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

March 27, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2014-Mar-27 (PDF)

L119 - Thu 27 Mar 2014 / Jeu 27 mar 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 27 March 2014 Jeudi 27 mars 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fair Minimum Wage Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 pour un salaire minimum équitable

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

Cabinet ministers

Ontario public service

Job creation

Pan Am Games

Pan Am Games

Pan Am Games

Services for the developmentally disabled

Winter highway maintenance

Mental health services

Natural gas

Hydro rates

Horse racing industry

Violence against aboriginal women

Power plants

Power plants

Environmental protection

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Ontario College of Trades

Health care

Heather Robertson

Orangeville Lions Club

Beaches International Jazz Festival

Holi festival

Burlington Eagles

Public transit

Frank Stapleton

PETITIONS

Physiotherapy services

Notice of dissatisfaction

Long-term care

Use of digital technologies

Physiotherapy services

Minimum wage

Dog ownership

Dog ownership

Use of digital technologies

Ontario College of Trades

Hydro rates

Use of digital technologies

Charitable gaming

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Job creation

Reducing Gridlock and Improving Traffic Flow Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 visant à réduire l’engorgement routier et à améliorer l’écoulement de la circulation

Job creation

Reducing Gridlock and Improving Traffic Flow Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 visant à réduire l’engorgement routier et à améliorer l’écoulement de la circulation

Job creation

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fair Minimum Wage Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 pour un salaire minimum équitable

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 18, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to the minimum wage / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le salaire minimum.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to give a few comments on Bill 165. It being Thursday morning, I’m very happy, because on Thursday morning I know that tonight I will be seeing my wife and my kids; it’s going to be nice. I actually get the opportunity to return home a little bit early, so it’s going to be really nice, because I’m going to be able to have supper with her tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the last constituency week touring many, many communities in my riding, particularly the northern part of the riding and also the western part of the riding, meeting with community members. Just last weekend, I met with a lot of the mayors and councillors at the Algoma District Municipal Association meeting up in Sault Ste. Marie.

Time and time again, we are in challenging times. Municipalities are finding it challenging to meet their services, to meet the needs of their constituents, and they’re providing the good services that are always provided to the communities of Algoma–Manitoulin by their leadership. But mostly, what I heard also, meeting up with constituents, is the tough times that they’re in.

That needs to be heard loud and clear across this province: that every day people, particularly the people of Algoma–Manitoulin, the ones that I represent and that I have the honour of coming here and speaking on behalf of, are having a really tough time. They’re having tough times with their hydro bills. That is the biggest concern that I heard while I was going throughout the riding over the last week during my constituency week. Time and time again—and not just hearing complaints, but people coming in—there was a sense of desperation in them. There was a sense of frustration that they’re being abandoned.

Those are just some of the concerns.

There were various other ones, particularly in northern Ontario, in regard to the condition of our roads—again, the lack of oversight and the lack of quality in regard to road maintenance. That’s not news to you, Mr. Speaker. You’ve heard that consistently from our party and from our northern caucus members, time and time again over the last couple of months.

It’s funny—not that it is funny—but a lot of that is now being highlighted because southern Ontario, for some reason, is getting snowstorms—something that didn’t happen very often—and it’s become an issue. It’s always been an issue for us in northern Ontario. Those are some of the issues that I’ve been dealing with.

I do have some good news—it pertains to G165 as well, and I’m coming around to that—and that is that there are good things happening in Algoma–Manitoulin, particularly in the northern part of the riding. Jobs are being created, there’s a mill that has reopened, there’s potential for people to come in and actually set up with their families and move on and prosper.

But we have a challenge: We don’t have the workforce that is required in order to move them along. I’ll just give you an example. There’s a mill up in White River. The White River sawmill has now reopened, and a lot of the people had moved out of the community in White River. They had moved out—they’ve gone to the oil sands. A lot of their key individuals had moved out to other regional communities. They just need to provide the wages and the dollars so they can provide for their families.

So they were really having a crunch time finding the workforce that they’re looking for, but they did secure a workforce, and there are a lot of people who have now moved up the ladder from minimum wage jobs into the sawmill. But that has created a huge labour shortage within that community—not just that community, but the region. These are your service providers that are there as well, with key municipal individuals that are needed.

You have your hotels that still need good labour to come in and take care, because tourism season is coming up. They’re looking and they’re very short on the labour workforce. I’ve been trying my best to relay that information, and I’m glad I’ve spoken to both ministers so that we can start having that discussion in regard to what programs are in place to address some of that labour shortage.

The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that we have jobs in Algoma–Manitoulin. But we just don’t have the workforce that will go there. The challenging

part is attracting those workers to come there. Not only in restaurants and hotels, but also at gas stations, and there are other supporting employment opportunities there in the region that we just can’t get the workforce up there for.

One of the reasons why is because of our minimum wage. It’s hard for a family to come up to that area and set up shop and be attracted to come up, because it actually snows and it gets cold sometimes in northern Ontario. But I’ve always said, and I’ve been a firm believer, that once we have you, once we have you sitting in our community, once we get you to come to the community, you will recognize why northerners choose to live in northern Ontario. You get a really true sense of what it is, as far as being part of the community; that your issues are their issues. People will come, but we have to develop those policies and we have to take those steps in order to get the people there.

One of the steps we have brought forward—I recognize that the government has brought their plan forward; it’s a step. But I just want to put on the record what we’d like to do, as far as what our vision is. It’s not a vision that is just looking at one sector. It is a vision that is going to bring all of the individuals who are concerned in regard to the discussion around minimum wage, including those who are most marginalized and most need that increase to the minimum wage. But it also includes the small businesses that are going to be affected. I’m going to just read that to you, Mr. Speaker:

“We have a plan in regard to supporting not only those that are marginalized but also small business, as well as the lowest paid workers in the province, by phasing in a series of reductions in the small business tax rate, while increasing the minimum wage to $12 per hour over two years.”

So it’s not a sudden blow. It’s a modest increase over the next couple of years to start getting those individuals interested in coming back to good opportunities to set up with their families.

The plan is economically responsible and will help lift hard-working Ontarians out of poverty while allowing small businesses to keep driving our economy forward. Based on the minimum wage of $11 an hour as of June 1, 2014, the NDP are proposing a three-part plan which includes a 50-cent-per-hour increase to $11.50 per hour on June 1, 2015; a 50-cent-per-hour increase to $12 per hour on June 6, 2016; and an annual cost-of-living increase with four months’ notice for businesses. The increases to the business—and like I said, there are two sides to this discussion, so we also looked at small business.

For small business, we would look at a reduction that would be effective to small business tax corporations, and is as follows: a reduction from 4.5% to 4% as of June 1, 2014; a reduction from 4% to 3.5% as of June 1, 2015; and a reduction from 3.5% to 3% as of June 1, 2016.

That is an approach that the NDP have taken. That is an approach that we’ve had with our discussions, not only with some, but with all. It’s an approach that we believe answers some of the questions for some. It brings them up to a wage. It gives an opportunity in a community like White River, with these modest increments that are in place, to have the ability of attracting people to their community. But we really need to get those right policies in place. Again, I need to stress this, because these are forefront concerns that are there on the part of the people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

If we don’t take the time, if we don’t challenge ourselves, if we don’t build those right policies in order to address the concerns of affordability—and I’m talking about energy costs, minimum wage so that people can make a respectful wage so they can provide good opportunities for their families—we’re still going to be left behind and they are going to be left behind and regions of our province are going to suffer from this.

Again, there’s a lot of great things that are happening in Algoma–Manitoulin, but I want to really make sure that those policies that will complement not only job creation but affordability measures are there. These are just some of the small steps that we’re taking with the minimum wage.

My time is up. I wish I had more time, because, I have a lot more to say on this and how it would benefit, but I will sit on those notes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m pleased to rise to talk a bit about Bill 165, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. When I look at all of the issues people in my constituency of Pickering–Scarborough East have come to see me about, this one certainly has been on the top 10 list for sure, as it impacts so many people. I think what I’m also hearing now is that in addition to the wage increase that we’re making come into effect to $11 on June 1, the benefits of this bill are appreciated because the minimum wage will be revised annually by a percentage equal to the percentage change to the Ontario consumer price index.

It includes all special wage categories, such as students and liquor servers. They will have their salaries increased by the same percent. If this bill passes—excuse me, I’ve got a cough thing going on—the first CPI would be announced by April 1, 2015, and take effect October 1 of the same year. That gives suitable notice and time for both workers and business.

I think what people welcome about this is a fair and predictable process, rather than what we’ve seen before, where a lot of people have a lot of opinions about what the minimum wage should be and when it should be changed. This brings some predictability to go-forward decisions about minimum wage, and it sets up a process by which minimum wage will be determined. This, of course, fits into our commitment as a government to create a fair and prosperous society and a stronger economy that we can all enjoy as Ontarians. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure, here on a Thursday morning, to listen to my good friend from Algoma–Manitoulin. He certainly brings a very unique perspective from the north and the concerns there and how hard life is there, and how this will, perhaps, improve the state of people of modest means. I always say he speaks directly from the heart and from real experience, and I thank him for that.

As it would be known, I may be speaking next on this. He mentioned the cost of heating your home in the north. I would say across Ontario, any person of modest means is struggling under the unacceptable load by just heating their home. It’s not just the bad electricity policy; it’s propane; we see now natural gas is going to apply for a 40% increase. Electricity itself has been described, but it’s also gasoline; it’s home heating oil. I heat with home heating oil and it has doubled in price, as propane has.

These are the things: The minimum wage is certainly the topic this morning, but who is getting hollowed out here are the people of modest means—not all seniors; certainly people who are working one or two jobs. Minimum wage is a popular thing to discuss, I suspect. I would say what we should have are more jobs and then allow performance and other things to determine income. Minimum wage is becoming a bit of a political football, technically, and I am suspicious of the Liberal government any time they do anything. Their motives need to be questioned.

It’s not just this debate here this morning; I’ll have a little bit more to say about it. I listened yesterday to the scandalous contract on the Pan Am Games and the security thing, which is another part of—they’re going to spend more money and we’re going to get less service. That’s what is most troubling.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to comment on my colleague’s submission here this morning. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin obviously has a clear understanding of his region and of his riding and the various regional economic conditions that the people in his riding face.

What I heard of his submission was his attempt to educate and inform the government of some of the remedies that could be put in place to ameliorate or to alleviate the issues, the road blocks that, in some respects, our government created in terms of the ever-increasing cost of hydro, in terms of road maintenance for northern communities. These are vital components to a healthy regional economy and they’re ones that I think, if the government took an active role on and a proactive role, they could have anticipated.

They could have anticipated a labour shortage, given the demand for development in the north, particularly around the Ring of Fire, and how that translates into other market segments that require skills and new labour. But that has not happened, obviously. He has informed you of some areas the government could put emphasis on and put a priority on.

Of course, when it comes to the minimum wage, as New Democrats we are always prepared to deliver good ideas, intelligent ideas, that make sense not only to the debate but to the people who are affected by the debate. When we talk about the minimum wage, we’re not only identifying to the government that they can go further—they can raise the minimum wage higher to acknowledge the income inequality—but they can also support small businesses with an offset that actually makes it palatable for them to increase the minimum wage.

I commend the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his submission and I always appreciate his dialogue in this House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: I want to make three points on this minimum wage debate. First, let me just point out that this increase in the minimum wage is building on a strong record. In fact, since 2003, this government has increased the minimum wage by some 50%. We have not forgotten the less fortunate in our society.

The second point I want to make—it’s a very important one—is what this act does. It brings predictability to the question of the minimum wage. We’re debating this today. Every time there’s been an increase in the minimum wage in the past number of years, it’s been a time-consuming debate. It has eaten up a lot of time and, in some cases, aroused a lot of frustration. What we have here now is that we’ve set the minimum wage at $11 and we’ve indexed it to the consumer price index. So we’re not going to have to debate this every couple of years and get all those tensions to the fore. It will happen automatically, and that’s important.

It’s important for business. They can plan their costs over the next decade. They know that each year they can check the consumer price index and this is going to be their increase in costs. There’s predictability for the minimum wage earner. They can factor that into their budget for the coming year. This is a very, very important factor, and it’s the fair thing to do.

In my last 18 seconds, I do want to just comment that I’m troubled that the NDP, at the initial go-round on the minimum wage, was completely absent from that issue. And now that the debate is here in this chamber, of course, they’re up to the eyeballs in the debate. Where were they at the start?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin, you have two minutes.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to welcome all the comments that were made to the Minister of Consumer Services. Yes, it’s a step in the right direction—a step—and there are a lot of other steps we can take that will complement not just increases to the minimum wage but affordability measures. I think we’ve been very up front, and we’ve been providing you with those ideas. I hope that you’re actually going to take them in, within your caucus, and they’re going to be reflected in the upcoming budget, whenever that comes.

To the member from Durham: I enjoy our conversations, and it’s too bad that once this question period is over, people don’t see the amount of discussions we have with our colleagues around this room. Many of us make choices, as far as having those discussions and building those bridges, and I really want you to know that I have appreciated the opportunity and the discussions I’ve had with you, and I know how passionate you are about your riding. I really want to thank you for having those chats and taking the time to have those discussions with me.

Of course, the concerns you have in Durham are very much the same concerns throughout this province: gas prices and your discussions in regards to hydro in your area. They’re all part of the puzzle. All of those are part of what we’re going to do as far as affordability measures.

The member from Essex stated that, you know, there are good ideas. There are good opportunities in regards to the job creation tax credit program that we have provided to this government. It’s up to the government to take the initiative to act. This owl that sits on the wall behind us means be wise, in your decision-making, that you take in those ideas and, when you deliver those ideas, that you move on them.

To the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Yes, you’re right. It is a step in the right direction in regards to the minimum wage, but you did talk about predictability. I can tell you, from the people of Algoma–Manitoulin, that if things don’t change, you can predict that their hard life and their challenges are going to continue with them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: I wish I had an hour, because this bill deserves that kind of attention in terms of the content of what’s been said by the previous speakers on this bill. I would say that I could use an hour.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Unanimous consent? I seek unanimous consent to have more time.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can you specify exactly what you’re requesting? I only heard a piece of it.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’ll try to stick to the 10 minutes, Mr. Speaker. I was provoked into that outrage.

In the very brief time I’ve been given to speak on this, I think we have to put a bit of context on Bill 165. Let’s put some context on it. I put a few notes down, listening to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. He just brought a practical approach to this thing, and in his last remarks he used the term “predictability.” That’s really a good place to start. Predictability is one element of this. Tying it, in one

section of the bill, to the consumer price index in Ontario, I think, is appropriate. It will desensitize—actually, the consumer price index has been kind of flat-lined recently because the economy is stalled in Ontario, and it’s probably stalled across Canada, for that matter. We’re a small country in a global economy, and so that’s the context.

Here’s what has happened. Let’s just look at a small slice of the forecast pie here. Let’s just look at the last 10 years in Ontario. If you want to learn about the future, look to the past. Look to see what has happened in history. It’s usually a pretty good indicator of what’s going to happen in the future.

Sticking to the theme of predictability in Bill 165 is this: In the last 10 years, the—this is quite troubling. Ontario needs more than a minimum wage. When the Liberals first took office, only 3.5% of the workforce was making the minimum wage; today, about 10% of the workforce is making minimum wage. We’ve seen the travesty in Ontario of Kellogg’s, Heinz, Caterpillar and other companies moving to the States. Our finance critic, Mr. Fedeli, has mentioned it pretty well every day trying to get to the bottom of when they’re going to have a budget in Ontario, what they are hiding from us, and the $4.5-billion gap.

The problem here in Ontario is that there are a million people without a job. Some 300,000 have lost work. We need to focus on well-paying jobs and on bringing back what Ontario once was. Ten years ago, this country and this province were stronger.

I say to you, with all due respect to Bill 165, the Fair Minimum Wage Act—in fact, I can tell you this bill is quite a small bill. For those who are listening, it’s actually four pages. It’s actually three pages if you just skip the first page. Here’s the first page; there are about four lines on it. It’s about a page long and it does two or three things. It sets out, “Until September 30, 2015, the amount that is the prescribed minimum wage for the following classes of employees,” and then it breaks down a number of different classifications, whether they’re students, whether they’re serving alcohol, or whether they’re seasonal workers.

That’s a shameful statement on Ontario. I think for the last five economic cycles, we’ve had the highest unemployment in Canada in Ontario. Can you imagine? Once the heartland of the economy of this province, it now has the highest unemployment. The only good jobs in this province are jobs working for the government—whatever government, at any level.

I don’t deny the fact that we need to have good-paying jobs. I worked for General Motors for 31 years, over many years, and I would think that I raised my family on it. Where are those jobs in Ontario today? As our leader, Tim Hudak, says almost daily in our briefings before we go to question period: “Remember, John, it’s about jobs and the economy.”

He cares about youth unemployment. What is the strategy here for youth unemployment?

Our colleague here, Garfield Dunlop, talks about the trades, and what’s the strategy for trades? We’ve got a tax on trades today, the College of Trades. What value does that add to the employment of young people today? I question the motives and the strategies of the McGuinty-Wynne government. It makes me nervous about the future in Ontario.

We’re discussing Bill 165, and in that context, I have a few other notes. I would say, now that the province is looking at this predictable minimum wage income of $11 or in that range, that it’s a sad strategy for Ontario. It’s a deflection. The next thing she’s going to talk about is we’re going to solve this problem by having a pension for everyone. I hope they tell the truth about it.

I know they’ve got strategists working on it, but I’ll tell you this: the current way the pensions are struck, if it’s tied, as some people are suggesting, to the Canada pension, the Canada pension never was, and was never intended to be fully funded. It never was, it is not today, and never will be continuously funded. It’s never funded like a private company. A private company has to fill it on an ongoing basis, and then if the stock falls or the product falls or they have a recall, boom, they are out of debt. What happens?

Almost all of the pensions except HOOPP, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, are not funded. They are not funded. The teachers’ pension is not funded. None of them are funded. We found out Ontario Hydro’s pensions are not funded. These are future taxes.

Be assured that this government—in 10 years, the debt that we have now has doubled and the deficit has doubled. That’s the operating shortfall; it’s about $12 billion. The interest on servicing the debt—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I hope the member is going to tie that back to the bill that’s in front of us.

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I’ll refer back to Bill 165. The plan here today that we’re talking about is a page of information which we support—I want to be very clear we support it—but it’s in the context of the economy that we’re talking about.

Unemployment: We shouldn’t be talking about minimum wage. We should be talking about jobs, having less red tape and having affordable electricity to have the fundamentals of our economy.

Our leader has a plan. He has put it on the table. It’s called the Million Jobs Act. They don’t want to talk about that. They’re not even talking on the minimum wage bill. What is it they want to do?

I’m suspicious, when yesterday in question period—this is related, too—we talked about the Pan American Games. We talked about the security contract. It ended up that now it’s been flipped over to the OPP as another investigation ongoing. It turns out they accepted an American bid from a company that has been charged for violations under the security act, and they are paying more for an American company—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I will warn the member, you drifted again; if you would speak to the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, it’s in that context that minimum wage will not solve the problem. The people still won’t be able to afford their electricity and they still won’t be able to afford to put gas in their car or food on their table. What they want is a job, Mr. Speaker. I am crying out this morning—I wish I had more time. But this morning, what I really want is for the members on the government side to step back and bring forward a jobs plan.

Bring forward a budget so we have some certainty and predictability and clarity.

This minimalistic conversation this morning on minimum wage is troubling. It’s almost pathetic, and that’s what we’re spending our time on when Ontario is slowly slipping behind the rest of Canada.

The future of our young children—I look at the pages here; I hope you have a bright future. We have an education system that needs some repairs. We have the most expensive tuition in all of Canada now, and they talk about all these support programs. No, you don’t qualify for them. That’s the problem.

The minimum wage: I would hope that we would have a discussion on it. I would hope it would go to committee so that the proper implementation—and the last thing I want to say that is fairly relevant: Setting the minimum wage doesn’t cost Kathleen Wynne and her government one nickel. It’s downloaded to the employer and the employer says, “I’m running a Tim Hortons here. If I have to pay them $10 or $12”—whatever that number is, he’s either going to increase the price of the coffee or lay somebody off. Period. Because the payroll is not changing.

There are going to be fewer people sharing it, that’s all that’s going to happen, or they will call in their son or daughter to say, “You’re going to have to work on Saturdays now.”

I just don’t get it. This is not a plan for minimum wage. This is the current McGuinty-Wynne plan for Ontario: minimum wage jobs. We have real jobs, jobs with some vision and some kind of connection to innovation and creativity in this great province of Ontario.

This bill really does very little and I would say it won’t solve the problems for the people who have been crushed in the last 10 years by exorbitant electricity prices and exorbitant gasoline prices. The HST, which is a tax on everything, has increased by 8%. Whether you’re getting your hair cut or your taxes done, you are going to pay 8% more under Kathleen Wynne than you would under any other government. It’s simply wrong. This bill fixes nothing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I don’t know how many other opportunities I’m going to have to speak on the comments of my colleague from Durham, but I want to state again that I really do enjoy the opportunities and discussions that we’ve had, the shared ideas and views. Really, I think we’ll both agree to the statement that we both make choices that are best for our constituents back home. We speak on their behalf and we wear our hearts on our sleeves. I’m somewhat sad that I don’t know how many more times we are going to be able to have that community. I might have to go visit him in his backyard one of these days, in order to have a pop.

The only thing that really makes us maybe different is that we talk about our issues about making jobs available for people across this province. We talk about affordability measures. We talk about hydro costs.

Again, I want to thank him, along with his caucus members, for supporting my private member’s bill on the HST so that we can remove some of the costs on home heating for people who were at home. That’s what working together means.

Again, I want to stress that it’s unfortunate that Ontarians look at question period and sometimes they judge in regard to the whole fiasco that goes on during that time. They don’t get to see the discussions and the bridge-building that goes on when the cameras are off.

What really makes us different is where we list those priorities, in what order and how much importance we put on those. It comes to choices, and this government has to make a choice in regard to not just minimum wage but hydro costs, gas costs and jobs. All of those are part of the puzzle, and we have to make the choice. We have to take the initiative in order to bring in those policies that will benefit all of our community members at home. It’s part of a bigger puzzle. We’ve just got to put the pieces together. That’s what we’re here for.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Jeff Leal: It goes without saying that I always enjoy the comments from my colleague the member from Durham. Many of us say in Peterborough that the member from Durham was the greatest export out of Peterborough about 50 years ago, and Peterborough’s contribution to the world.

I have always recognized, and the member from Durham knows, the great contribution of the O’Toole family in my community of Peterborough. Actually, on the street where I live in Peterborough, he’s got cousin George. Cousin George is right down the street and, of course, George puts up the appropriate sign at election time. So I appreciate George’s support.

But let me say, in terms of minimum wage, that during my municipal career of 18 years, I chaired social services twice for the city of Peterborough. I know one of the key things that was always mentioned to me by people, not only anti-poverty groups but business interests in Peterborough, was to look at ways to increase the minimum wage, to make sure that there’s a path forward that was consistent and transparent, so that they know what was happening.

I want to comment that Stuart Harrison, who is the general manager of the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, and my good friend Allan O’Dette, who is a Peterborough native, who is the chair of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, both support this approach. They had input and insight on how this particular policy was developed. As Allan said to me on many occasions, as we raise the minimum wage, it provides a higher degree of disposable income, which allows for economic activity to take place.

It was the chamber that provided strategic advice in terms of the panel that was put together by then-Minister of Labour Naqvi to provide a path forward, particularly on minimum wage.

I think it happens to be the right approach, and I think it’s sound public policy on a go-forward basis.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I think the first question I ask myself is, why are we here? Are we doing the best for the Ontario taxpayer and the people who are asking us to do our jobs?

When you look at the fact that for the last seven years, we are above the national average for unemployment; when you look at the fact that in Statistics Canada, the underemployed are at 27%—youth unemployment is at 16%. We have 400,000 people who have stopped looking for a job, and we have 600,000 who are on unemployment at the same time.

These people are saying to us, “Is the plan to get more people on minimum wage?” I don’t think so. I think those people are exhausted and actually want to have a job. When you have almost tripled the amount of people on minimum wage, what does that say about this government? Because there is no plan. There’s no way moving forward on how to make this have-not province any better than it has been for the last 11 years.

I had someone say to me the other day: “What is the most important thing?” Well, for us, with Mr. Hudak, it is to do the million jobs plan. Our plan is focused on getting people more than the minimum wage, and paycheques for people who have a part-time job or who are looking for a full-time job.

Our concern about the minimum wage right now is that almost 10% of the workforce is on minimum wage. In 2003, as the member from Durham said, 3.5% of people were on minimum wage. I think people want to have a party that is going to turn this province around. People will say to me, “What separates you, and what’s different?” Here’s what’s different: When you look at past behaviour, it’s indicative of the future. When you look at what we had when the NDP left, we had an $11.3-billion deficit.

Then the PCs got in; not only did they balance the budget four times, the only party to do that—and now where we are, right exactly where we were with the NDP, with everyone leaving and going to other jurisdictions because we don’t create the environment here for people to want to be here.

We need to make a change and make this province a have province again, and we can here on this side.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Windsor–Tecumseh.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Windsor–Tecumseh—my apologies.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: No apology needed, Speaker.

It’s always a pleasure to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the people from Windsor–Tecumseh, and sometimes from Windsor West as well, so thank you for that.

Much has been said about the minimum wage, and I was looking last night at where the rates are actually going: from $10.25 to $11; student minimum wage, from $9.60 to $10.30, if you’re a student under the age of 18 and working less than 28 hours a week; if you serve liquor and you get tips, the minimum wage goes from $8.90 to $9.55; hunting and fishing guides—the member from Algoma–Manitoulin would know about the fishing guides going from $51.25 to $55 if they work less than five hours a day, and double that if they work more than five hours, and it doesn’t matter if those hours are consecutive; homeworkers, if you work in the home and maybe you do some sewing for a manufacturer, your wage will go from a mandatory $11.28 to $12.10; if you’re a student doing work in your home—maybe you’re doing some programming for a computer company or a high-tech company—you get the homeworkers’ wage up to $12.10, as opposed to your minimum wage.

I would like to take the opportunity, again—as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin has mentioned, the member from Durham, who, as you know, Speaker, has indicated that he will not be seeking re-election—we will certainly miss him here in the NDP. I’ve only been here a few months, but I have always appreciated his candour and his guidance, and his sense of humour. It doesn’t always come across to the people at home when they see the member from Durham stand up, sometimes they think he’s scowling, but that’s just his hidden sense of humour. He has been a great delight—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much. The member from Durham, you now have two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I first want to start by saying that last night the Ontario Legiskaters played hockey.

Hon. James J. Bradley: What happened?

Mr. John O’Toole: We lost by a couple of goals, but it was a very close and very exciting game. I want to put on the record that the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, who is in trouble over the closing of agriculture colleges, is a very decent hockey player, and he was kind enough to pass the puck to me, and I scored the fourth goal. I feel very good about that.

We went on to lose the game, but it was fun, and that’s the kind of thing that the member from Algoma–Manitoulin was talking about: that we do actually enjoy—despite what you see on television, when we’re not dealing with head-on issues, we can be sensible and sensitive and get along. He certainly would be welcome in my backyard for a pop at any time.

The member from Peterborough always speaks fondly, generally, indicating that I should have been a Liberal, technically—but my cousin George has made mistakes in his life, I understand that. I would suspect that he might want to talk to Scott Stewart in the next coming election to see if, perhaps, he should have a different sign.

I would say that the member from Burlington, yesterday, in this House, was offended by the Minister of Transportation, and I’ve felt badly ever since. I wanted to incorporate that into my speech, that we should stick to the policy and not the personalities, and try to be a little bit respectful there.

I would say that the member from Windsor–Tecumseh has been a real breath of fresh air in this House since the day he came. He got the Minister of Transportation to look at the Windsor bridge and to make some corrections there. He should take full credit for that—and the minister to listen to him.

Anyway, on this bill, Bill 165, it’s clear that the minimum wage—we agree to it. There’s a lot of work to be done to create real jobs in Ontario. That’s our position, and we’ll stick to our position about creating jobs for young people in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. It will be my pleasure to add my 10 minutes to this debate.

The first thing I want to put on the record is that I have followed and supported as best as I can the campaign that has been asking for a $14-an-hour minimum wage. I fully understand where those people are coming from. I wasn’t always a politician. I was the executive director of the community health centre in Sudbury. We had the corner clinic, which was our outreach for the homeless. Right next to it was the food bank. I got to meet a lot of the people who came every second week to the food bank, and those were full-time workers working minimum wage—for a lot of them. They came with their kids, they came with their families, and they couldn’t make ends meet.

When they came and lobbied me and said, “We want minimum wage to be set at $14 an hour,” I got it. I fully understand. It would mean no more humiliation in the food bank line. It would mean no more coming up short at the end of the month where, by the time you pay rent so that your kids have a place to live, there is no money left to buy them new shoes for them to go to school. There’s no money left to buy them a nutritious food basket—never mind nutritious food; to buy food, period. You have to go to the food bank. And all the rest of it, the humiliation and degradation that comes from living in poverty.

I know a lot of people who are still struggling with not being able to make ends meet. Yet, they work. They are hard workers. They get up every morning. They go to work. Whenever there’s a shift of overtime, they will take it. If they can work more hours, they will. They do everything they can. But when you make $10.25 an hour and your rent, so that you have a bedroom for your kids to sleep in, is close to $1,000, I’ll let you do the math; it doesn’t leave a lot of money left at the end of the month to pay for clothes, transportation and food. And God forbid one of your kids gets sick and you have to pay for medication or a pair of glasses or anything like this.

They are the working poor. They want minimum wage to go up to $14 an hour. Then the index would set in so that they never fall behind again. I completely get that. When we put the policy together, we also listened to another group of Ontarians that are struggling pretty well just as much. We’re talking about small—small business.

I brought a letter today from the owner of one of these small businesses. She is a new restaurant owner in my riding. She has tremendous menu offerings with lots of fruit, and healthy. She has been at it for two years. I will read into the record her letter. She’s addressing it to me, and it goes as such: “I’m addressing you with this letter of concern regarding the minimum wage increase … I encourage you to read this letter and contact me should you require additional information”—which I did. “It would be my pleasure to meet with you, the media and anyone else who may want to hear my concerns.

“The call for an increase to minimum wage … could potentially close my business, putting 26 people out of work at my location, and potentially 30 more at my partner’s location. My current financial situation cannot support a $22,000 yearly increase in salaries.” She had shown me her books. She had shown me how the calculations were made.

“I am proud to say that I must have almost the best staff Sudbury has to offer. It would break my heart to have to let these people go should I have to close my doors. Not to say what this will do to them and to the Sudbury economy as some of these people will” go on “EI and some on social assistance.”

She goes on to say, “My business is a Quebec franchise and they have different labour laws. We are unable to raise our prices according to what is happening in Ontario in order to help” with this increase. “I work pretty much seven days a week”—I can attest to that—“averaging 10 hour days to ... keep my cost down. After two years of being opened, I still cannot afford to pay myself a salary. What else is a person like myself supposed to do? The start-up costs are very high the first few years as I have huge loans. This increase will make it very difficult to continue.” This is a person whose name is Denise Boyer. She lives in my riding and she allowed me to share her concerns.

But there are many small, small businesses, many confectioners, where the owners work full-time. They own a little business; they have two or three people who work for them. They pay their workers minimum wage and they can barely make ends meet; they can barely make a business of it. As time goes by and as their businesses become more stable, they will thrive. We know that a lot of small businesses thrive and survive.

So it was really to bring this into account. There are people who work full-time, full hours right now, who make minimum wage and who live in poverty. But there are also a lot of small businesses—I don’t want to sound racist, but a lot of newcomers to my riding, to Nickel Belt, newcomers to our province, are small business owners, and this is a way for them to make a living, to work, and they hire a few part-time. If we were to increase to $14 an hour right now, a lot of those small businesses would not survive. Those people have come to see me. They have shown me the books.

So we have to come with some place to land. The government has landed on $11 an hour and then increased it by the CPI, the consumer price index, in October of every year. For now, no matter what we do in this House, it’s already set. This summer, minimum wage will increase to $11 an hour, and I think my colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh already covered that if you are a student, then your minimum wage will go from $9.60 an hour to $10.30 an hour. If you serve alcohol, your minimum wage will go from $8.90 an hour to $9.55 an hour.

If you’re a hunting and fishing guide—I have many of those in my riding—your wages will go from $51.25 for the first five hours to $55; if you work a full day—and a full day for a hunting and fishing guide is 24 hours—your wages will go from $102.50 to $110. For the home workers, your wages will go from $11.28 to $12.10. But for most minimum wage earners, their wages will go to $11 an hour.

What the NDP had put forward is to make the next two steps into law, to make sure that next year and the year after, we bring this minimum wage to $12 an hour. That was a compromise that was livable for the small, small businesses and at the same time would help people who work so hard at minimum wage to make ends meet.

How do we balance this? We balance this with a small business tax credit. When you look at the millions of people in Ontario who work minimum wage, a lot of them work for big corporations. For the likes of Tim Hortons and Walmart and all of those, have no fear: Their prices have nothing to do with what they pay their workers. They will increase the cost of their goods based on what the market can bear, not as to how much it costs them to pay their workers more. They presently have the means to do this.

It is really the small, small businesses that don’t, and this is where the NDP put forward a more balanced plan with a decrease in the taxes that small business pays to try to leave a little bit more money in the pockets of the smaller businesses so that they can afford the minimum wage increases.

The bill in front of us has nothing to do with the increase to 11 bucks an hour. That increase will happen no matter what we do with this bill. We go into an election, this bill dies, we never get it out of this House to go to second reading—it will happen. It will go to 11 bucks an hour. But it talks about the increase. We are basically putting an increase on wages that are still poverty—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate. Certainly, it’s a pleasure to speak after my friend from Nickel Belt, the member from Nickel Belt, who I hold in very high regard.

Bill 165, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, obviously will bring a variety of opinions to the table. I think the process that has been employed to date is one that we should all be proud of.

The legislation actually acts on the recommendations that came forward from a consensus report from Ontario’s Minimum Wage Advisory Panel. We went out. We talked to business. We talked to labour. We talked to youth. We talked to the representatives from the anti-poverty community. This group held 10 public consultations around the province and received over 400 submissions from people who had a specific interest in this issue and the importance of this issue.

They came forward with some recommendations, and we have acted upon those recommendations, because, simply, we’re a government that’s focused on investing in people. We’re trying to fight for that stronger economy in Ontario that we know we should all aspire to, and we want the good-paying jobs that go along with this. What businesses told us, and what people have told us, is that what they really want is a fair, balanced and predictable way of dealing with this issue on an ongoing basis.

As the previous speaker outlined, the minimum wage will be increasing to $11 on June 1. Ontario, once again, will have the highest provincial minimum wage in the entire country. I think that’s something we should be proud of. The 75-cent increase that would take place to bring it to $11 accounts for inflation that has taken place since the last increase in March 2010.

The minimum wage has increased 60% since 2003. It’s something that we put in place here, a special process for dealing with this into the future, that hopefully takes the politics out but allows the minimum wage to keep place with the consumer price index and with inflation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Nickel Belt always speaks with an empathetic tone. She started off talking about poverty and the plight of those people of modest income. She does that very well and very realistically.

She went on to relate the whole thing of minimum wage to the real marketplace of jobs itself, and she’s probably right in terms of a Tim Hortons, where a family owns it. I know the one in my riding—a couple of them own a McDonald’s and a Tim Hortons. They’re fairly well-off people, I would say that. In one case, they own a Tim Hortons that’s very popular, but they work there.

When you buy a franchise, you’re actually buying a job. Some people buy a PhD, which costs a couple hundred thousand. But these people are buying a job. They don’t make the recipe for Tim Hortons or McDonald’s; they get that given to them as part of the job they’re buying. In that case there, they may lay off a student and tell their son, “You’re going to work more time,” because their payroll isn’t going to change unless they have more customers or change the price, and they can’t change the price, because the franchise dictates what the price is. So you’ve got to look at it.

The same with Walmart, really: They do markets and do all that stuff, and they figure out what they need to pay. I don’t agree with some of that new model of the business strategy of low wages and keeping minimum wage down so that you only pay $10 an hour.

I also want to congratulate the new Minister of Labour. I think it’s important to recognize that Mr. Flynn has worked hard here, and I’m surprised he didn’t get municipal affairs.

I will say this, though: The real truth of the story here is, in Ontario today—and the minister said it in his response—we have the highest minimum wage. We also have the highest unemployment rate in Canada. There’s some message to be learned here. Let’s talk about real jobs with real income so that people can have a decent life in Ontario. The last 10 years have been disastrous in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to add my comment and my support to that of the comments of my colleague from Nickel Belt, who, I think, is always well received in this House when she has the opportunity to offer her insight. Particularly, she focused on the reasonable, realistic and balanced approach that New Democrats have taken to this debate in terms of identifying, understanding and communicating the challenges, particularly with small businesses in our communities that are sensitive, that have a heightened sensitivity to fluctuations on either input costs, whether it be hydro or the minimum wage.

She referenced some small businesses in her community. We all have them. I can tell you that Lou Parish is an owner of a restaurant in downtown Essex, Main Street Diner. It’s a wonderful place to go for breakfast. Lou is supportive of the initiatives that I have worked on but is concerned about an increasing minimum wage without any offsets to be able to buffer that impact.

It’s something that we hope the government acknowledges. They haven’t, in this particular debate; they haven’t acknowledged that those small businesses in our communities, taking into account all of the other challenges that we have at this particular moment, deserve some support as well. They should be able to rely on the government to acknowledge that for them to be able to take on the added component of an increased minimum wage, they should also be rewarded and acknowledged for increasing the employment.

We know—all of us say it at one point or another in this House—that small business is the economic engine in terms of hiring the new workforce in Ontario. We should acknowledge that and support them in that endeavour.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I appreciate the comments from the member from Nickel Belt, but I’m a little perplexed by where the NDP is coming from. I don’t know whether they’ve been in the House recently, but we just reduced the employer health tax; 15,000 small businesses no longer pay that. It has been reduced dramatically for 60,000. It was one of the largest tax cuts for small business. It wasn’t lost on us that this was done prior to a minimum wage increase to give small businesses more room and ability.

We also, as you know, have corporate tax rates in this decade that are half of what they were when I was in high school. Corporate tax rates now in Ontario are amongst the lowest in the world.

If you want to maintain the kind of infrastructure—the twinning of highways, the money for the Ring of Fire, the money for rapid transit—that tax money has to come from somewhere. The NDP are always in favour of tax cuts these days, when they actually used to be a moderating force in politics because they understood, as I think Liberals do, that tax cuts don’t help communities if that’s all they get. People need hospitals; they need roads; people need higher incomes.

All of those small businesses benefit once the minimum wage goes up, because it doesn’t just affect the most marginal and vulnerable employees; it actually increases the wages of the $15-, $16- and $17-an-hour people who also get some pressure. Everyone who has done it has seen this as important. What they argue for is a $5,000 tax credit for employers, when employers don’t need that.

What they actually need is, generally, a skilled workforce and for the working middle-class and modest-income people to have enough household income to be able to have breakfast at the diner more often and shop at the local convenience store. So I hope we can have a more rational discussion between the Liberals and New Democrats on this, because we should be on the same page.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Nickel Belt, you have two minutes for your response.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to thank the new Minister of Labour for his comment, the Minister of Transportation, the member for Durham and the member for Essex.

The discussion about minimum wage is always tied to poverty, because the idea behind minimum wage is that if you work full-time, full year, you should not live in poverty. You should have a living wage. But why is that important? Well, in part, because it is one of the most important determinants of health. Research will show you that for every thousand dollars more of disposable income that a family has, their health status increases—so you can actually measure the percentage increase in chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, migraines, bronchitis—and the percentage goes down for every thousand dollars more of disposable income.

You have to add to this that there’s a good chance that if you work for minimum wage, you don’t have a vision plan, you don’t have a dental plan, and you don’t have a plan for prescription medication either, which has a direct effect on your health.

Unfortunately, if you look around and you see people with bad teeth, there’s a good chance that this is a badge of shame that they are living in poverty. Why are they not able to have their teeth fixed? Because they don’t have enough money to go to the dentist. This is a badge of shame that we all wear when we see Ontarians who cannot afford dental care.

Then, without money, you don’t have access to nutritious food, which is a determinant of health—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s always great to stand here in this hallowed chamber and debate bills. It’s quite an honour, and I just wanted to thank the people from Northumberland–Quinte West for allowing me to represent them here at Queen’s Park.

I’ve been listening very intently to the debate and the ideas that we’re exchanging here today. One of the great things about debate is that we get to see a different perspective, a different view of how we should move forward to try to make Ontario and each of our individual ridings much better for the constituents we represent.

Of course, with Bill 165, we’re talking about the minimum wage act and what this does for the people in the province of Ontario, those who are not making a very good wage. I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we’re obviously going to support this bill going forward. There are a few things, obviously, that we need to amend and tweak and look at once it gets to committee.

I want to share some of the concerns that I’ve heard from small businesses back home in my riding, in the service industry in particular. The member from Durham outlined very eloquently that these mom-and-pop businesses are struggling already. They hire students or perhaps seniors who are just trying to keep themselves busy or make a few extra dollars to pay their hydro bill, which keeps skyrocketing.

These people who own the small businesses and are hiring seniors and young students are going to have to lay these individuals off, because they can’t afford to keep these young people or seniors trying to make a few extra dollars on. It’s very sad to me, because this Liberal government, for 11 years, has driven out 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Those are good, middle-class, wage-earning jobs. A lot of them are good union jobs with benefits, with pensions, and they’re gone.

What we’ve had for the last decade with this Liberal government is a government that keeps raising taxes. Quite honestly, the minimum wage being raised to $11 is going to be an insignificant amount of income for those earning that wage when their property taxes are going up and their hydro bills are skyrocketing out of control under the Green Energy Act, which we’ve asked this government to scrap numerous times. It’s costing Ontario a billion dollars. Don’t take my word for it, Mr. Speaker; that’s the Auditor General’s report that says it costs a billion dollars to taxpayers here in the province of Ontario every year.

I want to touch on something else as well. I have some ideas around what would perhaps—in my personal opinion, and that’s what we’re here debating—have a greater impact on low-income earners or the working poor, if you will, and that’s raising the ceiling of income tax paid to $25,000. Right now, it’s around $16,500. If you make up to $16,500, you don’t pay income tax. On anything over $16,500, you pay income tax. Raise it to $25,000 and put the money back in the pockets of the working poor.

Study after study has shown—and the member for Durham has said this—that small businesses will actually lay people off. So instead of working for $10.25 an hour, now you don’t have a job. It makes no sense at all. There are other avenues you can take to actually put money back in the pockets of the working poor or those individuals.

I just also want to point out that a vast majority of people who are minimum wage earners are students and seniors. There are obviously individuals who have to work two or three jobs, who have a mortgage and mouths to feed, as the member from Nickel Belt pointed out, but a vast majority are students and seniors. It’s seniors, like I say, who are trying to pay their hydro bills and keep the lights on because this Liberal government keeps driving up the cost of electricity. It’s tied into the price of electricity; it’s tied into what’s happening in our manufacturing sector.

Tim Hudak and the PC Party over here, we have a plan that’s actually going to create more middle-class, very good-paying jobs here in the province of Ontario, particularly in the manufacturing sector. That is one of the approaches that we fundamentally believe: The best anti-poverty strategy you could have is to have a good-paying job. But that’s not happening under this current Liberal government. They’re driving people away from the province of Ontario. They’re going out west. They have to go to other jurisdictions in the United States or abroad, and this is very disconcerting.

The Minister of Transportation pointed out that they’re very happy that they lowered the benefit tax for small businesses; 15,000 small businesses aren’t going to have to pay that tax.

I want to just touch on what I refer to as—and the people listening at home, you need to pay very close attention to this, because you’ve started to hear little snippets of the Premier’s ambition for this Ontario pension plan, the OPP. This is a sleeping giant, and it’s going to crush the economy here in the province of Ontario if the Liberals are allowed to implement this strategy.

Now, we’re all for making sure that individuals are secure financially when they retire but, under this Liberal government, you can’t retire at 65 when you normally do; you have to work till you’re 70, 75. But the Ontario pension plan—I just want to get this out there. In my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, for instance—if you just take the county of Northumberland, there’s about 87,000 people. Let’s say 50,000 for mathematical reasons, because I’m not going to be finance minister one day. Trust me, Mr. Speaker.

But if you use 50,000 as the base number of individuals who are working, or you’re an employer, what Premier Wynne is proposing is that each employee contribute $2,350 a year to a separate Ontario pension fund, and each employer has to match that $2,350. You multiply that by 50,000, and that is $117.5 million that is sucked out of the local economy in Northumberland county alone. I have to ask the Liberals today: What cost analysis is that going to have on small businesses in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West and across the province of Ontario?

This government’s plan to come forward with their own independent, made-in-Ontario pension plan is going to bankrupt this province. It has to be put out there. The Premier is starting to talk about it. It’s going to be a major plank in their election platform—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask the member to bring back to the bill that’s in front of us.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: How it relates to Bill 165 is that you can up the minimum wage to $11 and increase it by 75 cents an hour for part-time workers, but if that part-time worker now has to contribute $25 a week to a pension plan, you actually are losing about $17 a week, so it’s a fallacy. It’s a shell game. This is going to cost the province a lot of money, and it’s going to cause small businesses to go out of business. As was eloquently said here a few weeks ago, if you want to have a small business here in the province of Ontario, start with a big business. Right? That’s the Liberal economics around this.

As I said, we’re talking about the minimum wage and Bill 165. We’re going to support it. But again, I think personally, there are other strategies, other avenues we can go down to ensure that people actually have money in their pockets, can put food on the table for their families, and keep the roof over their heads and keep the lights on.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time here. It’s always a pleasure. I must say you’re looking rather dapper in the chair this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I am delighted today to introduce family members who are here today with Anthony Bello, who is our page captain this morning and who is from my riding. Today in the members’ gallery we are joined by Domenico Bello, Margarita Lazarakis, Nicholas Bello—that’s Anthony’s brother—and his aunt and uncle, Clemente Bello and Denise Bello, who are here with us today from lovely Collingwood. I want to welcome them to the gallery and congratulate Anthony for being here.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again, I’d like to welcome a volunteer in our office here at Queen’s Park, Candies Kotchapaw, to the members’ gallery.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to announce the presence of Marcy Skribe and Nicole Brunelle, and they’re here from the Dental Hygiene Practitioners of Ontario. Welcome, girls, to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Further introduction of guests.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Walking in to work this morning, I saw a robin, so I’d like to welcome the robin to Ontario. We all know what a robin brings: six weeks until an election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Jocularity, jocularity.

Further introduction of guests.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Rob Gascho from OSSTF here to the House today.

Mr. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings on a point of order.

Mr. Todd Smith: I just wanted to update the House that last night the Ontario Legiskaters were in action in a big game over at the Varsity Arena at U of T. The Legiskaters fell again, this time to the Ontario Dental Association, but from what I understand, Mr. Speaker, it was one heck of a game: a 7-6 loss to the dentists. John O’Toole scored a goal, and Martin Regg Cohn of the Toronto Star had a hat trick last night for the Legiskaters.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure all members would agree that (

a) it’s not a point of order, but (

b) that’s just too bad. I’m sorry to hear that happened. I was told that the name of the team is the Dentonators, along with the Legiskaters.

I will continue with introduction of guests.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’d like to welcome the parents of page Mira Donaldson up in the gallery. We have her father, Guy Donaldson, and her mother, Kelly Spicer. Welcome.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to welcome back the Leader of the Opposition, Tim Hudak, and congratulate him on being a new father. Having worked in the delivery room for many years, I know the joy and the happiness that a newborn brings to the family. Congratulations.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce Asquith Allen from the great riding of York South–Weston, who is here to see the proceedings this morning.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure on this side of the House to welcome back a proud new father, the leader of our party, Tim Hudak. I want to congratulate him on the birth of Maitland Hutton Hudak. Of course, we also send best wishes to our friend and his wife, Debbie.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My fear is that he hasn’t gotten any sleep.

On behalf of the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton here, visiting page captain Bani Arora are: mother Naupreet Arora; father Preet Arora; sister Saakhi Arora; friend Nikita Ghaghda; and family friend Oksana Darkeuych. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Cabinet ministers

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll just say to my colleagues on all sides: Thank you for the standing ovation for the birth of little Maitland. I presume that, though, was for Debbie because I actually had a lot easier part of the job. But thank you to all my colleagues for the very kind best wishes and congratulations.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, I noticed that when you changed your cabinet after Minister Jeffrey left cabinet, you decided to increase the size of your cabinet yet again. I think leadership starts at the top. This is the second time you have chosen to expand your cabinet. Don’t you think that was a mistake?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it was a mistake. We need people at the table to make the decisions and do the work that is required. I made decisions, and have put two people into cabinet who are very competent, experienced and are bringing very important voices to the table.

In terms of the size of cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No different than yesterday.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has 34 shadow cabinet positions, so that would foreshadow what he would do if he were Premier. We’re not going there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Tim Hudak: No. You’re not getting raises, you’re not getting limousines, you’re not getting extra staff in my shadow cabinet.

Here’s the difference, Premier, and I think you know this: What you’ve done by adding on additional cabinet ministers now for the second time is it shows that you’re more interested in appeasing Liberal MPPs than taxpayers in the province. That is the problem. I have hard-working MPPs, and I’m proud of them, but they don’t get raises when they’re in the shadow cabinet; yours do—they get drivers and staff.

Here’s a contrast I want to raise for you. I visited a real cabinetmaker the other day, Surjit Aheer. He runs Hallmark Furniture. He’s actually a real cabinetmaker, but he has gone from 40 employees down to four under the Liberal government because of the cost of doing business. I actually want to send a signal to him that we’ve got our fiscal house in order, that we’re going to grow the economy. I want to see his cabinet business increase, and I want to put yours out of business, quite frankly, and bring one that’s going to balance the budget in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a gimmick that the Leader of the Opposition wants to focus on. He was a member of a cabinet under a previous government that had 26 members in it.

The fact is we have work to do in this government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll have to do what I didn’t want to do. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. The member from Nipissing, come to order, and the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, come to order.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I heard someone say that I’m dismissive. I’m not dismissive of the concerns of the economy of this province. I’m not dismissive of the need to put in place the strategies that are going to create jobs.

I am dismissive of a Leader of the Opposition who is putting forward a notion that would actually stop job creation in the province, that would cut the economic growth, that would force good jobs out of the province. That’s what he’s putting forward. We’re not—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, Premier, you have been dismissive of the concerns of Surjit Aheer and other job creators across the province. You once called manufacturing job losses a myth. I saw it in person, sadly. They went from 40 employees down to four. I want to see them get back up to 40. That’s why I’m focusing my million jobs plan on creating an environment for entrepreneurs like this to succeed and to hire again, to go—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You actually now have more cabinet ministers than do you backbenchers and non-cabinet members. I think that sends the wrong signal to job creators about your seriousness in balancing the books of the province.

Let me ask you this very directly. You are focusing on quantity rather than quality of your cabinet. I think you should reduce it down to 16. I think that’s the appropriate size to send the right signal, and the big difference between you and me.

Premier, will you accept my challenge to actually, instead of growing your cabinet, reduce it down to 16, get them focused on jobs and the economy and send the signal to taxpayers that you’re serious about balancing the books in the great province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition is focusing on cost here. There’s a lot of work to be done, and I have the cabinet that we need in order to make the decisions and put the policies in place that will move us forward.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s party is blocking a piece of legislation that would actually continue the freeze on MPPs’ salaries. So if he’s so concerned about the wages and the cost of MPPs in this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s enough. Order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We don’t think it’s appropriate for MPPs to have an increase. We need this legislation to continue that freeze.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that it would be very helpful if the Leader of the Opposition would work with us to freeze the salaries.

Ontario public service

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Look, Premier, I think you know this. As soon as you table legislation on an MPP wage freeze, wages are frozen. I think you know those facts. That’s done. I’ve been calling for that for years.

But here’s the opportunity, Premier: Let’s actually do something that’s going to save the taxpayers $2 billion a year and send a signal to job creators across the province that we’re going to balance the books and create an environment for success, to set up Ontario to grow the economy and create jobs again, to restore hope to people like Surjit Aheer and the 36 employees who used to work for him.

Why don’t you actually amend the legislation and add an across-the-board wage freeze for the broader public sector that will save us $2 billion a year? Will you do the right thing?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that we are working across government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There have been billions of dollars saved because of the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —processes that we have engaged in.

We are going to continue to work in partnership with the employees within government and the broader public service.

The Leader of the Opposition wants a fight. He wants a fight with the people who do the business of this province, the people who deliver services in this province. He wants to fire education workers. He wants to fire health care workers. He’s not interested in making the investments in post-secondary education and in health care that are necessary. He wants—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll tell you what I’m going to fight for. I’m going to fight for jobs. I’m going to fight for a better Ontario—I’ve got a plan to do that; it’s called the million jobs plan—to get energy under control, to lower taxes, to balance the books in this province. It will work; it is proven.

Let me ask you again, Premier. You made another significant error. You weren’t even in negotiations with the teachers’ unions, but you still gave them a big pay increase. I don’t know if that was payback for leadership support, but it was unaffordable. You weren’t in negotiations, but you gave them a big pay increase of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think we need to go in the opposite direction, so I’ll ask you again. My colleague Mr. Fedeli, from Nipissing, is going to bring forward amendments to the Wage Freeze Act to broaden it to an across-the-board wage freeze for all of us in the broader public sector. It will save $2 billion. It’s the right thing to do. Can I count on your support for this sensible and thoughtful amendment to the legislation?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since I have been in this office, I have been fighting for the people of Ontario, to bring jobs to the province. What I’m saying is, he wants to fight with the people who deliver services. He wants to fight with the people who are providing the education, the health care that the people of this province need. I do not believe that is the way forward.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is really interested in being a leader in terms of wage freeze, he would get the legislation passed that would continue to freeze MPPs’ salaries. That seems like a pretty fundamental step he should take. We look to him to work with us on that.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The legislation is going to pass; I’ve been calling for this for years. In my point of view, why don’t we improve it? Why don’t we actually make a big impact on the economy? I’m happy that I finally got the words “wage” and “freeze” out of your mouths at the same time, in concession. That was fabulous.

But let’s go a bit further. Let me ask you this, too: I think that if cabinet ministers aren’t doing their jobs, they shouldn’t be in cabinet. If they can’t even meet their fiscal targets, they should dock their pay. Another very straightforward amendment we want to make is, if your cabinet ministers cannot balance the books and they remain in deficit, just like they did in BC, let’s dock their pay. Let’s actually reduce cabinet pay to give them an incentive to prioritize and balance the books—a simple, thoughtful, straightforward amendment. Will you support that change to the bill and dock cabinet’s pay if they can’t even balance the books in our province?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Every single minister in this government has worked within their ministries to find efficiencies. They have worked extremely hard to make sure that we exceed the targets that were put in place. That work is ongoing.

I don’t need to punish the ministers. They’re doing the work they know needs to be done. We don’t need a punitive regime, which is what the Leader of the Opposition thinks he would need to put in place. Maybe that’s what he needs in his caucus; that’s not what we need over here. People do their work.

I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition we are going to continue to work to make sure that we bring business to this province, that we make the investments that are necessary. We are going to invest in post-secondary education, we are going to invest in infrastructure and we are going to work with communities to bring those jobs to the province. That’s work that’s happening.

Job creation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let me first congratulate, on behalf of New Democrats, the Leader of the Opposition for the birth of his daughter Maitland—and his wife, Deb, and his daughter Miller.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Families across Ontario are wondering how they’ll pay the bills. In the last year, our manufacturing sector has shrunk by 3%. Since the recession, we’re still down 300,000 manufacturing jobs, and half a million Ontarians are looking for work. How can the Premier defend the status quo to the 500,000 Ontarians who are looking for work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have never defended the status quo. I have never defended the status quo the whole time I have been in government. The reason I’m in electoral politics—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am in politics because I do not defend the status quo. I believe there needs to be change and improvement, and that we can always improve.

So when I talk about our plan, which envisions investing in the talent and skills of the people of this province—the announcement that we made this morning, the Minister of Training Colleges and Universities and I, where we’re putting out a request for proposals to increase the capacity of our post-secondary education system, colleges and universities working in partnership with each other to make sure that we have the capacity where there’s growth in the province: That’s not the status quo; that’s progress. That’s what we’re fighting for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier seems more interested in attacking a job creator tax credit and defending her own status quo plan.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Training, College and Universities will come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The families who got layoff notices this week will tell you that they need more to be done. The Premier knows that when Heinz was laying off workers in Leamington, they were hiring workers in a state with a job creator tax credit.

Will the Premier tell families why she’s defending the status quo and attacking a practical proposal that will reward job creators and create jobs for Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to talk about the situation in Leamington and the Heinz plant for a moment. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Children and Youth Services because of the work that she did on the ground, working with the community. In fact, Canco is going to be able to retain about 50% of those jobs at Heinz.

We recognize that it’s very painful when a business makes a decision about downsizing or leaving a community, but government’s responsibility is to be on top of that and to make sure that there’s a process whereby new jobs can come in or those jobs can be retained. That’s the work that we did.

In terms of the tax credit notion that the NDP is putting forward, we’re open to new ideas, but we want ideas that work. That is an idea that has been demonstrated, in other jurisdictions, not to work.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think it’s interesting that the Premier talks like Republican lines out of the playbook from the US.

For families worried about jobs, all we see from this government is more of the same. They keep handing blank cheques to businesses that move jobs away, and driving hydro rates up. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result simply does not make any sense.

It’s not working for people who lost their jobs at Energex Tube in Welland just this week, or 500 people who lost their jobs at Kellogg’s in London, or 350 people who lost their jobs at A.O. Smith in Fergus. Why does this Premier keep telling people like these laid-off workers that her plan is working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we have seen 100,000 new jobs created in the last year. The fact is that we are working with businesses across the province, whether it’s through the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund or the Eastern Ontario Development Fund or the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, to help them to make the investments that they will need to be able to compete globally. That’s the kind of partnership that I think is very, very important. That’s not the status quo. That means that when we work with Ford, for example, they are able to build a platform that’s going to allow them to compete globally. That kind of advancement is absolutely necessary.

What we can’t do is spend what we estimate would be $2.5 billion on an employer tax credit that would actually just subsidize jobs that were going to be created anyway. That’s what has been discovered in other jurisdictions, so we’re going to learn from that, and we’re not going to go down that road.

Pan Am Games

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s funny how the Premier will spend a billion dollars for three jobs for members of her caucus.

Speaker, my next question is for the Premier. In 2011, Contemporary Security pled guilty to charges of violating its licence during the G20. Will the Premier tell Ontarians who made the final decision to select Contemporary Security for the Pan/Parapan Am Games?

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite, the leader of the third party, for this important question.

Speaker, I think we have to remember that this is a very exciting opportunity for the province of Ontario. The Pan/Parapan Am Games is a world-class event that puts our province on the map when it comes to welcoming world-class athletes from the Americas and welcoming their coaches, their families, and 250,000 tourists.

This is an amazing opportunity to make sure that we also build world-class sporting infrastructure in our province.

Speaker, the success of these games relies on ensuring that they are safe and secure for all Ontarians and also for all the athletes who will be participating. That’s why we are relying on the Ontario Provincial Police to decide on the plan for the security.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it seems like the minister didn’t get the memo on accountability and transparency.

The government seems to be suggesting that the OPP chose Contemporary Security, but when an experienced Ontario-based security firm offered the very same services for $14 million less, they didn’t get a rejection letter from the OPP, they got it from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

What is the government trying to hide by distancing itself from that decision?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, our focus is to make sure that we have a safe and secure sporting event when the Pan/Parapan Am Games take place in 2015. Our priority is the safety of athletes, the safety of coaches, the safety of volunteers, the safety of families, the safety of all Ontarians, and that is why we are relying on the Ontario Provincial Police to make those decisions. They are the people who keep our streets and our neighbourhoods safe every single day.

That’s why the Ontario Provincial Police are responsible for the content of the request for proposals that was put out, they are the ones responsible for the evaluation of all the bids, and they are the ones responsible for selecting the successful bidder in this particular case.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What about the safety of the tax dollar? That’s what I want to know. What about the safety of the tax dollar? Yesterday, the Minister of Community Safety and the minister for the Pan Am Games said the decision to choose Contemporary Security had nothing to do with the Liberal government, but the losing bidder, Reilly Security, got a letter from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services telling them that their bid hadn’t been accepted.

You can play hot potato with this one as much as you like over there, but the buck has to stop with the minister in charge. If the government is so confident in the process, why didn’t they let the auditor take a look and get some answers for the people who pay the tabs?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The entire process followed all the directives and the guidelines of the Ontario government in terms of having a fair and transparent procurement process. The entire process has been overseen by a fairness commissioner to ensure that the process is fair.

At the end of the day, we are going to rely on the experts on safety and security, and that is the Ontario Provincial Police. The opposition may be interested in playing political games with this issue; we are interested in making sure that we have a successful games in the Pan/Parapan Am Games, taking place right here in Ontario.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan American Games.

The minister’s oversight of senior Pan Am personnel is farcical. This week in committee, TO2015 sent Bob O’Doherty to pretend to be the senior vice-president of sport and venues. He refused to answer basic questions about the Ivor Wynne Stadium, the velodrome, the rowing and shooting venues, and clarified that he is only relevant at game time. So why have we been paying him $292,000, plus $17,000 in benefits, plus $64,000 in expenses, since 2010? Minister, why are you paying this guy, and who is actually responsible for sport and venues now?

Hon. Michael Chan: I wasn’t in the committee, but all I can tell you is that for the Pan Am Games, 2015, the mandate is to ensure efficient and effective delivery of the games. This includes staffing, streamlining and organizational changes as appropriate. These staffing decisions are made by the CEO of TO2015, and I am very confident that Mr. Rafi will make decisions for the good of the games. We would hope that the parties opposite would support the games and Mr. Rafi’s decisions.

While he is doing everything to destroy the games, the parties opposite are doing everything to tear down the games, we are not. We are promoting the games. We’re going to have the best ever Pan/Parapan American Games in Ontario in 2015.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Another question, another no answer. Minister, it’s insulting to the games that you allow O’Doherty to take taxpayers for a ride, specifically to Miami, Rio, Mexico, Phoenix, Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Barbados, Barcelona and St. Kitts, just to name a few. Minister, you seem to be as oblivious to your responsibilities as O’Doherty is to his. He was demoted on Thursday. He came to committee on Monday, playing at his old title, but wouldn’t answer any questions on venues. Can someone please resend the email to O’Doherty, just to let him know that he has been demoted and doesn’t waste committee time anymore?

Consider this, Minister, my technical briefing for you: It’s Allen Vansen, the pet expense guy, who assumed responsibility for sport and venues. Minister, do you think when O’Doherty wilfully misrepresented himself at committee, he committed contempt?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question.

On this side of the House, we understand how to manage the games. On the other side, they don’t. Let me give you some examples here. The member opposite asked when was the last time—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: Let me help him. It was held in 2011.

Allow me to give another example here. Someone tweeted a six-inch toy Pachi in Sochi. The member opposite asked why the Pan Am mascot, Pachi, was in Sochi. Again, let me help him. Mascot Pachi was not in Sochi; Pachi is in Ontario, and Pachi is well and alive.

Speaker, through you to the member: Stop attacking the games. Stop attacking Pachi.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Families in Ontario want to see a government that will respect their hard-earned dollars, so they’re asking why the government picked a more expensive Pan/Parapan security bid.

Does this Premier agree with the editorial in today’s Toronto Star calling for a review by the auditor because she has failed to be transparent with the public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has already answered some of these questions, but he will want to comment on the supplementary.

But what I want to assure the people of Ontario is that we believe that having the Pan/Parapan Games in Toronto and in the region is a very good thing. We believe that having a safe, secure games is of paramount importance. We believe that having the OPP make those decisions and make the recommendations to government—of course, the ministry was involved, but the ministry did not make the selection.

The OPP selected CSC, selected the company, and this company has been involved, as I understand it, with nine other Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is a company that has a demonstrated track record, and we are relying on the OPP—whose business it is to understand security—to make those decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Families deserve full accountability, and while New Democrats are asking who signed the contract with the US firm that has violated its own licence and why we didn’t choose a more affordable option, it’s clear that the decision was made by the government, Premier.

According to OPP inspector Mike McDonell, the commissioner signed off on the security contract. It then went off to the ministry for a final bid and the last bit of vetting, if you will. This lies squarely at the feet of the government.

Is this Premier going to continue to stonewall the auditor too? Or will she listen to growing calls for accountability and support a full investigation by the auditor of Ontario?

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The fact of the matter is that Ontarians want a successful world-class event in the Pan/Parapan Am Games in Ontario. They want safety and security of these games.

In the world that we live in, safety and security is a paramount issue, as you know, so we need to ensure that we work with the Ontario Provincial Police. We need to ensure that the Ontario Provincial Police, which is responsible for the safety of our streets and our neighbourhoods every single day, are the ones responsible for the safety of athletes, of coaches, of families, of volunteers, of all Ontarians, when it comes to these games.

The company it has chosen has vast experience in providing safety and security for multi-sporting events like this particular one, including the Winter Olympics Sochi 2014, Vancouver 2010, London 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016. This is not a subject for political games. This is an issue of safety and security of the games and of all of Ontario.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, the Honourable Ted McMeekin. As the MPP for Etobicoke North, I know that developmental services are, of course, much needed. As a physician, I see first-hand the necessity, impact and benefit of such services.

Speaker, as you’ll know, the delivery of these services has changed dramatically over the last few years. Our government has moved towards inclusion, in which people with a developmental disability now live as independently as possible out there in the community, where they want to be.

My question is this: Now that institutional care is a thing of the past—a relic from days gone by—can the minister explain the decision tree? How are the supports for individuals with developmental disabilities determined?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to answer the member’s question. I want to say at the outset that I’m truly humbled to have the opportunity to be serving this particular sector during this dramatic time of transition. Families have told us that every adult with a developmental disability should be assessed in the same way. We believe that.

We’ve also heard that people should only have to go to one place to apply for supports. That’s why our government created Developmental Services Ontario in legislation, so that, in fact, could happen. Before the DSOs, people with similar needs often received different levels of services and support. Today, there’s more consistency and increased fairness for people applying for services.

However, transformation is a long-term plan, and we’re going to continue to work with everybody in this House as we make the developmental services sector fairer, more flexible and sustainable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister, not merely for your answer today but also for your ongoing heartfelt advocacy.

I appreciate your description of the transformation of developmental services as an important first step. However, many families across my riding and across the province need, demand, expect and anticipate that more action will be taken. As you know, Minister, it has been said that the mark of a just society is how it takes care of its most vulnerable. Ontarians need to know that their government gets that.

My question is this: What is the ministry doing to strengthen developmental services for Ontarians?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: To paraphrase the Premier, I’m not here to defend the status quo. We’re here to advance changes. We’re taking immediate action to improve services, address housing needs and promote innovation in supports for adults with a developmental disability. We created an Inter-Ministerial Housing Task Force that will recommend innovative housing solutions—a good first step. We’re also investing $3 million in projects across the province that would increase community inclusion and help agencies pursue innovative partnerships. We’re investing over $1.7 billion in the developmental services sector, and we recognize that the demand is growing and we need to do more.

That’s why I was so happy to support the idea of a developmental services select committee and why I’m looking so very much forward to their final report with recommendations.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in what has become typical Liberal fashion, you’re trying to lay blame on everybody but yourself when it comes to winter maintenance contracts. Like everything else, there’s a right way to do things and a bad way to do things. Your NDP partners probably don’t agree, but outsourcing can be a good thing. In fact, from 1996 to 2010, Ontario had a good outsourcing model for winter road maintenance, and it worked. It saved taxpayers lots of money and made sure our roads were clear and safe.

Only since 2010 have there been severe issues with winter road maintenance. So what happened in 2010? The answer is: Your ministry changed the outsourcing model. You tinkered with a model that was working, and now it’s broken.

Minister, will you finally take responsibility and admit the problems with snow clearing this year are yours and yours alone?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My honourable critic should take a little tour of northern Ontario, going back to 1996. They have a long laundry list of things that that government did to northern Ontario: undermined its infrastructure, disinvested in its highways, closed schools and hospitals. So no one up in northern Ontario was particularly happy when—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: But we have contractors who are well paid. They signed contracts that had very clear performance standards in them. Most of those contractors are meeting those standards. My job as minister is to make sure that we get good value for tax dollars and that we have safe roads. My ministry is working hard to ensure that those standards are met, and I will not interfere or politicize the proper enforcement of law, or interfere with public servants holding contractors to account to comply with their contracts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, once again, you were given a model from the former PC government that worked, and you broke it. I guess the solution going forward is for a new PC government to come and fix things in this province.

Minister, before 2010, we had a hybrid model that awarded area maintenance contracts for more densely populated areas and managed outsourced contracts for more rural areas, particularly in the east and the north. An engineer from your ministry wrote a report in 2005 that stated that the managed outsourcing delivery method “was expected to produce the most cost effective service in the province’s rural areas.” So the model that the former PC government set up not only provided better service, it also saved more money, yet your government completely ended all managed outsourced contracts in 2010.

Minister, regardless of the blame game that you continue to play in the media and through Twitter, can you finally admit that this failure is yours and yours alone?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You know, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should discover Google and click-click, because a lot has been written since 2005—a lot of studies and reports. We are now delivering snow removal and winter and summer maintenance contracts at a lower cost level, getting better value for dollar than they ever got when they were in government.

And they absolutely outsourced 100% of MTO, laying off 3,000 Ministry of Transportation employees. They did it at the time so that we could never change the model again in any substantive way.

Now, this model is working very well across the vast majority of Ontario, and we are reviewing it in a couple of areas where there are problems, where we have low populations and a lot of road, and the resources are not working the way we’d like—

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

Mental health services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. There is a mounting crisis in London because of a lack of mental health beds. This week, we learned about 18-year-old patient Jenepher Watt, who was forced to sleep on the hospital floor in the emergency room at Victoria Hospital.

This is not an isolated case. It reflects a systemic problem. As a London Health Sciences Centre executive said today, “We cannot continue on this path and expect different results—it is time for a fundamental change.” Can the minister explain when this fundamental change is coming?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can tell you, Speaker, that I was very disturbed when I heard the story that the member opposite is referring to. I know that the hospital is investigating. They are understanding what happened, and we have to make sure that that does not happen again.

We are investing heavily in supports for people with mental health challenges. We are doing a lot to keep them out of hospital, out of the emergency department. Is there more we need to do? Absolutely, yes. There’s more we need to do in London, and, as I say, I know that London Health Sciences Centre is focusing on finding solutions so that this does not happen again. But we also need to do more across the province to support people with mental health challenges. That’s why we have made some significant improvements, including a 24-hour crisis line that is actually helping people get the right care.

There is more to do, and I’ll speak further to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The minister talks about investing in mental health services and making improvements, but the reality tells us a different story. London is about to lose almost 150 psychiatric beds, and there isn’t sufficient capacity in the community to meet the needs of patients.

One of my constituents in London West has been living at London Health Sciences Centre for 10 months because there is nowhere else for him to live safely in the community. The lack of community services means that patients with mental health diagnoses end up in crisis and are left waiting for days in the emergency room. I ask the minister again: What is she doing to address this crisis in London and across the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would be the last person to say that our work is done when it comes to providing care for people with mental health challenges. What I can say is, we are making significant investments, and we’ll continue to accelerate that, because we know that by supporting people with mental illness outside of the hospital, we can reduce their reliance on hospitals. That work is well under way, and I hope the member opposite has actually had a briefing—and if not, I would be more than happy to arrange it—about how the investments we’re making specifically in London are making a difference.

Have we done everything we need to do? No. Have we come a long way? Yes.

Natural gas

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Energy. TransCanada recently submitted the project description for their proposed Energy East Pipeline project to the National Energy Board, the first formal step in the regulatory filing process. Some Ontarians have voiced concerns about the proposal, including some of my own constituents in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, part of which the pipeline goes through, in East Hawkesbury.

Recent federal legislation has limited the scope and time allocated for National Energy Board hearings, and this can limit community and public participation in the regulatory approvals process.

Many Ontarians are interested in knowing what role the province will play in the regulatory process and whether they will have the opportunity to provide their input and express their concerns on the project. Can the minister please tell the House what role Ontario will play in the hearing process and what the government is doing to ensure the voices of Ontarians are heard?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for this very important question. This issue is a federal responsibility before a more restricted National Energy Board process. So when it comes to large pipeline projects, it is vital that all governments take the time to hear from experts—community, municipal, aboriginal—and business leaders to ensure that all voices can be heard during the regulatory process. That’s why we have asked the Ontario Energy Board to engage with stakeholders, First Nation and Métis communities, and the public, and to complete a report that will represent the interests of all Ontarians.

The OEB is hosting community discussions along the proposed route, which began Tuesday in Kenora and will continue until April 8 with the last meeting in Cornwall. When Ontario intervenes in the National Energy Board process hearings, the OEB’s work will ensure that the voices of all Ontarians are heard and their interests reflected in our submission.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you very much, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. I know my constituents in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will appreciate the opportunity to give their feedback and express their concerns on the proposed project. The consultations will not only be a forum for Ontarians to provide their input but also to learn more about the proposed project itself. This is important because my constituents are asking: What’s in it for Ontario? What does the province stand to gain from the project? What criteria will the government use when assessing the proposal?

Speaker, through you: Will the economic benefit to Ontario be considered as part of the approvals process, and what principles will the government use when evaluating the project?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The supplementary is also a very important question. The project must generate significant economic activity for Ontario and move resources across Canada in a safe and economic manner. However, it is vital that the proposal only move forward once it adheres to clear principles. The highest safety and environmental standards must be met. The duty to consult with aboriginal communities must be met. There must be world-leading emergency response programs, including financial security for any environmental damage costs.

Current consumers of natural gas must be protected with regard to price and supply. It must demonstrate economic benefits and opportunities to the people of Ontario over the short and long term. Part of our government’s work will be to identify those benefits and opportunities, and to ensure that when we intervene, we can do so having considered all the factors that are important to Ontarians.

Hydro rates

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Energy: I met with a local couple recently. They own a modest 790-square-foot house. Their last month’s electricity bill was $641—$234 was delivery charge.

Minister, will you explain to this couple why their heating bill is so high? Is it the cost of transmission? The cost of regulation? Is it generation? The cost of fuel? Your Green Energy Act? Is it your debt retirement charge? Is it your HST? The list goes on. Is it because of the cancelling of the natural gas generating stations? Or is it your mismanagement and lack of a plan?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, it’s their retirement charge, not ours. Over the last 10 years, we have been making the system reliable, clean and affordable. We took over a system that was in deficit, a system that was dirty. We cleaned it up with our new generation—more expensive than their dirty coal. That definitely put pressure on prices.

Realizing that there was pressure on prices, we put the 10% discount on the bill. Number two, we created the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —which can give individuals up to $963 per year and a maximum of $1,097 per year for qualifying seniors. We also have a Northern Ontario Energy Credit. We have taken significant steps to accommodate that. But he must remember that consumption has gone up by between 10% and 20% January over January because of this winter, and if you choose to deny that and—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, it is winter. Tell us something we don’t know. I can’t take that answer back to this couple, but I can guarantee cheaper rates under a Hudak government than under the Liberals.

Our rates were 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. You charge 12.4 cents at peak. Why is that? You have a surplus of power, but you subsidize unneeded wind and solar and then you spill hydro power, you shut down nuclear, you export at a loss.

Why the high prices? Is it OPG cost overruns? Is it Hydro One inefficiencies? High salaries? Cost of smart meters? Smart grids? Minister, what do you tell this couple? They can’t afford to heat their house.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Cheap nuclear energy. That’s the answer.

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: What I would start telling them at the beginning is that that member voted against the 10% discount, which is called the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit. That member voted against the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, which saves qualifying individuals up to $963 per year. That member voted against the Northern Ontario Energy Credit. He voted against the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. What he has not done is he has not told his constituents that these programs exist, because he’s embarrassed that he voted against them.

Horse racing industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has repeatedly promised in this Legislature that there will be a 2014 horse racing season in Fort Erie. The racetrack has done everything asked of them. Now we’re just days away from a looming deadline of April 1, when a quarterly rent cheque needs to be paid. It’s time to stop the dithering.

Can the Premier ensure this Legislature today that there will be a 2014 racing season at the Fort Erie track?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes, there will be a 2014 season at Fort Erie. There absolutely will be. I understand there was a meeting yesterday, and I understand that there wasn’t a resolution at that point, but there will be a season at Fort Erie. We are working with them. They know that we want Fort Erie to thrive. There will be a 2014 season.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This isn’t just happening in Fort Erie. The future of Sudbury Downs is also in doubt because they can’t get a straight answer from the Liberal government either. Fort Erie officials feel as though the government has waited until the last possible minute and are now retracting the number of race days, races, purses and commissions that could keep the Fort Erie Race Track operating.

The Premier promised action to save these tracks and save the good jobs these tracks provide. Is she going to deliver or is this yet another empty Liberal promise?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are delivering. In fact, Woodbine, Mohawk, Flamboro, Georgian Downs, Western Fair, Clinton, Hanover and Grand River have plans in place. At Fort Erie, there is going to be a 2014 season and that process is in place. At Sudbury, Kawartha, Dresden, Hiawatha, Leamington, Ajax and Rideau Carleton, the negotiations are happening. Those plans are under discussion. There will be seasons, there will be plans, and we have acted on our commitment.

Violence against aboriginal women

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, I’ve heard from people in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood about the issue of violence against women and girls in the aboriginal community. Scarborough–Guildwood—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You have to identify the minister, please.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Absolutely. This question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Scarborough–Guildwood has one of the highest off-reserve native populations in Ontario. We know that across Canada, the rate of violence against aboriginal women is almost triple that of non-aboriginal women and the rate of spousal homicide for aboriginal women is eight times greater than for non-aboriginal women. About 15% of aboriginal women report suffering from some form of intimate-partner violence, two and a half times greater than among non-aboriginal women. National data in Canada reveal that 75% of aboriginal girls under the age of 18 experience abuse, 50% of whom are under 14; sadly, almost 25% are younger than the age of seven.

Given the tragic reality of these statistics and the national scale of this epidemic, through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what our government is doing to address this important issue?

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for asking about this very important issue. I and this government are deeply troubled by the rate of violence against aboriginal women. This violence must stop. Collaboration amongst all ministries and community partners is the key to ending the violence.

As the member rightly stated in the question, this is a national issue that requires a national strategy. I, along with my provincial and territorial counterparts from across Canada, made this clear to the federal minister at a recent meeting of the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group in Winnipeg. Furthermore, as chair of the Council of the Federation in 2013, our Premier made this position clear. Ontario supports the call by the national aboriginal organizations for a national inquiry.

The federal government, however, recently tabled a special parliamentary committee report into missing or murdered aboriginal women. I am disappointed that the report did not support the call for a national public inquiry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for the work you are doing on behalf of the aboriginal community in Ontario. The people of my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood will be reassured to know that Ontario is showing leadership in our efforts to advance this important issue.

However, despite the federal government’s assertion that they have already taken concrete action, it is clear that they have failed to respond to the call from national aboriginal organizations, provincial and territorial ministers, and the Council of the Federation. National aboriginal organizations like the Native Women’s Association of Canada have expressed their continued frustration and disappointment in addressing this key issue in the aboriginal community.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can you inform the House on what Ontario is doing to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls in the absence of a national strategy?

Hon. David Zimmer: The special committee’s failure to respond to the action call for a national inquiry is a lost opportunity. It’s a lost opportunity to demonstrate real commitment to putting an end to all forms of violence against indigenous women and girls.

My friend Michèle Audette, who is the president of the Native Women’s Association, had this to say: “I was shocked, I was mad ... to see how they gave [the report] that title ‘Invisible Women’ it’s just like we’re under the carpet right now,” and they are not invisible.

Mr. Speaker, these women and girls are not invisible to me. They’re not invisible to this government. I can tell you that through Ontario’s Joint Working Group on Violence against Aboriginal Women, I am working closely with all of the other relevant ministers, as well as many aboriginal organizations, to find ways to tackle this terrible issue. We will work to ensure a long-term strategy that includes initiatives to prevent violence, to better support victims, and we will—

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

Power plants

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Moments ago, the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen revealed that David Livingston, the former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty, gave access to outsiders to wipe clean 24 hard drives. They are pursuing a criminal breach of trust charge against the former chief of staff to the Liberal government that carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, for the $1.1-billion gas plant scandal.

My question to the Premier: Can you confirm to this assembly and to the people of Ontario that one of the 24 computers was not that of yours while co-chair of the Liberal campaign?

Interjections.

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