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

July 8, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Jul-08 (PDF)

L004 - Tue 8 Jul 2014 / Mar 8 jui 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 July 2014 Mardi 8 juillet 2014

Orders of the Day

Throne speech debate

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Privatization of public services

Ontario budget

Public transit

Health care

Health care

Hospital funding

Privatization of public services

Long-term care

Municipalities

Hospital funding

Workplace safety

Ontario budget

Hospital funding

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

School nutrition programs

Riding of Kenora–Rainy River

Armenian festival

Job loss

Events in Sudbury

World Cup

Joe Best

Fire in Brampton

Miracle League of Ottawa

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés

Motions

Order of business

Petitions

Hydro rates

Alzheimer’s disease

Air quality

Credit unions

Hydro rates

Dental care

Gasoline prices

Alzheimer’s disease

Hydro rates

Soins dentaires

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Throne speech debate / Débat sur le discours du trône

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Throne speech debate

Resuming the debate adjourned on July 7, 2014, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this occasion during this throne speech to outline a couple of things that I think the government needs to reflect on in light of this particular throne speech.

This government is trying to put itself forward as a progressive government, a government that is doing the right things for all people all of the time. I don’t doubt that there is some goodwill on the part of government members and the government generally to do some of these things, but I think for them to try to portray themselves as being this hugely progressive government that’s always doing the right thing for all of the people all of the time leaves a little bit to be desired. I just want to go through two or three things that are happening where I live that I think exemplify what this government is not doing, and what they continue to fail to do even after this particular election.

The first one is that the government says, “We’re the progressives. We’re the ones who are going to do what’s right for the people of Ontario and we’re going to stand to make sure that government is there for people when they need it.” Yet, when you look at northern Ontario, who is it that’s privatizing the ONTC? Who’s selling off Ontera?

It’s the Liberal government across the way that’s decided that they’re going to take a mantra out of the Conservative books and themselves act like a bunch of Conservatives when they get to government and actually sell off Ontera, which is one of the profitable arms of the ONTC, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. They’re going to sell it off. Supposedly, Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals are trying to say, “Oh, we’re the progressives.

We’re the ones who stand for making sure that we shore up services that people need across this province and make the investments that allow us to be able to function as a province.”

I, for one, and I think a lot of members of my caucus, the NDP caucus, would agree that those investments are necessary. But why is it right for the government to have cancelled the only train that we have in northeastern Ontario, the only means to transport people all the way from Moosonee down to Toronto by rail—at the same time say it’s okay to cancel that but it’s also right to make an investment in transportation infrastructure—namely transit, subways and others—in the city of Toronto and other great cities of this province?

Now, I want to say up front that I think the investments in the city of Toronto are needed. I think it’s yet to be determined, by the end of this particular four-and-a-half-year mandate, if the government actually would have moved on those issues. I think they portray this as an issue that they’re interested in, certainly, but when it comes to actually delivering for the people of the city of Toronto, I’m not convinced that, in fact, they’re going to do so. All I know, sitting as a northerner, is that I look at what is immediately affected by the people that I represent, and we have lost our only transportation train connection in northeastern Ontario.

It is a Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne that has decided cancel the train. It was Dalton McGuinty’s government that started it, but certainly Kathleen Wynne could have reversed it. She had a year in government to do so before this election. Not only has she agreed to continue Dalton McGuinty’s legacy of cancelling the train, she has also said that she’s going to accelerate the sell-off of Ontera, the profitable telecommunications wing of Ontario Northland.

So how can a government on the one hand, or, I say, a political party on the one hand portray itself as being this progressive movement that’s going to do all that is good for the people of Ontario and ensure to preserve public services, when they’re prepared to sell off Ontario Northland, an agency of the crown that has been there for over 100 years, something that even Mike Harris didn’t do, quite frankly, when he was in power? He had looked at the possibility of selling off the train to CN and decided to back off. Here we have the Liberals outdoing the Conservatives when it comes to a move to the right on privatization. So I say, in that particular example, job not well done.

I look at another one, and this is somewhat related but very important to the economy of northern Ontario, and that’s in the case of forestry. We have mills across northern Ontario that have shut their doors partly because of, yes, what happened to the North American economy and what’s happened with the market when it comes to the sale of wood. But where you have people who are prepared to invest in their mills and to be able to keep their mills open and create the wealth and create the jobs in northern Ontario, there’s been little in the way of support from the government.

I look at Little John Enterprises in the city of Timmins as a good example of that. Little John made an investment of quite a lot of money, over $1 million, in order to do an expansion to that mill, in order to be able to produce more and higher-quality wood that he can sell into the market. What he’s lacking is a commitment from the government on the part of wood allocation for that particular mill.

When they did the expansion to the mill, there was an understanding that the government would make sure that there would be an allocation of timber that would go to that mill so that they can be guaranteed a supply of wood, as mills need to be able to operate. Here we are, a number of years after that mill is open, and Little John is still having to deal with the open market trying to get wood.

Now, in a time where there are a lot of sawmills that are down as a result of the shutdown we’ve seen in northern Ontario, he’s able to get some wood. But he’s able to get wood at a much higher price, which means to say that his operating cost is higher and he is not secured should the market turn around, and it will turn around. In time, there will be a huge demand for wood, and what does an operator like Little John Enterprises do when trying to compete with the large multinationals that operate mills in northeastern Ontario?

He will be at a disadvantage when it comes to the price of wood because he will have to compete on the open market, and that’s not how the wood allocation system should have worked in the first place.

The wood allocation system was always that you allot wood to a mill so that they’re guaranteed a supply so that they can finance themselves and they can operate knowing what the price of the wood is going to be. What this government has done is taken the wood allocation system and turned it entirely on its ear. I just say to the government across the way, that is not what a progressive government does. What a progressive government does is it finds a way to balance the interests of large and small when it comes to operators in the forest industry and makes sure that the public will and the public good is reflected in the policies that come forward.

Put on top of that what you’ve done with the price of hydro. You have managed to put places likes Xstrata Copper—where I represent—in the city of Timmins out of business as a result of the high price of power, but those that still stand, like Little John, like Tembec which operates a paper mill up in Kapuskasing, and a number of operators in my riding and across northern Ontario—you’ve really put those people in a hard position.

Where was the government speaking about how they’re going to make hydro affordable for homeowners and how they’re going to make hydro affordable for industry in this province as a progressive move? Somehow or other they tried to say that we, as New Democrats, because we said that it’s important that people have affordable power when it comes to being able to power up their homes and not having to pay hydro bills that are going through the roof—they were trying to say that somehow or other that wasn’t a progressive thing to do. Well, I’m sorry.

If mum and dad, if Jane and Joe Ontario, are not able to pay their hydro bills, I don’t see that, quite frankly, as a progressive thing. I see that as regressive.

What politics should be about is about making sure that people are able to live in this province, able to prosper in this province and able to afford to purchase the services that they need. So I just say to the government across the way, you can, as much as you want, try to position yourself as being progressive, but for those people back home who are trying to pay their hydro bills, to those industries back home that are trying to pay their hydro bills, I don’t think being progressive is doing nothing about the price of electricity.

In fact, your own Minister of Energy, prior to the last election, said that hydro rates would be going up yet another 44% over the next number of years—that on top of increases that we’ve had in hydro alone already that have put electricity prices through the roof.

So this government can try to pretend as much as they want that in fact they are a progressive government. I believe that this government is essentially a Conservative government in action, one that campaigns like New Democrats in order to sound good during the campaign, but when they get to government continues doing the same kinds of things and the old kind of politics that we’ve seen around this place for far too long.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s my pleasure to spend a couple of minutes on the comments from the member from Timmins–James Bay. It’s becoming more and more obvious that although I wasn’t here for some two and a half years, not much really changes. It’s hard to believe that the member from James Bay would accuse the Liberal Party or the government of being Conservative. If anybody took

part in the last election, which I’m sure he did, and I did—I mean, they had no platform. They kind of borrowed from Conservatives, from us. We talked about an Ontario pension plan, which was their idea, frankly, Speaker, and they turned their backs on seniors in Ontario when the time came.

They talk a lot about the cost of energy, and he’s right: The energy costs are high. But it would be nice to see a suggestion from them or the official opposition about what they would do. It’s fine to complain. Yes, gasoline is expensive. I drive about 3,000 or 4,000 kilometres a month and I know how expensive gasoline is. But they never make any concrete suggestions—I’m not even saying concrete that one could apply, but even to suggest something that would alleviate some of those costs.

Speaker, they are in opposition, and I respect their role to hold the government accountable, but it would also be very nice to partner with us as a government to find the proper solution, not just throwing windows in the air.

I look forward to the rest of the debate on the throne speech. I think it’s a very balanced throne speech. It outlines the plan that we got elected to proceed with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I spoke at length yesterday—in fact, I spoke for 20 minutes yesterday—on this throne speech.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It seemed longer.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Maybe it did seem a little longer for those who were paying attention, John.

I have to say there was a theme that I’ve seen coming out so far. We have a government that is promising a tremendous amount on one side, and a tremendous amount of expectations on the other side. Speaker, you simply can’t have both. We’ve got a $12.5-billion deficit forecast for this year, up from $11.3 billion last year, up from $9.2 billion the year before. Obviously, the deficits are going the wrong way: They’re getting larger instead of smaller. Yet the promises are also growing.

So you’ve got a growing deficit that the government promises to bring to balance in 2017-18, and you’ve got a growing list of expenses. This budget that they’re bringing next week offers $5.7 billion in new spending, yet somehow they are magically going to balance the deficit, which is at $12.5 billion this year. So as a result, we’ve seen Moody’s, we’ve seen BlackRock, we’ve seen other credit agencies and financial institutions offer downgrades, offer outlook downgrades, offer warnings, offer credit warnings; we see the cost of our money and borrowing going up.

We’re seeing a tremendous amount of pressure because we have a deteriorating balance sheet, yet the government continues to go on a spending spree.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yesterday, I rose in my two minutes and talked about what’s not in the throne speech, as well as talking about that there is no allocation of funds and a firm commitment to year-round GO train service to Niagara Falls. One of my colleagues on the other side, from the Liberals, decided to heckle or make some comments—the MPP from St. Catharines—about GO trains. I want to be clear that I had raised that issue with the member from St. Catharines. He also knows the importance of having GO train service come all the way to Niagara.

So I want to make sure that when I stand up in the House and I’m talking about issues that are important to Niagara, I talk to the other MPPs who are elected in my area, because I think that’s important. As we go through this process over the next four years, we’ve been hearing about the partnership and how you want to listen to the other parties. Well, that’s why I go and talk to the other MPPs. I think it’s important to know.

Make no mistake about it: We have the highest unemployment in Ontario, in Niagara. There is absolutely no reason for it. What we have in Niagara—with the falls, where you get 11 to 12 million visitors a year; where you have the wine industry, which is growing; and you have the research and development, which could grow—but the big thing, the game-changer for Niagara, is a GO train to Niagara. I want to say that there’s no mention of that in the throne speech.

Then when you take a look at Fort Erie, I mentioned the racetrack because there’s no mention of support for the horse racing industry or the Horse Racing Partnership Plan, which came into effect. It’s important—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Where have you been?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Where have I been? I can tell you all about the racetrack. There are 37 dates at the Fort Erie Race Track. They’ve got four and five horses running in races instead of eight, nine or 10—to protect 1,000 jobs there. Bring the slots back there. Protect the 1,000 jobs; 250 more jobs will do more to stimulate—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Further questions and comments? The member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair.

It’s a pleasure to respond to the member from Timmins–James Bay. I am really very thankful that he didn’t—I can’t remember him uttering the words “Trojan Horse,” which are, of course, his leader’s new—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I did yesterday.

Mr. John Fraser: Yesterday? I’m sorry I missed it. I’m not as happy about it anymore now that you’ve reminded me of that, but that’s now his latest excuse for voting against—or, I anticipate, voting against—what some describe outside of this building as the most progressive budget that has been put forward in this Legislature in years.

I know he was talking about power and the affordability of power. There are measures inside that budget for affordability for low- and middle-income Ontarians for hydro.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: I really appreciated your Bible lesson yesterday. I wanted to remind you of that seven-year period between 1995 and 2002 when you borrowed money for a tax cut and then hid a $5.6-billion deficit. There are seven years that you should remember.

I’m sorry that the member from Nipissing is gone right now, but I really enjoyed him schooling the new member from Ottawa–Orléans yesterday on her comparison with the federal government. When I listened to him this morning, he described our budget deficit going up by about $1.1 billion. Unfortunately, he forgot to mention the Parliamentary Budget Officer stating quite clearly that the federal government is shortchanging Ontario by $1.2 billion. I’m sure that he’s saving his advocacy on behalf of Ontarians to the federal government for some time in the future. We’re not quite sure when.

I would like to say as well that the member from Kingston and the Islands gave a great maiden speech yesterday, and I wanted to point that out.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would only just say this: First of all, thanks to all the members for commenting on my eight minutes this morning. I would just say that time will prove or tell just how progressive this government really is. I tend to bet that now that they’re able to hide behind the four-and-a-half-year mandate—because that’s what essentially this is—they are going to be not as progressive as they put themselves out to be in the last election.

They’re going to be faced with an issue of: How do you deal with diminishing revenue in the province of Ontario and increasing costs? At one point, governments have to deal with that. I don’t care if you’re a government to the left or a government to the right; you have to be able to deal with those issues if you want to be around here and be able to offer services like health care, education and others in a public system the way that Ontarians, I believe, want.

The other thing is that I would just say this, and I guess I’m not surprised but I’m a little bit—only surprised in the sense of how early it comes. I listened to the exchange when the member from Niagara—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Niagara Falls.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Niagara Falls talked about horse racing. The comment coming back was, “Do you want a sustainable industry?” Well, listen, there was a sustainable industry before. There was a deal that was made, and people need to recognize this. When we decided to create casinos in this province, it affected horse racing. We made a deal—and it was eventually done by the Tories, who put it in place—in order to put slots at racetracks as a means to be able to shore up that industry so that it could stay there and keep on employing the people that it did.

There was not one of them that was losing money. For the government all of a sudden to say that this thing was not sustainable and they were justified in taking the $500 million out, which only about half of that went to horse racing, my God, I think shows to what degree this government has really missed the mark on this particular one. I support the comments made by my colleague from Niagara Falls because I think this is a bad day for horse racing in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: A point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. I know you’re new to the chair, and you’re doing a good job. A few minutes ago, my friend from Ottawa South said that the member from Nipissing is gone. I believe that’s a violation of our parliamentary procedure—to point out if somebody is in the chamber or not. I’d like a ruling, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member. It is a point of order that it’s not parliamentary to refer to anyone who is not here. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member should withdraw.

Mr. John Fraser: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member withdraws? Thank you. Withdrawn.

Further debate? The member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Good morning. First, let me say congratulations, Speaker, on your re-election. You once again have been entrusted by this Legislature with a very important and, as I observed yesterday, difficult job. I’m confident that you will keep order and rule with a firm hand in the same manner that a teacher such as myself might do in the classroom. If this task becomes too difficult, perhaps you might consider implementing some other methods used by teachers in pioneer days. There were no shenanigans in those classrooms.

Before I speak about the community, Barrie, that I represent, I would like to thank some of the people who helped me stand up for my community. In case you didn’t know, I’m a late bloomer, so to speak. In fact, I did not become a Liberal candidate in Barrie until almost one week into the writ. I was moved to act when the former Leader of the Opposition announced his plan to eliminate 100,000 public sector jobs. Quite ironically, the announcement was made at the Barrie Country Club.

As a teacher in Barrie, I lived through the turmoil caused by reckless cuts in the 1990s. I did not want services to be negatively affected again, especially for the little kindergarteners in my care. I proudly put my name forward and became part of Team Wynne, and I’m glad I did—part of a team with a positive vision for government and a practical plan. No other group had a plan. And I’m proud today to make my maiden speech before this House and stand in support of our government’s throne speech in which this positive, practical plan is articulated.

I want to thank my wonderful campaign manager, Christine Allenby, who took a green candidate with an even less organized support system and turned us into an unstoppable force. My main canvassing team, which went out three times a day, consisted of three boys in their 70s and two retired women. Many thanks to Nelson Therriault, Stan McGrath, John Gilbride, Linda Nicholson and “Mighty Mouse” Jeanie Harris. Thanks also to former MPP Aileen Carroll and her husband Kevin, Jeff Kovalik-Plouffe, Ian Pattillo, Dave Hein, Dorothy Ramsay, Janet Bigham, Heather Owen, Bud Watson and BPLA president Stephen Bertelsen.

Thanks also to my family: my two daughters, Kelly and Stacey, and my grandchildren, Christopher and Carling, and to the hundreds of other supporters too numerous to mention. Without all of these volunteers, I would not be here today.

But those who deserve my deepest gratitude are the voters in Barrie, who have placed their trust in me. I will not let them down. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. They made it clear that I am to support the government in implementing the plan outlined in the throne speech. They told me, as I went to their doors, that they wanted full-day kindergarten to remain in place. It saves them money and gives their children a head start in the education system. New voters and their parents appreciate the 30% rebate on their tuition costs and want that program to remain in place as well.

Many Barrie voters commute to the GTA for their work and use the GO trains and buses. They are appreciative of the work that this government has done reviving this system, but they want all-day, everyday service so commuting can take less time out of their day, giving them more very important time with family and friends.

The corporation of the city of Barrie received millions of dollars for additional police officers, Barrie transit, landfill, arena upgrades, roads, bridges and $12 million for a new water treatment plant. It’s part of this government’s uploading of costs, an approach that benefited Barrie taxpayers by $11 million last year alone. The annual benefit will be over $17 million by the time the uploading is completed in 2018. Other capital projects included one third of the cost of returning GO Transit to Barrie, a new fire station and the expansion of the Lake Simcoe airport.

Investments to local education included lower class sizes, higher graduation rates, full-day kindergarten and additions at three Barrie secondary schools and funding two new buildings at Georgian College.

As a kindergarten teacher at Terry Fox Elementary School in Barrie, I have personally witnessed the benefits of the programs currently in place because of government funding. Students who may come from homes without having eaten because of their hectic

schedule in the mornings or because there is no money to have food in the house for breakfast, or just because they are growing quickly and need more food than was in their lunch boxes that day, are able to get nutritious food whenever they need it throughout the day, no questions asked. Students who have full stomachs are much more able to learn than those who are hungry.

I have also been fortunate to be part of implementing full-day kindergarten, and I wasn’t too much of a believer at first. I truly am a believer now. This program will be implemented in all schools across the province this fall. It not only saves young families thousands of dollars in daycare costs and allows both parents to be part of the workforce, it better prepares our young children for their future academic life. They learn more quickly. Little Peyton was three and a half when she entered my JK class last September. She had not yet learned to read or write.

As a result of this new program, she will be heading into senior kindergarten socially and academically ahead of where she would have been in the old program. Peyton and her classmates have progressed much more quickly than they would have before, where there were times that I didn’t see them for a whole week. They are well prepared. They are almost ready for grade 1, and still have senior kindergarten to go. They are all reading and writing already.

I was also thrilled to see little people with very problematic teeth issues get them fixed because of government funding. A member yesterday said that that promise had not been implemented. Very clearly, for the last three years I have seen evidence of it in all the kindergarten classes in our school and in all areas.

After many years of uncertainty, Barrie’s boundary issue with the town of Innisfil was resolved, and the city of Barrie is able to move forward with their expansion.

Job creation is a big part of the growth plan for the Simcoe area, aided by a continued increase in GO train service. The number of trains and the number of cars for weekday service have continually increased and we have seen the introduction of weekend and summer GO train service. We hope that eventually people from Toronto will come to Barrie, step off at the station at Allandale, walk across the street to the beach and enjoy Barrie’s facilities.

Not to be forgotten from the list are the cleanup of Lake Simcoe, capital and operating funds for local non-profit agencies, social housing, affordable housing, literacy, theatre and other cultural events.

In addition to increases in funding for the rent bank and other housing initiatives, in March 2011, former MPP Carroll announced the official opening of 125 Bayfield Street in Barrie, a 43-unit building which received more than $3 million from the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program for the construction of new housing units for seniors and people with disabilities. Almost $4 million was provided through the same program for the construction of 31 new housing units at Stanley Heights, another affordable housing project for seniors in Barrie. It’s right beside my school, and those seniors come over and volunteer every day. It’s wonderful.

Unprecedented investments were made to local health care, too, with well over $300 million to RVH for the construction of the new cancer centre and renovations. Millions more were given to reduce wait times and for other projects at our hospital, like a portable radiation unit and $2.5 million in start-up funding for the family medicine teaching unit. RVH has received over 40% in increased base funding since 2003, and that was a Liberal government.

Other health initiatives included a new long-term-care home for Barrie, the introduction of nurse-practitioner-led clinics and the Aging at Home program. We now have more nurses, and more people have access to front-of-the-line health care services. Former MPP Aileen Carroll worked very hard on securing funds for a hospice in Barrie and she was pleased to announce almost $3 million, half the cost in capital funding, to build Hospice Simcoe. Doors opened in 2009, and since then, well over 1,000 residents have received care and comfort from our dedicated health care professionals in a home-like setting.

This is what we want for our seniors. In their final days at our 10-bed residence, they were very comfortable when they passed away.

Our community programs like Visiting Hospice and grief and bereavement support reach hundreds more each year. Although Barrie already has a hospice, the present government, our government, should work towards increasing the number of hospices in Ontario. Hospice palliative care is a good thing to do. Many more ridings want and need it. It’s something we should all work towards, and it lessens the burden and the costs on hospital facilities.

In 2007, $2.5 million was announced for start-up of the family medicine teaching unit, which is located at Rotary House in the RVH site. In partnership with RVH and the U of T, the Barrie teaching unit is where residents manage their own practice of up to 300 patients each. The number of resident doctors has increased each year. There were 18 in 2012. Fortunately, many of these doctors love it in Barrie, and on leaving the residency program have stayed in Barrie as family physicians, alleviating the doctor shortage for families.

My personal experiences with the health care system in 2000, during another government, were not that unusual at the time. I got a diagnosis that no family wants to get. I had breast cancer. At that time, patients could get their chemotherapy at Royal Victoria hospital in Barrie, but most patients had to travel far away to get radiation therapy, to North Bay or maybe Buffalo. This type of diagnosis is frightening enough without being told that you have to leave the support and comfort of your family to be treated for your illness in another location, maybe even another country.

One young woman I met had no support system to look after her young toddler, so she made the tough decision to have a double mastectomy so she could stay in Barrie. What a terrible choice she had to make. That no longer has to happen because of the Liberal government.

Now, because of the Liberal government, funding for all treatment can be done in Barrie in the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre and the cancer care clinic. No question, Barrie is absolutely better off as a result of having a Liberal government at Queen’s Park.

As a partner with this government, Barrie will continue to grow and thrive as we take the next steps in building our community and expanding opportunity for all.

This is how Barrie has grown: Ours is a history of building up this province. Barrie’s beginnings can be traced back to the First Nations people, using the western shores of Kempenfelt Bay as a place of rest before travelling the portage that ran between Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River to Lake Huron.

The War of 1812 resulted in increased use, allowing the British troops and supplies to bypass the American forces at Detroit. At the war’s end, settlers arrived and took up residence at the end of the portage, beginning the traces of modern-day Barrie. The British military presence is reflected in many street names and even in the name of our city itself, in honour of British admiral Sir Robert Barrie.

As our city grew, it began to export local resources. Trees nearly 200 feet tall were logged and shipped out, serving as masts for British ships and railroad ties. In the winter months, huge blocks of ice were cut from the frozen waters of Kempenfelt Bay and shipped down to Toronto, Buffalo and New York for refrigeration purposes. Three large storage houses enabled the blocks to be effectively stored for shipment during the summer months.

Between the late 1800s and the early 20th century, Barrie underwent a number of changes that contributed to its rapid growth. The long-anticipated railroad connection in 1865 joined Barrie to the city of York, its resources and industry, a connection that is maintained now. But it was the building of Highway 400 in 1950, providing tourists easy access and exposure to our beautiful city by the bay, that made Barrie the favourite for family fun in central Ontario.

Today Barrie’s population stands at more than 140,000 and continues to be one of Canada’s fastest growing cities. Remembering our heritage and what led to our city’s success is the focus of some of our key attractions.

This is what the plan laid out in this throne speech will do, not just for Barrie but for all of Ontario’s communities, and that is why I will vote in support of it.

Finally, I would like to congratulate every one of the 107 members of this House on their recent election. Politics is a blood sport and it’s a very difficult time, and we all worked hard. Congratulations to those who are here and those who did not make it. I look forward to working with all of you to build Ontario up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I am pleased today to rise and share comments on the comments that we had heard from the member from Barrie. I really appreciate the zest and the enthusiasm which was so evident when she spoke about her home riding. But I’m afraid that that zest and enthusiasm may very well be squelched when the reality and the severity of the last decade of total mismanagement comes home to roost.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My fellow member just said there is maybe too much Kool-Aid over in that caucus.

But the reality is, this Liberal government actually is going to reap what it sowed, and I look forward to seeing how they’re going to manage the absolutely mismanaged mess that they created over the last decade.

Just one of the messes that I want to refer to quickly came to mind when the responses were being shared with the member from Timmins–James Bay and the whole topic of the horse racing industry came up. The member from Perth–Wellington shared something with me yesterday. He had the honour of attending the Queen’s Plate, and the buzz around that prestigious horse race is that in two or three short years, this Liberal government may have very well killed the root and the foundation of that thoroughbred race because only purebred horses—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Purebred Canadian horses are the only type of horses that are allowed to race, and our breeding program has gone south, literally and figuratively. So there’s a concern there.

But I want to go back to the throne speech as well, Mr. Speaker, because there’s little evidence of sound fiscal planning or even evidence-based solutions, and it appears to be a study in contradictions. For instance, they talk about eliminating the deficit, but they don’t talk about cutting spending, and that’s the root problem of this total mismanaged mess.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further comments and questions? The member for Manitoulin—sorry, Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good; I thought I had a new riding there, including Manitoba. My riding is big enough, thank you very much.

To the member from Barrie, bienvenue. I hope you enjoy the work that you’re going to do here. I was really impressed by your family. I’m pleased to know a little bit more about you. I look forward to building bridges with you, particularly with one of the issues you brought up, which was respite care. I’m one of the firm believers in that area, where this province lacks. The biggest city in my riding is Elliot Lake. There’s a huge, huge need, and you see the care and the attention that is given in those particular areas.

One of the things that I really enjoyed from your comments is that you really focused on Barrie, what it means to you and the things that are working for you in your riding. That’s really important. It’s what is going to get you re-elected, to be quite honest with you.

I don’t agree with one of your comments where you said that politics is a blood sport. I think that’s a perception that’s out of this House that we have to change. You as a new member and me, there are different ways that we can change things in here, and that’s through our decorum and how we are addressing each other. I’m hopeful. We’re all back here at Queen’s Park. I hear the battering that’s going back and forth in the House. Hopefully that will tone down in a bit, because I think that’s what we want to do: build bridges in order to get things accomplished for us.

I have to tell you that things aren’t so great in the north. As critic for northern development and mines—and I’m sure you heard it, too: the problems that everyday families are faced with. One of them is the challenging task of everyday living costs. People are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of hydro is not actually being addressed. What I would suggest as well is, learn some of the suggestions that we had made and that we had campaigned on, just like we learned some of the suggestions you had made and that you campaigned on, and let’s find the grounds where we can actually meet together and implement changes that will help all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: Certainly, I’ve heard a number of maiden speeches over the years that I’ve been here, but this is one of the very most compelling ones I’ve heard. She talked about the personal health challenge that she had, and she relayed it to this place and how it’s our job to make sure that, when people can’t get cancer care in their home, we do the best we can to make sure that places like Barrie do get that care so mothers don’t have to leave home to get treatment in North Bay when they leave children behind. That’s a very, very significant and compelling story our new member from Barrie told us.

Also, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin said, she talked about her hometown, Barrie. Too seldom in this place—I see people stand up and attack the government or praise the government. They don’t talk about the people back home. She boosted the people back home. Sometimes too many people stand up here and are always talking about high unemployment: “Things are bad.” Barrie is a beautiful place by the bay. It’s got an incredible work ethic. It’s one of these cities that a lot of you represent here that doesn’t get the attention it deserves: Barrie—124,000 people, almost the same size as Prince Edward Island.

People are working around the clock; they’re building; they’re driving to work every day; they’re building new schools and hospitals. It’s an incredible working community that deserves a lot more credit. The member from Barrie is here to do that. She was relating to the importance of that child in full-day kindergarten who is now benefiting from what we do here.

I think this member really hit home what’s very important, and that is that everything we do relates to the people back home. We should be praising the people back home and the incredible history that the people have made back home. So let’s talk about what’s good at home, not what’s bad.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to comment on the speech today by the new member from Barrie. I want to congratulate her for being elected and thank her for making that decision. I’m sure we’ll hear more of her contributions to this House in days to come.

I want to talk about the throne speech. I can’t comment specifically on her speech, because it was very personal and very directed at the riding, but I do want to talk about the throne speech itself and how this government has put itself into quite a box. It’s got a tiger by the tail, as they say, because they’ve preached on one side about how they were going to deliver all of these new programs and new spending for the people of Ontario, enhancing their lives, as they said, to paraphrase what they’ve been saying. But on the other hand, they know they’ve got a mess of their own creation in the debt and deficit here in the province of Ontario.

On the one hand they say they are going to be absolutely resolved on dealing with that debt crisis and the deficit in the province of Ontario, but they give us no information, no specifics, on how they’re going to do that. They’re saying, “Oh, there will be tough decisions.” Well, it’s about time we started to talk about those tough decisions, because their hand-picked adviser, Don Drummond, has said that they can’t get to balance without making some serious changes. They’ve got to tell us what services they plan to cut here in the province of Ontario.

They’ve got to tell us who’s going to get laid off in the province of Ontario, as far as public servants are concerned. We talked about that during the campaign, recognizing that in order to get to balance those tough decisions would have to be made, and we were prepared to make them, but this government wants to dance all around the issue and hope that the tooth fairy shows up sometime before 2017-18—or the fairy godmother—with a bag of money to pay off the deficit. But that’s not going to happen.

We live in the real world here, and you people have to start managing the government like you’re in the real world, not in Walt Disney’s Fantasia.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the speaker for her final comments.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to thank everyone for their kind comments. I hope that we’re getting along as well in four years. I do believe that we need to work together. I recall that Mr. Obama thought that that’s what he would do. It didn’t work out so well there. Everyone needs to compromise, and I’m hoping that we will be able to do that in a civilized manner. I know that a lot of teachers do not bring their classes here to witness question period, and there’s a reason for it. I hope that we do improve the decorum here, although I did find myself, yesterday afternoon, chirping a little bit. So I apologize for that, and I hope everyone has a wonderful day and a great four years.

I hope we do live up to our promises and we do implement all of the things that we promised for all of the people of Ontario and the people in Barrie. I would like to say that working together is very important. I see my ETFO colleague across the hall there, Jennifer, the member from Oshawa, and I welcome her. This is a different experience for us and a different setting. Quite often, elementary teachers in particular are very quiet and shy. I don’t think that’s going to happen with us. Thank you again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from—Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to this position. I think you’ll do well, as soon as you learn my riding name.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak and respond to the throne speech. We do find ourselves back at Queen’s Park with a newly formed Liberal majority government, so congratulations to those who won their elections, and we look forward to working together with you.

Speaker, I do want to get to the point of the matter, and that’s about Ontario’s fiscal reality. At this time in Ontario’s history, it’s a very difficult and frightening truth that we have to confront. Unfortunately, this Liberal government, through the past 10 years and now, currently avoids looking at this reality. But a problem doesn’t go away just because you ignore it. Just like a pile of dust and dirt starts to form when you continue to sweep it under the rug, Ontario’s debt continues to pile up when you neglect to restrain spending.

The biggest problem in this government is that it continues to sweep bigger and bigger piles of dirt under the rug. The projected deficit, according to their spring budget, will be $12.5 billion for 2014-15. That’s an increase of $1.2 billion over their projected deficit of $11.3 billion for 2012-13. Our debt level as a percentage of GDP is also set to rise to 40.8% by 2015-16.

To keep things in perspective, when the PCs left office in 2003 the debt level had been reduced to about 28% of GDP. Tough decisions were made by the PC government during the 1990s, but that government left Ontario’s fiscal house and capacity to invest in the best shape it has ever been. Unfortunately, for the past 11 years, this government has squandered billions of dollars and has put us in the deepest hole in Ontario’s history.

While we tried to bring this message to the voters this spring, it was overshadowed not only by a myriad of cheap promises from the Liberals but also an avalanche of third party ads produced by groups that had vested interests in the Liberals being re-elected.

Just as a side note for all Ontarians watching here today who may have become sick and tired with the ubiquity of negative ads during the election, please don’t forget that it was the PC Party that put forward a bill in the last session to reduce third party advertising. As was expected, the Liberals voted against this legislation, despite the fact that every other province in the country has some form of third party advertising legislation. Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the results of the election on our party. The establishment of a majority government, regardless of whichever party, does present a number of valuable opportunities going forward.

As I mentioned, our province is facing a severe debt and deficit crisis. However, if the Liberals wanted to, they could, as a majority government, decide to unilaterally bring down spending—put spending controls in place. It’s not a very easy process and requires political will and fortitude, but with a majority government, at least the Liberals would not have to worry about having their major initiatives voted down.

In the days after June 12, I tried to assure myself that there would be a possibility—a little possibility—that firm action would be taken to bring our province back from the fiscal brink. Without the constraints of a minority government, it was my hope that even this Liberal government couldn’t deny how bad Ontario’s fiscal reality truly is. They couldn’t deny that Ontario resembles Greece 15 years ago. They couldn’t deny that our debt burden is worse than California’s. By acknowledging this reality, I had hoped that even the Liberal government would step up and make the tough decisions to rein in spending to eliminate our deficit and start to reduce our debt.

However, last week’s throne speech dashed all of my hopes. It set forward an agenda that is virtually the same as the old one, and that’s to say that it’s the same agenda that in 10 years doubled a debt level that had taken 100 years to accrue. There’s really no surprise from the throne speech that this government will now be eager to reintroduce its spring budget. The throne speech was certainly written with that in mind. And so Ontario will get to again see a budget that hikes taxes, increases spending and creates more job-killing policies while future generations get saddled with more and more debt.

It may be interesting to note that the hour we spent in the chamber during the throne speech cost the people of Ontario an additional $1.34 million in debt. That’s how much our debt increases each hour, $1.34 million. I truly can’t believe how blind this government is to face the reality. Even when news articles after news articles from publications ranging from the Toronto Star to the Huffington Post warn this government of the perils of continuing to overspend, Premier Wynne and her team remain steadfastly committed to building a bigger debt pile.

While pundits and investors cower in fear at the house of cards that is Ontario, this government continues to operate without a care in the world. Perhaps they don’t understand the consequences.

So as a member of this Legislature, it is my duty to take the time that I have here today to outline the looming negative consequences that face Ontario under the vision outlined in the throne speech. It would be my hope that these Liberals finally start to take more seriously the fiscal situation of this province—

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: But I’m getting the impression, and I’m hearing it now, too many promises were made during the election to too many special interests. Certainly, if the government is serious about making the decisions necessary to eliminate our deficit, they will no doubt alienate some of their biggest special interest supporters.

Perhaps the biggest sign of Ontario’s financial distress came on the same day the Lieutenant Governor delivered the Liberals’ throne speech. As we all know Moody’s Investors Service has lowered the outlook for Ontario’s debt from stable to negative. While this isn’t actually a downgrade, it is an indication that Moody’s is prepared to downgrade Ontario’s debt unless significant action is taken to balance the budget.

It’s great that some of the Liberals came out and said that they’re committed to balancing the budget by 2017-18. However, it’s the job of the analysts at Moody’s to dig deeper and look below the surface to verify whether in fact the actions and directions set out by this government credibly support their deficit reduction target. I tell you right now, I’m not a financial expert and it’s not that difficult to see why Moody’s affirmed what the PC Party has been saying all along.

By referring to the Liberal budget as a credit-negative budget, Moody’s is telling the Ontario people that the budget that triggered the election, the same budget that will be introduced next week, does not contain the measures necessary to instill confidence in Ontario’s debt.

While the Liberals say that they will balance the budget by 2017-18, Moody’s has noticed that most of the heavy lifting in terms of spending restraint will occur in the back end of the plan. In other words, the Liberals are saying, “Let’s not worry about doing any heavy lifting today. Let’s worry about it tomorrow.”

But what concerns us in the PC caucus and what concerns the analysts at Moody’s is that the approach is fundamentally risky. Circumstances can change, and to be honest the Liberals have not been good at sticking to their plan. Their most recent budget revised the projected deficits of 2014-15 and 2015-16 upward by about $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion respectively. That is to say, last year’s plan, which also committed to balancing the budget by 2017-18, projected deficits of $10.8 billion and $5.1 billion in 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. However, this year those projected deficits are now $12.5 billion and $7.6 billion.

So it’s great for the Liberals to say that they will have balanced the budget by 2017-18, but if every year they keep revising their deficit projections up and up, it becomes mathematically impossible to balance the budget.

Another concern we share with Moody’s is that the road to balance as laid out by the Liberals relies heavily on a surge in Ontario’s economy. I’ve always been of the opinion that most prudent plans attempt to take action on things you can control. Doing so reduces the risk other factors have that may derail your plan. Unfortunately, Liberals are heavily relying on the health of Ontario’s economy to achieve balance. Again, circumstances can change.

Everyone predicted that Ontario would rebound faster than it has. However, as we’ve all seen in the past few years, the economy can be fickle and it’s been particularly slow to rebound following 2008. Therefore to pin Ontario’s fiscal strategy primarily on this factor is imprudent, particularly when we so clearly have a spending problem. Maybe that’s part of the problem.

The government has conditioned itself to think that spending is not the issue. I hear them say it in every press conference where they get asked about spending restraint. I also hear them blame the recession for Ontario’s fiscal woes. All of these tactics amount to abdication of responsibility by the government for the mess that it is in and the mess that it alone created. I’ll go on and prove that as I continue.

If we consider the last budget of the Ernie Eves government, we can note that Ontario’s revenues were $66.5 billion and expenditures were $54.3 billion. In the most recent Wynne budget, revenues are $118.9 billion and expenditures are $130.4 billion. For those sitting across the aisle who still think revenue is an issue, just consider the fact that over that 11-year period, revenues have increased by 79%. On an average, compounded-yearly basis, this is about 7% a year—7%. That has been consistently higher than inflation. It has been consistently higher than the real GDP growth, and has been consistently higher than most other provinces.

The only thing that the growth rate hasn’t been higher than is the growth rate in expenditures. Over the same period of time, expenditures have increased by 140%, or roughly 13% on an annualized basis. Expenditure growth in Ontario has nearly doubled that of revenues on a yearly basis. Just once I’d like to see a member of the government stand here and tell me that they’ve spent too much, because quite simply they have.

One more thing to reinforce the fact that our problem is a spending problem and not a shortfall of revenues is that our personal tax rate is the third-highest in the country. Only Nova Scotia and Quebec have marginal tax rates that are higher than Ontario’s. Why does this matter? It matters because once people, investors, companies and countries lose confidence in Ontario’s debt, our interest rates will rise. Interest already costs the taxpayers $11 billion per year. That’s almost 10 cents of every dollar the Ontario people pay in taxes to the government goes to paying the interest on our outstanding debt.

That’s $11 billion that is not going to our schools, our hospitals or improving our roads. And the frightening thing is interest rates will become a larger portion of the budget going forward.

According to the budget plan, the Liberals intend to restrain spending. They anticipate total expenditures will increase by 1% less than GDP over the next few years. This means that according to the Ministry of Finance’s own numbers, the justice budget will increase an average of 1% each year; children’s and social services will increase at just under 4% each year; post-secondary and training will increase at 1% each year; and both education and health care will increase an average of 2% each year. The total we pay in interest on our debt will increase at a staggering 8% each year—8%.

In order to balance all these increases, there is a big “other”

section in the Ontario budget that calls for yearly decreases of about 6%. But what falls under that category? I don’t know, which is the problem, because it makes the entire spending restraint part of the Liberal plan uncertain and abstract. It’s no wonder Moody’s has revised its outlook on our debt.

What was interesting to note was that while Wynne supporters rallied in support around her on the evening of June 12, investors and traders were also responding to Wynne’s victory. The Friday morning after the election, investors responded to the news of Kathleen Wynne’s election as Premier and that the Ontario budget would go forward as a result. Their message was loud and clear: By 10:20 a.m., the yield on Ontario’s long-term bonds jumped two basis points, the biggest one-day jump since January. What does that mean exactly? Well, interest rates and bond prices are inversely related.

When the price of a bond goes down, the interest rates go up. The reason is prices go down because people don’t want the bonds and therefore the interest that’s offered on these bonds has to rise to entice more buyers. In short, the morning after Premier Wynne won the election, investors from all over the world were trying to get rid of bonds like they were infected. With more people selling than buying, the interest rate yield went up.

The head of the Canadian fixed-income division at BlackRock, the world’s biggest money manager, says: “We’re on high alert that S&P will downgrade Ontario.... She’s front-loading the deficit or the total debt in anticipation future years will benefit from stronger growth.” The S&P is “just looking at the raw numbers and they’re seeing a deteriorating financial balance sheet.”

Translation: S&P could downgrade Ontario’s debt very soon. This will mean Ontarians will have more of their hard-earned tax dollars going to pay interest rates that will get higher and higher every year. This will mean less money every year that can be invested in health care, education, infrastructure, the environment and agriculture. And let’s not forget that this Liberal government has brought us to this point, and it’s the Liberal government that, with their throne speech, is refusing to get us out.

I’d like to talk a little bit now about job creation. As I’ve discussed, the Liberal budget relies heavily on strengthening Ontario’s economy to achieve a balance. However, the throne speech offered nothing in the ways of credible job creation policies. In fact, one of the pillars of the plan is the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which is not only not a job creator, it is a flat-out job killer. Regardless of how Wynne dresses it up, we all know this pension amounts to a payroll tax. Every business in Ontario will be required to contribute 1.9% of earnings for every employee who makes less than $90,000.

Let’s assume you have a factory or business that employs 100 people at about $50,000 per person, and that’s about the size of any mid-size factory. That means that under the Ontario pension plan, the business will have to pay an additional $100,000 in expenses—$100,000 extra. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think that’s a lot of money.

What scares me about this is that, in my riding, I have seen 6,300 good manufacturing jobs erased since 2008. While the recession certainly played a factor, many of these companies like Ford are still making cars; it’s just that they’ve determined it’s not worth making cars in our part of Ontario. Now you’re telling the businesses that stuck it out through the depths of the recession and had faith enough to keep their factories in Ontario that their reward is a $100,000 yearly expense, courtesy of the Ontario government. I can’t think of anything more asinine or detrimental to job creation than that.

What really troubles me was when I read comments delivered by the CEO of Magna during their annual general meeting. First of all, we have to appreciate that Magna has a storied history in Ontario. Its culture and roots are embedded here. That makes it different from other foreign-owned companies that have less of a vested interest in Ontario. Foreign companies may come and go on occasion, but Magna derives much of its identity from being in Ontario.

And I can understand why: There’s a Magna plant in my riding. It does advanced manufacturing, employs my neighbours and provides a decent living for hundreds of people in St. Thomas. So it troubles me when I heard the Magna CEO state that Magna would no longer be investing in Ontario. It’s not closing any plants at this point, but any benefits of expanding in Ontario are outweighed by the costs. The reason the costs outweigh the benefits, according to Magna, are high energy rates and the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which would cost Magna $35 million a year.

This decision by the company is not rooted in broader economic malaise; it’s directly related to policies enacted by this government. Their own bureaucrats warned them that the Ontario pension plan would drive over 100,000 jobs out of the province.

Obviously, it’s too early to have lost that many jobs already, but Magna’s position is certainly an indictment of the plan and a dark omen of the future that awaits Ontario. When I look at how consistently misguided this Liberal government is when it comes to fiscal and economic policy, sometimes I think they will not be happy until all the manufacturing jobs in Ontario are eliminated.

The bottom line is that the Liberals have a four-year mandate. We in the PC caucus will continue to sound the alarm, and hopefully this government will take the decisive action that’s needed to avert a full fiscal disaster. We in the PC Party believe in the services that this government provides, but we also need, at the same time, to be fiscally prudent so that these services may continue: to provide the health care for our seniors, to provide protection in the environment and to ensure that we have infrastructure. All of these are on the line when this government continues to spend and spend, and our debt levels continue to rise.

It’s like running a household, Mr. Speaker: You can only run the credit card so far before things start having to be cut away. This government has run that far. It’s time to take a look at their policies. It’s time to bring forth the policy in this upcoming budget—there’s still time to change it—to ensure that fiscal restraint is in order and that we can protect future generations like my daughter, our kids, our grandkids down the road, so that they are not saddled with this debt, so that they can have a health care and an education system much like we were allowed to have during the Bill Davis years when we were growing up.

So I’m hoping this government steps forward, starts listening to the PC Party caucus and implements some of these restraints so that, going forward, we’ll have a stronger and more prosperous Ontario.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Seeing as it is close to 10:15 and that if we were to start questions and comments, we would have to finish it all, this House is now recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Heather de Veber and Gabriel de Veber to this chamber. I hope you will all join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister of—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Treasury Board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. I’m delighted to welcome two summer interns: Cecily MacKnight and Priya Kanagakingam. Welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome, from the Ontario Health Coalition, Peterborough chapter, Dave Nicholl, Tom Young, Roy Brady, Dorothy Body and Carol Winter. And my mother, Sheila Wood, is here to lobby me as well today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A tough lobby.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to introduce Andrea Houston, a journalist known to many of us in the House. Welcome, Andrea.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Further introductions? Last call for further introductions.

It is now time for question period. The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry, I forgot something. I apologize to the leader.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask members to join me in welcoming our new pages. If they could assemble, please.

While the rest of the assembly takes place, it has been suggested that sometimes we miss hearing each riding’s name because of applause, so if we could hold our applause until all of our pages are introduced, that would be helpful.

I would ask the members to join us in welcoming the legislative pages serving in the first session of the 41st Parliament:

Ashley Bowes from Oshawa; Caitlin Boyle from Brampton West; Thomas Brassard from Thunder Bay–Atikokan; Gabriel Chemla from Etobicoke–Lakeshore; Hayden Cheung from Richmond Hill; Kaitlyn Doleweerd from Simcoe North; Ethan Elliott from Perth–Wellington; Lavanya Gunentherathas from Scarborough Centre; Emmanuelle Hébert from Mississauga South; Daniel Hoogsteen from Burlington; Émilie Lebel from Timmins–James Bay; Matthew Lynn from Etobicoke Centre; Ayesha Mir from Don Valley East; Zahra Mohamed from Markham–Unionville; William Qin from Mississauga–Brampton South; Victoria Recagno from Oakville; Nardien Sedhom from Mississauga–Streetsville; Brendan Sheppard from Barrie; Stephanie Ttofas from Scarborough–Guildwood; Josée Venne Brisebois from Sudbury; Ethan Walker from Wellington–Halton Hills; Eric Wood from Davenport; and David Zhou from Scarborough–Agincourt.

These are our pages for this session.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, I apologize to the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition for that interruption.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the introduction of pages is important. It’s historic for them to be here, and we certainly welcome them all.

Now let’s get down to business.

My question is for the Premier. Moody’s credit rating agency has changed Ontario’s debt rating outlook from stable to negative. After 11 years of a Liberal regime in Ontario, you’ve managed to double our debt, and paying the interest on that debt is now the third-largest expenditure in the budget. When referencing the debt, even former Liberal MPP Donna Cansfield said, “This province is in deep trouble.”

Premier, your proposed budget has caused a credit downgrade to hang over Ontario. Tell us today, does the government’s fiscal plan take into account a further credit rating downgrade, which would increase the cost of servicing the debt? Or will you assure us that your budget will not result in a credit downgrade?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I can assure the Leader of the Opposition is that we are determined to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. We have laid that out in our budget. We will reintroduce our budget next week. We have been very, very clear about the constraints that we know have to be put in place. We have been clear about that path to balance.

But we’ve also been clear—and we were clear with the people of Ontario as we went through the election campaign—that our plan was based on investments in communities, investments in the talent and skills of our people, our children, our grandchildren, investments in infrastructure that we know are necessary, whether it’s roads or bridges, whether it’s transit, whether it’s hospitals or schools. Those investments are necessary in order for the province to thrive.

That is the basis of our plan, and it is laid out very clearly in our budget documents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Premier, you claim that you want to build Ontario up, but the fact is, the massive debt your government has created is now threatening front-line services that we cherish here in Ontario, like health care and education. Even former Finance Minister Dwight Duncan says that the province’s finances are “a ticking time bomb,” yet you’re still working to push through a budget that the credit rating agencies are already frowning upon.

Premier, is it your intention to rush through this budget, then shut down the Legislature so that you can negotiate new public sector contracts without the Legislature being in session to hold you to account?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we are back here within 20 days because I said that it was important that we get the budget reintroduced and that we have the opportunity to debate it. We’re willing to stay as long as that takes, to have the budget debated and to make sure that we get the full input from this House.

But the reality that the Leader of the Opposition puts forward, that there are challenges ahead, that’s not news to us. We know that there are challenges, Mr. Speaker. That’s why in our budget, we lay out the path to balance. We understand the constraints that have to be in place.

But the other reality is that there are investments needed. I would just call attention to a statement that the member for Wellington–Halton Hills made yesterday in his first member’s statement. He talked about the need in his riding—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and I will quote in the final supplementary, but he talked about the need in his riding for investments in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Well, the honourable member for Halton—

Interjections.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I just say to the Premier, the honourable member for Wellington–Halton Hills has a far better record of sticking up for his constituents and setting priorities, because he was part of a government that set priorities for eight years in this province and balanced the budget.

Premier, in Europe, they—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do.

Mr. Jim Wilson: We’ve seen in Europe, where they didn’t care about the credit rating, or didn’t care enough about it, and they didn’t care enough about their debt obligations—in fact, their debt obligations just kept growing—that they actually did have to cut services that we cherish here in Ontario, like health care and education.

You need to treat the credit rating as sacrosanct to make sure that we spend within our means, because we owe that to the hard-working people of Ontario. That’s an obligation we have, and we have an obligation to preserve front-line services.

Premier, will you take your time with the budget? We’ll forgive you if you don’t introduce it next Monday. Take your time with the budget. Fix it so that we don’t lose our current credit rating.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What is sacrosanct to me are the needs of this province and the needs of the people in this province, and those needs are multi-faceted. As the Leader of the Opposition notes, there are challenges ahead for our fiscal situation, and we have laid out our path to balance in our budget.

But we also have a need to make investments in infrastructure.

The Leader of the Opposition references the history of the member for Wellington–Halton Hills and his participation in the government, his membership in the government, and his membership in a government that in fact didn’t make the investments that were needed, didn’t make the investments in infrastructure that were needed, which is why yesterday he was standing in this House saying, “On June 13, the day after”—and I’m quoting the member for Wellington–Halton Hills—“On June 13, the day after the election, we were back to work at my constituency office, and I wrote the Premier to highlight three key issues in my riding: the Highway 6 Morriston bypass, improved GO train service, and high-speed Internet in rural Ontario.” So, Mr.

Speaker—

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

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier, and congratulations on your success.

Premier, the day after you brought in your budget, Moody’s rang the first of many alarm bells. They said that your deficit represented “a credit negative for the province.” They said that the path to balance “presents more risk than previously assessed.” Premier, this is a clear signal, yet you’re bringing back the same budget next week.

We know that your $12.5-billion deficit has already caused cuts in senior physiotherapy, cuts in cataract surgeries and cuts in diabetes testing strips. Premier, I’ll ask you: What cuts are coming next?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nipissing is kind of playing both sides of the fence here, because on the one hand he reiterates what his leader has said about concerns about the fiscal situation, on which I have acknowledged that there are challenges. There’s absolutely no doubt about that, but we have laid out a path to balance, and we will reintroduce our budget next week. But at the same time he talks about the need for more spending.

The reality is that we have to find ways to meet the needs of the people of this province. The issues that he raised in terms of health care are part of a transformation of the health care system that is absolutely critical. We must provide services in a different way. We must provide more home care and more services in the community. But we must provide those services; we cannot neglect those services. And we must make those investments in infrastructure that we know are needed in the riding of Wellington–Halton Hills and across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll certainly let the 34 people at the hospital in North Bay know that they’re part of a transformation. The 60 beds that were closed: I’ll let them know that that’s part of a transformation.

Premier, even more warning signals from financial experts came the very day after the election. The Financial Post revealed that Ontario’s borrowing costs spiked the most in six months. BlackRock, the world’s biggest money manager, said that they were on “high alert” for a credit rating downgrade for Ontario and noted that investors were “seeing a deteriorating financial balance sheet.” Premier, you’re well aware that this will lead to extra borrowing costs, which will take away money from front-line services.

Someone is going to feel the pain of your decisions. Who is it that will suffer next, Premier? Is it families, is it seniors or is it Ontario’s most vulnerable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental disagreement between the opposition and us. That fundamental disagreement is that we don’t believe that starting with cutting 100,000 jobs and slashing services is the way to prosperity for the province. We just don’t believe that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people who work in the new hospital in North Bay and the people who work in the children’s treatment centre in North Bay understand that investment in services is very important. They understand that investment in infrastructure is very important.

We will reintroduce our budget next week, Mr. Speaker. We have laid out a path to balance in that budget. We have laid out the investment strategy that we believe is necessary at this point. We must do both of those if the province is to prosper.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, the rating agency sent a further shot across your bow in an attempt to jolt you back to reality. Moody’s has now downgraded their credit outlook from stable to negative based on your plan to forge ahead with this budget. A formal credit rating downgrade is now forecast, which will not only drive up the cost of borrowing for the province but also for linked agencies, such as my city of North Bay, the city of Ottawa, the University of Ottawa, the University of Toronto, the school board financing authority—all will downgrade, along with the province.

Rating agencies simply are not buying into this promise to balance in three years. Norman Levine of Portfolio Management stated that you “have not articulated in any way, shape or form” how you would get there.

Premier, can you tell us today specifically what further cuts to front-line services will make your budget balance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just go back to what I said previously, which is that there is a fundamental disagreement.

We believe that if we do not make the investments in transit, in roads, in bridges, in schools, in hospitals and in the education of our young people, if we do not make those investments, if we do not provide opportunities for young people to have experience and to partner with business and get that work experience, if we do not transform the health care system and make sure that we have more home care in communities, if we don’t do those things, we believe—in fact, there’s good evidence—that we will not have the future that will attract business to the province.

We will not create those jobs in the short term and in the longer term. So there is a fundamental disagreement between us and the opposition.

We will reintroduce our budget next week and we look forward to the debate in the Legislature on that plan that will build Ontario up.

Privatization of public services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Liberals have put forward a Trojan Horse plan. The government is telling Ontarians that it is progressive, but scratch the surface, Speaker, and you’ll find some real surprises there, like the fire sale of public assets. You don’t burn the furniture to heat the house.

Will the Premier tell Ontarians what public assets she’s planning to sell off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, as I said yesterday, the leader of the third party’s platform was actually based on the plan that we had put forward. It was the foundation of the fiscal plan that she ran on. I think I just need to remind her that the plan that we are going to reintroduce next week is exactly the one on which she based her fiscal plan.

What we have said is that, yes, we are going to make sure that the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario work for the people of Ontario. We have asked Ed Clark, who is the former CEO of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, to look at those assets, to make sure that they are working in the best way possible for the people of Ontario so that we can lay out that path to balance and so that we can make the investments that are necessary for the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As the Premier knows, our public assets provide benefits to Ontarians. For example, one of OPG’s jobs is to provide electricity without adding in the profit margin. Selling off OPG will turn it into another private power company looking to make more money from families and businesses. We know first-hand that privatized power has tripled hydro bills in this province since 2002.

Will the Premier tell Ontarians whether she thinks it’s the right thing to sell off OPG so it will turn into yet another private power company driving up their bills for private interests?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is making a huge leap and I don’t know exactly where she’s getting her information, but what we have said is that there are assets that are owned by the people of Ontario. I believe that it is responsible for government to make sure that those assets work for the people of Ontario. I used the example of the 407 yesterday.

I’m going to use that example again because I believe that had the government of the day had a process in place to actually look at the 407 and to look at how it could have been made to work for the people of Ontario, I don’t think it would have been sold off at the rate that it was sold off and I don’t think that the people of Ontario would have then been robbed of that ongoing stream of revenue.

I believe that it is responsible that the government make sure that assets work for the people of the province. That’s what we’re going to do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2013-14, the LCBO put $1.7 billion into health care, education and other very important public services. That’s a long-term, stable source of public funds that come from that agency. Even Mike Harris said that selling the LCBO didn’t provide enough “bang for our buck,” and Ernie Eves said that selling off an asset that generates so much public revenue simply doesn’t make any sense. Does the Premier think it makes sense to sell off the LCBO?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I agree with the leader of the third party. The LCBO is a terrific asset and provides a great benefit to the people of Ontario. The leader of the third party is making a leap of logic that just is not based in any reality. What I’ve said is that we want to make sure that the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario work to the very optimal value possible for the people of Ontario.

I would ask the leader of the third party, now that she’s had some time to contemplate whether she will support the budget that we are bringing in, that we’re reintroducing on Monday—because it makes investments in transit, in roads, in bridges, in developmental services, in support for personal support workers and home care, I would ask her whether she is prepared now to support that progressive budget that previously she deemed was not acceptable.

Ontario budget

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier told Ontarians that her plan was a rejection of austerity, but yesterday she wouldn’t rule out cutting 100,000 public service jobs, and she didn’t rule out the fire sale of public assets.

My question is a simple one: Will the Premier come clean with Ontarians and tell them whether or not she will rule out the firing of 100,000 people and the fire sale of public assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s almost breathtaking, because what our budget and our plan does is it lays out supports for personal support workers to make sure that personal support workers, who are fundamental to transforming the health care system, are paid adequately. It lays out raises for child care workers, and the leader of the third party purports to be supportive of child care and the child care system. It lays out $810 million in investment in developmental services. That’s something that for years we have known is necessary, that there’s a gap in our system. People have not had support.

People with developmental disabilities, once they age out of school, haven’t had the support that they need. We have suggested, and we have put forward in our budget, that we would make investments in those people.

I turn to the leader of the third party and say why won’t you—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier insists she’s been upfront with the people of Ontario, but she didn’t dispute the comments made by the Liberals’ handpicked economist Don Drummond, who had this to say about the Liberal plan: “By 2017, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that involved the public sector about 100,000 lower.”

Now, will the Premier be upfront with Ontarians and tell them whether Don Drummond is right about the Liberal plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the leader of the third party knows full well that Don Drummond did not suggest that we were going in with a plan to cut 100,000 workers. She knows that. That’s not our plan. Again, I would ask the leader of the third party, and I would ask the members who were saying that our plan will not happen—I would ask them for their support—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would ask for their support on top of the things I spoke about earlier: their support for investments in public transit; investments in legal aid support, which is part of our plan; an increased social assistance rate—I would ask for their support for those things.

To the accusation that this will not happen, Mr. Speaker, I am more than determined. We are here sitting in the beginning of July because I am determined to bring back our budget. I am determined to work in this Legislature to get it passed so that we can make those investments in a better Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats believe that government should be investing in the concerns facing families, not adding to their concerns. The Premier’s plan could see 100,000 people fired and our public assets sold off. Does the Premier think austerity is okay as long as it’s splashed with a coat of red paint?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I guess again I would just ask, when the leader of the third party talks about the people about whom she’s concerned, does that mean she’s not concerned about personal support workers, she’s not concerned about child care workers, she’s not concerned about the people who will work to build the transit that we are going to invest in and that she’s not concerned about the families who can’t get legal aid because they don’t have enough support—and our plan would give them more support—is she not concerned about those people? Because my understanding of the NDP is they used to be concerned about those people. We are concerned about those people.

Interjections.

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

Public transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Just weeks before the election, the former Minister of Transportation announced that your government would invest in high-speed rail from London to Toronto with a stop in Kitchener. Of course he didn’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to take it outside.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case anyone has missed the message, it’s not about you two.

Please finish your question.

Mr. Michael Harris: Thanks. The former minister didn’t have a realistic cost estimate, he didn’t have ridership numbers and his announcement was routinely rejected by experts across the province. Still he stuck to his guns, claiming you’d be delivering.

Minister, we all know that Liberal promises during elections aren’t worth the paper that they’re written on, so I’d like to give you a chance to set the record straight. Minister, was this high-speed rail promise an actual commitment or was the former minister just selling one of your election points?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by actually welcoming the member from Kitchener–Conestoga back to the Legislature and thanking him for this question today. I also understand that he is the PC caucus’s transportation critic, so I look forward to having the chance to work closely with him and all other members on all sides of the House to make sure that we deliver on the plan that the people of Ontario have elected us to do.

That means that for communities like Kitchener and communities right across the province of Ontario, it’s crucial that we begin to get on with the work at hand, that we begin to make sure that the $29 billion that we’ve earmarked for transit and transportation infrastructure gets rolled out so that communities like Kitchener and communities across this province have the benefits from those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the minister: Toronto Star transit expert Greg Gormick says your “back-of-the-napkin high-speed rail plan is so out of sync with reality that its failings don’t warrant cataloguing,” and it’s not hard to see why. When the former minister made your high-speed rail commitment, he couldn’t offer any details. He just said that he had a study somewhere which backed up his claims. Although he refused to release the study during the election, he told the media, “One of the first things we want to do if we’re re-elected is get those studies out there.”

Minister, in the spirit of transparency will you release this mystery study, or will you continue to hide it because you know it won’t back up your claims?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for that supplementary question. It’s important for everyone to understand that we are working very hard to finalize a business case for this particular project.

One of the things that I do want to highlight in my response today is how proud I was to serve alongside the former member from Kitchener Centre, because of his extraordinary advocacy for his community, and how much I’m looking forward to working closely with the new member from Kitchener–Conestoga, who is right here—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Kitchener Centre.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Sorry, from Kitchener Centre, who I know will continue to be a champion for her community.

As I said in my initial answer, we are committed on this side of the House to making sure that we implement the $29 billion worth of crucial public infrastructure, public transit and transportation investments that are needed right across this province. I know the people of Kitchener and people in communities right across Ontario are delighted to know that we want to roll up our sleeves and get back to work to make sure that we deliver positive results for all of Ontario.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. First, congratulations on your new appointment. I look forward to working with the minister.

Public health care advocates are at Queen’s Park today to oppose this government’s plan to push even more services out of our hospitals and into private, for-profit clinics. In 2012, the Auditor General found over 800 private health care facilities in Ontario, and 97% of them are for-profit.

This government’s Trojan Horse budget includes a third straight year of hospital budget freezes, which means cuts to hospitals, increased user fees and even more private, for-profit clinics. Can the minister tell Ontarians why his government is so intent on cutting hospital services and expanding private, for-profit clinics in this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I’m happy to talk about the government’s plan to improve the quality of care. I would think the member opposite would also agree that it’s important to provide care to people where they need it, when they need it and as easily as possible.

I want to say that I’m glad as well. I will be speaking with the Ontario Health Coalition in about an hour’s time. They have an important day here. They’re going to be advocating on a number of important issues. But I want to emphasize that we’re only going to move these procedures into not-for-profit clinics. All medically necessary procedures performed in these clinics will be covered by OHIP.

A good example is the Kensington eye clinic, which I suspect the member opposite supports, which here in Toronto has provided cataract surgery—low-risk procedures—to nearly 12,000 patients in Toronto, the GTA and in fact around the province, helping to reduce wait times for cataract surgeries by 60% in the Toronto Central LHIN. It’s this kind of movement which is going to provide a better quality of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: This government is moving services from an area that is not-for-profit and has oversight and accountability, into the community which has no oversight, no accountability and no way for people to know that they get quality care.

Another year of austerity for a hospital leaves them with little choice but to carve out services and hand them out to those private providers. You’re not going to be able to get a colonoscopy, an MRI or an echocardiogram in our publicly funded, not-for-profit, trusted community hospitals under this government’s plan. You will have to go to a private, for-profit clinic, with all sorts of fees associated with them.

The government talks about being progressive, but what I see on the ground is not. When will the minister recognize that his government’s health care agenda throws the door wide open to more privatization, where the real winners are the private clinics, not the patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The member opposite needs to understand what the facts are. I’m not sure if she has even read our platform, our action plan and what we propose to do.

Here’s what we’re not doing: We’re not creating private, for-profit clinics. We’re not charging patients for OHIP services. We’re not cutting care in our hospitals. We’re not moving care further from home. This is what we’re doing: We are shifting some routine, low-risk procedures out of the hospital and into the community through not-for-profit clinics, just like our hospitals are not-for-profit. I think the member opposite supports our hospitals being not-for-profit.

We’re talking about not-for-profit institutions in our communities. We’re talking about two new midwife-led birthing centres in Toronto and Ottawa that are giving expectant moms more choice in where they deliver their babies. I would hope the member opposite would support that type of community care, which is bringing great quality of care through not-for-profits in the community, where patients want it, at a better cost to government and with better results for the patients themselves.

Health care

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

It’s my privilege to represent the great riding of Trinity–Spadina, one of the most culturally diverse ridings in Ontario. Every day I’m reminded that our country is so great because of the contributions of newcomers. We are a welcoming country. That is at the core of what makes us Canadian.

So too is our commitment to universal health care, the radical notion that no one should be denied care when they need it. That is why many in Trinity–Spadina and across the country were deeply disappointed by the federal government’s decision to reduce health coverage through the Interim Federal Health Program. I understand there was a recent federal court ruling on those changes.

Could the minister tell the House about this decision and how it relates to Ontario government policy?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to first thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his excellent question and congratulate him on his election to the Legislature.

Changes to the Interim Federal Health Program, a program and a population that I know very, very well, left many refugee claimants with little or no health coverage. This was a serious abdication of the federal government’s responsibility to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society and it showed a lack of compassion. A federal court ruling late last week ruled against that decision, calling it unconstitutional and even calling it cruel.

We have all heard of heart-wrenching examples: a patient who suffered a retinal detachment, an incident that often leads to blindness, whose surgery was cancelled when he couldn’t afford it. We learned of a diabetic patient only kept alive by free insulin samples that were provided by a pharmaceutical company. That doesn’t reflect the values I know we share as Canadians. Making sure patients get care when they need it is the right thing to do and it’s my most fundamental responsibility as minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Minister. Speaker, I’m pleased that a court has recognized and upheld principles that underpin our commitment to universal health care. The court decision is a step in the right direction, but I understand that the federal government may appeal. In the meantime, it is clear from the minister’s remarks that there are many people who need care right now but are no longer receiving it through the Interim Federal Health Program.

Speaker, through you, could the minister tell us what is being done to ensure refugee claimants are getting the care they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member is right: Some refugee claimants face health challenges while waiting for the federal government to determine their status. Cuts to the IFHP, the federal health program, have left them unprotected and put our doctors and our health care workers in an untenable position, forcing them to choose who should and shouldn’t be treated. That’s why our government, the provincial government, vigorously opposed this decision, and it’s why we joined with other provinces to reinstate access to essential and urgent health care services for refugee claimants through the Ontario Temporary Health Program.

The federal court’s ruling confirms what we’ve said all along: that our health care system must reflect the principles of fairness and certainly compassion, providing the right care for those who need it.

Hospital funding

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier: On June 4, you received a 20-page document and letter from the municipality of Grey Highlands seeking your recommitment to move forward with the Grey Bruce Health Services’ Markdale Hospital. You received yet another letter from me on June 24, where I reiterated my support for the hospital project.

Over the years, your government has had lots of conversations about this project. Regrettably, it’s going on 11 years since your government pledged to build this hospital and nine years since the great people of Markdale and area raised $13.2 million, which still sits in the bank.

Premier, will you please tell me, can you confirm that infrastructure money will be allocated in the budget and that the hospital promise your government made to my constituents was not purely made for partisan political purposes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for the question. Of course, we’re working closely with Markdale Hospital to make progress on this important capital investment. I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention again. It reflects the significant infrastructure investment, the capital investment, that we’re making in hospitals and health facilities right across this province. It’s a multi-million dollar investment.

In fact, even when you look at one aspect of this, small and rural hospitals, we’ve invested over $115 million towards capital investments to strengthen care. In this fiscal year alone, there are 91 different projects across the province where we’re working with important partners like Markdale to make sure that we’re making that progress through capital and operating investments to ensure that the quality of care continues to improve for patients. It’s so badly needed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the Premier: To be fair, six years ago you did actually erect a sign promising and committing to this project for the Markdale Hospital. You know this hospital project is of profound concern and need to my constituents. The community stepped up to the challenge and raised $13.2 million as part of the challenge you put in front of them, and they want you to honour your commitment.

Premier, I respectfully ask you, do you accept that the case for a rebuild is strong? And on what timeline do you envision this redevelopment taking place?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased that the member opposite, like I’m sure many members in the Conservative caucus, acknowledge and agree that infrastructure investment is of vital importance to this province going forward. So the $129-billion investment over the next 10 years that this province is making—and how much is for hospitals?

Interjection.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s $11.4 billion specifically for hospital capital investments. I’m glad that you acknowledge the importance of that.

We are working closely with Markdale. There’s no doubt that there will be further conversations to see how we can move that project forward in as expeditious a manner as possible. I’d be happy to sit down with the member opposite to talk to him. I know this is an important project to him and I look forward to seeing how we can continue this project together.

Privatization of public services

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier how much this government plans to pocket from the whole or partial privatization of the LCBO, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation. I asked because on page 4 of the Liberal Party’s infrastructure program it clearly states that the plan is to pocket $3.15 billion from the sale of public assets. The Premier and the Minister of Finance refused to answer my question yesterday, so I’m giving it another shot, another opportunity, Premier.

Will the government tell this House how much is slotted into the government’s fiscal framework for the full or partial sale of these core public assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows, if he looks at the budget, the numbers that we have laid out in terms of our projections, in terms of our revenue, in terms of the investments that are necessary. But he’s asking a question that I’ve actually already answered. What I’ve said is that we have asked Ed Clark and his team to look at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario to make sure that they are working to the very best benefit of the people of Ontario.

I believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to do that, to make sure that we optimize the value of those entities, whether it’s real estate or whether it’s an organization. That’s what Ed Clark is going to do with his group, and we will absolutely keep the House and the people of Ontario apprised of the optimization of those assets. But I don’t have the specific answers at this point because we’ve asked him to do that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The $3.15-billion asset sale figure from your platform is interesting, because 15 years ago the Mike Harris PCs sold off Highway 407 for $3.1 billion. We’re talking that scale of a sale. If you know you’re going to raise at least $3.15 billion from overall asset sales, you also know how much you’re planning to get from the whole or partial sale of OPG, LCBO and Hydro One.

So this time please answer the question: How much of the $3.15 billion that your platform says will be raised through asset sales comes from the sale of LCBO, OPG and Hydro One assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto–Danforth is jumping to a conclusion that is not a forgone conclusion. He’s leaping to an end point that may or may not be the case. He’s engaging in a hypothetical and I’m not going to go down that road.

The reality is we’ve asked Ed Clark to look at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario. I’m glad that the member raised the issue of the 407, because it reinforces my point, which is, had there been a process when the previous government was in office, had there been a rational process to look at that asset, the 407, I believe that different decisions would have been made and the people of Ontario would have benefited much more and would not have lost that asset and the ongoing stream of revenue that is lost to the people of Ontario because of a decision made by a government that did not take the time and did not take the responsibility to do it right.

Long-term care

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. When our parents and grandparents, and maybe some members of this House, can no longer be cared for in their homes and they need to transition to long-term care—and in my community of Beaches–East York there are many who are transitioning into long-term-care homes—we want the best possible care for them when they transition. I know that investing in long-term care has been a priority for our government. An important part of that is redeveloping older facilities so they can provide state-of-the-art care in renewed space.

Could the minister inform this House of the government’s plan for long-term-care reinvestments?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to begin by thanking the member from Beaches–East York for the question. Congratulations on an excellent win.

I’m committed to the 77,000 residents who live in Ontario’s long-term-care-home facilities—that they will get the highest standards of care. A big part of this commitment is our plan to modernize our existing facilities. That is why our budget had money set aside so that we could help our long-term-care operators to redevelop and modernize 30,000 beds. Unfortunately, the PCs and the NDP voted against this budget.

I look forward to the reintroduction and passage of this budget so that we can get on with the work of redeveloping and modernizing these 30,000 beds and investing in our seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Minister, and, through you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the residents of the long-term-care facilities in Beaches–East York—such as True Davidson Acres and Ina Grafton—and their loved ones were very pleased to hear that this government has plans to redevelop and create so many more beds in the communities and across the province.

As we all know, in the long-term-care facilities, residents don’t just depend on the care they receive from hard-working nurses; they need personal support workers and other front-line health care workers in this long-term-care sector.

Speaker, through you, would the minister please tell us what the government is doing to ensure that residents in long-term-care homes receive the best possible care that they can get?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thanks again to the member from Beaches–East York. I also want to thank the thousands of Ontarians who go to work in long-term-care homes every single day to care for our family and friends. That is why our government has funded over 10,000 new full-time, front-line staff in long-term care since 2003, and we have provided homes with $20 million so that they can provide training to their staff to improve the safety of our residents and to advance the quality of care.

We have also hired over 600 full-time staff since 2011 through our Behavioural Supports Ontario to improve care for residents with challenging behaviours, and we’re adding 75 nurse practitioners in our LTC homes to prevent unnecessary ambulance use, prevent injuries and improve resident care.

We’ve brought in tough legislation to protect residents by allowing stronger enforcement and better inspections of long-term-care homes. We will continue to make investments in our long-term-care sector.

Municipalities

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Attorney General. In February, my private member’s resolution called on this government to implement a comprehensive long-term solution to reform joint and several liability insurance for municipalities, and to do this by June. AMO, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, insurers in Perth–Wellington and beyond, and 200 municipalities have supported it. All parties in this Legislature supported it, yet the June deadline has passed. I will ask the minister this question: When will you get it done?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member for asking and being so persistent with the question; however, legal liability reform is an important and complex issue.

I understand that this issue has been of significant concern for municipalities. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has asked the government to consider the impact of the law on joint and several liability on municipal insurance. At my ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and in the legal community, two options are under consideration. One of the models is modification of joint and several liability—it could look very simple for some of us, but it’s a very complex issue. Indeed, if this bill is passed, there will be winners and losers, and that’s what we have to consider before moving forward with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: With all due respect, this has been going on since I was a councillor back in the municipality of North Perth, and that goes back seven or eight years that I have heard about this issue. AMO and many municipalities are supporting a combined model which would place reasonable limits on the damages that can be recovered from a municipality. In Perth–Wellington, municipalities including Stratford and the county of Wellington are asking you to support this.

Minister, the time for consultations is over. Municipalities have spoken. My question is this: When will you get it done?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a complex issue. There are two different models that have been suggested. One of the models, which the member is talking about, is a model that was adopted in Saskatchewan, and we are reviewing this model. Another model will limit municipal liability for negligence in road maintenance to two times the proportion of damage.

But like I said, in the two situations, there will be winners and losers. It’s a very complex matter, and we want to make sure that we have it right before we move forward.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. When Ontario families need hospital care, they should be able to trust that there’s actually room at their local hospital, but that’s not the case in Thunder Bay. For much of this year, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre has been literally in gridlock. They have funding for 395 beds, but they routinely have 30 more patients waiting for a bed. They are doing the best they can to provide care, and that has pushed their deficit to $5.5 million.

My question is this: When will the government step up and provide the funding for hospital beds that Thunder Bay so obviously needs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m really happy to get this question, actually, because we have provided that funding, and we are making important improvements to health care in Thunder Bay and the Thunder Bay region. I have to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North and the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan particularly for their hard work and their advocacy on this—and the community leaders that they have been working vigorously with on this issue.

Recently, we announced that we’re investing almost $14 million to improve access to emergency care and to enhance community health care services, measures which will improve not only those types of services but also, of course, the hospital-based care that is available to residents of that region. This additional funding is going to support Thunder Bay’s three largest health care providers: the Regional Health Sciences Centre, St. Joseph’s Care Group and the North West Community Care Access Centre.

These are important measures. I’m happy to speak in more detail in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals have made many, many promises, but the fact is that health care austerity continues under this year’s Trojan Horse budget. Another year of frozen hospital budgets means there are not enough hospital beds in Thunder Bay and their deficit is ballooning.

This government’s decisions are putting pressure on everything from staffing to laundry services. In fact, the way the hospital is coping with the lack of funding is to open 300 new parking spots to raise money off of patients to try to pay their bills. When will the Premier announce a real plan to address the gridlock in the Thunder Bay hospital?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well again, Mr. Speaker, the facts just don’t match with what the member opposite, the leader of the third party, is saying. We’re creating 26 new hospital beds to help more people with long-term illness or disabilities receive the specialized care that they need. We’re funding up to 17 more spaces in supportive housing so that seniors and people in need of care can remain independent and out of hospital.

We’re expanding a nurse outreach program to provide up to 500 more seniors and people with complex needs with home care services, again to keep them as close to home as possible and out of hospital. We are staffing 10 acute care hospital beds to treat up to 600 more patients per year and helping to recruit up to 10 full-time and 14 temporary emergency-room doctors to improve access to urgent care.

These are the steps that we’re taking. We’re investing dollars to do that. They are important improvements to that region, that important region in the province. So I’m not sure where the member opposite is trying to go to—we are seeing the progress that we want to see in terms of quality of care.

Workplace safety

Mr. Chris Ballard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. This summer, many young people are starting new jobs in restaurants, golf courses and retail shops around the province. I know in my community of Newmarket–Aurora, the numerous golf courses, auto parts manufacturers like Van-Rob and Magna, and Upper Canada will offer many new job opportunities for youth. But the statistics show, Minister, that young people are three times more likely to be injured in the first three months of their job than experienced colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What are we doing to ensure that our newest and least experienced workers are safe at work?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Let me first congratulate the fine new member from Newmarket–Aurora. Congratulations on being elected to the House here.

Speaker, the question is a very important one. We are all saddened in this House when we hear of a workplace fatality when it involves a young person, and I know our hearts go out to the family and the co-workers of those who have been injured or killed. The more tragic, or the equally tragic, part of that is that these incidents that lead to injury or death are indeed often preventable.

As the member said, it’s true that new and young workers are most likely to get hurt. That’s why the ministry conducts an annual safety blitz for new and young workers. The goals of this blitz are very, very simple: We ensure that new and young workers are properly oriented, trained and supervised, and we ensure that their employers are taking every reasonable precaution to protect new and young workers.

But we need everyone playing a role in keeping our workplaces safe. This blitz is going to raise awareness of workplace health and safety amongst our young people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the minister for that response. We know that our youth are helping to build a stronger and more competitive economy here in Ontario, and I was encouraged to hear about the minister’s annual health and safety blitz. I think it’s very important to be out there in the summer educating and enforcing safety rules as students work to save for college and university. But surely the minister’s safety blitz cannot go to every single workplace in the province.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks to the member for another fine question. I want to assure the Legislature that this ministry takes health and safety very, very seriously. Reducing injuries, eliminating fatalities: number one priority for this ministry.

Last fall, we passed a regulation that made it mandatory for all workers and supervisors to complete basic health and safety training. As of July 1 of this year, just recently, workers and supervisors are required to have taken this training. Speaker, I should note that that includes everybody in this room, including yourself.

It’s true that many Ontarians will already be aware of these basic rights and responsibilities, but the exercise we’re going through with the mandatory training that came into effect is going to make a good system even better, Speaker.

Ontario budget

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Premier: Premier, just before you became Liberal leader in 2012, you made a commitment to eliminate Ontario’s deficit by fiscal year 2017-18, a promise you continue to reiterate. I’ll go back to your quote of 2012: “When I say we need to stay on our government’s fiscal plan of balancing the budget by 2017-18, I mean it.”

You say, in three years a zero deficit. However, your hand-picked economist, Don Drummond, projects in three years a $30.2-billion deficit. Premier, how do you square this $30.2-billion discrepancy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think I would advise the member opposite to actually read what Don Drummond had to say about that. The point he was making was that if we did nothing, that is the reality we would be facing. What we have done is we made very clear steps to reduce our deficit—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are committed to balancing the budget by 2017-18, and we’ve had to make tough decisions in the past in order to move to that direction. Every single time we took a difficult decision, you stood up in opposition to that.

What I’m saying is that all of us agree—all three parties agree—we must get to balance. We’re looking for constructive ways to get there. You do have some responsibility to support the transformation that—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, back to the Premier: We have no indication from you of how your promise will be kept. Nothing will come of nothing. Your Minister of Finance is expecting revenue shortfalls in the coming years.

Back to the Premier: How will you keep your promise? Is it selling assets, cutting government programs and services for families, seniors, the vulnerable in our society, jacking up taxes on the middle class? Or do you plan on breaking your promise to balance the books in three years? What is the plan for 2017-18? Is it to cut government spending by $30.2 billion? Is that the plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think all of us are looking forward to the budget being introduced next week. I don’t think there will be any surprises, though, because we’ve committed to introducing the same budget that was not supported by either party when w