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

February 18, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Feb-18 (PDF)

L101 - Tue 18 Feb 2014 / Mar 18 fév 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 18 February 2014 Mardi 18 février 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR JOBS

AND PROSPERITY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’INFRASTRUCTURE

AU SERVICE DE L’EMPLOI

ET DE LA PROSPÉRITÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

RAINBOW FLAG

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

JOB CREATION

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

JOB CREATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

MINIMUM WAGE

ENERGY POLICIES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SPORTS FUNDING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

GENDER IDENTITY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BOB MACKIE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CHINESE NEW YEAR

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS

AGINCOURT RECREATION CENTRE

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

COVENANT HOUSE

MONESTIME FAMILY

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAMIL HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE TAMOUL

FINANCIAL ADVISORS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LES CONSEILLERS FINANCIERS

MILLION JOBS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA CRÉATION

D’UN MILLION D’EMPLOIS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (TEMPORARY

HELP AGENCIES), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

GASOLINE PRICES

WASTE REDUCTION

WIND TURBINES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SHALE BEACH

HYDRO RATES

COAST GUARD AUXILIARY

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LCBO OUTLET

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU DROIT À LA PARTICIPATION

AUX AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR JOBS

AND PROSPERITY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’INFRASTRUCTURE

AU SERVICE DE L’EMPLOI

ET DE LA PROSPÉRITÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 5, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2013 / Projet de loi 141, Loi édictant la Loi de 2013 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Thank you, Speaker. I first of all want to thank members of the Legislature for agreeing to have my leadoff on this bill deferred. I have been looking forward to participating in debate on Bill 141.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member, I have to confirm that this is your leadoff.

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, if you don’t trust me, Speaker, you might check with the Clerk, but it is my leadoff, yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s precisely what I’m doing, but I was asked to make sure that, because of the stand-down, this was it. So the clock will stop and reset. The member from Newmarket–Aurora, on the lead.

Mr. Frank Klees: Thank you, Speaker. I am pleased to participate in this, my leadoff, on debate of Bill 141,

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2013.

Speaker, there were a number of issues that I raised in the very few minutes that I had when the minister introduced this bill, and I indicated at that time—in fact, I had asked for unanimous consent for the government to allow me some more time than the 30 seconds that I had to actually respond. That was denied by the government and so, fortunately, we’re now here, and I’d ask those watching by parliamentary channel to settle in because we’re in for an hour’s debate here. I do commit to take my full hour because there’s a great deal to be said about this issue and the important priority that infrastructure should have with the government of Ontario.

Hon. David Zimmer: And does have.

Mr. Frank Klees: The member opposite has already started his heckling, the Liberal member, and I haven’t even started. Although we can’t name members, Mr. Zimmer, who—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’ll leave that to you, Speaker.

So we have a bill here that, according to the minister when he made his introductory remarks, is to establish a mechanism to encourage principled, evidence-based and strategic long-term infrastructure planning for the province of Ontario. He indicated that underlying this legislation was the objective to support job creation and training opportunities, economic growth and protection of the environment, and to incorporate design excellence into infrastructure planning. I want to say at the very outset, Speaker, that I and my colleagues in the official opposition fully support every one of those principles.

I will be the first one to say that I believe, when it comes to the important issue of infrastructure in this province, that this is a policy that should be beyond politics. I have said for many years that when it comes to making a commitment to an infrastructure project, assuming that it has been planned and prioritized properly, once the decision has been made to invest in that infrastructure project, it should be beyond political interference from that point on.

There should be no such thing as a stop and start to these programs, which is why we have a serious problem in the province of Ontario today, that, whether it was transit, whether it was the construction of roads, the minute that a new administration came into office, whether that was at the provincial level, whether it was at the federal level or municipal level, the political tug of war started to take place.

Those who had the strongest voice in terms of “I don’t want that project in my backyard” or “I think that it’s more important to build a transitway here rather than there”—what took place in this province and continues to take place is that those with the loudest voices get heard and important infrastructure projects are stalled.

So we can talk as much as we want in this place on behalf of our constituents and argue that gridlock is our top priority, but until we get to the point here in this Legislature of putting in place legislation that actually will lift the decisions about whether those infrastructure projects get implemented, get built and financed in the long term without interference, we’ll continue to fail the people of this province.

To start, I want to speak to one issue that the minister has raised in this bill which I agree with, and that’s the need for long-term planning for infrastructure. In his bill, the minister made reference to the importance of having an inventory of our infrastructure assets in this province. I agree. In fact, he makes reference to the fact that infrastructure planning and investment should take into account, of course, applicable budgets or fiscal plans.

He indicates in this legislation that the planning and investment should take a long-term view, that decision-makers should take into account the needs of Ontarians by being mindful of, among other things, demographic and economic trends. He indicated that it’s important that infrastructure planning and investment should foster innovation by creating opportunities to make use of innovative technologies, services and practices, particularly where doing so would utilize technology, techniques and practices developed in Ontario. Again, I fully support the objective that the minister has set out in this legislation.

But I want to talk about the issue of the inventory of our assets. Speaker, we cannot make an intelligent decision and a responsible decision about which infrastructure projects should be prioritized if we don’t know the existing infrastructure inventory and its state of repair or disrepair.

Speaker, whether it’s a provincial politician or politicians at the local municipal level, when an announcement is made that new infrastructure funds will be available, it’s very easy to immediately identify the high-profile projects within the community, within the province, that will give us the biggest bang for our buck politically.

And so all too often when announcements are made for new infrastructure funding, we default to announcing or prioritizing a project within our community that’s going to give the biggest public relations kick to us, that we can cut the ribbons on, that we can get the accolades on—and particularly if we are nearing the crazy season called elections. As we all know, the closer we get to an election, the more compromising the decisions can become, not in terms of what is the most important infrastructure project, but what is the most important politically beneficial project for me.

And so we hear about the infrastructure deficit in this province.

We know that under the streets of the city of Toronto, or any other municipality in the GTA and across the province, there is an invisible infrastructure that is being ignored by far too many who have been placed in positions of responsibility to ensure that that important infrastructure is protected. Speaker, I’m talking about the pipes that deliver the drinking water to our communities. I’m talking about the waste water management system that is invisible, that is underground, that we count on.

And the only time there is real evidence that that infrastructure, that invisible infrastructure, is being ignored is when we have circumstances such as happened in the city of Toronto just within the last few months, where we see systems backing up, people’s basements and homes filling up with water. Why? Because that invisible infrastructure has been neglected and it’s incapable of handling those issues, those storms that may only happen once every 50 years, maybe only once every 100 years. But that’s why long-term planning is important and that’s why people get elected: to make those decisions.

And yes, it may be that sometimes that new library, as nice as it would be to be able to construct that new library—sometimes the decision may have to be made by that council, by the ministry of the provincial government or by the ministry of the federal government that, no, that project is not a priority in your community because we have evidence that there is a crumbling infrastructure that should, in fact, be prioritized.

We have an example here in the city of Toronto. We hear what’s happening to the Gardiner Expressway—a lot of debate. Here is what’s disturbing about that one particular infrastructure investment. We have it on good authority that hundreds of millions of dollars have, over the years, been put aside for the maintenance of that important piece of infrastructure, and millions of dollars have not been spent on in fact maintaining it, and so we are now in a crisis situation. And what could have cost us a few million to properly maintain it over the years is now going to be a multi-million- and perhaps billion-dollar problem that we have to address.

How do we deal with it? Well, the minister rightfully—I want to commend him—made reference to asset management. We have had that discussion. What concerns me is that the legislation that we have before us speaks about it in a broad framework sense, but there is nothing here that is substantive that is going to change anything, after this legislation is passed, from the circumstances we have today. We have talked for years in this Legislature about the importance of asset management. Everybody agrees that it’s important.

To the credit of the Ministry of Transportation, a number of years ago they partnered with the Good Roads Association to put in place an asset management program, primarily focused on bridges, in the province. The ministry invested—I understand that currently the investment is up to some $750,000. Good Roads has made their contribution and is managing that process. There are a number of municipalities that are part of that program and they’re benefiting from it.

Here is the problem: I also understand that Good Roads has now had a number of meetings with, certainly, the former minister; I believe they’ve met with the current minister as well, twice. I have made a written submission to the minister as well, supporting Good Roads in their request for additional funding to ensure that that asset management program is fully extended across the province, is made available to all municipalities, and is expanded beyond the asset of bridges, because the same principle, the same platform, can be used for other infrastructure assets in our province.

Unless something’s changed since the last time I’ve had communication on this, the ministry has essentially shut that file down from the standpoint of saying, “There’s no more money. We’re not going to carry on.” Speaker, that’s our problem.

There are partial solutions. It’s not that people in the province—whether it’s municipalities, whether it’s professionals, whether it’s politicians, there’s never an issue in most cases of understanding what the problem is and what the solution is. The big gap exists between making the pronouncement and developing a solution and actually implementing it. That’s the problem. We have, in the case of asset management, a strong organization that is province-wide that is willing to take the lead.

We have the technology, and all that is missing is the minister stepping in and saying, “Yes, we will fund this in the same way; there has to be a long-term, 10-year plan for infrastructure.” The asset management program that underlies that infrastructure program also has to be part of that long-term planning.

But, Minister, along with planning comes providing the resources. What we can’t do is mandate an asset management program and then say to the municipalities, “You have to pay for it.” I believe this should be a partnership, and the partnership should be the federal government, the provincial government and municipalities. But it is only the province of Ontario that can, through legislation, make an asset management program mandatory.

I’m advising the minister that I will be bringing forward an amendment to his legislation that will, in fact, add that word “mandatory” into the legislation so that it actually has some teeth. I believe that that is so fundamental to dealing with the infrastructure crisis that we have in the province of Ontario that I’m going to appeal to the minister, to my colleagues on all sides of the House, to look at this very, very seriously.

If there’s anything that we do in this Legislature over the next number of months to ensure that the province of Ontario will be properly served by us on the infrastructure file, it will be that we put in place a mandatory asset management program province-wide that will apply not only to municipal infrastructure assets but to provincial infrastructure assets as well.

Speaker, I’d like to move on to another issue, and that is the legislation dealing with the issue of the long-term plan. I struggle with this. Again, as I say, I support the minister’s initiative, and I support what is in this legislation when it talks about the importance of putting in place a 10-year strategy and a 10-year infrastructure plan. What is puzzling to me is why it’s going to take three years to put a 10-year plan in place. I don’t know what this government has been doing for the last 10 years.

We’ve had proclamation after proclamation now, from three different ministers who have had responsibility for this file. They talk about putting in place a long-term plan, they talk about putting in place reliable and sustainable funding for infrastructure, and here we are 10 years later. Once again, we have a document, a legislative framework, that is telling us that it’s important to have a 10-year plan, but the government is saying it’ll take them three years to put the 10-year plan together.

Now, who isn’t frustrated by that? How can we blame our municipal partners for being cynical about what goes on here and what is being proclaimed in this place? Perhaps the public can be fooled by headlines. This government has been so good at redrafting press releases, at restaging public announcements and at marching their ministers out into wonderful backdrops to make another pronouncement that was made two years before, two years before that and two years before that. It’s like it’s news all over again.

Ms. Catherine Fife: But it never happens.

Mr. Frank Klees: But it never happens—not a shovel in the ground. Speaker, I’m not sure how to deal with this, because—and my friends in the press gallery are not going to be happy with me for this—I don’t understand why the media isn’t holding the government to account every time they get a press release where they know full well the only things that have been changed are the date and the name of the minister. Why is it not that the press gallery holds these people accountable and exposes them for what’s going on?

The only reason the public isn’t holding the government to account is because they’re too busy to do that kind of work. They’re too busy to keep track of where those announcements were, when they took place and under which ministers’ names that old announcement was uncovered, re-presented, repackaged and respun. With all due respect, I’m going to challenge our press gallery to do some research on the announcements from the Minister of Infrastructure, from the Minister of Transportation, and his predecessors. It’ll be quite some revealing exercise.

What have we been getting for our investment in government for the last 10 years, other than a bunch of retreaded announcements that have made things ever worse for us?

So what is it going to take? Well, I think it will take holding this government to account. I am hoping that the leader of the third party is serious. I read in the media this morning that Ms. Horwath has sent a letter to the Premier essentially drawing a line in the sand, saying, “I want to put you on notice that we are not going to play this game anymore.” You know, I don’t agree with probably most of what Andrea Horwath wants to do to this province in terms of giving the till away and spending money we don’t have, but here is what I do agree with her on.

This is from the Toronto Star—and, by the way, I tried to get a copy of Ms. Horwath’s letter today before the debate, and I was told that they’re still reformatting. So as soon as I get it, I’ll share it with you. But obviously the Toronto Star had it before anyone else did. I’m not sure how that happens, but here is what the Toronto Star said the NDP leader wrote. Do any members of the NDP have a copy of their leader’s letter?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Well, we didn’t bring it with us.

Mr. Frank Klees: They don’t, Speaker.

Here is what Toronto Star said the leader wrote: “I will not support any new taxes, tolls or fees that hit middle-class families.” You know what? Quite frankly, I think people in this province are overtaxed, and when we look at the waste that this government has allowed to take place under their watch over the last 10 years, Speaker, and whether—

Interjection.

Mr. Frank Klees: The Minister of Health just identified herself here. She didn’t like where I’m going because she knows full well that what I’m going to say is that one of those areas of waste, lack of accountability and lack of transparency is her own file, the Ornge file. She also won’t like the fact that we know that that kind of waste continues in another one of her files, the eHealth file.

We also know that if, in fact, the Auditor General were to check up on any other area or department in her ministry, he would find that there are other multi-, multi-millions of dollars of waste taking place because of a lack of oversight, a lack of accountability and a lack of transparency. We know that that’s taking place across this government.

So our position is, no, Madam Wynne, you don’t immediately, knee-jerk, go back into the pockets of hard-working taxpayers in this province. What you do, first of all, is you line your ministers up and you say, “Do your job on behalf of the people of this province. Be accountable and ensure that your ministry is doing its job. Be accountable to the taxpayers.” Then you go to your bureaucrats and you say, “Be accountable and, by the way, if you’re not, there are consequences.” And what should happen, based on the evidence, is that the whole bunch of the ministers should resign.

They should then ask their deputies to resign and their assistant deputies to resign and keep going until you get to the point where people in this province and the bureaucrats in this government actually understand that there is accountability and that there will be consequences for people who don’t do their job.

But that isn’t the way this government does business, Speaker. Here is what they do: “Well, it’s just another billion. It’s just another billion. We’ll shuffle the chairs. We’ll move one minister to the other.”

Hon. John Milloy: I heard Montgomery Burns give that speech in The Simpsons.

Mr. Frank Klees: You see, they consider that’s very funny, right? I would suggest, Speaker, that the government House leader, whose job is to defend the indefensible every day in this House—why? Because the ministers are afraid to stand up on their own two feet and defend themselves.

And so they defer to the government House leader—and the people of the province are getting tired of this—to get up and read his speaking notes that say nothing about the issue and that continue to deflect what is important to the people of this province, and that is that their tax dollars are treated with respect, that the people who work for them in the government of Ontario do so with accountability and that ministers of this government take responsibility.

There has not been a minister in this government who has shown any sense of remorse for what has taken place in their ministry wasting multi-millions of tax dollars. In the meantime, what have we got? Back in our constituency offices, we are dealing with families who are being told by ministers of the crown, “I’m sorry; there’s not enough money to ensure that your autistic child has the kind of support and care that they need.”

We’re being told in our constituency offices, by families and by seniors, that essential home care that was provided for them in their retirement homes, that was provided for them in their own homes through home care, in seniors’ homes, in long-term-care homes—they are calling us in our constituency offices saying, “We’re being told that essential home care services can no longer be continued.” They’re being asked to help the government by rationing the kind of home care support services that they’re getting.

We’re being told that people in our constituencies who are in desperate need of cancer care drugs are being told, “No, we’re not going to make a political decision about saving your life. We’re going to leave that to a bureaucratic organization. If it means that you’re being told that you can’t have the life-saving cancer care drug, then so be it, because we’re doing the honourable thing as government by not interfering.”

Speaker, the last time I looked, you and I got elected by people in our ridings to advocate for them, to intervene for them, on the issues that matter to them. When it gets to the point where government ministers—and backbenchers, who often don’t have the courage to stand up for their constituents against the ministers who they know are doing the wrong thing—when it gets to that point, we know that we have a government that has lost the trust, the confidence and the authority to be there.

I believe the day is coming very soon when the people in this province will have an opportunity to make a decision about whether or not the kind of excuses, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency—whether they want that type of government to continue.

It’s a rhetorical question. I don’t have to answer it. We heard a poll, as recently as this morning, that 70% of the people in this province believe that another political party should take control of this government. The 30% are, without question, the families of the ministers and the backbenchers here, and the people who are afraid. You see, 30%—that will be the rest of the bureaucrats who are afraid to have the light of accountability shone into their departments. The rest of the bureaucrats, the efficient ones, the responsible ones—and there are millions—are with us.

They’re with the 70% of people in this province who have concluded, without the help of the media, that it’s time for a change in this province.

Anyway, let me get back to this bill. I want to make a specific reference to the principles that are outlined here in the bill. It talks about how projects should be prioritized; this is under

section 6 of the legislation. I’m going to read from the bill because I think it’s important, again, to emphasize that this is an area that I fully support. I believe my colleagues do as well.

I want to speak to how easy it is to craft legislation that sounds good but is absolutely meaningless. That’s why it’s so frustrating for some of us in this place as we stand up to debate legislation. We spend 20 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour, and essentially we’re preaching to the converted here. The minister knows it’s meaningless because what he’ll do when it’s all over is, he’ll take great pride in having another piece of legislation proclaimed, and nothing else is going to happen.

Stakeholders will come forward, as they have already done on many other occasions. Stakeholders are invited to come in to testify at public hearings. They will come forward, and they will make their recommendations in terms of amendments that should be incorporated into this legislation to make it better and to make it practical. They will take time out of their schedules to prepare, to come here, to make their presentation, and they will leave and they will have been ignored. They will have been ignored.

Speaker, if you ever took a look and did the analysis—in fact, I’ve been working with the library and asked them to do a

summary for me, over the last 10 years, of the number of amendments that have been proposed by the opposition parties on legislation and how many of those amendments were actually incorporated into legislation. It’s a work in progress, but I can tell you at this point that, on average, out of 1,000 amendments, there might be two that were actually incorporated into legislation.

Members of the government party who sit on standing committees will know that that’s a fact because any observer of standing committees will know that the minute an amendment is read that is proposed by an opposition member of the Legislature, you can see the penguins lifting their hands voting no. They are told, “You cannot have a mind of your own.” Even if a member of a standing committee on the part of the government believes that amendment is worthwhile, they’re not allowed to vote in favour of that amendment.

They’d be yanked from their committee appointment; they’d be hauled into the whip’s office or the leader’s office and disciplined. That’s a reality. That’s what happens here, and Speaker, you know that.

If there’s anything we need in this place, it’s to actually reinvigorate the process. The process is good. There’s nothing wrong with the process: first and second reading, committee. If all of that was allowed to work without the heavy-handed interference of those who just want it their way, we would have a dynamic government. But we don’t because the Premier’s office, the whip’s office and the minister’s office just won’t let it happen. It’s too threatening to them, and there are consequences to that.

In any event, back to the minister’s principles of infrastructure-related requirements. It says that “whether the construction of the infrastructure asset would reasonably be expected to,

“(

i) be a long-term return on investment”—we agree;

“(ii) stimulate productivity and economic competitiveness”—we agree;

“(iii) maximize tax assessment values and tax base growth”—we agree; and

“(iv) support any other public policy goals of the government of Ontario or of any affected municipalities in Ontario”—I have some question about that.

I’m going to give you one example here, where I’m concerned that this statement really has nothing to do with the objective of this plan but has more to do with accommodating some special interests. There’s a reference which on the surface is well meaning, and that is the requirement that infrastructure projects should engage apprentices. Who could possibly speak about that in principle?

Specifically, the legislation states as follows, under

section 8—first of all, it defines “apprentice” as follows: It means, “an apprentice within the meaning of the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009, and includes any person deemed under that act to be an apprentice for any purpose.” So the definition of an apprentice relates to the meaning of that term under the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act. Then it goes on to say:

“Apprentices to be engaged

“

(2) The government shall require that such numbers of apprentices as may be prescribed are employed or engaged for the purposes of the construction or of the maintenance by the government of infrastructure assets.”

Here’s why I have serious concerns, and I believe my colleagues in the official opposition have serious concerns about this as well, and I’ve heard from many stakeholders in the construction trades industry. They want to see this removed, and one of our amendments will deal with that. The concern is that, first of all, the whole debate around the College of Trades issue is one that is highly controversial.

Most employers within the construction and trades industry are highly opposed to the bureaucracy that is being created by this government, and we can begin to see, already, the fault lines in that policy and in that bureaucracy forcing apprentices, forcing tradesmen into a bureaucratic organization that, in the end, doesn’t benefit them, and it does not benefit the industry and certainly not the economy.

But the point of this clause in this bill—for the government to intervene, and to encroach by saying, “You must hire a certain number of apprentices into a particular project,” is the beginning of ensuring that, rather than have efficiency in a project, we have a bureaucratic inefficiency. There are going to be contractors who will refuse to bid if, in fact, they will be handcuffed by this clause. This is an area that the government does not need to get involved in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with infrastructure projects and with ensuring that the long-term infrastructure needs of our province are met.

And I am going to appeal to the minister to listen, if not to me, to stakeholders, very serious stakeholders, who I know have been making the same point with the minister. This is not something that is essential.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Zero representation.

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister is shaking his head and we’ll have some discussion around that, and I’m sure that the minister will not want to ignore very important stakeholders who have a serious issue with this. As I indicate, we have a problem with that particular principle.

The fifth principle is, “provide a foundation for further infrastructure projects.” I’m not sure if that means anything, but I think we can support at least three out of the five principles here, and work with the government to ensure that we have a good framework brought forward.

Now, there’s a reference here to consultation, under

section 6(3). I’ll read it:

“Consultation required before issuing criteria

“

(3) Before issuing criteria under subsection (2), the minister shall consult, in the manner that the minister considers appropriate, with any persons or bodies that the minister considers appropriate given the content of the proposed criteria, including any potentially affected ministries, crown agencies or broader public sector entities.”

So the minister is saying in legislation that he’ll consult, but he’ll only consult with people that, to him or whoever the subsequent minister is, are appropriate. Well, pray tell, who wouldn’t be appropriate to consult with in the province of Ontario? If there are stakeholders, if there are people who want to provide input on these criteria, why would anyone be excluded? And yet, we know from experience that that has been the practice of this government.

There are some people that they are pleased to listen to and welcome, and there are others who are excluded from that so-called “conversation” that the Premier likes to talk about. What we’re saying—and what I’d like to say to the minister—is that if you are serious about wanting to get this legislation right, then you won’t exclude people from that consultation, and they will be welcome. We know who you listen to, mostly, but I would ask you to expand the horizon somewhat. We’ll be watching.

I referred earlier to a letter that was sent by the leader of the third party to the Premier. Tim Hudak, the leader of the official opposition, sent a letter to the Premier as well, and also sent a letter to the leader of the third party, as recently as February 9. On January 13, Tim Hudak announced the Million Jobs Act, which will be before this Legislature for debate. Tim Hudak spoke about the importance of the economy to the province of Ontario. If passed, the legislation that he is bringing forward will put people back to work and help young people achieve their goals of employment.

He appealed based on what Statistics Canada showed: that Ontario had lost another 39,000 jobs in December. That’s Ontario. That’s 39,000 jobs lost in just one month under the watch of this government. The government payroll, interestingly, increased by 13,000 employees in the same time. What does that tell us? It tells us that the priorities of this government are wrong. They could not be more wrong and, if allowed to continue under this government, will continue to see Ontario last.

I think that it’s appropriate to let people know as they listen to this debate that there is hope, that there are alternatives, that it does not have to be this way. Under Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative caucus, there are very crystal-clear policies that have been put forward, that are in contrast to the current government. Those policies show a path to ensuring the creation of a million new jobs. They will ensure energy affordability and reliability. There’s a commitment to training more skilled workers to meet the demands in our trades and to help young people find essential jobs.

Speaker, there are far too many young people who in past decades would have already been in the workforce earning a living, taking pride in the work that they are doing, and under the Wynne government, those young people are living in basements with their parents. They are wondering what their future holds. They can’t make the car payments; they can’t make the car insurance payments. Everything is out of their reach. That’s the Ontario that the Wynne-McGuinty Liberals have created.

I want the people in this province to know that there is an alternative and there is hope, and it is not under this current government and it will not be under a new experiment with the New Democrats in this province. We’ve had that experience under Bob Rae. Unfortunately, there are far too many young people who don’t even remember those days, but I ask them to check with their parents, because they’ll remember well what those days were like.

What we need is a return to and a refocus on economic responsibility, on accountability, on transparency in government, a government that actually respects the tax dollars that are sent to Queen’s Park every year, a government that will put young people first, a government that will put seniors first.

I have a meeting, Speaker, later this week in a retirement home in Newmarket with seniors who have been told that their essential long-term-care and home care services are going to be removed from them. They will no longer have the confidence and sense of dignity that they have now because they’ve been able to rely on in-house service. How can anyone take pride in supporting that kind of policy?

I suggest that it is time for a change. We talk in this bill about hard public infrastructure assets. The government has failed miserably on that count and we have before us a piece of legislation that is a framework only, that minister after minister has promised to address and they haven’t, and we have no reason to believe that this leopard will change its spots. We have no reason to believe that the same people are going to start doing something differently, even in the face of an impending election. They can’t—it’s not who they are—but that’s the hard infrastructure assets we’re talking about.

What is even more important is the devastation that this government has brought to our social services and to the people of our province and the young people of our province and the seniors of our province and the disabled in our province who are also being neglected.

What it’s going to take is an absolute change of government, a change of attitude, and it’s going to take a group of people who know how important it is that if you’re going to look after the social service needs of our province, you must have a strong economy to do that. You cannot continue to borrow our way into debt. That’s precisely what’s been happening.

The only group of people in this Legislature who are offering that kind of solution is the Progressive Conservative caucus under Tim Hudak, because it’s this caucus that has put forward documentation of policies that will fix the economy, that will restore confidence in our economy, that will attract investment into the economy, that will encourage business owners to reinvest in their business so that they can create the jobs that young people in our province so desperately need.

That’s only going to come through strong fiscal policy, that’s only going to come if we rip out the red tape that is stifling business in this province, and it’s only going to come if you can actually demonstrate that you have a vision and a plan to go with that vision. Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative caucus have that plan, and I look forward to the next election because that’s the only way that there will be hope for the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to take a couple of minutes just to tap on one aspect of this bill. The minister says it will make infrastructure projects in the province more transparent in the future. That will be a good thing because we’ve learned from the Herb Gray Parkway, for example, some of the mistakes in the past. I know local suppliers in my area aren’t being paid for the work that they’ve done on the Herb Gray Parkway. Hotham Building Materials is owed more than $100,000; Jake’s Crane, almost $100,000 owing; Waltron Trailers in Ridgetown, $50,000; R.J. Cyr, nearly $15,000.

These are suppliers who have provided goods and services in good faith to a government of Ontario infrastructure project, and they haven’t been paid. Some of them have had to resort very recently to expensive legal action to try to get the government to make the suppliers—who they’re still continuing to give money to—pay their bills.

As this bill goes forward, we need assurances from the government that they will put in place stipulations that if government money is coming into a project, the people receiving that money will pay their bills, will pay their local suppliers and will not hang them out to dry and not force them to take expensive legal action to try to recover what is rightfully theirs. It’s all a matter of principle, Speaker, that in Ontario, when small business people are doing business with this government, they will be fairly treated and fairly compensated. I’d like to see that somehow put into the bill as this bill goes forward.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I appreciate my friend from Newmarket–Aurora’s comments. I want to assure the member from Newmarket–Aurora that we will be listening to him very carefully. He and I continue to meet constructively to put ideas together as we move to actually ensuring there’s no light between the plan and the vision the province has in the budget. Integrating it into a 10-year budget, I think, is a huge step forward.

I just want to comment briefly on what the challenge is. Around the world, Madam Speaker, it is generally the standard that 5% of your gross domestic product should be spent on infrastructure. That has been the goal when I was at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t agree with that. This is not a partisan shot at the official opposition, but from 1973 to 2003, we were spending, in Ontario, somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion in infrastructure, or 0.25%. Today, we’re spending $13 or $14 billion, which is about 2% of GDP.

The formula has been traditionally that the province spends 2% of GDP and municipalities 1%, which they’re doing. The federal government now is down to 0.25% or less 0.5% of GDP. So the infrastructure strategy and budget we have and the plan will sustain in the long term that commitment to 2%. The challenge is that the federal government, which takes 60% of the taxes collected in Canada, is only at 0.25% to 0.5%, depending on the province—less than 0.5% in Ontario. This doesn’t work. We will see loss of competitiveness unless our national government does that.

Al Duerr, who at the time was the mayor of Calgary, and I when I was the mayor of Winnipeg negotiated that deal for a five-cent-a-litre gas tax. There is almost net no new money above that, and that’s a municipal transfer. That’s our challenge.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened carefully and attentively to the member from Newmarket–Aurora on his comments on Bill 141. I believe that he linked it very well to the need for the leader—whether it’s Dalton McGuinty, Kathleen Wynne or, for that matter, Tim Hudak—to have a vision and a plan. We’ve heard over the last several months of the lack of a vision or a plan, jumping around and throwing money out at by-elections that really aren’t linked to an overarching plan.

That’s the most troubling part of it: Whether it’s a gas plant during an election that’s being decided, spending billions of dollars to basically buy an election—that’s the point that Mr. Klees was making. The lack of a vision and a plan has been troubling for the last 10 years of jerking around, spending money like drunken sailors and spending money in excess of the growth in the economy. That’s exactly why we’re in the trouble that we’re in.

I think Mr. Klees, in his remarks, quite succinctly outlined the perilous position that Ontario is in today. The third-largest expenditure in Ontario—Madam Speaker, you know this as well. The province of Ontario is in a bit of a tailspin. We spend more on servicing the debt—that’s the interest on our accumulated debt—than we do on many other expectations of service in the province of Ontario. It’s affecting most seniors and people in Ontario. The unemployed, the most vulnerable in Ontario are being affected by the performance of this government.

All the good things—when Premier Wynne speaks, she’s a great communicator, but I don’t believe a word she says. That’s the problem. We heard that during the by-elections: throwing money at hospitals, racetracks—you name it. What’s missing in Ontario today is a vision and a plan. Where are the jobs? The only thing I’ve heard, even from the Minister of Infrastructure over there—Mr. Murray said that he wants to increase taxes by 10 cents per litre of gas. That’s their plan. I don’t think—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure, actually, to comment on some of the reflections that the member from Newmarket–Aurora has provided today on this important piece of legislation. If we get infrastructure right, then there are thousands of jobs to be created, so I think that we share that vision that the member has communicated.

We also welcome the provision of increased use of apprenticeships, but other than that, we really don’t see a response to what the construction industry is actually telling us is a badly flawed model for building infrastructure. We will not address the infrastructure deficit if we keep doing things the same way that we always have. For example, at a time when foreign global companies are increasingly winning huge construction contracts, there are no requirements spelled out for increased Ontario content. This should be a shared goal of ours: to create jobs in Ontario.

I will also note that the member from Newmarket says that he’s looking forward to the next election, because, of course, he’s not going to be in the next election. He has provided 18 and a half years to this House, and I personally want to say thank you for that. But his frustration on the infrastructure file—which, he rightly points out, the Liberals have had over 10 years to address—is a shared frustration that we have. We, of course, on this side of the House, have tried to address and come to the table with some solutions, like participating in the budget process and bringing forward ideas throughout that well-documented process of budget 2012 and budget 2013.

These are the facts: We have a $100-billion deficit on the infrastructure file, and 60% of the infrastructure that needs to be replaced in this province is over 50 years old. This should be an issue that we all refocus our attention on. The piece of legislation that’s before us, when it gets to second reading—we are going to be making sure that whatever implementation strategy is on the table actually works and brings resolution on the infrastructure file.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the member for Windsor–Tecumseh, the Minister of Transportation, the member for Durham and the member for Kitchener–Waterloo for their comments.

I will simply say this—oh, before I do, I do want to acknowledge that that letter that I referred to from the leader of the third party was in fact delivered to me, reformatted, halfway through my speech, so it does exist.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning on this bill. There is no question that infrastructure should be and must be a priority of the Ontario government. I have serious concerns about the ability of the current government, notwithstanding this piece of legislation, to actually take it to the next step and to implement the policies that are necessary to ensure that the infrastructure deficit in our province is finally addressed.

There is also no question in my mind that there is only one government that will have the ability to put in place the economic policies as well as to implement their vision for a better Ontario, and that is the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. I encourage people in the province of Ontario to take note of what their options are. In my opinion, there is really only one option, and that is Tim Hudak as Premier and the Progressive Conservative caucus as their government. That is what will give us a better Ontario. Thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. I’m told that I’m to take a lead on this as well. I don’t know that I will ever stretch it out to the full hour, but it is my pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party and our leader, Andrea Horwath, on this issue, Bill 141, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act.

I was in the House late last year when the minister first spoke to this and gave us his view of the bill. He started out by talking about former Premier Bill Davis and Mr. Davis’s vision for Ontario’s future that he laid out back in the mid-1960s. I’m not sure that my friend the minister has the same crystal ball that Mr. Davis used back when he was in office, but the minister was boldly predicting that we’re going to see the creation of 800,000 new jobs in Ontario by the year 2016. That certainly caught my attention: 800,000 new jobs in a couple of years.

I’m just curious about those new jobs—when the minister’s staff put together the numbers for him on that, whether they had revised the count after recent events, such as the uncertainty now around the Ring of Fire. Without a dedicated source of power in northwestern Ontario—we all know there are 12 or 13 mines that could open up if they had dedicated power. But without the hydro, the roads, the rail, the transmission lines may never happen and therefore the jobs would never happen, without the commitment to hydro. That was the first link in the jobs chain, Speaker. So some uncertainty lingers around that.

The minister also spoke of having a plan, having a policy and having a budget. He said the plan would be actionable, he said the plan would be measurable and he said the plan would be transparent. Perhaps, Speaker, if the minister were to share with us his crystal ball, we’d just how transparent those job numbers really are. We would like to see where those 800,000 new jobs would be created and what percentage of those jobs would be the type that pay good money. We all know that some jobs these days are temporary, they’re precarious and they come with no health benefits. And how many of these jobs would be doled out by the growing number of temporary job agencies?

Speaker, the minister painted a rosy picture of 800,000 new jobs and, if I’m correct, he tied some of them into this infrastructure bill, Bill 141. Of course, what he failed to mention in calculating those job numbers was that at the same time, in the same place, in the same province, hydro rates are going up, month after month after month. Many people feel that jobs will be lost when companies leave for more affordable locations elsewhere. They can’t afford to pay the hydro here.

They’re moving to other jurisdictions where hydro rates are lower, taking the jobs with them, not expanding their businesses and not creating new jobs. So I believe it’s a fair question to put to the minister—whether these job losses were a part of his calculation—because if we don’t have the same number of companies, they won’t be expanding their employment force and they won’t be hiring some of the people the minister may have been counting on to get to that 800,000 number.

I see, Speaker, a major difference in a well-paying job held by someone working on a government-financed infrastructure project and a not-so-well-paying-job held by someone serving fast food somewhat near a location of an infrastructure project. Don’t get me wrong: I respect everyone who creates a job, holds a job, is looking for a job, or would love to get back into the workforce but for reasons of disability or other health issues can’t do it at this time. But when I hear the number of 800,000 new jobs, I think that perhaps, unintentionally, a rosy picture of a brighter future is created in the minds of some.

So, minister, from your lips to God’s ear; I hope we see a lot of new jobs created. But at the same time, let us do what we can to hold onto the jobs we already have.

Now, I know you can’t be working on infrastructure projects unless you’re working with the banks. You need the money to pay for these. And when we talk about 800,000 new jobs, I’m not sure how many would be coming from the banking sector. I guess not too many, because we heard last year—in fact, Speaker, it was on the very same day that the minister rose in the House to speak to this bill that we heard of the record-breaking profits taken in by the RBC.

Banks, as we all know, have been laying off people, cutting jobs, outsourcing jobs, and now we can see the wheelbarrows—wheelbarrows that should be on construction sites, but instead wheelbarrows full of money, money taken to load boxcars, boxcars full of money going into the pockets of the shareholders of the banks instead of being used to create new jobs. Record profits, and not the creation of a single new job. For every IT job in a bank in Canada, there are four, and sometimes five, people in IT in India and elsewhere working on the same projects.

So to the bankers, Speaker, I say, bring those jobs back to Canada. Share those profits with your employees and your customers, and regain some trust and some respect.

The minister spoke during his kick-off to this bill, Bill 141, about the Herb Gray Parkway and the P3 partnership, which, again, has caused many of us to question why the government seems determined to stick with the P3 models instead of returning to the more traditional methods of tendering out construction work in Ontario. We learned with this P3 project in Windsor and Essex county, and we learned the hard way, that there are flaws that need serious consideration.

You’ll recall, Speaker, the huge safety concern that developed there when a company, a consortium from France and Spain, had the financial ability to bid on the project even without being certified by the CSA to do the work they were hired to do. Girders were built month after month by unqualified, uncertified, unsupervised workers. Yet, at the end of the day, when that shoddy work was exposed, the minister had to step in, put a stop to the work and order an investigation by a panel of experts, which initially gave the opinion that perhaps the shoddy work could be rehabilitated.

But after a further forensic examination of the work—meaning the girders were cut open, Speaker, end to end—an examination of the metal rods and cages holding the girders together, they were found to be a jumble, a rat’s nest, a twisted mess. No rehabilitation, band-aid solution, could be found to put those humpty dumpty girders back together again. That—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The time has come to recess. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Today I’d like to introduce my son, Ryan Jeffrey, who is in the gallery visiting to watch question period today.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure this morning to welcome four people from Huron county who provide valuable services. We have Pauline Douglas from Queensway long-term care in Hensall and Erika King, Seaforth Manor. They’ve done an outstanding job caring for their folks during the winter storms. They are joined today by Christine Ozimek and Richard Sullivan of PCLT. Thank you for being here.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Good morning. Today I would like to welcome Rita Soronen, Susan Towle and Bruce McKenna, who are here from the Dave Thomas Foundation. Thank you for being here, and welcome.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce some guests from Don Valley West in the gallery: Janet MacDougal, Anne Marie Branch, Margaret Casey and Sara Hill.

I’d also like to introduce the Honourable Alvin Curling, who is actually here with 11 of his Seneca College public administration students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re stepping on my toes.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And I know that the Speaker will want to elaborate on the roles that Dr. Curling has played.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You mean you stepped on my toes?

The member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would like to introduce Roxanne Villeneuve Robertson in the gallery today. She is joined by Moe Menard, who is up from the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Speaker, while I do have the floor and my mike is still on, many of the MPPs here are aware that one of our journalists in our family here at Queen’s Park is quite ill, so I want to send on behalf of everybody our best wishes to Jonathan Jenkins.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome the Canadian Black Caucus to Queen’s Park here today, who will be joining many members of this House celebrating Black History Month. Welcome.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning. I would like to welcome the mother of page Jaclyn Hurley, Mary Beth Hurley, and her aunt, Julie May Doherty, to the Legislature today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted that Harrison Clark, a volunteer in my office in London, is joining us today. Welcome, Harrison Clark.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome—even though he was obscured by one of those ornate poles, I have located him—Patrick Kelly, who has joined my staff here at Queen’s Park. I’m looking forward to a long and productive relationship with Patrick here at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome not only Thomas Clifford, who is a page here from St. Paul’s—he’s today’s page captain—but his mother, who is joining us in the gallery: Catherine Pepevnak.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m delighted to welcome here in the Legislature a fine resident of the riding of York–South Weston, Asquith Allen.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to welcome page Michael Sadono from Newmarket. I want to recognize his father, Andre; his mother, Yola; and his sister, Mary.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, Happy New Year to you. I just want to remind all members that this is Kindness Week in Ontario. After question period, the member from Dufferin–Caledon, the member from Nickel Belt and I will be serving Kindness Week Tim Hortons cookies to encourage kindness to everyone. Happy Kindness Week.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today the mother of Sarah Forbes, a new page from Mississauga South. Her mother is Robin Forbes. She’s attending Queen’s Park to see her daughter’s first day in the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, I had the very unique and proud experience in the last session of Parliament to have my daughter serving here as a page in the Legislature. Payton was here four weeks. It is a very unique experience and memorable for the entire family. I’m so pleased that Abbey Jackson, who is the daughter of MPP Rod Jackson from Barrie, is going to be spending the next three weeks here as a page in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Even though the Premier stepped on my toes, I’ll carry on with the introduction. In the Speaker’s gallery, we have a delegation from the college, as pointed out by the Premier, but we also have with us a distinguished member from this place, from Scarborough North in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th; Scarborough–Rouge River in the 37th and 38th; and Speaker in the 38th Parliament, Alvin Curling. Dr. Curling, welcome.

RAINBOW FLAG

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that, as a one-time exception to the prescribed use of the precinct’s courtesy flagpole, the rainbow flag be flown at the Ontario Legislature for the duration of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, subject to being temporarily interrupted for any other flag-raising that would normally occur during this period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent that, as a one-time exception to the prescribed use of the precinct’s courtesy flagpole, the rainbow flag be flown at the Ontario Legislature for the duration of the 2014 Olympic Games, subject to being temporarily interrupted for any other flag-raising that would normally occur during this period. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in review of your first year in office, I noticed that Ontario didn’t create a single new job, that we lost as many jobs in the province as we gained. Unfortunately, Dalton McGuinty’s approach and Premier Wynne’s approach continues to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —on the wrong track. We’re losing jobs—39,000 jobs in December alone—and people are losing hope in the province.

So my question to you is: Given that Ontario did not add a single new job in all of 2013, why do you want to do more of the same? Isn’t it time to try a new and different track to put people back to work and Ontario back in business?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me welcome everyone back. I want to just say to the MPPs-elect, Wayne Gates and Gila Martow, congratulations to them, and we look forward to welcoming them in the Legislature.

Let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, through you, that in fact, he’s got his information wrong. There have been 93,000 net new jobs created in this province just in the last year. Last month there were 23,000 new jobs—6,000 net new jobs. So in fact, the plan that we have in place is working, and that plan is based on investing in infrastructure. It’s based on making sure the people have the skills they need and investing in people so that they can get the training and the skills that they need, and it’s based on working in partnership with business. I hope the Leader of the Opposition can work with us on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: There is the old expression, Premier, that facts are stubborn things. Throughout all of 2013, Ontario did not add a single net new job in the province. We lost as many jobs as we gained, and that’s a record of failure.

I know you try to brush it off on the McGuinty administration like you had once met Dalton McGuinty at a fundraiser or something, even though you were one of the key ministers. You’ve continued on the same path, and that means that we have almost a million people in our province who are out of work. I think we can do a lot better than that.

The second thing that concerns me is that not only, under your premiership, have we not added new jobs in 2013, we now are the only province in Canada that saw welfare rates increase, the number of people stuck on dependency. Ontario is unique, sadly, in this fact, that our proportion has actually increased. To me, that seems to be a record of failure.

I think we can restore hope to Ontario and put people back to work, but we can’t do it the same way. So why are you stuck on the McGuinty agenda? Isn’t it time to try something new to get Ontario back—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that we’re at the beginning of a new session and that the Leader of the Opposition is going to go on the attack; I get that, Mr. Speaker. But I think it’s really important that the Leader of the Opposition be accurate when he goes on that attack. There have been 95,000 net new jobs created in this province just in the last year, so he’s just plain wrong when he puts out that there are no new jobs. It’s just not true.

I look forward to debating with him the issues, but I want to debate with him on a factual basis—so 95,000 net new jobs, and if the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether we will join him on a spiral downward, to lose good-paying jobs in this province and undermine labour in his so-called right to work, we are not going there.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order.

Final supplementary, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, that’s my entire point. The PC caucus is not going to join you on this whirlwind downwards of job losses in the province of Ontario. It’s an entire whirlpool.

I guess you are trying to put your first year in office into the past, but you say there are more jobs. Tell that to the folks who lost their job at Kellogg’s; tell that to the folks who lost their jobs at Heinz; tell that to the folks who lost their jobs at Novartis.

I’ve got a plan to restore hope to Ontario, with more paycheques and better take-home pay. I’ve got a plan to put young people back to work in the province of Ontario, not in Saskatchewan or Alberta. I call it my million jobs plan, a million new jobs over the next eight years. The plan will lower taxes and create jobs, make energy more affordable; less provincial debt and an emphasis on skilled trades.

I’ve got a plan to create a million jobs in this province; you’ve got a plan for a whirlpool of job losses. We reject your plan. We see a better future for Ontarians. Won’t you join us and support our million jobs plan today?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In 2013, employment rose by 95,700 jobs. Since June 2009, 440,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario. So those are the facts. If the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in those facts, that’s his prerogative, but we know that making those investments in people and partnering with business and making sure that we create the environment for business to come to the province—that that’s working.

The drive to the bottom is being led by the Leader of the Opposition. His plan is to cut and slash, to undermine labour, to drive good-wage jobs out of the province. The so-called right-to-work thrust is his. We are not going to go there. We are not going to join him in that downward spiral. We are going to continue to work with business, create partnerships and create jobs.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, Speaker: It’s unfortunate that the Premier’s only plan seems to be the minimum wage act. Our plan is a million-jobs plan for good, middle-class jobs, where people can build a career.

I want to see people have jobs they can build a career around, they can buy a house, they can raise a family—not a job that we’re stuck with.

Premier, I’ll remind you of your record. You told the people of Ontario that your Green Energy Act would create 50,000 jobs; in fact, we found out that it has cost us jobs. Premier, you told us that your big stimulus package in 2008 would create 400,000 jobs; in fact, we lost jobs in 2013. You told us that your HST tax hike would create 600,000 jobs. That’s over a million jobs. Unfortunately, it probably cost us jobs, because there’s a million people in Ontario who have no job to go to today.

Premier, why do you persist in a minimum-wage jobs plan? Why don’t you engage in our plan to create good, middle-class jobs—a million of them—over the next eight years?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The right-to-work initiative that the Leader of the Opposition would like to initiate—would like to see everyone working at minimum wage or lower. That’s where he would like to go.

So, 440,000 net new jobs in this province since June 2009—and there are many, many people who look at Ontario and know that things are going well. Things are looking much better in Ontario than they were, and the Ontario economy is starting to grow again. Who said that, Mr. Speaker? Jim Flaherty, January 5, 2014.

The fact is that we have worked with industry. We have created opportunity, and 440,000 net new jobs have been created in this province. What the Leader of the Opposition would like to do is cut services, slash programs and drive good jobs out of this province. We’re not going there.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, if I wanted people to work at minimum wage jobs, I’d prop you up just like the NDP is doing, because you’re leading when it comes to minimum wage jobs.

I’m not going to argue with you, Premier. If you want a Premier focused on minimum wage jobs, you’ve got one right now. If you want one focused on creating middle-class jobs with better take-home pay, that’s me, that’s my team and that’s my plan.

Premier, you just can’t argue with the facts. You failed to create any new jobs in 2013. You’ve turned Ontario now into the welfare capital of Canada. I think we can do a lot better than that. I see an Ontario that rises again. I see an Ontario that guarantees the next generation that they can make their way in the province of Ontario with good careers and good jobs. I’ve got a plan to do so: the million jobs plan. I’ve asked to meet with you to discuss it. But, Premier, when we’re hemorrhaging jobs in the province, why don’t you take another—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition has a slogan, and I understand it’s a catchy slogan, but there’s no detail about how those jobs would actually be created. In fact, Grant LaFleche of the Welland Tribune says it well: Hudak’s “magical wish thinking is just insulting to our collective intelligence.”

The fact is, there’s no substance to what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. In fact, the specifics that are in the Leader of the Opposition’s plan are specifics that would drive us down, that would undermine the gains that organized labour has made for generations, that would drive good jobs out of the province, and we are not going to go there.

We are going to continue to make the investments that are necessary. Right now, business needs a government to partner with them and make sure they have the supports that are necessary so they can compete in the global economy. That’s the path that we’re going to take.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, Premier, I think we will agree on this: You’re basically one of Dalton McGuinty’s top lieutenants. You supported his policies that got us into a huge mess, that doubled our debt and lost us 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Now, for the year you’ve been in office, you’ve actually made matters worse. We’ve seen manufacturing job losses accelerate in our great province.

I don’t understand, if you are trying to stick to a plan that’s costing us jobs, why you keep putting your head against the wall. Why don’t we turn around and try a brand new plan for the province? If you want details, here are the details. Stop the unaffordable subsidies to wind and solar, to make hydro affordable. Lower taxes in our province. Say we can do more in the skilled trades, to actually look at more trade opportunities by joining the New West Partnership.

Premier, my bill is full of plans and details. It will be debated at 3 o’clock. Why don’t you join me, pass and accelerate it? Let’s get people back to work and restore hope in our great province. That’s what it’s all about.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I think we’re going to stay on the plan that actually is creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. We’ve made enormous recovery since June 2009, and employment has risen by more than 95,000 jobs just in this last year.

Obviously, the track that we’re on that is leading to that job creation and is bringing business to the province—there’s no doubt that we’re in a transition. I’ve said that many times over the past few weeks. We are in a transition. Many manufacturing companies are needing to invest in order to be able to compete globally, and that’s why we’re partnering with them.

One of the things that has surprised me about the Leader of the Opposition is that he has not expressed a willingness or an interest in partnering with businesses, in understanding that that kind of investment, when we’re competing with jurisdictions all around the world—that we have to put that kind of support and resource on the table.

We’re going to continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I am absolutely positive that the recovery that we’re seeing will continue.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I begin, on behalf of New Democrats, I want to welcome and acknowledge Wayne Gates, the MPP-elect for the riding of Niagara Falls. I look forward to him taking his spot with our caucus.

Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Does the Premier agree that middle-class families who make Ontario work are feeling financially stretched in tough times?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I absolutely do agree that we have to be very cognizant of the burdens that middle-class people are feeling. The fact is that they are concerned about many things. One of the things that they’re concerned about is retirement security, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that they’re concerned about is that in their communities, people who are living on minimum wage haven’t had certainty about where that minimum wage is going to go. Another thing that they’re concerned about is that their children will have jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely concerned about the middle class. The plan that we’ve put in place and the six pillars of that plan are targeted directly at making sure that middle-class people retain their jobs and more people can find a middle-class job.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For months, the Premier has made it clear that she plans to move ahead with new, unfair taxes, tolls and fees that will hit household budgets. Can the Premier tell families today how much more she’ll be asking them to pay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, underlying the question from the leader of the third party is an assumption that people don’t want more transit, that people don’t want investment in retirement security, that people don’t want to make sure that there is a business climate that is going to allow them to find a job.

Mr. Speaker, I have said, and I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about the burden that people in this province are carrying. I understand that that’s something we have to take very seriously. When we bring in our budget, we will be paying very, very close attention to that. But that does not mean that the people of this province do not need investment in infrastructure and do not need investment and a structure within which to save for their retirement. I hope that the leader of the third party will support us on those initiatives.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think the Premier missed the premise of the question, which is what people can or cannot afford right now while they’re being squeezed right out of the middle class. On election night, in fact, I heard the Premier dismiss the message that voters sent. She said that she could ignore the voters and ignore the message they sent because, frankly, she’s the Premier.

One thing I heard loud and clear knocking on doors in Niagara Falls and at kitchen tables and doughnut shops all over Ontario through the winter was that families who make Ontario work feel like they are being squeezed right out of the middle class, and they cannot be asked to pay more yet again. Is the Premier going to listen, or will she continue to ignore them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, let me just say first of all that I’ve been in the same doughnut shops and those same kitchens. I do not ignore the commentary from those people, because they are us. There is no separation between us and them, Mr. Speaker. We are in this together, and if we do not make decisions for the long term in this Legislature, if we do not make the investments that are necessary so that there will be jobs, so that there will be infrastructure in this province, then there will be no future for Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

New question: leader of the third party.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. I sent a letter to the Premier yesterday and I made it clear that I will not support a budget that has new taxes or tolls for middle-class families. New Democrats are going to actually respect the people whose paycheques and jobs make Ontario work and focus on making their lives affordable, not squeezing them out of the middle class.

Can the Premier tell hard-working Ontario families how much more the Liberal government is going to make them pay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I got the letter from the leader of the third party, and I appreciate it and I certainly will be responding. I will be reaching out to both leaders and I would like to meet with them as we develop the budget.

But what was not in that letter was a single thing that the leader of the third party believes in. I have no idea if the leader of the third party supports indexing of minimum wage to inflation. I have no idea whether the leader of the third party understands that those same people she’s talking about are worried about retirement security for themselves and for their children. I have no idea if the leader of the third party understands and is interested in the fact that people are worried about how they are going to get to work and how they’re going to get their kids home because of congestion.

So I look forward to meeting with the leader of the third party and I really look forward to hearing from her what she believes in.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment. That was a delayed reaction.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier likes to talk about fairness, but families have been hit with the HST, climbing hydro bills and the highest auto insurance rates in Canada, while the money they send to Queen’s Park is allocated to gas plant cancellations, rising CEO salaries and bloated severance packages. I think it’s time to show the middle-class families who make Ontario work a little bit of respect.

I ask again: How much more is the Premier going to ask them to pay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the leader of the third party has got a list of some very populist ideas and she raised them last year when we talked about the budget. We found common ground, and so, on auto insurance, for example, auto insurance rates dropped by 3.98% in the fourth quarter; we’ve seen a reduction of 4.66%, on average, since August. We’re on track to meet our goal of an average 8% reduction by August 2014. That’s happening; we are doing those things. We had identified auto insurance as an area that we needed to work on, so we’re working on those things.

The leader of the third party does not have the corner on compassion for people who are burdened; she does not have that. We are working to help people in their day-to-day lives and we will continue to do that.

We also have a vision for how we should move ahead in this province. We also believe in something. We believe that investing in people and partnering with business and investing in infrastructure and transit and making sure that people have those resources—that those things are important.

What does she believe in, Mr. Speaker?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats are not going to support new taxes, tolls and fees that hit household budgets. We don’t think that hitting families with yet another sales tax hike is going to actually grow our economy, and we don’t agree with the Hudak Conservatives’ plan for new, private, 407-style toll highways. The families that make Ontario work are being squeezed like never before, and our economy will not succeed if they’re falling further and further behind.

Is the Premier ready to respect the people who sent us here, who voted in by-elections last week and who are tired of being asked to pay more while others get all the breaks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, I am very aware that people are feeling that, as the economy recovers, there are burdens on them, and they are concerned about the future of the province, which is exactly why I think it’s very important that at this moment in our history we have a plan that works with people in the province, that works with businesses in the province, that makes the investments that are necessary in order for us to have that aspirational future that I believe we all want.

We’re going to bring forward a budget that is fair, that is reasonable, paying very close attention to the people who are experiencing those concerns. But at the same time, we are taking actions to help people. I would love to know why the leader of the third party will not commit to support our indexation of minimum wage to inflation. That’s an initiative that I would have thought the third party would have been very interested in.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Let me share with you, Premier, what our caucus learned by visiting over 30 cities over the last couple of months, from Sarnia to Kenora, from Webequie to Oakville, from Timmins to Rockland, and dozens of communities in between: Skyrocketing hydro rates, high taxes and crippling red tape were the top three issues.

Our three biggest problems were created by this government, and they have absolutely no plan to change direction on any of those three issues. As a result, Ontario had 86 consecutive months with higher-than-the-national-average unemployment.

Next Thursday, our leader, Tim Hudak, is bringing his million jobs act to the floor of this Legislature. Premier, will you support his plan to bring people back to work in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. Let’s get some facts straight. Ontario has had over 450,000 net—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thought maybe one might be able to control themselves.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ontario has been increasing jobs over the last number of years, to the tune of 440,000 net new jobs, including the 300,000 that were lost during a recession that affected the global market. We’ve taken initiatives. The members opposite are trying to recycle old plans that are going to bring us down in a downward spiral. They’re looking at the initiatives that we’ve taken and they’re trying to replicate some of what we’ve done, but they do it in a poor way. You’ve been to the table way too late now, because we’re on a track to do even more.

We have in our plan another 100,000 more net new jobs coming forward because of the initiatives that we put in our budget. The member opposite should be supporting that and should be standing up for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Kellogg’s, Heinz, Caterpillar—they’ve all left Ontario. Now, they’re still making cereal, they’re still making ketchup, they’re still making earth-moving equipment; they’re just not making them in Ontario any longer. In fact, one million people woke up this morning in Ontario without a job. That’s your facts, Minister.

You’ve given us the highest energy rates in North America; the highest payroll taxes in Canada. We’re about to have the highest business taxes amongst the large provinces in Canada, and it’s this government that shut down the Red Tape Commission. Skyrocketing hydro, high taxes, crippling red tape: That’s the legacy of the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Will you be supporting Tim Hudak’s plan to put people back to work in the discussion next Thursday?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I still don’t understand why the official opposition doesn’t get the statistics from Statistics Canada that showed 95,000 net new jobs created last year. In fact, what the opposition is intent on is—every job that’s created in this province, they seem to be against. So 3,700 high-paying IT jobs that Cisco was bringing to this country—not some other country or jurisdiction around the world, in December—that party was against.

Again, we’ve got evidence of job creation across this province. In London, there was an announcement just last week by General Dynamics of the largest export contract in the history of this country; that took place in London, Ontario. They’re going to be exporting—they have a contract for the next 14 years, which is going to guarantee good jobs for those 3,000 persons in London, Ontario.

The Eastern Ontario Development Fund and the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund together have created and retained more than 22,000 jobs. The party opposite voted against that important measure. I don’t understand what their jobs plan is, because to me it seems like it’s job destruction.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Premier. For families across Ontario, it seems like the Liberal government just doesn’t seem interested in the change that Ontario needs. The government is bringing down costs for auto insurance companies, but drivers tell us their bills are still climbing. The government promised to have the Financial Accountability Office up and running by the end of 2013 to protect taxpayers, but Christmas came and went, and no one has been hired.

The Premier claims she’s offering change. Why does it look like more of the same?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m a little disappointed in the member. The Financial Accountability Officer is an officer of this House. There is a panel that is in place which is, in my understanding, interviewing individuals to take over that position. A member of her own party is on it. To stand up here and try to be mischievous, to say that somehow we’re dragging our feet on a process which involves the entire Legislature, is, quite frankly, beneath her, and I’m very, very surprised that she would raise this question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Premier, families hear promises from this government, but Liberals seem unwilling or unable to deliver results. Despite promises to reduce auto insurance rates by 15%, families still have not seen relief. The government seems more interested in playing the numbers than in reducing the rates. While families are being told they have to make sacrifices, they see yet another public sector CEO collecting more money in a severance package than they will make in a decade, and the government insists, with a straight face, that a hard cap at twice the Premier’s salary is absolutely impossible.

The Financial Accountability Office, which was supposed to be up and running last year, remains vacant.

Does the Premier think that that is real change?

Hon. John Milloy: This is, as I say, beneath the honourable member. She knows exactly the process that is in place. We have a representative from each party. This is an officer of the Legislature—not an officer of the government; an officer of the Legislature. It’s in the hands of a committee of the Legislature on which her party has a representative.

My understanding is that they are in the process of reviewing candidates. They will be conducting interviews, and they will come forward with a recommendation which will be considered by this Legislature. That was what was envisioned in the legislation which was presented to this House, which her party supported.

Again, as I say, I think it’s beneath her to try to sow mischief as she is doing today. We look forward to a Financial Accountability Officer, as prescribed in the legislation which was brought forward to this Legislature and supported by her and her party.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Our government wanted to ensure that, going forward, the minimum wage would be set in a way that is both fair for workers and predictable for businesses. That’s why we established the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel. This panel was comprised of representatives from business, labour, poverty advocates and youth. The panel travelled the province, speaking to and hearing from businesses—both large and small—community groups and everyday Ontarians.

They then developed a consensus report based on the feedback that was received from the outreach with Ontarians, and recently the chair of the panel provided his report with recommendations to the government.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you speak about what the panel recommended on this very important issue to all Ontarians?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for a very important question. Speaker, as you may recall, last June, the government created an independent advisory panel to look into the issue of minimum wage. The panel was led by an independent chair, and he was also accompanied by members from the business community, from retail and tourism, labour, anti-poverty groups and youth representatives.

They have provided to the government a consensus report with four recommendations, the recommendations being:

—that the minimum wage be linked to the consumer price index;

—that it be revised annually, with four months’ notice;

—that there be a full review of the minimum wage every five years; and

—that an ongoing research program be established.

I’m very proud to say that the Premier announced that the government will be raising the minimum wage to $11 an hour as of June 1, and also, we will be bringing legislation forward that will index any future increases to the Ontario consumer price index.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I would like to thank the minister for his response. I’m glad that we are giving hard-working Ontarians an increase in the minimum wage now. It’s only fair.

I’m happy to see legislation coming forward to remove the ad hoc nature of previous increases. This legislation will provide predictability for business, especially our small businesses, allowing them to plan for increases so that they may remain competitive and create jobs.

Now, I know that there are still some constituents in my community of Ottawa–Orléans who would like the government to increase the minimum wage by 40% to $14 an hour, and others have said that there should be no increase whatsoever. But it’s important that we take care to ensure that people’s wages and businesses stay competitive.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you speak to what we are doing to ensure that the changes we make are fair for workers and businesses alike?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We are setting a fair minimum wage in Ontario: fair for Ontarians who work on minimum wage, and predictable for businesses that create jobs in our economy. We’re using an objective and balanced way of determining the minimum wage to $11 an hour, and also tying any future increases, on an annual basis, to the cost of living. Therefore, what we are suggesting is that we take politics out of how minimum wage is determined.

Now, it is regrettable that the official opposition does not support any increases to minimum wage. They did not raise the minimum wage in the eight years that they were in government and, of course, they don’t support any minimum wage. But what has been surprising is how the NDP, the third party, has no position on minimum wage. That is extremely shocking and surprising, because people want to know: Where does the NDP stand on increasing minimum wage? Do they support indexing minimum wage to the cost of living? It’s shocking that this party has no position whatsoever.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Energy. I find myself asking where to start. They blew $1 billion on cancelled gas plants. They admitted to a 42% hike in the hydro bills; announced more costly wind turbines; played postal-code politics during the blackout; mismanaged the OPG, according to the auditor; mishandled a propane shortage; and the Ombudsman is now investigating Hydro One. These are the facts.

Enough is enough. When will this government admit that their energy strategy has failed Ontarians?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, she covered a lot, and I’m going to try to cover several of those items.

People in this province have a choice, okay? They have a choice between the PC approach, where their energy policy just doesn’t add up—they claim they want to lower rates, but they have confirmed that they will spend $15 billion on new nuclear energy that the province does not need. That will lead to major price increases.

They said, “First, cancel existing FIT contracts,” and then their leader reversed course and said they wouldn’t. Now Tory MPPs leave the impression that they would cancel existing wind contracts.

Their white paper on energy said they would create a special industrial rate. The only way they could do that is by shifting the burden onto individual consumers.

We have a number of significant programs to help families with their energy bills, including the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, the energy and property tax credit, and the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, which that critic and that party voted against—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: While the Minister of Energy was playing hide-and-go-seek over the course of the last few months, I travelled to close to 30 ridings across Ontario to talk to families about hydro, doing the minister’s homework for him.

This is what I found out, particularly about Hydro One: Seniors are spending more on their hydro bills than they are receiving in their OAS. Small businesses are closing under the threat of high bills and disconnection notices because of Hydro One. Families have lost thousands of dollars because of an incompetent billing scheme. This government has turned Hydro One into public enemy number one.

A long time ago, when this minister was the mayor of Ottawa, he took decisive action against the Ottawa housing corporation because they failed the consumer and they failed the taxpayer. Now we see the Hydro One CEO doing the same thing. What has changed? What has changed you? Will you take decisive action?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased that the critic raised the question of the Hydro One issue. Mr. Speaker, Hydro One has 1.3 million customers, and a number of those customers have experienced unacceptable levels of inconvenience as a result of a new billing system. Prior to the Ombudsman’s review, the CEO of Hydro One publicly apologized to the affected customers, and they have been working diligently to ensure that all outstanding issues are corrected.

While Hydro One is an independent crown corporation, our government shares in that apology. I have written to the Ombudsman and pledged the full co-operation of my office and the Ministry of Energy.

Hydro One continues to work tirelessly on this issue. Refunds and credits are being offered for errors, and all interest on these charges has been waived.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Last Wednesday, London’s manufacturing sector took yet another hit with the announcement that Ohio-based Invacare Corp. was shutting the doors to its long-term-care-beds plant and cutting 70 workers. The 70 workers laid off at Invacare join a long list of plant closures in southwestern Ontario: 740 workers laid off at Heinz in Leamington, 500 laid off at Kellogg’s in London and 100 laid off at Worthington Cylinders in Tilbury.

Premier, when is this government going to get serious about creating and preserving the good-paying manufacturing jobs that are the lifeblood of the southwestern economy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s a very important question, and I appreciate the member opposite asking it.

I want to start by saying, of course, that whenever there’s a closure or a notice of layoffs, our first concern as a government is for those employees and their families, to make sure we do everything possible to help them, assist them under those difficult circumstances, and then also hopefully get them that next job. If it requires retraining, we are in a position to provide that kind of support as well. It’s very important.

With regard to London and more generally the southwestern Ontario region, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago, we were very pleased last week—I think the member opposite was as well—with the announcement of a $10-billion export contract from General Dynamics in London, which is going to protect and preserve about 3,000 jobs. That’s a contract over 14 years, Mr. Speaker, so it’s the kind of stability that that particular sector expects and enjoys.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’ll be speaking in the supplementary, if I have the opportunity, about some other investments as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from London—

Ms. Peggy Sattler: West.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you. Speaker, the fact is that 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost while this government has been sitting on its hands. Southwestern Ontario has been hardest hit by those job losses. A jobs strategy requires more than good labour adjustment practices and hoping that the feds hand out money. It should include initiatives like a job creation tax credit, something New Democrats have long called for, but this government refuses to act.

When is this government going to move on initiatives such as the job creation tax credit to begin to make up for the 300,000 good-paying jobs that have been lost under their watch?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the NDP don’t follow the lead of the Progressive Conservatives when they begin to talk down this province in terms of our hard-working employees or our manufacturing sector, which has done so well. They’ll acknowledge as well, for example, in the auto sector, more than 12,500 new jobs created since the bottom of the recession.

Also, I was in London just a couple of weeks ago, with the Minister of Health, actually, making a tremendous announcement with Natra, which is a chocolate company based in Europe. It chose London as its North American headquarters. It actually doesn’t have a presence in this continent. It chose London because of the opportunities it provided there. I know that the member opposite also understands that the unemployment rate, which was unacceptably high in London—fortunately, we’re seeing it come down. It was almost 9% roughly a year ago. It’s now down significantly from that.

That doesn’t mean that our work is done, and that’s why important measures like the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund, which has created and retained, I think, up to about 8,000 jobs since its creation about a year and a half ago, are so important for our economy and for our workers.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Minister, like the majority of Ontarians, I’ve been cheering on the other Ontarians from our own backyard who are proudly representing our great country of Canada and this great province at the Olympics in Sochi. My own riding of Oakville serves as a great hub for athletes like Brianne Jenner and John Tavares. But to compete with the best in the world, it takes years of dedication, of training and support of all kinds to help our athletes reach events like the Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, would he please share with this House what our government is doing to support those high-performance athletes as well as the current and future Olympians and Paralympians?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question from my colleague from Oakville.

My ministry’s Quest for Gold is a program that’s an excellent example of our government’s commitment to our high-performance athletes and para-athletes. Some of the main objectives of the program are to help athletes continue their pursuit of athletic excellence at the highest levels of national and international competition; encourage athletes to stay in Ontario to live and receive the training; enable athletes to successfully pursue excellence in sport while fulfilling their educational goals; and increase athletes’ access to high-performance coaching.

Speaker, since it was established in 2006, in seven years, our government has provided Ontario athletes and coaches with more than $80 million in support.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Minister, for that wonderful response. I’m sure we can all agree that our athletes and para-athletes not only serve as ambassadors in sport but as leaders, as performers and as an inspiration to us all here back home.

As it turns out, Team Canada this year is the largest we’ve ever had for a Winter Olympics. It’s represented by more Ontarians than any other province in this great country. Sixty-four athletes and 11 coaches from Ontario will be on Team Canada in hopes of winning gold in their respective sports.

With so many of our athletes competing in Sochi, Mr. Speaker, again through you to the minister, could he please tell us what our government is doing to specifically support Ontario’s sports sector?

Hon. Michael Chan: Our government is pleased to support our athletes as they pursue athletic excellence. We are proud to support them at events like the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

I would like to once again congratulate the strong contingent of Ontario athletes on Team Canada, who will make our province proud as they compete for gold.

Speaker, these Ontarians and Canadians serve as an inspiration to us all. Past, present and future athletes and para-athletes with their stories and performances only reinforce the importance of developing community role models and to promote an active, healthy lifestyle. This is why, in 2013-14, our government has provided over $23 million to our sports partners to achieve these goals.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. In the 12 months since your Wynne-Horwath Liberal-NDP coalition came to power, Ontario has lost an additional 30,000 vital manufacturing jobs. Dozens of plants across our province have announced layoffs or outright closure since your Liberal coronation. Premier, southwestern Ontario has been especially hard-hit, with recent plant closings announced at Invacare, London—that was 70 jobs; Heinz, Leamington, 740 jobs; Kellogg’s, London, 500 jobs; Worthington Cylinders, Tilbury, 100 jobs; Wescast Industries, Strathroy, 40 jobs; Imperial Oil lubricants, Sarnia, 60 jobs; Ethyl Corp., Corunna, 30 jobs.

Premier, why are so many factories closing under your watch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the member opposite has his list, so I’ll go through my list, and I’ll start in Dunnville with Original Foods. I was actually at the opening of that new company, where they moved here from Quebec—150 jobs created just last fall.

Armo Tool, just outside of London, which I know the member opposite knows well, was our first recipient of the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund—14 jobs. Armstrong Milling, in Hagersville, 10 jobs; CenterLine, in Windsor, 31 jobs; Conestoga meats, outside of Kitchener and Breslau, 100 jobs there; Desch Canada, 10 jobs; Durose Manufacturing, another 12; Elmira Pet Products, in Elmira, 146 jobs protected and many more created, Mr. Speaker. The list goes on and on, from Tillsonburg to Cambridge, Wallaceburg, Guelph and St. Catharines.

It’s unfortunate that the party opposite did not support us in creating a permanent fund for southwestern Ontario to create those exact manufacturing jobs that the member opposite seems to be so concerned about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Premier, on January 22, I wrote to you about the closure of Wescast in Strathroy. The reason for this closure is due to the high price of electricity coupled with Ontario’s outdated labour policies and outdated apprenticeship ratios. In fact, Wescast’s CEO wrote to me on January 7 and said, “If electricity rates do not become more affordable, Ontario risks losing important investments from companies like Wescast.”

Premier, your careless approach has helped push Ontario’s manufacturing sector into crisis. Some 30,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since you have become Premier of this province. Only Tim Hudak and the Ontario PCs have put forward a jobs plan to help the thousands of people who are unemployed in Ontario today.

Premier, I ask again: How come so many manufacturing plants are closing under your watch, and why are you and NDP leader Andrea Horwath so determined to lead the race to the bottom?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s pretty rich, coming from this party opposite that really hasn’t supported any of our jobs plans or efforts over the past few years. If they had had their way, back when the province supported the auto industry in 2009—which they did not support—we wouldn’t even have an auto industry. It would have left for the United States or Mexico. Fortunately, we have created 12,500 new jobs in the auto sector alone.

Mr. Speaker, they’re not even listening to their own party in Ottawa when Jim Flaherty, just a few weeks ago, talked about the manufacturing sector in this province and said it was bouncing back. Also, we have RBC, that came out with a report in December which indicated that they see significant recovery in the manufacturing sector in the two years ahead. It’s going to help drive the recovery. Of course, with the Canadian dollar coming down, that’s going to help as well. So we’re making great strides.

I don’t know why the member opposite and his party continue to talk down this economy, the hard-working Ontario workers that are working in the manufacturing sector, and the 700,000 people, that I’m very proud of, that contribute to manufacturing in this province.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. After months and months of constant pressure on the Liberal government from horse people, from the Fort Erie council and the NDP, the government finally listened and promised funding so that the Fort Erie Race Track can have live racing this coming season. However, one-time funding for this year alone is not a solution for the hundreds of families that depend on the Fort Erie Race Track.

Will the Premier commit to reinstating the slots-at-racetracks partnership and ensure that Fort Erie has a long and bright future?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, you know, it was gratifying when the leader of the third party began questioning about Fort Erie and horse racing when the by-election was on the horizon.

The fact is, we’ve been working on this plan; we’ve been working to restore horse racing across the province. We had the panel in place; we had their recommendations. I was determined to provide an opportunity for Fort Erie and the other tracks in the province to have a sustainable future.

Now, the leader of the third party is asking whether we will bring back a non-accountable, inefficient plan. We are not going to do that. We have a strategy, Mr. Speaker. We have committed to investing $400 million over the next five years, and we will continue to work with the industry to make sure that they have a sustainable future, as we worked with Fort Erie, by-election or not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, like it or not, this government waited until a few days before a provincial by-election to announce funding for Fort Erie. I don’t recall that they’ve announced any other funding.

The NDP stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of Fort Erie since day one—it’s unfortunate that the Premier didn’t even notice—and we will continue to push the government for a long-term solution and not just by-election promises.

Will the Premier do the right thing? Reinstate the slots-at-racetracks partnership so that horse racing can continue at the Fort Erie track and sustain over 1,000 jobs in the region for many, many years to come.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re working towards a five-year plan. We’re working towards a five-year plan, and I think the people at Fort Erie know that.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party should know that when I met with the Fort Erie folks at a round table, there were horse people in the lobby of that building urging us to make an announcement sooner rather than later because they were making business decisions. The leader may not know that, and because she has chosen to link this to the by-election—that’s her prerogative.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we were meeting with the folks in Fort Erie before there was a question raised in this House. We are working towards a long-term plan. Restoring horse racing in this province is something I committed to, and I have delivered on that.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is for the Attorney General. Since 2008, over 65 municipalities have passed resolutions calling on the government to legislate against strategic lawsuits. Our government heard those concerns, and on June 4, 2013, the Attorney General introduced Bill 83, a proposal for the protection of public participation. It passed first reading.

This is an important bill that assists with an increase of access to justice for all Ontarians. Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney General please tell the House about the protection of public participation?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all say how great it is to be back here to discuss the issues of the day in an open and free democratic fashion, and the member is quite correct. This question is very timely, because this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on Bill 83.

We as a government have worked very hard to develop a proposal that balances the protection of public participation and freedom of expression with the protection of reputation and economic interest. We all know that if this bill is passed, it would protect citizens by allowing courts to quickly identify and deal with these strategic lawsuits, including a fast-track process, which requires that a request to dismiss must be heard by the court within 60 days. That is good for the system; it’s good for all parties concerned, Speaker. That’s why I urge everyone here to support Bill 83.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: It’s good to hear of our government’s commitment in balancing the protection of public participation while also considering the protection of reputation and economic interest. This provides a made-in-Ontario solution based on the consensus recommendations of an expert advisory panel and extensive stakeholder consultations.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to assisting with the early identification of strategic lawsuits, could the Attorney General please inform this House of other ways in which the bill assists in protecting public participation?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I think we all recognize, Speaker, that reputation is very important to each and every one of us, and we have worked very hard to develop a proposal that balances the interests of the defendants and the plaintiffs in these defamation suits—the protection of public participation and freedom of expression against the protection of reputation and economic interests.

Speaker, the proposed legal test for identifying strategic suits is carefully balanced to ensure that lawsuits that seriously harm reputation, business or personal interests of others can continue. On the other hand, causes with no merit or with merely technical merit but without evidence of substantial harm would be dismissed within that 60-day period.

The government’s continued support of legislation such as this particular bill ensures that all parties’ interests will be considered in the civil process, and I hope that this bill passes with the unanimous consent of this House as soon as possible, Speaker.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Premier. Premier, since your party came to office, the province’s manufacturing sector has lost over 330,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s a city the size of London waking up with no jobs, few prospects and losing hope.

Since you became Premier, roughly 40 companies have announced Ontario closures. There’s RockTenn in my riding of Burlington, Kraft in Oakville, Novartis in Mississauga, ACCO in Brampton, Wescast in Strathroy, ExxonMobil in Belleville and Sandvik in North Bay—sadly, the list of closures goes on and on.

Premier, most new employees get three months’ probation; you’ve had a year. When will you make jobs a priority?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I have to say, I still don’t understand why you didn’t support the Cisco investment in this province, which is creating 3,700 high-tech, good jobs over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, our manufacturing sector—we’ve resolved it since the bottom of the recession. We’ve actually created 25,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector across this province. Many of them, of course, are in the part of the province that the member opposite represents.

But let me tell you what isn’t in their jobs plan, curiously, but obviously is a preoccupation of the party opposite: their right-to-work plan, which, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is the centrepiece of their jobs plan. But it’s going to be a right to work for less. It’s a scheme that will lower wages and lessen benefits for all workers in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to talk more about that in the supplementary.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: So I’m curious, Minister: How are we supposed to judge your numbers? It’s not 3,100; it’s 1,700 for Cisco.

But, nevertheless, I’ll give you this: You’ve been consistent—consistent in driving businesses out of Ontario, and it’s not hard to figure out why. Ontario has the highest rates in North America. Small and medium businesses are drowning in red tape. We have the highest WSIB rates in the country, which cripples businesses’ ability to hire. Higher bottom-line costs, more bureaucratic headaches—that’s not exactly a winning economic strategy.

You need to step up your game or step aside. When are you going to show the people of Ontario a real job plan?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, it is 3,700 new jobs by Cisco, and the member opposite needs to get her facts straight.

Also, in terms of the right-to-work-for-less plan, it’s not something that we’re obviously preoccupied with because the party opposite is advocating—many of their own members are very concerned about its potential impact. They know that it’s a job killer. It’s going to drive down wages, and it’s going to hurt job creation.

I know they’re trying to distract the public by focusing on this alleged million jobs plan, but the centrepiece of that is the right-to-work legislation, the Wisconsin-like legislation, this policy which we know is so extreme that even the member opposite’s own party is trying to seek some clarity on, asking their leader to come clean as to what kind of damage he’s going to do to our economy through this right-to-work legislation. Eleven PC candidates in northern Ontario are concerned. They’re turning to us as well to make sure that this explosive policy file of the PC Party doesn’t see the light of day. The former PC candidate in Niagara Falls is on record as saying—

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

GENDER IDENTITY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last week, Avery Edison, a trans woman, was held at Maplehurst Correctional, a provincial men’s facility. Being confined in a jail for men, Ms. Edison’s health and safety were put at dire risk.

In Ontario, we have Toby’s Law, where gender identity and gender expression are protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Can the minister explain why Toby’s Law is not being respected?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for this excellent question. Yes, this issue was brought to my attention, and so it was of concern to me, too. I think that the problem was resolved, and we have a policy in place to ensure that the process is followed very closely. Ministry officials conduct a screening process for every inmate who is admitted into provincial custody. Part of that process is identifying the individual’s sexual identity, and an individual may self-identify as transgendered or the facility may be notified by authorities that the individual is transgendered.

So correctional officers take self-identification into account, and in the supplementary—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’ll allow the supplementary.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Last week, I wrote to the minister urging an immediate investigation into Ms. Edison’s confinement in a jail for men. Clearly, whatever policies are in place are not working. Everyone involved in this detention should be trained in how to treat trans people with dignity and respect. Such an incident must not reoccur.

I’m going to ask again: Will the minister be launching an investigation into this matter?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to assure the member from the opposition that it is not going to happen again, but unfortunately, I cannot say that. But we will make sure that an investigation, first of all, is being conducted when these things happen, and the policy will be reviewed to make sure that everybody is treated as they should be and an incident like the one that happened does not happen again.

Of course, the safety of individuals and those in correctional facilities is taken very seriously, and we want to treat these people with respect and dignity. I’ll make sure that we reinforce the procedure.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order

section 23(i): “Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.”

The House leader earlier today accused my question of being “mischievous.” In fact, the budget of 2013 passed in May. The interviews are not—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon.