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

May 28, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-28 (PDF)

L045 - Tue 28 May 2013 / Mar 28 mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 May 2013 Mardi 28 mai 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2013 ONTARIO BUDGET

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TAXATION

TRANSIT FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

TRANSIT FUNDING

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO AGRI-FOOD EDUCATION INC.

PRABHDEEP SRAWN

STREETSVILLE BREAD AND HONEY FESTIVAL

RIDING OF

WELLINGTON–HALTON HILLS

TOURISM

FORT ERIE RACE TRACK

TOWN OF ORANGEVILLE

HALTON FOOD FOR THOUGHT

PHYSICIAN APPRECIATION DAY

VISITOR

SIGN-LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(CELIAC DISEASE SCREENING), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

(DÉPISTAGE DE LA MALADIE COELIAQUE)

WORKERS’ DEATH BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PRESTATIONS DE DÉCÈS

DES TRAVAILLEURS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PETITIONS

LYME DISEASE

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AIR QUALITY

MINING INDUSTRY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

AIR-RAIL LINK

TIRE DISPOSAL

ANIMAL PROTECTION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2013 ONTARIO BUDGET

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2013 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 27, 2013, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, everyone.

Applause.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you very much to the government House leader for that roaring applause this morning.

I’m pleased to join the debate this morning. It gives me a great opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Leeds–Grenville that I’m so privileged to represent here in the chamber. Before I get too far, though, I want to talk about this government’s budget, in terms of what it does to Ontarians. I think it’s very important that we need to act responsibly here in the chamber this morning.

When the budget was actually tabled—I know this is the motion—the government talked about “a prosperous and fair Ontario.” Those were the words they used. In fact, I think this government’s budgetary policy does the opposite. It makes Ontario less prosperous and less fair. How can we create a prosperous province when the trend this Liberal government has had has seen Ontario’s debt double during their 10 years at the helm? The fact is that we aren’t creating a more prosperous province, because everyone knows—everyone—that you can’t spend your way to prosperity.

If we could, with the record runaway government spending we’ve seen over the last 10 years, there wouldn’t be that 500,000 or 600,000 Ontarians who woke up this morning without a job. Instead, they’d be headed to work providing a better life for themselves and their families.

To be fair, how could we say this budget is fair when every child that’s born in Ontario this morning inherits a $20,000 debt? How fair is it that that baby boy or girl will grow up in a province where health and education are jeopardized for years to come because this government refused to make those tough decisions today? That’s really the choice that I think this Premier and/or her finance minister faced when they put together this budget.

They could have followed the responsible path, the path and the ideas that our party, the official opposition, and our leader, Tim Hudak, put on the table. We put a number of exceptional policies forward to put us back on the right path. That’s the path that would have started for us to reduce the deficit, which we’ve seen increase with this budget and this budgetary policy of this government. Instead of being responsible, though, the government chose to act as the government always does: in its own political self-interest. They put themselves ahead of the future of the province of Ontario.

By choosing to keep piling up the debt in a really desperate attempt to buy support of the third party to save their political hides—maybe someone on the government benches can explain to me how fair that is, because, personally, I just don’t see it.

The government’s strategy, again, has been to spend their way out of control. Last week, we all know, the leader of the third party accused the government of being corrupt and untrustworthy in the morning, and then she and her party worked out a budget deal with the government in the afternoon. It was pretty inconsistent. I still can’t understand how you can explain that to your supporters; I just don’t see it. During question period, you would see that you would have this brought forward, and then they would back down in the afternoon.

At the same time, no one seems to want to co-operate and bring forward a confidence motion, which to me is a very important motion to be discussed here. We’ve tried through our opposition day to have that brought forward, to no avail. I think a vote like that would show whether we have confidence in this government’s policy. That’s the question that Ontarians wanted answered. For an increasing number of them, the answer to that question is no. The fact that we won’t have a confidence vote on the scandal is the NDP’s problem to deal with now, and I think it’s a big one.

I want to address one comment that we’ve heard from the government and the third party when it comes to their thumbs-up review to their co-written budget. The NDP like to say they are getting results for Ontarians, and they like to recite all the goodies that the government’s put on their credit card: things like a cut in auto insurance, home care support, a youth employment program, infrastructure spending and cash for the recording industry.

I guess if you’re going to increase spending in two out of every three ministries by $3.6 billion overall, it’s inevitable that you’re going to at least find something that’s going to appeal to some folks. We always hear criticism—at least I do—from the benches opposite and beside me about, “Is there nothing in the budget?” I think there is something when you look at one line item that everyone can see is there for them.

The thing that I was shocked about—and we brought it up in question period yesterday—is the government’s willingness to gamble $900 million to cancel a couple of gas plants during the last election. We know the total cost of the seat-saver program now stands at $585 million and counting. That’s wasted money that didn’t buy anything for Ontarians, just a few Liberal seats.

I’m actually proud of the people of Leeds–Grenville, because the comments I’ve heard since the budget have really showed me that they understand that we really can’t afford that type of spending. We really can’t afford that type of government waste, where the government would put millions and millions of dollars just to save a few seats rather than getting their fiscal house in order.

I’ve put together my share of budgets. I was involved in municipal politics and have done my share of municipal budgets. I’ve done my share of budgets in the private sector. I worked in municipal management before I was elected to this place. So I think I understand how the process works. I know, as I said earlier, that you can go to anyone, show them a little line in the budget, a little program, and something is going to appeal to them. But responsible budgeting requires that you focus on the big picture, not just those individual line items. Someone has to be the adult in the room and basically say, “Enough is enough.”

The problem that we have here is that there were apparently no adults in the room when this budget is put together. That’s why the people I’m hearing from in my riding are so concerned about the direction the province is heading in. They worry, like so many parents, including myself, that they’d be waving to their kids as they put Ontario in the rear-view mirror to find opportunities in other provinces. I know I have a couple of boys who have always chosen that path. It’s sad that the opportunities just aren’t here in this province.

One of those parents who wrote to me was Joyce Pringle, a constituent of mine in North Grenville. She wrote to me recently to tell me the struggles that her two sons are having as they try to get their construction business established. This isn’t really because they don’t know their stuff; they certainly do. They’ve got customers that want to hire them. It’s because government is increasingly taking more and more of what they make. Here’s some of the things that Joyce wrote to me about recently:

“Now it’s the WSIB at the provincial level. We faithfully send them a percentage of the employees’ gross salary each quarter. Last year was 8.8%, and that has increased (once again beyond inflation) to 9.1% this year.

“But the WSIB now requires payments for each of the partners in addition to the payments for the workers—at the same rate, based on the business’ net income. With two partners, that comes to 18.2% of their income, almost one fifth!

“When I expressed surprise, the person on the phone told me, ‘It’s the law.’ I’m reminded of the old joke: They have a new, easy two-step method to figure out your taxes. Step 1: How much did you make? Step 2: Send it. Except that no one is laughing.

“In February one son and his wife moved into my basement so that they can save a bit of money because they would like to start a family.”

Joyce Pringle goes on to say how close government regulations are to killing the small business and ruining her sons’ dreams. I’m wondering if Joyce and her sons are really going to be excited when this budget when they realize that it’s inevitable that they’re going to be giving more and more to the government because of excess spending. I think we all know the answer to that question.

This is a budget that creates more hardship because it puts off those tough decisions I mentioned earlier that, frankly, should have been made years ago. In fact, there’s a startling admission about how negatively this government’s runaway spending is impacting our economy. It’s right there on page 163, where we see that the finance minister expects the economy to grow by a mere 1.5% this year. That represents the third year in a row that economic growth will decline. Again, when it comes to economic fundamentals, Ontario, under this government, is headed in the wrong direction.

Ontario used to be the proud engine of Canada and our economy. Now we’re being pulled along by others. We’re a have-not province with a $273-billion debt, double than when the members opposite took over. We’re a province that has increased revenue by taking more from hard-working Ontarians, to the tune of $42 billion over the last 10 years. Even flush with all that revenue, they can’t balance the books because their spending has increased at an even faster rate—$48 billion.

I think it was the Globe and Mail that did a good job summing up the state of affairs with this description of our fiscal situation:

“Nevertheless, $11.7 billion leaves Ontario with far and away the biggest deficit among Canadian provinces. And while it is also the country’s biggest provincial economy, Ontario also has the country’s worst deficit relative to GDP. Its net debt—estimated at more than $250 billion and set to grow by a forecast $20 billion in the current fiscal year—is the second-highest in the country on both a per capita and a debt-to-GDP basis. It’s not pretty, and this budget does little to put … lipstick on it.” That was the Globe and Mail.

I know that people’s eyes sometimes glaze over when we start throwing around those types of numbers when we look at dealing with budgets. Again, I mention my experience in municipal politics. When you do a budget there, people want to know what it means to them. Forget all the numbers; forget the stack of paper; forget all the rhetoric; people want to know how it affects their services, how it affects their taxes. That’s what they want to know. Those are the questions you get asked.

I want to remind people watching at home today of one thing: This kind of horrible fiscal management will negatively affect all the services that you count on, because even with a government where spending is as out of control as we see with this one, there are consequences to running up large debt and deficits. You can see examples of where people are paying the price today for reduced services.

One of those examples that I’m hearing quite a lot of is in the office of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and it’s the $44-million cut to physiotherapy services. I’m hearing from families and their loved ones in long-term-care facilities who rely on these services. They’re concerned at the consequences of a plan that will see the $110 million spent for physio services for seniors in long-term care cut to $58.5 million.

To my shock, the minister has tried to spin this as an enhancement; but certainly no one is buying it; certainly not the 20 members of the seniors’ exercise group at the Executive Condominium who called my office this week upset that their twice-a-week program is disappearing.

Gary Rehan, a physiotherapist who provides great care for seniors at Rosebridge Manor in the community of Jasper in my riding, wrote to me to express his concerns about what he sees happening: “The physiotherapy I provide enables patients to live in relative independence for as long as possible. I worry that the patients I currently treat will see their mobility deteriorate after Aug. 1, 2013.

“The physiotherapy services provided to these seniors, along with enhancing their quality of life and improving their functional abilities and mobility, also helps to reduce the risk of morbidities including fractures, pneumonia and blood clots, to name a few.

“I know that this cut in the critical physiotherapy services will potentially result in an increase in these ... and, in turn, health care utilization.” That was from Gary.

He told me that seniors he’s treated have improved so much that some of them have been able to return home. Others, he stressed, are able to remain at Rosebridge rather than the much more expensive alternative of being admitted to hospital. The physiotherapy he provides is actually saving money in our health care system in the long run. That’s the bottom line that I think most of us on this side of the House want to hear.

The government that is so desperate to make some cuts in some spending areas, basically with its dance partner, has to make better decisions in the long run for Ontarians. I could give you lots of examples of how those decisions should be changed. Physiotherapy is just one of them.

So when someone questions me on why I’m not going to vote for a budget that promises, for example, a $100-million infrastructure program for small municipalities, I ask them to take a step back. I want them not to focus on one or two things that they may find appealing in a disastrous budget, but to look at the budget in its entirety. If they do that, I’m confident that they’ll see that they’re like so many others I’ve talked to in the past who feel we just simply can’t afford it. So I’m not voting against the $100 million for infrastructure.

I’m not voting against $260 million in home care or $400 million to increase social assistance or $100 million for the Ontario Brain Institute or $290 million for youth jobs—the list goes on and on; I’m sure everybody is getting the picture.

I think we have to stand and vote against the budget because we have a responsibility to do it. We have a responsibility to be the adult in the room and to be the party that sets our fiscal policy back on track. We can no longer be the economic caboose; we need to be the economic engine.

I think it’s not about whether you’re PC, Liberal or NDP; whether you’re red, blue or orange. I think you have to go back to that baby boy or baby girl, that new Ontarian that I spoke about earlier, one that could be my grandchild, that inherited a $20,000 debt because we didn’t fix this province’s crisis when we had the chance. I think that’s really what we’re talking about this morning. That’s the type of fiscal policy that people expect us to do.

I’m going to share a quote from the Fraser Institute. Here’s what they wrote:

“Had the Liberals actually spent prudently over the past decade there would be no deficit; in fact, the province would have a $12-billion surplus!

“Since 2003-04, actual program spending increased from $70.4 billion to $113.6 billion in 2012-13. Had program spending increased by the rate of inflation and population growth, current program spending would be $22 billion lower. That means the province would already be in surplus and would have accumulated significantly less debt over the last decade.”

That’s what I hear from folks in Leeds–Grenville.

The budget forecasts an $11.7-billion deficit at the end of the fiscal year. The Fraser Institute analysis shows that if the government had only increased spending to account for inflation and population growth, we’d have a $12-billion surplus. That’s a difference of $23.7 billion from where we are to where I think we should be.

I only have a few seconds left. I think it’s very important that when we talk about budget policy, we have made some sensible and some pragmatic suggestions for the budget that the government has ignored. We’ve seen the soap opera play out this year again with the New Democrats and the Liberal government members. So I’m not going to support this government’s budgetary policy. I think we owe it to those young Ontarians that are being born today to stand up with them and stand up for a better Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Before I ask for questions and comments, I wish to welcome to this chamber a former member of this House: Mr. Wayne Wettlaufer, the MPP for Kitchener Centre and Kitchener in the 36th and 37th Parliaments.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank the member from Leeds–Grenville for his perspective on this situation. Mine’s a little different, Speaker. Frankly, I’m a little tired of the official opposition saying things like “coalition” and “NDP budget” on and on. Well, folks, here’s the real truth: The NDP got results for the people we represent. The official opposition got nothing because they said no and they didn’t read it. Why? Because their real agenda is to get power, and once they get power, this is what you’re going to get, folks: You’re going to get a right-to-work state. You’re going to attack unions.

You’re going to get more tax breaks for big corporations. You’re going to attack construction people. You’re going to attack teachers. You’re going to attack nurses. Nothing for the most vulnerable in our province; nothing for the needy. You’re going to force people back to work even though they have a collective agreement; you’re going to ignore that. So the bottom line, Speaker, is, if you really want to read the white paper, you’ve got to look through the lines because, as I said yesterday, the white paper, in my opinion, is two-ply or one-ply. It’s not really a white paper.

The bottom line is that I’m sick and tired of them criticizing.

You know, I’m not 100% in favour of what’s going on, but at least I’ve fought for my people and what they wanted. We consulted with the people of Ontario. We consulted with my constituents. They told me what they wanted, and with all due respect, I’ve got one of the toughest ridings for being rebellious in the whole province. I’ve got tough unions. I’ve got tough people. But the numbers aren’t telling us that people want an election. The numbers aren’t telling us that they aren’t happy with what we’ve done.

Andrea Horwath and the NDP did the right thing: We sat down, we negotiated, we got results from the sitting government, and we’re going to stick to what we do. I am not going to go back to my people and say, “I said no. We got nothing. I’m just going to say no to everything, and I’m not going to read anything.” Not good.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: That’s a bit of a tough act to follow, but I have to agree with the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek in many ways. At the end of the day, we have a budget, but what counts the most is how Ontarians feel about the budget. That is indeed what we’re trying to do—I believe that’s what the third party is trying to do—in terms of making sure that not only are there things in the budget that resonate with Ontarians and that strike that balance between fiscal responsibility and a fair society, but it actually resonates with people in their everyday lives. That’s what’s very important.

I know, for me, right after the budget came out, the very next day all the Scarborough MPPs—I’m one of six Scarborough MPPs—went and did a budget breakfast. That’s what we did, the very next day, with the local chamber of commerce—actually, it’s Rotary now. It used to be a chamber of commerce; it’s now the Rotary group. So that was the beginning of a process to go out and talk about the budget and get feedback on it. Having said that, there was also a lot of feedback to the building of the budget.

I think when the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek spoke, his feedback is similar to what I hear in my own riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, and that is that people are generally happy with it. People want to move forward. People do not want an election. They want us to govern. They want all the parties to work together and do what’s in the best interests of Ontarians.

The feedback I’ve had is very consistent with what the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has heard. It’s one of, “Get the job done. Do what you were asked to do when you got elected, and make this minority government work.” I think that it behooves all parties to do that, and that’s what I’m certainly going to do on behalf of my constituents of Pickering–Scarborough East.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to stand and comment on the 20-minute presentation by my friend from Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark—a very thoughtful presentation. He kind of walked everybody through the entire process and the fiscal challenges that our province is facing right now, the responsible budgeting that hasn’t occurred for the last 10 years under the McGuinty and Wynne governments, and the lack of adults in the room when it comes to planning for the future of not just our generation but the generations to come. That’s something that’s been lacking on behalf of the government.

Mr. Clark comes from this from a number of different angles, being a municipal politician, where you can’t run up a $12-billion deficit year after year because your people expect more than that. But for some reason, this Liberal government doesn’t seem to realize that there are responsibilities that come with managing the people’s money. They continue to run up record deficits and double our debt during that time. So I think the member from Leeds–Grenville did an excellent job at outlining where we’re going.

He made a very thoughtful presentation for 20 minutes and then, in two minutes, this typhoon came in and blew any kind of reason out of the water. This NDP that is propping up this scandal-plagued government that for months and months and months stood here in the House and talked about how they were killing harness racing, and they talked about how they were ringing up $100 million for this gas plant cancellation and $900 million for another gas plant cancellation—and yet, when given the opportunity to finally bring down a scandal-plagued government, what do they do? They vote along with them.

They turn their backs on the people whom they’ve been fighting for for the last 18 months for lower hydro rates, to bring harness racing back to the province, to bring responsible government to the province. They missed the opportunity. They turned their backs on the people of Ontario—a missed opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I would remind the House that interjections are out of order.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that poignant reminder. It seems that, in here, the opposition has decided to replace any rationale with an increased level of decibels, and it certainly isn’t effective. It’s something that they’ve done for the 18 months that I’ve been in this House. The only ideas, the only action I’ve seen from them, are a ringing of the bells that occupied a massive amount of time, and pounding on the desk, as if a corporate boss was just absolutely adamantly against any type of agenda.

I want to say that I caught the end of the member for Leeds–Grenville’s speech. He spoke to the fact that some of the cuts that are built into the budget will affect program delivery and ultimately service. There’s no question about that, that cuts do affect program delivery and service. But his remedy for that is deeper cuts to program delivery and service, and he says that deeper cuts will lead to better, increased services. I don’t understand that rationale.

I also don’t understand how they can, despite any economic theology that they may subscribe to—and we know roughly what it is; it’s a right-wing, corporate, capitalist, free-market agenda. Despite that, they avoid the fact that we need to look at the revenue side of the equation in budgetary measures—never a spoken word about how this province needs revenue—and are reluctant to acknowledge that tax cuts are actually spending measures. They’ll never make that equation; they’ll never connect the dots on that.

Tax cuts are just an automatic, reflexive response by the government that should be a staple of any governance model—it shouldn’t be. It should be done strategically and specifically, and that’s what New Democrats have long proposed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Leeds–Grenville has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank my colleague the member for Prince Edward–Hastings, the Minister of Consumer Services, the member for Essex and the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek for their comments.

I’m just going to continue to talk in light of what I spoke of earlier.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I can’t hear you, Steve.

Mr. Steve Clark: Sorry, Rosie; I’m a little hoarse this morning.

We can continue to burden our children and grandchildren with more debt and we can continue to put off those tough decisions, or we can resolve to do better. We can spend within our means, and we can get government out of the way, to create some private sector jobs in this province.

I’m pretty proud of our party. We’ve put forward dozens and dozens of very good ideas that would set a different path, a more prosperous path, a fairer path for Ontarians.

I don’t think this government was ever interested in hearing our ideas. If they were, we’d have a public sector wage freeze in this budget. We’d have arbitration reform. We would have taken Mr. Wilson’s bill, his very thoughtful arbitration proposals, and put them in the budget. But of course, this government didn’t do that. That’s why in my riding, taxpayers are facing a retroactive double-digit pay hike from an arbitrator’s award last week.

The government had a choice, and they chose what they’ve always done: They’ve decided to buy the support of the NDP. They’ve included $1 billion of gifts and goodies to be able to secure their support. They’ve doubled down on this runaway spending that has been, really, the hallmark of both the McGuinty and the Wynne governments.

I think it’s going to be very clear, as we move forward in this vote, who is standing up for Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate on the budget motion?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m happy to have this opportunity to speak to the budget motion. I’m going to begin by referencing a number of things that my friend from Leeds–Grenville mentioned. I count him as a friend of mine; I do. But I disagree with him and his party on a number of areas, and it has to do with the things that he referenced.

He says we can’t spend our way to prosperity, which is something that he and all the other Conservative members raise each and every time that they are in this debate. Here’s the problemo, as I see it—and I could be wrong, of course: Governments need revenue; is that not correct? To run a government, we need revenue.

Here is the problem: When you cut corporate taxes each and every year, which the Conservatives have done and the Liberals have colluded with over the years in terms of cutting corporate taxes, when you lose revenues to the tune of $17 billion or $18 billion over a 20-year period, you and my fine Liberal friends, what it means is that revenues go down, and according to the Conservative political ideology, therefore, you are spending a whole lot of money on services that you then argue you cannot afford. You get the picture: Less revenue—

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’re spending $120 billion a year.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But you missed the first part. You see, Speaker, they don’t listen, and that’s the problem. I was trying to produce a simple argument, and then they say, “Yeah, but you can’t spend your way out of it.” I understand the argument. If revenues were up here, then the costs to government would be less than what we raised by way of income, or at least equal to, or at least we would be able to manage our budgets. But when revenues are down, then all of the costs go up. That’s inevitable.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Sort of like my auto insurance.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What about the auto insurance?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It just went up 5%, thanks to the government.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right. And if your revenues of income do not keep up with it—

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You’re not listening; that’s the problem. You’re blah, blah, blah, blah, and he doesn’t listen; that’s the problem. The member from Northumberland argues that the auto insurance rates have gone up, and—I don’t know the point. But the point I’m making is, if auto insurance rates go up and your salary doesn’t keep up with it, those auto increases are going to whack you and you’re going to feel the weight of the auto insurance increases. Is that not correct?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: That’s what you just did. Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay. So the non-sequitur doesn’t connect.

The point I make is that if revenues are down, you can’t keep up with your costs. The Tories keep on saying, “You can’t spend your way out of prosperity,” and they’re right, except they don’t say that the revenues need to be maintained. And you cannot cut corporate taxes forever; you can’t. What is the answer of the Tories with respect to how we grow the economy? My good friend from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington—my God, is it ever a big riding—argues that the best way to move the economy is to give the corporations further tax cuts.

That’s their argument each and every time, and quite frankly, my friends from Lanark and Leeds–Grenville, you guys have it wrong. You guys have it completely wrong. If you were right—

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You see, the Speaker is—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry to interrupt, but I would ask the member for Trinity–Spadina to make his comments through the Chair. I would ask the members of the official opposition to stop heckling him so that I can hear him.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There you go, Speaker. I thank you for that, because I would speak to you all the time if it were not for the heckles that I get, and then I’ve got to look at them. It’s hard to be heckled by the members and look at you as they speak. You understand that, right?

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You see what I’m saying? I have to look at him because he’s talking to me. And I’m okay with talking to him—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —or him, or them, but I want to speak through you, Speaker. So every now and then you stand up and you remind them to shut up, if you know what I mean.

So the argument about how you make the economy grow by cutting corporate taxes is simply fundamentally wrong, because it hasn’t worked. We have looked at the evidence—and I don’t know what Tories look at by way of evidence, but we have looked at the evidence, and the jobs are not there.

Not only are the jobs not there, but they’re not well-paying jobs, either. Most of the work that is available is part-time casual work, contract work. That’s what we have. So when my friend from Leeds–Grenville says that he’s worried about that little boy and little girl growing up and they won’t have the opportunities, he’s absolutely right. I worry about that too, but for different reasons. He says that if we cut down on our expenditures, that little boy and that little gal are going to have a better future. No, they’re not.

That little gal and that little boy, under a Conservative ideology, are not going to do very well. We can see that under a Liberal government, a Conservative government—those little gals are suffering today.

Now, we look at the university students that are coming out of universities and, yes, they are well educated. We have a more well-educated public than I’ve ever seen before, except they are not getting the jobs that they study for. They’re not getting the jobs for which they studied. Not only that, they’re not making the income they hoped they would make as a result of leaving with a four-year degree or a master’s degree or, indeed, a PhD. Most PhD students can’t get a job in a university anymore; they’ve got to go out of the country to find a job. What kind of hope do we have for that little gal and that little guy when PhDs have to try to find work outside of the country?

Mr. Randy Hillier: They can go to Alberta and Saskatchewan where the Conservative governments are, right?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Randy Hillier: They go out to Alberta and Saskatchewan to get those jobs—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —where there’s a Conservative government.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And if we could just keep cutting corporate taxes, they would stay here, wouldn’t they, member from Lanark? If they could just cut those corporate taxes, everything would be rosy in rosy land, right?

The fact of the matter is, that’s not true, and they keep perpetuating a myth that some people buy, and God knows that there’s a few intelligent people out there fighting back. The Lord can be merciful, but sometimes you wonder whether they’re paying attention because the ideology of the Conservative Party works for a lot of people. They believe it.

Their attack on civil servants seems to connect with the public. We believe in civil servants; we believe in governments. We believe in governments existing to regulate an economy that sometimes goes overboard, as we saw in the dot-com collapse, as we saw in the collapse of properties in America, and not yet here, but it may come.

We have seen the collapse of the banking industry all over the world started by the US and we have seen anywhere from $5 trillion to $11 trillion spent by governments to bail out the banks, the very institutions that Tories love to support. Close to $11 trillion has been spent by governments to support a market that doesn’t work, that often fails us. Unless we regulate that industry, we’re going to see, each and every time, a collapse of countries. So then Conservatives and the banking industry call upon governments to become socialist and bail them out.

No sooner do they get the $11 trillion from the government, so-called “socialist,” that as soon as they recover they’re back into their $11-million salaries, $20-million salaries—God bless them—and they’re back to work when we get stuck with the debt. We, the taxpayers, get stuck with the debt.

You got to love them capitalists; you got to love them Tories. They love governments. They love governments to be there to bail out their markets as soon as they collapse. It works so well for them; it works so well for you.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: You’re bailing out the Liberals.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That’s a different discussion we’re into.

I have disagreed with Tories over the years and I’ve disagreed with Liberals over the years, particularly under the regime of Dalton McGuinty, the then Premier, who colluded with the Tories in cutting corporate taxes and cutting income taxes when we have huge deficits. How do you explain that? We have huge deficits, and Tories and Liberals keep cutting corporate taxes when we don’t have the money, when we need that money to pay for the programs that people rely on.

The government was laughing—not laughing, but proudly proclaiming—“We’ve cut income taxes to the tune of $1.3 billion.” They were cheerful about it; happy, smiling: “We cut income taxes to the tune of $1.3 billion and we got a deficit”—the then deficit—“of $20 billion.” You need revenue and you cut revenues from governments. How do you explain that, as Liberals?

Mercifully, we have a new leader that sounds a bit more lefty, and we might be able to arrest some of the corporate tax cuts. The NDP forced McGuinty to freeze the corporate taxes, which was a positive development. We hope to be able to squeeze a little more from Liberals with respect to that, but they are a bit reluctant in that regard.

Our role, as New Democrats, is to make government work, because that’s what people want. People want parties to try to solve their differences. They do not like governments and opposition parties that are in constant conflict with each other. They want governments to work for them. Our job, as a political party, is to make it work. It’s to find ways to improve the lives of Ontarians as best we can. That is the job of this opposition party. Our job is to try to make minority work for them—not to work for us, not to work for the Liberal Party, but to work for people. And that is what we need to do.

What have we fought for? We have fought for better home care with a five-day guarantee. Why? There are 6,000 people on a waiting list—over 6,000 people on a waiting list—who are not getting home care. The ones who are getting home care are getting inadequate care. And Liberals know it, because they get the same calls we do. I know it from a personal perspective. They probably know it from a personal perspective, but they also know from their constituents that the home care that they’re looking for is simply not there for them.

Tory governments and Liberal governments have de-institutionalized care and have said, “What we need to do is provide the care in their home.’ The problem is, the care in the home is not there. Wealthy Ontarians can take care of themselves, and people who don’t have money have to take care of themselves in the best way that they can. And what is that? The best way that they can protect themselves is to have their children, their extended family, look after them. Is that what we want? It apparently seems so, because both Tories and Liberals have allowed this to go on.

We have divested ourselves as governments and put the responsibility of care on families. The problem is, the majority of families no longer have the time or the money to take care of their own. It’s becoming a social disaster.

So we push for better home care, and we push, particularly, for a five-day guarantee. Why, do you say, a guarantee? Because unless we have a guarantee, people are not going to get the care that they need.

Liberals are saying, “We’re going to have a target.” A target means that 6,000 people waiting probably will not get the care that they need, and the home care that people get now is completely inadequate.

You have people with Alzheimer’s getting an hour or two a day of support. We’re talking about Alzheimer’s, which means that family members who want to take care of their own relatives in their own homes get very little support in their homes. They might get, at best, one or two hours a day—at best—which means that the bulk of the time has to be spent by families to take care of their own.

That’s why I want to be a millionaire. I want to be a corporation to get the tax credit, to get the benefits—the loopholes—that the Liberals and Tories have allowed over the years. I need to be a company so I can have extra money to help my own.

I often say to the Liberals and the Tories, “I don’t want to get old in this province.” Why? Because without a pension, I and 65% of the population out there are going to suffer in the future, because our children—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Member from Northumberland, where are you going?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: You won’t retire because you have no pension.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: People without an adequate pension are going to be on their own. Hopefully, they will have—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Member for York South, I’m so glad you’re fighting for a pension within your own Liberal caucus. So far, we haven’t gotten very far. Without adequate pensions and without adequate incomes, people are going to be on their own, struggling. So we pushed for home care.

We pushed for a reduction in auto insurance. Why? Because the auto insurance rates are the highest in the country. My friend from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has been pressing the government on this for the last year. We said we need to help people out. We need to reduce auto insurance rates by 15%. Why? Because their profits—God love them, God bless them—have been good. They have been good, but they constantly complain they’re not earning enough. They constantly complain, “My God, fraud is the biggest thing we have since sliced white bread.

Unless we deal with fraud, we won’t have any profits.” The problemo is, insurance companies are making good money, and they’re making good money on the backs of the cuts we have made to their benefits. It’s just not right; it’s not fair. So we said we need to reduce the auto insurance rates by 15%. We’re not going to get it. We’re not quite sure what the timeline is going to be, so we need to continue pushing Liberals in that regard.

But my friend from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has reminded us that in some of the areas of the GTA, insurance companies are slowly increasing their insurance rates by up to close to—

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Some 10%, 15%.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —10%, 15%, which will allow them to reduce rates by 15% by the time the Liberal government gets through with these changed initiatives.

In the end, what’s going to happen? How are the Liberals going to make the insurance companies accountable for those increases while we have the highest rates of auto insurance in the whole country? It’s simply not right for people. It is simply not right.

We talked about youth unemployment as a serious issue. Youth unemployment is serious and getting more serious. They’re unemployed and will be continually unemployed and will be underemployed in spite of the degrees that they have and in spite of all the debt they’re incurring because of the incredible tuition fee increases under the Conservative government and, incredibly, 5% increases under the Liberal government for the last 10 years. They come out with huge debts, with great degrees, and they’ll be largely underemployed and in most cases, or at least some cases, they will be unemployed. So we pushed the Liberals for an employment strategy that gets them working, and that’s important.

We finally fought for better accountability of governments. How do you hold governments accountable? It doesn’t matter whether you’re Liberal, Tory or NDP. How do you hold us accountable? We have proposed a financial accountability office that would have the same power the budget officer had in Ottawa that held Tories up there accountable. And, boy, did Harper hate that budget officer.

Mercifully, we had a budget officer that held governments accountable constantly. Where governments would say the—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The F-35s.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —the F-35s only cost $16 billion, the budget chief says, “No, no, it’s more than double.”

You need a budget officer that is there to expose the dissembling of governments, without which governments would do what they want, and there would absolutely no accountability of a party or a government. So we urged the government to set up this financial accountability office. We believe that’s important. The Liberals have said they’re going to do it.

We’re happy. We are happy that we made some gains for working men and women out there who desperately need support of governments and opposition parties, and we give them what we possibly could give them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to respond to the remarks from the member for Trinity–Spadina on the budget.

I must begin by saying I totally agree with his observation that what our constituents expect from us—my constituents in Guelph, his constituents in Trinity–Spadina and, I dare say, the constituents of the official opposition as well—what our constituents want is for us to make government work. They want us to look for the ideas that we have in common and to build on the ideas that we have in common.

The member from Trinity Spadina spoke at length about the issue of youth unemployment, and we agree: That is a huge issue. We need to do something about it, so what we have done in this budget is that we have included a $295-million allocation to work on the problem of youth unemployment. Some of that—the bulk of it, $195 million—will be used on some more conventional approaches to working with employers to make sure that they are giving youth a first job. Actually, they’re the sort of programs that Conservatives quite often like, traditionally, but then, I guess they haven’t read the budget, so they don’t know that it’s there.

But $100 million is going to some more unconventional approaches, if I could say. There’s some money which is going to an entrepreneurship fund to help young adults set up their own business, because we know we need to encourage entrepreneurs in our economy. Some of it is going to an innovation fund, because we know there are lots of students who are working in research settings in their academic programs who may have some innovative ideas that they could turn into jobs and into businesses, so there’s some money there for the innovators in our society. I think that we’re really making inroads on this problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It was quite stirring to hear the member from Trinity–Spadina ramble on about past governments and how devastated the province was when Mr. Harris was here. I just want to say to the member that I respect his anecdotes, and of course he’s a well-instituted individual here, but at the same time, I think he’s forgotten how well the province of Ontario actually was doing when Mike Harris came in and made the changes needed after Bob Rae was the Premier here. Actually, even when I go back home, there’s many a CUPE member in my riding who, to this day, idolizes Bob Rae—not. Bob Rae is a bad taste in their mouth, and these are strong union people.

But I want to talk about what has actually transpired here. When I’m at home, I do hear from some people, and they don’t say, “We don’t want an election.” They say, “We can’t afford to have an election.” That takes me by surprise, because once I point out to those individuals that, in fact, this Liberal/NDP government and the deputy premier, Ms. Horwath, are spending $2 million an hour more than we’re bringing in in revenue, I say, “Well, if it costs $96 million for an election, the election would be paid for in two days.” Two days, Mr. Speaker, right? How can the province of Ontario not afford to have an election on this train wreck that this NDP and Liberal government is on?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I am so pleased to rise to comment on my colleague from Trinity–Spadina’s eloquent and somewhat—I think it’s poetic. When he stands to deliver, people rush in here to hear what he has to say, but are they actually listening? We know that often when he points out some of the real structural failures—I would even say some of the cracks in the Conservative argument—they tend to just plug their ears, and they don’t want to listen to what he has to say.

But on the topic of just triggering an election, I can tell you that we canvassed this province wide and large to get the sentiment of what people wanted—

Interjection: Wide and large?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Far and wide. We know that the opposition party, the Conservatives, are eager for an election, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, myself personally, as an individual, I am not anxious to get rid of Tim Hudak as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. I want him there for as long as possible; in fact, I need him there as the leader of the PC Party.

Stephen Harper is actually someone whom we should continue to look at. He does a good job in absolutely destroying any real semblance of what true conservatism is. It’s the Reform Party incarnate. It’s easy to pick apart those arguments when it comes to a good, healthy economy, because they have done nothing, proposed nothing, to help the men and women and communities in this province and in this country.

We are, as New Democrats, proud to deliver on some results that haven’t been delivered in quite some time. I’m thankful that this budget has put our ideas forward and actually is going to deliver those results.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Grant Crack: I listened very intently to the member from Trinity–Spadina, and also the Minister of Education, Northumberland–Quinte West and the excellent comments from the member from Essex.

I was particularly intrigued by the member from Trinity–Spadina when he talked about and actually lectured and taught the Conservative opposition about what revenues and expenses and budgeting are all about, and he’s absolutely right. It’s a matter of making this government work.

In October 2011, Ontarians did make a decision. They decided: Liberal government, NDP third party, Conservatives opposition. Ontarians didn’t want the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. They remember back to the days of the slash-and-burn. They are relying on this government—it looks like, with the co-operation of the third party, because we’re not getting any co-operation at all whatsoever from the Progressive Conservatives. Their position was rejected. They’ve worked with us, and they make Ontario work, and that’s what we want.

I listened intently to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, and he referred to two- and three-ply white papers. I’m going to think he was referring to Kleenex, because if, God forbid, if the Conservatives ever got into power again, there’d be a lot of Kleenex. There would be a lot of people on the front lawns. There would be cutting and slashing and burning—something that Ontarians don’t want to go back to.

I congratulate the third party for working with us in government. I respect what they’re doing. They respect Ontarians. If the Conservatives would just, again, respect the decision that was made—let’s have a four-year term, working together for Ontarians, instead of only working in their own self-interest. This is a good budget; let’s get it passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time for questions and comments. I return to the member for Trinity–Spadina for his response.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What New Democrats want is to improve the lives of working men and women in Ontario. That’s our objective, and that’s what we believe we have accomplished in this budget. We believe we have made it better for working men and women.

We talked about increasing revenues, and that’s why we said to the Liberals, “We need to eliminate the employer health tax exemption on the first $400,000 in payroll for companies with more than $5 million. We don’t believe they need that break.” So they did that; they eliminated that break. Except businesses with up to $5 million in payroll will see their employer health tax exemption increase to $450,000, which effectively eliminates from provincial coffers that revenue, which we believe is close to $100 million that we desperately need. Why would they do that? That, I do not understand.

Then we talked the corporate tax loopholes, which are set to come into effect and would allow corporations to write off the HST on entertainment and meals. That comes off in 2015. What we said to the Liberals is, “You’ve got to make that a permanent delay.” Corporations do not need an entertainment tax writeoff. Corporations don’t need a meal tax writeoff. I need it; they don’t. Ontarians need that tax break, not the corporations, who are doing fine—just fine.

We urged the Liberals to send a strong message to the Conservative Party, and they didn’t include any of that in the budget. We’re talking about $1.3 billion that we could bring back into government revenues. The government refuses to put it in the budget. What did they do before the budget motion comes into effect? They simply write a letter to Jim Flaherty saying, “Please”—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: “Dear Jim.”

Mr. Rosario Marchese: “Dear Jim: Help us out.” It seems half-hearted. Their heart was not in that revenue-generating idea that we put forth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate on the budget motion?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to rise and become part of the debate on the budget motion this Tuesday morning. I understand we’ll probably break in about 10 minutes. I’ve got 20 minutes here this morning, and I guess I’ll have to resume this afternoon after routine proceedings. I look forward to doing that.

I thought, Speaker, I would begin by speaking a little bit this morning about our budget, of course, but specifically about the deficit and where we find ourselves. It has been something that, obviously, both opposition parties have had something to say about when they’ve risen and spoken on the budget motion.

I think the part that I find most interesting when the budget discussion ensues, as it often does, and the deficit position that we find ourselves in, would be that a person who perhaps has not been following these issues too closely—and there are not many people like that—might be led to believe and conclude that Ontario was the only jurisdiction nationally or subnationally on the planet that went through the recession, the greatest recession since the 1930s. We know, of course, that that’s not the case.

We know, of course, that across the globe, through the recession that hit in 2008, that began in around 2008, some 30 million to 40 million people lost their jobs—30 million to 40 million. Of course, Ontario was not spared from that economic carnage. But the opposition would like you to believe that they were.

We took a different path. We took a very clear different path, as did many other jurisdictions across the planet. What they decided to do, largely, for many of them, based on lessons that were learned from the Great Depression in the 1930s, is, as bad and as difficult as it was going to be as a result of the economic collapse across the globe—there was a decision made that we needed to invest in the economy, that we needed to find mechanisms to stimulate the economy. Yes, that was done through borrowing money, and yes, those decisions in 2008 did lead us to the position that we find ourselves in today: in a deficit position.

I would say, Speaker, that achieving a balanced budget position by 2017-18 is the same target that was picked by both opposition parties, and that the budget document clearly lays out that we are on track to meet that deficit reduction and come back into a balanced position. We’re doing it. And not all jurisdictions are able to achieve that. We do know very clearly that, at the federal level, they are having severe struggles in terms of making that budget target, or the targets that they have set for themselves.

For my friends in the official opposition, I always feel I need to provide a little reminder about what we came into in 2003. People who have been here since then—and that was the first year that I was elected—will remember very clearly that we were promised, in the lead-up to the 2003 election, that the books of the province of Ontario were balanced. We were very clearly told that. Of course, not long after the election, we found out that, in fact, far from being balanced, the books of the province of Ontario had a $5.5-billion deficit. That’s a Provincial Auditor number; that was not a government number.

The auditor of the province of Ontario, an independent officer of this Legislature, clearly said that, in fact, we had a $5.5-billion deficit.

It’s important to remember that that $5.5-billion deficit that was left to us by the outgoing Conservative government was left to us at a time when the economy in Ontario, the economy in Canada, the economy internationally, was doing incredibly well. The Canadian dollar was trading at 63 or 70 cents, and the price of a barrel of oil was far lower than it is today. All of the variables were in place to help the Ontario economy do very well as a primarily export-driven economy.

With the United States as our biggest trading partner and the US economy red-hot and all of those things working in favour of the provincial Conservatives at that time, they still somehow managed to leave the incoming Liberal government with a $5.5-billion deficit. How is that possible under those circumstances?

I always feel it’s necessary to remind people about that because, of course, it’s the Conservatives who like to remind people, or say to people, “We’re the party who will take care of your pocketbook for you. If you want to have a well-managed province fiscally, you need us to be in charge because we can do it.” During a period of incredible economic growth, we were still left with a $5.5-billion deficit.

Speaker, it’s important to put another piece on to that because, in fact, that $5.5-billion deficit was much higher, wasn’t it? Because in the lead-up to the 2003 provincial election, the provincial Conservative government of the day in Ontario decided that they needed to try and minimize that debt, that deficit they were hiding, and what did they do? Well, they did a couple of significant things. They did several things, but they did two significant things.

One, they downloaded, or had been downloading, starting from the late 1990s, a tremendous amount of what were always, historically, provincial government services. They downloaded them onto municipalities and stuck them into the residential property tax base, so that the people in Thunder Bay–Atikokan and all the municipalities that I represent and all municipalities around the province had embedded in their residential property tax bases the responsibility for the delivery of services that had heretofore been a provincial responsibility.

That was valued at billions of dollars off-loaded from the books of the province of Ontario, and yet we still came in with a $5.5-billion deficit. That’s one of the things that they did.

Another one of the things that they did: They sold a piece of highway—was it the 407?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: The 407.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m not familiar with the highways in southern Ontario.

The 407: I’m told that that highway, when it was sold by the outgoing Conservatives, was valued at $11 billion, $10 billion, $8 billion, $12 billion—who knows? It was valued at $8 billion to $12 billion. They sold it. What came into the treasury, on a 99-year lease of privatization—we went to court to try to get the tolls reduced for the people, the drivers in southern Ontario. We weren’t successful. For the treasury, that yielded $3 billion.

So my point is simply this—we could talk about that for an hour. My point is simply this: That $3 billion came into the treasury—what year did they sell the 407? I don’t know.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: In 2002.

Mr. Bill Mauro: In 2002. So the $5.5 billion we found ourselves with would have been $8.5 billion had that highway not been sold. If we were able to actually capture the costs of the downloaded services into the municipal residential property tax base, the deficit that we would have been left, as the incoming Liberal government, would have been $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion a year at a time when the economy of Ontario, of Canada, of the United States, our biggest trading partner, was red-hot. You know, this has taken up almost eight minutes of my time, but I always love to tell that little story.

I would say only one more thing on the deficit. If you think it only happened in Ontario, you don’t have to look any further than our federal Conservative cousins who, when they came in—

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Their federal Conservative cousins. Thank you.

When they came in—remembering that this was the reformed Conservative group that came in in 2006—they were left with a $13-billion surplus by the outgoing Liberal government of Paul Martin. A $13-billion surplus in 2006, and today the deficit number federally is somewhere in the magnitude of about $26 billion. I’m not sure. Their number seems to keep changing.

If people are interested in the deficit, I ask them simply: If it’s the Conservatives who can manage your books for you, what happened at the federal level?

When they’re trying to tell you that this only occurred in Ontario—I know that the people of Thunder Bay–Atikokan and the riding that I represent, and I think most people across the province of Ontario, understand very clearly that we went through a very difficult economic circumstance in Ontario, as did the rest of the provinces, and the suggestion—the absolute suggestion—that we were the only jurisdiction to be dealing with these challenges is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I think most people understand that. I do believe that most people were pleased with where we landed.

Speaker, I see you looking at the clock. Are you looking for me to—

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Mauro: And I will continue about 3:30 or 4 o’clock today. All right. Thank you, Speaker.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bill Walker: I don’t believe they’re here yet, but they will be. They’re en route: a high school from my area, OSCVI from Owen Sound. Michael Harris is the teacher, and Michael used to be a staffer here at Queen’s Park. We welcome them to Queen’s Park for the day.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to the Legislature Julie Pontarollo, who is the mom of page Jessica Pontarollo from the great riding of York South–Weston. She is in the gallery this morning, and I would like to welcome her to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce to the Legislative Assembly two members from our great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex—namely, the other part of Essex, which is Leamington. I’d like to introduce Tony Vidal and, of course, Jeremy Pilon. They’re here with us today.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming one of my constituents, Ms. Susan Colbert Wright.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions of guests?

I would like to make a comment about the individual who has decided that whistling is something we should be hearing in the House, and I’d ask them to stop.

On behalf of the member from Davenport and on behalf of Simon LiVolsi, the page—his dad, Roberto, is here, and we welcome him to Queen’s Park today.

A group from Brantford is visiting question period and the Legislature from Branlyn Community School in Brantford. Grade 5 teacher John Tipper and his class are here to visit Parliament. We welcome them.

Finally, in the Speaker’s gallery today we have a group from the Ontario Real Estate Association, Brant-Brantford: President John Oddi is here, along with his delegation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m absolutely sure that the Minister of Rural Affairs—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m absolutely sure that the Minister of Rural Affairs would allow me to do my introduction.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. Shall we try again? Thank you.

In the Speaker’s gallery today—that makes me feel much better, to use my inside voice—is the president of the Brant-Brantford Ontario Real Estate Association, John Oddi, along with his delegation, and the chair of the government relations committee from OREA, Richard Leroux, is here. We welcome them for visiting us today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that I do have your undivided attention, I’d like to introduce you to this session’s pages, if they would assemble, please.

From Scarborough–Rouge River, Lamiha Abdullah; from York–Simcoe, Farzan Farnaghi; from Mississauga South, Melanie Forbes; from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Andréa Franche; from Ottawa Centre, Laura Halpenny; from Oak Ridges–Markham, Alex Hu; from Sarnia–Lambton, Hannah Lacey; from Kitchener–Waterloo, Jeffrey Zihong Lin; from Davenport, Simon LiVolsi; from Simcoe–Grey, Christine Majer; from Etobicoke Centre, Edgar Martinez Chavez; from Toronto Centre, Hooriya Masood; from Mississauga–Erindale, Sean Mathew; from Halton, Jack Mogus; from Burlington, Eric Orosz; from Perth–Wellington, Vanessa Ortelli; from Ajax–Pickering, Carlo Miguel Padilla; from York South–Weston, Jessica Pontarollo; from Don Valley West, Michael Sambasivam; from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Jakob Walter; and from Richmond Hill, Jimmy Yan.

These are your pages for this session of the assembly.

It is now time for our question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. The release of the Metrolinx report yesterday opened up a whole new realm of taxes and fees for Ontario’s taxpayers. You may call them revenue tools, but a tax is a tax is a tax. These taxes will cost the average family $1,000 per year. Low-income students who don’t even drive will get taxed $140 a year, and seniors on fixed incomes will be taxed $120 a year.

Premier, why don’t you do the hard work of combing through your budget to find $2 billion worth of savings before you go to your automatic default provision and hit Ontario families, seniors and students with yet another tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To paraphrase my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, congestion is congestion is congestion. The reality is that we are going to have to deal with the congestion in the greater Toronto-Hamilton area. The reason we’re going to have to deal with that is that for decades, there has not been the work done that should have been done. That’s the reality. We are playing catch-up.

There are projects that were started. There was a line that was to be built along Eglinton. The hole was dug; the hole was filled in by the previous government. If that subway had been built, it would be running today—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to start right off. Normally I have to deal with—stop the clock for a moment. Normally I have to deal with the opposition while the Premier is speaking. Now I’m dealing with members of her own cabinet and her own side heckling while she’s trying to answer. That doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change anything. I’m asking for some spiral up instead of down. So if those people who want to heckle—they’d better be in their seat, so that I can tell them to stop heckling. I think somebody has got my message.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To respond, the point I’m making is that there has been a neglect of this file for many years. When we came into office in 2003, we started building transit. We need to keep going. That’s why we need an investment strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The reality is, your government managed to find $2 billion to pay connected eHealth consultants. You found another billion dollars to cancel two gas plants. Heck, you even found a couple of million dollars to buy Chris Mazza a speedboat.

Premier, based on your government’s track record, surely you can find $2 billion if you do the hard work of combing through the budget, if transit is truly one of your government’s priorities.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s talk about what we actually need to do here. This is a $50-billion plan. It’s over a couple of decades in the future. We need to continue the building that is going on right now in the GTHA and we need to build out to that broader plan.

This is an annual investment that needs to be made, and the reality is that that kind of commitment has not been made in this province. We need now to recognize that our economic growth and our economic stability, quite frankly, are at stake, because every year we’re losing billions of dollars in productivity by not having that transit in place.

We need to work on people’s quality of life. We need to recognize that building transit affects people’s daily lives, and that’s why we need to make these investments.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, Premier, this is ultimately about your government’s priorities. Over the last 10 years, you have consistently spent money on your partisan priorities and not those of the average Ontarian. Your government does not have a revenue problem; you’ve got a management problem.

It’s time to do right by Ontarians. Show some leadership. Will you promise us and the people of Ontario today in this Legislature that you will not implement these new taxes, and you will do your job and find $2 billion annually from the existing budget going forward?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This most certainly is about our priorities, and I am very proud of our priorities. Our priorities are and have been to make sure that we deliver the services that people need every single day. Our priorities are making sure that we have the teachers in our schools that kids need; making sure that we have the doctors, the nurses, the nurse practitioners and the midwives that people need in their lives; and making sure that the infrastructure that has been neglected in this province for decades is built. I am proud of those priorities.

The reality is that this province has needed a dedicated plan for building transit and repairing and building infrastructure for years. They haven’t had it. We’re going to put it in place and we’re going to provide that infrastructure that’s needed in the future for the children and grandchildren in this province.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. In looking through the gas plant scandal treasury board documents last week, it would appear that your white-out team missed a few gems. In the House leader’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Carry on, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker.

In the House leader’s notes for last year’s budget meeting to buy the support of the NDP, the last sentence reads, “The proposals should be enough to avoid an election.” That’s your government’s sole mission: to stay in power at all costs.

Premier, how can you find a billion dollars to buy NDP support, a billion dollars to cancel gas plants, a billion dollars to subsidize hydro bills and a billion dollars for eHealth consultants, but you can’t find a billion dollars to build new subways and highways?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have found billions of dollars to invest in subways, in transit, in light rail and in roads and bridges across the GTHA and across the province. Every single year, we have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure.

Let me just be clear in terms of the work that we have done around the relocation of the gas plants and why I believe that being open and transparent is exactly what was necessary. And working in collaboration with the people in the Legislature—I ran my leadership on that. The notion that, somehow, working in collaboration with the opposition and working to put forward a budget that would allow us to continue to govern in a minority Parliament and continue to work with the folks across the floor—I think that’s our responsibility.

It is what I said when I ran in the leadership. It is what we’ve been doing. We’re going to continue to work with you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, for the cost of your gas plant scandal, which your own treasury board says will reach close to a billion dollars, you could have built the entire length of the Eglinton crosstown; or you could have paid for 40 kilometres of dedicated bus rapid transit, connecting Burlington, Oakville and Mississauga with a BRT direct to Kipling.

In your $127-billion budget, if you found just 2% of savings across the entire government, you would have $2.5 billion a year. That’s your $2 billion for your Big Move and $500 million left over to pay down debt.

Premier, we don’t have a revenue problem in Ontario; you have a spending problem. Why do Liberals always default to new taxes to solve Ontario’s problems?

Interjections.

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

The member from Renfrew: nice and easy.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m talking to you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s an interesting line of questioning because the same line of questioning is used when the members opposite talk about investment in education. The same line of questioning is used when the members opposite ask about investment in health care, because the reality is that they would cut those services across the board.

We have been working very hard to constrain costs. We know that eliminating the deficit is extremely important. We’re on track to do that by 2017-18.

In the interim, we cannot ignore the reality that if we are going to have the economic growth that we need, if we’re going to be able to take our place in the global economy, we’ve got to invest in infrastructure, particularly in the GTHA, because we’re losing productivity because of the lack of infrastructure. Making those investments in transit is the economically sound thing to do.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: London Economics International, a globally respected independent economic consultancy, said that your feed-in tariff program and green energy subsidies will cost $46 billion. In other words, it’s roughly the cost of the entire Big Move, yet it hasn’t increased green energy production one bit.

How do you explain to Scarborough residents that you now need even more money from them, yet they still won’t get subways? How do you explain to the people elsewhere in the GTHA that their energy bills will continue to skyrocket, their gas bills will go up, their HST will go up, all because of Liberal mismanagement?

Premier, on a personal note, how can you explain to the residents of northern Ontario that you can’t afford Ontario Northland? Premier, how can Ontarians trust you with even one more nickel of their money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was a lot in that question. I wouldn’t know who to refer it to even if I was choosing to, so I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak to the issue of Ontario Northland because I want the people of North Bay and the people of northeastern Ontario to know that Minister Gravelle is working very hard to bring those northeastern voices into the discussion around Ontario Northland. He has made a commitment that the advisory panel will look at what the options are and make sound decisions on that issue. I think that it’s very good to have a question from the member opposite on the issue because it’s important to me that we have a rational transportation plan for northern Ontario, northeastern and northwestern Ontario.

We need to invest in transit in the GTHA. There is no question about that. The members opposite are working to undermine that reality—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay, we’ll start. The member from Halton is warned, and the member from Renfrew. Is that enough?

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: All the questions so far from the members opposite have not acknowledged the reality that we need to build transit in the GTHA. We have to do that. There’s really no debate about that, and we’re working our level best to find a way to make those investments.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. New Democrats have been working hard to make life more affordable for people by giving FSCO a mandate to lower auto insurance rates by 15%.

Would the Premier agree that raising insurance rates by 30% before lowering them is not a measure that will make life more affordable for drivers in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, we need to get the budget passed. There’s no doubt about that, because we have said in the budget that we are going to work to reduce auto insurance premiums by 15%. We said we want to get on that right away. The reality is that until we get the budget passed, we can’t implement the budget; I look forward to the debate on the budget, I look forward to moving ahead and being able to implement it.

A part of that is helping people in their day-to-day lives, and one aspect of that is lowering those insurance premiums. We want to get the budget through the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Susan Wright is a driver from Bramalea, and she just got her notice that her auto insurance premiums are going up by more than 30%. Her driving record has not changed. She hasn’t had sudden accidents or claims on her insurance policy. She’s one of several people who have contacted us about premiums that suddenly seem to be rising—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Northumberland, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —just as the government was finally forced to take some action—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland, come to order, please.

Please put the question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can the Premier explain to drivers like Susan why her government, right now, is approving massive increases at the same time as they’re promising to provide a cut in rates?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: Rates have actually reduced by 0.3% year over year, since last year. What we’re doing right now is we’re asking FSCO to take controls and measures appropriately to ensure that rates do not go up.

The member opposite makes reference to a specific case, and I don’t know the particulars of that individual, but I do know this: We need to get this budget passed. We need to ensure that we give FSCO the powers necessary. We need to provide legislation and provide the oversight that we all agree on, in order that we can reduce rates and in order that we also go after the root causes of the fraud that’s also there. We’re working toward that. We’ve taken the measures over the last two years to reduce some of that fraud. It has translated into certain reductions of some of the auto rates.

More needs to be done. I agree with the member opposite: We cannot allow rates to go up at this time. Let’s get this budget passed.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let’s be clear: What needs to be done is that this government needs to tell the auto insurance industry that they can’t put rates up. That’s what needs to be done.

Families are justifiably skeptical. They have heard government promises to cut auto insurance premiums by 15%. At the same time—right now, Speaker—drivers are getting 30% increases on their renewals.

New Democrats want to make sure that good drivers pay less next year than they’re paying today. Will the government commit to protecting drivers like Susan from increases before the decreases?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Of course we’re committed; we put it in the budget. We made it clear that that’s exactly what we want to do. We’ve already assessed the fact that rates have gone down on average, not up—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I have to go to the individuals immediately and do so, I’ve done it, and I will do it again. It is too much.

Answer, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Some of the measures that we’re asking for are to appoint a review for any dispute resolutions, as the member opposite just made reference to. We want to continue in the

definitions of certain impairments. We’ve already started discussions with a number of initiatives and stakeholders around the province. We want to make certain that claims are reviewed. It’s part of our budget; it’s part of our request.

We also know that, in our discussions with those insurance companies, we’ve been very direct in telling them to maintain the rates at what they are. They’ve actually been lowered, on average, by 0.3%.

We need to get this budget passed. We need to work together. Let’s not make reference to one individual case that we don’t know the particulars of. It’s unfair for the member opposite to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you; that’s enough. New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. New Democrats have been very clear: We don’t think it’s fair to ask families to pay new tolls and taxes at the same time as the government is opening new tax loopholes for corporations.

I asked the Premier about whether she would work with Ottawa to close her new corporate tax loophole. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said, “We’ve had this discussion, and we’re continuing to do so.” What’s the status of that discussion?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Finance will want to speak to the specifics of that contact with Ottawa. I think that the leader of the third party knows that we do not have full control over those mechanisms, which is why we have to work with Ottawa. That’s why the letter has been written. I’ll let the finance minister speak to those specifics.

But at the root of this question, again, is a question about whether the third party supports the building of transit in the GTHA. It seems to me that the members in that party understand very well how critical that infrastructure is to the economy of this region and also understand very well that the quality of life of the people who live in the GTHA—the moms who are trying to get their kids to school, to daycare and back home again, and the dads who are driving on the highway: They know that there needs to be a responsibility taken by government to make those investments. I hope the third party will work with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, what we understand very well over here is that the Premier is planning to open a brand new corporate tax loophole that will ensure that corporations can write the HST off on gasoline and other items. But on the other hand, she’s musing about making families pay a new gasoline tax. Does the Premier think that’s fair: that families should pay more and corporations should pay less yet again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really have to just say that we have said many, many times in this Legislature, both I and the Minister of Finance, that the characterization of that relationship on the tax regime with the federal government is just not accurate. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have written to the federal government. We have said that we would like to extend the situation as it exists now. It is not a new loophole. It’s not a loophole. It’s something that was negotiated with the federal government when we changed the tax system. We will continue to work with the federal government on this.

But I think the question that we do have to grapple with is, is the third party going to support the investment in transit in the GTHA? We know it’s needed for people in their day-to-day lives. We know it’s necessary for the economy. We need their support on that investment.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let’s be clear about what this looks like. The Premier’s new corporate tax loophole will make sure that if two cars roll up at the pump at the same time, the executive in the company car won’t have to pay the HST, and the mom with the kids in the minivan will.

In fact, if the Premier goes forward with the gas tax, it means that the mom in the minivan is going to be paying more and more and more. The Premier is ready to ask families to pay more while she tells corporations to pay less. Does she really think that that’s a balanced approach?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As the member opposite asked, let’s be clear. And let us be clear: You’re talking about restricted input tax credits. It’s not a loophole, it’s not a tax break, it’s not a tax giveaway, and it’s not new. We have written the Minister of Finance federally to extend that exception, as we all agree, in order for us to continue meeting our balance and in order for us to do what’s necessary to protect the interest of our taxpayers. We agree that we want to have these extended, but we also recognize that it has to be in tandem with the federal government.

What’s happening is, if they get a tax rebate—in 2017-18, because they’re all relative to other different issues: It’s not just vehicles, meals and entertainment; it’s also telecommunications, and it’s also in regard to energy. So all of this is coming up. We’re asking them to have them extended. It’s not a tax loophole.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. It took five years for Metrolinx to deliver a funding proposal for its transit plan. The best that they could do is to come up with a proposal to add $2 billion in taxes on to the backs of Ontario taxpayers. We reject that proposal. Ontario families and businesses reject that proposal. Even the New Democrats reject that proposal. The Premier tells us she wants to have a conversation about adding $2 billion of taxes to Ontario families and businesses.

Here is our proposal: While the Premier is having her conversation, will she agree to a select committee of this Legislature that has a mandate to find $2 billion of savings out of the waste and inefficiency that is rampant throughout this government?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please, and come to order. Start the clock.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s an interesting question that’s being asked from a member who—I could go through numerous decisions of the party opposite in power: the $7-billion loss on the fire sale of the 407; the $8 billion in stranded debt. There’s $15 billion that just comes to me like that. You guys majored in wasting money on a scale unprecedented by anybody who ever sat on this side of the House. We need no lessons from the members opposite on multi-billion-dollar disasters. We couldn’t hold a candle to them if we tried.

Their record on transit and their neglect of it is legendary across North America. When they were in power you could not find a subnational government that so abandoned transit, which is so critical to young people and our jobs. They froze funding for GO transit, and the lineups all along the Lakeshore line were legendary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: So much for a non-partisan approach to solving this problem.

Speaker, the budget—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Trying to understand the psychology of the situation, this is where I get the emails that often tell me, “Why don’t you just throw the bums out?” And having the armchair quarterbacks advising me on how to do that—I’m not taking your advice because I honestly believe we can race to the top.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: I find the government’s reaction to that comment very passing strange. It’s the Premier who made the suggestion that we should be approaching this on a non-partisan basis. The budget of this government is $127 billion. The waste is rampant; we all know that. One year it’s eHealth. The next year it’s Ornge. The year after, it’s gas plants. We know—all of us in this place on all three sides of the House know—there is a great deal of inefficiency and waste.

I’m going to repeat my question to the Premier, not the Minister of Transportation. Will she agree to strike a select committee of this House with a mandate to find the waste and inefficiency of $2 billion so that we can fund transit?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: If the party opposite and some of the members opposite who sat at the cabinet table can point, in their almost decade in power, to one single transit project they invested in, I will do a wave and clap for them, but they can’t.

What we can point to is their brilliant record, which was to take bulldozers and fill in the Eglinton crosstown line and subway. That was their transit record. This is a party that most singlehandedly in government is responsible for the transit crisis we face today. No party in this Legislature has a worse record.

While the business community is begging the party opposite to engage in this conversation because of the $6 billion they are losing—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday, we heard from Dr. Jake Thiessen, the expert investigating the diluted chemo drugs. Dr. Thiessen talked about the fact that the outsourcing of drugs for use in hospitals has exploded in recent years, and he noted the lack of oversight and said he was worried. My question is simple: Is the minister worried about this contracting out of hospital drug preparation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What’s vitally important is that we have the highest quality of drugs for all of our patients, and I think we would all agree that cancer patients in particular need to have the confidence that they are getting the drugs that have been prescribed for them, Speaker.

I am delighted that Dr. Thiessen has taken on this challenge to give us advice on the entire cancer drug supply chain. I think members of committee heard yesterday that he’s taking that responsibility very, very seriously. He will be reporting back to us in coming weeks, and I look forward to seeing his report.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, Speaker, Dr. Thiessen said that in the past he wouldn’t have been worried about the preparation of these drugs because most of this was being done in our hospitals, in a highly regulated environment. But as the for-profit industry exploded in Ontario, the needed oversight has not been provided by the Ministry of Health. Hospitals have been encouraged to move services out, to contract out, often to the for-profit industry, but this changes has not been properly done. Will the minister take her responsibility seriously and provide the comprehensive oversight that is her responsibility?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Absolutely. That oversight is essential. That is exactly why I have asked Dr. Thiessen to give us advice on how to ensure the safety of our cancer drugs, Speaker. I think he is a highly qualified person; I know he is a highly qualified person. He is doing his job thoroughly. I do not want to prejudge his findings. I think it’s very important that we give him the time he needs to give us a thorough report, and then we will act on that.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday Metrolinx, the agency tasked with planning transit expansion in the GTHA, came out with their long-awaited investment strategy report. This report outlined their recommendations on how to pay for transit, and it also talked about the immense cost of congestion and gridlock to Ontarians. Many of my constituents in Brampton West can spend many hours in traffic or on transit each day. I must say that many of them are very pleased to hear that building public transit is a priority for our government.

We can all agree that there is a distinct need to reduce gridlock, improve air quality and build strong communities. Minister, please tell us why it’s so important for us to move forward and invest in transit projects in the GTHA now.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member and our friends from Peel region for their support on this. Mr. Speaker, this is critical. I just want to stop and pause here and give a bit of reality on where we’re going. We spend less per capita than any other province in Canada, so we have a lower envelope already for all of our basic services. No other jurisdiction—not British Columbia, not Alberta, not Quebec, not California, not Oregon, not Massachusetts—no one has built transit without raising some of these revenues. It has never happened.

People who tell you that you can build a major regional transportation system without additional revenue are fibbing. And that’s a polite word for it; my mother is probably watching.

If we don’t do this, the business community alone and our residents will lose $2.7 billion a year. That’s the loss of summer jobs for their kids, it’s lower household income, it’s time away from families, and it’s the impossibility of getting a job because if you don’t—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —there’s no bus to take you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Thank you, Minister, for sharing some of the facts on the cost of gridlock to our economy.

The Metrolinx report recommended several revenue tools that should be used to fund new public transit expansion. Even though the cost of gridlock is estimated to be so high, and our transit system is in need of a dramatic expansion, some of my constituents want to know how some of the proposals might affect them. Now that the report by Metrolinx has been presented to the government, could the minister please tell us what the government’s next steps are?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I was talking with my colleague Minister Jeffrey. It took her two hours and 15 minutes to get to work from Brampton today. We are the party in this House that thinks that’s unacceptable. Her son Ryan would like to spend more time with his mom. She already is committed to a public life, which is taxing enough.

Minister Jeffrey’s situation isn’t any different. When I’m out in Oshawa and Ajax and Pickering, the chamber of commerce, the residents’ association and the regional municipal politicians are saying, “Get this built.”

We will make sure that we take as little additional revenue as absolutely possible. We are also understanding that the costs—that that $6 billion is taxing Ontario families, and that’s real money that they know is missing in opportunities and lower household income.

This government stands with the people of the GTHA to improve their quality of life, to let their moms spend—

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

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, in response to my question yesterday over the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, you announced you wanted to explore the possibility of creating local oversight boards at our jails. While I always welcome increased accountability, I also welcomed your 12-point action plan last August because you said it would solve the problems at EMDC. Almost a year later, the violence continues to escalate, threatening the safety of our correctional officers. Now you’re saying, “Well, we actually need a local board that will oversee the implementation of such plans.”

Minister, you have hundreds of ministry staff, dozens of managers at facilities province-wide and nearly 150 correctional officers at EMDC alone. How many more people do you need to do your job?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for his comments, but his comments are not very appropriate. As I have said, the safety of our correctional officers and our inmates is my top priority.

In Elgin-Middlesex, we have always sent our best manager there. It’s a difficult situation right now, and we are working very hard with the management there, with the union and with the correctional officers to improve the situation. We just implemented 24-hour nursing, and we have also just approved 11 new correctional officers. On this side of the House, I want to make sure the situation improves at Elgin-Middlesex correctional facility.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, my comments are always appropriate when I’m standing up for my constituents.

At the end of the day, the buck does stop with you. Unfortunately, with the closure of the Bluewater, Owen Sound and Walkerton jails, overcrowding continues to put a strain on EMDC. When addressing these problems, you waited until receiving multiple lawsuits from inmates and pressure from myself and others to devise your 12-point action plan. You assured us it would work and restore safety to the jail. Then, after a year that included a near-riot, a fire and regular weekend lockdowns, you announced yesterday another plan to supposedly add more oversight. You keep tossing forward promises and back-of-the-envelope plans while maintaining that overcrowding is not the issue.

Minister, do you now regret closing the Bluewater, Owen Sound and Walkerton facilities?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we wanted to improve the situation in our correctional facilities and to close institutions that were built before Confederation. I’m not going to apologize for that.

We are working with the membership there to improve the situation, but one question that I need answered is, who is not doing his job when there are drugs going into the facility? Who is not doing his job when there is a knife going into the facility? That’s something that I want answered and answered soon.

In the meantime, we are looking at appointing a new board that will help us to improve the situation there and to have also better communication with both the union and the community. Let’s hope that we will see a major improvement soon in that facility.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, it’s clear that your government’s OLG privatization plan is in chaos. You’ve fired the president and CEO of the OLG, Paul Godfrey, and the entire board of directors has subsequently resigned, yet you say that it’s full steam ahead on this wrong-headed privatization scheme. Will the government admit that its OLG privatization strategy is a total mess and scrap this misguided plan once and for all?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question. What we’re in the process of doing right now is, there is an interim chair and board in place. We have said quite clearly that there are aspects of the modernization strategy that need to go ahead—we want to have them go ahead—but there are some issues that we really feel need more focus.

One was the integration of the horse racing industry into the whole strategy—that was a point of divergence between us and the former chair of the board—and the issues around the fairness across the province. It was very important to us that whatever formula, whatever strategy was put in place, was even-handed in terms of its treatment of communities across the province. So those are issues that the new board will be working on. We all recognize that there have to be changes in terms of the OLG and a modernization process, but we want those two principles to be in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s time for this government to admit that it has a gambling problem: It’s addicted to the revenues that it thinks will pour in from privatizing the OLG. But the government should know that the first step in addressing this failure is admitting that you have a problem in the first place. The fact is that it’s very unlikely that the projected revenues will ever materialize. Will this government finally admit that it has a problem and scrap this misguided privatization plan once and for all?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is interesting, that question coming from the party that brought casinos to the province of Ontario. In terms of that revenue stream, the reality is that that revenue stream is part of the revenue that goes into the provincial treasury to pay for schools and hospitals, and it’s very important money. We recognize that, but we have to make sure that the industry functions responsibly and functions in a way that is consistent with the principles that we hold.

I have been very clear that having the horse racing industry as part of the gaming strategy, I think, is going to lead to a more sustainable horse racing industry across the province. That was the recommendation of the transition panel, and that is the recommendation that we are going to be operating on. So we need leadership at the OLG that is going to implement that part of the strategy. I look forward to that work.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bill Mauro: Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment. Minister, our government recently tabled its 2013 budget, a budget about creating jobs and helping people in their everyday lives. We’ve put together a strong plan to help people across the province, and this plan will create jobs and give all Ontarians the chance they need to succeed.

One of the key elements in our plan is to work with businesses to expand markets for Ontario goods and services beyond the borders of our province so that Ontario businesses can access high-growth markets so that they can go global.

Could the minister please inform this House what this government is doing to expand its global economic presence and strengthen Ontario’s capacity for innovation and job creation right here at home?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for his question. I’m pleased to inform the House of a recent announcement our government has made to support innovative businesses and capitalize on emerging opportunities within the global economy.

Last week, I visited the riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex to announce support from the Ontario government’s Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to standing side by side with the local member, the MPP from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. I invited him to the announcement, and I was, as I mentioned, looking forward to standing side by side, but I was forced to make this announcement on my own.

This investment has helped to attract an investment of nearly $3.5 million from Armo Tool, a company specializing in advanced manufacturing. This investment will enable Armo to expand its exports by a third. It will help create and retain 139 jobs.

It’s investments like these that generate the kind of growth that helps us compete, not only in the short term, but in the long term.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Minister, thank you for that response. It’s good to hear that our government’s plan to help create jobs while promoting Ontario on the global stage is working.

While it’s good to see that the manufacturing sector is developing and that there are many new technologies, we need to make sure Ontario has a competitive edge with these new technologies so that we can compete in the global marketplace.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, could the minister please tell the House how Ontario is helping these new technologies thrive and gain that competitive edge in the global marketplace?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, it is true: Ontario needs to help businesses compete on the global stage. In fact, I’d say we have a responsibility as a government to do this. That’s why one of my ministry’s efforts is on the water sector market, which is a global market that is growing at a very, very rapid pace. Water shortage is becoming—it already is—a global issue due to increasing population, economic growth and climate change. Ontario, we all know, is blessed with incredible freshwater resources, so we have a strong competitive advantage in the burgeoning blue economy.

Last week, I visited with the team at Anderson Water Systems and with Minister McMeekin in his riding of Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale. We announced a funding partnership that will contribute to Ontario’s blue economy and help Anderson Water Systems to expand their water treatment facilities, allowing them to expand their exports all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, our support for Anderson Water Systems is just another testament to our government’s commitment to a sustainable and prosperous economy.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday I brought to your attention that you have put 25,000 contact call centre jobs at risk across Ontario due to your rushed decision to cancel the apprenticeship tax credit. This Liberal-NDP budget decision will kill thousands of jobs without any consultation.

Premier, yesterday I spoke with Alliance iCommunications in downtown London. Sadly, with this decision, Alliance is being forced to consider relocating their business and their 300 jobs to the United States. With 600,000 men and women out of work, why are you and the NDP so determined to drive businesses and jobs out of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, again, for the question from across the way. We recognize how important it is to have the Apprenticeship Training Tax Credit in the past to promote those initiatives, which will stimulate employment and enable those apprentices to have full-time jobs. The fact is, it’s not happening with regard to call centres.

However, call centres are still eligible for other provincial apprenticeship trade programs. Employers of call centre apprentices are eligible to up to $1,000 bonuses for each apprentice who receives and completes their training and receives their certification.

We’ve also introduced, in our budget, $195 million for a youth employment fund to enable those companies to hire some of our young people, to provide those skills and enable them to have full-time employment as well.

We want to work, and I believe the members across are also supportive of recommendations made by Drummond. This is one of them. He’s recognized that some of these investment tax credits are not doing their full extent. We want to do the right thing. We want to employ people. We want to stimulate that growth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Premier, North Bay has an 11.3% unemployment rate, and you are putting up to 800 jobs at risk there. London has a 10% unemployment rate, the highest of the big cities in Canada. You are putting thousands of jobs at risk in London at places like Alliance iCommunications. Windsor has a 9.3% unemployment rate—a little better than London, but still failing badly under the McGuinty-Wynne-Horwath government, and you’re putting good jobs at risk there too.

Premier, was the decision to kill the apprenticeship tax credit and risk up to 25,000 important jobs your decision, or was it forced upon you by your NDP puppet masters?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I go to the answer, I’m going to ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to come together. If there’s a continuation of the dialogue, I’m going to ask you to look up the old British way of saying, “Take it outside.”

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite also should be aware that we highlighted these initiatives in the 2012 budget. We recognized and asked those very companies to come forward with more advancements and to be more productive in terms of supporting those employees.

We also want to make reference to the fact that these tax credits existed—came into being—prior to us making substantive tax reductions for corporates, making tax reforms to make them even more competitive. We want to ensure that the environment in which these businesses operate is a competitive environment but also is to the benefit of those employees and those individuals.

We want these companies to stay in Ontario; we want these companies to provide and to serve. But we want the people who are being employed to get the benefit of why we’re investing in them, and that’s not occurring at this point, so we want to take the proper steps going forward.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The MPP for London–Fanshawe wrote a letter to the Premier’s Minister of Correctional Services three weeks ago, asking her to provide a progress report about dangerous conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. Instead of progress, we learned that another correctional services officer was attacked—in fact, stabbed in the head—over the weekend at the EMDC. To this day, the minister has still not responded to the letter that was sent by the member for London–Fanshawe.

Will the Premier take real and immediate action to protect the lives of workers and inmates in Ontario jails immediately?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: In my ministry, we answer all letters in a most speedy way. I don’t know—I’m not aware of when this letter was sent, but I’ll make sure that we answer the letter.

As I said previously, the health and safety of both our correctional officers and our inmates are my priority. I’ve been working very diligently with my deputy minister and the ministry staff to improve the situation there. We have developed a 12-point plan, and we are in the process of putting it into action. Also, we have now the 24-hour nursing, as it was required, which is good progress. We have approved the hiring of 11 new correctional officers.

In the supplementary, I’ll go on to express what we’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the letter was sent three weeks ago, Speaker. Perhaps if it was speedily dealt with, this injury could have been avoided this past weekend.

The Elgin-Middlesex jail is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. In the last three days, four correctional officers have been stabbed in jails in Ontario: two in Niagara; one in Maplehurst, in Milton; and one in London.

Dangerous conditions in jails across the province continue to endanger the lives of workers and inmates, yet your minister cannot find the time to take action to actually correct the problems.

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There seems to be some giggling on the other side, Speaker. It’s quite disconcerting.

Premier, will you take action immediately to secure Ontario jails for the safety of the workers and the inmates who are there?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: We have improved the situation there. I know that these incidents are unfortunate, and it’s unfortunate when a correctional officer is being attacked and hurt. We take it very, very seriously.

But the question remains—I’m told that they have improved the situation there by making sure that they do their rounds, that everybody who comes in is investigated to make sure that they don’t have drugs, they don’t have matches, they don’t have lighters, they don’t have knives. But the question remains, and I asked my staff to answer the question as to why this is happening, whose fault it is and who should make sure that this does not happen, to make sure that the other correctional officers are safe when they are working in the institution.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This spring has been specifically devastating for many municipalities across the province that have experienced severe flooding. Homes and businesses have been damaged or destroyed in places such as Minden Hills, Markstay-Warren and Moosonee. This flooding has resulted in significant damage to municipal infrastructure, but has also meant that many Ontarians have lost their possessions and their homes.

Can the minister tell us what the government is doing to help the people of Ontario who have experienced flooding and may have lost their homes?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. This has been an extraordinarily difficult spring for a number of municipalities across Ontario, and I want to extend my condolences to those individuals who have lost possessions, their homes or their businesses during the flooding.

I want to recognize the hard work of the residents, staff and first responders in some of the affected communities: in Bracebridge, Huntsville, Bancroft, Kawartha Lakes, Minden Hills, South Algonquin, Markstay-Warren, Ramara and Moosonee. I want to offer them my heartfelt thanks for all of their hard work.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with the mayor of Bracebridge and the mayor of Huntsville, and I’ve seen first-hand the devastating impact the flooding has had on their communities. That’s why, last week, our government committed up to $18 million through the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program to help those affected communities across central, eastern and northern parts of Ontario. The money will help them clean up, repair their homes and small businesses and rebuild essential municipal infrastructure like bridges and roads.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister; it’s good to hear that there is action being taken to help rebuild after these devastating floods.

When disasters like this happen, families are often caught off-guard, and they often lose many of their possessions, in addition to their homes. Families and individuals are in desperate need to replace essential items like clothing, shelter, food or medicine, some of the basic items that we take for granted but are essential items that every Ontarian needs to continue to live their lives.

Can the minister tell us if there are any new initiatives being taken to assist those who may have lost so much because of the recent flooding in their community?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to thank the member for the question because it’s one that has been raised with me before. While committing the $18 million to help communities rebuild, we’ve also been working hard to help those affected Ontarians recover from the disaster. Affected municipalities and their appointed disaster relief committees can give interim payments to residents of up to $1,000 to help them begin the process of recovery.

Moreover, if an individual is in need of immediate financial need, they may be eligible to receive emergency assistance through Ontario Works. This emergency assistance gives individuals immediate financial assistance they need because of a crisis or an emergency situation such as flooding. The amount provided may include money for basic needs such as food, shelter or clothing.

I want to reassure all those affected that our government continues to work with our municipal partners to help residents in all the affected municipalities recover.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, over the last decade, the Liberal government is responsible for chasing 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of the province. Your budget even shows that you’ve tried to make up for this loss by adding hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs to the government payroll.

Now your government is threatening even more manufacturing jobs by trying to get rid of the industrial exception. I’ve heard loud and clear from manufacturers across the Quinte region that this is a serious concern for them—not just keeping jobs, but it’s threatening the closure of these facilities as well.

Premier, will you get off the back of the manufacturers of the province and stop trying to make government the only growth industry in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I know that the member spoke to his chamber of commerce about this last week, so I appreciate the heads-up on the question.

As I’ve already indicated to the member from Dufferin–Peel—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Caledon.

Hon. John Gerretsen: —Caledon, Dufferin–Caledon, a couple of weeks ago, I was not satisfied with the overall consultation that took place. We have therefore put the matter on hold. We are doing our own consultation within the ministry right now, dealing with the industrial exemptions that have been on the books since 1984, and we will be dealing with this issue before the first of September.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: The last thing the manufacturers in the Quinte area need is more consultation from this government. It’s consultation that’s going to lead to a strategy that’s probably never going to be implemented. This government, with the help of their NDP farm team, is killing manufacturing across Ontario. A Trenton VP of a manufacturing facility wrote you and me, Minister, saying that currently they estimate the cost of doing business in Ontario is 30% higher than the rest of Canada. She estimates that if this exception, which, as you say, has been in place for almost 30 years—it will add another 30% or more to the cost of doing business.

Manufacturers need room to innovate. They need less red tape, not more. They need the competitive advantage that this exception gives Ontario.

Premier, either keep the industrial exception for the manufacturers in place or tell the workers that are working today that you’re not interested in keeping jobs in Ontario.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’ll refer the matter to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.