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

March 24, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Mar-24 (PDF)

L007 - Wed 24 Mar 2010 / Mer 24 mar 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 March 2010 Mercredi 24 mars 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCOUNTING PROFESSIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010

SUR LES PROFESSIONS COMPTABLES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

PENSION PLANS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ENERGY RATES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

NORTHERN ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAX KEEPING

ENVIRONMENT AWARD

EDUCATION

LEGAL AID

NORTHERN ECONOMY

AUTOMOTIVE CENTRE

OF EXCELLENCE

RURAL ONTARIO

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

VISITORS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ESSENTIAL PUBLIC TRANSIT

SERVICES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES SERVICES

DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ESSENTIELS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

MINING INDUSTRY

DIABETES TREATMENT

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

HEALTH CARE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

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

ACCOUNTING PROFESSIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010

SUR LES PROFESSIONS COMPTABLES

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 23, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to repeal and replace the statutes governing The Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario, the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario / Projet de loi 158, Loi visant à abroger et à remplacer les lois régissant l’Association des comptables généraux accrédités de l’Ontario, les Comptables en management accrédités de l’Ontario et l’Institut des comptables agréés de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: This isn’t the most enviable spot in the speaking lineup; you know that, don’t you? At 9 a.m., folks are not exactly tuned in in large numbers. I prefer the afternoon slot, but this is the luck of the draw.

As a matter of fact, I’m being accommodated by the government House leader and other members, because the government House leader, to her great delight—this is the lead on behalf of the New Democrats that I’m doing here—knows that I have a time constraint imposed upon me, because there’s a House leaders’ meeting at 9:45. So this is one of those, albeit rare, occasions where I’m not going to be able to utilize my full 60 minutes.

First, I want to apologize to the parliamentary assistant, because I wasn’t able to be here yesterday when the minister and he did the government lead on this. I regret that, because I think it’s truly important that opposition critics should be present for the leads by the government and for the leads by their parallel critics in other caucuses, at the very least. It’s a convention that I was taught many years ago, and one that I think is very valuable.

From time to time, I have been critical of PAs—never of Mr. Zimmer, but perhaps of some the more newly elected ones, who don’t understand that protocol in terms of being present for the carriage or the pursuit of their bills through the Legislature. But I did read the Hansard transcript of both Attorney General Bentley’s and Mr. Zimmer’s comments. And I’m not just saying that; I’m going to prove it, because I’m going to make several references to them during the course of my comments.

I do commend the parliamentary assistant, the member for Willowdale, whom I consider an outstanding member of this Legislature—extremely capable, especially in contrast to the motley assembly of mountebanks he is surrounded by.

With respect to Bill 158, I think I can say with some real certainty—I suspect we’re going to vote on this this morning; I also indicated to the government House leader that our second reading debate on this was not going to be lengthy. We’re going to support the bill on second reading; it’s important to get this bill into committee.

Committee hearings are not going to be lengthy; I suspect, and I shouldn’t predict this, that there’s not going to be phone call after phone call to the clerk’s office by members of the public wanting to be heard on this bill, although I suspect there are a few issues with respect to this bill that may prompt public concerns, should the public ever become aware of it. But what I’m trying to put is that of 107 members here, I think I can safely predict that at least five, and probably no more than five, have read this bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: You only have to read a third of it.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. O’Toole says you only have to read a third of it. That’s the problem: Only reading a third of it, you miss the other two thirds and some things that should be considered that I’m going to be pointing out.

So I say this is one of those bills that, out of 107 members, I suspect five members have read, and that may be generous. That causes me some concern as well, because I don’t think that’s particularly unique to this piece of legislation.

I do want to thank the Ministry of the Attorney General staff for giving me a briefing on the bill and responding to my questions with respect to the bill. They were helpful in that regard, as civil service persons always are.

The bill deals with three accounting bodies: the CGAs, the CAs and the CMAs. Yesterday, Mr. Zimmer talked about how there was some sort of recognition by all branches of the profession, as he put it in Hansard, that it’s time to move forward. I’ve got to remind him and members of this assembly that the chartered accountants in Ontario were dragged kicking and screaming into this new regime.

I was so pleased that it was the New Democrats who forced the issue and in fact forced the vote on the bill that brought CGAs into the public accounting realm. Everybody was promising it to CGAs, but nobody was really going to deliver it. Successive governments had told CGAs, “Oh, no problem. Just stick with us, bear with us, and we’ll bring you into the public accounting regime.” But it never happened, and it wasn’t going to happen that time, either. But I was proud to be here with Howard Hampton.

There was a little bit of parliamentary pettifoggery going on at the time, but nonetheless, the results were good, because what happened at the end of the day was that the government was forced/embarrassed—I wouldn’t say tricked, but they were drawn into a vote they never intended to participate in. You were here; I think you’ll recall that momentous day.

I do want to mention, while we’re talking about accountants, that as I was preparing for this morning I couldn’t help but reflect on Bill Spicer down in Welland. Bill was an accountant there; he was both a CA and CGA. He was a newcomer—he came from Wiarton many, years ago—and quickly become a Wellander, a Crowlander. Bill died a couple of weeks ago. Extremely popular, extremely well known, he was the little man’s—the little person’s—accountant. He took care of businesses of all sorts, but quickly identified with the south-end community.

I was at the Lincoln Plaza getting my licence stickers for my 1995 Chevy S10 pickup, which is running beautifully, and Louis Pelino was sitting there in his pickup. Of course, everybody knows Louis Pelino. He was a police officer in the old Crowland police force and ran the Pelino-Matya scrapyard. But he was also a stellar hockey player in the 1950s until he had a back injury. In fact, when he stopped, he asked, “Hey Pete, what’s going on with the back?” So we shared back stories. His, of course, was 60 years old; mine was just a couple of years old—a different world and different technology.

We reminisced about Bill Spicer. Bill, amongst other things, was a member of the Welland Athletic and Benevolent Association. These are people who do good works. A lot of them have backgrounds in athletics and sports—hockey players and baseball players. Louis Pelino was a hockey player. They’re famous for their annual $60 all-you-can-eat, all-you-can drink dinner at the Croatian hall.

I don’t know if you do that in big cities like Toronto, but these are common—the Auberge Richelieu does it. Louis Pelino’s Welland Athletic and Benevolent Association hold these. Again, you’ve got to be on a waiting list to get tickets, to be in the lineup for tickets. Of course, there are draws; I’m sure they’re licensed. It’s all the steak, and at the Croatian hall, all the holubsti—cabbage rolls—and smoked sausage and so on that you can eat.

I just wanted to reflect on Bill Spicer, who’s just an outstanding guy, a great family person, who gave a great deal to his community. When I’m talking about Bill 158, one of the things that I think the government has overlooked in a very dramatic and serious way is that there are accountants and there are accountants. Again, we’re talking about small town versus Toronto, versus Bay Street right down the road here. We’re talking about accountants.

My accountant, Ray Tisi—a young guy—and his wife, Vivian, run their small accounting firm. He’s a chartered accountant and he does my income tax returns and answers questions I ask him. He’s just a brilliant, capable guy. As a matter of fact, his son Justin Tisi was a page here back 10, 11 years ago.

He’s got a small office on East Main Street, down by Lyons Avenue at East Main. It’s an old house that has been turned into an office, very common in small-town Ontario. He is just an outstanding, capable professional.

But then you’ve got the guys at the Arthur Andersens of the world, don’t you? You’ve got the guys working in the KPMGs. You have the people who were accomplices—accomplices? They were the authors of the Enrons of the world.

While some people went to jail, I dare say that there are a whole lot more that should have. Conrad Black is lonely, I’m sure. Unfortunately, the United States is more inclined to send people like this to jail. The jails they get sent to—I only wish Conrad Black could have done his pretrial time over at the old Don. I would have been so pleased to read his columns after a couple weeks at the old Don. Oh, yeah.

Even a few months in the Haven, in Millhaven, would, I’m sure, have changed his literary style or at least his literary content, if he was even capable of working the keyboard. Nonetheless, he’s in this spa down in Florida. The only saving grace is that we hope that the guy never gets allowed back into Canada because, of course, convicted felons shouldn’t be allowed into the country, should they? He’s not a citizen because he relinquished that, the arrogant—I was going to use a profane reference to the maternity of Mr. Black, but of course that wouldn’t be parliamentary, because it wouldn’t be a quote but something I concocted on my own.

We’ve got two types of accountants here. Interestingly again, the parliamentary assistant, in his comments yesterday, talked about the motivation. I’m not imputing motive here; I’m not making an allegation. I’m talking about the acknowledged motive—far different. That’s in perfect compliance with the standing orders, Speaker.

Look, I know the parliamentary assistant. I know him to be an honourable, extremely intelligent, extremely capable person, for whom I have affection and a great deal of respect. I also know that he’s paid reasonably well—not as much as he could make out in the private sector, but paid reasonably well—to do his job. And his job is to read the scripts in a manner that the PA is expected to spin a particular piece of government legislation.

This one isn’t, at first blush, a particularly controversial piece of legislation. It appears that it’s not contentious at all. Let me tell you what the parliamentary assistant said yesterday—you were here; you heard. He said, “There was a recognition that the essential thing to get right here was the correct balance.”

Hold the quotes there for a minute, Hansard, because, you see, “balance” is always an interesting word when it’s used by the government. As a matter of fact, people in disputes with their spouses say, “Let’s have some balance here.” What that means is, “Let me prevail.” Right? “Let’s be balanced about this” really means “Let me have my way.”

Going back to the quotes—this is on page 236 of yesterday’s Hansard.

It’s reference 1630; those are the reference numbers we have in Hansard: “There was a recognition that the essential thing to get right here was the correct balance between the needs of the accounting profession, speaking generally; the needs of each of the three branches of the accounting profession and”—as if some sort of afterthought, some sort of “Oh nuts, we’re supposed to mention this”—“the public interest,” as if it was some sort of add-on, like some tacky Canadian Tire accessory for your car, maybe one of those spinners for the steering wheel or an air freshener to hang on the rear-view mirror.

Just an afterthought: Oh yes, by the way, “the public interest.”

Well, isn’t the regulation of these types of professions, which can have so much impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary folks and, as we’ve learned so dramatically in the course of the last few years, on the economy of not just a region but of the whole world—Enron could only have occurred with the complicity of accountants. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: the atrocious collapse of those major financial operators in the States could only have happened—CIBC paid out a big chunk of money on those deals, didn’t they, and cost their shareholders a chunk of dough.

Mutual fund holders—people like your folks, my folks, your grand folks—worked hard, saved a little bit of money and were convinced by some bank mutual fund seller or, even more dramatically, somebody who picks up trailer fees on what they sell and whose motivation for selling that stuff then becomes more suspect, right? Talk about another unregulated industry: the mutual fund industry. Oh, it’s regulated—self regulation. I’m going to get to self-regulation in just a minute.

But this crisis over the last two years couldn’t have happened without the complicity, the aiding and abetting, the actual engineering by accountants. I say to you, Parliamentary Assistant—through you, Speaker, of course—that public interest should have been number one. Public interest should have been the overriding principle when it came to the drafting of this legislation.

I hope I have enough time. The government House leader has imposed an arbitrary limit on the length of my speech by virtue of her House leaders’ meeting that I’m compelled to attend at 9:45, but there’s always committee and there’s always third reading debate. New Democrats will be forcing this bill to committee, make no mistake about it. We will be forcing this bill to committee, make no mistake about it.

Because one of the other remarkable observations made on behalf of the government—because once again, the parliamentary assistant, who is a fine person, who is a person of good character, who is a person who is well regarded not just here but outside of here and is a person of principle, I’m confident may not necessarily write his own speeches when it comes to the lead speech as parliamentary assistant on a bill that he has carriage of. And of course, we’re honest people in here. One of the reasons why we can’t accuse another member of lying is because no member should lie.

So if there’s a rebuttal to that, I would expect it to be in compliance with parliamentary convention.

It remains that one of the other observations, justifications, rationalizations, explanations offered up by the parliamentary assistant was modernization. I’m not sure about that. Ah, but harmonization—harmonization with what? Because the reality is that if you check appendix A and compare it to appendix B and then compare that to appendix C, one applying to certified general accountants, one appendix applying to chartered accountants, and one appendix applying to certified management accountants, you will find that they’re not identical, that they contain some very different provisions.

Oh, at their core they appear to create uniformity, but upon inspection there is some significant variation. And it’s a variation that, I say to you, Speaker, goes directly to this government’s abandonment and betrayal of public interest. It may come as a surprise to folks even in here.

Let’s take a look at

section 26, for instance, of appendix A, which applies to all three of these respective groups.

I ask the government House leader, if we’re getting close to 9:45, will you please signal me or send a note over?

I ask folks to look at

section 26, which applies to all three of the groups. All that this government is prepared to do is to regulate the use of the title “certified general accountant” or the title, in the companion appendix B, “certified management accountant,” or in appendix C, “chartered accountant” or the initials.

Anybody in this province can call themselves an accountant, can put up a shingle saying “accountant,” can promote themselves as an accountant, can charge fees for being an accountant. That’s where we’re going. Let’s leave Bay Street for just a minute, although it’s hard to leave it with those gangsters and thieves looming over our shoulders and shadowing us from their 30th-floor offices.

Tax preparation: I was shocked but not surprised to read Ellen Roseman’s column in this morning’s Star about the gouging that tax preparers, many of whom call themselves accountants, are charging for tax returns. Ellen Roseman, Toronto Star, March 24, 2010:

“Marilyn Hew pays $40 to have her tax returns prepared by Can-Cro Accounting, Bookkeeping and Tax Services in Toronto each year.

“But since she was claiming a home renovation tax credit, she had to pay $94 this year. The extra charge amounted to 15% of the tax credit she will receive.”

These scoundrels, these thieves, are charging her a percentage of her return. They’re referring to themselves as an accounting operation, and they’re entirely unregulated. What a lost opportunity on the part of Mr. McGuinty and the Liberals to protect people like Marilyn Hew.

If one suspects or wants to believe that that’s an isolated incident, why, it was only two days ago—I checked my emails once again this morning. My staff down at the constituency office in Welland, Mike Haines—all of us probably have good staff. I’m sure we have good staff in our constituency offices. Lord knows they’re the ones who do the heavy lifting. Just think about it: They’ve got people lined up in the morning before they open, and the lineup never ends all day. I’m sure our office isn’t unique.

There are still people there at 4:30 or 5 who they have to accommodate, which means they don’t leave until 5:30 or 6. We are guaranteed, here at Queen’s Park, a lunch hour, along with other rather lax timetables. Why, as I look around, I observe the laxness of some of the people’s timetables, not because they’re here but because I see the green backs of these wonderful leather chairs.

It was a few years ago that our constituency office went after and nailed to the wall a tax preparation firm that was gouging seniors. Seniors, as you know, are vulnerable to these sorts of scams because they tend to be trusting. They also tend not to report because they tend to be embarrassed about being scammed, which is why seniors are so often the targets of scams.

So here we go. Let’s understand: This legislation does nothing to control the use of the appellation “accountant,” or the title. I think that’s a very dangerous thing. It controls the use of “chartered accountant,” “certified management accountant,” “certified general accountant” and the initials. It says that only those people who, in fact, can do that are entitled to use those. But anybody can call themselves an accountant, and the public, frankly, is hard-pressed to know—and we are hard-pressed to expect them to know—the difference.

One of the other interesting things is that the government—and to be fair, the parliamentary assistant addressed the issue of foreign-trained accountants. I find it remarkable, truly, truly, remarkable, I find it astounding, I find it just unbelievable—oh, but I believe it; the use of the word “unbelievable” in this instance is mere hyperbole—that the government has neglected foreign-trained accountants. I’m talking specifically about British-trained accountants, who are perfectly capable, and nobody disputes their skills—and these are members of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

You see, when the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the government, not on his own behalf, stands up here on a private member’s—he had a wonderful private member’s bill, the drunk driving boating bill, that passed, that became law. He leveraged the government a little bit; he appeared on Andy Barrie’s show. The people in the Premier’s office were bouncing off the walls; the government House leader of the day was fit to be tied. I thought it was rather mischievous myself, but not something that I was above doing in my own right.

And the parliamentary assistant had another private member’s bill, the regulation of private zoos bill, which never really became law, because the existing amendments that we dealt with don’t really regulate private zoos; they still flourish out there. I was supportive of the parliamentary assistant.

The parliamentary assistant says the government has to balance—listen to this—the interests of foreign-trained accountants with the interests of potential Ontario clients of accountants to rely on the qualifications and oversight of their bodies. Parliamentary assistant, I know that wasn’t your idea. But shame on you for using such weasel words when it comes to foreign-trained professionals.

On the one hand, this government wants to be known as the champion of foreign-trained professionals. What was that crummy cliché in the throne speech the other day? “Ontario needs the world and the world needs Ontario”—a tautology if I ever heard one. That was as good as they got: “Ontario needs the world and the world needs Ontario.” Well, Ontario doesn’t appear to need British-trained accountants.

I’m told that the CGA as a body goes back to the early 1980s—correct me if I’m wrong. The CAs are the oldest body. They go back many decades. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts—I’m not really a gambling man. Well, I buy the occasional lottery ticket. Heck, politics is a gamble, isn’t it? Elected office is a gamble. But by and large, I’m not a gambling man. I’m not a big fan of casinos—nor is the member for St. Catharines, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I give him credit for that.

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has a history that is at least as long as that of chartered accountants in Ontario. I’m not sure of that. All I know is that it has 300,000 members and students in 160 countries, it’s headquartered in London, with staffed offices as an association in 31 countries, and they are being told that their members, although they’re quite capable of practising as accountants because they’re—well, they’re accountants; nobody denies that.

But they’re being told that they can’t put the letters behind their name of “ACCA,” unlike a certified general accountant, who can put “CGA”; unlike a chartered accountant, who can put “CA”; and unlike a management accountant who can put “CMA,” because the public will be confused?

Heck, as if it isn’t already confusing enough. The fact is, people don’t rely upon those initials. I know some professions—oh, the insurance industry. Have you ever seen the letterhead of some of those insurance guys, those insurance brokers? They’ve got letters; they’ve got to use two lines from all these little institutes that they belong to and courses that they take. They think it makes an impression.

The other thing that really bugs me is Ph.D.s who call themselves “doctor.” Those are pompous people. Doctors on this continent are medical doctors; Ph.D.s are Ph.D.s. If you want to call yourself “Joan Smith, Ph.D.,” go ahead, though to what extent or to what end, I don’t know. But call yourself “doctor”? No. A doctor is a medical doctor or a dentist.

So somehow, the government is worried that putting “ACCA” after your name is going to confuse people, that somehow people are going to think maybe you’re a chartered accountant or maybe you’re a certified general accountant or maybe you’re a certified management accountant. I, on behalf of New Democrats, resent this abandonment of these foreign-trained professionals—because I was told there are more than a few of them working here in the province of Ontario and across the country. This is the sort of xenophobic ethnocentrism that we’ve inherited from our American neighbours. University degrees, right?

We make people from other countries jump through hoops to justify their degrees, yet many of them went to universities that were operating in full force before this country was even settled. It’s true. And they’ve got this fabulous reputation. But as I say, it’s that xenophobic ethnocentrism. Maybe I’m being naive and just not owning up to it, but I insist we inherited it from our American neighbours. Maybe it’s a very Canadian thing in its own right; I don’t know. So we’ve got something to say, come committees, around the exclusion of those good women and men working as ACCAs.

I want to deal with two more things, and I’ve to do this oh, so quickly—and I regret this, having to do it quickly—but what about notice to the public? How is the public supposed to know if you’ve got a bad accountant or a good one? Because it’s only in the legislation affecting CGAs that the regulatory body may publish the results of disciplinary hearings. In the other two appendices, there are no statutory authorities for publishing disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary consequences. Hell’s bells, these disciplinary proceedings should be as public as they are for doctors.

Accountants impact on people’s lives, on the economic lives of people, on the economies of provinces, of countries, of continents. It seems to me that there should not only be a requirement—not just a statutory provision that “may publish,” because that’s what it says with respect to CGAs, but “shall publish,” and it should apply to all of the respective accounting bodies. “Shall”—mandatory. The public has a right to know if an accountant is cleared of an allegation. The public has a right to know if an accountant is found culpable of a breach and of having displayed professional misconduct.

We’ve got to wrap up. I’m looking forward to committee. Oh, and by reference for folks, that was subsection 36(7) that I was referring to, appendix A. I know people will be reaching for their copies of the act and studying that thoroughly within moments of me finishing this modest contribution to the debate and heading off to the House leaders’ meeting.

Now I want to go to

section 44, so fast. “A member of the association”—again we’re referring to CGAs in this instance. I’m reading from that appendix A—“is incapacitated ... if, by reason of physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, other infirmity or addiction to or excessive use of alcohol or drugs, he or she is incapable of meeting his or her obligations under this act.”

Will Rahim Jaffer ever be able to identify himself as an accountant pursuant to this section? I don’t know. He walked. Maybe that bag of blow was powdered sugar, but you would have thought that if he was accused of being a cokehead, the first thing he would have said upon walking out of that courtroom was, “It was only sugar.” Maybe some day, Helena Guergis will tell us what in fact happened.

She’s the one who had, as Richard Brennan put it, the “hissy fit”—not me; Richard Brennan, the journalist, called it the “hissy fit”—at the Charlottetown airport, where she, as a federal member of Parliament, expressed horror about having been stuck—and I suspect that her wording could have been sanitized in the translation—in this “hell hole.” She’s a federal member of Parliament. For Pete’s sake, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: Good grief. It’s one of the most beautiful places in Canada. What the heck has Helena Guergis got against Anne of Green Gables?

What has she got against red soil, good folks, lobster, great hospitality, and one of the prettiest, most beautiful spots? How dare she, when PEI is constitutionally guaranteed four members of the federal Parliament, notwithstanding their population—PEI has some clout. So maybe some day Helena Guergis will explain away the coke—and I’m not talking Pepsi—with respect to Jaffer.

I just find it remarkable that you could be addicted to alcohol or drugs, fair enough, and be excluded only if you are incapacitated. You can be an addict and not be incapacitated. For the life of me, I don’t know how some meth-head—I guess they can do income tax returns real fast; speed up the production rate. I’m not sure about the accuracy— or just excessive. So if you do a little bit of meth, if you do a little bit of cocaine, if you do a little bit of heroin, you’re okay; you’re clear. But you have to be incapacitated by excessive drug or alcohol use.

Just weird stuff—just silly stuff. Why don’t disciplinary bodies—because, you see, the list of offences is not contained in the statute. This is strange, this government’s obsession with private-dominated/public partnerships, because that’s really what they are. There was never such a thing as a private/public partnership that didn’t result in the taxpayer having their pocket picked. Go all the way back to SkyDome, if you want to. Never mind the 407 and any number of hospitals that are being built, with high, high profit for the private sector financing, all at the expense of health care.

My time is almost up. The government House leader is getting ready for a House leaders’ meeting. She’s going to be sitting there tapping her pencil on the desk as I arrive late, as she’s wont to, because she simply doesn’t overlook any opportunity to criticize me or to chastise me. If she needs a whipping boy, I’ve got big enough shoulders, and I’ve been whipped by the best. I’ve been with the New Democrats at Queen’s Park since the days of Bob Rae, the last Liberal Premier that we had, so I’ve been whipped by the best.

But I want to say: Look, let’s get this bill into committee. I want to hear from the British-trained and British-certified accountants. I want to hear from the parliamentary assistant, to explain some of the omissions and oversights in this legislation, and just maybe the bill can be approved. Are we anywhere close to the Pareto optimal now? I don’t think so. Will committee achieve that for us? I’m highly skeptical, but I’m prepared to try on behalf of New Democrats.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. David Zimmer: I’ve got two minutes. I just want to touch on a couple of things that the member opposite just spoke on. First of all, he used the expression that the CAs were dragged, kicking and screaming, to participate in this piece of legislation. I think that’s a slur on the profession and that the member ought to apologize to the profession for that.

As I said yesterday in my remarks, since October 2003, I have worked with the CAs, the CGAs and the CMAs, and first and foremost in their negotiations and in their participation in this exercise was how best to protect the public interest. The member opposite does a disservice to the fine tradition in Ontario of the self-regulated professions, be it the accounting profession, the medical profession, the engineering profession, the nursing profession or other self-regulating professions.

Without the integrity, the hard work and the recognition of the public interest that each of those self-regulating professions brings to the work that they do in the province, the civil society that we have in Ontario would be a lot poorer for it. It’s because of their efforts here in Ontario that we have one of the highest standards in the world, if not the highest standard in the world, of civil society. The rule of law, principled public debate, majority and minority rights: Those are all elements of the public interest. It’s the self-regulating professions that play an enormous role in that regard.

I want to say that in my remarks yesterday—I have a copy of Hansard, and I counted up: “Public interest” was mentioned more than eight times.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: We all sit and listen in wonder, sometimes, to the member from Welland. He has great experience and he brings a great deal of commitment to the task. The respect that he showed in terms of attending while the parliamentary assistant, the minister and the critic spoke, is a compliment to his understanding of the process here in the Legislature.

A couple of things: He did take a bit of a small swipe here. What I said was that the report, basically, is broken into three sections, and each

section is identical except that it refers to a different accounting group. I’m going to give you an example of that to prove that this is the case. If you read under any one of the three accounting organizations, one of the objectives—and number 4 is a good one. It says here, “To promote and protect the public interest by governing and regulating the practice of individuals and firms as certified management accountants in accordance with this act and the bylaws, including”—and it goes on to list.

But if you look at the next section—there are three sections, A, B and C, and I’m looking at C, which is the chartered accountants—it says, “To promote and protect the public interest by governing and regulating the practice of individuals and firms as chartered accountants.” So the words are basically identical in each of the sections, with very, very minor modifications.

Now, the last part—he digressed, unfortunately and uncharacteristically, to criticize federal elected members without having full knowledge of all that transpired, accusing them here of using cocaine or meth and all the inappropriate—I’m not sure what it had to do with the bill or with his displaying his own dignity or lack of it in this Legislature. So I am surprised and a little bit disappointed by the member from Welland, but at the end of the day, he means well, and not one of us here is free of criticism.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To be fair, let’s all agree that when the member from Welland rises in this House, the usually abysmal ratings of this place get a great bump up. Come on. He is one of the best orators in this place. He keeps us engaged; he keeps us amused. Not only that, but he does his homework, and he did his homework on this bill. He looked at the various provisions and he made some absolutely thoughtful comments that I hope will be taken to committee.

As the small business critic, normally a shadow portfolio, I notice that there is no Minister of Small Business over there in the cabinet any more. I think that says a great deal—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Were you referring to attendance or just the position?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m referring to the absence of a small business minister in the new cabinet. I think that says a great deal. When the member from Welland talked about the distance from Bay Street to Main Street, the problems on Main Street not being the problems on Bay Street, and that this government is a government for Bay Street and not Main Street, nothing could speak to that more accurately than the fact that they do not even have a Minister of Small Business any more. That’s distressing to me.

I think that’s distressing to the people in the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas who came to Queen’s Park, 80% of whose members object to the HST, who came here and were ignored by the government. They represent tens of thousands of small businesses. Small businesses are hurting. They are not getting the tax breaks because they don’t make the profits. They’ve been suffering during the recession, and many of them are trained accountants. The member from Welland talked about one; a shout out to my own nephew, John DiNovo, who’s one. They’re busy doing taxes right now. They are doing our taxes.

We need to help them.

Again, certainly the member from Welland brought up some excellent points. I look forward to committee, and I look forward to hearing the voice of small business at least there, if not here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It certainly is a pleasure to make a few comments on the remarks made by our colleague from Welland—always entertaining, always instructive. A few words today were used that probably had us reaching for our dictionaries: “tautology,” “xenophobia,” and of course there’s fulsome—to use another of his favourite words—praise of our colleague from Willowdale. It’s very much deserved, as the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General and very instrumental in this particular bill.

Of course, it’s so good to hear that the member from Welland and his party are going to be supporting Bill 158. It certainly does provide great clarity, I think, for just about everybody. I know that for myself, understanding the differences, responsibilities and skill sets of CAs, CGAs and CMAs has been something that I’ve continued to learn about. We were visited yesterday by, in fact, the CGAs here at the Legislature and heard their particular issues and of course the fact, as my colleague from Parkdale–High Park has referenced, that they really do serve small business. This is their primary interest.

The York region

chapter of the CGAs is particularly active. I had the pleasure of joining them for their annual golf tournament last summer. They had the wonderful sense to use a golf course in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, and again it was a very good opportunity to understand the issues facing their profession. So it’s good to see this act in front of us. It’s certainly a good step forward and I’m hoping that everyone will be supportive of this bill.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: It is always a pleasure and a challenge to follow my esteemed colleague from Welland, who, as some who have responded to his comments pointed out, is never less than interesting and is indeed one of the orators that all of us, when we were first elected back in 2003, looked to. We learned some of the don’ts from the member from Welland, and we learned a few of the dos. We learned some of the intricacies and indeed the pitfalls of parliamentary procedure from the member from Welland. For that I have to say that the Ontario Legislature is always an interesting place when the member from Welland is in it.

I also want to acknowledge the contributions of my colleague from Willowdale, who is certainly one of the bright legal minds that exist in the government caucus. His contributions here are always thorough and well researched. He has been, for all of us, a calming steady influence, a great guy to know and a solid contributor to the province of Ontario over the last seven years and, if I may say so, someone who I call a good friend.

There’s something the previous speaker brought up that I think was a bit of a red herring. I think we need to refer to the act itself to correct it. He talked about others who were not chartered accountants, CAs; certified general accountants, CGAs; or certified management accountants, CMAs. I’m going to quote from

schedule C clause 2 of the revised Chartered Accountants Act. This pretty much answers the member’s objections; I’ll just read it directly: “This act does not affect or interfere with the right of any person who is not a member of the institute to practise as an accountant.” Similar phrasing exists in the other two acts, those that govern the CMAs and the CGAs.

What the member’s objections were, I wasn’t entirely sure but, as he says, this bill can go to committee, and he can ask at committee. I’m sure that at committee representatives of all three bodies can look at the member from Welland and say, “This doesn’t interfere in any way with the freedom of any other person to call themselves an accountant, but they can’t call themselves a chartered accountant or a certified general accountant or a certified management accountant.” Those designations remain protected.

What this bill does is, in consultation with the members of all three bodies, it takes the articles that govern the three professions and, by and large, makes them the same set of rules and regulations and policies and procedures. It means that transparency is increased. It means that simplicity is enhanced. It means that for a man or a woman who chooses to become either a CA, a CMA or a CGA, the standards by which they’ll be governed during the time that they practise their profession are the same, regardless of what brand of accounting training they choose.

It should be pointed out that the accounting training is very rigorous. Throughout it, its principle purpose is the protection of the public and the integrity of the client. One could pick just about any

section of the three because, by and large, they read pretty much the same.

I know, Speaker, that you’ve had a very distinguished career as a CGA and have been recognized by the profession for your contributions both here in the Legislature and during the time that you practised. I certainly, on behalf of all of us who have the ongoing pleasure and privilege of your company, want to acknowledge you, Speaker, for your contributions that stem from your experience in dealing with other people’s and other firms’ money and your knowledge of the trends and the rhythms and flows in the management of money, and the difference that it makes, when you come into government, that we’ve got someone in caucus who actually does understand money.

We’re actually privileged, certainly, on both sides of the House to have people who understand some of the rhythms and the flows of money as well. For example, I know that my esteemed colleague from Durham has a long history in business and is also able to bring to the fore some of his business experience, which also makes the House a better place. Also, in the spirit of this being March, he’s also Irish. What more can you ask?

To look at the objectives of the difference institutes, one sees in looking at the act that they remain either the same or obviously very compatible. In looking at such things as “to promote and increase the knowledge, skill and proficiency of members of the institute, firms and students,” it allows all three accounting bodies to promulgate the same set of good practices among their members.

I’m familiar with some of the things that the CAs do—less so with the CGAs and the CMAs—and I know that some of the best practices in professional development are those that I’ve seen practised by the three accounting bodies. The expectations of your institute, regardless of which of the three you have the privilege of working within as an accountant, are that on an ongoing basis you’ll continue to keep your skills current, because the laws and the statutes under which you practice the tax code that you interpret are living bodies of law and they change.

It means that as an accountant, it’s incumbent on you to make sure that you’re offering to your clients or to your employer the very best quality of financial advice.

To that end, all three institutes are very proactive and very assertive with their members in their expectations that they’re going to, each and every year, undertake so many days—and I don’t remember the exact numbers for each institute, but the expectation is there that you’re going to continue your education, and that each and every year, you’re going to stay current with your profession and stay up-to-date with the body of law that dictates the practice of accounting.

That sort of thing says to someone who is an employer or a client that this is a profession that, when it confers that designation upon a man or a woman and makes them a member, is ensuring on your behalf that, to the limit of their ability, they’re going to make sure that you get the best quality advice that they can possibly give you and that the advice that you get is going to stay up-to-date. That, indeed, is how it should be.

I remember back, now nearly four years, when we began the work under our government of the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act. At the time, the then-minister, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, who undertook a very extensive series of consultations, found that, by and large, the accounting professions were examples of how to do it right. If you came to Canada from another country, our objective in that exercise was to ensure that you obtained the ability to take your portfolio of qualifications and experience that you had earned in another country or at another time, and in a manner that was cost-effective, fair and transparent, convert that to its Canadian equivalent.

We had some examples of professions that had to be pushed and prodded into doing this, but one thing that became apparent very early on is that the best practices lay under the umbrella of the three accounting bodies. They did a good job, and I think they should be recognized for that. They continue to do a good job.

The legislation sets out some of the governance that the three institutes must operate under. It sets out who is going to comprise the council that governs the institute. It talks about the terms that the officers serve and the process of reappointing.

It sets out a series of committees and it allows the institutes to establish a fair, transparent and open framework, under which men and women who call themselves CAs, CGAs or CMAs know that their institute is staying up to date; that their members can get involved in the affairs of the institute; that they can serve on a committee and shape the future of their profession; and that the process of staying up to date and relevant, and the process of providing the best possible service to employers, clients and their own members, is a process that they themselves, as members, can have access to, that it isn’t closed to them, that the selection process is set out in very clear black and white, and that it stays in touch with the times.

The advantages to our province of having, in this case, many tens of thousands of men and women who have qualified for a designation in accounting and who can practise it in fairness and responsibility, reflect on the ability of Ontario companies to run a good operation, to stay in compliance with federal and provincial statutes, to report to their owners and shareholders and to manage things responsibly on behalf of their employees.

Part of the reason companies come here to Ontario is that in addition to the many other things Ontario can offer them, such as an excellent, well-developed infrastructure of electricity, roads, water; excellent access to the United States market—which is still the largest market in the world, but you can get access to that right here in the province of Ontario—companies that come to the province of Ontario are also able to get their fundamental natural resource right here, and that natural resource is smart people.

One thing we have in Ontario is the post-secondary infrastructure to train and equip knowledge workers to be able to go out and serve their clients, employers, customers, neighbourhoods and communities. Among those are our financial people, and if any of the other professions really want to see an example of good governance and best practices, the three accounting bodies are usually a very, very good starting point.

To briefly go through some of the clauses in this bill: Among the things that the bill does is it talks about what a firm of accountants is. We take it for granted that someone might work for such-and-such a firm, but this bill standardizes and harmonizes just what constitutes an accounting firm within the text of the bill. That provides clarity for anyone who chooses to start a firm, and it provides clarity for firms that want to combine or merge.

It’s actually very common practice for firms predominantly of one designation to employ people who have another designation. For example, with some of the CA firms, one often finds CMAs and CGAs who work there as employees and managers.

In this vein, I’d like to recount a few personal things. It’s been my pleasure through my working life to have it constantly entwined in one form or another with, particularly, the chartered accountants. I’d like to recognize and thank one of my early clients from when I practised public relations in British Columbia: the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. I got to know the accounting profession very well out there, and I met some great gentlemen along the way.

I would especially recognize, if he ever reads the Hansard—and I’m sure he’s not watching this—a former Auditor General of Canada, and the first president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia that I ever served: Ken Dye.

He was followed by a gentleman who became and remained a personal friend for quite a number of years: Ron Park, who was a fine, capable man, who really took the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia into the modern era during the term of his presidency and implemented many enduring and far-ranging reforms.

We all had a lot of fun together, and I’d like to think that we did some good things together in British Columbia.

I would also like to mention S+C Partners out in Meadowvale, with whom I have a continuing friendship. Every Friday morning at 7:30, we have ice time out at Meadowvale 4 Rinks, and it’s my personal pleasure and privilege to go out and get a little bit of exercise playing goal with the boys. To Kalin McDonald, Steve Myers and all the rest of them: Greetings from the Ontario Legislature, and it’s been a pleasure to work for you.

The government that I have the privilege and responsibility of serving has a long history of transparency in some of the legislation that, over the years, we’ve enacted: such things as the Apology Act, which allows people to apologize for a mistake or a wrongdoing without fear that the apology might be used in civil litigation against them, and the Election Act, in which Ontario introduced fixed-date elections to Ontario and eliminated, to a large extent, political considerations as a factor in determining when people go to the polls.

Indeed, in the same bill Ontario further strengthened our system by preserving the 11 northern ridings in the province. In terms of transparency, there was also the Good Government Act in 2009, which proposed changes that will ensure that Ontarians’ rights are protected and that the people of this province receive a high quality of service.

The new Public Inquiries Act, when proclaimed, proposes to bring balance to the system and provide our government and commissioners with better tools to determine the length and cost of an inquiry while continuing to support the independence of the inquiry process. Indeed, Ontario’s changes to the Juries Act create a clear and transparent process for screening professional jurors who are ineligible to serve on a jury because of a prior transgression.

On transparency, our government has regulated paralegals. Much like the proposed Accounting Professions Act, this particular action creates a fully regulated paralegal system that protects consumers and gives Ontarians a very clear choice of qualified service providers.

In general, transparency also exists in the consumer protection Payday Loans Act, which has brought greater transparency to the payday loans business, whatever you think of it. I will candidly say that I don’t think a great deal of it. Nonetheless, it ensures that payday lenders and loan brokers are licensed and meet the criteria for licensing. It requires specific disclosures in payday loan agreements and advertising. It provides a cooling-off period. It also prohibits concurrent and rollover loans, and it really did correct a lot of egregious abuses in that.

In terms of transparency, Ontario also has the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, which is consumer protection. Referred to as TICO, it administers the consumer protection rules provided by the Travel Industry Act. It requires all travel agents and travel wholesalers to register.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council has also been the subject of consumer protection.

This is one of just a very long series of acts that are aimed at protecting the public and ensuring transparency in the business practices of those institutions that the province proposes to regulate.

To quote the Attorney General, who, in closing, had this to say, “The Accounting Professions Act, if passed, would bring the statutes governing the three main regulatory bodies for accounting in line with 21st-century standards. New measures in the act would safeguard consumer protection and strengthen the accounting industry’s transparency.”

In my final moment, I would just like to thank, for their co-operation in drafting this particular bill, all three accounting bodies. They’ve shown consistent patience and goodwill throughout the entire procedure. I’m sure we’re looking forward to seeing it in committee to determine whether or not we’ve got it right.

On that note, Speaker, I thank you very much for the time to address the House this morning.

Second reading 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 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Prue: Students from Centennial College are visiting Queen’s Park today under the auspices of the legislative press gallery, and they are journalism students at Boreal College in East York. The names of the students are Kerry Prunskus, Lydia Moore, Meegan Scanlon, Reinisa MacLeod, Roger Tran, Julie Tu, Deeanna Charrion, Kris Baker, Clarisa Pessoa, Leticia Rodriguez, Bianca Murray and Ozman Omar. They are all up there in the gallery behind you. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ gallery, Inna Dubrovsky, who is the mother of Diana, a page from York Centre. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m pleased to introduce Mary Beth Caliciuri, Anthony’s mom, who is here again with us today and is enjoying a few days with us while Anthony gets acclimatized to the place.

Mr. Dave Levac: I’d like to introduce two groups of people today.

From my riding is Mr. Vic Pendergast, a very strong community supporter and a board member with the Alzheimer Society of Ontario.

I encourage everyone to visit their respective receptions today. They are mutually agreeable that you could go to both. OECTA’s reception is in room 228 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and the Alzheimer Society of Ontario is in the Queen’s Park dining room from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. We welcome those wonderful people who work so hard for our province.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature a number of people: Marita Devries from London; Diane Strachan, registered nurse from London Health Sciences Centre and ONA bargaining unit president; Jill Ross, registered nurse from London Health Sciences Centre; Sheree Bond, Ontario Nurses’ Association; Lawrence Walter, Ontario Nurses’ Association; Carolyn Edgar, registered nurse from North York General Hospital; Megan Strachan, York University student; and Beverley Belfon, registered nurse at North York General Hospital.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature today two of my constituents from York South–Weston: Edith George and Nick Di Nicio. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I would like to introduce the Alzheimer chapters that are joining us. From Toronto, Françoise Hébert, Andrew Ignatieff, Rosemary Corbett, Mary Ann Chang and Dan Andreae; from Windsor-Essex county, Sally Bennett Poliditis and Bob Renaud; from Perth county, Debbie Deichert and Agnes Deloyer; from Durham region, Chris Braney; from Huron county, Cathy Ritsema and Philip McMillan; from Brant, Hamilton and Halton, and Haldimand and Norfolk, you’ve already heard about Vic, but Mary Burnett, Ruth Simmons and Trevor Clark.

I encourage everyone, as my colleague has said, to join them at 4:30 in the legislative dining room for a reception.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to welcome Michelle DesRoches and Stephan Kramp from the town of Midland. They’re both joining us here today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am absolutely delighted to welcome family members of page Leah Kelly. Her mom, Loraine Kelly, is here, and her grandmother Kekio Kuryama and her grandfather Iwao Kuryama are here. Welcome to you all.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to welcome John Stunt, who is the retiring executive director of the Catholic trustees’ association, and thank him for all the great work that he’s done on behalf of school boards and students across the province.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House the many Greeks who are here to celebrate Greek Independence Day—which is officially tomorrow, but there’s a budget tomorrow. We will be raising the Greek flag at Queen’s Park at 12 o’clock.

Also, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a great Hamiltonian, the publisher of the Hamilton Hellenic News, Mr. Panos Andronidis.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce one of my constituents. Phillip McMillan is here watching the proceedings. Welcome, Phillip. He’s a strong community member in the riding of Huron–Bruce.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’d like to recognize one of my constituents who’s here today with the Ontario Catholic school boards’ association. He’s the chair of the Wellington Catholic District School Board, Marino Gazzola.

Mr. David Zimmer: I would like to introduce one of Jordan’s most talented energy engineers, Ms. Lubna Salah, who’s here in Ontario for a month studying the Ontario energy sector.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m pleased to introduce some very good friends of mine who are with the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region. They’re here today in support of their association. First is Teena Kindt, who is the CEO of the association. The second person is Elco Drost, who’s the president of the board of directors. I’m pleased to welcome them here. As well, I’m urging all the members to attend their open House that they’ll have later on this afternoon.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a member of the Catholic board from Sarnia–Lambton, Linda Ward, who is with us in the gallery today.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I am very proud to introduce and welcome Paula Peroni from Sudbury. She’s with the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association. Welcome, and thank you for all your work in Catholic education.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Vaughan and page Catia Marceau, we’d like to welcome her mother, Giulia Marceau, to the members’ gallery today.

On behalf of the member from Brampton West and page Colin Boyle, I’d like to welcome his mother, Joe-Anne Boyle, his sister Caitlin Boyle and his grandmother Anne Boyle to the members’ gallery.

On behalf of the member from Scarborough–Southwest and page Torin Hills, I’d like to welcome her mother, Mary Charles Hills, and father, Trevor Hills, to the Legislature today.

We have with us today, seated in the Speaker’s gallery, David Harvey and Kathy Dewling from the Alzheimer Society of Ontario; and from the Alzheimer Society of London and Middlesex, Betsy Little and Francine Lacroix. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome our new group of pages and allow them to assemble for a formal introduction.

Alexander Bowie, Oakville; Colin Boyle, Brampton West; Anthony Caliciuri, Nipissing; Anne-Marie Chamberland, Ottawa–Orléans; Diana Dubrovsky, York Centre; Erin Gaudette, Windsor–Tecumseh; Giselle Groskleg, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; Torin Hills, Scarborough Southwest; Leah Kelly, London North Centre; Snigdha Koirala, Toronto Centre; Catia Marceau, Vaughan; Harsh Modhera, Etobicoke North; Mathilda Murray, London West; Ben Neilipovitz, Thunder Bay–Superior North; Jameson Nguyen, Davenport; Eric Oh, Newmarket–Aurora; George Philp, York–Simcoe; Sabrina Sukhdeo, Thornhill; and Neale Taylor, Niagara West–Glanbrook. Welcome to all of our pages.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And for anyone who was not introduced and feels left out, welcome to Queen’s Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Premier: On January 5, you were quoted as saying, “Ask not what your provincial government can impose on you; ask what, as a member of the public sector, you can bring to the table.” Premier, you are handing over up to $45,000 in severance to your HST tax collectors when they won’t miss a single day of work. What exactly are your HST tax collectors bringing to the table?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It is true that there is a legal obligation pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Conservative government. I want to repeat that, because my colleagues across the way may have not heard it. There is a legal obligation pursuant to an agreement entered into between the former Conservative government and this employee group that provides for, in these circumstances, a severance payment to be made.

We believe that we have an obligation to honour that agreement. We believe, as taught by our parents, that a deal is a deal is a deal. We will honour that agreement, we will approach this as a matter of principle and we think that is the right thing to do in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, six years into a mandate is a bit late for the man who promised, “I won’t raise your taxes” to worry about keeping his word.

Premier, in British Columbia, as you know, they are not paying out these types of sweetheart severances to the HST collectors. The Ontario HST collectors will get up to $45,000 in severance. They’re going to get a raise. They won’t be missing a single day of work.

Premier, you have a choice to pay off this sweetheart bonus, or you can stand up for Ontario taxpayers. Will you do the right thing and cancel these sweetheart bonuses to your tax collectors?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague makes reference to the British Columbia arrangement. That government did not insert that clause into their agreement. That former government did.

Again, we believe that principle is not unimportant, and for that reason we will honour this agreement and we will find other ways, through our budget, to address the compensation issues generally.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know Dalton McGuinty and his colleagues say it’s John Robarts’s fault, that this was a deal John Robarts inked when he was Premier. I think you know that John Robarts became Premier well before I was born. It’s time to get with the times, Premier, and if you’re right that means it’s time to make a change. If you won’t do it, then step aside; we will.

This is clearly out of line with the expectations of taxpayers. When you’re laying off nurses in the province of Ontario, when you’re closing down ERs in communities like Fort Erie and Port Colborne, to pay out $25 million in severance to tax collectors is way out of line. Premier, are you that much out of touch with reality that you think this is a good deal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I gather that what my colleague is saying is that notwithstanding the fact that he sat at a cabinet table where they approved this very agreement with this kind of a clause, with this kind of a provision and this kind of a severance package, were he in government today he would set aside this agreement. I think that’s what he’s telling us. I think what he’s telling us is that, for him, a deal is not a deal is not a deal, and that you cannot rely on any agreement entered into by that government.

We bring a different approach. We think that the honourable thing to do, the responsible thing to do in the circumstances, is to honour this agreement. As I said a moment ago, we will find a way through our budget to address compensation issues generally.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. The principle here is simple: If you don’t lose your job, you don’t get severance. Every other employer follows this pattern. British Columbia is following this pattern. All we’re asking is for Dalton McGuinty to do the same thing. There are so many better uses for that $25 million in severance than the sweetheart deals to your HST tax collectors who don’t miss a day on the job and are also getting a pay raise.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you stand up for Ontario taxpayers and cancel these sweetheart severances?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just so that my colleague is clear, and Ontarians as well are informed on this matter, we changed the agreement for new hires effective 2006. We rejected the approach brought by the former Conservative government at the time, in which my honourable colleague sat in cabinet and approved the very agreement which requires that we provide this severance package.

In any event, we’ve changed what we can. We’re now doing what we believe is the honourable thing in the circumstances. To repeat once again, we will address the issue of compensation more generally through our budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know that the Premier is trying to use the union contract as a cover to hand out up to $25 million to his HST tax collectors, who won’t miss a single day on the job. I know that they’re in Dalton McGuinty’s favourite friends. They’re going to bring in, after all, $3 billion for him to hand out to his Liberal friends in sweetheart deals as a result of this massive tax increase on the backs of Ontario families. But Premier, I think you know that there is no language in the agreement calling for the province to compensate employees who won’t miss a single day on the job.

Every other jurisdiction follows this rule; BC is providing this way. Why is Dalton McGuinty making a special exemption for his HST tax collectors that BC is not?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I thought I’ve been very clear on this, but I’m pleased to repeat it for the sake of my colleague. The BC government was not bound by an agreement, previously entered into by another government, of the sort that we have been. When my colleague sat at the cabinet table, he was party to a government which entered into an agreement which requires that these kinds of severances be paid. We will honour that agreement; we think that’s the honourable thing to do and the right thing to do in the circumstances.

We have said that when we could, in 2006, we changed it so that for new hires beyond that point in time we would not be bound by this kind of provision. We’ve done what we can. We think it’s the right thing to do in the circumstances, and again, we will be addressing the issue of compensation generally through the budget.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the agreement and the Public Service of Ontario Act do not have any term that says it must pay severance to individuals who are not missing a single day on the job. You made no effort whatsoever to dispute this. You didn’t lift a finger. You didn’t stand up or think of taxpayers for one single moment. You’re only too happy to hand over some $25 million in sweetheart severance bonuses to your HST tax collectors.

Premier, there is a simple principle: If you don’t lose your job, you don’t get severance. Will you do the right thing and dispute this handout to these HST tax collectors, or put it in your budget bill? Because handing out that $25 million is just plain wrong.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the bluster; I really do. But I think it’s just a little bit rich that a member of the former Conservative government who approved this very provision in this very agreement is now standing up and being vociferous in his objection to the provision that he put into the agreement in the first place. This is not the first time we’ve been stuck with an agreement prepared by that former government.

We will do everything we can to always uphold the interests of the taxpayers. But we feel, as a matter of principle and as a matter of honour, that it’s important we honour this agreement.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians are anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s budget to find out whether they’ll keep losing health services that they need in this province.

Will the Premier take this opportunity to assure Ontarians right now that no community will lose health care services as a result of tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague. I think what Ontarians can and will continue to look to, of course, is our record. We have provided for a dramatic increase in funding levels for our hospitals and for our health care services generally. We have thousands more nurses. We are building new hospitals and expanding existing hospitals. We are creating ever more access to quality health care services, doctors, MRIs, CTs, shorter wait times, nurse-practitioner-led clinics, many new programs and service models that we put in place. That’s the path we are on, and that’s the path we will continue to follow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government’s record is one of health care services disappearing across the province. Patients in Ottawa are losing 190 nursing positions, Fort Erie and Port Colborne emergency rooms are closed, 140 health care jobs are gone in Hamilton, and Toronto East General lost its physiotherapy, pain and cardiac rehabilitation clinics. Across Ontario, the list goes on and on and on.

Will the Premier assure Ontarians that no community will lose any more health care services in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I’ve answered that. I’ll never be able to answer it to the satisfaction of my honourable colleague; I understand that. But hospital funding, for example, has gone up 42% since we formed the government. It will go up again this year.

The other conversation that I would really appreciate my colleague becoming engaged in is, how do we ensure that we continue to provide good-quality health services for all of our families in a way that does not compromise our capacity to fund our schools, our social programs and our investments in infrastructure like roads and bridges? I think that’s an important conversation that we want to begin to engage Ontarians in. Of course they want their health care to be there for them, but they also want good schools and good social programs to be there as well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t understand how this Premier can brag about a 42% increase in costs when services are being reduced in community after community after community.

Worried Ontario families want assurances that emergency rooms, nurses and pain clinics are going to be there when they actually need them. Some have seen the slow erosion of front-line services, while others have seen last-minute bailouts of hospitals when it’s politically beneficial for this government.

Will the Premier be picking more winners and losers in tomorrow’s budget? Or will he commit to providing each and every Ontarian with the same access to quality health care services wherever they happen to live?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I really appreciate my colleague’s raising this issue, but they’re the same kinds of questions that, frankly, I asked when I was in opposition. There’s a new debate now, and I think it’s important that we all join this debate. It has to do with more than just ensuring—and this is very important—that our families have access to quality health care today.

It also has to do with what we need to do to ensure that our children and their children will have access to good-quality health care in the future and to do so in a way that does not compromise our ability to fund other important public services. That’s the new debate, and that’s the debate I would ask my honourable colleague to join as soon as possible.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, but I’d like to tell him that the debate that keeps raging is whether or not this government is actually going to provide the services that people need in health care in this province. That’s the debate he should be paying attention to.

London is the latest community to see front-line services vanish. Marita Devries, who’s in the gallery today with us, was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer last June. She’s just one of many women and men who are about to lose the nurses that provide them support as they go through their treatment process.

If the Premier’s investing in health care, why are women like Marita worried about what’s going to happen to the nurses who are caring for them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member for the question. This, referring to the London Health Sciences Centre hospital, of course is very close to my heart and it’s an issue that I’ve watched closely.

What I can tell the member opposite is that we’re doing really hard work in health care across this province. Our hospitals, our LHINs, are working very hard to ensure that we get the very best value for the money we spend on health care. Sometimes that might mean doing things differently. We are absolutely committed to supporting people through the health care challenges they face, but when the evidence suggests there’s a better way to spend money, we have to pay attention to that evidence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, there’s one piece of evidence that’s clear, and that is that cutting nurses who support people as they fight cancer is absolutely cruel. Thousands have come forward to say no to these very cuts.

Here’s what they are saying on online forums and petitions: Debra says, “They hold our hands, wipe our tears, guide us through unknown journeys. Never once do they send us an itemized bill for their skill and genuine concern....” Ron says, “I guess hospitals don’t have any time for the sick these days.”

How can the Premier and this minister be so callous as to cut the nursing care to people in their time of greatest need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s a important that we bring some clarity to this conversation. The nurses that may be cut at London Health Sciences Centre are those who work in the mammography screening program. The best evidence through the World Health Organization, through Cancer Care Ontario, tells us that mammography screening is the only screening method that has proven to be effective. There is no discussion about cutting nurses who care for people with cancer. The discussion is: Can those nurses who are working in breast screening be better used elsewhere?

A debate is a healthy thing; it’s important we talk about the facts.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can’t believe the response from this minister. What do you think nurses do in a mammography clinic if they don’t support the women that are going there for a breast screening?

London residents know that things are not right. The hospital is spending $800,000 on a CEO while patient care is being cut. Thousands have signed a petition, and even the member from London West says that the situation isn’t right. But the question remains, what will this government do? Will the Premier listen to Marita, to Debra and to Ron and to other patients like them, or will he ignore them and continue to cut patient care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our commitment to caring for patients is stronger than it has ever before been. Our record speaks for itself: We have hired 10,000 more nurses over the course of our time in office. We believe in the care that nurses provide; in fact, we are expanding the scope of practices for nurses. Nurses are the backbone of our health care system. They are there when people need care. That’s why we’re committed to supporting new nurses as they graduate through a new nursing graduate guarantee, where they’ll get experience right after they graduate so they can become full-time nurses in our health care system.

Nurses are vitally important. We will continue to support them in London and across the province.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Your fumbling yesterday on the number of jobs to come out of the Samsung deal means you and your government really don’t have a clue as to how many jobs might be created. The McGuinty government chose a model of taxpayer-funded feed-in tariffs and rich incentives to foreign companies. So perhaps the minister can get this next number right: How many Ontario jobs will be lost because of your Samsung giveaway?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I don’t know how straightforward our answers can be, and I don’t know why the member refuses to want to admit it. Actually, I know why he refuses to want to admit it: because it’s good news for Ontarians, which is something that’s anathema to this member and his party.

The fact is, the Samsung deal will bring 16,000 jobs to this province—16,000 green jobs. It involves a $7-billion investment in this economy. But it’s more than that. What this does is create that major tenet in our green economy that’s going to help produce even more jobs, that’s bringing companies from all around the world to Ontario. What this has done is make Ontario a destination for green energy investment—something we’re proud of, something all Ontarians are proud of, something the member obviously does not—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: The minister doesn’t want to tell Ontarians the whole story, because the minister knows all about the March 2009 university study on the impact of Spain’s green energy policy, which George Smitherman hailed as the global leader and on which the Green Energy Act was modelled. That study concludes that for every one green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost in Spain’s economy. Minister, it really doesn’t matter if you pick a number like 1,400 or 16,000 or 50,000. It’s always going to mean net job losses for Ontario.

Minister, stop blowing green smoke at Ontarians and tell them honestly: How many jobs are going to disappear?

Hon. Brad Duguid: In fact, there’s even better news, because the Green Energy Act is going to create 50,000 jobs in this province. Day in and day out, I am meeting people—in fact, there’s somebody in the audience today with the Middle East—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Members will please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Halton, I just sat down and you just opened up.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: A day does not go by when somebody is not here at Queen’s Park, either somebody who’s an advocate here in this province, trying to develop green energy, or somebody coming from abroad. Today we have a guest in the Legislature from Middle East solutions and technologies for energy and environment, coming to Ontario to see all the good things we’re doing to attract attention from around the world.

Ontario is open for business. We’re open for green energy business. We’re developing this sector; we’re creating 50,000 new green jobs through these initiatives. These are new—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier: More than four million working Ontarians have no workplace pension whatsoever. We in the NDP have proposed a well-received retirement plan that would allow every working Ontarian to retire with dignity and security.

Premier, will tomorrow’s budget contain any good news for the four million working Ontarians lacking a workplace pension? Eighteen months after the Arthurs report gave you a blueprint for expanding pension coverage in this province, will this government continue to ignore the retirement plight of four million Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my honourable colleague—I thank, first of all, my honourable colleague for the question. I know he has a sincere interest in this issue.

I believe that my colleague Minister Duncan made reference to the fact that another bill would be introduced in this Legislature which will again treat this very important issue. My honourable colleague also knows that this is a matter that I have raised with the Prime Minister and with my counterparts from across the country. We see this as a national challenge. It affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as we say, and it begs for a national solution.

I’m also pleased to learn that this very afternoon, Minister Flaherty is launching a national discussion, which we welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Premier, but quite frankly, if you’re going to stand around and wait for Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty to act, nothing is going to happen.

Pensions, Premier, are a provincial responsibility in the vast majority of Ontario workplaces, as you know, particularly the workplaces that employ the four million Ontarians who currently lack coverage.

I’m going to ask you again, Premier: Will tomorrow’s budget contain meaningful action to expand pension coverage to the four million working Ontarians who presently have no pension?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague will have to wait, of course, until tomorrow, when we present the budget in this Legislature, to address the issues that we think warrant addressing at this particular point in time.

What I do want to say to my colleague—and I know he will understand this and admit to this, and Ontarians, of course, will need to recognize this—is that any new approach to dealing with pensions has a cost associated with it. Generally, we’re talking about cost to both employers and employees.

I know that my honourable colleague and his party have put together a proposal. I would be very interested in knowing how much that proposal would cost individual employees and individual employers so that we come to grips with the real consequences.

I think it speaks to the need for all these ideas to come together, and I’m very pleased that a national effort has now been launched.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. With more students on our campuses, we’re seeing additional strain on facilities, classrooms and labs. Universities and colleges are trying to keep up with the increased demand on their campuses.

Just last year in my riding of Peterborough, Trent University received over $20 million in infrastructure funding towards their DNA and Health Sciences Centre through the joint federal-provincial knowledge infrastructure program.

Minister, what else have we done to ensure our post-secondary institutions are prepared to support our students?

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to thank the member for the question. I also want to tell members that I had a wonderful visit to Peterborough yesterday to address the chamber of commerce and had a chance to meet with representatives of Trent University, which is one of the finest universities here in the province.

The member is right: We need to make sure that we invest in the bricks and mortar side of education to make sure that we modernize our facilities, boost our long-term research and, most importantly, increase capacity.

Recent capital investments at our colleges and universities have totalled nearly $3 billion. Last year, as members know, in partnership with the federal government through KIP, we announced $1.5 billion in capital projects at colleges and universities across Ontario. These infrastructure investments altogether have created about 15,000 new jobs and, I’m pleased to inform members, will create about—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Public infrastructure is vital to every person in Ontario, including the schools where our children learn and colleges and universities that equip our young people with the skills and knowledge that they need in a competitive world economy.

Our investments are providing real economic stimulus and employment by creating local jobs for engineers, architects, tradespeople and technicians. It is also helping to generate the advanced technological infrastructure needed to keep Canada’s research and education facilities on the forefront of scientific advancement.

We know that our higher education is becoming more and more important in today’s economy. Minister, how are infrastructure investments at our universities achieving these very important goals?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, through these investments we’re going to be creating about 36,000 new spaces. But I’d like to draw members’ attention not just to my opinion, but to the opinion of an outside source, the Council of Ontario Universities. They recently released a report entitled Government Infrastructure Dollars at Work, which highlights the important impact our infrastructure investments are having on our campuses and communities.

The report highlights what our universities are doing with the infrastructure funding they’ve received and how it’s improving research and higher learning in our province. The report cites that many universities are building collaborative learning environments and technologically advanced classrooms designed for contemporary approaches to teaching.

No matter the discipline, undergraduate and graduate students will benefit from advanced learning settings that will prepare them for the knowledge economy.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition launched our “10 for 2010” website of 10 good ideas that, when implemented, will create private sector jobs and get Ontario’s economy back on course.

One of these ideas is to create jobs in northern Ontario, a region where families have seen six years of lip service from you, Premier, but have seen no action.

Will you adopt the PC plan to restore northern Ontario’s freedom to pursue resource-based job creation north of the 51st parallel and give the north a real say on the revenues and where they’ll be directed?

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. Indeed, may I tell the member from the other side of the House that the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry is very proud of the investments that our government has made to the northern Ontario heritage fund, rising from $60 million to $80 million. We are doing some work in terms of the forestry sector, providing extraordinary incentives to the industry, working on wood supply competition and certainly working on a forest tenure system.

The fact is, if I may say so, we are looking forward to the budget tomorrow. I hope I’m not stepping out of line by saying that. Certainly we are looking forward to having some announcements that are significant for northern Ontario. But the long and the short of it is that our government has been incredibly supportive of northern Ontario. We have created 12,000 jobs, or retained 12,000 jobs, in northern Ontario through the northern Ontario heritage fund alone and, quite frankly, there’s a lot—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Investment needs certainty, but your ham-fisted policies have chased away those wanting to invest in the north, because the Far North Act creates uncertainty. But don’t just take my word for it. Harold Wilson, the president of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, says, “When you say that 50% of land will be taken out of use and preserved, but you don’t say which 50%, you rather create difficulties on the 100%.” He also adds that hydro in Ontario costs twice what it does in Manitoba and Quebec, and the McGuinty Liberals’ new taxes will drive it up even more.

Will you follow our advice and scrap your ill-conceived Far North Act?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We make no apologies for protecting the boreal forest, and we are going to build the northern economy through our Open Ontario plan with the Ring of Fire development that was in our throne speech: an extraordinary development, one of the greatest opportunities we’ve seen in northern Ontario in over a century. May I say, the member was with us at Meet the Miners Day yesterday. We are working with the mining community and the mining sector in terms of modernizing the Mining Act, and we’ve worked closely with them to help bring investment back to northern Ontario.

We’ve provided a balanced piece of legislation that continues to provide a positive investment climate while we also reflect 21st century values. But I’ll tell you again: no apologies from us. The fact is, we are very excited about the Open Ontario plan for the Ring of Fire which will create thousands of jobs in northern Ontario in the next decade.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. After intense pressure from health professionals, community groups, parents and, I dare say, the press across this province, we read today in the paper that this Premier may temporarily protect essential child care spaces from closure.

My question is, why won’t this same Premier protect the special diet allowances of 160,000 social assistance recipients who depend on support to deal with critical health conditions such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cystic fibrosis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Like I said to the member a few days ago, he should wait for the budget on Thursday to know what is in the budget and what is out of the budget. But this government is very proud about what we have done for poverty in this province. Contrary to the government that preceded us, we have increased social assistance by 11%, and we’re very proud of it. Again, on Thursday, we will see if there is another increase. We have also helped those workers who work at minimum wages by raising the minimum wage, and they will see $10.25 per hour on March 31. The full-day learning that the Minister of Education has announced is also—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The reason I asked the Premier the question is because, for the past two weeks, the Minister of Community and Social Services has refused to rule out the ending of the special diet allowance, as she did again today.

On Monday, March 21, medical and nursing associations, led by prominent Ontarians like Dr. Michael Rachlis and Dr. Gordon Guyatt, wrote to the Premier and to the minister urging them to maintain the special diet allowance. They said, in part, that the social assistance rates in Ontario are grossly inadequate and that the money is desperately needed for these social assistance recipients. Health professionals, the Toronto Board of Health, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and others who signed it recognize the importance of the special diet allowance in preventing serious illness. Why won’t the government rule out making cuts to the special diet allowance today?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As the member knows with his experience in this House, we’ll have to wait for Thursday to know what will be in the budget.

But this government has done a lot for poor people. For example, we implemented the Ontario child benefit. And what did this member do when we implemented it? He voted against it.

We also increased the minimum wage. What did this member do? The member voted against it.

We also provided an income tax package which will benefit the poor in this province. What did this member do? He voted against it.

So we—

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

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Northerners understand all too well the importance of the mineral and forest resources we have in our province, but today I wanted to talk to you about the north’s people, especially its young people. Our government has been clear that we will work hard to ensure that job opportunities exist in northern Ontario for young people starting to build their careers, and a great example of that would be the renewed focus of the northern Ontario heritage fund on private sector job creation.

Minister, last week you and I announced the funding for the summer jobs service program, a program that will help students in their quest for summer employment. Could you please share with the House what this program is and how it will benefit northern students this summer?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks so much for the question. Certainly, last Friday’s summer jobs service program announcement was incredibly important for northern Ontario students and employers. I was delighted to announce, along with my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, that this year our government is investing more than we ever have to support summer jobs creation across northern Ontario. This year’s program funding will be administered by the staff of the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, and it is a record $5.65 million, which translates into funding for as many as 6,200 summer jobs, several hundred more than last year.

Our government has made it very, very clear that the Open Ontario plan will continue to provide as many opportunities as possible for students looking for work in the north, to help lay the foundation for them to gain employment after graduation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Last week’s announcement was very important for both the employers and the students. At the announcement—I remember this very poignantly—we had the opportunity to hear from a northern aboriginal youth who was part of the summer jobs program, and he spoke very passionately about the experience he gained through the program.

This is first-hand evidence that the service program is working and that our government’s investment is in fact giving students the opportunity to gain the skills and experience they need for a future in the north and a future they want. The experience that the students in the program will gain is very important, as these jobs often point students in the direction of the work they will be passionate about for the rest of their lives.

Minister, could you please tell the House more about the service program and the types of job opportunities that exist?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Indeed, it’s really moving speaking to the young students who benefit from this program.

The summer jobs service program makes it possible for employers to hire students by providing them with a $2-an-hour wage subsidy as an incentive to hire students between 15 and 30 years of age who are planning to return to school in the fall. These students obviously get an opportunity to gain valuable experience in forestry, tourism, retail and various other sectors.

There are a number of examples of summer job opportunities there, and certainly some of them are in the Ontario public service. The Ontario Ranger program is an incredibly successful program. It’s an eight-week program working in natural resources management, living in a remote camp—again, great training for that. There’s something called Summer Company, which is a great opportunity for enterprising young people who want to start and run their own summer business.

So there are many opportunities, and it’s great news for northern Ontario young people.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Premier. Premier, it is estimated that 37% of Ontario contractor renovation jobs are currently done by the underground economy. Let me give you some numbers: That means that $5.2 billion of the renovation industry goes to the underground annually. Your government’s HST will make it impossible for legitimate renovators to compete with a cash deal. Your HST will only build that underground economy. How are you going to protect consumers and the renovation sector from the certainty of disappearing to the underground economy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. I say to the member, this government supports the 400,000 men and women who work in the construction sector. This government also wants to protect and safeguard those men and women who go to work every day to build our cities, our houses, our bridges, our roads. We’ve brought in safeguards. We’ve doubled the number of inspectors to get out on the job sites to ensure the health and safety of those workers.

Unlike that party—when they were in government, they fired water inspectors. They fired meat inspectors. They diluted health and safety—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I know why this is called question period: because there are never any answers.

This question is about HST and has nothing to do with the labour minister. Billions of dollars are already being lost to the various levels of government. The HST will only increase that loss.

The Altus Group, commissioned by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association—which is not happy with your HST—estimates that the current losses are $1.6 billion in personal income tax, an additional $298 million in GST revenue, and about $767 million from other revenues.

Premier, unless this is the money that your government is willing to part with, I ask again, why would you proceed with a tax—

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: This government has invested a historic $32.5 billion in infrastructure to support the construction sector—again, to build our economy here in Ontario while ensuring the protections, the health and safety of those construction workers. We continue to be on side with the workers to build our cities, to invest in construction. That’s what I’m hearing from the industry.

At the same time, we want to ensure that those good employers have a level playing field and that we tackle the underground economy. That’s what we’re doing by having our inspectors out there in the field, ensuring that everybody is playing by the rules, with a level playing field, and that those workers—

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

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Huron Central Railway operates a line from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury. It moves freight like steel and pulp, and it is critical in supporting good jobs in the north. The operator is losing money and is threatening to pull out by the end of the month without government support to upgrade the deteriorating tracks. Ottawa has already committed stimulus funding. Why is Ontario holding up this project?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Like many proposed projects out there, they’re obviously under consideration at this point in time, and we look forward to doing as much as we can. This is part of a $32.5-billion infrastructure investment we’ve made over the last two years. We’re talking about 300,000 jobs that have been created through that infrastructure investment. Those are the numbers we predicted would be the case. The Conference Board of Canada not only verified those numbers, but indicated that our numbers were conservative and that, indeed, even more jobs were being created as a result of these very important and integral investments.

We’re taking under consideration the issue the member has raised. It’s certainly one of the matters that’s under consideration within the ministry. We’ll continue to take it very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Time is running out. Northern families are not going to be happy with this government’s waffling and stalling on this very important issue for their community. They’re worried about the railway shutting down.

Sault Ste. Marie city council sent a letter to Ottawa and Queen’s Park urging immediate action. The city’s chief administrative officer said, “Whatever needs to be done by the federal and provincial government, needs to get done.” Ottawa says that Ontario needs to sign an infrastructure agreement before money flows.

Will the Premier stop passing the buck, sign this agreement and put northern Ontario families and communities first for a change?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased, again, to respond to the question to say that we’re still having a very close look at this. Let me tell you something, the member from Sault Ste. Marie, David Orazietti, has been absolutely relentless in promoting this project. I think I hear from the member from Sault Ste. Marie about every second day on this and other projects from that region.

I can tell you that we’re looking forward to continuing with the unprecedented level of investment in the north and right across this province. The $32.5 billion that we’ve invested over the next two years are contributing very much to ensuring that Ontario families have access to good-quality jobs; 300,000 jobs have been created over the two-year period of this particular program.

We’re going to continue to invest in infrastructure, and we’ll certainly take the advice of the member very seriously.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is also for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, with the 2010 budget being tabled tomorrow, I would like to ask a question about last year’s budget. In 2009, over $32.5 billion was committed to invest in infrastructure over a two-year period—obviously a significant investment. Constituents in my riding want the government’s assurance that these funds are being spent in a responsible manner and that they’re going to worthwhile projects that will make the communities we live in better today and long into the future.

They also want to know how these investments are supporting local projects, like new recreation facilities for their kids. They want to know that our job commitment translates into jobs locally.

Minister, what are you doing to ensure this historic investment—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member raises a very important question. I too believe that citizens deserve to know how these investments are benefiting our communities. I’m pleased to tell you that, together with the federal government, we’ve developed accountability measures to do just that. We’ve published program guidelines and signed agreements governing the use of infrastructure funds; we’ve built interministerial teams to evaluate project applications against certain criteria, such as construction readiness and environmental assessments; and we’re making certain that funds are distributed fairly in all regions of the province to ensure that all regions of this province can benefit.

In fact, in the member’s own community of Guelph, we’re investing in a number of different projects to improve the quality of life of her residents. We’re investing in roads, like Westmount and Edinburgh. We’re making renovations to the River Run performing arts centre. We’re supporting projects such as the—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Minister, I’m heartened to hear that this government is taking reasonable measures to ensure that funding is distributed in a responsible and fair manner. I think, however, that my constituents want to see the results. They want to see improvements to their roads and public transit, to educational and recreational facilities, to water and to affordable housing.

After years of neglect under previous governments, our infrastructure can’t wait any longer. These projects need to get under way today. You said that 2,600 projects have been approved so far, and in downtown Guelph you can see the road construction, but what about the other infrastructure projects?

Minister, how can citizens all across Ontario learn about the projects in their own communities?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the supplementary. As you know, we do have a tight time frame on these projects, and I’m happy to report that the 2,600 shovel-ready projects are expected to be completed by March 31 of next year. In fact, 1,700 of them are already under way or complete as of today.

Shovels are in the ground and people are working. Ontarians are seeing the results of our infrastructure investments. More importantly, this government wants Ontarians to see the results of our investments and to see them from the comfort of their own homes. That’s why my predecessor, Minister Phillips, helped launch our new website, Revitalizing Ontario’s Infrastructure, which can be found at www.o ntario.ca/infrastructure. This website will provide greater transparency to the citizens of Ontario by tracking the progress of these construction projects. They can turn to these websites—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, your government is acting like workplace safety is an exclusive union issue, and so does your new health and safety advisory board, the IHSA. Only 30% of Ontario’s construction workers are unionized; however, 100% of the positions on the new advisory board and the board of directors are reserved for unionized workers.

What makes you think that this board, created for the safety of the workers, can be reserved for, and given out solely and exclusively to, your friends at the Working Families Coalition?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question, and the opportunity to talk about health and safety in the province and the importance of prevention. We work with our partners on health and safety, partners like the WSIB and our health and safety associations, as the member mentioned. We work with labour groups, we work with employers and we work with employees—all working together to build a stronger health and safety system in the province of Ontario.

That’s why we have now an expert advisory panel that is looking at occupational health and safety in the province in a comprehensive way. That panel is being chaired by Tony Dean, somebody who is respected by employers, by labour, by government—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, a fair way of protecting Ontarians would include representation for all construction workers. Your government has talked tough about integrity, but I see you have found a new way to skirt the rules once again. Instead of working towards worker safety, you’ve just found another way to give your union friends another sweetheart deal. Your friend Steve Mahoney, chair of the WSIB, which funds the IHSA, should make safety the only priority for the association. Instead, he’s feathering your Liberal nest.

We remember him for his expensive dinners on the taxpayers’ dime. Why is this safety board being handed out like a political plum to your friends at Working Families?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I know that member enjoys divisive politics, but we are talking about the health and safety of our greatest resource in the province of Ontario, and that is our people. We will continue to work in a way that can prevent injuries and fatalities from happening in the workplace.

Our health and safety associations work with all sectors, work with all employers, work with labour groups and hear from employees how we can bring in the best practices to help ensure the safety of those workers, so that our moms and dads, so that our brothers and sisters come home at the end of the day, safe and sound, to their families. That is my number one priority as Minister of Labour and for our ministry, and our government sees that as one of our top—

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

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The question is to the Premier: Tomorrow is going to be the budget, and you know as well as I do that hydro prices, when it comes to our major employers in northern Ontario, are a real issue. In the case of Xstrata, it is one of the primary reasons why that Xstrata mill, as far as the smelter and refinery, is shutting down.

Tomorrow in your budget, can we expect that you’re going to respond to the issue of hydro so companies like Xstrata don’t have to shut down and move to the province of Quebec?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I know my honourable colleague knows that I’ve met with representatives from Xstrata. I had a good discussion with them and I put very directly to them a question: “Tell me exactly why you are investing so heavily, for example, in Sudbury, but you are removing some of your operations from Timmins”—in case my friend would have us believe that somehow they’re removing themselves entirely from Ontario. I focused on electricity prices, and those were an issue, but they were not by any means the defining issue or the determining issue in the future of Xstrata in the province of Ontario. I just want to make sure that my friend understands that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Premier, Xstrata’s metallurgical site is the largest utility customer for hydro in Ontario. You can’t make this House believe and you can’t make the people of Ontario believe that, somehow, your high energy cost for electricity is not one of the reasons—and the primary reason—that this company is shutting down its smelter refinery.

I ask you again, can we expect in the budget tomorrow that your government is going to respond to this issue and deal with the electricity prices so that we don’t see more Xstratas of the world leaving Ontario for jurisdictions in Manitoba and Quebec, where they have better hydro prices than here?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It is true—and I think we need to be honest about this—that electricity prices are lower in Manitoba and Quebec. They have been blessed with a different kind of geography that enables them to harness hydroelectric power, which gives them a competitive advantage in that way. That’s not to say that we haven’t done much and won’t continue to do more for our energy-intensive companies. We have a number of programs in place to help them reduce their energy usage: conservation programs, energy reduction opportunities and the like.

With respect to the budget itself, of course, I know that my friend is impatient in that regard, but he’ll have to wait and see when we present that in this very House tomorrow.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, farmers in my riding have brought to my attention a national print, radio and web-based public notice campaign for the Growing Forward program. They are concerned that this campaign does not promote any specific program and, more importantly, there is no mention of a current business risk management review. I know that Ontario farmers have been communicating with you, as you too have been hearing from farmers in my riding about many issues, but most importantly about business risk management.

Ontario farmers are dissatisfied with parts of the existing suite of programs. They say it’s not working for them.

Will the minister explain to the House what this ad campaign is all about?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I want to thank the member for the question. The federal government is currently running a national Growing Forward awareness campaign from late February to the end of March. To be clear, this ad campaign is an initiative that is by the federal government only. To my knowledge, the provincial governments were not consulted on its design—certainly not Ontario.

I’m very proud to say that the McGuinty government has stepped up to the plate numerous times where the federal government has failed to stand up for Ontario farmers. We listened to the concerns of our grain and oilseed producers, and we delivered a three-year RMP pilot for that sector. The province funded its traditional 40% share for three years. Of course, we were very disappointed that the federal government wasn’t able to join us in this initiative in support of our—

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Minister, I know that you presented the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition proposal at the FPT meeting last month. I’m hearing that with the business risk management plan, farmers will have no bankable support and be in a better position to deal with the challenges that nature, global competition in agrifuel and import costs present.

I know you’ve been pushing for the national business risk management strategic review to move forward to help our farmers, which they have been asking for. I’m also aware that you’ve been asking our farmers to support you in your efforts to push the federal government to come to the table as partners. My constituents would like the federal government to come to the table, just like we did, and provide support to the sector, required in these challenging times.

Minister, would it be easier to support our farmers if we had a real partner in the federal government?

Interjection: Good question.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It is a very good question.

Ontario farmers are dissatisfied with parts of the existing suite of programs, and I sought to make that clear to my federal, provincial and territorial colleagues at the FPT.

We are very proud of the support we have been able to give our Ontario farmers, and I know that we could do much more if our federal government would work with us to provide effective programming to meet the needs of Ontario farmers.

My priority is to ensure that the national BRM strategic review moves forward aggressively. I am focused on the need to address producers’ concerns related to complexity, bankability and predictability.

I understand that Ontario producers are restless for change. I can assure them that I will be likewise restless in my—

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

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On Monday I would have hoped you saw or heard what took place on The Agenda With Steve Paikin, live from Timmins, where a number of the municipalities—Jamie Lim, from the Ontario Forestry Association was there, and a question came forward about the impact of the Endangered Species Act. Minister, what’s taking place there? Once fully implemented, they’re looking at entire communities being shut down as a result of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

Can you commit to work with the forestry industry and the municipalities in northern Ontario to minimize the impact of the Endangered Species Act on those communities in the north?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. This is an extraordinarily important issue and something that I’ve spent the last two months working with.

I have to tell you that I have had some extraordinary conversations with the forestry sector. Certainly, anybody from the northern communities—northern mayors have come to speak to me at OGRA and ROMA. I am absolutely committed to working and consulting with our First Nations, with our northern members, and certainly with the forestry sector and the mining industry, that came to talk to me yesterday.

The Endangered Species Act is a commitment of our government; it’s very important to us. We want to get it right, and we are committed to working with all of our partners on this important piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Thank you for that supplementary, Minister. The timing is a little off.

A lot of the industry is of great concern, as well as the impact on the forestry sector. If you look at the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports and what’s going to take place with the Endangered Species Act, with the individuals working in that sector—if you look at the Atlantic forestry magazine, it will specifically talk about the fact that Ontario has been taken to court and effectively may shut down many more of those industries in the north that are being affected. You have the Endangered Species Act, along with the US Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, effectively shutting down a lot of those.

Minister, we need some sort of a commitment to ensure that those sectors are strong, because they are the lifeblood of the north. How can you help, Minister?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I would like to comment that there has been a lot of speculation, and certainly a lot of misinformation and a lot of analysis that’s wrong. It’s certainly frightening, and there are scare tactics going on in a lot of media, certainly last night in some of the Timmins papers. This isn’t helpful.

We need to work with our forestry sector, and we’re going to find a way to make sure that economic development continues in the north. The north is our future. We intend to work with them. I appreciate the question. We’re going to continue to work with our partners to make sure the Endangered Species Act and development in the north continue to progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended. There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure to welcome a delegation from China headed by Mr. Yaozu Cui, president of the China higher education information and career centre, CHSI; Ms. Lili Zhang, manager, CHSI; Mr. Yingiun He, international marketing director, CHSI; and Wenjie Chen, office manager, CHSI. They are joined by Mrs. Grace Chum, president of Sinobridge and Perfect Link, and my very good friend and constituent, the former member of