forecast, a $10.1-billion deficit forecast the year after, a $7.2-billion deficit forecast the year after that. Add about $4.5 billion if these numbers are right. And it goes to balanced budget the next year. There, it’s back at zero. Aren’t we good?

Speaker, this is going to be an amazing transformation, especially in light of the fact that they did not implement the wage freeze they said they needed to implement to save $6 billion to get them to that balanced budget. So no wage freeze, none of Drummond’s serious, hard—

Mr. Todd Smith: Bold.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —bold—thank you—items to implement. They didn’t do any of that. But magically we’re going to get to zero in 2017-18, and they say, “Don’t worry. Trust us.” This is the same government whose numbers said that the gas plant scandal would only cost $40 million when it cost $1.1 billion. This is the same set of Liberal math and Liberal numbers.

Does the fact that there are no numbers mean the discrepancy is indeed larger than the $4.5 billion? Remember, that $4.5 billion is just above and beyond the other numbers. That isn’t the total. This is above and beyond. That will put us at $11.5 billion next year and $9.4 billion the year after, but don’t worry; we’re at zero right away after that.

So in a previous Focus edition—I think it was number 4, for your reference, member from Vaughan—we highlighted the fact that the fall economic statement failed to include those medium-term outlook numbers. That would have included the tables showing how the revenue, spending and debt will look for the next three years. First this government missed the October 6 deadline last year for the first set of numbers. Under the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, they had to publish those numbers last October 6. The act says that two years after an election you publish this set of numbers. They never came. Those numbers never came, Speaker. We have no numbers.

In the fall economic statement, a big hole in the budget—no numbers shown.

Last month, February 15, again under the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, this government was to turn over their third-quarter numbers. No numbers. We got a letter saying, “You aren’t getting them.”

Where are their numbers? What are they hiding that they haven’t shown us numbers? If the October numbers were for the first two years, when is the last time we actually got any real numbers from this government?

We’re very concerned, as every Ontarian should be, as every member in the finance community should be, about not having any real numbers whatsoever.

Speaker, in another set of documents, we realize that in order to balance the spending, reductions of between $6.1 billion and $6.9 billion are required outside of the core ministries of health, education, post-secondary, justice, and social services. Why hasn’t this government told us where those cuts are? They like to point fingers. They like to accuse all the other parties of what they would do, but this government is scratching their heads. They have absolutely no plan whatsoever to tell us how they plan to balance the budget.

They need a 9.6% reduction—a decline in spending—in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to get to that balanced budget, doing it their way. Where is that money coming from? Why won’t they tell us? Now, we know that they had planned to reduce pension expenses through pension reform. They failed to tell their members that. We know that they planned no funding for incremental compensation increases for new collective agreements. They plan to freeze salaries, they say, until 2017-18, but we’ve heard that before, and they didn’t come through.

I wonder, have they spoken with Smokey Thomas about this planned wage freeze, and is that why we haven’t seen them implement the wage freeze? Is that the issue that we have here?

We also know that several other factors have occurred, that this government put revenue in the budget that is not going to happen. We also know there are greater expenses that have been incurred, that are going to affect their budget. These are basically the key items that will affect the budget. Pan Am—as I mentioned earlier, our MPP from Barrie has done a remarkable job in peeling back this Pan Am scandal and trying to get to the root of it—where we see millions, then tens of millions, then hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions are over the Pan Am Games that we hear every morning are on time and on budget.

The budget keeps moving—I guess if you just keep moving the budget, you’re going to be on budget. That money was not accounted for in the budget. There is a line for it, but it has far surpassed that already.

In the budget, the government planned on revenue from the OLG, the gaming organizations and lottery sales. They planned on 29 new casinos.

Mr. Todd Smith: How many of those are built?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, there are none built.

They expected to save $265 million—it’s in the budget, a savings of $265 million—by having a fire sale of Ontario Northland. Thankfully, we brought the Auditor General in, at my request, who did an audit of the sale of Ontario Northland, and it turns out the government made yet another mistake. They’re not going to save the $265 million that is in their budget. They’re going to spend $820 million for this fire sale. So none of that is accounted for in the budget.

Now, whether they go through with part or all of the fire sale is unknown, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for five minutes and perhaps that entire $820 million won’t be a budget hit, but we know for sure—we’ll stick with the facts—that they will not save $265 million. Where is that accounted for in the budget?

Go back to those 29 casinos that were going to generate more than $600 million in additional revenue between 2012-13 and 2014-15 and more than $1 billion planned in their budget by 2017-18. Yes, that didn’t happen, Speaker. There is no casino opened in the GTA. The other 28 casinos that they planned—nobody’s rolling the dice at those casinos yet, so to speak.

There is another billion dollars that won’t show up on the revenue side of the budget, yet they’re still spending as if all that revenue is here. This is going to be solved by Bill 177, when we save $390,550. Somehow, all the problems are going to be solved with that.

Speaker, the comments that I’ve read left some questions. The shortfall that we have found—a believable description of that shortfall will be the fact that they already did a deal with the NDP last year before the budget. That’s where the $900 million came from. We already know that the government has failed to disclose their October 6 numbers, the medium-term outlook numbers in the fall economic statement, and the third-quarter results on February 15, as prescribed by the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act.

This government clearly has no plan whatsoever to balance the budget by 2017-18. This bill that they’re bringing—we will support it; I have said that right from the first, right off the bat—but it is more of your tinkering around the edges. This is all about sizzle and no steak. In the farm community in Chisholm, they would say, “This is all hat, no cattle,” because that’s exactly what this is: a $390,550 savings so we can see the flag being waved by this party as if they’re actually doing something, when we know that they’re not.

It has been very clear from the outset—in the two and a half years that I’ve been here—that they have no plan, no idea. The fact that we still have 600,000 men and women who woke up this morning without a job, still waking up without a job two and a half years later, is proof positive that they have no plan and they provide no hope.

Now, contrast that with our party. We have toured almost 30 communities since Christmas, many of us here. The member from—

Mr. Todd Smith: Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —Prince Edward–Hastings was at the hearings in Kingston, the pre-budget consultation hearings.

We heard three things loud and clear, and from all groups. We heard: skyrocketing hydro rates, high taxes and crushing red tape. No matter whether you went from Sarnia to Kenora to the Ring of Fire to Timmins to Cornwall and back to Toronto, and everywhere in between: skyrocketing hydro rates, crushing red tape and high taxes.

This government offers a 46% increase in hydro rates over the next five years, higher taxes coming, and even more red tape. This is what we understand from this government.

This is the government that, when they got into power—there was a Red Tape Commission. Former Premier Mike Harris formed a Red Tape Commission. It was a temporary agency that became a full-time agency to reduce red tape. They had a mandate and were doing a beautiful job. One of the first things this government did when they got into power was eliminate the Red Tape Commission. That’s their idea of handling red tape: Get rid of the people who talk about crushing red tape in this province.

High taxes, skyrocketing hydro rates, and crushing red tape weren’t only discussed by Liam McGuinty of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. They weren’t only discussed by Candice Malcolm of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They weren’t only talked about by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They were talked about by social planning councils, community action groups and food banks. The skyrocketing hydro rates are hurting families. It’s hurting businesses. It’s killing jobs, but it’s hurting families.

High taxes, and the future taxes we have coming, will cause businesses to scratch their heads and wonder whether to stay in Ontario. The crushing red tape, again, isn’t just affecting businesses; it’s also affecting the social planning councils. We heard from them, when they said, “We can’t send our worker out to do casework at a family’s home because they have six hours of computer work to do to satisfy some government forms that make no sense to us.” We heard that over and over, Speaker. This government are the ones who cancelled the Red Tape Commission to try to solve at least one of these problems.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, has presented the million-jobs plan. Crushing red tape will be addressed. Skyrocketing hydro rates—we will cancel the feed-in tariff program that has caused your hydro rate to triple over the last 10 years—to double in eight years, to triple in 10 years, and it’s going to go up 46% more. I don’t believe that, by the way, Speaker. I believe they’re going to skyrocket even further under this plan, and they will not tell us that. With the amount of wind turbines they plan to put on the grid, this is going to skyrocket.

According to the Auditor General, the global adjustment, as a result of wind turbines, was $700 million in 2011, on its way to $8.1 billion. Who pays for that? Ratepayers. That’s going to be added to your hydro bill. This is no 46% increase, Speaker. This is a monumental increase that’s coming. That’s their solution to it. Ours is to cancel the feed-in tariff program and bring some semblance to the hydro system again.

High taxes—we know that this government is going to increase taxes. We know they’re going to increase business taxes in Ontario. We know that’s coming. I don’t think they’re going to stop there. There’s nothing these guys won’t tax. We saw it very clearly when De Beers opened the Victor mine 150 kilometres west of Attawapiskat. After they had spent $1 billion in the ground, getting the mine almost ready to open and in production, these guys smelled money. They implemented a diamond tax. Ontario’s first and only diamond mine, and they said, “Oh, but don’t worry. We’re going to tax every diamond mine.”

Mr. Todd Smith: How many are there?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: There’s the one.

Mr. Todd Smith: Yes, that’s what I thought.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: So we can see that this government is going to continue to tax and spend. This bill of theirs, Bill 177, is nothing more than window-dressing.

I see you’re on the edge of your seat. Is my time up, Speaker? Then I’m going to sit down and say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak for—

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m sorry. I still have 12 minutes and 53 seconds. I guess we’ll be back with more scintillating conversation. Stay tuned. Thank you, Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I do want to welcome in the gallery today five different people from Sudbury: Paula Peroni, Biddy Farrell, Matt Southern, Lynne Raven and Chris Nerpin.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure today to introduce my nephew who is visiting us from Vancouver and is a principal cellist with the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, Ari Barnes.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today a very strong member of the business community in Oakville, Mr. John Vail.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to congratulate Jane Oleksiw for being assigned page captain for the day in the Legislature. Jane is a grade 8 student at St. Michael Catholic Elementary School in Virgil, just outside of Niagara-on-the-Lake in the great riding of Niagara Falls. Today I would also like to welcome her parents, who are up there in the gallery, Bob and Tina Oleksiw; their daughter Julia; and Jane’s friend Anna Smyth. Thank you very much for coming.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome to the gallery a group of students, many of them from the University of Toronto, who are engaged in a variety of research projects on post-secondary education for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We are introducing guests, and it would be nice to make sure that we didn’t hear any heckling while we were introducing our guests.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And that includes the member from Renfrew.

The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: I have six people I would like to introduce today. Ils sont ici à la législature pour écouter les questions : Anne Godbout, Gisèle Rousseau, André Choquet, Verity Crew-Nelson, Danielle Lamothe et Lynda Rinkenbach. Bienvenue à la législature.

Mr. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: I appreciate that. I know that today the Minister of Municipal Affairs is actually going to be officially resigning from the Legislature. We wish her the best of luck—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not appropriate.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to welcome the family of page Milana Thibodeau Morris: father, Rod Morris; mother, JoAnne Thibodeau; and sister, Arielle Thibodeau Morris. Please welcome them to the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome our guests.

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Thursday, March 20, 2014, the government House leader, having provided the required notice under standing order 21(c), rose on a point of privilege regarding a question posed to the Minister of Finance during oral questions on Tuesday, March 18. The government House leader alleged that the member from Nipissing, while posing his question to the Minister of Finance, knowingly “disclosed the contents of a confidential committee document” and, as a result, had committed a contempt of the Legislature.

In making his submission, the government House leader argued that the member for Nipissing disregarded an order of the Standing Committee on Estimates which protected certain documents the committee received from the Ministry of Finance as confidential. The House leader also stated that this potential breach of privilege was raised in the House because the Standing Committee on Estimates “is not currently sitting,” and that it was brought forward at the earliest opportunity, given the need to verify the accusation.

The member for Nipissing, in both his written and oral submission on this matter, contended that the information contained in his question was sourced from a set of “redacted documents that were to be made public” by the committee under the same committee order referred to by the government House leader. He also argued that this issue should have been properly raised at the Standing Committee on Estimates and that, in his opinion, it was not raised in a timely manner.

I am not concerned with the time taken to raise this matter and find that it was reasonable in the circumstances, and for the reasons given by the government House leader.

However, after reading and hearing the submissions made on this point of privilege, the Speaker is in the end presented with conflicting opinions, but without the means to reconcile them. This power rests with the Standing Committee on Estimates, which, as the custodian of the documents in question, is best able to decide if the allegation of improper disclosure is correct, and it can bring this matter properly before the House by adopting and presenting a report, if it chooses to do so.

As to the assertion that the Standing Committee on Estimates is not currently sitting, in fact, standing committees are struck for the duration of a Parliament. Although this committee has completed its consideration of last year’s estimates, it can meet on a matter as important as members’ privileges, and it is the proper starting point if this matter is to be pursued.

The government House leader’s point of privilege not having been preceded by these necessary steps, I must find that it has been prematurely brought to the attention of this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. There is a disturbing scenario playing out right now. Last October 6, your government failed to deliver the long-range assessment of Ontario’s finances as obligated under the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act. We were told that they would be in the fall economic statement, but they weren’t. In fact, there were no individual ministry expense numbers listed—just the total program spending, which magically falls in 2017 to balance the budget. On February 15, the transparency act also requires you to publish third-quarter results. Again, nothing.

Premier, you continue to keep any real numbers from this Legislature. Is it because any one of those numbers would demonstrate you’re not on track to balance the budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I invite the member opposite, when this year’s budget comes out, unlike last year, to actually read the document, because he obviously has a number of questions. I’m not sure whether he actually read the fall economic statement but, again, I would ask that he read the fall economic statement because, as I’ve said, there is information in that document that makes it clear what our intentions are, what the numbers are. I hope that he will take the opportunity to do that.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: We will be bringing the budget forward. We will be making it clear that we are on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18, but we will also make it clear that we are intent on making the investments in people, in infrastructure and in a strong business climate to make sure that we have a prospering and growing economy—investments that the member opposite would not be willing to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, it’s too bad that you didn’t tell the bond-rating agencies last May that you had a $4.5-billion gap in your budget. That’s above and beyond your planned deficit of $11.7 billion this year, above your planned deficit of $10.4 billion next year and above the $7.2-billion deficit the year after. Your annual deficits are larger than every other province plus the national deficit combined. It’s clear you can’t manage our money, so while other provinces are putting people back to work, your cabinet was told, “There are fewer jobs relative to our population and more unemployed,” and “Per capita output of the economy remains below its pre-recession benchmark.”

Premier, you’re failing Ontarians. You can’t make the tough decisions, and the ones you do make turn into scandals. If you won’t bring a plan to turn Ontario around, will you at least—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The plan that the member opposite and his leader are putting forward is to cut and slash across government. It’s to fire education workers, fire health care workers, and drive good jobs out of the province by undermining labour. If the member opposite is asking, will we take that path? We absolutely will not. That is not in the best interests of the people of this province. It is not in the best interests of the economy of this province.

We will bring our budget forward. We will make the investments that are necessary. We will partner with business. We will work with key industries to make sure that they can expand, like the announcement I made yesterday at Fiera Foods, where there will be more jobs created because of our partnering with that business. We will continue to do that work.

It would be wonderful if the member opposite joined with us, because it is in the best interests of the people of this province that we make those investments and put that support in place.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, it seems there’s no limit to your planned revenue tools. You’re going to tax hard-working families, you’re going to tax business; maybe a tobacco tax, a transit increase. Your own finance ministry proposes another way to kill jobs while restocking your coffers. Here’s what they had to say about your “partnering with business.” This is a quote: “Development charges are a great idea. The developers of condos make a killing (presumably, given how many condos are always being built).”

This is how you view the business community: just another pocket to pick. “They make a killing. Let’s go after them.” Never mind that they actually put people to work. Why not kill that industry, too, just as long as you get a few bucks from them before they leave? Is that how you plan to budget, Premier—kill the golden goose?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite has engaged in rhetoric and trash talk about the good work that Ontarians have been doing over the last number of years since the recession. He hasn’t read the reports over the last year, for that matter.

Don’t take it from us. The C.D. Howe Institute, someone that they always respect, has come out and said very clearly that Ontario leads all provinces right throughout Canada on transparency and on integrity of our numbers. We rated an A because of the work that we’ve done. They, however, did not.

We’ll continue to do what’s right for Ontarians. We’ll continue to put on a very wholesome and strong plan to create jobs—and it has created jobs. You guys keep wanting to destroy the well-being of our economy by the reckless cuts that you’re making. On this side of the House, we’re making investments, and we’re being positive to all of Ontario and for Canada.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question as well is to the Premier. Over the weekend, you touted the line called “What leadership is.” Now, I can tell you what it isn’t: It’s two OPP investigations into your government. It’s losing 330,000 manufacturing jobs. It is using a billion dollars of taxpayer money to save five Liberal seats. It’s breaking international law. It’s withholding information from the electorate on the $4.5-billion hole in your budget. So they’ve demonstrated what leadership is not.

I can tell you what leadership is. It is testing your policies and your record with the electorate. So we ask, on this side of the House, will you do that? Will you finally table a budget, and will you put it to a vote, not only in this assembly but also with the electorate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member opposite for the question. I’m just going to talk a little bit about some of the things that have happened over the previous few years.

When we came into office, 68% of students in this province were graduating from high school; now, 83% of kids are graduating from high school. When we come into office, the energy system was in disarray. We have invested in transmission. We have a stable energy grid. We have generation of clean, renewable energy in this province.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When we came into office, there was no measurement of wait times in the health care system.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We led the way in measuring wait times, and those wait times that we have measured have come down.

From my perspective, those are all impacts on the lives of people in this province that will have a huge difference. That’s what leadership is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is a Premier who has led the way on a few things—innovation, for example, in scandals. The Premier knows full well that this recent scandal with her budget is actually the gas plants 2.0.

I’m going to run down the formula. It’s actually something we can now count on with this government. First, it’s desperation by a government that is about to lose everything. Second, you’re going to find documents from bureaucrats cautioning them against the Liberals’ preferred course of action. Third, it’s that they developed spin lines and media diversions to manipulate the media and the press, like tanning beds—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —like accountability bills, to throw us all off. Fourth, we go back to those documents put forward by the bureaucrats and we find that they either redact them or they destroy them. Five, when all else fails, they try to shut down debate by either prorogation or trying to censor a member who has exposed them for what they are. That’s not leadership. The government has an opportunity. The Premier has an opportunity. Show some leadership. Demonstrate it with a budget. Table it here.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We actually will table the budget here; we will not go to Magna or anywhere else. We will table the budget here. I look forward to the member opposite reading that budget.

Let me just outline the kinds of things that we are going to be focusing on in order to grow the economy, because I really think that is critical at this juncture. We are going to invest in infrastructure. Unlike the party opposite, we believe that having a plan to invest in roads and bridges and transit is very important to the growth of the economy. We’re going to be investing in skills and training, because we know that businesses come here and businesses tell us over and over again that the educated workforce is a huge benefit to business in this province, and it draws them here.

We’re going to continue to invest in a youth strategy—30,000 young people getting placements. Already, more than 9,000 young people have an opportunity. That’s the kind of work we’re going to be doing.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Sadly, 330,000 manufacturing jobs have left the province under your watch. We have the highest industrial hydro rates in North America. People are leaving—to Quebec, to Manitoba, to New York—to actually set up shop rather than stay here in the great province of Ontario. In fact, if you look at the confidence of that plan, she has lost seven MPPs as of today from her government. I believe, for a new Premier, that is actually unprecedented.

So I just ask the Premier—she will have a day of reckoning whether she wants it or not. At some point in time, there will be an ability for the opposition and the public to look at her books, either when she’s out of power or before then. On that day, Ontarians will know the true cost of her premiership and we will know why so many MPPs in her own party do not have confidence in her and have decided either to leave now or leave later. She’s desperately clinging to power. She has a choice. Table the budget now. Let Ontarians know what’s in it and where that $4.5 billion is. Will she do it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say: I have the best team in the province. I am so proud of the people that I work with and I am so proud of the people who have done their service and are moving on to other things—the best team. We, as the member opposite knows, passed the legislation that would open the books before an election. We’re the government that brought that in. We brought that legislation in because of what had happened under the previous government, where there had been a $5.6-billion hidden deficit. We brought in legislation that requires government to open the books. We will do that and we have been doing that.

I just want to say that the investments that we are going to make, the balance that we are going to strike between fiscal responsibility and investment, is critical. Roger Martin said that, “Closing the prosperity gap cannot be done without making meaningful and targeted investments in productivity-enhancing resources and tools.” We are going to take that advice.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. After spending months claiming that she’s offering real change, this weekend the Premier declared that her new goal is defending the status quo of Dalton McGuinty. For families worried about job loss, that’s very concerning. They know that more of the same strategy of sky-high hydro rates and no-strings-attached corporate tax loopholes is going to leave them looking for work.

Just weeks ago, the Premier said people were looking for change. Why is it she is now so determined to offer more of the same?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think what I said on the weekend was that this is a very important time in the history of the economy in Ontario and that what we need is to make sure that we make the right decisions. From my perspective, that means playing to our strengths. It means making the investments where they are most necessary, and strategically. That’s investing in the talent and skills of our people. It means investing in infrastructure and, I would say to the leader of the third party, that includes transit. It includes making investments in transit, roads, bridges and infrastructure across the province.

It means working with business. It doesn’t mean making business the enemy, whether that’s small business or large corporations. It means working with them so that they can expand and create jobs. That’s what I talked about this weekend, and that’s the work that we have been doing and will continue doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier spent the weekend talking about Liberal hands, but for families across Ontario, the only thing steady about the McGuinty legacy is a steady flow of money out of their pockets and the steady flow of jobs out of Ontario.

Those hands brought us the gas plant scandal and billions of dollars in waste. Those hands left Ontario with some of the highest hydro rates, the highest auto insurance rates and an unemployment rate stuck above the national average for years.

Does the Premier really think that offering more of the same is good enough?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would suggest that what our hands have wrought is not the status quo. We’re on track to meet our goal of an average 8% reduction in auto insurance by August 2014. We’ve increased funding to home care and community services by $260 million in 2013. That’s a 6% increase over last year, and it’s $185 million for CCACs to provide home care services. That’s a huge investment in the transformation of the health care system.

We’ve created the $100-million Small, Rural and Northern Municipal Infrastructure Fund. That means that those investments in roads and bridges in our northern and rural communities can go ahead. We know that those small economies, those local economies, are dependent on that kind of infrastructure investment.

Recently, four more companies in southwestern Ontario will receive support through the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. That’s not the status quo, Mr. Speaker. That’s investment in economic growth.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier won her Liberal leadership talking about change and possibility, but it’s more and more clear she’s offering the same Dalton McGuinty status quo that brought us sky-high hydro rates, a gas plant scandal and left Ontarians down over 300,000 manufacturing jobs.

People want to see action to lower their hydro bills and make life more affordable. People want to see action that creates jobs. Why is the Premier insisting that the same old ideas are somehow working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just continue on the things that we have done that are actually new. I know that the leader of the third party will know that there was a big discussion about the minimum wage, which she did not take

part in, but we are raising the minimum wage as of June 11, and then we’re bringing legislation. We’ve brought legislation, that I hope she will support, to index the minimum wage to CPI.

We’ve introduced legislation to strengthen the Employment Standards Act, and that will provide more protection for vulnerable workers. I would hope that the leader opposite would support that new initiative.

We passed the Local Food Act. As part of that, there’s a $30-million Local Food Fund which is helping to make investments in the agri-food industry to help that industry grow. I hope that the leader of the third party understands that that’s a very important thing.

We’ve passed the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act. Those initiatives protect consumers, and I hope that the leader of the third party understands how important that is.

We passed the Supporting Small Businesses Act. It increases the employer health tax exemption. So that is change.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. If we want to see where Liberal hands have steered us into the ditch, we don’t have to look much farther than our hydro system. The Premier insists that the system is working, but people like Grant, from Renfrew, for example, disagree. He wrote, “I’m on a fixed income with an older home, and hydro bills are affecting my life.” He’s upset that his family is paying costs that he calls “way too high,” so that others can “make money exporting what we pay for with no return for us.”

Why is the Premier so determined to defend a hydro system that leaves people like Grant paying more and more, and lagging behind?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to this in the supplementary.

I also know that the people of this province want an electricity system that they can rely on. I understand that there are challenges—and the minister will speak to some of the initiatives we’ve taken to make sure that we reduce those costs for people, particularly those who are having trouble making ends meet—but when we came into office, the electricity system was in disarray. It was absolutely critical that the neglect that had been in place for years was tended to.

We have done that. We have made those investments, and on top of that, we have moved to a much cleaner and more renewable energy supply. We are very proud of that, and we are going to continue to do that work, at the same time recognizing that there need to be programs in place to help people to deal with their energy costs, and I know the leader of the third party makes sure that her constituents know about all those programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: John, from Sudbury, is working hard to minimize his bills, but he’s clear when he says, “We should not be exporting power if we cannot afford to keep rates reasonably low at home.... We should know by now that privatization does not save citizens money. High management costs ... usually end up costing more.”

In Manitoba and Quebec, businesses pay literally half of what we’re charging Ontario businesses, and they are selling their exports for nearly twice as much. Is the Premier ready to take the waste out of the hydro system and take action to lower rates in Ontario instead of lowering them in the US?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about Charlie, from Hamilton, or let’s talk about Ann, from Toronto, who were having multiple, multiple smog days every single summer. We had a dirty system and we had a deficit of supply. We invested in new generation. We took the opportunity to clean our air.

That party doesn’t care that we had to spend additional dollars for clean energy as opposed to dirty coal. Cheap, dirty coal is what you sound like right now. We cleaned our air, and we have healthier people in our community right now. I hope I have the opportunity in the next question to talk about electricity prices, because your plan is a scam.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s sad to see a Minister of Energy joke about the real struggles of the people in this province. Hydro bills aren’t just numbers, he might need to know. People are wondering how they’re going to be able to keep up.

Helena, from Hamilton, wrote us to say, “We are a senior couple with limited income and no way to increase our income. The hydro bill keeps increasing, and while we are still able to pay it, my concern is, what happens when one of us dies, and all these expenses of the house will have to come out of one income. Raising the cost of hydro affects all of us, and the country, and we need sensible heads to see how things like funding the export of hydro is affecting those who can least afford it.”

Now, is the Premier ready to admit that her hydro plan isn’t working and it’s time to take the waste out of the hydro system so people like Helena aren’t worried about their future and the future of their families?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’re talking about an election these days, and the opposition is asking for an election. There will be a day of reckoning when that party is going to have to stand before the people of Ontario and tell them what they will do.

Mr. Speaker, they don’t want new—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, I would, and I did.

I’m going to ask members to, again, not refer to anyone other than by their title or their riding. That’s the kind of heckling that causes the escalation of emotions, and I want it to diminish.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, it’s not funny; it’s serious.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s too bad.

Please finish.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They talk about creating an energy system that will be beneficial to people in Ontario, yet they will not build new nuclear and they will not refurbish the existing units. There’s 50% of our electricity generation that they would cut off at the knees. What are they going to replace it with, how long will it take, what will the cost be and what will that do to increasing prices?

Mr. Speaker, we have comparative prices on electricity costs: Ottawa, 12.39 cents per kilowatt hour; Edmonton, 13.9—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. At the root of the Ornge scandal, according to the Auditor General’s 2012 report, were the following findings: First and foremost, the Ministry of Health failed in its oversight responsibilities. It failed to get proper information relating to patient pickup and response. There was a lack of transparency surrounding the financial affairs of that organization. There were questionable procurement practices that are now under criminal investigation.

That was in 2012. We now have a recent audit report issued by the Ministry of Finance that made 48 findings of Ornge that included the very same issues that the Auditor General identified in 2012. My question to the Premier is: Is she aware of that report? How is it that under new management, a new board, a new CEO and a new amended performance agreement, we have the same issues—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to say that Ornge has already implemented 39 of the 48 recommendations outlined in the report and that progress is being made on the remaining nine. We will continue to work with Ornge as they implement the remaining recommendations.

I can tell you that this work builds on other accountability measures that have been undertaken by Ornge’s new leadership. They’ve released their strategic plan; they’ve submitted their first quality improvement plan; they’re posting salaries of senior leadership online; they’re activating the new whistle-blower hotline; they’re establishing a conflict-of-interest protocol; they’ve got their first patient advocate in place; and they’ve got a travel and business expense policy that requires submitted expenses to be appropriate.

Ornge is on the right track, and I look forward to the member opposite supporting Bill 11.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, you see, we don’t believe any of that because under that new board, under the new CEO, under the minister’s new oversight branch, under the minister’s new amended performance agreement—this audit report was conducted over an entire year under that new management, under that new board, and the same issues appear.

Here they are: a lack of documentation of board decisions; a lack of board approval of significant policies, including procurement, travel and expenses, the compensation system and performance pay; under the new board, contracts valued at between $100,000 and $750,000 were not signed in accordance with Ornge’s signing authority; reaction/response times are not being properly reported.

I’d like to know from the Premier—because the list goes on; the incompetency continues—how come the same minister continues to have the responsibility to oversee Ornge and our air ambulance service?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think any independent observer would recognize that Ornge is well into—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order and the member from Durham will come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —a new

chapter under the new leadership of Dr. Andrew McCallum and Ian Delaney. They have put together a very strong team. The board is an entirely voluntary board, and they have been dedicated to implementing all of the recommendations. Let me repeat: Ornge has already—

Mr. Frank Klees: Read the report.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’ve read it.

Ornge has already implemented 39 of the 48 recommendations. The remaining nine are under way.

What I can tell you is that there has also been an increased focus on patient safety. They have provided additional training for helicopter pilots, including controlled flight into terrain. They’ve revised operating procedures for night operations. They are installing solar lighting. There’s a lot happening at Ornge, and it’s all good.

Please pass Bill 11.

PAN AM GAMES

Will the Premier tell Ontarians how much they paid Neala Barton in severance when she left the former Premier’s office, how much we’re paying her now, is severance included in her new contract and why, and how much are we paying in severance to the most recently fired executives?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport will want to speak to the details. But I just want the member opposite to know that TO2015, the Pan Am group, is working in coordination with the provincial government and the federal government and 15 municipalities to deliver the Pan Am Games. Part of TO2015’s mandate is to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the games, and that means dealing with human resources issues.

I have complete confidence in both the chair and the CEO. I know that they are making decisions. We have no control over the HR decisions in terms of who they may or may not hire, and they will make those decisions. Those decisions are made by the CEO of TO2015. The organizing committee is shifting from the planning stage into the operational stage into the lead-up of the games, so it makes sense that there would be HR changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I think the Premier answered my question right off the bat: no control.

Speaker, there’s a pattern emerging here on the Pan/Parapan Am Games—a pattern that keeps costs going up, whether it is security costs that are ballooning, golden parachutes for well-connected executives or soft landings for Dalton McGuinty insiders like Neala Barton. It’s an arrogant way to treat Ontarians’ money, and it’s time that hard-working taxpaying families got some respect in this province.

Speaker, will the Premier release these contracts and these severance agreements today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I agree with the member opposite that there’s a pattern emerging. The pattern is that members of the opposition and the third party—even though they have the information, they can take

part in technical briefings, they’re getting the information, and they know that the work is proceeding and that there is going to be a terrific legacy—continue to talk down the Pan/Parapan Am Games. It makes no sense to me. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just heard a member of the opposition say “a waste of money.” I would ask him to talk to the young athletes in his riding. I would ask him to talk to the kids who are swimming and running and training and getting ready for the Pan/Parapan Am Games. I’d ask him to talk to those kids.

Interjections.

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

New question.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre du Travail, l’hon. Yasir Naqvi. Speaker, it has been said that how society deals with its youth determines its prosperity—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Our own investments include full-day kindergarten leading up to world-class schooling. This, of course, is especially valued by people in my own riding of Etobicoke North. For many young Ontarians, this is followed by remarkable opportunities at the college and university level.

Speaker, as you may know, our youth employment fund has helped over 8,200 young people find meaningful employment, which of course is commendable. Yet I still hear how difficult it is for folks to enter the workforce and how internships are often the only way to get in the door. Youth in Etobicoke are concerned about internships, where they are not paid, and I am concerned about this as well.

My question is this: What is the ministry doing to make sure that when young people in my community start a new job, they will be paid for that work?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for asking a very timely question.

We know that building a stronger workforce is about building safe and fair workplaces. In Ontario, the rules about internships are very clear. It does not matter what your job title or position is; if you perform work for someone, you are covered by the Employment Standards Act and deserve to be paid at least the minimum wage. There is, in there, an exemption for co-op students from accredited university and college programs, trainees and self-employed individuals.

The ministry has been very active on this issue to get the word out. We updated our Web page on internships to provide clarity on this particular issue. We also have been proactively writing letters, and reached out to post-secondary institutions, employers and job sites to make sure there is no confusion around what the rules are in the legislation. We are also active on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, making sure that we can broadcast our strong rules to young people in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister—or, in Urdu, Shukriya.

I appreciate your outlining the strong rules that we have on internships in Ontario. My constituents in Etobicoke North in particular value the fact that the ministry is reaching out to young people, businesses and institutions to raise awareness of these rules.

But, Speaker, I sometimes hear from Etobicoke North residents that even though they know the Ministry of Labour is out there to help them, they are reluctant sometimes to reach out. This was also raised in a press conference by the member from Davenport when he announced his private member’s bill on internships.

Speaker, my question is this: Are formal complaints and reactive inspections the only way the ministry will investigate?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think this is a very, very important and serious question, and I welcome the participation of all members in getting the message across. Speaker, I can assure the member that our government is doing our very best to ensure that our youths’ rights are protected.

Any concerns regarding working arrangements can be referred to the Ministry of Labour’s hotline at 1-800-531-5551. Confidential help is available in 23 different languages, and this includes anonymous tips as well. The ministry will investigate any and all complaints to enforce our rules. We are the first government to conduct proactive inspections, and while out in the field, our enforcement officers are also specifically asking about internships.

I also announced last December that we’ll be doing a proactive employment enforcement blitz dealing with internships specifically starting in June.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, the amount of money the Liberal government wasted on cancelling two gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville could have paid for the Highway 7 expansion in my community nearly four times over, yet you pulled the plug on both plants with no forethought on the cost or the consequences.

Now, the number of infrastructure projects in the region of Waterloo and Guelph area are starting to pile up, and specifically, both Highway 85 and Highway 6 require infrastructure upgrades.

Minister, after wasting billions of dollars on the gas plant scandals and debt interest payments, what plans do you have to upgrade these roads and how much money will you invest?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for the friendly question. The irony is that we’re spending $14 billion a year on infrastructure, or 2% of our GDP. His federal party is spending $73 million, or less than a fraction of 1% of GDP, one of the worst records ever.

The gas plants: I guess they buy them at garage sales, Mr. Speaker; they must get some discount, because they were the ones who first promised to cancel them. Those gas plants have been relocated, not cancelled, and are actually producing energy, because the people in Oakville and Mississauga asked for that. That money is out there working. I know we had to fulfill his promise for them, but maybe there are some gas plant discount sales at garage sales in Conestoga that I’m not aware of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Again to the minister; I’ll ask him a second time. Last weekend, our Premier said that she will not negotiate with the NDP on the budget. Then today we learned that the Liberal government will pack its budget full of reckless policies that will appease the anti-business stance of the NDP. So I guess the Premier is right, in fact: There is no room for negotiation when the plan is to give everything to the NDP.

It’s sad that Ontario has a government that spends the majority of its time developing new ways to placate the NDP while ignoring critical infrastructure needs in municipalities like the region of Waterloo and the Guelph area.

Minister, forget about the garage sales. Will you just admit that you will do anything to cling to power, even if that means ignoring infrastructure investment and plunging the province into more debt just to appease the NDP?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Without comment.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have to encourage my friend opposite, Mr. Speaker, to read budgets. Readers are leaders. They would save a lot of time in here because he would know that there’s already $50 million in the budget for Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph and that we have made numerous commitments to complete that. We’re quite excited about that.

Why can we do that? Because, in the last year they were in power in this province, they spent $1.4 billion in total on schools and water. What does $1.4 billion buy you? It certainly doesn’t buy you Highway 7 or Highway 85. We are now spending 10 times what you spent on infrastructure so that we can build Highway 7. Maybe he can talk to his federal friend, because we just added four GO trains to Kitchener-Waterloo, and your federal cousins cancelled four Via trains.

So 10% spending of what we do—they cancel rapid transit projects. We add them. It’s the garage-sale party—

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

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. This morning, the Ontario Health Coalition released their report, entitled For Health or Wealth? The report details dozens and dozens of examples of extra billing, user fees and the sale of queue jumping for services—all of those in clear violation of the provincial and federal laws.

OHC researchers found that clinics were charging patients between $50 and $3,500 for OHIP-insured medical services. Is the minister concerned about those violations, and is she prepared to do anything about them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I will be absolutely clear on this. The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, which we passed in 2004, very clearly states that there may be no charges for insured services. We hold true to that value. If there are examples of clinics charging patients, then that needs to be reported—and we act on that. The protection of our single-tier system is of paramount importance to us.

We are doing many things to transform our health care system. One of them is looking at establishing specialty clinics outside the walls of the hospital. I know the member opposite is familiar with the birthing centres that we’ve already opened—one in Ottawa, one in Toronto—to support people having their babies outside the walls of the hospital but in a safe environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Ontario Health Coalition did a similar report in 2008. Some of the clinics that are now charging higher fees were named in that 2008 report, and the minister did nothing.

User fees, extra billing and the up-selling of medically unnecessary tests and procedures not only harm patients, they harm our health care system. When someone needs cataract surgery or a colonoscopy, they should not have to decipher the legalities of the fees or, even worse, argue about them with the physician who is going to provide that care.

This government has talked a good game when it came to protecting our public health care system. But if they fail to prevent these violations, all their talk is for nothing. My question is simple: Why is the government moving more and more of these services to private clinics when it cannot assure Ontarians that public health care will be protected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’m afraid that the member opposite knows full well that the clinics that we’re talking about opening are non-profit clinics. She also knows that we enforce the commitment to the future of medicare, and I would urge anyone who is being charged for medically insured services to report it.

I’m even going to give you the phone number: 1-888-662-6613. If anyone is being charged for services that are OHIP-covered, they should call that number and report it, and we will follow up. It’s against the law. It is not tolerated.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I know that MNR has a strong commitment to protecting the endangered species of our province, and that MNR has done some great work to protect habitats and help in the recovery of Ontario’s species at risk.

I know that public stewardship efforts are integral to protecting endangered species in Ontario, and that your ministry encourages this through programs such as the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. I was happy to hear at the beginning of March that your ministry announced funding for a number of new projects to protect, preserve and restore our rich biodiversity and educate others.

Speaker, could the minister please tell the members of the Legislature about how his ministry helps protect endangered species through public stewardship projects such as the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for being such a strong advocate on this issue. Our party clearly stands in strong contrast with respect to the opposition on this.

The stewardship fund enables our partners to carry out a shared vision to protect species right across the province of Ontario. Since 2007, in fact, we’ve announced $35 million in funding for 660 projects across the province. These local stewardship grants have restored more than 24,000 hectares of habitat, and have generated more than 2,100 jobs in doing so.

Projects such as these, through our ministry, help to provide protection for more than 150 species at risk, and help our ministry to ensure that Ontario’s native species continue to contribute to our rich biodiversity. In fact, in the beginning of March, our ministry was honoured to receive a recognition award from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario for our efforts to re-establish a migratory bird, the piping plover, at Wasaga Beach. This recovery process was an excellent example of these stewardship programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad that your ministry is working hard to protect threatened species such as the piping plover, and that these efforts were recognized by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

I have a keen interest in preserving the environment and our province’s rich biodiversity, and the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund sounds like a great way for the people of Ontario to get involved and assist in that goal. Through increased knowledge and awareness, we can all play a role to protect Ontario’s natural spaces, and the plants and animals that live in them.

Could you please elaborate for the members of this House some of the projects that local groups have put into action to preserve our province’s rich biodiversity?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, thanks to the member for the question. Earlier in March, our ministry announced that it would be supporting 103 different projects through our Species at Risk Stewardship Fund in the 2014-15 year. Up to $5 million in funding will be allocated to 75 new projects and 28 ongoing multi-year projects.

The number of projects taken up by local community members in our province demonstrates the dedication that Ontarians have to protecting our natural resources. One of these important projects includes an initiative by the High Park Nature Centre. They will lead an innovative urban bat project to learn about the brown bat and northern long-eared bat, which are both species at risk. As well, the Canadian Wildlife Federation will work to better understand concerns with the American eel in the Ottawa River.

These are just two of the many projects we have taken on, and that local community groups have supported, that demonstrate our commitment to protecting biodiversity in Ontario.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the minister of health, children and youth services. Children’s mental health agencies are exasperated. One in five young people in Ontario—

Interjections.

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

You’ve put two ministries together. I need to know which one.

Mr. Bill Walker: Sorry, Speaker. Children and Youth Services.

Children’s mental health agencies are exasperated. One in five young people in Ontario needs mental health services. Demand is going up, and so are wait times. Among the many expert groups that have expressed concern, there is a consensus that we’re facing a tsunami.

Although your government claims to be increasing services, kids’ mental health services in Ontario have been in fact grappling with unprecedented cuts to their operational funding over the years, while residential services have not seen any investment at all.

As the minister responsible, what are you prepared to do to remedy the situation and help these kids in need?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you for the question with respect to children-and-youth mental health. As we know, the first three years of our Ontario comprehensive mental health strategy was focusing on children, and we have made a big difference in our communities over that period of time.

However, I believe the member opposite also recognizes that we recently released our Moving on Mental Health strategy, which directly will impact this sector and is in direct response to what we’ve been hearing from parents, because certainly we have been hearing from parents, from families, from youth and children. We’ve put together the strategy. I’ll let you know a little bit more about the strategy in the supplementary. Certainly, our commitment to children’s mental health remains strong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Kids need action, not more strategy and study. Mr. Speaker, I question this minister’s commitment to the children and youth she’s tasked with advocating for. I respectfully remind her that the agencies she’s responsible for have had their budgets decrease steadily in relation to the inflation rate. Since 1992, this sector has seen a meagre 8% overall increase. As such, many could close doors and send kids to the hospital emergency department as a last resort, the most costly form of care.

Having wasted $1 billion on gas plants and sent millions overseas in debt interest charges, will the minister identify where she will find the money to fund community-based children’s mental health programs and services?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Again, with respect to children’s mental health, we have in fact been increasing our investments in our communities. We have increased our mental health workers in schools in all our communities. We have added 770 new mental health workers in our communities. Our budget will grow to $93 million for children’s mental health.

Our Moving on Mental Health strategy will ensure that there’s a lead agency, so that parents don’t have to tell their stories over and over again. We’ll bring communities together. We’ll ensure that the system is easy for parents.

I have certainly been listening to parents and our youth, and we will continue to do that. We have been acting. It’s not just a strategy; it’s not just words. We are absolutely committed to children’s mental health.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION /

Est-ce que la ministre peut me dire pourquoi les élèves francophones de l’est de Toronto sont obligés de se déplacer jusqu’au centre-ville ou de transférer vers une école de langue anglaise pour faire leurs études secondaires?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think the answer here is that when you look at the investment we have made in new French-language schools—so people understand we’re talking here about French-as-a-first-language school boards, the French public and French Catholic school boards—in fact, we have spent about $1.3 billion, investing in new schools for the two French-language school boards over the past 10 years. There has been a significant investment in schools.

The way the process works is that we ask the school boards each year to submit their capital plans and to identify their priorities and to present a business case for each school for which they are requesting funding, and we look at those business cases. We have announced, in this recent announcement that we’re making, a number of new French Catholic schools and French public schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Speaker, there are 1,000 French-language students in the east end of Toronto, and that number is set to increase by 50% in the next three to four years. The minister needs to know that this is an urgent need, but it seems there is no plan in place to address it. In an effort to secure a high school in our neighbourhood, both public and Catholic school parents are working together in order to secure school space that currently exists in underutilized schools.

Quand est-ce que la ministre va s’engager à rencontrer ces parents et à travailler avec eux pour trouver une école dans l’est de Toronto pour les élèves francophones du quartier?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I can only repeat that the process is—for the relevant school boards, the French public and the French Catholic school boards—to identify the schools and present those in their capital plan. They are responsible for making those business cases.

But just to reassure the member, in fact, we have actually announced 12 new French-language schools in this year’s capital plan. But the boards need to put forward the business cases, because we have actually provided capital for Viamonde, for example, the French public board that is responsible for Toronto. I was very delighted to announce new schools for both of the boards that work in the Toronto area. I just want to assure the member that we are flowing money to—

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

PROPANE SAFETY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, in my riding of Oakville, we’ve got many businesses, both small and large, that sell and use propane on a daily basis. I’ve always understood the need for the careful use of propane and the safety requirements for propane handling in business. As a very volatile product that needs to be handled carefully to protect both workers and the public, it’s important that there be comprehensive regulations and requirements around the storage and handling of this product, and we need robust certification requirements for businesses and individuals who work with the product.

Given the importance of safe propane handling, Minister, would you please share specifically how the government ensures that we have safe handling and storage of propane in Ontario?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Oakville for raising this very serious and important topic related to public safety. Proper handling and storage of propane is very important to maintaining and promoting safety in Ontario. That’s why we continue to implement the recommendations from the Propane Safety Review Panel of 2008. We’ve already implemented measures such as annual inspections, propane transfer facilities, increased training requirements for employees, and risk and safety management plans as part of the licensing process. The implementation of these recommendations has gone a long way to enhance public safety in Ontario.

As the public sector regulator, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, known as the TSSA, is charged with overseeing the requirements and the business of handling propane. The ministry works very closely with the TSSA.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the minister for informing the House today about the regulations and requirements that the government already has in place to ensure that the public safety in Ontario with regard to the storage and handling of propane is well handled. It’s comforting to hear that we’ve taken action to ensure public safety when dealing with a product as volatile as propane.

However, as the representative of a riding where there’s a large number of small businesses and small business owners that use and sell propane, I’ve also heard concerns about the overregulation of businesses that need to use propane on a daily basis. It’s important to me that sufficient public safety is maintained, but it’s got to minimize the burden on business as well.

Minister, I’ve heard that your ministry is looking at specific measures to achieve such a result. Would you please inform the House what those new initiatives are that you currently have under consideration?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to inform the House about the proposals to enhance the propane safety regime in Ontario and the ones that are currently under consideration.

The proposals aim to improve safety while minimizing the burden on business by increasing efficiency and simplifying regulatory requirements. Proposals put forward for consideration range from a change in the inspection model to streamlining the approval process and simplifying training requirements. Some of these proposals arise from the recommendations received from the Propane Safety Review Panel that stated that the TSSA should inspect facilities annually until enough data has been gathered to develop alternative approaches to enforcement.

Staff continue to accept and review public feedback on these proposals that look to relieve the regulatory burden on business while of course maintaining and enhancing public safety.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Health. As we know, Kalydeco is a new drug which appears to be a miracle treatment for some cystic fibrosis patients, and it gives hope to families with loved ones who are suffering from it.

In recent weeks, we have listened to the government’s lame excuses for the delays in the approval of funding for Kalydeco for cystic fibrosis patients like Madi Vanstone, but it’s not just Madi Vanstone. In my riding, I have been approached by three families who have been affected by cystic fibrosis and to whom Kalydeco represents hope—three families in my riding. Today I’m standing up for Maddie Phipps and Shannon and Matthew Bain, all of Georgetown; and Lindsay Shaw of Fergus—all of whom have cystic fibrosis and all of whom need Kalydeco.

My question to the minister is simple: Why are these families being forced to wait so long for her to announce funding for Kalydeco?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to be very clear that Kalydeco is a drug that offers real hope for some people with cystic fibrosis. I know that. I think it’s important, though, that we do negotiate for these drugs. We have worked on a pan-Canadian approach on this drug and 29 other drugs, and we have successfully reached agreement with drug companies at prices that make us able to fund more drugs for more people.

For the opposition parties to suggest that we simply pay whatever price the pharmace