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

October 6, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-06 (PDF)

L053 - Wed 6 Oct 2010 / Mer 6 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 October 2010 Mercredi 6 octobre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

USE OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER’S RECORD

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

LOBBYISTS

LOBBYISTS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

LONG-TERM CARE

FOREST INDUSTRY

HEALTH CARE SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY

HYDRO RATES

SMOKING CESSATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

BUS TRANSPORTATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RED WEEKEND

CHATHAM CAPITOL THEATRE

GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO.

ONTARIO RESEARCH AND INNOVATION OPTICAL NETWORK

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY

MINING INDUSTRY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

ONTARIO LUNG ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY PEOPLE FROM ABUSE ACT (POWERS OF ATTORNEY), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES VULNÉRABLES

ET DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

CONTRE LES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS (PROCURATIONS)

PROTECTING EMPLOYEES’ TIPS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POURBOIRE DES EMPLOYÉS

ONTARIO AWARD FOR PARAMEDIC BRAVERY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE PRIX DE BRAVOURE DES AUXILIAIRES MÉDICAUX

DE L’ONTARIO

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM TOBACCO ADDICTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 VISANT À PROTÉGER

LES ENFANTS CONTRE L’ACCOUTUMANCE AU TABAC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH /

MOIS DE LA PRÉVENTION

DU MAUVAIS TRAITEMENT

DES ENFANTS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

PETITIONS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

KIDNEY DISEASE

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

KIDNEY DISEASE

PREGNANCY AND INFANT LOSS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SERVICES DIAGNOSTIQUES

KIDNEY DISEASE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH CARE SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 5, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the Ontario energy and property tax credit and to make consequential amendments / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt de l’Ontario pour les coûts d’énergie et les impôts fonciers et apporter des modifications corrélatives.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on this bill.

Now, this bill that we’re talking about, Bill 109, is the second in a series of bills of what we call backtracking. It’s an admission that the current tax-and-spend McGuinty government has hit the tax ceiling. Why do I say that? Because in the first bill—I believe it was Bill 99, where they sort of implemented the activity tax credit for youth—I think they were unfair because they did not extend the same courtesy of a tax break or a bit of a break for seniors.

This one here is another, unfortunately. I usually like to be positive on these bills that are trying to give some of the money back to the people they’ve taken it from. But when I look the detail in this bill, it’s yet another shell game, to the extent that there’s no change, really. The ultimate refund is still maxed out at $900. What they’ve done is changed the names, not the amount; they’ve changed the names.

What this bill does is in fact provide a $200 income-tested tax credit for seniors for the increased costs of energy. The increased costs of energy are the direct result of Premier McGuinty’s policy on energy. We have heard from my constituents, and I’m going to put on the record today, out of respect for my constituents in the riding of Durham—seniors primarily, but not always; persons on fixed income; persons who are on medical equipment in their homes; persons who have updated their homes to modern geothermal systems who now find out it’s costing them more because of time-of-use pricing.

The pumps that drive the fluid in the geothermal systems are electric, and they have to go all the time to keep the fluid going through the system, so time of use really penalizes them.

Mr. Speaker—the Speaker in the chair has changed—it’s hard to say. I’m trying to be as positive as I can possibly be, because we realize that Premier McGuinty is really saying, “Mea culpa; I’m sorry.” This bill should be called the “taxes are too high; I’m sorry” bill. That’s what it should be called. The bill is well intended, but it’s an admission that they’ve made mistakes, the second admission in a couple of months. But they still haven’t fixed—the sad

part is that they’ve changed the wording.

I’ve got to put it on the record, and I’m going to read it directly. This bill that we’re debating, Bill 109, “An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007”—that’s their bill; that’s their budget—“to implement the Ontario energy and property tax credit and make consequential amendments.” “Amendments” means fixing errors—that’s what it means—but what the bill does, in fact, is that previously the maximum claim for the Ontario property tax credit, OPTC, was $900; this proposed amount is the same. It’s so tragic. People, I hope you’re listening.

If you phone my constituency office, I’ll send you the information so you’ll know honestly; it’s been done by an accountant. It’s the same; it’s $900. What it’s done is change the breakdown for an energy claim in the amount of $200 and the property tax claim to be $700. What a sham. I’m embarrassed, actually.

If they were putting new money into it, it would be borrowed money, because they already have a $20-billion deficit. The borrowed money would be future taxes, so they still haven’t learned. They have no plan. I’m so concerned about the economy of Ontario. Businesses will soon catch on to this, with their high energy costs. It is tragic.

The tragedy of all this is that they aren’t being straight with the people of Ontario. Let’s call it what it is: It’s an apology, a mea culpa, for providing no plan for how they’re going to deal with the high cost of electricity in people’s homes, especially seniors. Those are the people who defended our country and who have given us the great quality of life we have today, and now we’re taking it away from them a dollar at a time.

Now, they say it’s only a dollar a day. That’s $365, and to get $365 in your pocket you have to make $700 because of the tax rate. It’s tragic. Some people are living on $800 and $900 a month. I know them personally in my riding, so I have to put their names on the record here—my constituents in the riding of Durham have given me permission to use their names. I speak to them and, more importantly, listen to them. The names in the emails are here, because this is sensitive.

One of the best and most intelligent constituents, who—I’m not saying he’s a supporter of mine. That’s not what—I would question; perhaps he isn’t. But I do respect what he’s saying.

If you check my website, johnotoole.ca, you will see that I have a statement, my own personal statement and my position that I will represent my constituents, specifically seniors; what I stand for. So I would encourage you to look at that.

One of them is Peter Box and his wife, Christine.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Now, I am hearing some noise on the other side from the newer minister, Mr. Murray. I’d encourage him to take the time to respond, and I’ll listen carefully to his observations.

He says to me here—this is Peter and Christine Box—“Sorry to keep bothering you on this subject but can you please explain in layman’s terms what the government is now proposing in regard to help for seniors, and if it is more ‘tax credits’ how do people who don’t pay taxes get to take advantage of it.” In other words, if your income is below the threshold where you have to file—there’s one example right there, and I know these people: intelligent, hard-working.

In another email, he goes on to show some of the treachery. I will leave it at that. He has a complete list of concerns here. In fact, he has 14 concerns. I’ll just quickly go through them in my limited time. See, what’s happened here is that they’ve limited the debate on this thing to the extent that I can’t put all this on the record.

Here it goes on. This is Mr. Box, saying, “The higher the electricity bills the higher will be the HST.”

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh, no, it’s true.

“When” time of use “was first brought to the public’s attention it was on the basis of forcing/encouraging a shift in time use of electricity.” I agree with that statement; I understand that statement. But let’s tell the people that unless they shift, their price is going to double. Now, I’m telling you it’s doubling.

Here’s the bill that was sent by one of the high-paid bureaucrats at Hydro One, and this is what it is. Right here, it’s clear that the time of use is an issue. It says that off-peak time—off-peak basically would be a good example; it would be from 9 at night until 7 in the morning—is 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour, plus all the other charges; mid-peak, which would be from 11 o’clock until about 5 o’clock, when nobody is home, is 8.0 cents per kilowatt hour; and on-peak is 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s almost a 100% increase, so no wonder people are just struggling.

What they’re telling seniors now is to do the laundry on Saturday because it’s off-peak. If all of the seniors in the apartment building where Mr. Box lives lined up on Saturday, they’d spend their whole day waiting with their loonies and toonies in their hands to get the chance to use the washer and dryer on their floor in the apartment building. What a tragic kind of father-knows-best attitude toward life.

There’s further information in this brochure, and I encourage people to read it. It’s called Introducing Time-of-Use Rates. They probably sent this out to make sure that—I’m not sure how much they spent doing all this, but this brochure is worth looking at. It goes right up to showing you that if, for instance, you were drying your clothes, off-peak it’s 12 cents per kilowatt hour, mid-peak is 18 cents a kilowatt hour and on-peak is 22 cents. It goes deeper, into air conditioning etc.

They’ve made it so complicated that you, the consumer, is to blame. When you say, “My bill is doubled,” they’re going to say, “Why don’t you use the smart meter? Log on to your computer and shift your time of use. You aren’t learning how to conserve. You’re not a decent, respectful citizen. It’s your fault.” They’ve shifted the whole blame on this pricing, and now this bill is here, in its tokenistic way, trying to fix part of it. But they’re not fixing it; they’re not giving one new cent. They’re taking $200 out of one pot and putting it into the other pot.

It’s a case in this—I have to slow down, because I get so concerned. I do, in my riding, look at seniors and listen to them, and I feel that they’re being left behind.

Later today, I’ll be introducing a bill which is strengthening the Powers of Attorney Act for seniors. We’ve seen in articles in the Star how Premier McGuinty and his government haven’t built, to any extent, any long-term-care beds, with the aging population. The year 2010 marks the first year that the baby boomers start turning 65. This is a silver tsunami coming at you. But what they have done—this is quite an artful game as well—is they’re going to regulate retirement homes. Now, retirement homes are like fancy condos, basically; they’re fancy condos.

Basically, you pay—there’s no government money; there’s not one nickel in a retirement home from Premier McGuinty, yet they’re going to regulate them. I’m not sure how they’re going to regulate them. I guess they’re going to hire more inspectors who make, probably, $75,000 or $80,000 a year to go around and visit all of these and give out tickets for some misdemeanour.

But I can tell you today what’s actually happening. People in hospitals today who are there convalescing after an operation or surgery or something—they’re high care and their rehabilitation needs are—they’re still in the hospital; they’re called alternative level of care, and they take a lot more attention and cost more for the hospital. They’re called bed blockers, too. They’re moving these people, in some cases I know personally, into retirement homes, because there are no long-term-care beds available. You have to wait for a year. Basically, you’ll be dead by the time you find a bed.

Or, as we heard the other day, you have to travel 500 miles. They had one where they were going to transfer the patient—the spouse is living in, say, Kenora, and they’re going to send the other one to Rainy River, 500 kilometres away. It makes it easy for the family.

There isn’t one ounce of compassion that I can sense for this particular group that is being abandoned at this time, in this economy, under this government—abandoned, from everything I read. Not just Bill 109; they were ignored in Bill 99, the activity tax credit one. They should have encouraged seniors to stay active by giving them a tax credit for tai chi or whatever activity—walking groups or whatever else. That is what I want to bring to the discussion here and to the Premier, respectfully: that you’ve got to do more than just tinker around with these technical tax things.

Now seniors are going to have to take their income tax to an accountant and keep their little paper receipts for all the expenses and things, and the accountant is going to charge HST.

Look, this does not fix any problems, but it is an admission of guilt. It is a clear admission that they’ve gone off the rails. I don’t know what’s happened. The Premier, with all due respect, is actually a very decent person. It’s not personal here. But he has lost focus. Somehow—I can’t explain it—it seems out of character, this deliberate avoidance of the issue, that he has hit the tax ceiling. What’s the problem? The revenue is down. We understand the economy is on its knees. It’s almost the same thing—I was a councillor in Durham region in the 1990s, when Floyd Laughren came to visit us.

He was the Treasurer of Ontario. He said, “Look, we have an expenditure problem. You’re going to have to tighten your belts.” He asked every municipality, under the expenditure reduction plan, to reduce spending, which was basically payroll: 85% of all public spending—around that; 75%—is payroll. He wanted the municipalities to lay people off. Well, they didn’t want any part of that; they wanted to be able to blame Bob Rae for that. The point I’m making here is, they hit the tax ceiling and they had the social contract.

Well, I see an uncanny parallel to what’s happening now. The public sector is well paid. The $100,000 list started like this, and now it’s this. It’s hydro; it’s hospitals. The hospital CEOs—$500,000 a year, some of them. Unbelievable. Not even doctors—they have a master’s degree. That’s good; it means they understand a financial statement. The point is: paying the right people the right amount at the right time is important. We’ve hit the tax ceiling here, and this is more serious than Bill 109.

I’m going to go through, here—Russell Branch is another gentleman I’ve spoken to in the riding on a number of occasions. He has written to me in his handwritten notes—a very neat writer—“We try to conserve,” but “we will have to pay for less usage” that they can’t afford in the first place. He’s got it right. What’s going to happen is that the utilities, who get paid for selling electrons, are encouraging you to save and they want the revenue to stay the same. So you’re going to use less and you’re going to pay more. That’s what is happening; there’s no question of that.

We believe conservation is important; it would be the first principle. Give the people the tools: educate them; spend some time before you implement these policies. It’s like the eco tax: They implemented it, and then they withdrew it. But they’re going to re-implement it. It’s a tax thing; it’s revenue.

So, there’s Russell. He’s another person I think highly of for taking the time to handwrite, not text. He probably hasn’t got a computer because he can’t afford the electricity. Turn your computer off at night.

Here’s another one from Bob Beamish. I’ll just read some of it in the few minutes I have left here:

“Thank you for your email June 22, 2010, about charging HST on gasoline. The HST makes many goods and services more costly. However, I agree that the added 8% on the cost of gas will be one of the worst impacts (along with the HST on heating fuel and electricity).” He goes on to say—and he’s got it; he’s working on his budget, and he tells me all his personal stuff. Look, they’ve hit the tax ceiling, and this little tinkering around with $200 coming from heating that used to be on the property tax is surely moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. This is a serious problem.

I think, in conclusion here—I can’t say this. I think they’re going off the cliff, personally. Large companies that haven’t the ability to turn it around—some of them are large, well-known companies who can’t turn it around—go off the cliff. Nortel would be an example of a company that was lauded, was a premier stock and now is penniless. The government is roughly on the same trajectory. They have a spending problem. We’re spending more, but at hospitals there are lineups; we have problems in the schools—bullying and everything else that’s going on; we have lineups in the courts. My point is this: The whole system is in paralysis.

It isn’t an individual—Minister Bradley is an excellent minister; not a problem. Here’s the point: They, as a team, have lost their way—totally. We’re seeing it in mental health, we’re seeing it in children’s services—across the board. For instance, in the seven years they’ve had of a glut of spending, now a glut of debt and a glut of tax policy that’s crippling industry—it’s troubling to the degree that I become quite worried for our collective future. We have to turn around and do the right thing for the right reasons at the right time.

Premier McGuinty is on the wrong track on almost every file. Look around. It’s tragic, it’s sorrowful and it’s sad. I’m not saying this maliciously and politically; this is what my constituents are telling me. These are the real people who are first hurt because they have the least amount of discretionary income. Pay attention to what Mr. Branch and the others are saying on this, because certainly you are close to the line here.

I’d like to mention Loren Pascoe as well, another constituent who gets in touch with me, sometimes angrily, I might say. They often think that we as members are government; they don’t really pay attention to the politics of it all. But they’re telling me that they’re mad. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it any longer. That’s what I’m hearing.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an honour to respond to my friend from Durham. Certainly, he brings to this House some of the comments of constituents that are echoed in my own riding and, I’m sure, echoed around the province. People simply are stretched to the maximum, especially those on fixed incomes. I hear from seniors. They can’t afford the HST. They certainly can’t afford the bump up in hydro rates. Their incomes have not gone up; in many cases, their incomes have gone down, and yet they’re asked to pay more and more.

It would make a difference, I think, especially for those of us in the New Democratic Party, if we felt that the not-so-smart meters, for example, were actually delivering on the environmental file, but they’re not. They’re not. They’re not delivering on the environmental file. They’re not saving us environmentally. They’re costing us, but they’re not saving us. That’s the reality of the not-so-smart meters.

This little stipend, this little bit that the government’s giving back to seniors, represents what, about $70 million? Seniors and others would be shocked to know that about $240 million is going to public utilities profits. This was a deal engineered by the OEB. So they get back $70 million, but $240 million is going to increase the profits of public utilities due to a deal made, a deal objected to by just about every consumer advocacy group, including the manufacturers’ association.

So really, this is not a gift. This is an attempt to paper over, literally paper over the egregious assault on our seniors, our small business owners—all of those in the province of Ontario who simply cannot afford to pay another cent in hydro and simply can’t keep their lights on and do their laundry on the weekends, but have to work and live during the day.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: The member from Durham was dealing with some of these property tax credit questions. Just to be clear, this program of property tax credits for seniors, based on income, as he said, has been going on since 2003. This is basically an enhancement of it. In other words, there will be more credits as a result of this latest change, and it is not nickels and dimes. It’s an increase of $525 million as a result—$525 million for seniors, based on income.

I think the member from Durham raised a good question about income eligibility. Seniors who do not earn income—they don’t pay taxes, in other words—can also be eligible for it. It’s a refundable tax credit, so if you don’t have taxable income, the key thing—and I hope all the members here remind the seniors; I know in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence I always do—is that it’s critical to fill out your income tax forms, because that’s what triggers the eligibility. A lot of seniors don’t get their forms done correctly and they miss out; they can miss out on up to $1,000 if they don’t fill out their tax forms.

Plus on top of this, there is another enhanced property tax grant, and that’s been doubled from $250 a year in a cheque, in a grant, to $500. So you add the $500 grant plus the over $1,000 on the credit, and it could mean relief of up to $1,500 for seniors of modest means, low income, on a pension.

So it is really helpful, and this is something that our seniors deserve because they’ve worked hard. They’ve saved, so let’s help our seniors today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Burlington.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: This is another in the pattern of the way this government works. It’s an ad hoc policy on the fly. It’s an optic. Like I say, this is a pattern because there’s never a plan; there’s always a knee-jerk reaction to public opinion. There’s never public opinion sought while policy is being made, but when there’s an outcry after the policy is legislated, then this government acts. You know what? Seniors and people in Ontario on any income are smarter than this. They get that this is an optic.

Seniors and folks on disability, folks on lower income, are on a fixed income and they are hurting. Yes, there have been measures that try to help these folks. Previously, the maximum claim for the Ontario property tax credit was $900. This proposal amounts to that same $900, so we’re counting the same $900 again, with a breakdown for an energy claim to the amount of $200 and a property tax claim to a maximum of $700. It is apparent that the value of these claims has just been moved around, and you’d have to be a master’s graduate from university to figure out how this is going to work, because the formula is complicated.

Do you know what? Energy costs are estimated to rise by 43% by the year 2015; that’s over $700 a year. This tax credit confirms that this is a clear admission of this policy being unaffordable. We need to support families and seniors, so any tax relief is good, and because of that, I will be supporting this policy.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m very pleased to speak in support of this bill and to respond to the member from Durham.

We know that energy costs are rising. With this in mind, our government has taken several positive steps that will deliver an energy system that will provide an abundant supply of clean electricity at an affordable rate. For years, energy consumers were not paying the true cost of electricity, and we can see that on our hydro bills—mine shows that the debt retirement is $5.07 for one month. As a result, our generation transmission capacity suffered with the lack of investment in the 1990s, and our electricity utilities were burdened with the debt that we are still paying off and will be for many more years. We’ve reduced that stranded debt, but we must continue to pay.

Our supply of electricity is greatly improved. The IESO recently stated, “We are in the best supply situation in a decade as a result of the new generation and transmission added over the past five years.” That’s the IESO’s response. They were sitting on pins and needles in the 1990s and the early 2000’s because we didn’t have sufficient electricity. Although prices are rising, the result is that an abundance of clean renewable energy has been added to our supply mix, and we have created a new and thriving green economy. Witness the opening of the largest solar facility in the world, 80 megawatts, in Sarnia this past week.

Parallel with our efforts on the renewable front, we are actively pursuing conservation, which the experts tell us is the most economical way to meet our energy needs. The home energy retrofit program has been a tremendous success. It was a program that I took

part in myself, and I reduced the energy bills in our home by about 20%. We are supporting Ontario’s efforts to conserve more, and with a range of effective programs, we will continue to do that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to make sure I acknowledge all the persons who took part: The member for Parkdale–High Park said that it’s an assault on seniors. The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, whom I have a lot of time for, does listen to seniors, I’m sure, but he recognizes that it’s an income issue and we have to do something about it. I think we all do, in fairness, without trying to be belligerent. The member from Burlington: I think her comment was right on spot. She quoted some statistics that there would be a 43% increase in the cost of electricity by 2015—43%. Unless you’re getting an increase in pay, then I think she is rightfully concerned as well.

The member from Ottawa–Orléans made some very valid comments—a little bit insensitive, though. He said that we have not been paying the true cost of electricity for too long. It sounded like, “Too bad; suck it up.” That’s kind of what it sounded like; I don’t want to impugn motive. But he said he was at the solar farm, and I do commend the government. They are looking at options. But solar energy: 80 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s a 500% increase. Get ready.

These are all good ideas, but listen to the sounds of the economy of Ontario. We aren’t using much electricity. The IESO said that. Why? Because 60% of all energy is used by industry. Where are they? On their knees. Stelco is shutting down smelters. Listen to the music. Watch the economy. We work for the people of Ontario, not for the bureaucracy. Let’s listen to the poor and the young, and let’s make sure we have the resources to do the right thing.

This is an example of a government that realizes, first, that they have hit the ceiling on taxes; they’re trying to give them a break, and we’ll likely support that. But slow it down. The next shoe to drop is the eco tax—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. There having been more than six and a half hours of debate on this bill, pursuant to standing order 47(c), the debate is deemed adjourned.

Government House leader.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we would not want to preclude the member from Trinity–Spadina from speaking on this, so we would gladly continue debate on this issue.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, you see the kinds of friends I’ve got? You see that? Some of them love it when I beat them up a little bit—gently, of course, and compassionately, as George Smitherman would say. Because George, in the elections for the mayoralty race, said that he’s going to make compassionate cuts. Have you ever heard of that? “We’re going to make cuts, but don’t you worry. They’re going to be compassionate. So as we flagellate you, don’t you worry. We’re doing it with love and compassion.” It cracked me up when I heard that expression. I loved it.

Mr. Mike Colle: What does “flagellating” mean?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Whipping.

I just want to thank the House leader for her kindness, because I’ve got a few things to say. I, of course, support this bill, because any support that we can give to seniors is good; any relief that we can give them is good.

But why are we doing this? Why are the Liberals doing this? They’re doing some nasty stuff here and there. That’s why they, first of all, take, and then give a little. Take big and give a little. We oppose the HST for good reasons. We New Democrats believe that this is a regressive tax. It’s about what we New Democrats here believe in: We believe it’s a regressive tax. The Liberals think it’s a great tax. They say that we are modernizing our tax system. What does it mean? It means that they’re cutting corporate taxes, because they’re so kind. Corporations, as you know, are in such debt that they need money.

So the Liberals said, “Not a problem.” Jim Bradley, the Minister of Housing is here. Minister—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I remind the member for Trinity–Spadina that we use the names of ridings or positions in the House.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services—Jesus, you have so many titles. It’s so difficult to remember all the different titles you’ve gotten—and you deserve them. But that’s not the point. The point is that you guys are so generous to those who need no support. You’ve given five billion bucks to the corporations, because they come begging every year: “Please give us a little more.” The Liberals are so obliging. They say, “Yeah, okay, how much do you need?” We’re giving $2 billion away.

By the way, what’s your deficit again?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s $20 billion.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s $20 billion, you say?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Something like that.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But that’s okay; that’s not a problem. Because if we give $5 billion to the corporations, that will be good for us. Why? They’re going to create jobs. Oh, really? We have been cutting corporate taxes for the last 15 years. Minister of Correctional Services—or community services.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Correctional Services—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Correctional Services—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: And safety.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And safety as well.

We have been giving corporate taxes for the last 15 years, and where are we with employment? The same place we’ve ever been: 8% and higher. We give and nothing happens. Unemployment is still as high as ever. But when we give our money away to the corporations, someone has to pay. Seniors have got to pay. So to make them feel good, we give them a little something. Now, would I not support that? Of course I’m going to support it, because we’ve got to modernize our tax system, and in the process of modernizing our tax system, we are reducing income taxes to the tune of $1.2 billion. Liberals are proud of that because it’s modernizing.

And what is the deficit again?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s $20 billion.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s $20 billion, I see. But not to worry. We can handle $1.2 billion less. It’s not a problem because the deficit really is irrelevant.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s 15% in NDP Nova Scotia.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, mon ami. It’s about having a deficit of $20 billion and you’re giving $2 billion away every year to the corporate sector that some of us are going to have to make up for. You give $1.2 billion for income taxes that you need. You need that money to reduce your deficit, and yet you call it modernizing our tax system. How brilliant is that? I love Liberal politics. It cracks me up each and every day in this place; it does. But you’ve got to talk about these things.

The harmonized sales tax is regressive—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry if I’m shouting at you, House leader. It’s a regressive tax because when you tax some person who earns $30,000 plus one cent and you tax somebody who is earning $300,000, it’s an 8% tax. They get whacked equally, except the guy at the top says, “That’s not a problem; 8% is not a problem for me.” And the person who is earning $30,000 plus one cent is going to get whacked in a big way.

It’s a regressive tax. That’s why we progressives, unlike Liberals who have no Trudeaus left federally and—

Mr. Mike Colle: His son is there.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: His son is there. God bless him. I don’t know that he sounds to me like a Trudeau-senior type, but God bless. We’ll wait and see. There’s time to grow. We have no Trudeaus left in this Liberal rump or that Liberal phalanx in front of me. No one left.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, mon ami, former NDPer. No, this one is a New Democrat. We have been consistently thus for a long time.

It’s a bad tax. You’re going to rake the money in—because you need it. I understand that you need it. That’s why I say to you, keep the corporate taxes. Don’t give them the tax giveaway, don’t do that, because you need the money to reduce your deficit. Don’t do it.

When you implement this tax, it’s going to be a whole lot of hurting to a whole lot of people. Andrea Horwath, our leader, quotes somebody from some part of Ontario every day who is hurting because of the hydro rates that are shooting through the roof. Every day there is another story. We want to alleviate that pain.

How do we do that? New Democrats said that we’re going to eliminate the HST—take it out—on hydro; do not apply the HST on hydro. The savings would be 500 million bucks for millions of people, not just seniors, who need it, but millions of people who are hurting across Ontario.

We’ve got vulnerable people—not just seniors—living on the edge; people who live with uncertainty day in and day out; people who are not getting the increases in their salaries; people who are worried about losing their jobs. Think about this: 70% of the wealth is owned by 4% of the population in this country, and 96% share the rest of the wealth. That’s 4% who own 70% of the wealth in this country. It tells you that a whole lot of people in between are hurting, and it’s not just seniors. They’re living on the edge. They’re vulnerable.

We have lost middle-class jobs, good unionized jobs. We’re losing them by the day. We’ve lost 400,000 jobs in the last four or five years—good-paying jobs. What we’ve got are part-time jobs more than ever now; people working at two part-time jobs on a regular basis to make ends meet. Some people are at a full-time job and working at a part-time job. We’re not just talking about seniors. This is serious.

When I went to the press conference but a short week and a half ago, and the Premier was there, we thought, oh my God, they’re responding quickly to the NDP proposal to take the HST out of hydro bills, because they said, “We’re going to put in a proposal that’s going to cost $500 million and it’s going to deal with these hydro issues.” Lo and behold, we find that this is an announcement of a previous announcement, because this tax credit was something that was announced in the 2010 budget, and of course it’s being implemented now.

It adds some energy dollars to help those who have been whacked and are getting whacked day in and day out with a little something, and it’s worth $70 million. It will help some seniors, but we believe that it’s got to be bigger than that. The Premier made me believe that he was going to spend $500 million just on the energy file, only to find out but a couple of days ago that it’s only worth $70 million.

People don’t know what to do anymore. Every time there is an increase of any kind, people of low income in my riding come to complain. Whether it is an increase in gas or fuel or energy or property taxes or their assessment, every time there’s an increase, they feel it. Why? Because their incomes are fixed. Their pensions, those who have them, are fixed. And many have no pension, no private pension except the CPP and old age security, and it doesn’t cover the bills; it doesn’t. So every time there’s the slightest increase on any one of their bills they are worried, and they’re right to be worried.

The government lauds and praises their smart meter plan, and we don’t see the savings; New Democrats don’t see the savings. Liberals are proud of installing so many of these so-called smart meters at a cost of $1.5 billion. Imagine what you could do with that money by way of conserving energy, by way of other policies that would indeed conserve energy. But at what cost? It’s $1.5 billion that we end up paying for and that somebody profits from.

The differential between time of use, highest use and low use is so minuscule that there are so few little savings that they’re not worthwhile. Why are you doing it? Why do you put that cost on to every taxpayer imaginable, every citizen imaginable, even when they can’t afford it? It’s just not right.

My friend from Parkdale–High Park was talking about the decision the Ontario Energy Board made but last year when they held a hearing to decide if there needed to be any change in what’s called the return-on-equity rate; in other words, how much profit utility companies needed to secure financing. The independent experts said no change was needed, but the American experts brought in by the big utilities said that the profits should be higher and that Ontarians should pay more. Theirs was a victory, and it was a victory of $240 million in new profits.

It’s a victory for them and it’s a huge loss for the rest of us. It’s a huge loss for the millions of people who are going to have to pay the extra cost to give those utilities that do not need the money the $240 million in profit. I don’t get it; I just don’t understand it.

We find ourselves in an economy that has crippled so many of us—not an economy that collapsed because of the work that ordinary Canadians do on a daily basis; not because of them, but investors and bankers, particularly in the US and Europe and beyond. They collapsed the economy, and then we governments, we the public, end up having to dole out billions of dollars to prop them up. And then we prop them up and in the meantime, those same financial institutions rake in billions of dollars of profits in the space of one year, and all because of the generosity of governments.

I love it when private corporations come crawling back to governments saying, “Please, we need your help,” and as soon as they get back on their feet, they say, “Please, get off our backs.” It’s funny how that works.

You’ve got utilities saying, “We need more money,” while you’ve got Ontario manufacturers and exporters saying, “Not a good idea,” you’ve got the Consumers Council of Canada saying, “Not a good idea,” and you’ve got the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, “Not a good idea.” They all wanted interveners. That is, they all wanted to make their case, and they never got a chance to do it.

This bill, for what it is, is a nice little gesture to seniors. It would be frankly unthinkable that we wouldn’t be supporting it, because they do need support, but it is an admission, in my frank view, that your policies are not working. In my view, it is your admission that what you’re doing is hurting people and what you’re trying to do is to help them as you’re hurting them. I think the pain is bigger than the relief. It’s a little opiate that they need to help them through this chronic pain that they’re experiencing from these Liberal policies that are not helping them at all.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: But you’ll support it?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I already said. What am I going to do? Am I going to oppose this? Why would I do that? It was important for me to point out, however, how fundamentally I disagree with your policies. The HST was a bad, bad idea, endorsed by Tories at the federal level, where Liberals and Tories, federally and provincially, are tight with their policies.

Mon ami Monsieur Flaherty at the federal level was quite happy—I can say that, because he’s at the federal level, right? Yes. He was quite happy to help the Premier out. He said, “Premier, if you need my help, we’re just so glad to give it to you.” It was beautiful.

And the Prime Minister, he said to the Premier, “If you need my help, I’m happy to give it to you.” And they together did it and it was beautiful, because the Premier, of course, gets all the blame, and the feds, who cut the GST by two points, losing as a result, of course, the $10 billion a year that they so desperately need to get rid of their deficit—they too, by the way, are cutting corporate taxes and income taxes at the same time, and the GST to boot. God bless the Tories federally. They crack me up too, on a day-to-day basis.

It was beautiful because the Prime Minister could say, “No, it wasn’t me; it was the Premier who did this.” So the Premier takes the blame for “modernizing our tax system” and Monsieur Harper, the Prime Minister, gets away with murder. God bless him.

Anyway, I wanted to make a case against the HST. I wanted to state positively and with conviction that we believe as New Democrats that we’ve got to impose a permanent solution and we’ve got to give permanent relief to people who are feeling the pain on their energy bills. By eliminating the HST on hydro, we give them predictability and a long-lasting solution to some of their problems that they’re having with respect to their bills. That’s the kind of thing that we put forth that we believe is practical, concrete, and a long-lasting solution to some of the problems that every Ontarian is experiencing. Thank you, House leader, for the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s always a privilege and an honour to rise in the House, especially after the comments by my colleague from Trinity–Spadina. As no other member does, he delivers his message with a very different flair, and it’s very enjoyable to listen to him every time.

I think the Premier understands and he sees the needs that are there, especially with our seniors. That is why, at this particular time, the government came up with the energy and tax rebate.

I have to tell you that in my area, in which a majority are seniors and low income—one pension, if you will; as the member said, they don’t have a private pension. Among the 740,000 people who will benefit if this bill will pass, many of them live in my area. I can’t think of anyone saying that almost $100 a month is not worth our doing it or giving it to them or approving this bill. I can tell you that almost $100 a month would go a long way in assisting our seniors, especially those in need, low-income pensioners, with their grocery bills or in any other way.

So I’m saying to the House I’m glad to hear that there is support for the bill. I’m saying let’s move it on. Let’s give it to them as soon as we can, because they are feeling the pinch, and when times get tough, the seniors are the first ones to feel the pinch.

I hope that we can move it along and get some relief to our seniors as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I guess the member from Trinity–Spadina is always enthusiastic and entertaining, and often informative, and I commend him.

Now, he did say rather humorously that the alliance, if you will—his theatrics are an A-plus, actually—is a true alliance between Stephen Harper and Premier McGuinty. He does this quite often. What he doesn’t realize is the proposal for this relationship is actually from the Premier himself; he initiated it.

What’s missing here—that’s a good analogy, though, and I commend him; I did listen. The thing is, Gordon Campbell in BC didn’t put the tax on gas. He had other choices, a different schedule.

The fact is, though, really, what’s happening here is Premier McGuinty went for the whole thing, everything: income tax, gym memberships, hockey registration. He got all the money he could—not any exemptions.

I think that, quite frankly, when I look at it, the federal government initiated an activity tax credit. Premier McGuinty copied it.

Hon. James J. Bradley: They’re the ones who promoted the HST.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, actually, it was promoted by the Liberals federally. They’re the same problem. They’re addicted to your revenue.

People of Ontario, I put you on warning. Liberal governments—Quebec: Look at them. BC: Look at them; they’re going to recall. And Ontario’s in the same boat. Pay attention. They have taken so much of your money now that they’re warning you that they want all your money. They want you to do this, that and the other. No sushi. Eat apples. Brush your teeth. They’re going to tell you when to wash your car and when to drive your car.

In fact, stay tuned: These guys are all about social engineering. That’s what they’re about—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Durham, please take your seat. The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Of course, it’s always a delight to follow my friend from Trinity–Spadina. He’s really the Lionel Barrymore of this place, or should I say the Robert De Niro of this place, so it’s always a pleasure.

Let’s name this bill for what it is, truly. Of course we’re going to support it. It’s like giving a baby aspirin to somebody who’s having a massive coronary. It’s not going to hurt; it might help a little, but the patient’s still going to die.

That’s what’s happening in our ridings. We are hearing from people who are simply being swallowed up by this little cut, that little hurt, that dent. That’s what’s happening. This is not going to help. This is not going to even offset the bite from the HST, never mind anything else that has been assaulting them in the last seven years of Liberal rule in this province.

What we in the New Democratic Party have suggested is something that actually could work, something that actually could really ameliorate the bite of the HST, and that is to take it off hydro. It’s a very simple thing. It’s over $500 million instead of $70 million. As my friend said, the $70 million doesn’t even come close, not even a third close, to helping pay for the increase in profits to the utilities. Come on. Why are we giving them more profits at a time when seniors can’t pay their heating bills and hydro bills? Why is this?

This makes no sense. This is Liberal Ontario, where the big utilities and big corporations get what they ask for and the seniors, low-income people and people living on social assistance can’t eat and pay the rent. This is the Liberal Ontario where the poor are poorer than even under Harris. That’s sad, that’s reality and that’s today.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have to tell you, I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I heard a certain member in the official opposition make reference to the HST not being on fuel prices in British Columbia—especially after that particular individual has teased me about a federal report I wrote on carbon taxation, which recommended that provinces don’t do carbon taxes. But no one in the opposition has read that. Does he not understand that there is a carbon tax in BC? I don’t know what happened to Tory research, but they’ve been asleep at the switch. It’s in the national newspaper.

I guess the Conservatives are proposing a carbon tax now, because that, apparently, isn’t taxation—the Tory carbon tax.

Then I love my friends in the New Democratic Party, who, in power, saw rents go up 27%. Have a little humility, please—just a little humility, not a lot.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You blew rent controls out of the water.

Last night, I was in the lowest-income part of my constituency at one of our accountability community planning meetings. Do you know what people were talking about? They were thrilled about this. They were thrilled that we’ve built more affordable housing in our constituency than in the last 50 years. They were thrilled with the support this government has given Dixon Hall. They were thrilled with the seniors’ tax credit. They were thrilled with the personal income tax cuts they got. They were very, very pleased with the transitional funding.

Small business people, of which there are several who own small retail shops, get the HST, and that was the only person who raised it in a room of about 100 low-income people. I had two small shop owners. The only time the HST—he stood up and told everybody, including—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister, thank you.

The member for Trinity–Spadina, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: All I can say is, I like the Minister of Innovation—that’s it—but I hate the HST. I think the HST is bad policy. It really is. I think it’s one of the worst things that we could do, and I don’t think you could make a very bad tax idea progressive. It doesn’t matter how you do it. It doesn’t matter how Liberals present it. It doesn’t matter how Tories, nationally, present it. It’s a bad idea.

Liberals are moving to a user-fee system. They’re going to tax services. That’s how they’re going to get the money. What it means is that people who are of modest incomes are going to get whacked. Those of us who have a higher income, and I include us, the rump included—we’re well paid. We are well paid.

Mr. Mike Colle: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But we’re well paid. And I think those of us who earn good dollars should pay a little more. That’s what I think. I believe the HST is not going to hurt me as much as someone earning $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year. I’m going to be better off. And those who have higher incomes than I—a multitude of people in our provincial government earn $500,000, $700,000, $1 million—are going to do even better. Those people don’t even wink at the prospect of an HST, but a whole lot of people on low income, including seniors who get some tax relief, are going to be hurting and they’re going to be hurting in perpetuity as a result of this HST. That’s why I oppose it.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: Seniors have worked for many years building this province and building funds or pensions to support themselves in their senior years. I’m pleased to stand here today to support Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the Ontario energy and property tax credit and to make consequential amendments.

We made budget commitments to help Ontarians manage their home energy costs and property taxes, and an increase of another $525 million will bring the total assistance to $1.3 billion. With this bill we are increasing the earning threshold for eligibility, and this will mean that more seniors will qualify—a total of 740,000 in the province of Ontario. Ontarians who own or rent a home could receive up to $900, and seniors could be eligible for $1,025.

The income thresholds for seniors would be increased. The increases in Ontario energy and property tax credits under Bill 109 are in addition to several other actions taken by our government.

Seniors and most Ontarians, through the Ontario tax plan for jobs and growth, will benefit from parts of $11.8-billion tax relief over three years. Part of that is a reduction in personal income tax of about 1% on the first $37,000 in earnings, or about $370 for the maximum reduction. These reductions started in January 2010 and were part of the major tax reform.

Through HST transition payments, single people received $300 and couples and families received $1,000. That’s one third paid out. There will be further $333 cheques in December and again in June 2011.

During the debate on this bill, the other parties criticized the energy mix, with the official opposition referring to all energy sources, except coal, as experiments. They also referred to the investments in transmission lines as experimental investments.

We know where they left us. They left the transmission and generating parts of electrical energy in Ontario in very poor condition. There was not enough supply to power our homes and businesses, which meant a risk of outages, brownouts and blackouts. On top of that, coal plants running on all cylinders were polluting our air and damaging our health, and we know what that does to asthma cases, for instance.

In a few short years, we have moved from a path of dirty coal generation to a future of clean energy. At the same time, we are creating jobs. Just to look at the jobs that we are creating—there was a list of them. Solar companies investing in Ontario: Everbrite, 1,200 jobs in Kingston; Solar Semiconductor, 200 jobs in Oakville; Canadian Solar, 500 high-tech jobs in Guelph; Oneworld Energy, 1,000 jobs in Welland; Fronius, 100 jobs in Mississauga; and Sustainable Energy Technologies, 300 jobs in Toronto. So we can see that the jobs that are predicted with the Green Energy Act are certainly occurring, and they are good jobs. They are high-tech jobs; they are jobs of the future in Ontario.

In a few short years, we have the IESO saying that for the first time, we have a secure energy system in Ontario.

We are helping Ontarians manage their electricity costs through tools to conserve and manage their bills by providing extra help to those who need it most.

I just wanted to look at my own hydro bill. This is the first bill that I’ve got with the time-of-use meters. Part of what we’re trying to do in Ontario, of course, is to change the culture and get a culture of conservation. Without knowing it, I received my first bill—Hydro One may have advised me that it was coming on, but I just received it. Of course it was in July, which was so warm and the air conditioner was on much too much.

On-peak, I had 25% of my kilowatt hours; mid-peak, 40%; off-peak, 35%. Well, we’re going to work on that in our own home to see if we can reduce those percentages from the on-peak and the mid-peak. Those dollars may not show up on our bills for several years, but if we can move a good deal off of the on-peak time, then we’re not going to have to build that new generation as early; we’ll be putting off having to make those major investments in new energy. I think that’s where we’ll see a lot of the improvements.

The cultural change alone—you’ll get that bill, you’ll look at it and you’ll certainly be more involved in your energy. We agree that the rising cost of energy in Ontario is a burden. That’s why Bill 109 has been put forward. It is going to give relief to those seniors and those Ontarians who need it.

Creating a strong, reliable and clean energy system comes at a cost. We know that. Our energy costs more than Manitoba, Quebec and British Columbia, but they have abundant hydro supplies. In Ontario, our north is very flat. We heard from the Minister of Energy four or five years ago that there is not much generation in our north compared to Manitoba or Quebec.

We are the only jurisdiction in North America, and maybe in the world, moving to eliminate coal. Four plants closed this month and reductions of coal by 70% are the results from 2003. We’re only using 30% of the coal generation now that we were in 2003. We are leading with renewables in North America. That’s important.

The hydro costs that we’ve had are major costs in making our transmission lines more secure and capable of the changes that will be coming to the system. We’ve brought on 8,000 megawatts of new supply in hydro. It was the Niagara tunnel and the Lower Mattagami.

You will note on your hydro bill that you’re paying each month—and I mentioned that in my two-minuter—for stranded debt, which is significant, which goes back to governments previous to ours. We’ve been paying it down since we started, and I believe it’s down to around $20 billion. We cannot afford to put those hydro costs on to our children any more, so we must pay the full cost of energy in the future.

We’re giving Ontarians the tools to conserve energy. Some 350,000 Ontario consumers have participated in the home energy savings program. I did that myself and, as I said, I reduced the energy use in my own home by 25%. That’s the only program I know of that the federal government had that was moving in the right direction on greenhouse gas reductions, and they suspended their part of the program on March 31, 2010.

It was a great program. It had the ability to reduce greenhouse gas production across Canada equivalent to what Ontario is doing with getting out of coal: 30 million tonnes of greenhouse gas reductions on an annual basis. We should be promoting that. We should be helping Ontarians make their homes better. We should certainly have the basic job with our homes of at least making them air-tight. That doesn’t cost very much, but that is the biggest bang for the buck when you try to reduce energy in your own home. That is a simple thing to do and we should be encouraging it. The federal government should have stayed with us in that program. We’ve given Ontarians those tools.

The introduction of smart meters will permit users to transfer some of their usage to off-peak hours, when rates are 50% lower than on-peak. Innovation in home design will result from that, and appliance design and cultural change. We will reduce the peak energy use, and we will reduce the need to build new energy sources.

I just completed reading Storms of My Grandchildren, written by James Hansen. He’s a scientist for NASA who has advised presidents on climate change over many years and has worked as a scientist on climate change for most of his life. I urge you to read his book. He visited the Legislature this September; some of you may have met him.

He is sure that coal generation must stop if we’re to keep from reaching, in the lifetime of his granddaughters—and my grandsons and your grandsons—a very turbulent world. The parts per million of CO 2 in our atmosphere is now at 390. We’re heading for 450 in 20 or 30 years. He is certain—and he’s a scientist; he has been working with earth science all his life, and working for NASA, which is not just any organization. He has been recommending to presidents, and they haven’t had the political will to make the changes. But he is certain that 450 parts per million will be catastrophic. That’s 20 to 30 years from now.

Closing coal will not be easy, but we are almost there. We’ll be the first government to close out coal. That is a great achievement for Ontario. This bill—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have the privilege of introducing the parents of Alex Schmidt, our page. The parents are Mike and Merry Schmidt, the sister is Andrea Schmidt and the grandmother is Elsie Brunton.

Mr. Rick Johnson: It’s my pleasure to introduce the grandmother of page Brigid Goulem, a neighbour of mine and former Toronto city councillor, Anne Johnston, who is in the gallery right above us here.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce guests Michael Goldberg and Grant Goldberg, father and brother of Emily. Grant, in fact, was a former page himself.

Mr. Dave Levac: My friend and colleague from Cambridge introduced page Alex’s family, but I wanted to point out that Elsie Brunton is a member of the riding of Brant and lives in the town of Paris, Ontario. I wanted to welcome her especially—and I don’t know who she votes for.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to introduce Michael St. Amand and Marilyn Lee, the parents of page Chloé St. Amand, from the great riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to introduce the members of the Ontario Lung Association, including the president of the Ontario Lung Association, Mr. George Habib, who is going to be joining us in a minute—a large contingency of people. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park and invite people to attend their reception this evening.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My apologies. I’m not looking for extra face time, but family friend Elizabeth Maclean has also joined us in the members’ gallery. Welcome, Elizabeth.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce Gloria Stock from the Ontario Lung Association and Dilshad Moosa, manager, provider of education programs and my constituent from Oak Ridges–Markham, in the public gallery.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I rise to ask for unanimous consent at this point that all members be permitted to wear bracelets and ribbons in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to introduce a former colleague of mine, a Toronto metropolitan councillor and a great advocate for people with disabilities, Anne Johnston from Pontypool, Ontario.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I’m really pleased to welcome a number of delegation heads who are attending the 29th congress of the Latin American Studies Association in Toronto. They’re making their way up through the chamber now. Of special note is the 15-member University of Havana delegation, accompanied by the consul general of Cuba, Mr. Jorge Soberón. All members are invited to meet this LASA delegation at 12 noon in room 163. Welcome, and I say to them, buenos días y bienvenido.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Doug Cooper, who’s visiting from Ottawa as part of the Ontario Lung Association delegation. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Doug.

USE OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Last evening, in the legislative dining room, we had a celebration for the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Republic of China and Canada. Members of the opposition were only invited to this event at the very last moment by email—yesterday, I believe. When we got to the event and were handed a brochure, this event was being sponsored by the Premier of Ontario and the consul general for the Republic of China. This event was not being sponsored by the Legislative Assembly.

The emcee, or the person carrying the event, was the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Chan. Mr. Chan gave a very long speech introducing the Premier, which I would characterize as a political introduction that one might hear at a fundraising event for a party.

There was no opportunity for me, as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, to bring greetings on behalf of my caucus to those present and congratulate the Chinese Canadians who have worked so hard in our province.

As well, when leaving the event, we were given a small gift. That gift did not come from the consul general; it came from the Premier, Dalton McGuinty.

I think it’s most poignant in this case that the event include not only government members and participation by government members but participation by the opposition, as we are a democracy in Ontario, a democracy in Canada,

whereas the guest organization, as you know, notwithstanding our diplomatic relations with them, is a Communist country, is not a democracy, and we should emphasize that the opposition is a very important part of this Legislature and our democratic structure.

I believe that the government has misused the legislative precinct for their own political purposes. I would ask you to seek compensation from the governing party for any costs associated with the event yesterday.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I rise on the same point of privilege. This was an event that was co-sponsored by the Premier’s office and the consul general, but members from all parties were invited. I saw the leader of the third party there. I believe the member from James Bay was there. I noticed that the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills was there and was introduced by the deputy consul general. There were representatives from all parties there. They were introduced when they were noted to be there. We had members of the government side there as well, some of whom were introduced and some of whom weren’t, because it was a kind of an open invitation.

I would take exception to the fact that the gift was presented by the Premier’s office. It was a joint gift by the Premier’s office and the consul general. If you looked at the gift, I suggest to the member for Mississippi Mills—the mat that was presented included pictures of former leaders of the federal government, including Brian Mulroney and the present Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, as well as former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and our Premier. So there were a number of leaders acknowledged. The presentation was made by both hosts. All members all the Legislature were invited, to the best of my knowledge.

I think it was fully appropriate, and no privileges were violated. You can judge on the quality of the speeches that were given.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just to point out that that was not a point of order or a point of privilege, but I did want to give the member the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the comments made by the government House leader as well.

It’s important to note that there is no procedural application that relates to this, but I will say that it does present me with an opportunity—because we’ve had some situations in the past that have come to my attention—to review the policies of the use of the legislative precinct. I will do so and report back to the honourable members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER’S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, one year from today, Ontario families will face a very clear choice between Premier McGuinty, who says he has a more intelligent understanding of Ontario families than they do—but the Ontario PC caucus believes that the best advice comes from the Ontario families who work hard and play by the rules but are last on the list of Dalton McGuinty’s priorities—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member about the use of titles and names, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: And every day, either I or members of the PC caucus are travelling across this province, speaking directly to those families who pay the bills but your priorities have forgotten about. Today we launched haveyoursayontario.ca to help move Ontario forward. Premier, why aren’t you listening to families anymore? What’s with all the elite advisers—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the free advertising that my colleague opposite is doing. I know he’s spending a lot of time talking about the election, but I just don’t think that many families are talking about the election today in their homes. I think what they’re focused on are their immediate concerns. That includes the quality of their schools; it includes the quality of their health care; and it includes any concerns they might have about the economy insofar as it affects them in their homes.

One of the things that we’ll talk about more and more as we move forward is where my honourable colleague has stood in the past with respect to those fundamental priorities that families have always shared, and that is schools for their kids, health care for everybody in the family and the strength of the economy that supports the jobs that mothers and fathers have to be able to count on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The PC caucus invites Ontario families to visit our website, haveyoursayontario.ca, to talk about how we can together move our province forward.

Sadly, Premier McGuinty has surrounded himself with elite advisers and has come up with some bizarre priorities that he never asked families about: his HST sales tax grab that has taken money out of the wallets of hard-working families; a sex ed curriculum that would start sex classes with six-year-olds when they should be learning their ABCs and tying their shoes; and then one of his most bizarre priorities: putting cellphones in classrooms across the province of Ontario.

Premier, you’ve changed. You’ve lost touch, and you haven’t even spoken to one family about your eco tax grab that you’re going to sneak back in next week. Premier, when exactly did—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I choose to leave the gimmickry and the dog whistles and the buzzwords—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier, I’d just ask you to withdraw that last comment, please. I have ruled that out of order in the past.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I withdraw that, Speaker.

I refuse to engage in that kind of gimmickry and shallow, wedge politics. I think our families deserve more than that.

In our schools, for example, we’ve been focused on smaller classes, higher test scores and higher graduation rates. My colleagues opposite said no to our plan, which we put into place, to hire over 11,400 new teachers. They said no to 3,700 new elementary art, music and phys ed teachers. They said no to the 400 new schools we are building in the province of Ontario. They said no to full-day kindergarten, which is benefiting our four- and five-year-olds in the province of Ontario. They said no to 20 minutes of physical activity in our elementary schools.

When it comes to Ontario education and Ontario students, families know whose side we’re on.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your obsession with cellphones in the classroom and banning chocolate milk are a set of priorities that is dramatically out of touch with those of the hard-working families who pay the bills. You have changed; you have lost touch; and you’ve refused, in fact cancelled, public hearings on the Far North Act; you refused to have public hearings outside of Toronto on your greedy HST tax grab. You still, to this day, refuse to call a public inquiry into eHealth.

We believe that the best advice comes from the hard-working families who pay the bills, who have fallen to last on the list of Premier McGuinty’s priorities. Clearly, you’ve changed, and now Ontario families are looking for change.

After all your tax hikes, your hydro rate increases, Premier, when will you get it? When will you give Ontario families the break they deserve?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague is confusing sloganeering with leadership, and I just see things differently.

Let’s just talk a little bit about another very important concern close to the heart of families: health care. The opposition said no to 19 new MRI machines and doubling the number of MRI hours of operation. We’ve hired 2,300 more doctors—they said no to that. We’ve hired over 10,000 new nurses—they said no to that. We’ve increased hospital funding by 50%—they said no to that. We have 100 new hospital infrastructure projects under way, including 18 new hospitals—they said no to that. We opened Canada’s first nurse practitioner-led clinics—they said no to that. We’re putting in place 200 family health teams—they say no to that. We stand on the side of families when it comes to standing up—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members of the opposition, I have stopped the clock, but if you are going to persist, I will start it again. New question.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, today also marks the one-year anniversary of the Auditor General’s scathing report on your $1-billion eHealth boondoggle. That was the time when you forced the member for Don Valley East to carry George Smitherman’s and your dirty laundry, that saw a billion health-care dollars that could have gone to front-line care, that could have gone to long-term-care homes, that could have helped people get quicker attention from a doctor, and it went into the pockets of your Liberal-friendly consultants.

Now, a year later, Premier, you still refuse to call a public inquiry; you still refuse to figure out where those dollars go and put them back into front-line health care where they belong.

Premier, why won’t you call a public inquiry? What Liberal friends are you trying to protect?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague and his party stand against electronic health records for Ontarians, but we think it is a very important initiative.

Let me tell you about some of the good news. In 2006, 770,000 Ontarians had electronic medical records. Today, nearly five million Ontarians have electronic medical records. By 2011, seven million Ontarians will be covered. By 2012 we’re talking about 10 million Ontarians having electronic medical records. The fact of the matter is, we continue to make progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The first tragedy, Premier, is that you blew $1 billion in your eHealth boondoggle. The second tragedy is that you have learned absolutely nothing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry to interrupt. Stop the clock, please. There are a number of ministers—Minister of Transportation, Minister of Health, Minister of Finance, Minister of Energy. I would ask that you please come to order.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You learned absolutely nothing from one of the biggest scandals in the history of our province. And what have we seen from there, Premier? Dollars that should have gone into cancer care that went into the pockets of Liberal-friendly consultants, and you said, “I’m sorry,” and you slapped your own wrist. We saw three scandals at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., where you said you’re sorry and slapped your wrist. And now we’re seeing Liberal-friendly lobbyists who are getting money meant for hospitals and, again, you’re saying you’re sorry and you slap your wrist.

Premier, people are tired of your phony apologies. They want to see change in our province and they want to see you support the PC motion on health care accountability tonight. Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I haven’t seen the motion, but I ask on behalf of Ontarians whether it makes reference to the fact that the opposition would like to cut $3 billion out of our health care system. I think they’re entitled to know that.

The electronic health records—let me tell you why that’s so important. This is all about making sure that your health care provider, whether it’s your family doctor, your emergency department doctor, your home care nurse or your pharmacist, has access to the right information at the right time so that we can give you the best possible care. More than that, the electronic medical record is also about making sure that every health care provider has access to the best expertise, regardless of where you are being cared for.

That’s why in government we are so committed to moving forward and to ensuring that this is a genuine success for all Ontarians. It’s about improving the quality of their care.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: While the Ontario PCs launched haveyoursayontario.ca to hear directly from Ontario families, we have a Premier who boasts that he has a more intelligent understanding of the issues than Ontario families do. You’d think, though, that this Premier, who boasts about his intelligent understanding, would have learned lessons from eHealth, but instead we see now a further $300 million-plus poured into the program with no results for families.

We’ve seen $250 million taken from front-line care for your regional health bureaucracies, the LHINs, that don’t do one minute of patient care, that don’t do a single surgery or a single MRI. Now the Premier says he wants to address retirement homes, but that very same day, Liberal members in the committee voted down the idea of our PC health critic to explore that issue, to fix that problem. Your members voted it down. Premier—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague is working hard to try to undermine confidence in Ontario health care and I understand he wants to lay a foundation for some very significant cuts that he wants to put—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark should be in his seat.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague wants to undermine confidence in public health care. I can understand that’s part of their strategy. They want to do away with electronic health records, which we think are fundamental to improving the quality of health care.

But again, I think it’s important to look back on their record. They closed—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m quite prepared to allow the Premier to continue. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I mean, it’s difficult for them to listen to this, but they’re going to have to listen to this and, I can assure you, much more as we move forward.

They closed 28 hospitals on their watch, they shut down 7,100 hospital beds, they fired 6,200 nurses and they remain committed to taking $3 billion out of the Ontario health care system.

I say shame on them. I say to Ontario families: Beware of this party. Beware of this leader. You should understand who’s on your side when it comes to protecting public health care in Ontario.

LOBBYISTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier and his ministers have stated that public money shouldn’t be spent on insider lobbyists. My question is, should municipalities heed that advice as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the Minister of Health spoke to this yesterday. We believe that is a matter of principle. In this, we

part company with the former NDP and Conservative governments. It was a standard that they had in place that they found acceptable; we find it unacceptable. We intend to change the law in the province of Ontario. We’re going to ensure that people who find—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will be introducing provisions to make it perfectly clear that Ontario tax dollars are not to be used by the broader public sector and agencies to lobby their government in order to secure still more funding or one benefit or another. We think that’s in keeping with the values and standards shared by families and taxpayers generally, and that’s why we’ll be moving on that front.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Every day, the gap between what this Premier says and what his government actually does widens.

The city of Brampton is paying the former vice-president of the Ontario Liberal Party $129,000 to lobby this government. Durham region has a contract with another former Liberal staffer for $23,000. Why do municipalities think that in order to be heard by this government, they need to find a well-connected lobbyist and hand them a lucrative contract?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we look forward to introducing these new measures.

We’re always interested in any advice offered by the opposition parties, but I must say, they have not been there in terms of supporting accountability and transparency in the past. When we expanded the sunshine list to include OPG and Hydro One, the opposition opposed that. When we asked the Auditor General to begin value-for-money audits of the broader public sector—hospitals, universities and schools—the opposition opposed that. When we asked the Integrity Commissioner to review the expenses of our 22 largest agencies, the opposition opposed that.

When we made publicly posting expenses mandatory for ministers, political staff and senior managers in the 22 largest agencies, again the opposition opposed that. Every time we move forward with a new accountability measure and a transparency measure, they oppose it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families want a government that listens, not one that charges access fees. The town of Tecumseh is paying former Liberal staffers Andrew Steele and Katie Telford $25,000 for their insider connections. The city of Niagara Falls paid StrategyCorp $102,000 last year.

Why are municipalities forced to turn to the Premier’s friends to get their issues on the agenda?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I appreciate my colleague’s advice in this regard, but I want to come back to the record of the opposition.

As I say, every single time we have moved forward with a new measure to heighten accountability and transparency, they have stood in the way of those measures.

More recently, we asked both parties if they might post their leaders’ offices’ expenses. We asked them that in February, and they have yet to comply. When we go home, so to speak, right into their offices and ask them to comply with the advice that they put forward, they refuse to do that.

LOBBYISTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The province provides billions of dollars to municipalities. Families themselves contribute billions more through their property taxes. They’re paying for transit; they’re paying for road maintenance and for garbage collection, but the money still keeps finding its way into the pockets of well-connected insider lobbyists. For seven years, this Premier has allowed former staffers and partisans to collect this public subsidy. Why should people believe him when he says he plans to stop it now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I am very, very proud of this government’s record with regard to our relationship with municipalities. Never in the history of this government of the province of Ontario have we had a better working relationship than with the municipalities. We understand that they are a very important, integral part to ensuring that the lives of Ontarians are made better. We work with them. We don’t fight with them; we don’t download; we don’t diminish the services, as when you were in government. We will continue to ensure that that partnership is strong. We will continue to ensure that we respect municipalities and that we deal with municipalities in a responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The town of Oakville spent $9,000 on a lobbyist, a counsel of public affairs. The Premier might be familiar with that particular lobbyist: Charles Beer, a former Liberal cabinet minister. The town says, “We’re just trying to get support for a new hospital.” I don’t blame them. Why do municipalities have to hire the Premier’s friends in order to get ahead?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: In order to ensure that the member understands the type of working relationship we have with municipalities, let me quote a little bit about the relationship and how it has benefited the city of Hamilton: $16.77 million for 186 rental units; $350,000 for 20 homeownership units. We are talking about affordable housing. The social housing renovation and retrofit program: in 2009-10, $18.6 million; in 2010-11, $14.2 million. The rent bank program that we on this side think is important: $226,000 in 2009, for a total of $1.2 million. We prevented 1,152 evictions.

The reality is, when it comes to caring for the people of Ontario in any class, this is a government that—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families pay their taxes. They expect their hard-earned dollars to fix potholes and build better public transit, not make life easier for Liberal MPPs and staffers. Municipalities shouldn’t have to be redirecting their money into the pockets of well-connected lobbyists, well-connected Liberal insiders. Will the Premier support a ban on public sector lobbyists that includes municipalities?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: As I deal with the municipal councils, as I deal with the municipalities, more and more am I hearing the fact that they are very, very excited about the continuing partnership. You know what they say, though? They really tell me that “NDP” stands for “No Developed Plan”: no developed plan for long-term affordable housing; no developed plan for social housing; no developed plan for affordable housing; no developed plan for housing in general; no developed plan for official plans; no developed plans for provincial policy statements; no developed plans for short-term rent support; no developed plan for retirement homes.

The reality is, this government has a plan. We will continue that relationship with municipalities because it is important. We know that the people of Ontario define the NDP as “No Developed Plan.”

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. One year from today, Ontario families can choose to put an end to the McGuinty Liberals’ pattern of not doing anything about eHealth-style rot until they get caught. Ontario PCs won’t wait until next year to put forward ideas for change, which is why I put forward my motion and which is why we asked the Premier to explain the record increase in what families paid for eHealth last year. The health minister’s response to our question about the hundreds of millions more they spent was a boast about reducing consultant use.

So my question is, how did you manage to break the member for Don Valley East’s record for eHealth spending by $100 million when you have fewer consultants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m actually very happy to have the opportunity to talk about eHealth. We haven’t been talking about it a lot lately, but there’s a lot to talk about.

We are moving forward aggressively to electronic health records in this province. The future of our health care system depends on us being successful in moving from the old paper-based system to the electronic system of the future.

I am very distressed and surprised, frankly, to hear the opposition party talking about putting the brakes on eHealth. We need to do exactly the opposite. Our patients are counting on us. If you talk to people, they want electronic health records. And do you know who wants it the most? Seniors want it the most because they have more interaction with the health care system. They’re used to electronic banking. They’re used to other electronic services. They want electronic health records.

We’re moving forward. We’re providing—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The fact of the matter is that electronic health records are absolutely essential to our health care system in future years, but this government has totally dropped the ball and we’re no closer to these records than we were five years ago.

Back to the question: You don’t need to understand the Premier’s “more intelligent understanding” to figure out that runaway budget increases while reducing consultants has more to do with consultants being added to eHealth’s payroll. Former Courtyard consultant Ian Fish is now added to the permanent staff, and there are sure to be others.

Ontario families are looking for a change from the McGuinty government, which didn’t give a straight answer to the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle a year ago and still aren’t.

My question: How many other former consultants are Ontario families paying for, but now as eHealth employees?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am astounded at the lack of foundation for the question. We are making tremendous progress. You heard the Premier earlier, if you were listening, talk about how many more people now have access to electronic health records. That actually costs money, and that’s what we’re doing.

I do want to tell you about one story that I’m particularly proud of, and I’m sure the member from Timmins–James Bay is interested in this as well. Just last week, the communities along the James Bay coast got hooked up to the Ontario Telemedicine Network. That means that people in Attawapiskat and people in the James Bay communities now have access to excellent health care without leaving their home communities.

We’ve greatly expanded the Ontario Telemedicine Network, and we are continuing to move forward with electronic—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

After seven years of the McGuinty Liberals, why are our seniors waiting more than 618 days for a long-term-care bed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. The member opposite raises an important question, and that is, how do we move forward in providing the best possible care for our frail and elderly seniors in this community?

We are expanding capacity when it comes to long-term care. We are improving the quality of care. We are improving staffing levels in our long-term care. We are also focusing very heavily on providing care outside of long-term care, in the community, at home, where people want to stay.

Our aging-at-home strategy—over a billion dollars—across this province is actually keeping people out of long-term care and, in some wonderful cases, bringing people from long-term care back into their own homes.

We do need to expand capacity. We are—

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

M me France Gélinas: Why do I feel like saying, “How is it working so far?” Minister, 618 days is a long wait away.

Under McGuinty’s watch, the wait time for Ontario nursing homes jumped by 129%. Seniors with complex health care needs are forced into retirement homes. What do we see in retirement homes? We see seniors left in urine- and feces-filled briefs for hours at a time. We see people with dementia wiping themselves with their hands or with a flimsy communal towel. This is gross; this is disgusting; this is disgraceful and appalling. The Premier should be ashamed. Why has he allowed this crisis to fester for the last seven years under his watch?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: For the first time ever, we are regulating retirement homes in this province. I think all of us would agree that it is time to do that. It is time to turn our attention to the quality of care in retirement homes.

We will continue to invest in long-term care. We are spending more than $1 billion more now in long-term care than when we took office in 2003. We have built more than 8,000 new long-term-care beds, and more are coming. We are working very hard to address this issue. We are seeing the results. We know there is more to do and we have a plan to do that.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. For years we’ve been seeing a shift in the world economy. In northwestern Ontario, where resource-based industries have for a very long time underpinned our economy, a variety of factors have impacted the viability of some of these industries. Global competition, a huge increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, a collapse in demand in the American market as a result of the global recession and the credit crisis have all created difficult economic environments across North America.

In spite of this, there continue to be good-news stories coming out of northwestern Ontario. Can the minister highlight a very recent good-news story in the forestry sector?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for the question. I’m certainly very pleased to share a good-news story about the forestry sector.

This past Monday, I was in Terrace Bay to help celebrate the reopening of the Terrace Bay Pulp mill—a great piece of news—bringing 340 people back to work. I’m very pleased that our government was able to provide a conditional loan, which allowed the company to access further funding assistance and also to have some creditor protection. As I say, 340 are people back to work and a couple hundred more in the woodland section. This means a great deal to people in Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Marathon, Nipigon and Red Rock.

This pulp mill is an extremely important asset, one that indeed means a great deal to the Terrace Bay taxpayers. It provides about 40% of the tax base to the community of Terrace Bay.

Certainly, you can tell that Mayor King couldn’t have been happier about this. He said that we’ve probably gone through the hardest time we’ve ever seen in Terrace Bay. It’s nice to see that burden lifted off—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thank you, Minister, and I do know how grateful Mayor Mike King was. I congratulate you on your efforts as well. I do remember very clearly, when the Premier was at NOMA last week, when that gentleman came over and thanked the Premier as well. He had three sons—one man, three sons hired back in that mill, and we know how grateful he was.

We also know that there are a significant number of supports that have been made available to forestry companies over the last number of years. More importantly, in our 2010 budget, we added more support on top of the initiatives in programs that already exist. While we can’t fix the fact that there is a diminished demand for two-by-fours because of the collapse of the US housing market, there are measures that we have taken and continue to take to support those companies still operating and to create a climate to encourage more to reopen. Can the minister please highlight some of these programs for the House?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There is indeed more good news. I must say, to drive up to the gate at Terrace Bay Pulp and see the smoke coming out of the stack—it was a wonderful thing to see the smiles on the faces of the 340 workers.

We’ve also set the stage for a transformation in the forestry sector as it moves into a new phase. Since 2005, our government has made available over $1 billion through various programs to assist the forestry sector: a loan guarantee fund; we uploaded the road maintenance, which had been downloaded by a previous government; and the forest sector prosperity fund as well. But another example of how this sector is transforming: In 2009, our government, through the budget, committed $25 million to creating the Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bioeconomy in Thunder Bay, a tremendous announcement.

This plan will coordinate the government, the companies and the secondary industries as we transform the economy.

The fact is, the forest industry is in the midst of a transformation, one that we strongly support, and we’re excited about the good news ahead.

HEALTH CARE SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. One year from today, Ontario families will have a choice of a Premier McGuinty who says he has a more intelligent understanding than they do. Ontario PCs haven’t been waiting for next year to come. We’ve already put forward groundbreaking accountability legislation that, in light of hospital lobbying contracts, is proving to be quite a topic on this, the anniversary of the eHealth scandal. We’ve also put forward a motion to strike a legislative committee to fix the problems at retirement homes.

I ask the Premier, why are the McGuinty Liberals against the changes that Ontario families want today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are going to continue to improve transparency and accountability in this province. We are the party that has opened up to freedom of information. We’ve expanded the powers of the Auditor General. We are committed to publicly posting information on health care, on wait times and on a number of different initiatives.

It’s time to move forward. I look forward to the debate this afternoon on the opposition day motion, but let me assure you, when it comes to transparency and accountability, we will take no lessons from the party opposite. It was the party that stood in our way every single step we have taken toward transparency.

I’m proud of our record. We’re going to do more, and I look forward to introducing legislation in the near future that will provide expression to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier McGuinty is out of touch with the priorities of Ontario families. While the Premier was busy contemplating how many millilitres of chocolate milk our sons and daughters should be allowed to consume, Ontario families paid another $343 million for eHealth, the Ombudsman exposed secret, illegal LHIN meetings, and we uncovered LHINs, Cancer Care Ontario and now hospitals handing out eHealth-style sweetheart deals. I suppose the only silver lining in the Premier’s approach is that when the McGuinty milk police catch our sons and daughters buying that extra carton of milk, at least they’ll have cellphones in the classrooms to call their buddies to bail them out.

Premier, do Ontario families who want change have to wait another year for that change?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The entertainment level is rising in this place, and I guess we can expect that for the next—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: The comedian’s up now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I hope that wasn’t a reference to the Speaker.

The member from Simcoe North, the member from Lanark, the member from Oxford and the member from Leeds–Grenville will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to make it very clear that we are of the position that taxpayer dollars ought not to be spent to lobby government for more taxpayer dollars. This is something we can all agree on. As I said, we will be introducing legislation to make sure that people understand that that is an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

We’ve focused a lot of our attention on reducing the use of consultants in this province. In fact, we’ve cut in half the number of consultants working in this province.

But I do have a question for the opposition: When will you post your expenses? We’ve asked you for months and months now to post your leader’s office expenses. If you’re such a believer in—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, these not-so-smart meters have come to northern Ontario, and people listened intently a couple of weeks ago when you suggested that how we deal with this is to do our washing on weekends. We have a question in northern Ontario. We’d like to know: When are we supposed to heat our homes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I have a question as well. Either the NDP want to build a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy or they don’t.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe–Grey, member from Lanark, member from Simcoe–Grey, again.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Day after day over the last couple of weeks, this member’s leader has gotten up in this House, opposing the investments we’re making to build that stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy.

Let me talk about some of the things that our investments are doing in the north. The member opposite was with me as we celebrated the Lower Mattagami hydro project in his riding, creating 800 jobs in the north, something we’re celebrating in his community. Let me go on. Kenora–Rainy River: 140 jobs, Lac Seul hydroelectric.

Does his leader support those jobs or does she not? If you don’t support the investments to get us there—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, we’ve been told when to do our washing. My question is a very simple one. We know now, in northern Ontario—the not-so-smart meters have come to northern Ontario—that the on-peak will become the mid-peak, and the mid-peak will become the off-peak, come November.

We’re wondering, when are we supposed to heat our homes, when the full charge of electricity on-peak is going to be between 5 and 9 at night and 7 and 11 in the morning? My question to you is, when are we supposed to heat our homes?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We will not be able to modernize our electricity system without making these important investments. We will not be able to build a stronger, more reliable and cleaner energy system without making these investments.

The NDP cannot have it both ways. We cannot create the jobs we’re creating in the north if we don’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Perhaps some of these cross-floor conversations, which are not part of the rhythm of question period, would be much better taken outside. There are a lot of members and guests who want to be attentive, to listen to the discourse back and forth across the floor, and we are all being challenged because of some of these cross-floor conversations. I would very much encourage those members to please take those outside.

New question.

SMOKING CESSATION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion and Sport. Today, representatives of the Ontario Lung Association are present here at Queen’s Park and meeting with members about the need for a strong smoking cessation system in Ontario. As a physician, and representing the people of Oak Ridges–Markham, this is an extremely important issue for my constituents and me.

Could the minister tell us how the government is working to encourage Ontarians to quit smoking?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I’d like to take this opportunity, first of all, to thank the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for her question and her advocacy for health promotion.

I commend the Ontario Lung Association—and again take this opportunity to welcome them to the Legislature—for engaging members today on smoking cessation, and for the valued partnership which we, as a government, share with them.

While I take this opportunity to remind Ontarians of the dangers of cigarette smoking and the importance of not starting to smoke in the first place, our government recognizes that smoking is an addiction.

Over the last five years, we have invested $33.8 million in smoking cessation. Thirty-nine hospitals are participating in the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation program, which identifies and treats smokers admitted to hospital. We support the Driven to Quit Challenge.

These are only a few of the examples—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I am glad to hear that the government takes smoking cessation seriously and is working with tobacco control partners like the Ontario Lung Association to educate and provide assistance to Ontarians looking to quit.

The smoke numbers are clear: In the recent Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey, 15% of Ontarians 15 years of age and older smoked last year. While that number is the lowest amongst all provinces, a distinction we share with British Columbia, we cannot take our successes for granted.

Minister, how will the government move forward on the issue of smoking cessation?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Cigarettes kill—that is not new news. What is good news these days is the Vital Signs report for Toronto in 2009, which showed only 2% of seventh graders had smoked their first cigarette by grade 6, compared to 27% in 1997.

Also, the numbers from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey demonstrate significant strides have occurred in reducing smoking rates through our smoke-free Ontario strategy.

However, there is much more work to be done, and that is precisely why we are working with partners like the Ontario Lung Association as we develop our plan to establish new directions in tobacco control. We will build on our past successes, such as banning smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, banning tobacco power walls, protecting children in cars, and $300-million worth of investment in the smoke-free Ontario strategy—

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I share the alarm expressed by many in my riding about your ministry’s plan to force a merger between the Leeds and the Grenville stewardship councils. This short-sighted scheme risks undermining 15 years of great work done by these groups, and even your own ministry staff say it will reduce the capacity to deliver invaluable environmental programming. Incredibly, you’re doing this as my riding is under threat from the emerald ash borer beetle.

Minister, please tell the people of Leeds–Grenville what you have against these councils. Is it the hundreds of thousands of dollars in programming they leverage every year? Is it the thousands of children to whom they provide hands-on learning opportunities? Or is it the wonderful trust that has been built between landowners and government? Please tell me, Minister.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m very pleased to answer this question. I want to tell you how proud I am of the MNR’s Ontario stewardship program. It focuses on protection and restoration of Ontario’s natural resources through community engagement and support.

It’s pretty rich for this question to be asked by this member when, in fact, when your party was in power, in 1996 you closed MNR area offices in the province. You closed an office in Brockville. You closed an office in Carleton Place. You closed an office in Carleton. You closed it in Napanee. You closed it at Tweed.

At the end of the day, we are streamlining our efforts in Leeds and Grenville, not closing them. It’s something we are proud of, our relationship with those partners in the communities providing restoration efforts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, you know it’s pretty rich for this minister to—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s pretty rich that this minister talks the way she does. Due to the fact that you’ve pushed Bill 191 through—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. That took eight seconds from the moment I sat down—

Mr. John Yakabuski: They won’t co-operate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful either.

Please continue.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s pretty rich that the minister talks about pushing things through in consultation when, clearly, you failed to consult people with Bill 191, and your ministry, which actually has an office in my riding in Kemptville, is trying to do the same thing with this merger.

A week before the public meeting to discuss this unpopular proposal, here’s what district manager Alex Gardner told a reporter: “Planning for 2012 will proceed based on an integrated council.” In other words, it was a done deal, and the meeting was just for show.

Minister, why are you so afraid of consultation? Will you commit to meet with the leadership of these two stewardship councils and hear their concerns directly?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m really proud of the work that we do with our stewardship councils. They are a group that help us with education, they do workshops, they do high school outreach, they do creek restoration projects, they do water management and wetland restoration training, and most importantly, they help us with species-at-risk education. That’s something that this government believes in, the Endangered Species Act, something you voted against, and yet you, at this point, are indicating you’re supportive of stewardship programs.

You have to walk the walk, you have to support endangered species, and that’s what these stewardship programs do. We support the work that these groups do. We are committed to a stewardship approach in Ontario. These volunteers are extraordinarily important in supporting endangered species, and they help us with those projects. We’re proud of our relationship.

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Earlier this week, the London Free Press reported that London Health Sciences Centre is paying an American for-profit consulting company $640,000 to lead employees through an internal communications training course. Does this minister think that spending close to two thirds of a million dollars on a dubious communications course is an appropriate use of front-line health care dollars?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. You know, when it comes to hospitals, I think the member opposite understands that our hospitals are separate entities. They are heavily funded, of course, by the province, but they do have boards of directors and they are responsible for their governance.

We are, however, very clear with hospitals about expectations we have when it comes to quality of care and when it comes to the services they provide. We have strict accountability agreements that are negotiated between the LHINs and the hospitals, so that when people pay their taxes in this province, they have the assurance that the money they are paying in taxes is going to better health care. We work hard with our hospitals to get the outcomes we expect, whether it’s lower wait times or higher quality or higher volumes of service, but we do leave the governance of hospitals to those hospital boards.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: London Health Sciences Centre has been cutting costs in other areas. Nurse examiner positions at the breast screening program were completely eliminated. Those nurses would still be on the job with the money being spent on this questionable American training course.

During this time of restraint, the minister has an obligation to instruct hospitals to focus spending on front-line care. Why is this minister so obviously failing to do so?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m not going to comment on this particular decision at this particular hospital. We do rely on the hospital governance to govern those hospitals and to make the right decisions.

But I think it’s just a bit naive to suggest that front-line care can happen as efficiently and as effectively as possible without the proper communications and interactions between different employees in the hospital. LHSC has 13,000 staff and positions; 13,000 people work at LHSC; it’s 846 beds. It’s important to properly train the people working in the hospital to work together to improve outcomes, to improve quality of care and to improve the value for money that we are getting for our health care dollars.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. People in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex rely heavily on propane for their rural homes and farms. Propane has always been regarded as an efficient energy source for cooking and heating in the home, and even more importantly, for heating livestock barns, drying grain and other farm activities.

I have been approached by not only farmers but also small propane facility owners concerned about the propane safety requirements that will be coming into effect in January. Minister, I understand that you are seeking input to the proposal that will assist small facility owners in achieving the intent of the requirements. What effect will your proposal have on small facility owners and, ultimately, on my constituents?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, let me congratulate this member, as well as our other rural members, for great advocacy on this particular issue—as well as northern members.

First of all, safety of Ontarians is our ultimate concern when it comes to the issue of propane, and everything is based on that. However, we’ve also listened to the small operators and are proposing a template risk and safety management plan that is more appropriate for smaller facilities. As a matter of fact, we posted this proposal on the regulatory website yesterday. The template would reduce the cost and complexity for small facilities, which can complete the templates themselves. We will also require the local fire department to review and comment on the template.

It would include such information as basic facility information, updated facility plans, a map of the surrounding area, and, of utmost importance, an emergency response and preparedness plan.

We are also going to allow the facilities—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I want to thank the minister for the attention that he gave our rural caucus when we first brought this issue to his attention.

The 2008 Sunrise explosion was a terrible and tragic event. As a result of that, propane safety became even more of a priority for Ontarians. Our government, as a result, created an expert propane panel to make recommendations regarding propane safety.

For all our constituents, safety has always been a priority, but most especially for those who live close to a propane facility. Minister, how does our proposed approach compare to the safety standards of other jurisdictions?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Public safety is our first and primary concern, and that’s why we’ve worked, both my predecessor, the former minister, and myself, on this issue for the last six months to come up with a system that will work for everybody.

The risk and safety management plans are a new safety requirement based on international best practices. We will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to mandate these plans both for large and small facilities. The larger facilities will have to go through the entire process and have their plans, in effect, be certified by engineers.

We will continue to work with our partners towards continuous improvement to ensure that Ontario has the highest possible standards. I think this will work for everyone, but we want to make sure that the people of Ontario have the best safety in mind when it comes to the use of propane.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. For 30 years, rural intellectually disabled adults in the Kawartha Lakes region have been using buses provided by the school boards to access their day programs and volunteer placements. Your ministry has now intervened and ordered the two boards to stop busing these people. You have gone as far as to threaten the Catholic board with clawbacks and a supervisor if they do not obey you.

Minister, both boards support these adults, as does the community, but you and the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock appear not to. Why is your ministry determined to deny these most vulnerable people access to lifelong and continued learning?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This an important issue, and the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has brought this to my attention. We certainly have looked at all of the issues, the responsibilities and roles of school boards, as well as other community partners in this important issue.

We continue to believe that the resolution of this very important issue is to be found in the local communities. I have been given to understand by the local member that there is a commitment there to find a resolution for this very important issue. I certainly appreciate his advocacy and his very good work on this file. Again, I know that all partners involved do want to find—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the minister again: The response is cold comfort to the parents of these young adults.

I have heard from many people in the Kawartha Lakes region, and not just the parents. They are upset and hurt by the decision to cancel busing and the rigid policies of this ministry.

Roseanna Vachon, whose daughter has ridden the bus for years, states, “This government has turned its back on our most vulnerable citizens, robbing them of life and denying them access to continued learning, and is putting them in crisis.” She is lobbying to retain busing for her daughter and seven disabled adults.

Minister, will you show compassion and provide busing for these people?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It’s important that the members of this House appreciate how hard the local member has been advocating for the families in the region. This is a very unique—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, the local member has been working so very hard. As I have already stated, there is definitely a desire within the community to have this issue addressed, and I am confident that with all of the best of intentions within the community, there will be a resolution to this matter found locally within the community.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. On October 4, US Steel idled the blast furnace at its Hamilton worksite. This is a repeat of its 2008 shutdown when it promised not to cause any job losses, but reduced the workforce below its promised 3,100 minimum.

The loan that this government gave to Stelco made the sale of Stelco more attractive to US Steel because it lessened the liability that US Steel would have been responsible for. What safeguards were put in place for this loan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The safeguards that were put in place were mostly designed to protect pensions of workers, and that was the role the government of Ontario played in that.

This is an unfortunate situation that has occurred. The Premier and the Minister of Economic Development have been working very