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

May 19, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-May-19 (PDF)

L035A - Wed 19 May 2010 / Mer 19 mai 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 19 May 2010 Mercredi 19 mai 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

TAXATION

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

TAXATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

TAXATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

RETIREMENT HOMES

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

BIODIVERSITY

POLICE

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

TAXATION

PHARMACISTS

VISITORS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

NOTICES OF REASONED AMENDMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

HEALTH CARE

ENERGY RATES

DISASTER RELIEF

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

GEOFF PARKER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LUSO CANADIAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY ACT (TAX RELIEF), 2010

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(FOOD BANK DONATION TAX CREDIT

FOR FARMERS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES IMPÔTS (CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

AUX AGRICULTEURS POUR DONS

À UNE BANQUE ALIMENTAIRE)

CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CONDOMINIUMS

1518186 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2010

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2010

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF THE PURCHASING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA INC.

ACT, 2010

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

LEONARD REILLY

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

SERVICE CENTRES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

WIND TURBINES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes, the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 20, 2010, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That at 5 p.m. on that day, those filed amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, May 31, 2010. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, on the day the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

M me France Gélinas: I cannot—

Interjection.

M me France Gélinas: I don’t think I have to say that I share my time, but if I do, consider it done.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with the motion that has just been put forward. Bill 21 is the worst bill I have ever seen since I’ve been an MPP. I don’t know who drafted this. I don’t know who advised you of this, but this is terrible and horrible. We, the NDP, have submitted 92 amendments, 92 amendments that would give us the opportunity to go from this terrible bill, where all the cards are stacked for an industry dominated to make money hand over fist, and nothing is there to protect the patient, the resident, the tenants—those who will live in the retirement homes in Ontario.

We have brought forward amendments. We are stating our case and, to their credit, the majority government has adopted some of the amendments that we are working through. But in order for the dozens and dozens of amendments that we haven’t gone through yet to be understood and voted upon in a democratic fashion, you have to give us time to stake our claim. To say that, no matter where we’re at, it doesn’t matter if there are 60 amendments left, they will all be considered rejected without even having listened to them—how is that democracy?

Then, when we go to third reading—third reading of a bill that is so important, and yet, right now, so terrible—we will have all of 20 minutes. That’s it; that’s all.

I have been waiting for a law to govern and legislate retirement homes for a long time. At the beginning of 2000-01, we in the field of health care were seeing what was happening in the retirement home business, and we wanted legislation. We saw the terrible stories unfold where people died of starvation, where people burned to death in their beds because there was no regulation, and we wanted that to change.

Finally, the government listened, and in 2007, they did a consultation. Alleluia: They had seen the light of day; they realized that this industry had to be regulated. So they did the consultation. I was happy at the time. So, 2007 finished; 2008 went by; 2009 went by. I brought this question forward: When are you going to bring about legislation for retirement homes? I asked this question in the House multiple times. Every time I was told: “It’s coming, and you will be happy when it comes.”

Finally, in the spring of 2010, it came. Bill 21 came. I guess I should be happy legislation had been put forward, but by the time I had read through this legislation, I was appalled. I cannot believe that in this day and age in Ontario we would put a piece of legislation forward like this that is deliberately set out to have two parallel systems of long-term care.

One is the system of long-term-care homes, with nursing homes and homes for the aged that we know, where the government takes the responsibility and provides the care to vulnerable residents of long-term-care homes, with a series of 300 pieces of legislation specifically targeted to quality of care, because we realize that the people who live in our long-term-care homes are vulnerable and they need protection.

We now have, with Bill 21, the set-up of a parallel system of for-profit long-term-care homes where the residents, the tenants of those homes, will have no protection whatsoever. Things as simple as saying a health care professional should sign your plan of care—this amendment was turned down. Things as simple as informed consent, that you should require informed consent, and people should know when to require it and what this means—this amendment was also turned down. Things as simple as, if you have to provide your resident with some information, you cannot charge the resident a fee for that information—that was also turned down.

I cannot tell you the disaster that is waiting for us in the retirement home industry in Ontario. I thought it was bad before, but that is nothing compared to what this piece of legislation will do. This is why we are bringing forward amendments. This is why we need the time to explain those amendments to the people in government: so that they wake up to the reality of what they’re about to do.

They are about to set a parallel fee-for-service—if you have the money to pay, there is no cap on the amount of care you can buy in a retirement home. If they have the money to pay, they can purchase unregulated, uncensored, unlegislated care for a fee. We all know where that will lead.

When we went through the Long-Term Care Act, all of the impetus, the energy, the effort that was poured into that act was specifically to recognize that those people are fragile; they’re frail; they deserve our protection. Now, we will have the exact same level-of-care recipient in a for-profit retirement home that can offer any level of care they want with no regulation whatsoever. If you’re willing to pay, they will provide it, no questions asked.

With this piece of legislation, I can foresee many long-term-care homes that would say they are burdened by the quality legislation that we have put on long-term-care homes switch their licence: “To heck with being a long-term-care home. I can do the exact same thing to the exact same resident in the exact same premises and not have to account for my actions and care to anybody but my shareholders”—whose primary motive is going to be money, not quality of care. This is one of the things that will happen.

The second thing that will happen is what is already happening here: People who depend on the retirement home operator for their care will be taken advantage of in every way you can fathom. They will be taken advantage of monetarily, physically, emotionally—you name it. The Liberal government has set up the perfect storm.

When the government brings a piece of legislation in health care that is good, I have no problem supporting it. I have done it in the past. When they do good things, I’m on record, I support what they do, I vote for it, and I speak openly of it. Sometimes my caucus doesn’t like it, because I give kudos to the Liberals, but when they do a good job I have no problem saying that they’re doing a good job. But when they bring forward a terrible piece of legislation, it is my duty to speak out against it.

Not only are they bringing forward a horrible and terrible piece of legislation that will put thousands of vulnerable seniors at risk in Ontario, they are pushing it through with the privilege of a majority to have 20 minutes for third reading. To me, this is an affront to democracy—to not even allow us to present the amendments we want because it will be time-allocated.

Just so that people understand, what this motion is for—the NDP caucus has brought forward many, many amendments to Bill 21 because we think that it is a terrible bill. What the Liberals are doing right now is saying, “You’ve talked enough. We don’t want to hear from you anymore. Just present your amendments. We will take it for granted that we will turn them all down, no matter what’s in them. You won’t have a chance to present them. You won’t have a chance to read them for the record. You won’t have a chance to defend them or bring your arguments as to why you want them.

We will vote them down.” How could that be? Ontario has a democracy, don’t we? How can it be that they do things like this?

A lot of people within the health care system have asked for those amendments to be brought forward, and nobody will ever hear about them. Nobody will ever know them. They will never be on the record anywhere because the Liberals have decided that they will be deemed rejected. Their amendments will be deemed approved, but the amendments from the opposition, the people who are there to hold the government to account, all of our amendments will be deemed rejected, without being heard, without being on the record, without being explained, without being debated—this, in Ontario, in 2010, in a democracy. That doesn’t seem like a democracy to me.

But the motion goes even further. Not only will you not have a chance to hear those amendments—they are going to be voted down as if they had never existed—when it comes time for third reading, we will have all of 20 minutes for third reading. Twenty minutes is not a whole lot of time.

We are dealing, in the retirement home business, with a potentially very vulnerable group. I agree that not everybody who lives in a retirement home is vulnerable. There are a lot of vibrant seniors out there who can defend their rights, who can make informed choices and who don’t need our protection. For those people, things will be good, but things are already good for those people. They don’t need the law. The people who do need the law are the critical mass of vulnerable people—people who are losing their autonomy, people who are becoming frailer, people who will be the ones purchasing care from retirement homes. Those are the vulnerable people.

I’ve asked the government many times, “Tell me where in the continuum of care do you see the retirement home business fitting?” In my mind, I see that you should at first try to support people in their own homes, so we would have a strong and robust home care system that would give people the support they need to live in their own homes with respect, dignity and security. As they age, they may have to move into supportive housing, where there’s a little bit more of a formal set-up for care, there’s supervision 24/7, and there is on-site access to care. Then, in my mind, people would move into retirement homes.

Here again, the retirement home is a home where care would be a part, and the bill says that. You would need at least two elements of care to be designated as a retirement home, and then, as people’s needs increase, you would go into a long-term-care home. If that continues, you would go into complex continuing care. In my mind, that is the continuum of care. As people age and become frail, their needs increase. Not everybody who gets older gets frail and has needs, but a lot of them do, so we should have a good continuum of care for those people. There is none of this in the bill—none of it.

The retirement home is not a piece of the continuum of care for long-term care—not at all. The retirement home bill, Bill 21, sets up a parallel, for-profit long-term-care system. There are no caps on the type of care that you do. You will have people in retirement homes in Ontario who are frailer than what you find in complex continuing care in our hospitals. The way this bill is set up, there will be people with equal needs who will be in our retirement home system. This is completely absurd. We’ve waited a long time for this piece of legislation.

I have never been that disappointed in the actions of our government. They really, really are doing something terrible and awful. I can’t believe this is happening. It is happening under my watch, and now my watch is being cut short thanks to the motion of Ms. Smith. I can’t stand this.

I stand here before you and say all this when I know that their minds are made up. Their minds are made up on all kinds of levels. They have their minds made up that they want to push this bill through no matter what the opposition has to say, no matter what the people of Ontario have to say and no matter what the needs of the residents in residential care are.

Mr. Paul Miller: And they don’t even pay attention.

M me France Gélinas: This is hard to believe.

We have this potentially vulnerable group that will live in the retirement homes of Ontario. They will be out of sight. They will be sheltered from public scrutiny. Unless you walk into one of those homes, you won’t know what’s going on in there. We’ve never said that all tenants are vulnerable, but a critical mass of them are going to be. There is nothing in this bill that guarantees the quality of the care that the retirement homes will have to provide. There is very little oversight of those retirement homes, and it is now written in law that you don’t have to provide any oversight of those retirement homes.

I cannot support Bill 21. People who care for the elderly, the frail and the vulnerable of this province cannot support Bill 21. It is a danger to anybody who cares about people in need of protection.

What Bill 21 will do is create a third party regulatory model, what we call self-regulation. Well, self-regulation, the way it is written in this bill, is set up to be dominated by the industry. You have mainly for-profit—there are a few not-for-profit retirement homes out there, I must say, but the majority of the industry in Ontario is made up of for-profit retirement homes. Those will be the people who will self-regulate themselves. And whenever we ask to put elements of quality of care into those regulations, the government says, “We are hands-off.

It’s going to be this third party authority that will self-regulate.” How incredible is this? An industry that, by its definition, has shareholders there to make a profit will self-regulate, and the government says, “We don’t want to impose any quality-of-care requirements because we want this to be arm’s-length. We want a for-profit industry to regulate itself, to decide what they will do in retirement homes in Ontario.”

Can anybody else but me see that this is a parallel to the fox guarding the henhouse? Would that be a good model of care? I see somebody who knows quite a bit about raising chickens. She and her husband have been chicken farmers for many years. Has she ever hired a fox to look after her chickens? I don’t think so. Nobody would do that. Well, we are setting up a bill, Bill 21, where we will have people motivated by making a profit looking after the quality of care the residents should receive. This is incomprehensible. This is unacceptable. This bill has to change.

In normal practice, how do you change? You hold hearings, which we did. We voted in favour of second reading because we wanted this bill to go to committee, we wanted the government to hear the outrage out there, and they did. The health care providers came out in droves and told the government that this bill was completely insane, that it had to be changed, that it would put people at risk, and the list goes on and on. Ask any health care providers association in Ontario. They have all weighed in on this bill and told the government to change it. That’s the regular process in Ontario.

When a bill goes to second reading, it goes to committee, people listen, we learn from the knowledge that exists out there in the field, and then we make changes. Well, we are in the process of making those changes. We are in the process of what we call clause-by-clause, where we take this bill, which is quite thick, and we go through it clause by clause and say, “Do you realize that the way this is written right now, it will mean this out in the field? Why don’t we change this and put in that language instead?” So, in going through clause-by-clause, we have brought forward close to 100 amendments to make this bill stronger.

We were going through this at, I would say, a normal speed. Nobody has been really holding up the process, except the Liberals had a request at the very beginning—they were not quite ready, and they requested a half-hour recess. Everybody was okay with that: “If they need a little bit more time, we will give them a little bit more time. We’re all in this together. We want to make the best laws we can for the people of Ontario.” Then we started our work and were going through.

Now, about halfway through, we are told that this democratic process is not going to take place anymore. Ms. Smith stands up, puts out a motion and says, “We don’t care what you have in your amendments. We’ve already decided that we’re going to vote ‘no’ for all of them and we’re going to vote ‘yes’ for all of our amendments”—the Liberals’ amendments being very few, by the way.

They don’t care about the democratic process. When they wanted half an hour to get ready, the opposition said yes. We wanted to work collaboratively, we wanted to be positive in this process which we know is very important. But then, halfway through, the government decided, “We’re not going to listen to you anymore. We don’t care about your amendments. Bring forward whatever you want, but you won’t have a chance to put it into the record. You won’t have a chance to state your arguments. You won’t have a chance for debate. Take it for granted that we’re voting no to all of them.” I don’t like that.

I have something to say. The people of Ontario want to be heard. Lots of people put in lots of work to try to make this a better bill. Lots of people in Ontario waited a very long time for this piece of legislation to be brought forward, and now that it has finally been brought forward and the democratic process is in action and we want some changes, we are being told, “You can’t. Starting at 5 o’clock on Thursday, who cares what you have to say? We will vote on those amendments, and take it for granted that yours will all be voted ‘no.’” This is not democracy. The people of Ontario deserve better than this.

Don’t we deserve better than that on this piece of legislation? We’ve been asking for this for 10 years. What would a couple of more hours do?

They’ve had lots of chances. The consultation was finished in 2007. It took three years. It took them three years from the end of consultations to bring forward the bill. It’s not like we didn’t push them, not like we didn’t ask for this bill to be brought forward. I asked the question repeatedly in the House, “When are you going to regulate retirement homes?”

Now that we are finally in this process that the people of Ontario have asked for, have watched and want to be heard in, we get this motion this morning that says, “Nobody wants to hear from you. We don’t care what you have to say. We will take all of your motions, whatever they are, and vote no.”

I’m very disappointed. I have waited a long time. I’m worried about what this bill will do. To me, some of the most important amendments that we’re making to the bill—amendments that, with the proper arguments, I hope I will be able to convince the people on the Liberal side to support—are yet to come, amendments regarding the detention of tenants in their own units, something that is illegal in Ontario. I want to explain to them why I don’t want this in the bill. They are yet to come. But nobody will ever hear those arguments. They will never be read into the record. Nobody will know. It’s as if they don’t care.

They don’t care about a critical mass of vulnerable people for whom the people of Ontario have asked that the government step in and bring regulation.

I wanted to give a couple of examples of what happens when an industry like this is left unregulated. Why do we need good, strong legislation regarding retirement homes? Let me give you an example. The example involves the case of Janet Longford, who was a private operator of a home. She had a 16-bed home, located in Orillia. In 2006, she pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessities of life because she severely neglected Sarah Eisemann, one of her residents.

A Superior Court judge sentenced her to six months of house arrest and three years’ probation after hearing—if there are people who are squeamish out there, turn your TV off; you’re not going to like what’s coming—that she starved them; malnutrition. Mrs. Eisemann was covered with bedsores—anybody in health care? Stage four bedsores are not a pretty sight—and was restrained.

What happens when the industry is not regulated? The owners of the homes do whatever they want. If one of their tenants is a little bit hard to handle, they restrain them. If they still won’t listen, they starve them. And if they still won’t listen, they won’t provide them basic care, like wound care when somebody has bedsores.

Am I making this up? I’m not making this up. Go to the Superior Court of Justice of Orillia and read the whole transcript of what went on. This went on here in Ontario, and this is why we need legislation that protects vulnerable people.

But the Liberal government has completely refused to put any quality-of-care element into Bill 21. What we have is a self-regulated industry where the authority to make bylaws and to decide on quality-of-care issues will be made by the fox in the henhouse. It will be made by the profit-driven industry operator. I can’t understand why we are doing this. I can’t understand why; I can’t understand what good will come of it. To me, we are failing the people of Ontario.

This self-regulation regime, to me, is like a fear of government regulation. There is a role for government in a democracy to protect the most vulnerable within our midst. That’s why we’ve asked for the regulation of retirement homes, so there are no more Janet Longfords who restrain, who starve, who deny basic care to their residents. But there is nothing in this bill that would keep many, many other Janet Longfords from starving, from restraining and from failing to provide basic care to their residents. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will do this. How come we don’t learn from our mistakes?

How come we don’t learn from what has motivated the people of Ontario to ask for legislation?

I wanted to go more into the details of the bill, but my colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is our critic for seniors, and he too wants to talk about some of the horrific issues happening in retirement homes as we speak, and that this bill, the way it is constructed, will completely ignore. We will give the people of Ontario the false pretense that since we now have legislation, the retirement home system is now regulated. Doesn’t that sound good? If I know nothing about long-term care and my grandmother needs a place to stay, I go and see a retirement home that is legislated by the government of Ontario.

Now, doesn’t that give it—you know, it must be good. The government says it’s good; it has given it a licence. Yes, except that the licence is not based on quality-of-care issues; it’s based on making sure those industries make a profit.

I have to sit down, but my colleague will take on the fight.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I’m pleased to make comments on Bill 21.

The retirement industry in Ontario has been waiting a very long time to be regulated. They’ve invited regulation, and Bill 21 is the result of that. Right now, we have two organizations, a non-profit organization and a for-profit organization—both voluntary—and their members are not regulated, but by moral suasion have to meet certain standards in Ontario. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of retirement homes that choose not to join the voluntary groups, and they are in no way regulated by either the government or their peers.

As I say, this bill is supposed to bring all retirement homes into the fold for the first time and regulate them for the betterment of seniors. That’s what we’re talking about. This will be a growth industry in the future. Demographics say we’re basically going to double the number of seniors within a decade, and many of them will have needs that cannot be met in the home. There’s no doubt about it: The preferable place for a senior is in their own home, and God bless them, many live as a couple or alone and, with a lot of assistance, are able to stay in their home. That is a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately, there are some that have higher needs and can no longer be cared for in their own home. Traditionally, they have first gone to the hospital if they were ill, and then they would be placed in a long-term-care facility. There are approximately 73,000 long-term-care facilities in Ontario. There are only 40,000 retirement homes. This government, unfortunately, in my opinion, has failed to realize that our seniors are going to double in the next decade, and they have basically put a freeze on new retirement homes.

They have made an attempt to refurbish older units and bring them up to date, and that’s an admirable cause. However, as far as new retirement and long-term-care beds, there seems to be some doubt; if you look at one website of the government, it says so many beds, and if you look at another, it has a different number. But basically, in my investigation of that field I feel that there are few or no new retirement homes either being built or planned by this government.

They cannot ignore the problem of the doubling of seniors during the next 10 years, so what is their plan? I believe that their plan is to emphasize retirement homes rather than long-term-care facilities. They say no. What they say is, “Retirement homes are going to be low-care facilities and long-term-care facilities are going to be higher-need facilities; that’s the distinction.” They say that, but they do nothing about it. There is nothing in Bill 21 that puts a limit on the needs of individuals going into retirement homes, individuals who, in my opinion, should be in long-term-care facilities, but they’re not going into long-term-care facilities.

Long-term-care facilities—again, the figures are in some doubt—are subsidized by the government per bed to the tune of not less than $40,000 per annum to as high as $55,000 per annum. Retirement homes, on the other hand, are not subsidized in any way directly. However, there are some non-profit retirement homes in the group of retirement homes. For each retirement home which is occupied by a person who should be in long-term care, there’s a great saving to the taxpayer and to this government.

Why don’t they just go into long-term-care facilities if they have that higher need? Well, if you’re not building any new ones and the population is increasing, there are no beds. In my city of Cambridge, we have over 35 individuals, seniors, who were ill; everything that could be done for them has been done, and they’re ready to be moved into long-term-care facilities because they have higher needs. There are no beds available in Cambridge, or anywhere else in our region, as I understand it. So these individuals now have their home—forget about cost for a minute.

We’ve taken these seniors and forced them to have their hospital as their home. A person goes to a hospital because they are ill or in the case of the joyous event of the birth of a child. They don’t go to a hospital to live there as their home. That’s probably the worst thing we can do to an individual, especially an individual who is fully aware of the situation and has all their faculties. Yet, day after day, month after month, these individuals call Cambridge Memorial Hospital their home.

It’s not right. I don’t think I’ll get any argument from anyone. It’s just not right. But that’s what happens when we put a cap on or freeze new long-term-care beds.

What this government hopes is that the needs of individuals who can no longer remain in their homes and are seniors will be fulfilled by retirement homes. That’s why there’s no cap on the needs. In other words, they can take any patient in a retirement home, which is privately run or run by municipalities—they can take any patient, no matter how high their needs are; there’s no restriction. If there was, then they would need to move into a long-term-care facility or a hospital.

But there is no restriction, and when questioned as to why there’s no restriction, if this is an intermediate step to long-term care, there’s really no answer forthcoming.

Does that mean that this bill does not recognize high needs? No. It not only does not put a limit on it, it does not recognize the fact that there are individuals who will come into a retirement home only because there’s no other place to go in this province—absolutely no other place because there are no extra beds.

We have approximately 73,000 long-term-care beds in this province, and they are all full. We have only 40,000 retirement homes in this province, and they are not all full at this moment because one is subsidized by the government and one you have to pay the full shot, and the fees are, obviously, therefore high. You have to pay for each additional personal service you might require.

I predict that, over the next 10 years, the retirement industry is going to grow enormously. Retirement homes as a segment of our community are going to easily double from 40,000 to 80,000 beds over the next 10 years, and probably greater, because one thing we discovered in questioning as we were going through clause-by-clause—that’s why clause-by-clause of a bill is really important.

This bill has over 100 sections. Each

section has a meaning, and it’s either good, it’s bad or it’s indifferent, but it’s an opportunity to study each section, to ask questions about it, though I must admit for the first time since I have been in the Legislature, 14 years, I didn’t get answers to all the questions I had—it was ignored; it was just take it or leave it, and you didn’t get your questions answered, because the questions are really important at times.

For instance, there’s no limit on this retirement home. There’s no limit on the needs of the individual. So it simply means that—well, let me just go back. Retirement homes are now going to be governed by self-regulation. Self-regulation has been used by a former government and this government in professions all the time. For instance, the law society is self-regulation. It governs lawyers. The college of physicians is self-regulation, and that has spread to nurses now and teachers. It’s a good way of governing. It saves the government money and, therefore, your taxes can be lower because we’re asking these professions to regulate themselves at their own cost.

This is not a profession—retirement homes. These are businesses. It’s a little different. We don’t say to General Motors, “You regulate yourself when it comes to safety.” We say to General Motors, Chrysler and the auto industry, which are businesses, “We’re not asking you to regulate yourself. We’re going to tell you what the minimum standards are that we want for the protection of the consumer.”

Not in this case. Here we have a group of businesses who are going to regulate themselves, and when we proposed an amendment that said, “Look, these are not professions. These are businesses. Let’s ensure that a majority of the directors on the board who govern this authority are in fact representatives of the public and not the industry,” this government said no. They didn’t really give a reason; they just said no. There is no reason. This is not a profession. This is a group of businesses, God bless them. They are totally in control of carrying on their businesses and regulating their own industry.

That leads to a couple of problems. Because we have no limit on the level of care and they’re regulating their own business, one of the first things they’re going to do is introduce “restraint.” That’s a simple word. It’s innocuous; it doesn’t mean a lot. But retirement homes are now going to have the right to restrain a senior. Oh, yes, there are a whole bunch of words in there that are supposed to protect seniors, but the fact is that these residents—because they’re no longer tenants.

This bill takes all of these retirement people who are living there, who have been tenants with certain tenant rights, and all of a sudden changes the name. We said, “Why are you changing the name?” “Oh, they’re going to stay the same. They’re still tenants.” “Well, why don’t we call them tenants? That’s what they are.” “No, we’re going to call them residents from now on.” We couldn’t figure it out until later on, and you say “Wow.” All of a sudden, tenants—some of us live in condos in Toronto. I’m a tenant—and my landlord can come into my premises and restrain me by mechanical means or by drugs?

We’ve introduced a new concept into the bill of rights in Ontario and Canada, that tenants can now be, physically or by drugs, restrained—for their own good, of course. Who determines this “for their own good”? The industry. We’re right back where we started. It’s like a Catch-22.

How about confinement? Can we confine tenants? Can my landlord come into my room and say, “You’re not going to live here anymore. We’re going to find a place,” or, “We’re putting big locks on your doors and you won’t be able to come out until we tell you to come out”? That’s actually happening in Ontario right now, because it’s contained in this bill: that individuals who are tenants and are paying for their upkeep and their services are subject to being restrained, to being confined.

I never thought I would see that in Ontario without a judge’s order or an independent third person such as a minister, who could protect the public and is subject to public review. But no, this is going to happen somewhere by self-governing, and that’s not the place. When you’re coming to restriction of freedom, whether it’s for their good or not, the place to regulate that is in the public purview, not in a private self-regulation scheme. Those are restrictions on one’s freedom, and they have no place in this bill, in my opinion.

As I say, if you are looking to make money in the next few years, I can only suggest that you look closely at the retirement home industry, because it is about to explode. That assumes that I am correct that this government will continue to restrict or freeze the number of new beds given to long-term-care facilities. The last time long-term-care beds were frozen was also a Liberal government, if I recall. I think it was Premier Peterson who decided to freeze long-term-care beds in order to save money and—

Mr. Vic Dhillon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The bill that we’re discussing is about retirement homes. It’s got nothing to do with long-term-care homes or what the member is talking about.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Well, I’ll listen carefully and make sure the speaker adheres to the rules.

The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: The parliamentary assistant tried to cut off debate in committee in the same manner: by arguing relevance. He should know that he’s not in a courtroom, that we are here to exercise our constitutional right to speak the truth, our constitutional right to represent our constituents, and we are not going to be subject to censorship. It’s one of the few times that censorship has raised its ugly head in committee in my 14 years, but it happened in this bill, and I’m really disappointed that it did happen.

This bill puts us on the slippery slope to privatized health care. The regulating of retirement homes tells me that this government has no plan to invest in new long-term-care facilities and is abandoning the needs of our seniors.

To quote a press release posted to this government’s website two months ago, “Ontario is rebuilding 4,183 existing beds and updating facilities at 37 long-term-care homes.” These are not new beds; these are existing beds. You are insulting the seniors of this province by implying that you are looking out for their future needs.

Many seniors in Ontario cannot afford to live in privately owned retirement homes. Rooms at retirement homes cost between $1,500 and $5,000 a month, and are not subsidized by government funding. According to the report “Boomer Tsunami” by Judy Steed, it costs $43,000 per year per person for a place in a long-term-care facility. The regulation of retirement homes creates a new class of lesser personal care. Seniors in this province will be forced from hospital to retirement homes because there are no long-term-care beds available.

This government has frozen the construction of long-term-care facilities, and my fear is that seniors will be moved from hospitals to retirement homes, where the level of care they require may not be available. That is already happening in my jurisdiction. I recently visited a retirement home that just opened, and there were three new residents and all of them were coming directly from the hospital.

While I agree that retirement homes require some regulation, this is not what today’s seniors need. They need new long-term-care facilities, not more government red tape. Regulating retirement homes might be a good idea, but it totally ignores the real problem, and it’s a cheap way of getting patients out of hospitals. This creates a dangerous situation and puts the safety and well-being of seniors at risk.

As a senior, your dream of a safe and comfortable home when you need extra personal care is gone under this government. This government is saving money at the expense of some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

The proposed bill confirms this government has no plan to build additional long-term-care facilities in our province. This government has abandoned the seniors in Ontario.

I received an email from the president of the residents’ council at a retirement residence in Kanata. He writes:

“The proposed legislation would have considerable impact on both our lifestyles and finances, yet it seems almost impossible to obtain knowledge of even its basic content, scope and intent.

Do your officials not realize that there are many hundreds of residents of retirement residences throughout the province of Ontario who have enjoyed a fine lifestyle of their own choosing for many years, satisfied that their residences are well managed and self-regulated by the membership in the Ontario Retirement Communities Association, their own residents’ council and excellent management teams employed by their administrations? Also, that if dissatisfied, they are free to leave on appropriate notice and seek residence in a wide variety of well-appointed and managed for-profit residences.

It would also seem that by ignoring the vast area of knowledge and expertise, your officials are missing a great resource in formulating any required legislation.”

The reason that particular quotation is important is because it assumes something, and the writer assumes something: that people can afford to go into retirement homes. They’re not subsidized, like long-term-care facilities. Where are we going to put our seniors who have no large pension, for instance? Some 70% of the residents of this province, as I understand it, have no private pension plan. They are totally reliant on Canada pension and old age security and, of course, what savings they may have accumulated. How are they going to afford to pay $43,000, $45,000 a year?

After paying income tax, that means they would have to have an income of $60,000, give or take—possibly higher. How are they going to afford to go to a retirement home? I don’t see how they can. There will be so many who cannot. They can’t stay at home, because their needs are too great, and they can’t go to a long-term-care facility. About the only place they’re going to end up is in the hospital again, and we’re right back where we started, where we’re condemning our seniors to live in a hospital as their home.

My colleague Elizabeth Witmer called on this government to develop a plan for long-term care after many of us were approached by nursing homes desperate for increased funding for front-line care. You recall that a little while ago it was determined that the allowances for meals at our prisons in Ontario were higher than the money provided for long-term-care facilities. As a matter of fact, the government did listen in this case—and provided a pittance. But they had to recognize that there was something wrong with the logic of paying more for meals in prisons than there was for our seniors in long-term-care facilities. It was a strange situation, to say the least.

Witmer launched a petition proposing a six-point plan to improve nursing home care. The plan called for:

—a sector-wide staffing increase of 45,000 full-time positions within a year;

—expedite the redevelopment of Ontario’s 35,000 oldest long-term-care beds. As I mentioned, the government has in fact started, in a small step, to renovate certain beds;

—achieve an average of three worked hours of personal care per day within a year;

—simplify the regulations which govern nursing homes;

—produce a comprehensive plan with benchmarks to reduce long-term-care wait-lists of more than 25,000 people. I think it’s substantially higher than that now, and it will continue to increase; and

—address inflationary pressures by adequately funding the increased operating costs of long-term-care homes.

The plan fell on deaf ears. Instead, we have Dalton McGuinty’s record on long-term-care facilities, which is dismal.

Allow me to share some facts. Long-term-care residents receive far less personal care than long-term-care residents in Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick. These points are similarly applicable to retirement homes, of course, simply because we’re talking about the care, with government help, at a certain level in long-term-care facilities that is surely higher than that in many retirement homes.

Ontario’s nursing home residents receive 2.6 worked hours of personal care per day. This number is much lower than the three-plus worked hours provided by the three other provinces, and those are Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick. This gap in care is steadily increasing due to a shortage of staff.

Long-term-care homes are short-staffed since they do not have the resources to hire enough front-line staff to provide the level of personal care that residents require. As a result, Ontario’s dedicated long-term-care staff is overworked. The lack of staff means that Ontario will continue to lag behind other provinces in the amount of personal care they provide to nursing home residents.

Some 35,000 seniors live in nursing homes which do not meet more home-like design—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Cambridge, I’m sure you’re going to relate that information to retirement homes.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Yes. Thank you, Speaker. As you point out, when we’re talking about our long-term-care facilities, the level of care, one would assume, would be the same and no greater in retirement homes. That’s my analogy. I’m trying to work on it, Speaker, but if I stray, please bring me back to the point of this bill.

As I did mention, there were some small steps taken to attempt to remedy the matter, but all the resources are going into renovations and none into new beds, and it doesn’t help those individuals who usually in this province, I guess, are seniors. We equate them with over 65, I hope, though I must admit that the movies define seniors as over 55. I think the seniors’ level should be higher. I think that 65 is the old standard for seniors, and I would think that 75—in so many cases, I’ve met so many individuals who are still playing golf at 85. That did not happen too many years ago.

There are more than 400 regulations which govern nursing homes. There are going to be a lot more that govern retirement homes, it looks like, because the bill itself has over 100 sections, and that’s even before we start with the regulations. Those regulations, I fear, are going to be massive; it’s the only way to describe it. I don’t know how anybody is going to make true sense of them.

Dedicated front-line health workers are preoccupied with measuring the amount of coffee in long-term-care residents’ cups or labelling toothbrushes instead of delivering quality personal care to residents.

As I said at the beginning, retirement homes are going to be the growth industry. As a matter of fact, one of the interesting points that came out: My theory, which remains to be proven—and we will find out over the next few years, a very few short years, whether my theory is correct—is that this whole regulation scheme is merely an attempt to save money and privatize health care by moving people from long-term-care beds over to retirement beds which the government does not subsidize. But it could even be worse. Right now, we have 73,000 long-term-care beds.

One of the questions—I forget who asked it—the other day in committee: We were talking about a mixed building—let’s take a high-rise of 10 storeys, and one whole floor was a retirement home, that whole floor, and the rest were long-term-care beds. The question was, what is it? I mean, is it a long-term-care facility building or is it a retirement home facility? The ministry staff stated quite forthrightly that yes, you could have a mixed use of this kind. You could have one floor which would be retirement homes and nine floors which would be long-term-care facilities.

Then the follow-up question was really interesting: Could a person who had a mixed building of this kind change a floor which now had long-term-care beds and wasn’t making much money for the company, and make it into a retirement home, which would bring a bigger profit? Yes. They said that could be done. In other words, it’s conceivable that the 73,000 nursing home beds we have now—we have 40,000 retirement home beds—would actually decrease. Never mind increase, because they’ve been frozen and they’re not going to increase.

But they could actually start decreasing if the people in the industry, the seniors industry if you want to call it that, decided, “Hey, we can make a lot more money with a retirement home than we can with this long-term-care bed level that we presently have. Let’s close that up”—as far as I know, they said they could do it—“and make it a retirement home.”

So we could actually have—I had always, in my own mind, calculated that we’re going to be stuck at 73,000 beds for long-term-care facilities, and the retirement beds would start to increase drastically over the next 10 years. I guess it’s going to have to—if people can afford it. But those 73,000 beds could decline because of the possibility of reconverting floors in a mixed building to be a retirement home because there’s more money in it. That’s a logical—some people frown, but the profit motive is an efficient motive; it’s what makes our economy efficient.

Unfortunately, some of the side effects are not particularly favourable, especially if it’s going to harm seniors down the road—and there is a possibility of that happening.

The need for community and home care services was recognized by the Progressive Conservative government when an unprecedented $1.2 billion was invested to improve access to high-quality long-term-care and home care services across the province of Ontario. In 1998, to foster a more home-like atmosphere for residents, the PC government launched an extensive capital renewal plan which built 20,000 new long-term-care beds and upgraded 16,000 beds to comply with the new design standards. Can you imagine what would have happened if that had not taken place and those beds had not been built?

Our hospitals would have collapsed some time ago with the expense of keeping low-need patients in hospital at hospital costs. This landmark investment was necessary since neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats had built any new beds since 1988.

To help ensure that Ontarians were provided with appropriate levels of care in all settings, the PC government’s historic investment added thousands of front-line health jobs to the system, including 7,900 positions for registered nurses and registered practical nurses, as well as another 19,600 jobs for health care aides, homemakers and other front-line care workers.

These investments directly benefited families, the elderly, the disabled and their caregivers by providing additional beds, more community services, more health care providers and new or renovated facilities.

Let us turn our attention to alternate-level-of-care patients. These are patients waiting in hospital beds who could be better cared for in long-term-care facilities or retirement homes, if there were beds available. In February 2009, Tom Closson, president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association said that “the single biggest challenge facing Ontario hospitals is the number of alternative-level-of-care patients waiting in hospitals for alternative levels of care.”

According to the Ontario Hospital Association, approximately 20% of acute care beds are occupied by alternative-level-of-care patients—20%. That is costing this province a great deal of money. No wonder we’re cutting back on nurses and everything else to pay for that.

Getting back to the need for more retirement home beds and long-term-care beds in our province, in 2005, eligible wait-list demands for long-term-care facilities were 12,708. By 2008, that number skyrocketed to an estimated 25,000, a 50% increase since this government took office. Our debt has gone up by a larger percentage, so maybe that 50% is not so bad, except that this directly affects—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to introduce Steve Low and his parents, Fran and Larry Low, who are in the members’ west gallery, down from Parry Sound–Muskoka to have lunch with their MPP today. Please welcome them.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I’d like to introduce the grade 5 class from Oscar Peterson Public School in my riding of Mississauga–Erindale. I want to welcome them here. There are 100 students here, along with their teachers. I want to extend them a very warm welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome today the parents and family of our page Michelle Hendrikx—they’re in the public gallery: her mother, Joanne; her grandma Anne; and her aunt Margaret. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and page Lars Moffatt to welcome a couple offriends of his today: Adam Laskaris and Kathryn Laskaris. I’d also take this opportunity to wish Lars a happy birthday.

I would like to welcome the group from the Oxford Reformed Christian School who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. The member from Oxford and myself will be joining them later for a photograph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome the class of my daughter. Toby Molouba will be joining us today from Oscar Peterson school in Mississauga.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome all the personal support workers who are visiting Queen’s Park here today and who are in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to wait your indulgence. My question is to the Premier, and I see he’s just coming in right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

We’ll start again.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Premier of Ontario: Health and fitness clubs like Curves have joined us here at the park today. I’d like to welcome Andy Soumbos and Becky Frusher of Curves, as well as the executive director of the Fitness Industry Council of Canada, Brian Gilbank, to the House today. I appreciate them coming.

Like many Ontarians, though, Premier, they wonder why Dalton McGuinty is so afraid of a motion calling for the HST to be put to Ontario voters before the next election, and why you would backtrack on a deal made with your House leader so that it could be debated today.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I want to welcome our guests to the Legislature today. I want to thank them for the work that they do. I think we all recognize that as we grapple with growing, ever-escalating health care costs, one of the things we need to do is to find more ways to encourage more Ontarians to participate in physical activity. So I thank them for the work that they’re doing.

I think by way of so-called deals—I’m not familiar with the deal, as my colleague calls it, with respect to the House leaders, but I can say that we have a strong working partnership with the federal government. If it were not for them, if they would not act as our partners in this important initiative, we would not be able to move ahead for the HST. Again, I thank them for their co-operation in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier isn’t so bold or confident enough to put his record sales tax grab back to a vote in this chamber with his backbenchers so that the people of Ontario will have an opportunity to vote on this tax. Your House leader came looking for a deal to manage Liberal bills and agreed to debate our motion—until you saw it. It reminded you of your vow not to implement new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters. Our motion would have held you accountable to your promise by delaying the HST until after the next election. Are you running away from our motion because you’re afraid how members, particularly in the Liberal caucus, would vote?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is an important new public policy initiative. It’s not new in four other provinces, it’s not new in 140 countries, but it is new for Ontarians. We’ve had a budget motion. There’s the bill itself; there may have been as many as three votes on that. So we may have voted four times on this. It’s also been the subject of a vote in Ottawa at the House of Commons. We are in compliance with the Taxpayer Protection Act. I think my honourable colleague understands that.

We’ve debated—I’m not sure any public policy initiative in recent times has received more attention inside and outside this chamber, and that’s only appropriate. We feel that we’ve had the necessary debate and we think now it’s time to move on to strengthen this economy and create 600,000 more jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Dalton McGuinty used to think that the right thing to do was get the explicit consent of Ontario voters before raising their taxes. He was so certain it was right, he signed his name to an oath that said he would “not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters.” But Dalton McGuinty now admits that “the HST will be an increase in taxation” for families and is driving ahead with his tax agenda as if his oath to Ontario voters didn’t matter at all. Will you put to a vote our motion in this House and only implement the HST once there is a mandate from the voters to do so?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it’s been the subject of three and possibly four separate votes in this chamber. My honourable colleague and her party maintain that they are adamantly opposed to this budgetary measure, but should they ever earn the privilege of serving Ontarians in government, they are also absolutely committed to maintaining the HST in its place. I find that a little unusual.

Again, if it had not been for the support of Jim Flaherty, Janet Ecker, John Baird, Tony Clement, John Tory, Mike Harris, Senator Runciman and Prime Minister Harper, we would not be able to move ahead with this initiative. I want to thank them once again for their support. This is something that actually transcends partisanship. Thoughtful people know this is in the interest of our economy. It’s all about 600,000 more jobs.

TAXATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is for the Premier. Dalton McGuinty clearly has no difficulty raising taxes after looking Ontario voters in the eye and telling them that that he wouldn’t raise them without their explicit consent. He had no inner bell go off when he said that the HST will be revenue-neutral, knowing that it would “be an increase in taxation.” He hasn’t even implemented his HST tax grab before planning a water tax grab.

Premier, how much will your water tax take out of the pockets of Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to thank the member for his question, because we’re very proud of the new bill that we introduced yesterday in this House, the Water Opportunities Act.

Like our Green Energy Act, it’s the first of its kind in North America. It’s designed to accelerate the development of a still stronger industry in Ontario when it comes to developing and exporting clean water technologies and services. There is at present in the world today, globally speaking, a $400-billion clean water industry. It should double during the course of the next five or six years. We think we can lead North America in that grand opportunity, and our Water Opportunities Act is about getting things going here to an even stronger extent.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to my question: When the media asked a direct question about the water tax yesterday, Dalton McGuinty refused to rule it out, so we all know what that means.

According to the member for Don Valley East, the water tax will cost families $50 a month; that’s almost double the $350 increase to power bills that Dalton McGuinty brought in since taking office. It rivals the health tax that you introduced after taking office.

How much do you think Ontario families have in their pockets to take away with all of these Dalton McGuinty tax increases?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague’s assertion is without foundation in fact. What we are working to do is to find ways, certainly here in Ontario, to conserve water, to use less water, to lower our water bills.

It turns out that about 25% of the water that we ship, after treating it inside our municipal water delivery system, leaks outside the pipes. We’re paying to ship water which doesn’t even end up at its ultimate destination, which is in our homes. We think we can do more to save water. Ultimately, what that will help us do is save money.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: The Premier has broken his word on taxes so many times, and there’s no denying what the member for Don Valley East leaked about a $600-a-year water tax.

It doesn’t stop there. Ontario families, as we know, are already hit with tax increases on televisions, iPods, electronics, electricity, gas, HST and plastic bags, all since the 2007 election. They can now look forward to Dalton McGuinty implementing a carbon tax. His member for downtown Toronto, the former mayor of Winnipeg, is already tweeting to rally support for the Premier’s job-killing carbon tax.

Premier, what will it take for you to respect Ontario families and stay out of their wallets?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Ontario families are very concerned about a number of things: not only about household costs, and we recognize that, but they’re also concerned about the quality of the air that their kids are breathing. They’re worried about the quality of water that comes out of the tap when they turn that on. They’re worried about their employment opportunities. They’re worried about the quality of their health care. They’re worried about the quality of their schools. My friends opposite may bring this myopic perspective of a family’s concerns, but they are certainly short-sighted.

We understand that families are concerned about their levels of taxation—that’s why we’re reducing their taxes, effective January 1 of this year—but they’re also concerned about their future. They want to make sure that we have a strong economy, good jobs, good schools, good health care, air that we can breathe and water that we can drink. We understand the big picture. We’ll keep fighting for the big picture for our families.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Over the past week, government operatives have engaged in an unprecedented smear campaign against an officer of this Legislative Assembly. Ombudsman André Marin has had his good name and his stellar reputation dragged through the mud. Why is the McGuinty government going to such lengths to slander Mr. Marin?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I thought it would be an important opportunity to revisit some of the things that our government has done when it comes to putting in place greater measures of accountability, transparency and oversight.

When it comes to the sunshine list, we’ve expanded that to include OPG and Hydro One. That was not supported by the opposition.

We asked the Auditor General to take on greater responsibilities when it comes to auditing our hospitals, our universities and our schools. Again, that was not supported by the opposition. When it came to expenses, we also tightened the rules for travel and meals. The Integrity Commissioner now reviews the expenses of our 22 largest agencies. Again, when it comes to oversight, accountability and transparency, we’ve been trying to move forward; they keep trying to hold the line.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I wasn’t asking about the sunshine list; I was asking this Premier to shine the light on what his government’s agenda is in regard to Mr. Marin. Ontarians are repulsed by the hatchet job that Mr. Marin’s reputation has had under this government’s watch. They are submitting letters and emails and even issuing press releases showing their disgust.

Here is what Cynthia Glinka, a parent of an autistic child, said in her press release: “I continue to applaud the extraordinary efforts of Marin and his team of investigators. What the ministry dragged its feet on for years in our case, the Ombudsman investigated and made recommendations about in less than three short weeks.”

Will the Premier call off the attack dogs and commit to a fair hiring process?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re following a process which was strongly, and I thought eloquently and compellingly, supported by a member of the NDP caucus who said that it’s important, notwithstanding the talents of any one particular officer of the Legislature, that we engage in a process and that we open it up to Ontarians to apply. That’s exactly what we’re doing, and I think we should respect that process, notwithstanding the considerable talents of the Ombudsman at present.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What this Premier and this government should respect is someone who has done his job very, very well for this Legislative Assembly. The attacks against Mr. Marin have gone beyond the pale. Even the Premier himself acknowledged that yesterday, but his words, unfortunately, rang rather hollow.

Today the Premier can actually demonstrate real sincerity in this very House. He can stand up and apologize to Mr. Marin. It’s the right thing and the honourable thing to do. Will he do it right here and now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think it’s important that we follow a process. To quote a member of the NDP caucus, “New Democrats are adamant that even upon the occasion of a reappointment ... notwithstanding the stellar capacity of a person who has served that role, there should be the same process.” The process is pretty clear: You advertise for the position, you see who’s interested in the job and you vet them. That process is under way. I think we should all respect that.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Today fitness groups are rallying outside of the Legislature to protest the McGuinty government’s unfair harmonized sales tax. The new 8% tax on gym memberships is going to make healthy living much more expensive in the province.

Why is the Premier making it more expensive for Ontarians to stay healthy and fit?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I had an opportunity to speak to this very issue a moment ago, and I’m pleased to revisit it. I do know that one of the benefits that our fitness industry will gain as a result of our tax reforms is to be able to take advantage of these new input tax credits in purchasing new equipment, for example. That should help reduce their costs, and hopefully that will stand them in good stead.

But I think if you take a look—I haven’t personally had the opportunity to take a look at what has happened to these kinds of businesses in those 140 other countries and four other provinces when the value-added tax of this nature was brought into place, but something tells me that they remain very strong businesses. That there remains a very strong industry.

I think it’s in the interest of every single business that we have a healthy level of employment in our province. If people have jobs, then they have sufficient disposable income so they can take advantage of these kinds of businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it’s not just gym memberships that are going to bear the brunt of the Premier’s unfair 8% tax. After-school lessons like soccer, karate and ballet will cost 8% more. Bicycles will cost 8% more. Even that staple of Canadian winter, renting ice time for hockey, will cost 8% more.

Why is the Premier making healthy and active living more expensive for Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Our tax reforms will affect 17% of consumer purchases, meaning that 83% will remain unaffected. I’ve never once said to our families that this is an easy thing to do, but I continue to say that this is a very important thing for us to do.

We’re going to have to do a few things to make our economy stronger. The old economy is not coming back; the one that we had prior to the recession, in its exact form, is not coming back. We have a higher dollar. We have higher energy costs. We have government deficits. We have retiring baby boomers. I’m convinced that Ontarians want us to do the kinds of things that will ensure that we grow stronger, that we have a stronger economy so that we maintain our capacity to support our schools and our health care and create more jobs, and the HST is an indispensable part of our plan to grow stronger.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A new tax on an active lifestyle—gym memberships, kids’ after-school programs, bicycles and ice rentals—makes no sense at all. We should be making healthy living choices more affordable for people, not more expensive. Policy decisions should be about improving the quality of life for families and lowering our health care costs. Why is the Premier going in exactly the opposite direction?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to assure my honourable colleague that we will not follow the NDP government example in Nova Scotia, which is taking their tax from 13% to 15%. I don’t think that would be sensible or reasonable in the circumstances.

We’re convinced that we have struck the right balance in terms of finding opportunities for families to save money. I want to remind Ontario families that in June of this year, because of the co-operative agreement we have with the federal government, if you’re earning $80,000 or less you’ll be getting a $100 cheque. If you’re earning $160,000 or less in terms of family income, you’ll be getting a $335 cheque, just in time to help families, at the beginning of the summer, transition through this transition period when it comes to our new HST.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. You said of André Marin, “As a result of the work that he has done, we’ve been able to reshape some of our policies and ended up with something that better serves the public interest.” Premier, that sounds like a perfect endorsement. Were you just saying what you think the public wants to hear or will you stop blocking the Legislature from reappointing Mr. Marin?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I thank my colleague for the question. I know that if she takes the time to check the record and takes a look at all the statements that I’ve made about Mr. Marin before this latest conversation began, she will recognize that I’ve long been a supporter of Mr. Marin’s and have welcomed his criticisms because I’ve found that they always help us improve the quality of our public policy. That is certainly the fundamental function of the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The Premier’s track record makes it a little difficult to believe what he says. He has backtracked on his vow not to raise taxes so many times that Ontario families have lost count.

Your praise for Mr. Marin rings hollow when your decision to get him to reapply for his job is just a smokescreen to get rid of him. You’re standing in the way of reappointment and exercising no control over the Liberal insiders who are defaming Marin.

Premier, you can’t have it both ways: Will you come out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into, acknowledge that what has been done to Mr. Marin is wrong and let his name be brought back to this House for reappointment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I have confidence in the process, and I would encourage my colleague to develop the same level of confidence.

I would say that it does beg some interesting questions. If the party opposite, the official opposition, is so interested in accountability and oversight, why did they stand against our moves to expand the coverage of the sunshine list? Why did they oppose our move to ensure that the Auditor General could cover hospitals, universities and schools? Why did they oppose our public posting of expenses that are mandatory for ministers, political staff and senior managers at our 22 largest agencies?

Why did they stand against our move to expand the freedom-of-information coverage to cover OPG, Hydro One, universities and Cancer Care Ontario? Again, they tend to say one thing and, when push comes to shove, they stand against these kinds of measures.

TAXATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé. Since August 2007, nicotine replacement therapy products have been exempt from the PST at point of sale. The former Minister of Health Promotion said, “These savings will assist a mother, father or one of your loved ones when they make the decision to quit smoking.” Now, thanks to the HST, the cost of nicotine replacement therapy is set to rise by 8%.

My question is simple: Why is the present Minister of Health Promotion allowing this government to scrap this extension?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government is committed to helping Ontarians break the cycle of tobacco addiction. Over the last four years, the Ministry of Health Promotion has invested $29 million in smoking cessation programs and training and research initiatives. Through the STOP program, the ministry has provided counselling and free nicotine replacement therapy to over 60,000 smokers. Twenty-nine hospitals are participating in the Smoke-Free-Ontario-funded hospital-based smoking cessation program. The Ottawa model identifies and treats smokers admitted to hospitals.

We continue to provide funding to the Canadian Cancer Society’s Smokers’ Helpline, reaching over 17,000 callers annually and approximately 8,000 smokers who registered for the online—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: We’re talking about taxing nicotine replacement therapy here, and I want to quote again from the former Minister of Health Promotion: “If an Ontarian wants to quit smoking and uses the patch, the cost is” about “$300 a month.... With this announcement ... an Ontarian can ... save $24 while attempting to kick this habit.”

That was back then—$24 saved. But with the McGuinty unfair HST, that person trying to quit smoking pays $24 more to the kick the habit.

We all know that smoking-related illnesses cost us $1.6 billion each and every year. How can the minister explain the rationale for adding 8% to the cost of nicotine replacement therapy when people are trying to kick this habit?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Under the plan, 93% of taxpayers will pay less for personal income tax, putting more money in people’s pockets. Lower- to middle-income families will also receive a credit of up to $260 a year for each adult and child.

We continue, as I said, to fund programs to help people to stop smoking. The Ministry of Health Promotion is in the process of developing a new five-year plan for new directions in tobacco control. This plan will focus on ways that we can help more people to stop smoking.

I want to take this opportunity to say to the public that smoking is bad for you and people who are smoking already should quit smoking, and to the ones who have not started smoking, this is an opportunity for me to say—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and it’s about the government’s drug reform package. My constituents up in Willowdale like the idea of cheaper generic drugs and they can’t believe the amount that they now pay when compared to what people pay in other jurisdictions. Many people in my riding pay for their prescription drugs out of their own pockets. Not all Ontarians have private insurance plans. They are forced to pay out cash for important and frequently used antibiotics, contraceptives and other kinds of drugs.

And when cold season comes to Ontario every year, they often really need antibiotic drugs, and often parents and their children have to pay for these antibiotics out of their own pockets.

How will the government’s drug reform package make it cheaper for those ordinary, day-to-day antibiotics in the cold season?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member is absolutely right. Our reforms are very good news for families, including families whose kids go to Oscar Peterson school. Our reforms will allow us to lower the price of generic drugs by—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order; they’ve been doing so well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very excited today, because Oscar Peterson school is here with their teacher, my daughter, Toby Molouba.

These reforms are good for the families whose kids go to Oscar Peterson school. Our reforms will allow us to lower the price of generic drugs by at least 50%. Today, a patient would pay about $10.25 out of pocket for amoxicillin, a very common antibiotic. After our reforms, the price will be cut in half. Azithromycin is another common antibiotic. Today it’s $32.80; it will be $12.33. That’s $20 a family could use for groceries or other family bills.

These reforms are the right thing—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: I understand that generic drugs are going to be a lot cheaper for Ontario families. What I don’t understand is why the members opposite don’t understand that. They don’t understand the meaning and concept of cheaper generic drugs. They criticize our plan to bring the cost of generics down. They’re really against the needs of ordinary Ontarians. You members opposite need to understand that cheaper generic drugs are good for seniors, cancer patients and taxpayers.

Minister, have you got any insight as to why members opposite are opposed to our reforms? Why—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust the member is going to be directing the question to government policy and not opposition position.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do not understand why the members opposite from both parties—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our policy is very clear. We’re on the side of families, we’re on the side of lowering the cost of drugs for people with cancer, for people with high blood pressure, for people who need birth control pills, antibiotics—you name it. We’re on the side of lower drug prices.

The members opposite have chosen to be on the side of the pharmacy owners instead of on the side of people who need drugs. This is consistent with the record of the party opposite. When they were in office, they cut almost $100 million from the Ontario drug program in 1996 and 1997, they instituted deductibles and they instituted co-payments for seniors and for Ontarians with disabilities. When the third party was in government, their plan to control drug costs was to cut $50 million from the Ontario drug benefit plan in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. Our plan is to lower the price of drugs and expand the formula.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier. In September 2003, Dalton McGuinty signed an oath not to raise or implement new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters. But he has admitted that the HST “will be an increase in taxation” for families. Does the Premier’s written promise mean nothing to him?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, this is a big undertaking; it takes a lot of work and a lot of partners. I want once again to thank the former Minister of Finance from my colleague’s party, Jim Flaherty, for his support. I want to thank another former Minister of Finance from their party, Janet Ecker, for her support. I want to thank their former colleague John Baird; their former colleague Tony Clement; their former leader John Tory; another former leader, Mike Harris; Senator Bob Runciman as well; and, of course, Prime Minister Harper.

Without the support of the Conservatives in Ontario, we could not possibly move ahead with this initiative. I want to thank all Ontario Conservatives for their support for this initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: The HST in Ontario is the Premier’s choice. The Premier backtracked on his written pledge not to implement new taxes when he created the health tax, the HST and the backdoor energy tax. He backtracked on his vow not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters when he hiked up taxes for electricity, vehicles, and property transfers. He will backtrack on his oath to taxpayers once again when he brings in a water tax and a job-killing carbon tax.

Premier, will you stop disrespecting your oath, show some respect for Ontario voters and put our HST motion to a vote in this House before it rises for your summer holiday?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, this matter has been the subject of three and maybe even four votes in this very Legislature. It has been the subject of extensive conversation and debate both inside and outside the Legislature. If my colleague is still in doubt as to why it is that the Conservatives around the province are supporting this, I would encourage him to sit down and speak with his federal counterpart, Tony Clement, and have a one-on-one with him in his constituency office in his riding. If you just give Mr.

Clement a little bit of time, I’m sure he’s going to turn my colleague around, help him understand the error of his ways and help him understand why it is that we’ve transcended partisan differences and, working hand in hand with federal Conservatives, we’re moving ahead with an initiative that will create 600,000 more jobs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, three leading environmental organizations voiced their opposition to the proposed Open for Business Act. Ecojustice, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy all say that the act will undermine public participation and the public right to appeal polluting activities in communities.

The McGuinty government talks a lot about increasing transparency. Why is it proposing legislation that would remove citizen rights and reduce accountability on environmentally damaging industrial activities? Why?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I think that those organizations are wrong. This current system has been in place for over 30 years. It is a paper-based system. We think it’s about time to bring those proposals into the 21st century. We think that modernizing our approval system is the right way to go. Over 6,000 applications are made on an annual basis. It’s all in a paper-based system.

We believe that our ministry should be involved with the higher-risk situations, rather than taking a look at all of the situations that are out there. That’s what the modernization of approvals is all about. It’s all about bringing our systems that we have been using for over the last 30 years into the 21st century.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, you’re well aware that this has nothing to do with your moving from paper to Commodore 64. This is a question of whether or not people have rights to comment on environmental regulation. The press release from the environmental groups is very clear: The proposed act weakens accountability. The government will no longer be required to take the public’s views into account before environmental decisions are finalized. Maybe your staff didn’t brief you on this part of the act, but you need to be aware of it.

While reducing public rights to comment on industrial activities, the McGuinty government is increasing business rights through a new registry that allows companies to comment on new regulations impacting them. Is this what “open for business” means: more power for businesses to veto regulations and less rights for the public to protect their communities? Is that what’s on the table—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Anyone can make comments with respect to anything that goes into the registry—not just businesses—including the environmental community.

I would just like to put it to the member this way: There are sometimes applications that take about a year and a half to get the required certificates of approval, yet these organizations, these businesses, are operating during that period of time. That is wrong. What we should be concerned about within the Ministry of the Environment or within society are the environmental outcomes. We believe that the environmental outcomes that we’re dealing with are better served under a modernized system in which the ministry and in which we as a society look at the most important high-risk activities.

That’s what this is all about. We want to bring the system into the 21st century. Most of the people out there agree with us, and I’m sure that in time, the environmental community will see it—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. We know there are about 700 retirement homes in the province with approximately 40,000 people living in them and the sector has not been regulated to date. The home my parents live in is great, but we know that some retirement homes are not so great.

For the first time in provincial history, the government has moved to regulate retirement homes by introducing Bill 21 to make retirement home living safer for residents. Bill 21 has gone through second reading and is now at public hearings. There’s widespread support for regulation at the hearings, but there have been some concerns raised about the regulatory authority that will be established. Minister, what assurances can you give the House that the retirement home regulatory authority—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Thank you for the question from the thoughtful member from Guelph. I would say that this is historic legislation. The province has never regulated retirement homes. There are 700 of them. All of us have them in our areas. The authority will have the ability to license, inspect and take licences away. It will have care and safety standards that it will be required to enforce. It gives strong rights to residents. We’ve been at this for three years now. It follows the advice of roughly 800 people who consulted in 2007.

To the question on the independence of the board: I want to provide the member and the public with the assurance that, firstly, the government will appoint the chair and three additional members. The other five will be appointed on the basis of criteria established by the government. I can assure the public that this board will represent the interests of the residents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Minister, for the information about the regulatory authority. Our seniors will appreciate your assurance that the regulatory board will be well-balanced and represent the interests of seniors, licensees and government.

One of the key roles of the regulatory authority will be licensing but also inspecting and enforcing care and safety standards. One of the things we’ve heard at committee are concerns about whether or not there—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will please come to order.

Please continue.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: We’ve heard concerns about whether or not the public will have an opportunity for input into the care and safety standards. We’ve also heard some concerns about whether there will be an appropriate complaint process for residents in retirement homes if they’re not meeting the standards. Can the minister address these two concerns that have been raised at committee?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Thank you, and this is for the answer. On the first part of the question on setting the care and safety standards: If the bill is passed, we will begin work immediately on the determination of safety and care standards.

I want to provide the public with some reassurance that there will be ample opportunity for input into those regulations, including some round tables where we will get broad advice, and we will post the regulations for at least 30 days so people can comment on them.

On the standards, I think we are allowing good public input into it. In terms of residents’ rights—this is very important—the resident will have the right to appeal any particular complaint they have. There are very strong residents’ rights in it: three avenues of complaint procedure and good rights for the residents.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of National Resources. CWD, or chronic wasting disease, affects white-tailed deer, elk and moose—cervids, basically. It’s a fatal disease that affects these animals’ brains.

The reason I mention this is because of the escape of the game-farmed animal red deer in the Sudbury French River area over the past two years. These escaped deer have the potential to infect wildlife with CWD. Not only that, but red-tailed deer also have the ability and do mate in the wild with elk. This alone threatens the elk gene pool in the Sudbury area.

In January this year, the MNR was informed of the escape, but failed to take action. Why has the ministry failed to take any action to protect the wildlife in Ontario?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I appreciate the question. Certainly, chronic wasting disease is a progressive and fatal disease of the nervous system of deer, moose and elk, and our government continues to take measures to minimize the potential spread. The good news is that it hasn’t been detected in Ontario. It has been detected in two other Canadian provinces and several US states, so we continue to take measures to ensure that it doesn’t come to Ontario.

We’re developing a CWD surveillance and response plan. We’ve tested over 7,000 wild deer, moose and elk since 2002, and so far, all the results have been negative. We’ve implemented a regulation prohibiting the possession of high-risk deer and elk carcass parts that are harvested in other jurisdictions.

We’re working with farmers to make sure that we have a plan that works with them, to capture and relocate as many of the escaped deer as we can.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: The 2002 program that came into place was a program designed to establish protocols in the event that it was identified.

Here is a quote from Dr. Terry Quinney, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters’ provincial manager of fish and wildlife: “It is inexcusable that the government has failed to heed all the warnings and learn from the experience in other jurisdictions where the spread of the disease has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of deer.... The abundant, healthy white-tailed deer population in Ontario, and the much smaller elk population, are being put at risk by inaction on the part of the MNR. Once CWD strikes in Ontario there will be virtually no means of eradicating it.”

Minister, there is evidence that these red deer are also reproducing in the wild and becoming a self-sustaining population. Why has the ministry not bothered to recapture, contain or manage the escaped deer, which have the potential to infect wildlife with CWD?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: The ministry is monitoring a small population of red deer. Certainly, the numbers have been fluctuating, based on people telling us stories, so we’re monitoring it. We’ve been making sure that the escaped deer from the farms in the North Bay area have been monitored.

We take this issue very seriously. Immediate action was taken by staff and a cull was initiated. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency test results showed that red deer that were culled by MNR do not have chronic wasting disease.

Escaped or released farm deer pose a risk to public safety, farmers’ crops and domestic livestock. Due to the risk these escaped red deer pose to our native wildlife, a plan to dispatch the animals was put in place. I want to take this opportunity to thank local farmers and hunters for their assistance in removing the red deer.

We understand the gravity of the situation, and we’ll continue to monitor—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier phoned the mayor of Toronto this week and asked him to trust him on transit. Given that the Premier has already broken his word to Toronto families who most need new public transit, why does he think that the mayor should trust him to keep his promise this time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s some really good news here. Notwithstanding our financial challenges, we have found a way to move forward with $9.5 billion in investment in public transit. This is the single largest one-time investment in public transit in the history of this country. That’s how big this is.

I would encourage my honourable colleague to join in the celebration and to find ways for us to work together—the three parties, the city of Toronto and Metrolinx—to get this new capital invested, to get the jobs under way, so that the people of Toronto can benefit from this new transit at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s now very clear that Toronto’s Finch LRT and the Scarborough RT lines are in danger of being completely axed. A Metrolinx report being released today says that not one penny has been allocated for construction of these crucial lines over the next five years.

Why should anyone believe the Premier’s commitment to Transit City, Toronto and Torontonians when over the next five years he couldn’t free up even one single penny for the construction of transit lines serving families that need them the very most in this city?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague just can’t take yes for an answer. We’re moving ahead with the $9.5 billion. It’s a five-in-10 plan. It’s the largest transit investment in Canadian history.

Let’s take a look at our record thus far, even before we went ahead with this $9.5-billion plan. We’ve invested $3.7 billion since 2003 in public transit in Toronto. The gas tax alone has provided $849 million over the first six years of the program.

We’re spending $870 million right now to extend the TTC subway to York region. Work has already started on the Sheppard LRT. We’ve already spent over $700 million for new TTC hybrid buses, subway cars, track repairs and improvements.

Track repairs or track record: We’re going in the right direction when it comes to our government’s investment in public transportation.

BIODIVERSITY

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you understand more than most that our biodiversity sustains us. That’s why I was pleased to learn this week that you helped fulfill a recommendation of Ontario’s biodiversity strategy with the release of two reports updating Ontarians on the state of biodiversity in this province.

As a member of the Ontario Biodiversity Council, can you please share with the members of the Legislature and those watching at home today what the work of the council has accomplished? In my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, many of my constituents work in industries that rise or fall in lockstep with our biodiversity. We know the pressures on biodiversity and are keenly interested in the findings of the reports.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the honourable member for the question.

The member is correct: On Monday, I was joined by my fellow members of the Ontario Biodiversity Council at Hart House to release the two landmark reports you spoke of. I’d like to first thank the 22 partners on the Ontario Biodiversity Council for the time—the considerable time—that they took to volunteer to guide the implementation of Ontario’s biodiversity strategy. In the five years since the launch of the biodiversity strategy, the council has been invaluable to my ministry, helping us to fulfill our commitment to report to the public on progress in 2010, which also happens to be the International Year of Biodiversity.

The State of Ontario’s Biodiversity report assesses the pressures placed on Ontario’s biodiversity. In the reports released this week, we can see that our biodiversity is under pressure from human activity, which includes habitat loss, urban development, invasive species and climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: My thanks to the minister. Minister, in the reports released this week, it appears that over 200 years of development has had its toll on Ontario’s biodiversity. Native species are at risk, habitat has been lost and our climate is changing. The reports that the biodiversity council released on Monday paint the picture of a province in flux, where our biodiversity is threatened.

We are all connected to our biodiversity. What do these reports tell Ontarians and how has the McGuinty government responded to the goals of Ontario’s biodiversity strategy?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: The honourable member is correct: Our biodiversity is under threat, and the reports released share with Ontarians very important information: They provide a baseline against which all future challenges and successes will be measured.

By quantifying our biodiversity, the McGuinty government and all Ontarians will have the information required to make good conservation decisions. However, the McGuinty government and our ministry have already acted. Back in 2007, we passed the Endangered Species Act, the gold standard in species-at-risk protection, which includes $18 million in stewardship funding over four years.

Our current state of biodiversity is a result of planning decisions that were made in the past. The future can and will be shaped by the decisions that we and all Ontarians make right now.

Thank you for the question.

POLICE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Since Ian Scott’s appointment as SIU director, the relationship between police and his office has deteriorated to the point where former Ontario Chief Justice Patrick LeSage was called in to mediate.

It now appears that Mr. LeSage’s efforts have failed, as the AG won’t get involved. Strained relations between the SIU and the policing community will continue now that Mr. Scott has intervened in the Schaeffer-Minty court case. His intervention in this case could lead to police chiefs across Ontario facing charges under the Police Services Act when the matter shouldn’t have been allowed to proceed in the first place.

Minister, your silence has been deafening while relations between police and the SIU keep sinking. Why did you say nothing before the SIU director intervened in a case, turning it into a circus that is eroding the image of policing in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I’ll probably give the supplementary to the Attorney General, but I do want to first of all say that because he is an independent person, we do not interfere with the decision-making. However, let me just say that we do have a wonderful working relationship with our policing partners. We will continue to have that wonderful working relationship with our policing partners, and that extends to a multi-ministerial approach. Why do we do that?

Because we understand that the people of Ontario want to have confidence in their government so that we can pass laws and implement programs and policies that enhance community safety. That is what has been happening in the province of Ontario since 2003, since we took over as the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, I’m asking you why you are doing nothing while the integrity of policing throughout this province is at stake. It’s shameful that the Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police have had to hire lawyers to seek intervener status in this case, when police are supposed to be working in our communities, not arguing in our courtrooms. It’s shameful that police are now being forced to fight their own justice partners in the courts instead of fighting crimes on the street.

We’ve heard the Attorney General defend the SIU in the House and in the media, but no one is standing up for the police. So I’ll ask you this: As the minister responsible for policing in this province, why are you not defending police on a matter of urgent public importance, which is maintaining the integrity of policing, the basic foundation of a lawful society?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My colleague just spoke very eloquently about the respect that we have for the hard work that the police do, and we have respect as well for the work that our other institutions of justice do. You can have respect for that work on a day-to-day basis, but also have respect for a judicial process which requires that arguments and decisions be made within the courtroom and not either in Legislatures or hallways or through the press.

It is the foundation of our society. It is not contrary to the respect that we have for all the participants of justice to say that when matters are before the court, we will not intervene, interfere or get in the way of that decision-making process.

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. There are currently up to 16 War of 1812 soldiers improperly buried across the street from Battlefield Park in Stoney Creek. While these individuals sacrificed their lives for what would become Canada, their remains lie in disarray, some even visible above ground.

Will the Premier work with the city of Hamilton and the Battlefield House Museum by pledging funding for a proper archaeological excavation, burial and recognition for these fallen soldiers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We’ll look into it.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the advice coming from the member of the same party. We’ll look into this.

It’s the first that it has been brought to our attention. I’m eager to learn a little bit more about it through the supplementary, but I think there’s a legitimate issue here, and we undertake to look into it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 is fast approaching us, and the time has come for our government to take the right action for these fallen soldiers. These individuals paid the ultimate price for our fledgling country, and their final resting place should reflect this.

In a moment, I will present the Premier with my written request for provincial funding to support the efforts of the Battlefield House Museum in bringing these soldiers to their proper final resting place.

Will the Premier financially work with us to honour these fallen soldiers and help fund their proper burial?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to assure my colleague that we’ll take a close look at this and find out what the responsible thing to do in the circumstances is.

One of the things that I’ve always thought of as our responsibility here in elected office is to give expression to Ontarians at their best and, indeed, their very best. They are very supportive of our veterans and all the sacrifices that they made that contribute to the extraordinary quality of life in this vital democracy here that we enjoy each and every day.

Again, I undertake to my colleague to take a look at this for him.

TAXATION

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of Revenue. I’ve got a great company in my riding, a very innovative company, called Entripy Custom Clothing. They’re a leading provider of custom apparel in Canada. This Oakville company currently employs 25 people. They provide excellent jobs, and they’re growing. They’ve told us that they expect to save $15,000 to $20,000 in the first year with the tax reform we’re introducing.

Jas Brar, a founder of Entripy, has stated, “We want to bring on more quality staff and create more quality jobs, and this is one thing that will help us get there a little bit sooner.”

Minister, how will companies like Entripy create jobs as a result of our tax reform package?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for inviting me to visit Entripy just the other day. It is a true Ontario success story. Mr. Brar, who started the company 11 years ago when he was a student at the University of Toronto, has turned it into a local success, a company that is actually supplying goods and services to all the Canadian provinces and also to our territories.

But he has a vision of expanding his business even more, and what he was able to tell us and share with us is what it would mean, in his own particular business, if he was going to have his cost of business go down. When asked by the media, “What are you going to do with that money,” he said, “I’m going to hire more people, because I have a great product and I want to be able to expand into the US market.”

His company is based through the Internet, so he has been able to get a competitive advantage. It’s exactly those small businesses that will lead us out of where we are today. It’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Job creation is obviously important to everybody in this province. When I’m talking with other people in my riding, however, some appear to have been misled by others into believing that all items in the province are increasing by 13%. I think everyone wants to see a more competitive province, but no one wants to see this on the backs of those who can afford to pay the least. There are those who are currently unemployed and seniors who live on fixed incomes, and they don’t have much flexibility in their budgets. How is the tax reform going to affect low-income Ontarians and other Ontarians who are currently on fixed incomes?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. First of all, I’d say to the people who have been prophesying economic doom and gloom that I think reality will teach them all a lesson starting July 1.

What we’ve done under our tax reform package, which includes the harmonization—having one sales tax in Ontario instead of two—is that we are substantially reducing income taxes for people and business right across the board. But we’ve taken special care to increase credits for those people who have the least—I’m thinking of seniors on fixed incomes, middle-class families with a lot of children and people on social assistance. We are increasing credits that are available to people, and they will start rolling out as early as this August.

I can tell people that there are also the tax-free transitional payments that we’ve been able to secure with funding from the federal government. The federal Conservative government and all those Ontario Conservative members have voted for this to allow us to provide that important relief to people in the first year as we transition.

We’ll make sure we are looking after the people with the least, but most importantly—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister has been talking about how her government is expanding access to drugs through her pharmacy reforms. She has even called a moratorium on implementation of the changes so that she could take more time to review the submissions. The minister claims that she wants to take more time to get things right, but all the while her colleague the member from Windsor West is engaging in her own anti-pharmacist campaign.

Minister, is this moratorium another move for optics, as the initial consultations were? Are you actually going to enter into meaningful consultations with pharmacies? They want to know.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to be very clear about this: We are going to be eliminating professional allowances, and we are going to be bringing down the price of drugs for the people of this province. What we have done is allocated almost $300 million to put back into pharmacies to support access in rural areas and to support pharmacies through this period of transition. Our vision is a pharmacy system where pharmacists are, of course, paid to dispense drugs, but increasingly paid to provide services for people in this province.

We are committed to the reforms; we will not back down on these reforms. We are taking the time to get it right. The consultation period ended just a week ago. We are taking the time to get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, if the minister truly believes she was expanding access to pharmaceuticals, she wouldn’t be putting these changes on hold in order to get things right. I also bet that her colleague from Windsor West wouldn’t be spending thousands of dollars on a smear campaign regarding pharmacy.

Minister, is your government spending more taxpayer dollars on a purely PR campaign or are you actually going to enter into meaningful consultations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have had very, very meaningful consultations. We have received over 60 submissions.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Pupatello.com.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My seatmate here is urging me to send people to Pupatello.com to get the whole story. People can also go to Ontario.ca/fairdrugprices to get the whole story.

Again, I am astonished that the member opposite would be on the side of higher profits for pharmacies instead of lower drug prices for the people of Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome the staff, teachers, parents and students from Dunsford District Elementary School in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier in question period, the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order, please. I need to hear the point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. It’s not about Pupatello.com—my question.

The member for Willowdale asked a question of the Minister of Health earlier, and you, in the process of the non-question and also any part of it which applies to standing order 21(

h) and (i), admonished the member for directing criticism as opposed to a question.

What I would like a clarification on is that he never actually did ask a question. I’m wondering why the minister then would have had the opportunity to respond to something that wasn’t a question at all. Any part of it that would have been a question should have been ruled out of order in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member for the question. That happens quite regularly from both sides of the House because, as the honourable member knows, I am very conscious of watching the clock and allowing adequate time for a question and answer. As I may have cut off the member from Willowdale today, I have certainly cut off members of his own party and members of the third party in the asking of questions, and ministers have still answered.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the answer to the member from Whitby–Oshawa, the Minister of Health mentioned a website called Pupatello.com. It actually goes to a dating service’s chat room, homes-for-sale and apartments-for-rent website. So perhaps the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not a point of order.

NOTICES OF REASONED AMENDMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(c), the opposition House leader, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has filed notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to promote Ontario as open for business by amending or repealing certain Acts. The order for second reading of Bill 68 may therefore not be called today.

I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts in respect of water conservation and other matters. The order for second reading of Bill 72 may therefore not be called today.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have the real, distinct pleasure to introduce to the Legislature and to each member the newly appointed ambassador of Vietnam, His Excellency Le Sy Vuong Ha, and the president of the Canada-Vietnam Friendship Association, Mr. Chuck Do, who is inviting you at 5 today to enjoy the new appointment from Vietnam. Thank you very much, and welcome to all of you.

Mr. Robert Bailey: In the west gallery today we have a couple of members of the Ontario Association of Food Banks: Todd Jaques and Nicola Cernik. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to introduce some friends who have helped me raise money for the fund for the earthquake that happened in Chile, and they’re here today to listen to that statement. Kevin Lee from Scadding Court and Magdalena Diaz from Chile Can Rise are here. A few other members are likely to come soon, and I’ll mention them as they come. Thank you for coming.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to make sure we welcome our guests from TOGA here today to Queen’s Park. We appreciate the good work and the fine food and flowers that the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance puts on our table. We won’t get into any togas today.

I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome guests from the St. Mary School Choir and Orchestra, seated in both the east and the west galleries. They’re visiting Queen’s Park today from London, Ontario. Staff, students and parents: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, could they sing us a tune? Please?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No—maybe if I had unanimous consent.

I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker’s gallery Mr. Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Gord, welcome. Accompanying Gord, from my riding, is Suzanne van Bommel. Welcome.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance, who are here at Queen’s Park. Once again, they have brought many of the great things that are grown in Ontario’s greenhouses, such as tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and flowers.

Not only do they provide great local food year-round, Ontario’s greenhouses are an important part of our economy. They have invested over $2 billion directly into our province and are targeting an additional $20 million in investment each year. Directly and indirectly, they support 35,000 Ontario jobs and contribute to the success of many other sectors, such as packaging and trucking.

But like all business, they need the proper climate to be able to grow and flourish. Our greenhouse operators are struggling with government red tape and overregulation. They are frustrated with a government that feels it is fair to hike hydro rates while refusing to support cogeneration projects within greenhouses that make fiscal and economic sense.

They’re working hard to build their businesses and be competitive. We need to make sure that the government isn’t holding them back. We need to work together to support Ontario’s greenhouses and our agriculture industry to ensure that good things continue to grow in Ontario.

I want to thank all the members of TOGA who are here today to share the successes and challenges they are facing. I look forward to hearing from them about what we can do to help them be competitive and successful. I encourage all members to take the time to meet with the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance this afternoon in the dining room to taste some of the good things that grow in Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Bob Chiarelli: Ontario seniors have been subjected to a multi-million dollar, US-style negative political ad campaign at the hands of the big chain pharmacies working in partnership with the Conservatives, all to protect their super-profits. However, not only will our government continue on its path to cut generic drug prices in half, we will continue to invest and build capacity in our health care system.

We are investing over $120 million in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean for redevelopment of the Queensway Carleton Hospital. The groundbreaking this summer will include expansion of operating rooms, more diagnostic imagining equipment, ambulatory program expansion, outpatient rehabilitation and a 15-station dialysis unit to serve 100 patients.

This addition comes on the heels of the hospital’s recent opening of the Irving Greenberg Family Cancer Centre, with provincial government and Greenberg family investments being $82 million and $11 million respectively. Residents in Ottawa West–Nepean are receiving the health care investments and services they need, and they also look forward to lower drug costs.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Randy Hillier: Since the Liberal government passed the Green Energy Act, Ontario Hydro’s global adjustment keeps going up and up. For many manufacturers and businesses, the global adjustment now actually dwarfs the cost of energy itself. We’ve lost 62 mills in northern Ontario, numerous investment projects and untold small businesses because of it, yet Dalton McGuinty still insists that he supports manufactu