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

December 5, 2011

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Dec-05 (PDF)

L009 - Mon 5 Dec 2011 / Lun 5 déc 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 5 December 2011 Lundi 5 décembre 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SALARY DISCLOSURE

MINING INDUSTRY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

POVERTY

WAGE PROTECTION

RURAL ONTARIO

AIR-RAIL LINK

SKILLED TRADES

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC HEALTH

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

EMERGENCY SERVICES

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CARLETON PLACE AND DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

CHILD CARE

HEALING CYCLE FOUNDATION

LESLIE FROST

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS /

NORMES D’EMPLOI

HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL

PUBLIC TRANSIT

LES HORNE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

PETITIONS

MALE BREAST CANCER

CHILD CARE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WIND TURBINES

WIND TURBINES

CHILD CARE

SKILLED TRADES

HYDRO DAM

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: In the gallery, I have Rej Picard, Jan VanderHout, Don Taylor, Tamara Stokes, William Ravensbergen and Gerard Schouwenaar; and I hope all the members will attend the reception in room 228 following question period and enjoy great produce from Ontario’s greenhouses.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family today of page Tara Collins. I have Geoffrey, her father; Anjani, her mother; and Asha Collins, who was a page here in 2008. A warm welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to add my welcome and would implore all members of this assembly to welcome the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance as well. They are here bearing gifts, which is a traditional thing that they do every year, and I’ve been asked to remind all members of the House to pick up their coupons for their poinsettias and greenhouse vegetables at the whip’s office and to join us in rooms 228 and 230.

One of the guests, Mr. Speaker, Jan VanderHout, who is the father of page Daniel Vander Hout, is here today, and Nellie Vander Hout and Grace Vander Muellen and other family members are in the gallery. Welcome, all.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to introduce today my special niece, Aleksandra Windsor, from the great riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, and also my wife, Kate Bartz. Thank you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the 145,000 students they represent. They are here for their student advocacy conference until December 7. I hope members will take time to meet with them. I also thank them for the great work they’ve been doing to make our education system more affordable and more accessible.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce the family of page Sam Knechtel, and friends: Jo Anne Knechtel, Clare Knechtel, Michaela Knechtel, Julia Campbell and Mag Feeney. Welcome.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome the executive of the Canadian Association of South Asian Lawyers, in short, CASAL. Present in the east members’ gallery are Joga Chahal, the president; Parm Prashad and Raj Sharda, senior vice-presidents; Dhaman Kissoon, Muhammad Alam and Dr. J.S. Mangat, directors; and Shameela Chinoy and Kiran Grewal, members. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: In the members’ gallery east, rejoining us today is a page from 2009, Vanessa Van Decker, and her mother, Maureen Madigan. Thanks for joining us.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m very pleased to introduce, in the members’ gallery today, from my riding, Connie Graham and her daughters Jackie and Angie, and their special guest, Amanda Nogueira. Amanda is a high school exchange student from Brazil who is part of the Rotary exchange program through the Kitchener Rotary Club. I want to welcome them on behalf of all of us here today.

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

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, for nearly a year you have told Ontarians we are recovering from the global recession, made excuses for ballooning spending and defended increasing the size of your government. But you aren’t fooling anyone. We have been telling you for the past eight years that real change is needed to get Ontario back on a strong economic footing. Our party has made a series of recommendations that would help you put your house in order and stimulate the economy. You invited that, encouraged it.

We have three days left before winter break. Premier, when will you finally put your money where your mouth is and take some constructive action to get Ontario out of the mess you’ve gotten our province into?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I’m pleased to take the question from my honourable colleague. We are all ears when it comes to good proposals that will serve to strengthen our economy, create jobs and do so in a way that does not compromise our highest priorities on behalf of families, which are their schools and health care.

Having said that, there are a number of—in fact, there are two specific, practical initiatives before the Legislature. One is our healthy homes renovation tax credit. We know that will create some 10,000 jobs on an annual basis. It will create $800 million in economic wealth every single year. That’s a practical matter before this Legislature and I would ask, and in fact I would encourage, my honourable colleague and his colleagues to support this very specific, practical measure in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Premier, since the election in October you have claimed to be open to input from this side of the House. The reality is that you and your caucus shoot down everything that is not Liberal. In debate last week, the member from Oakville told me your party had won, period.

Since you are not willing to listen to the PC caucus, listen to those who, unlike your government, are creating jobs in Ontario. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents 60,000 businesses and has made four recommendations to reduce government spending, including restraining public sector salaries. Speaker, since the Premier and his government refuse to listen the PC caucus, will they listen to Ontario’s business community and finally put an end to their preferential treatment of government employee unions at the taxpayers’ expense?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re very open to any suggestions for the budget that we will present in this House next year.

But on the matter of wage restraint, I think it’s important to understand what the facts are. We froze pay for two years for the non-union sector, and since our last budget, let’s take a look at what’s happened to wage settlements elsewhere. Our wage settlements have averaged 1.5%; the private sector in Ontario, 1.9%; the federal public sector, my colleague’s cousins in Ottawa, 1.7%. So, in fact, the method that we have adopted is securing the lowest wage increases, the lowest settlements in Ontario. That’s why I would encourage my honourable colleague to take that into account.

Of course, we’re very much interested in what he has to say, as well as the chamber of commerce.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Ontario’s business community urging the government to rein in spending on government salaries should come as no surprise. Our party has repeatedly recommended that to this Premier and to this finance minister, and clearly this government has no intention of listening to the opposition or to Ontario’s business community and has no intention of cutting spending and stopping the increase in public sector salaries.

If they are unwilling to listen to us or to organizations like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, one can only wonder whom this government is listening to. Maybe it’s the unions whose members earn 27% more than Ontarians doing the same work as in the private sector.

Would the Premier be listening to us if he were paying us a consulting fee?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: On a serious note, Speaker, I think it’s important for us to take just a moment—I know these are challenging times; the global economy is characterized by tremendous uncertainty. But just at the end of last week we learned that in the month of November full-time employment in Ontario increased by 31,800 jobs; the unemployment rate has dropped 0.2 percentage points, to 7.9%; we are now up 283,400 net jobs above the recessionary low in May 2009; we’re recovering more than half of the new jobs in the country. I think that’s some indication that we are in fact on the right track here in Ontario.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. For several weeks now, the Ontario PC Party has been calling on your government to implement a public sector wage freeze. A freeze, if implemented, would save $2 billion over two years.

Premier, Ontarians know that in difficult economic times such as we’re facing, some sacrifices need to be made, and if jobs can be preserved, then increases can temporarily be foregone. Yet, you continue to insist that a public sector wage freeze cannot be implemented, legally or constitutionally, despite the fact that freezes have been implemented in other provinces. Upon what basis do you make this argument, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, again, as the Premier pointed out in the last question, since the implementation of our policy, average settlements in Ontario have been 1.5% versus 1.7% in the federal government and 1.9% in the private sector. So in fact it is having some effect.

We will continue to make the kinds of investments we have made, the kinds of investments that created thousands of new jobs last month and that have brought employment back to levels not seen since before the downturn, and will continue to make the kinds of investments and decisions that will help shape a better future for Ontarians.

That’s what it’s about, Mr. Speaker, and we’re committed to making it work for all Ontarians, through investments in education and health care, as we get back to balance over the coming years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The question is really about the legality of the public sector wage freeze. To get back to that, in a 2004 Supreme Court ruling, the court held that infringements of

section 2(

d) of the Charter can be permitted by

section 1 on the basis of pressing and substantial fiscal circumstances. The ruling states that “the courts cannot close their eyes to the periodic occurrence of financial emergencies when measures must be taken to juggle priorities to see a government through a crisis.”

Premier, I’m sure you’re familiar with this case, so why do you continue to insist that this government cannot constitutionally legislate a public sector wage freeze?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, through you to the opposition, I’d like to remind them that there’s no legislated public sector wage freeze in British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick or Quebec.

All provinces in Canada are bound by the same constitutional protections for collective bargaining. Government interventions through legislated wage freezes are subject to judicial scrutiny.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me add some more facts. The member opposite can yell and grunt and do whatever he’s doing, but let’s just look at the facts.

Ontario’s public sector average annual wage increase is less than or equal to Prince Edward Island at 2%, New Brunswick at 1.5%, Quebec at 1.6%, Manitoba at 1.5%, Newfoundland at 5%, Saskatchewan at 2.6%, Alberta at 2.8%.

We are working diligently to get back to balance as we continue to make the kinds of investments that are needed for—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: There are important facts that the Minister of Finance has failed to mention, such as the fact that for 59 straight months, this province’s unemployment rate has been higher than the national average.

Ontario’s third-largest expenditure, behind health and education, isn’t colleges and universities or roads and infrastructure, but it’s spending $10 billion a year on debt payments. That’s $10 billion in taxpayer dollars being thrown away instead of going into essential services.

Premier, if the Supreme Court recognizes that $2 billion can be saved to see us through this crisis, the people of Ontario deserve to know why you’re choosing not to implement a public sector wage freeze.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I’ll remind the member opposite that last month Ontario’s unemployment rate went down and Canada’s went up.

They use a lot of numbers out of context. Last month, they told us about 100 jobs an hour are being lost, which really demonstrates why their credibility is so shaky.

Let’s look at it this way: In November, Ontario gained 45 new full-time jobs per hour. Since January of this year, we gained 16 jobs per hour, and since the recessionary low, 13 jobs an hour. I hesitate to use those numbers because I don’t want to be playing with statistics the way they do, as opposed to looking at facts over time.

Steady, responsible leadership involves using facts. It involves making sure you understand the full story and that you work hard for a better future—

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

SALARY DISCLOSURE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, today, news reports show that the Minister of Health couldn’t explain why executives at the publicly funded Ornge are not disclosing their salaries to the people who pay them.

Does the Premier know how much the executives at Ornge are paying themselves, and if so, will he tell the people?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When it comes to Ornge, Ornge has a complicated corporate structure. They have a not-for-profit arm that delivers air transportation for the people of Ontario and, I must say, they do a remarkable job getting people to the care that they need.

They also have a for-profit arm. The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act specifically excludes the private sector from reporting their salaries, so that is why these salaries are not seen on our sunshine list.

Having said that, Speaker, I have asked for further clarity. I need to better understand why it is that all salaries at Ornge are not covered in the act.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Interestingly enough, Speaker, last year my staff asked why salaries at Ornge were being hidden from the public, and the Ministry of Health said that they knew what the salaries were but they weren’t going to tell us.

I want to know if the minister is prepared to tell us what the executives at Ornge are paying themselves, and, if not, why not? It’s taxpayers’ money that is paying for this organization. Regardless of how good the work is that they do, they still should have their salaries disclosed so that we know what they’re being paid.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me try again. The not-for-profit company of Ornge that provides air ambulance service and some land ambulance service to the people of Ontario is covered under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, and those salaries are, in fact, disclosed. There is another organization called Ornge Peel that is a for-profit organization. They are not required, under the act, to report. However, I am looking for more clarity on the corporate structure of Ornge so that I am satisfied that they are adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the law.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, across Ontario, families are being told that money isn’t available for front-line care. ERs are being closed and wait-lists for long-term care are growing and growing. Not long ago, you may recall, we learned that hospitals were hiding salary top-ups for senior executives at the Ministry of Health in their budgets. Now we’re learning today that an organization doesn’t have to report at all that’s funded by the Ministry of Health.

Does the minister know how much the executives are being paid at Ornge? If so, will she tell us how much they’re being paid? And if not, when is she going to tell us?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Auditor General of Ontario has been taking a look at Ornge. He will be releasing an audit in the not-too-distant future.

We are determined to continue to get better value for money. When those auditor’s recommendations do come forward, we will be looking at them very, very closely. Transparency and value for money are hallmarks of this government.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Cliffs Natural Resources say that they plan to ship chromite from the Ring of Fire outside of Ontario, outside of Canada, to be processed. Under the Mining Act, they need permission from this government to do so. Does the Premier plan to allow the minister to simply sign off on shipping that chromite out of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I know that my colleague would like to speak to this, but I’m going to weigh in first and restate something I said before.

My colleague and I opposite have had an opportunity to debate this, I think, on a number of occasions, and we see things differently. Our shared responsibility is to do everything that we can to maximize the benefits of the development of the Ring of Fire for the people of Ontario. But I will not go so far as to erect protectionist walls around the province of Ontario, because there are so many jobs today in Ontario that count on our receiving raw goods from other parts of the world so that we can process those here and then feed our families here as a result of those jobs.

So I’m not prepared to go that far, but I am certainly prepared to do everything that we possibly can apart from that to maximize those benefits for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people in Ontario and especially people in the north are looking for good jobs that use our natural resources to grow our economy. For days, Cliffs has been making it known that their plan to send our resources away to create jobs somewhere else is in the works.

The minister has the power to do something about it. I want to know: Has this minister actually spoken with Cliffs? Has he given them a signal as to what his plans are?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, this is an opportunity that this government and the people of Ontario are not going to miss. The Ring of Fire provides the people of Ontario with incredible opportunity in the supply and services industry with regard to mining and job creation, not only in northern Ontario but across Ontario. This is an opportunity that this government isn’t going to squander. We’re going to ensure that we maximize the job potential that is associated with the Ring of Fire, not only in the extraction but with the rest of the parameters around mining.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, those of us in the NDP caucus are worried that this is going to be an incredibly lost opportunity.

The minister’s job is to bring jobs and value-added investment here to Ontario. He spent a lot of time talking during the campaign, but now he needs to do something. Will the minister grant the exemption or fight for good jobs in Thunder Bay and Sudbury? Or is he going to simply keep talking and talking and talking while good jobs get shipped away?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: We, unlike the NDP, aren’t going to speak in hyperbole. There has been no application for exemption at all. We are at the beginning stages of the Ring of Fire. We’re only at the initial stages of the environmental approval. But what we can say categorically is that we are going to ensure that we maximize the potential of the Ring of Fire for all Ontarians.

We see this as an enormous opportunity to create those long-term mining jobs that each and every one of us in this House should want to create for Ontario. We, as a government, are not going to miss that opportunity.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to bring to your attention a completely unreasonable treatment of Roselawn Memorial Gardens, an outstanding business in my riding, at the hands of the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Despite the mountain of evidence proving they face a tax burden unlike any other visitation centre or crematorium in the province, the property tax bureaucrats won’t budge.

Instead of waiting until July of next year, when new regulations come into effect, MPAC is running around the province picking and choosing at a whim which cemeteries are taxed and which remain exempt. Minister, will you commit today to get involved and tell MPAC to come to its senses and put an end to this unfair treatment?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the member, I was not aware of that specific circumstance. I will undertake to look into it further.

I would remind the members opposite that the board of directors of MPAC is in fact controlled by our municipal partners, but I will undertake to follow up and look into that situation further.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, you need to understand that Roselawn is one of only two cemetery chapels in Ontario not exempt from taxation. And it gets worse. MPAC has reclassified Roselawn’s crematorium as industrial. The basis for this ridiculous decision is that MPAC states the industrial class applies where “a product is changed materially from one thing to another.”

With respect, cremation does not change a human body from one thing to another. Minister, do you not agree that what remains following cremation is as much a human dead body as it was before?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, I’ll undertake to follow up with the member on that. I first want to see that the company has made efforts to exercise whatever appeals it has available to it. I’m not aware of that.

What I would like to ask the member, though, is if he will in fact vote in favour of the replenishing of the eastern Ontario development fund, which will create jobs in eastern Ontario. It’s interesting that the party opposite has not taken a stand in favour of it, particularly given the fact that many previous Conservative members—I remember that Mr. Sterling, for instance, was a very strong advocate of that; Senator Runciman was a strong advocate of that.

So I will follow up on the member’s question. I was not aware of the situation. But I ask you: Support eastern Ontario, support growth and jobs, and support the bill that your predecessor—

Interjections.

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

POVERTY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Today the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction released its annual report on the government’s poverty reduction strategy. They indicate that poverty rates have actually risen among adults, that over 100,000 more adults living in Ontario fell into poverty during the first year of the strategy.

So my question to the Premier: Will he assure the House that the government will not make life any harder for the swelling number of low-income Ontarians by cutting programs and cutting supports in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the third party. I want to begin by saying that we thank 25 in 5 for their report and, in fact, for recognizing Ontario as the only province to have taken concrete action to reduce child poverty

Mr. Speaker, 25 in 5 has been a key partner in the development of our poverty reduction strategy, a strategy we remain committed to, including its goal of reducing poverty by 25% in five years. I thank them for their continued advocacy on behalf of those Ontarians living in poverty.

We can be proud, all of us, that Ontario has a long-term strategy enshrined in legislation which received all-party support. We thank 25 in 5 for recognizing that our programs, such as the Ontario child benefit, investments in child care and full-day kindergarten, and raising the minimum wage, have had—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The concrete action that has resulted from this government’s program is 100,000 more adults now living in poverty. Also, a 25 in 5 report shows that food bank use is up 25%, that social assistance rates for single adults have fallen since 2003 and that investment in affordable housing has fallen 91% from last year; 25 in 5 actually fears that the government will slash spending on housing, social services and income supports in the 2012 budget.

So I ask, Mr. Speaker, of the minister, will he actually promise that struggling Ontarians will not bear the brunt of a fiscal situation that they did not help create? Or will the government continue to give profitable corporations billion-dollar tax cuts?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, this government remains committed to our poverty reduction strategy. I agree that there is obviously much work to be done still, but I want to point out some of the progress that has been made. We raised the minimum wage to $10.25, a nearly 50% increase since 2003. It has been increased seven times in the last eight years. I’ll give you an example: A single parent with a young child working full-time at minimum wage earns $875 more per month now compared to 2003, and that is a 58% increase.

Now, 25 in 5, their report just published, also reports that the provincial Ontario child benefit has helped pull 19,000 children out of poverty during the recession. We remain committed to this important strategy.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Labour. This past July, IQT Solutions Ltd. closed suddenly in Canada. This closure resulted in the loss of 400 jobs in Oshawa in Durham region, as well as the loss of nearly 500 jobs in Quebec. These workers were left without owed wages, vacation pay, termination pay and severance pay.

I understand that one avenue of action for these workers is the federal Wage Earner Protection Program, but the company has not filed for formal bankruptcy, which is preventing many of its former employees from accessing this program’s benefits.

Minister, what has your ministry done to help these employees who find themselves without jobs?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for the question. I’m pleased to announce that the Ministry of Labour is supporting the Quebec government in its petition to have IQT Solutions declared bankrupt. In order for the former employees of the call centre in Oshawa to be entitled to benefits, IQT Solutions must be first declared bankrupt. By joining forces with Quebec, we are helping former IQT Solutions employees access the federal government’s Wage Earner Protection Program. This program will help former employees recover unpaid wages, vacation pay, termination pay and severance pay. I understand that the petition will be heard in late December 2011.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad to hear that our Ministry of Labour is working together with the Quebec government to help these employees recover what they are owed.

I understand that employees have also contacted the Ministry of Labour for help under provincial laws. What is the Ministry of Labour doing within its own jurisdiction to assist these employees?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Again, I thank the member for the question. The Ministry of Labour’s staff have been on the ground in Oshawa since early summer when we first learned of the layoffs. In fact, in the days following IQT’s closure, an employment standards officer attended the workplace to investigate the circumstances surrounding the closure.

My ministry also participated in an information session to ensure former employees were aware of their employment standard rights. Employment standards claims have been filed by some former employees. We’ve also issued orders to pay against IQT regarding 240 claims.

We will continue to advocate to our federal partners for improved eligibility criteria as well as an increase to benefits from the wage earner protection program. My ministry also continues to encourage the federal government to recognize the vital contribution of the Ontario workers.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. Two months ago the people of rural Ontario sent a message that this government wasn’t working for them, and it’s clear nothing has changed.

We are joined here today by the Ontario Agri Business Association. For eight years, they’ve been asking your government to classify grain elevators correctly as commercial instead of industrial. Since the grain isn’t being manufactured, produced or processed, this change would have a big positive impact on the local businesses and on job creation.

In the Blenheim area, which has been hit hard by job losses, the industrial rate is 22% higher than commercial, and those costs have to be passed on. This is one of the steps the government could take to create jobs in rural Ontario.

Will you provide a written commitment that you will fix the classification of grain elevators to create jobs in rural Ontario, Mr. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware of the ongoing issue with respect to the classification of these. These are made by the board of MPAC which, I remind the member opposite, is controlled by Ontario’s municipalities.

We work with our rural communities. I was very proud of this government’s risk management program, which is being implemented as we speak. Unfortunately, the federal government is not participating in that yet either.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of issues on the rural front that we have resolved in the past. For instance, on microFIT energy projects we had to change the Assessment Act in order that the property values wouldn’t go up associated with the installation of renewable energy technologies.

I look forward to continuing the work with MPAC on this particular issue. It’s important for the development of rural Ontario, which is such an important part of the Ontario economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: It’s clear this government doesn’t understand rural Ontario’s concerns. We are joined today by the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance. These businesses are ready to invest in their communities. They are ready to create thousands of desperately needed jobs for rural Ontario’s families.

The Premier is allowing his Toronto bureaucrats at the OPA to cancel vital projects like the Leamington transmission line, causing costly delays. Premier, why is a transitional agency like the OPA allowed to threaten jobs for rural Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’re very, very interested and supportive of job-creating opportunities in southwestern Ontario and throughout the province.

Right now, I know that the Ontario Power Authority and Hydro One are working very closely—very closely—to determine the options to support good business interests. The Minister of Finance has been very, very interested in supporting the greenhouse growers and good job opportunities in the province of Ontario.

The member will appreciate that we need to make sure that not only the ratepayers, but taxpayers are protected throughout—so we want to make sure it’s all based on good evidence. That work is under way at the moment. We’re very determined that Essex, Windsor, southwestern Ontario and all of Ontario is supportive of our efforts to create jobs—very supportive of that. And as I say, the Minister of Finance has been very interested from a local perspective as well. Good work going on.

AIR-RAIL LINK

Mr. Jonah Schein: Two years ago, Toronto’s medical officer of health urged the McGuinty government to only proceed with the Union-Pearson air-rail link if it’s electrified in order to prevent an increased risk of asthma and cancer for 300,000 residents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who’s the minister, please?

Mr. Jonah Schein: It’s to the Minister of Transportation; my apologies.

Some 300,000 people are at risk of asthma and cancer near that line. Why does the McGuinty government continue to ignore this expert advice and put people’s health at risk by insisting on using polluting diesel trains on this line?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to thank the member for Davenport for the question. The member will know that this government is investing heavily in transit in the GTHA, including very, very significant projects, such as the Eglinton line and the air-rail link line etc.

The question of electrification is taken very seriously by this government. There are studies that are ongoing with respect to that, but the most important thing is, we’re actually doing the air-rail link from Union Station to Pearson airport, which is one of the largest projects in North America in terms of moving tens of millions of people.

We’re committed to doing the air-rail link. We’re committed, through studies, to look at electrification. That’s an ongoing study that we’re pursuing at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Back to the Minister of Transportation: The government is rushing ahead with diesel trains in time for the 2015 Pan Am Games, but there’s no guarantee that trains will be in place for 2015. Athletes and officials won’t even use these trains, sir. They will be bused in on dedicated highway lanes, just as spectators could be. Why won’t the McGuinty government stop sacrificing people’s health and direct Metrolinx to build it right the first time? Go with electric trains now.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to know why that party doesn’t appreciate the significance of the air-rail link, the Pan Am Games that we’re moving forward with, very significant infrastructure projects and economic development projects.

On January 26, 2011, Metrolinx approved the recommendation of the comprehensive electrification study to begin electrification of the Lakeshore and Georgetown GO Transit rail corridors with the new ARL as the first phase. Following this approval, the province directed Metrolinx to start the environmental assessment. The work is proceeding. We can’t recreate the world overnight. It’s a priority of ours. We’re working on it, but we’re going to have the air-rail link ready for the Pan Am Games, and we’re going to seriously look at electrification.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We’ve come a long way since 2003 by working together with industry experts to fix the skilled trades and apprenticeships that were left in shambles by successive governments.

The principal recommendation made by Mr. Tim Armstrong to fix the trades industry was to create an institution that would allow tradespeople to have the last word in deciding how they’re to be governed. That’s why we worked with Ontarians to establish the College of Trades, an industry-driven organization that has equal representation of both employers and employees through the college’s board, union and non-union.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned to me that the work is already under way to ensure that the college will have a balanced approach to governance that considers the needs of employers, employees, apprentices, the economy and the public. Through you to the minister: How is the minister going to ensure that the College of Trades stays transparent and impartial?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my friend from Peterborough for the question.

Half of the board of governors are representatives of business. As a matter of fact, this group is so non-partisan and so unbiased that it actually elected a management representative, a former member of this Legislature, a former member of the Conservative caucus opposite, as its chairperson. Mr. Ron Johnson represents the interior design employers’ association and represents over 50% of that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the 34 trades of the 150, of which ratios are being set for, are being set by joint management-labour committees, including representatives of employees in the non-labour sector. It is one of the most impartial and fair-minded processes under way right now in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Through you to the minister, Mr. Speaker: It’s clear the opposition has little interest in working with us while we’re fixing the skilled trades and apprenticeships system through the College of Trades. I’m proud that our government is committed to working in the best interest of all Ontarians and Peterboroughians.

Since we’ve been in government, we have doubled the number of apprenticeships to 120,000. Last year, we created more than 29,000 new apprenticeship positions. While the PC Party was in government, they created less than 15,000 apprenticeships a year and cut funding to the apprenticeship and training programs by 73.4% in the first three years. Our record at skilled trades and apprenticeships clearly shows our commitment to move Ontario and Peterborough forward.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: Can you tell us how it is possible that the Leader of the Opposition has promised he will create 200,000 apprenticeships in just four years?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, that is ironic in some ways, because when they were in power they cut apprenticeships by 74%, a cut to budget. Then their program as they composed it couldn’t generate 15,000 apprenticeships per year and they only achieved a maximum number of 60,000 apprenticeships in their entire period in government, which is rather extraordinary.

We already are at 120,000, and we’ve added 29,000. We believe in the College of Trades, working with industry and workers and colleges. But to meet the 200,000, you would need 50,000 more employers. Right now we have 37,000. There is no budget at all in any of their numbers for college or private sector apprenticeships.

This is the most bizarre proposal to come out: no costing, no explanation of where the 50,000 employers come from, no infrastructure, no budget, no money. In other words—

Interjections.

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Would the minister advise the House whether he believes it is ever appropriate for a medically fragile 21-year-old with developmental and physical disabilities to be placed in a nursing home?

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the member is referring to a specific case. I’m assuming that by the tone of his question and the way that it was put forward, and I would be very happy to look into a case that he brings forward.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a developmental services network of organizations and ministry support throughout the province. They work with individuals and their families to make sure that the person is placed in the most appropriate care setting. As I say, if the member wants to bring forward a particular case, I’d be happy to look into it, but again, the bottom line is finding the most appropriate setting for that individual to receive the care they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have brought this case to the attention of the minister’s office and the ministry on many occasions, but let me refresh his memory. Leslie and Gary Dillon are from Nottawa. Their daughter Jessi is 21 years old and severely disabled. For the past eight weeks, Jessi has been at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital waiting for support services such as Passport funding or admission to e3 Community Services in Collingwood. Their doctor will not release Jessi from the hospital until support services are available, and unfortunately, none are. Mr. and Mrs.

Dillon are concerned that their daughter is going to be forced into a nursing home, something most caring parents would not want for their child.

Minister, you’re spending a lot of money to keep Jessi in hospital. Is there not a more dignified way to look after the Dillon family’s needs?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this particular case to our attention. Obviously, all of our sympathy and our hearts go out to the family that are finding themselves in this very difficult situation, as well as the child that they’re seeking the most appropriate care for.

As I said, I’d be happy to look into the specific case. As members know, as a minister I can’t talk about specific cases here on the floor of the Legislature, but what I can do is talk about the commitment of the ministry to work with families and individuals to make sure they receive the type of care that’s most appropriate for their circumstances.

I would point out to the honourable member that under our watch, our government has significantly increased the amount of funding that is available for developmental services across this province. We’re going to continue to work with providers and with families to make sure that we provide the most appropriate care, and again, I look forward to looking into this case for the honourable member.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. A number of recommendations that followed the contaminated water tragedy at Walkerton focused on strengthening public health at Walkerton and across the province. Does the Premier think that eliminating services in the community’s public health office, with plans to close that local unit entirely, is a good idea?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m pleased to look in greater detail into the issue that the leader of the third party has raised. What I can tell you is that we are absolutely committed to having the cleanest drinking water possible. We learned a lesson from Walkerton, and our government has made a very high priority bringing clean water to the people of this province. So I am more than happy to look into the issue that the leader of the third party has raised.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is a bigger-picture issue, of course. The closure of this public health unit, leaving just one public health office open for an entire region that’s larger than the province of Prince Edward Island, is something we see as concerning.

The decision seems to have been made without any transparency, without any information going to the public or any engagement with the public. In fact, the local board of health was not engaged, nor was the mayor even aware that this was in the works.

My question, again, is to the minister: Why is the Walkerton public health office closing, and does she support that move?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said in the initial question, I will look into this particular issue. I think it’s important to recognize that public health units are administered by the municipalities; however, I will look into this issue.

We have made a big commitment to public health. In fact, evidence of that is demonstrated by the fact that we have increased funding to our public health units from 50% to 75%. We believe in public health. We believe in making investments to keep people healthy so they don’t need to come into our acute health care system.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This past Saturday marked the International Day of Disabled Persons. The day gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the daily challenges faced by people with disabilities in our communities and upon what we do as a government to support these individuals and their families. The day gives all of us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to building an accessible and inclusive Ontario for people with all different kinds of disabilities.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: How is this government addressing the needs of Ontarians with disabilities and their families to make our province fully inclusive?

Hon. John Milloy: I very much appreciate the honourable member’s question, particularly on the fact that Saturday was the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I was pleased, as I’m sure many members of this Legislature were, to attend several events in my riding to mark this day; a day, in fact, when we can celebrate the outstanding contribution made by individuals with disabilities and also talk about some of the progress that we’ve made as a society.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister. We all benefit from the work that is done to make our communities more accessible.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain what can be done to ensure that businesses implement these standards and what assurances can be made about the costs of these standards to the businesses?

Hon. John Milloy: I think it’s a very important question, and my ministry has been working very hard to inform businesses of their new responsibilities over the standards which, as the member pointed out, will be coming into effect on January 1.

Mr. Speaker, it’s about changing culture; it’s a way of doing things that’s taking into account the needs of individuals with disabilities as you conduct business, as you serve customers. Many of the standards have no costs associated with them. Some specific standards could be: How are you accommodating a customer service dog? Do your employees have proper training so that they can use plain language when helping someone with a developmental disability? Writing down the answer to a question for someone who is deaf or hearing impaired.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, it’s about changing the culture. It’s about making sure that employers and their employees have the proper training so that they can serve people with developmental disabilities. It’s good for the individual who’s coming in, but it’s also good for business, something, I think, that—

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is to the Premier. In 2007, the McGuinty government launched the GTA West Corridor study, saying that they wanted to have a comprehensive study of transportation options through our area.

One of the options they’ve identified through this process, alternative 4-3, has been rejected by the councils of the town of Halton Hills and the region of Halton, and by thousands of residents.

Just before the election, I called for the GTA West Corridor study to be put on hold pending a review of the whole thing by the next Minister of Transportation. Days later, they announced the delay.

Now we have a new minister. My question to the Premier is this: Will he tell the minister to listen to the people of Halton Hills and take alternative 4-3 off the table?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Wellington–Halton Hills for his question. I acknowledge receiving the letter that he sent to me. We’ve also had a brief discussion with it. I’ve also undertaken to provide an MTO briefing for the member, and I understand I’m meeting with the mayor of Halton Hills tomorrow.

We’re taking your issue very, very seriously, but of course the member knows that we’re trying to meet the demands of our growing population and economy in the GTHA. We’re looking at ways to build transportation links between large employment and population centres in the greater Golden Horseshoe and to US markets. There is a study under way, as you’re aware. We’ve also commenced some additional studies. We will take the community’s interests very seriously moving forward.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s interest, but I have to say that his answer will not satisfy my constituents.

A new highway built along alternative 4-3 would cut our community in half, destroy farmland and heritage sites, and have a negative impact on our local environment. The town has identified a reasonable and practical alternative: the widening of the 401, which would have to be a more cost-effective solution in the current constrained fiscal environment that we’re in.

Now is not the time for more dithering on this issue. We need a clear and unequivocal answer. Will the Premier assure my constituents that he will put an end to alternative 4-3 once and for all?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve received a lot of input and comments on the draft strategy and we’ve heard the concerns from local residents about a new east-west corridor through Halton Hills. In response to the concerns, we will conduct additional analysis and consultation on the highway recommendations in the Halton area. The additional work will examine in greater detail the impacts on farms, rural communities, businesses and natural features. We will bring forward the results for full public review and discussion before any decision on next steps. We take the concerns very seriously. We’re looking at them.

We will work with the community to try to find alternatives. But we have to wait for the full analysis to take place and I’ll continue to work with the member as we move forward with this issue.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Rainy River’s health centre serves not only the local town, but also three rural townships and two First Nations communities. This is 2,700 people. It has a 24-hour emergency room, three acute care beds and provides primary care, but since October it has been operating with only one physician. Now the emergency room is expected to close by December 24 because of this doctor shortage.

Speaker, the community has been raising these concerns with the minister for months. Does the minister have a plan to prevent Rainy River’s ER from closing?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for raising this issue that I know is of extreme importance in Rainy River and the surrounding area.

Speaker, we are aware that there has been a resignation of a physician from the emergency department in Rainy River. That is creating problems to keep the emergency department open over the Christmas holidays. I’m very pleased to report that interim coverage has been found from December 23 until January 2. We still, though, do have a few days, the 3rd and the 5th. We are working very hard to ensure coverage to the people of Rainy River.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Speaker, if the Rainy River ER closes, residents will be facing a one- to two-hour drive to the nearest ER, in Fort Frances. These ERs are already overburdened and understaffed. Officials in Rainy River expect that a permanent closure of the ER would add an additional $800,000 to ambulance costs.

The community has already been working together to find a solution, but the closure date is looming. Will the minister guarantee that health care services are not lost?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member has outlined the reason why we’re working so hard to keep this emergency department open: We know how important it is to the community.

HealthForceOntario works with hospitals across the province who are having difficulty filling those vitally important emergency department shifts. We will continue to work to complete this job, to find coverage for those two or three days where we’re still looking for someone.

The LHIN, the hospital and the ministry are working together, with the common purpose of keeping this most important emergency department open.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, my riding of Richmond Hill is home to many newcomers. When immigrants arrive in our province, many of them rely on settlement services in their community to help them get settled and find a job. Catholic Community Services of York Region is one of the agencies serving Richmond Hill.

Settlement services are especially important in these uncertain economic times, when we need everyone at their best. That’s why newcomers in my riding have been raising their concerns about the recent unilateral funding cuts to Ontario’s newcomer settlement agencies announced by the federal government. Minister, what effect will these cuts have on Ontario’s economic recovery?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. I agree: Successful integration of immigrants into Ontario’s workplace is an economic imperative. That’s why we’re concerned with yet another round of cuts by the federal government.

Many newcomers rely on settlement agencies to help put their skills to work. I’ve been meeting with service providers who have shared with me their deep concern about how this year’s cuts will affect their clients. I am pleased to introduce Mississauga South community leaders and volunteers Ms. Karen Duffy, founder and CEO of Wellness Direct, and Mr. Winston Meyer, founder and president of Community Door, who are with us today. Thank you for joining us at Queen’s Park.

Many agencies similar to theirs are worried that cuts will lead to decreased access to services for newcomers, or, even worse, agencies closing down. It’s especially important for us to keep working hard to ensure that all citizens and newcomers have the opportunity to fully participate in our economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: I have heard similar concerns in my riding. Last year, when the federal Conservatives cut Ontario’s funding by $44 million, settlement services were definitely affected. Now it seems that the federal government is determined to make the same mistake twice.

Ontario is the only province receiving a cut this year. We are also the only province without an immigration agreement with the federal government. My question to the minister: What is being done to engage the federal government to reach a new agreement?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member makes a very important point: Ontario is the only province without an agreement on immigration with the federal government. We’re also the only province to be targeted for funding cuts this year. And all the while, Ontario welcomes more immigrants this year than the rest of Canada combined, excluding Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I had the pleasure of meeting with federal Minister of Immigration and Citizenship Mr. Jason Kenney. It was a good meeting. Among the issues discussed, I impressed upon him the need for his government to come back to the table and negotiate a new agreement with Ontario. I’ve also asked the federal government to reverse these unilateral cuts.

I urge the federal government to put politics aside and sit down with Ontario to negotiate a new agreement that puts the needs of newcomers front and centre, and I call on all members of this House to stand together in the best interests of Ontario and Ontario’s newcomers.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, we have a power problem in Ontario in that we’re selling our surplus power to Quebec and the United States for much less than it costs to produce, actually to the tune of $420 million. At the same time we have a surplus of energy, we’re forcing intermittent wind and solar power onto the grid at subsidy-inflated prices. This is driving up energy costs for Ontario families and businesses, who are already hurting.

Minister, will you please tell Ontario families why you’re driving up the cost of their energy bills to produce renewable energy we simply don’t need?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, when we started in 2003, the energy system was a mess. There wasn’t enough generation, transmission was old and it was based on dirty coal. We made a decision: We’re going to get out of coal, clean up the air, improve the health of Ontarians and make sure we have reliable power. That’s been a long-term—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We had gotten so close. Let’s just stay like this for the last minute, please.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That’s a long-term effort that requires decisions made three, five, 10 years in order to get the power you need on a specific day. We’re making great progress in cleaning up the air. We are rebuilding our transmission and generation systems, and we are actually making money every year so far on the in-and-out exports because they do contribute to the bottom line of the ratepayers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: First the government piles up the costs from the cancelled Oakville plant, then the costs from the now cancelled Mississauga power plant, and now we have $420 million lost in surplus power sales to Quebec and the United States. Added up, we could very well have another billion-dollar boondoggle here.

We’re paying above-market prices for renewable energy that the grid doesn’t need and then selling it elsewhere when it’s not needed at below cost. This is sheer madness.

Minister, will you admit the green energy program has failed and pull back from the FIT subsidies which have led to job-killing energy prices?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: A little context: The two years previous to when we started in 2003, they paid almost a billion dollars to import power, and we’re making money from the exports. It’s a long-term approach.

But you know, cleaning up the air in the province of Ontario is important. It costs money for dirty air. It can cost $4 billion every year for dirty air from coal production, which they did. We save not only the money for hospitals, but we improve the lives of Ontarians, we protect the lives of Ontarians. We lessen the human suffering from dirty air.

The choice is clear: They’re for coal, we’re for clean. We chose clean on behalf of the people of Ontario and we stand by that decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two members in our gallery, Herb Wagner and Murray Pollard, who are both male breast cancer survivors. They’re here today for the presentation of a petition that has been signed by hundreds of people calling for the third week of October to be designated as Male Breast Cancer Awareness Week.

They’ve already succeeded in having this week established in the state of Florida and are hoping that Ontario will establish this week to increase education and awareness of this disease and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to present the petition at the end of routine proceedings to declare that week as Male Breast Cancer Awareness Week in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll do my best. Further introductions?

It is now time for members’ statements.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CARLETON PLACE AND DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, for the past eight years, Carleton Place and District Memorial Hospital has been appealing to the Ministry of Health for redevelopment funding and approval. The population growth in Carleton Place in this time has been significant, and demands for services and beds have increased well beyond the hospital’s ability to serve under its current conditions.

Unfortunately, the Carleton Place hospital board has had to weave its way through the bureaucratic health care maze this government has created. The hospital board has had to deal with countless arms of the Ministry of Health, yet neither the Champlain LHIN nor the capital funding branch will commit to the board that the redevelopment will move forward. Ministry of Health staff have presented a proposal to cabinet with a recommendation to move forward, yet this government has stalled and is not proceeding.

This government has demonstrated that hospital proposals and promises are nothing more than a political football that can be punted about at a whim in an attempt to score political gain. It is disappointing, because the people of my riding expect that a redeveloped hospital in Carleton Place is essential to their health care. They believe that political and electoral gain ought not to be the determining factors for hospital funding.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, families in Ontario are facing a crisis in child care. As many may be aware, here in the city of Toronto a number of wards are facing losses of 25% to 50% of their regulated child care spaces. When I talk to people from northern Ontario and rural Ontario, they face even more dire situations.

All-day kindergarten is a useful thing, but the current process of implementation is not working. It’s not addressing the transition costs. The Liberal government is not helping families who need child care through the summer. The tragic outcome of this poor implementation is that we may see large-scale closure of child care centres for younger children across this province.

Dalton McGuinty needs to stand up now and assure the parents of this province that he will not see closure of child care centres; that he will make sure that families and children are protected.

HEALING CYCLE FOUNDATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, the Healing Cycle Foundation is a volunteer-based, registered charity that honours the end-of-life journey taken by those living with a life-threatening illness. Volunteers do this by raising funds to support hospice palliative care programs for individuals at the end of life and to compassionately deal with their loved ones.

On Sunday, June 24, 2012, the Healing Cycle Foundation hosts its annual 10-, 25-, 50-, 100- and 160-kilometre bicycle ride in Streetsville. All ride donations directly support hospice palliative care in Ontario.

In 2011, the foundation achieved its fundraising goal of $1 million for the palliative care unit at Credit Valley Hospital. Contributions helped build the new 10,000 square-foot, 15-bed centre at Credit Valley Hospital.

This new palliative care facility at Credit Valley Hospital has been named after the Healing Cycle Foundation. It will house a comprehensive family-centred program to meet the needs of patients and their families when an illness does not respond to treatment.

Thank you to the residents and the businesses in Mississauga who contribute to the Healing Cycle Foundation. I encourage everyone to volunteer, donate or register to ride in the 2012 event at thehealingcycle.ca.

LESLIE FROST

Ms. Laurie Scott: On Friday, November 25, I had the honour to both attend and participate in a ceremony commemorating the gravesite of the Honourable Leslie Frost in Lindsay.

Leslie Frost, known in his day as “Old Man Ontario” and the “Laird of Lindsay,” was first elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1937. He served the province as Treasurer, Minister of Mines and, of course, 12 years as Premier, from 1949 until 1961.

Leslie Frost championed small-town values in a time of large economic growth for this province. During his tenure, he led Ontario’s post-war economic development, helped complete the St. Lawrence Seaway, and oversaw unprecedented expansion of Ontario’s school system, highways and hospitals.

The Frost government introduced public hospital insurance to the province, which would be expanded by his successors to become the OHIP system of today.

The government of Leslie Frost was the first to pass laws providing penalties for racial, ethnic and gender discrimination. These laws, introduced in the early 1950s as the Fair Employment Practices Act and Fair Accommodation Practices Act, started a movement in Ontario politics that produced the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1962.

Many of his contemporaries still live in Lindsay and recall fondly the things he said and did in the barbershop and local restaurants.

I am particularly honoured to represent the same part of the province and many of the same constituents that this great MPP and visionary Premier did so many years ago.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS /

NORMES D’EMPLOI

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, there is a growing problem across Ontario. It was one of the major concerns in my riding of Bramalea–Gore–Malton. I heard story after story from constituents who are experiencing this very same problem. The problem is precarious employment.

One of my constituents, Bhavan Kaur, told me her story, where she has been working at the same company at the same position for over two years and in those two years she has never transitioned to a full-time job. The company pays $20 per hour, but after the temporary agency takes their portion she’s left with $10 per hour, with no benefits, no security—not a fair wage.

Something must be done to protect Ontario families.

Nous devons faire quelque chose pour aider les familles ontariennes.

HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Mario Sergio: Just a few years ago, a commitment was made to build a new hospital in the northwest area of Toronto serving the residents of York West as well. Thanks to the commitment, the vision and the perseverance of the CEO of the Humber River Regional Hospital, Mr. Ruben Devlin, and of the hospital board and staff, the dream is now a reality.

Last Friday, December 2, joined by my colleagues MPP Monte Kwinter and MPP Laura Albanese, hospital board members and staff, the groundbreaking took place.

The new Humber River Regional Hospital will be the first fully digital hospital in North America. I am proud to say, Speaker, that this will raise the benchmarks in reliability, access to instant information and seamless communication.

The new hospital will be a leader in technological advancements, setting the standards of excellence in environmental sustainability, healthy indoor environments, efficient use of natural resources, and energy conservation.

I am proud to say that this new hospital is one of 18 hospitals being built by our government in the last few years.

With the new Humber River Regional Hospital on its way, our people, our community and generations to come will enjoy excellent in-hospital care delivered by the best-qualified medical professionals, aided by the latest and most innovative technologies. I look forward to the official opening in 2015, as it will usher in a new era of hospital care in York West for all our residents.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Peter Shurman: I rise today to remind the McGuinty government that for six weeks now residents of York region have been held hostage by the ongoing transit strike. It is clear that negotiations are not going to resolve this strike. York region residents are losing jobs and are forced to spend extra money on cab fare to keep the jobs that they have, and students can’t get to school. Yet the McGuinty government has done absolutely nothing. It has in fact turned its back on the residents of Thornhill and York region.

They have voted against my bill to end the strike and they refuse to give York region the same rights and protections against transit disruptions that they have granted the city of Toronto. Once again, they are trying to shift the blame, this time by hiding behind the regional government, though the regional government made it clear that they won’t end the strike. This blame game is making victims out of York region commuters.

Just the other day I received a message from a constituent: “The service connects with TTC, GO and other transit services so it has impact on many workers, students and businesses throughout the GTA.” So the question is, how long will the McGuinty government be willing to keep this strike going?

Today, once again, I have the following message to deliver from my constituents in Thornhill and the residents of York region to the Premier and the Minister of Labour: Take your responsibility to the people of this province seriously. End the York region transit strike today. Give York region the same rights and protections you gave the city of Toronto and make York region transit an essential service.

LES HORNE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s with sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Les Horne. He was a passionate defender of children’s rights and the first provincial child advocate for Ontario.

Les passed away over the summer in Oakville, but he left behind an incredible legacy. Les Horne truly believed that children, especially those who are most vulnerable, deserve to be heard, and he dedicated his life to helping raise their voices. His greatest volunteer achievement is often considered to be his dedicated work with Defence for Children International, which is committed to promoting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I was privileged to serve on the board of the Halton Children’s Aid Society with Les. I found out he was also a very strong advocate for community supports rather than for institutional care. He led a group that recommended the closure of Ontario’s large institutions in favour of smaller, community-based homes.

Les’s activities on behalf of children are simply too long to list here—proof of his willingness to act whenever somebody needed a hand.

I’d like to extend my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Les Horne. He was a very proud native of my own birthplace of Liverpool, England, and a true children’s champion for Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Julia Munro: People in York region are still waiting for someone to help them by ending the York region transit strike. This strike is hurting people trying to get to their jobs, to school or to their doctor, or just to buy groceries.

One constituent has to take time off work to drive her daughter to school, and there are many who tell us the same story. Another, Deb, has to pay $75 for gas every week, as she cannot take the bus. Guy cannot take his son to the mall—or anywhere else, for that matter. Bev wonders what the effects of the strike are on retailers in York region—which is, I think, a good question. George asks what the continuing strike means for the environment, global warming and the green approach to the environment. These are real people who are hurting because of the strike.

Social agencies tell me that this strike is devastating for the most vulnerable people. These are people who don’t have a car. They can’t afford a taxi, and they are dependent on the support they receive through York region’s agencies. They are, in effect, being denied the support they need.

People in York region want it to end and they need it to end. Only the Ontario government can bring this strike to an end, and we need you to step up and take action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the members for their statements.

ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2011 annual report of the Auditor General of Ontario.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: And we’re reading it, Speaker—in French, to boot.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope so.

PETITIONS

MALE BREAST CANCER

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas, each year, an estimated 45 men will die of male breast cancer in Canada, a number that is expected only to increase; and

“Whereas breast cancer is widely believed to be a disease specific to women, and due to a general lack of awareness that men can also develop breast cancer, men are typically diagnosed at a late stage; and

“Whereas promoting awareness and education about male breast cancer is critical to improving the health and well-being of men throughout Ontario, facilitating earlier detection, improving the prognosis of men who have been diagnosed with the disease and ultimately preventing further loss of life; and

“Whereas, in remembrance of the many men who have lost their lives or are fighting for their lives,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the third week of October be designated as Male Breast Cancer Awareness Week in Ontario.”

I affix my signature, Mr. Speaker, as I wholeheartedly agree with this. I thank the participants for bringing this forward to the attention of all of the Legislature.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Michael Harris: On behalf of the many parents with children enrolled in daycare programs in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, I am pleased to read the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Waterloo Region District School Board (hereinafter ‘the board’) proposes to implement a before-and-after-school child care program in their schools for children ages four to seven years, effective September 2012;

“Whereas the board intends to prohibit all daycare centres currently partnered with schools from continuing to provide the same services;

“Whereas the board intends to charge $27 per day for the same services that the YWCA charges $16 per day;

“Whereas the implementation of such a program would result in the loss of revenue for the daycare centres currently partnered with schools, further resulting in either a fee increase to child care services for children three years and under ($1,500 plus per month) or the complete closure of child care programs for children three years and under;

“Whereas the result would be create a crisis in child care for parents in this region who require good-quality, affordable child care for their children three and under, which already suffers from a severe shortage of such services....”

I will affix my name to this petition and give it to Danica to take to the table.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Sudbury.

“Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients” under certain conditions; and

“Whereas,” since October 2009, “insured PET scans” are being performed “in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with the Sudbury Regional Hospital, its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

“We ... petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital,” now called Health Sciences North, “thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, Mr. Speaker, will affix my name to it and ask page Yousef to bring it to the Clerk.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is a growing body of evidence confirming industrial wind development has serious adverse effects on host communities;

“Whereas over 135 people in Ontario have reported serious negative health effects from industrial wind development, and at least a dozen families have been bought out of their homes;

“Whereas Ontario’s Green Energy Act has ended local planning control by stripping municipal councils of their rights;

“Whereas 80 municipal councils, representing two million Ontarians, called on the government to put in place a full moratorium on industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological health study is completed, proper environmental regulations and protections are put in place, and local democracy is restored;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Immediately put a moratorium on all industrial wind proposals; fund an independent epidemiological health study to develop safe setbacks; legislate those findings; develop stringent environmental protection standards for natural areas; and require all projects to comply with regulations based on science and local planning.”

I will affix my name to this and give it to Sebastian, our great page, to take to the Clerk.

WIND TURBINES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further petitions? The member from Bruce–Grey. Sorry; I mean—

Mr. Jim Wilson: Simcoe–Grey.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very kind of you.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is a growing body of evidence confirming industrial wind development has serious adverse effects on host communities;

“Whereas over 135 people in Ontario have reported serious negative health effects from industrial wind development, and at least a dozen families have been bought out of their homes;

“Whereas Ontario’s Green Energy Act has ended local planning control by stripping municipal councils of their rights;

“Whereas 80 municipal councils, representing two million Ontarians, called on the government to put in place a full moratorium on industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological health study is completed, proper environmental regulations and protections are put in place, and local democracy is restored;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Immediately put a moratorium on all industrial wind proposals; fund an independent epidemiological health study to develop safe setbacks; legislate those findings; develop stringent environmental protection standards for natural areas; and require all projects to comply with regulations based on science and local planning.”

I agree with this petition and I will sign it.

CHILD CARE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further petitions? The member from—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Parkdale–High Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Parkdale–High Park. I was just looking at another member. Carry on, member.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it says:

“Whereas the government of Ontario is not providing their fair share of funding for child care subsidies with enough capital transitional funding for child care centres experiencing financial problems due to full-day learning;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To fund their actual 80% share of child care subsidies and provide adequate transitional funding due to full-day learning.”

I couldn’t agree more. I’m going to sign it and give it to page Tara to be delivered.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Jim McDonell: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas a new policy from the Electrical Safety Authority that mandates that all electrical contractors must have at least one licensed master electrician on their staff for every business effective December 31, 2011, is forcing small contracting businesses in Ontario out of business;

“Whereas this ESA policy severely impacts small electrical contracting businesses in Ontario. George, in my riding in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, who has been in the electrical trade for the past 51 years and a small business owner for the past 36 years, who has good standing with the Electrical Safety Authority, Ontario Hydro and local utilities, who follows the same rules and regulations as the ESA, follows the same electrical codes, adheres to the same inspections and pays the same fees as large companies, will not be allowed to renew his electrical contractor licence.

Effective December 31, 2011, George will no longer be licensed to practise in Ontario” and “will be forced to close his small business.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the Minister of Consumer Services to direct the Electrical Safety Authority of Ontario to modify the licensing requirements to allow small electrical contractors and self-employed electricians to work in the residential and rural market without the necessary burden of obtaining a master electrician licence or, at the very minimum, grandfather those who are currently qualified and entitled to work in Ontario.”

I agree with this petition and will be signing it.

HYDRO DAM

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition with regard to the Bala Falls. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the McGuinty government permitted the release of crown lands to enable the development of a hydro dam in the heart of Bala without discussion or proper consultation with the municipality of the township of Muskoka Lakes, the district of Muskoka or the residents and businesses who would be directly affected; and

“Whereas the community is a tourism destination which is dependent on Bala Falls as an attraction; and

“Whereas residents and business people alike are deeply concerned about the economic and environmental impact that the construction and operation of the dam will have on the community;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the McGuinty government and in particular the Minister of Natural Resources reverse the decision to release crown lands for a hydro dam in Bala Falls.”

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

Mr. Jim Wilson: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Highland Companies, an American company, wants to build a quarry in Melancthon township which is to be bigger than Niagara Falls. It will be the second-largest in North America. It will be built over 200 feet (60 metres) below the water table of the headwaters that feed three major rivers. This will contaminate these rivers, which are a freshwater source for over one million people. Furthermore, the land that the quarry will be built on is some of the best farmland in Ontario. Over 50% of the GTA’s potatoes are grown on this soil.

The Highland Companies is under no obligation to fill in the quarry when they are finished. There is also no law stating that there must be an environmental assessment on the quarry site before it is built. This quarry will hurt the environment and affect many people, and therefore it must be stopped.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the development of the Melancthon quarry.”

Mr. Speaker, I will sign that petition. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 1, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts en vue de mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon and to speak in support of Bill 2, the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act. As we outlined in the speech from the throne, as we work on moving Ontario forward, as we look at dealing with the challenges that we face, we will be giving priority to programs that both address the needs of Ontario families and strengthen the economy, and the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit is an example of just such a program. It will help both families and the economy.

In particular, if the proposed Bill 2, the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, is passed, it will do a number of things. Firstly, it will help seniors stay in their homes longer. Secondly, if family members actually have seniors living with them, it will help those family members who have a senior living with them. It helps the taxpayers, because staying at home always costs less than long-term care, so it’s good for the taxpaying public. We believe that it will support about $800 million in home renovation activity and support about 10,500 jobs per year, so it’s clearly good to help stimulate the economy as well.

So, how does this work? Well, if the legislation is passed, and I certainly hope that the members opposite will be supporting Bill 2, effective October 1, 2011—so, in fact, the date for the bill will be retroactive to October 1, 2011—senior homeowners, senior tenants, people who share a home with a senior relative, any of those, would be allowed to claim a refundable tax credit up to $1,500 a year for expenses related to permanent modifications to the home.

Now, when we began to debate this the other day, Speaker, I noticed that some of the comments from the official opposition were about, “Oh, well, you shouldn’t allow people who are tenants to access this sort of a thing because it wouldn’t be a good business deal”—that is, to upgrade a leased space as opposed to an owned space.

I really thought that that indicated a certain lack of being in touch with reality, quite frankly, as to the circumstances in which lots of our seniors live, because if we think about different ridings around Ontario—and I understand that it varies dramatically from riding to riding, but if you look at the general mix of where people live in Ontario, there are lots of people who never in their life own their own home. Home is a leased space. We need to recognize that.

Furthermore, there are lots of seniors who may once have owned their own home but who have chosen to sell their home as they find themselves becoming empty nesters—they don’t need a big home—and have decided to move into leased space, a smaller apartment or maybe a small townhouse or something, because they choose to do that at that stage of their life.

So to say, “No, no, why would you have this apply to people who lease a space,” seems to me to be a very odd comment. I can think of all sorts of examples where, with the support of being able to have an accessible leased space that meets the mobility needs of the senior, it in fact might be a very good quality-of-life investment for a senior to upgrade a leased space.

I can think of a senior who maybe has a pet. They’re living alone; they have a pet. There might be another accessible apartment to rent, but the accessible apartment might not allow pets. It’s much better to upgrade the leased space you’ve already got to allow you to keep that pet, because in lots of cases, if there’s a senior living alone, that pet is an important companion. That would be a case where you might want to upgrade a leased space for quality of life.

So I do not think that it behooves us, as members of the Legislature, to try to tell people that if you’re going to upgrade the space you live in, you have to own it. We’re, in fact, trying to provide the flexibility for the senior that this tax credit would be available regardless of whether the space the senior lives in is owned by the senior or perhaps they live with a family member, so it’s owned by the family member, or it may, in fact, be a leased space. So that would be the strategy we are looking at.

I think of some of the supports that are available in my riding of Guelph: Meals on Wheels, where you can get a hot meal each day delivered to your door. That’s a service that is available in lots of communities around Ontario that helps support the other needs of people staying in their own home. I’ve got another service that is really interesting, which I think is relatively unique to Guelph: Some of the Aging at Home money in Guelph—one of the recipients of that is actually the Guelph family health team, and in Guelph the vast majority of family doctors belong to the Guelph family health team.

Their Aging at Home program actually is providing one of their registered nurses to go out and to do calls to seniors in their homes. This would be for things like: The nurse goes into the home and checks on the meds. Maybe there are new meds or maybe the family is concerned that the person isn’t managing the meds properly, so the nurse would go into the home, look at how the meds are organized and see if there’s some way that it can be organized better to make sure that the senior actually gets the right meds at the right time.

Maybe it’s as simple as: They stored them in the upstairs bathroom but they really should be on the kitchen table so that they access them at mealtime when they need them. But they have a look at: How do we make sure you get the right meds?

Often it will be somebody who has had some sort of an acute health episode and is now being released home. There’s concern about how the person will be able to manage at home, so the nurse from the family health team may do a few check-ins just to make sure that that person is coping okay once they’re released from hospital.

You might have somebody who is in the early stages of dementia, and they can still manage at home, but having the nurse go in periodically to evaluate how the senior is coping in their own setting is very helpful in terms of the doctor knowing at what point the person is coping okay or if they need extra support from the health system.

But when we put those things together, the supports that are available in the community and the physical renovation of the home to make the physical situation suitable, many more people can stay in their own homes, and that is a very good thing.

Okay, so how would this work? If the legislation is passed, in order to claim the tax credit, the senior or the family members, whoever is going to be responsible, would obviously have to get the receipts from the suppliers, the receipts from the contractors, and you would submit those when you do your personal income tax.

Here is the total eligible cost for the year—and this is something that would be available each year you do your income tax. What I’m describing is for one year, but it would be available next year and next year and the year after that, if that’s necessary for that particular senior. But each year, you could submit up to $10,000 in eligible expenses, and the credit would be 15%, or $1,500, that would be refunded to the senior. Because it’s a refundable tax credit, even if the senior doesn’t actually owe $1,500 in taxes, they would still get the benefit. That is, you could get that, part of that or all of it, for that matter, as a cheque, because it’s a refundable tax credit.

So what are the sorts of things that would be possible? The obvious ones are things like the ramp, so you can get in and out of the front door. I know as I was going door to door, I was finding more and more homes in Guelph where somebody has built a ramp so that one or another member of the family can get in and out the door in a wheelchair or maybe with a walker. But often, depending on the layout of the property, those ramps can be quite extensive and quite expensive, so getting some assistance with building that ramp can be really problematic. In this case, getting some help would be very, very helpful.

Another big-ticket item that has gotten a lot of attention is seniors who live in two-storey houses being able to install chairlifts so that they can get up to the bedroom floor. Again, that’s a very important and often very costly renovation.

Another instance would be creating some sort of walk-in bathtub or walk-in shower—so replacing the tub, which often becomes quite hazardous for people to have to try to step in and out of, and getting up and down is problematic. So being able to replace the conventional tub with some sort of walk-in tub or shower would be something that would be permitted.

We talked about ramps and things.

Widening door passages: If somebody is in a chair, doors in homes, and particularly doors in bathrooms, are often narrower than a wheelchair requires. So you could widen the door, either just replacing—cutting a hole. Sometimes you can simply re-hinge the door so you’ve got the swing-away hinges. So you might simply be able to re-hinge doors.

Often, if somebody’s now in a wheelchair, you might want to lower the counters in the kitchen and in the bathroom. And often if you’ve got a senior, they have trouble bending, and in particular bending and looking in under something. So the renovation might be to install pullout drawers so that you can pull things out and not have to be crawling under the cupboard to try and see if you can find the can of soup that you’re looking for or the pot you’re looking for at the back of the cupboard. Those pullout drawers can make a tremendous difference to the person that’s there.

Sometimes, if you’ve got somebody who’s in a wheelchair, you need to just change the cupboards so there aren’t any cupboards under the sink, so that the wheelchair will just slide in under a counter and you can get up close.

And then there are all kinds of issues where as hands get arthritic, or if you’re like me and you’re getting BlackBerry thumb, you have faucets that have levers rather than twisting, and it may be necessary to change door handles and door locks to those that are easier to handle for arthritic hands.

In some cases it might be reconfiguring the house so that there’s a bedroom on the first floor; it might be creating a granny flat.

There are all sorts of things that would be permissible. It’s not just the two or three sort of big-ticket items that have caught a lot of attention. It would be all that myriad of things that make it possible for seniors to live in their own homes.

We do understand that we’re living in a recessionary time. We do understand that we have to look at expenses, and when you give a tax credit, there is a bill associated with that. We think in the 2011-12 year, if we get the same sort of take-up that the federal government got on their home reno tax credit—which was a more general one; it wasn’t just senior-focused—we think it could cost up to $60 million because we’ve made it retroactive back to October. It could be up to $60 million. And I want to assure you, Speaker, and anyone else who is looking that in fact we have found cost savings in other files to offset that $60 million that would be required to provide this tax credit this year.

So I think this is an excellent program and I certainly hope that we will have the support of all members in this House in this program, which will make it much easier for seniors to stay in their homes.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Mr. Speaker, throughout the recent election period, the people of my riding told me time and time again that the cost of staying in their own homes was getting unaffordable, but it was the seniors who, without doubt, were the loudest voice in asking us to do something to help them out. They weren’t talking about special renovations. They were talking about the basic expenses that everyone else was talking about—home heating, hydro costs, property taxes—but from the perspective of someone who was on a fixed income. But what help does this government offer?

They tell them that they must cut costs by taking their showers and doing their laundry in the middle of the night—some answer for someone who has contributed so much to this country. They have seen this Liberal government raise the cost of living in their home to a point where they cannot cover the basic costs and they are forced to decide whether they should buy food or heat their homes. These people don’t have $10,000 to spend to access this grant.

It is time to listen to what the people are telling us. It is time to pay attention, and it is time to take action. Mr. Speaker, it’s time for this Liberal government to join forces with the rest of the House and get its spending in order and help out the working families and the seniors and give them some real help. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It was a clear message that I received when I was knocking on the doors during the campaign, from many, many doors, from many, many seniors that I met: They need help. They need help with their day-to-day activities. They need help with the issues that face them. They need help with purchasing a full prescription instead of buying half a prescription. They need help getting to their doctor’s appointments by travelling to those appointments by roads; they can’t afford the gas to get to those appointments. They need help in their homes. They need help, period.

This piece of legislation, although it’s going to assist with certain passages as far as widening doors, ramps, lowering counters and jobs—it’s all good; it is good, and it is more than likely going to be something that I feel comfortable in being able to support. However, at the end of the day, it’s going to be for the limited individuals who will benefit from this, and the vast majority of our seniors will not get any benefit out of this program because they can’t afford it. It is not there. They are challenged with the regular costs on a monthly basis of making ends meet, and they just don’t have those funds in order to invest in this. That’s the reality that we’re facing.

Right now what they’re asking for is, “Give me a break now. Give me a break in my home so I can have that additional $20, $30, $40 that I can have every month.” There’s an idea there. Embrace that idea and give that opportunity to Ontarians to choose how they want to spend their monies in their own ways. Thank you.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I was delighted to hear the comments from my colleague from Guelph.

You know, I’ve got a bit of a connection to Guelph. My late mother grew up on a farm just outside of Guelph called Rockwood, Ontario—a beautiful community. And then after my mother’s parents left the farm, they moved into Guelph and they settled on Nottingham Street in Guelph, Ontario. It’s just a stone’s throw away from the Church of Our Lady, which is one of the most beautiful Catholic churches in the province of Ontario. The architecture is supreme.

And I remember when I was a little guy visiting my grandmother—I used to spend the month of August there—I really noticed a number of seniors who were in Guelph there, particularly around Nottingham Street. They were going to a number of seniors’ services sponsored by the Church of Our Lady.

I must say, when you look at the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit, as articulated extremely well by the member from Guelph, I have this vision in my mind of those seniors today who are on Nottingham Street—close to Gordon Street there in Guelph, Ontario—and I can see them taking the opportunity to take advantage of this, and not only the seniors themselves but the families of seniors.

You know, that aspect of this bill has been lost during the debate, where, for example, Mr. Speaker, if you had your aging parents and they’re living with you and your lovely wife in Fergus, Ontario, and you decided that you want to retrofit your shower and your tub or add a stairlift to your beautiful home in Fergus, Ontario, you would be able to take advantage of the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit, and that’s what the member for Guelph was clearly talking about.

I know she’s in constant contact with the seniors in her community. I know she visits every seniors’ club in the riding of Guelph on a continuous basis. I know they have activities at the University of Guelph, and she’s there. She’s listening to them very, very carefully, and she knows that those seniors in Guelph are going to take advantage of this program and go to Home Hardware and create some economic activity in Guelph.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I take great pleasure in having the opportunity to stand and respond to the seniors’ home renovation tax credit. I too have heard from a number of seniors, and still am, since the election—prior to, during, and since. The seniors that we have heard from in my office have indicated to a person that there are very few people who would be in a position to take advantage of this home tax credit because of the escalation of the minimum $10,000 to take advantage of the maximum.

The people we heard from said that they would like to see the HST removed from heating, electricity and energy. That would have a far bigger impact. That would affect all seniors, at whatever income level, especially the lower-income seniors who, because of the HST on their energy bills, take the bigger hit on their bills. It would sure make a big difference to them.

I know that seniors—my late mother, if she would have been in her home, would have been in a position that maybe she would have been able to take advantage of this, but she’s no longer with us, so she can’t. But there are a number other seniors throughout the province, and throughout my riding especially, who would, I think, benefit far more if we were able to remove the HST off the energy price and do them some justice there, where they could actually take advantage on a day-to-day basis on other bills that they pay, whether it’s gasoline they buy at the pumps or the HST that they pay on energy for electricity, hydro, home heating etc. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the four members who have offered questions and comments on the member for Guelph’s presentation. We now will return to member for Guelph, who has two minutes to reply.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you to the members from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Algoma–Manitoulin, Peterborough and Sarnia–Lambton.

I didn’t realize that your grandparents were in Rockwood. Of course, the Speaker is very interested in the fact that they came from Rockwood, because that’s a town that has passed back and forth between the Speaker and I as to which one of us actually represents it. But I’m very pleased that they landed in Guelph.

Nottingham Street is a lovely part of the old part of town, but very typical of the houses that would require some sort of renovation to make them more accessible: stairs everywhere, with narrow doors sometimes to the back of the house. So those would be exactly the sorts of homes we would want to pick up.

I do have to comment on the comment that the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry made about having showers in the middle of the night. Let’s get our facts straight here: The off-peak time goes from 7 p.m. in the evening to 7 a.m. in the morning. If you have your shower at 7:05—not the middle of the night; 7:05—it’s going to be cheaper, or if you’re doing your laundry. And it’s all day—24 hours—on Saturday and Sunday that it’s off-peak. So no senior in this province needs to have their shower in their newly installed shower in the middle of the night. It just isn’t required.

The other thing that I think we need to keep an eye on is that there are a lot of other tax credits specifically targeted at seniors. The healthy home tax credit is but one thing targeted at seniors, and I sincerely hope all members will support Bill 2.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Bill 2, which is named by the government the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2011. Based on the name, it sounds like a great bill, of course; the government is very good at naming things so they sound pretty good. But I’m afraid this bill is more about politics than it really is about making a big difference for the vast number of seniors across our province.

I think on this side of the House we want to see seniors have money left over to be able to stay in their homes as long as possible and make their homes as comfortable as possible. The problem with this is that the people that need it aren’t going to have the $10,000. Certainly, with that median income of $25,000 for a single, they’re not going to be able to spend half of their gross income on renovations to their house, and which specifically won’t increase the value of the house as well. And those people that can afford it—and, I might point out, our critic noted that he turned 65 this year, or turns 65 this year—

Mr. Peter Shurman: Don’t make me older than I am.

Mr. Norm Miller: —is soon to turn, sometime in the next year—and he would qualify for it. But he also pointed out that if he was going to spend the $10,000 to make the renovation to his house, he would do it. He doesn’t need this tax credit to be able to benefit.

So I think the problem is that it’s going to benefit those that don’t necessarily need it, and those that really need it won’t be able to afford to do the work because they won’t have the money, or the ability to even borrow the money. So certainly it’s more about the name of the bill sounding like the government’s doing something profound, when really it’s not doing that much. It’s affecting a very, very tiny percentage of the seniors and not benefiting those who truly need it. I note that if you’re receiving some sort of assistance like ODSP, then you also are not allowed to benefit from this tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s safe to say that what we heard, and what I hear in my riding all the time, is that people—if you’re going to do something that would benefit everyone, the most logical thing, certainly, and it was part of our election platform, would be to remove the HST from heating costs and from electricity costs. I think the NDP had proposed and had a private member’s bill put forward to just remove the HST from heating costs. The PCs, in their election platform, had proposed to remove the HST not only from heating but from electricity as well.

This is something that not just seniors, but all those folks out there, especially in the lower-income levels who are struggling to pay their hydro bills, really want. I’ve got solid information from going door to door and also from people that have written to me, making it very clear that that’s the thing they’d really like.

As an example, here’s a letter from Sharon Watson in Sundridge:

“I am writing this letter in hopes that you can stop Hydro One from putting this new charge onto the”—it’s about other additional charges, and we know how much hydro bills have gone up. “I am writing this letter in hopes that you can stop Hydro One from putting this new charge onto the already high hydro bill that the public is now receiving. This is nothing but blatant thievery. The ‘smart meter’ was not asked for by the public and we are already trying to adjust to the cheaper hours so as not to add to the hydro bill.

Most seniors have been practising the ‘green method’ that was taught by their parents and grandparents before them by hanging out the clothes as way back when there were no such things as dryers; now, to add insult to injury, we must sometimes do laundry on a Sunday to benefit these cheaper hours due to inclement weather. Sunday was always supposed to be a day of rest (God’s day); now that too has been changed.

“Hydro One has implemented this new meter so they alone must assume the cost of this new method to charge its clients, not ask the hard-working taxpayers to pay for a service not asked for or wanted.

“My husband and I bought our house seven years ago. At that time we were paying approximately $50 during the summer months and around $120 in the winter months; now, it’s anywhere from $119 in the summer” months—more than double—“and upwards from $150 to $180 in the winter months. The delivery charge is as much or more than the actual hydro used, not counting the regulatory charge, the debt retirement charge and then the HST. I would like to put this into perspective for you; we now are seniors and our house is 974 square feet. I am working two jobs just to keep afloat, and another charge is being added to the hydro bill that I can barely afford to pay now.

“Seniors are being asked to pay and pay but their income doesn’t increase with their daily living expenses. Something needs to be done to bring this money-grabbing company to its senses.

“You may use this letter as an example in the Legislature.”

It’s signed by Sharon Watson from Sundridge, Ontario.

That’s the kind of thing that I’m hearing. As noted from that senior, in that letter from Sharon Watson, she points out that she’s working as well. I think what this Parliament should be focusing on is creating good jobs as well. There are lots of seniors, some because they want to and some out of necessity, continuing to work beyond age 65, as this senior pointed out she is doing. We need to be able to create good private sector jobs, not only for these seniors but for their kids, and their kids who may be playing a role in supporting the seniors in their later years. So we need to create those jobs.

That’s part of the reason that in this minority Parliament one of the focuses of the opposition has been to create good private sector jobs. I’m now the Northern Development and Mines critic, and last week I had an opportunity to ask a question about a company called Global Sticks, based in Oliver Paipoonge township near Thunder Bay. This is a company that received $7 million from the government of Ontario.

In fact, the McGuinty government did a big press release just in May of this year announcing they were creating 130 jobs, and yet, now we heard last week that the employees haven’t been paid and the company has, in fact, shut down. On the one hand, the government gave them money to create jobs, but on the other hand, we hear that it was death by 1,000 cuts, that it took two years to get the boiler’s certificate of approval from the Ministry of the Environment, that they didn’t have a wood supply despite just about every sawmill in the Thunder Bay except for one is shut down.

There was no supply of fibre, as it’s called, and they had to initially get wood from Minnesota. As a result, these jobs that the government just spent a lot of money to try to create are now threatened, and those are the sorts of jobs seniors need and their kids need as well to be able to have enough money to retire and live with dignity.

That’s been a real priority of the opposition, to do things that will create jobs. In my own riding, just last week was a bad week in that it was announced that the Tembec flooring plant in Huntsville is going to be closing. We’re going to be losing eight jobs in Huntsville from that Tembec flooring plant closing. Also, Grandview Resort in Huntsville, a long-established resort, is going to be closing some time this year. That’s at least another 80 jobs, and probably more, at Grandview. So just in one day last week in my riding, 160 good jobs were lost.

That’s why we recognize that we have to do something in this province to get some private sector jobs created. Unfortunately, this bill, Bill 2, sounds good, but it’s not really addressing that problem. So that’s one of the focuses that the opposition has taken.

I’ve got some other letters that point out that people are struggling with their hydro bill, and I note that the Auditor General just came out with his report today. In that Auditor General’s report, he delivered a scathing indictment of Dalton McGuinty’s expensive energy experiments. The auditor revealed that the McGuinty government’s policies are driving up hydro bills. Well, the letter I just read makes that quite clear, that the green jobs claim from the Liberals is greatly inflated and that the Liberals never bothered to do any cost-benefit analysis of the big flagship $7-billion Samsung deal. This is driving up energy costs for seniors.

It also pointed out, on the all-important job front, that they claimed through their Green Energy Act that there were going to be 50,000 jobs created. The Auditor General reports that many of these jobs are short-term jobs and that in fact they may be gone in just a few short years. The Auditor General estimates that 30,000 of these jobs are likely to be short-term construction jobs, lasting from one to three years.

The Auditor General also notes that studies in other jurisdictions have shown that for each job created through renewable energy, two to four jobs are often lost in other sectors as a result of higher electricity prices. So not only do we have seniors unable to pay their hydro bill and looking for some relief; actually, for each job you create, you lose a job.

As an example of that, Mr. Speaker, I’m now Northern Development and Mines critic. Really, one of the greatest opportunities for job creation in the north is the Ring of Fire. We hear the government speak about that a lot, but the Ring of Fire needs some help to be able to develop. Also, for the province to fully benefit from the resource, we need to process the ore here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the Ring of Fire is about 500 kilometres north of Thunder Bay; there, they have a huge chromite discovery and nickel discovery. Once it’s eventually developed, they would concentrate the ore at the mine sites and then ship it, probably by slurry pipeline, to a road which needs to be built to Webequie, a First Nations community, by truck down to a railway, which then would go, ideally, to Timmins or Sudbury to be concentrated. The big question is, will that refining of the ore happen in Ontario at all, or will the train keep on going to Quebec, which has lower energy costs?

Or, as has been asked in some questions in this Legislature as recently as today, will the ore just be shipped to China, where it would be refined there, and we’d lose out on those jobs?

The reason we’d lose out on the jobs is the point that a third of the cost of refining the chromite is energy. If our energy costs here in Ontario are completely out of whack with other jurisdictions—they’re moving that way as a result of some of the policies of the government—then what happens is that we lose all those refining jobs and many, many other jobs in the province of Ontario.

As the opposition, we’ve been focusing on the priorities of jobs, but also we’ve been focusing, and we’ve been making, Mr. Speaker, some pretty constructive suggestions, on how to improve things. We’ve suggested that we need to have a change in the apprenticeship system in the province of Ontario. We need to modernize the apprentice system, create 200,000 skilled jobs positions and have it more integrated with community colleges. We had colleges here last week, and if you met with them, they pointed out that there’s going to be a gap in the next few years.

We need skilled workers, but we’ll also have a higher unemployment rate and a greater demand for skilled workers. That can be solved by some of the measures we’re proposing, by changing the apprenticeship ratio.

We have this crazy system in Ontario where, as an example, if you’re an electrician, if you’re a small company, if you have one electrician you can have one apprentice; if you have two electricians you can have two apprentices; and—the member from Simcoe North can tell me if I get this wrong—if you have three electrician journeymen you can have three apprentices. To have four, you need six electricians. Talk about stopping a company from growing and stopping an opportunity for young people to get jobs.

To have five apprentices, you need nine journeymen, and if you lose one of those journeymen you’ve got to get rid of the apprentice. How ridiculous is that, especially when seven other provinces have a one-to-one ratio, which allows much more opportunity for young people to be able to get a job? So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government has misplaced priorities.

The other focus that we, as the opposition, have been saying that the government needs to deal with is the debt crisis here in the province of Ontario, the fact that they’re on track to double the debt of the province; that revenues, as the critic pointed out, were actually record revenues: I believe it was $108 billion last year. But government spending just tends to keep going up, especially in wages, which is the biggest part of the budget.

So we’ve been making a very reasonable suggestion, and that is to have a public sector wage freeze so that we can get our finances under control. I believe it was pointed out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that the public sector is currently being paid about 27% higher than the private sector for similar jobs. So if you want to maintain services, then you really do need to have this wage freeze to save the government about $2 billion a year and get us back towards a balanced situation.

Right now, the government’s spending $2 million an hour more than it’s bringing in in revenue, and that is just simply not sustainable over the long term, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions. You just can’t keep on spending that way—well, you can keep on spending that way as long as someone’s willing to lend you money, but when they have actually stopped lending you money, all of a sudden you have no more money to spend. That’s the case we see in places like Greece at this time. We don’t want to be going down that road.

Unfortunately, the trend right now is in the wrong direction. We had a $14-billion deficit last year—in other words, we spent $14 billion more than we brought in last year—and this year, it’s going up to $16 billion. The finance minister likes to spin that as somehow an improvement, but the real numbers are that the deficit’s actually growing this year.

I’m just about out of time, Mr. Speaker. So in conclusion, this bill would affect a very small number of seniors. If we did something like what was proposed by the opposition, to bring in relief in the form of taking the HST off of electricity bills in particular, this would be broad-based relief for all seniors. I have many more letters and emails from seniors in my riding which I could have read into the record; I didn’t. Some of them have very large lettering pointing out that they’re not happy. It’s very clear that that is something that would benefit all seniors across the province,

whereas this bill, Bill 2, will benefit just a very few seniors.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: The government bill to address the need to assist seniors to remain in their homes, while admirable and with good intent, will not help seniors in my riding and across the province that are in need. It will not help those on the line between poverty and just doing okay. They won’t be able to take advantage of the tax credit because they don’t have $10,000 to spend, and those who live in apartments—their landlords aren’t going to spend $10,000 to get a $1,50