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

May 17, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-17 (PDF)

L055 - Thu 17 May 2012 / Jeu 17 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 17 May 2012 Jeudi 17 mai 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG ACTION FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR UNE ACTION

ÉNERGIQUE POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

WEARING OF BRACELETS AND PINS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

GREENBELT

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

PAN AM GAMES

RED TAPE REDUCTION

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

MINISTRY GRANTS

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PFLAG CANADA

REMIX PROJECT

UNITED BAKERS DAIRY RESTAURANT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

WASTE DIVERSION

MUSEUMS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

(RECOVERY OF COMMON

EXPENSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

(RECOUVREMENT DES DÉPENSES

COMMUNES)

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

PETITIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

LONG-TERM CARE

RADIATION SAFETY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

RADIATION SAFETY

WIND TURBINES

AIR-RAIL LINK

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

RADIATION SAFETY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

DOG OWNERSHIP

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ASSOCIATION

DES INGÉNIEURS DE L’ONTARIO

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

OF REGULATIONS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SURVEILLANCE

LÉGISLATIVE DES RÈGLEMENTS

INHERITED HEART RHYTHM DISORDERS AWARENESS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION AUX TROUBLES DU RYTHME CARDIAQUE HÉRÉDITAIRES

VISITORS

ONTARIO SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ASSOCIATION

DES INGÉNIEURS DE L’ONTARIO

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

OF REGULATIONS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SURVEILLANCE

LÉGISLATIVE DES RÈGLEMENTS

INHERITED HEART RHYTHM DISORDERS AWARENESS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION AUX TROUBLES DU RYTHME CARDIAQUE HÉRÉDITAIRES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG ACTION FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR UNE ACTION

ÉNERGIQUE POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 16, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and lend my voice to the ongoing debate on Bill 55. This bill addresses the technical measures that are being put forward by the government to enact the 2012 budget. Consistent with the marketing around that document, this is titled the Strong Action for Ontario Act, but of course Bill 55 shares more than a branding flavour with the budget. It also shares the same weakness of the budget. The words are supposed to be simple and reassuring, but once you get into the nuts and bolts of the thing, it’s another story entirely.

We can look to financial experts for clues as to the strengths of the budget, a budget that increased taxes and spending in the face of a $16-billion deficit. Once this government’s budget motion passed, it didn’t take long for the verdict to come in. Inside of two days, we got word from the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s that our outlook had been downgraded from stable to negative. Another day, another bit of bad financial news. This time it was credit agency Moody’s, which one-upped S&P and actually downgraded the province’s credit rating. Moody’s pointed to the province’s obese debt and leisurely path to fiscal balance as the key reason for the move.

The Liberal government is happy to write off these kinds of events when it serves its interests: “If the ratings agencies make a sour face when they look at our books, well, sticks and stones and all that. Who cares what the credit rating agency has to say? It’s basically just a horoscope for the Bay Street set.” If it’s good news from the credit rating agencies, well, then, slap a gold star on the report card and get it to the fridge so the Premier can stick it up.

That kind of on-again, off-again regard for the value of financial analysis might work as a conversational device here in the House or as a tool to shrug off a scrum out in the hallway but, ultimately, these verdicts carry more weight than the government likes to let on.

It’s true that these moves don’t mean that the province is doomed—there was always time for sense to prevail—but what it does mean, almost certainly, is that we’re getting a warning sign. This is the canary in the coal mine that the government can’t bring itself to shut down. These ratings will almost certainly mean that if we don’t sort out the province’s books, the way we borrow money—whether we can, how much it will cost us when we do—will be impacted at some point in the future. This is bound to drive up borrowing costs and bleed scarce tax dollars from essential programs.

But this government continues to act as it did in the fall, when the Auditor General took us inside the Liberal hot dog factory and shone a flashlight inside the machines. The state of denial wafting across from the other side of the House is thick, Speaker. This government is still spending money it doesn’t have: spending $1.8 million an hour more than it takes in; still making big promises with plenty of loopholes and fine print; still rolling out the marketing material to make it all seem like mother’s milk. Instead of doing some soul-searching when analysis issued these warnings, the government goes merrily along with its head in the clouds.

My only explanation is that they’re mistaking all those red flags for Liberal fan boys. Those of us on this side of the House and many of those outside of the Legislature recognize the warning signs for what they are. Again, this goes back to what my party, the official opposition, has been saying about this government for quite some time. It’s cold comfort to be right on this count.

It doesn’t bode well for the province that the party opposite continues to stubbornly dismiss this criticism. Again, this is a government that is unwilling to live within its means and that has no real plan to create jobs, other than rubbing that lucky rabbit’s foot; I’m sure it has a bald patch by now. They’ll tell you that this budget speaks to this and speaks to that, and that is certainly true. There is a lot of talk, a lot of wordplay and a lot of hot air.

This budget was put together in a vacuum in the dark by people who selectively teleconferenced rather than holding pre-budget hearings. So instead of getting a sense of what Ontarians really want, about where the needs actually are and without tapping into the experts of the private sector, this government has stayed in its bubble. Ontarians understand that we need to tighten our belts. They know about how being in debt up to your eyeballs can cramp your lifestyle. They get it.

Ontario’s business gets it. They know that capital is mobile and that investors can go where they feel they stand the greatest odds of being successful, just like skilled trades workers can, just like new Canadians can. Why would someone voluntarily go where their taxes are high, the debt and the structural deficit are being maintained as respectfully as an historic site, where hydro rates are crushing and where red tape chokes out new growth? It’s an open question.

I held a prosperity round table in Burlington in the week before the budget vote, a business community brainstorming session that stimulated a lot of discussion. The member from Thornhill joined us for that afternoon, and I’m sure he can attest to the events of the day. We heard from small start-ups, established landmark businesses, highly specialized organizations and ones that were amazingly diverse. We heard from passionate professionals working in the health care, education and financial sectors, real estate, construction, skilled trades, the service industry, waste management and much more. We had a great exchange of ideas. We heard a lot of determination to turn things around.

But we also heard a number of concerns about the budget and the path this government is on. There are no performance measures in this government, and there’s so much waste and duplication. There are far too many agencies, boards and commissions. The government is constantly getting in the way. It does nothing to help small businesses do more.

“We have so much red tape to go through, as a small business of 120 employees, that we need to staff two more to make sure we’re compliant with all the regulations at every level of government,” said one small business owner.

“Health care is fragmented, and patients are treated far more poorly than they were in the past. Hospital administrators are not doctors. Ask the doctors how to improve health care,” said a doctor.

“Renewable energy is a great thing. We all believe in it. But you have to ask yourself, ‘At what cost?’ With those rates, I can’t hire and I can’t invest back into my own business,” said another business owner.

People see being pro-business as a bad thing. But businesses create jobs and businesses benefit everyone, not just the CEO or the owner who gets paid to take the risk. Businesses are organic creatures that employ people.

There’s no vision in the Liberal budget, and there’s no structural change, which is really what is needed. How are we going to make Ontario great again when the current government has no plan and no vision? On that, Speaker, I am going to take this moment to adjourn this debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Burlington has moved adjournment of the debate. Agreed? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0910 to 0940.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mrs. McKenna has moved adjournment of the debate.

All in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please stand and remain standing.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 14; the nays are 29.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I declare the motion lost. The member for Burlington, you have the floor.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Mr. Speaker, it would be reckless and irresponsible not to call for a select committee. That’s why I did continue to ask for adjournment of the debate, because Ornge continues to get worse.

Once again, there is always time for sense to prevail. Despite the warning signs, despite the government’s failure to rein in spending, failure to root out inefficiencies and waste, failure to create jobs or inspire the confidence of the credit rating agencies, Ontario can still have a bright future, but getting there is going to demand more than the same old, same old response. Courage asks us to step out of our comfort zone. Honesty is also helpful. Reduced spending increases are obviously not the same as reducing spending.

The budget makes a big show of a belt-tightening budget, but it’s very much in the same vein as previous budgets, which are part of the reason why this government has managed to double the provincial debt from where it was in 2003 until now.

With new ideas and the commitment to make them work, Ontario can return to its place of pride as an economic powerhouse, but in order to be able to do that, Speaker, first we need to get the fundamentals right.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I listened intently to the bell ringing in that whole debate, and I thought it was a rather interesting tone to the whole sound. I’m getting kind of used to them, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, in regard to the budget bill, everybody understands that in the last election the three parties had the same goal, and that was that we need to be able to manage our expenditures and get back to balance by 2017-18. Clearly, Andrea Horwath and our party were very clear on that, and we believe that is a goal that must be maintained.

However, the approach that this government has taken toward this budget is a bit, how would you say, harsh. It is an austerity-type budget that probably does more to cool down the economy than it does to warm it up. I just say to myself that there are different ways of being able to achieve that balance. It would seem to me that the government would be well advised to try to find ways to do a number of things. One, we need to manage our expenditures; there’s no question about that. With any government, any private budget, any business budget, you always have to look at the bottom line and ask, “Am I spending wisely?” I think it is incumbent upon government to be able to do that.

But on the other side, we need to look at how we can grow revenue. You grow revenue not necessarily by just building casinos, as has been the penchant of this government, but by taking a look at different initiatives that are able to stimulate growth in your economy so that, in fact, you have more revenue coming in, which assists you in getting the revenue to be able to pay for the things that need to be done.

But remember why we’re here. We’re in a deficit situation because governments have decided to go down the road of corporate and personal tax cuts that have taken the revenue away from the province and its ability to pay for the services that we have. I believe it’s a part of a master stroke on the part of the right wing to underfund our public services to create the crisis that allows them to privatize. I’m just surprised that the government is falling into that trap as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I was delighted that despite the very challenging economic circumstances facing the province of Ontario—and I know time is limited for each speaker, and the speaker was not able to make reference to this—the government of Ontario is funding the project, which is the Joseph Brant hospital project in Burlington, Ontario, and also a renovation and expansion project at Cambridge.

Now, I have heard from the opposition from time to time—I know there’s another project in Simcoe North as well. What’s interesting about all three of those ridings—because I have read someone from the Conservative caucus say somewhere that while in the Conservative ridings they’re not proceeding with projects, in government-held ridings they are. I can’t remember—maybe the members from Burlington and Cambridge can tell me. My memory does not go back to the last time we elected a Liberal in either one of those ridings. It’s been a long, long time before we have done that.

We simply looked at the need for those particular projects, and the one in Simcoe North as well. Mr. Dunlop, I know, is very delighted to see that expenditure of somewhere well over $400 million. This is very important, that we continue with those projects.

What happens is, I keep hearing from the opposite side that somehow we should be cutting more. But then, when we do not proceed with a specific project in the time frame we had hoped to do so, we’re accused of being partisan or of not operating our government appropriately. I think we’re trying to establish that balance that is important. I am disappointed, and I think if she had more time she would have mentioned that balance.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to stand in support of our PC caucus member from Burlington. Certainly, I will address the fact that the ridings of Cambridge and Burlington have been long-time PC ridings, and they will remain long-time PC ridings on account of good representation.

See, the problem is this: Since the budget was tabled at the end of March, the size of our provincial debt has increased by $2 billion—$2 billion. So, yes, we have a need in this province to set some priorities and we need to be able to fund those priorities based on need. They don’t get that on that side. They like to make these decisions on politics; they like to make these decisions on the fact that they might gain or save some Liberal seats. That’s how they make decisions on that side of the House.

We believe that we need to make sure the fundamentals are in place to have those priorities based on need met. Growing the size of our debt by $2 billion in two months is no recipe for us to have the kind of fiscal situation that allows us to invest in the priorities that we desire. And we don’t agree with the NDP. We don’t think that we have a revenue problem in the province of Ontario; we have a spending problem in the province of Ontario. Spending has increased by $20 billion since 2008—$20 billion. This was supposed to be one-time stimulus spending, that has continued year after year.

Even in this year’s budget, the austerity budget, we see the government’s spending going up by 2.5%. This is supposed to be an austerity budget. Where is the austerity? Debts are going up. Deficits aren’t going down. That’s the record of the Liberal government. Their priorities are out of whack. We stand by our priorities and we’re able to fund those.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to be able to address this matter this morning. My colleague from the good area of Timmins spoke about the fundamental problem with this government, which has been its ongoing addiction to tax cuts, both at the corporate level and looking at the personal level.

Speaker, you cannot run a government by constantly cutting your revenue. If in fact this Reagan approach to economics was successful, we would have seen increased employment in Canada, in Ontario, and increased business investment. But the reality is, when you look at the last decade, when you look at each tax cut, it has been accompanied by a reduction in investment in Ontario by business. The tax cuts have made sure that corporations are tax rich, but they’ve undermined the investments we need in health, education and infrastructure.

I also want to note, Speaker, that this government is proceeding, even though it is facing problems with its credit rating, with investments in nuclear power that are going to undermine the credit rating of this province.

In April, Ontario Power Generation was given a rating of A-1 by Standard and Poor’s. What’s most interesting is that if the province of Ontario was not there to guarantee the operations of OPG, its rating would have been BBB, the same rating as Ireland, Italy and Spain. They listed, in their reasons for giving them a low credit rating, the risk of nuclear technology. This government says that it’s disciplined fiscally, but in fact it is not.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Response from the member from Burlington.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Thank you so much, Speaker, and thank you so much for everybody’s input as well.

I’d like to say that, sitting here, it is shocking to me the situation that we are in. If we just do the math, and we do $1.8 million more an hour than we take in, and we take the $500 million, let’s say, that we get from the 23,000 people who make over $500,000 a year, which we won’t, but let’s say we do, that money was spent within 10 days. People don’t seem to realize the Band-Aid effects that we do, where that has gotten us and where that is going to go.

The other sad thing is, I had a round table in Burlington, like I had said, and I had all kinds of very diverse people there—big companies, small companies, doctors, nurses—and the number one thing was, when they sat there, they said, “Do you know, Jane, what people don’t seem to realize is, you might only think it’s 23,000 people who are affected, but we are the engine, we are the entrepreneurs who continue to keep Ontario where it is and where it needs to go. The sad thing is, what you don’t understand is, capital is mobile, and we will not invest in high debt, high taxes and high energy; we don’t have to.

So, my business, although I employ 100 people, the other fellow who employs 200 people, they don’t have to stay in Burlington. Why would they?” So we are slowly, absolutely killing all of the things we need to be the best place that we can possibly live.

So, what part of it are we not understanding? When I sit here on the other side as the opposition, it is immoral, reckless and irresponsible to leave this for our children, our grandchildren, to be in the situation that we are in. You’ve taken a loan at our taxpayers’ expense and put us in a position that no one deserves to be in, and to patronize us any more for what has continued to go on with a budget that says nothing is appalling to me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate today, as always. It’s an honour, of course, to stand in the House.

I’ve got a couple of things to talk about. I’ve got my riding to talk about, the challenges of the area that I represent, Essex—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’ve just been advised by the table that you’ve already spoken on the budget bill.

Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker. I was eager to hear my colleague from Essex speak, because I know he had volumes to say.

I want to follow a couple of themes in this particular debate, and I want to start with the one I just raised in questions and comments to the previous speaker. There has been a move across North America and across Europe on the part of the right wing to argue that tax cuts are the way to prosperity. If you listen to the Bushes of the world, the Sarkozys and the Dalton McGuintys of the world, and the Harrises before that, there has been this belief that if you cut taxes, and you cut them deep enough and fast enough, it is going to prime the pump of the economy and it’s going to put us into prosperity. I just want to say that it has been totally debunked.

When you take a look at what has happened around the world, all it has managed to do is remove the essential funding that’s necessary to be able to fund those services that we also need in our public services, such as health care, education, the maintenance of our highways, paying for policing, firefighting and all of those other essential services that we do in the province of Ontario.

I don’t argue, for a second, that we should be raising a lot of taxes. That’s not what my argument is. My argument is that we build services in this province based on a certain amount of revenue at the time, and the revenue was calculated to be whatever it was on the taxes that were being charged. Along comes the right wing, first guys like Mike Harris, then Brian Mulroney and George Bush, Dalton McGuinty, Monsieur Sarkozy, Mr. Cameron and others, who are all of the same ilk, saying if you cut those taxes that, in fact, what you’re going to do is prime the pump.

Well, we found that it has done completely the opposite. In fact, what you’ve done is you’ve severely underfunded the ability of the government to provide the services that they have.

That is where I think the original intention was in lowering those taxes. The right wing didn’t care so much about their friends being able to put more money in their pockets. There’s just this ingrained belief that somehow or other government should not be in the business of doing a whole bunch of things that it’s doing now. If you underfund the system, you’ll throw it into crisis. It’s a little bit like what Mr. Snobelen had said at the time that he was the Minister of Education: If you create a crisis, it creates the backdrop to make the changes that we want, ideologically, within the education system.

It’s the same when it comes to the cutting of corporate taxes. If you cut corporate taxes and you cut taxes to higher-income Canadians and Ontarians, what you eventually do is underfund the system. When you underfund the system, all that people know is, “I’m waiting longer at the lineup to get services somewhere.” Either the police officer takes longer to get to the accident scene, the hospital is not able to see you as quickly as they should, or the services that you need, as far as permits to do whatever, take longer than they should. So you’ve underfunded the system, created a crisis, and in the end, the public says, “Well, I don’t know. Something’s not working. You’ve got to fix it.”

Then along comes another right-wing government that says, “Okay. The way to fix that now is through austerity.” So now we’ve got the McGuinty government, like the Sarkozy government, like the George Bush government, like the Brian Mulroney and like the Mr. Harper governments, all the same, saying, “Austerity is the only way to be able to deal with this.”

Well, you’re seeing in Europe that there’s a backlash to that whole ideology. You saw the results of the election in France where a socialist president was elected on the basis that there is a different way to deal with deficits. You don’t have to strictly do austerity. You have to have a balanced approach that, yes, government has to manage its expenses and that we need to make sure we’re frugal in how we spend the dollars of the taxpayer, but there are other things that we also need to do, as a way of being able to find balance within our budgets.

I would argue that the government is not as aggressive as they need to be on the other things. I support the government, in the sense of trying to ensure that we are smart about how we spend public dollars and how we administer our public services, but I just want to say upfront, we’re not all that bad as it is. If you take a look at how we deliver services in this province, we do it pretty efficiently. If you look at the cost of health care per capita in Ontario, as compared to the United States, we do it far more efficiently than they do in the United States. I would say the same goes for a whole bunch of other services that we provide.

Why not look at the other side of the equation? Why not look at the revenue side? So, for example, Andrea Horwath and the New Democrats in the last round of negotiations around the budget motion said that in order to support the budget motion—not necessarily the budget, but the budget motion—that we wanted the government to move on a surtax of two points for income earners over $500,000.

We said that that’s ultimately reasonable because it says two things: one, that we’re able to demonstrate that it’s not just the people at the bottom that are having to bear the weight of trying to balance the budget—those people whose jobs are going to be cut and those people who are not going to get the services they need etc.—but that there’s a sharing of the pain. Those people that are doing well in our economy, who can afford to pay, pay a little bit more.

That has gotten us about another $500 million that allows us, then, to ensure that we can, maybe, not close some of those services in health care systems across this province. It allows us, maybe, not to lay off as many teachers; allows us, maybe, not to reduce services when it comes to policing or fire or whatever other public services we offer. It’s not enough to balance the whole budget, but it is part of the answer.

The other part of it, I believe—and this is where the government is missing the boat—is in being able to prime the economy in a way that you’re able to create stimulus in the private sector. I’m not arguing just building capital infrastructure programs, because of course that’s important, but also looking at how government can be of assistance to the private sector to be able to create more economic opportunity within Ontario.

For example, one of the things that a lot of people in all of our ridings tell us is that if you’re a small entrepreneur and you’re trying to start up a business, it’s hard to get capitalized. Trying to borrow money from the banks is very difficult to do, because they want to ensure that they have as much security as they can to minimize the risk, and the entrepreneur who is trying to start up the business opportunity, he or she may have a great idea but has a real problem trying to capitalize the enterprise.

Now, I’m not saying that government should just give grants out to businesses; I wouldn’t argue that for a second. But I think what government can do is create programs that assist the private sector in being able to do some of the things they’ve got to do. For example, you could backstop loans. The northern heritage fund at one time—no longer—used to backstop loans to the private sector in a much more important way than it does now.

It allowed a lot of entrepreneurs across northern Ontario to start businesses that are still in existence today, and they were able to secure those loans so they could create wealth, create jobs in our communities, and those tax dollars, by way of those economic activities, came back to the general revenue of Ontario.

In some cases, some of those businesses failed, but at least the money that was spent in the economy in order to start up that new business enterprise was goods being purchased within the communities, and some jobs created over a period of time. So the loss wasn’t as much as you would think.

I think that’s one thing you can do. You can have a way of being able to backstop loans so that the entrepreneur has to come up with their money, has to borrow money, but the government could be playing a much more important role when it comes to helping backstop those loans.

The other thing you can do is what we’ve been suggesting to the government and that we somewhat negotiated inside the agreement on the budget motion, and that is to give tax credits to enterprises that create jobs and do investment in the province of Ontario. Why should you give anybody a tax cut in a corporation or a business if they’re not going to give you some return on that money that you’re giving them towards creating jobs and wealth in Ontario? As social Democrats, as New Democrats in Ontario, Andrea Horwath is saying, “Only reward the job creators.

Don’t give the money to the ones that are going to take the profits to the Cayman Islands, but give the money to those people who say, ‘You know what? I’m prepared to invest in Ontario. I want to retool my factory. I want to do R&D work on something that’s going to create wealth in Ontario. I want to create jobs.’” You say to those people, “We’ll give you a refundable tax credit for part of that investment as an incentive for you to invest in the province of Ontario.”

Doing those kinds of things doesn’t cost Ontario a lot of money, but what it does do is create a whole lot of stimulus within your economy on the private sector side, where business says, “You know what? Ontario is an interesting place to do business. Maybe I’ll invest there.”

We can look at our friends in Quebec who have looked at how you do development in the Far North. They have come to terms with First Nations when it comes to how you’re able to do development in the Far North in a way that respects First Nations and the cultural interests that they have in their land and at the same time give them an opportunity to get some economic return on what is happening on their own traditional lands.

I was talking to a mining company last week that says that the difference between doing business in Ontario and doing business in Quebec is night and day; it’s easier in Quebec because the province of Quebec understands that creating economic wealth and doing that in conjunction with First Nations is good for First Nations and good for Quebec.

If we were doing those kinds of things here in Ontario, I would argue we’d be able to build the wealth that allows us to close the gap by 2017-18, to be able to balance the budget, something that’s important to do, but looks at a balanced approach and doing something that makes far more sense than what this government is doing now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mario Sergio: I enjoyed the comments by the member for Timmins–James Bay. He’s a long-standing member of the House, and I know he cares a lot about his community and the people, especially up in the north area where he comes from.

I have to say that this, if I’m correct, is the ninth budget that this government has brought forward since we have taken power. We have gone through some wonderful economic times, some not-so-good times and some terrible times. But I have to say that since we came to power, we did deliver the goods during the good times, and we are trying to do our very best during very serious economic times.

At this particular time, even when the Drummond report was telling us to do certain things that would have slowed down the assistance that we are providing in health care and in education and in creating jobs or providing more affordable housing, we said, “No, there are certain things that we are committed to and we’ll go along and we’ll do those, especially in health care and education.”

We have seen the direction of the government in this existing budget here. I think we should move it forward, Speaker. I think we should have the opportunity to do the things that we want to do because we mean well for the people of Ontario, especially in health care and education.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m glad I have another opportunity to address this budget debate. I want to thank the member for Timmins–James Bay for his enlightened comments on the budget. I think that he raises a number of points, some of which, of course, we agree with; others, of course, we don’t. That’s just part of the way things work in this place. At least we can say of the NDP that they stand on principles, and we stand on principles. I’m not sure those folks across the aisle quite do the same thing. I’m not really sure what principles they stand on.

I have to say as well that the Minister of the Environment, the member for St. Catharines, pointed out in his comments during the member from Burlington’s turn—he targeted myself, he targeted the member for Burlington in terms of our hospital infrastructure projects. But let me turn the tables on them. How many jobs were lost in the member for St. Catharines’ riding? How much money was spent to save the seat for the member for Mississauga South, on the gas plant? How much was saved or spent on the fact that the Oakville gas plant was turned on?

These folks aren’t even agreeing with the decisions they make on these plants. The Liberal cabinet decided to go to the gas plant in Mississauga. The member for Mississauga South was reported as saying that that was just a foolish idea. In fact, I don’t know if I can use the word “dumb” in this place, but that’s what he was quoted in the paper as saying.

They’re spending money each and every day trying to save or gain Liberal seats, and we have this $15-billion deficit—this monstrosity of a deficit—more than three times the size of the deficit in all the other provinces combined. That’s what we see. If they think that is principle that they’re standing by, I don’t know.

I’m standing by what we say here: Rein in government spending, get this deficit under control.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a privilege and a pleasure to be in this House when the member from Timmins–James Bay talks about the experiences that he has had and the ideas and the views that he carries with the vast years of experience that he has had in this House.

One issue he touched on was actually the funding formula, as far as some of the services that are available here in the province. The concern is where this government is going with privatization. We’ve seen where privatization has led us with the Conservative government in the past years. It’s something that you should learn from, not to go down that road, because you’re really going to be taking away the essential services that we need in many of our communities.

Underfunding, in a lot of what is in this budget, is going to affect the MNR, is going to affect the Ministry of the Environment. These are essential ministries that need the funding in order to get those projects and the good ideas that are going forward. We’ve identified many, many, many good projects that would address a lot of our concerns in these industries, especially in the MNR and the MOE. But these projects that have been studied and analyzed are sitting on shelves. And why are they shitting—sitting on shelves?

Laughter.

Mr. Michael Mantha: That was close. I’ll blame that on my French.

Why they are sitting on shelves is because we don’t have the capacity to implement a lot of those policies. They’re great ideas. Our biologists are no longer with the MNR. Our game wardens are struggling in order to make their job a successful one in order for them to be happy with their own conscience as far as doing their jobs.

So I’m really happy when I hear that the government is going to really consider the propositions that we’ve made in order to bring tax credits to employers that create jobs—but do it. Don’t just say it; do it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I enjoyed the comments from the member from Timmins–James Bay and the previous speaker. The NDP has been accused in the past of sitting on the fence. That’s the first time I’ve heard it put that way.

I really want to thank the member from Timmins–James Bay. I think he brings forward some sincere opinions, some sincere ideas, as to how he would change the budget bill. I think that was really the way that the NDP approached this: They looked to the Liberal government and they said, “Put forward a budget, and we’ll take a look at it.” Contrast that with the approach that was taken on the other side of the floor, where the Conservative Party decided that no matter what was put forward, they were opposing the bill, and their members were instructed to oppose the bill.

The member from Cambridge talks about projects as if somebody else is building these projects. The hospital fairy builds the hospitals in the province of Ontario. The fact is, that money comes from the taxpayers of Ontario. The fact is, it comes from the budget, and you either support the budget and the projects contained within, or you don’t. If you don’t support the budget, then be straight with the people in your own constituency. Go back to your riding and tell people you don’t support the building of the hospital. But have the courage to do that. Have the courage to do that.

Go back and face the people in your riding and tell people, “I didn’t support the hospital. I don’t think we should be spending on the hospital, because I’ve got these great ideas and I’d bring in a different budget some other way, and somebody else will build your hospital.”

You’ve got to take responsibility. You can’t suck and blow on this. People aren’t going to build the hospital for you. It has to be the people in your riding who pay for the hospital. Be honest with those people and tell them the truth. It’s that simple. Own up to them. You were instructed by your leader to vote against your own hospital, and you know it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Timmins–James Bay, two minutes to reply.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think it’s rather unfortunate when we start imputing motives to members in the House. I think we’re all honourable members. We may see things differently, but at the end of the day people do things for the reasons they do them.

I just want to go back to what I was trying to say in the debate and that is, there are really two points that I was trying to make. All of us agree that we need to balance the budget by 2017-18. New Democrats and Andrea Horwath have been clear on that. It was in our platform. That’s where we want to go.

Where we take difference from the government is, their approach only looks at one particular side of the equation. Should there be an eye towards managing public services in a more efficient way? Absolutely. I think you need to be careful in how you do that; you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. But certainly we can take a look at ways of saving money and how we deliver our services. That doesn’t necessarily mean to say we have to lay off a bunch of people.

On the other hand, we need to look at what we do on the revenue side, and there’s not just directly increasing taxation as the only means to raise revenues. We did the 2% for those people over $500,000. I think that was vastly reasonable. It was popular; it was supported by almost 80% of the population, and I believe that’s why the government adopted that NDP idea, put forward by Andrea Horwath.

The other one is, we need to look at how we can stimulate the private sector, and you do that by creating the incentives that are necessary for them to be able to invest in Ontario, but you only do that for those who are prepared to create jobs and make that actual investment. So you can do the investment tax credit that we proposed to the government that says those who create jobs and do actual investments can get some of that money back by way of an investment tax credit.

You can also look at backstopping loans, because capitalization is the biggest problem that business is having, contrary to what a lot of people would believe. Trying to get money from the banks is very difficult, or raising it on the stock market. So if the government is able to do backstopping of loans, I think it goes a long way to assisting the private sector and stimulating growth in the economy.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: I know that she’s not yet in the chamber, but she soon will be. I would like to welcome Denise Wood, the executive director of the Alzheimer Society of Leeds–Grenville, who’s here for their lobby day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’ve got a couple of introductions. Carolyn Cybulski, executive director; Susan McLean, volunteer and former caregiver of the Alzheimer Society of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma District; and Lorraine LeBlanc and Sharon Barthel from the Alzheimer Society of Sudbury-Manitoulin are going to be joining us today.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to welcome Elizabeth McLellan, who’s interning in our office for the summer, to the Legislature today.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would like to welcome Deborah Barker and Pauline Diemert, visitors from the alzheimer society, to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I, as well, would like to welcome representatives from the Alzheimer Society of Toronto: Marija Padjen, a constituent, and Cathy Barrick. Welcome.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I have two groups to introduce today. I’d like to welcome page Dia’s parents, who are here to join us today. We have Dalia, her mom; Jayanta, her dad; and Rupayan, her brother, who are joining us today. Welcome.

Secondly, I’d like to welcome the members of the alzheimer society: David Harvey, Paul Hargreaves and Naguib Gouda. I’d also like to remind all the members to please come and attend the reception today at noon in room 230. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Please join me in welcoming my oldest and most loyal friend, Kevin Harley, from Barrie, here today to the chamber.

M me France Gélinas: I have some guests in the west gallery: Mr. Dan Munro, from National Helicopters Inc.; Mr. Michael Skrobica, from the Air Transport Association of Canada; Bob Mackie, from Thunder Airlines; and Frank Behrendt, from SkyCare. Welcome to Queen’s Park

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome people from the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. David Harvey is here, and Bob Renaud from Windsor and Elco Drost from Niagara Falls, amongst a number of others who have been introduced. Thank you.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Mr. Speaker, it’s my distinct pleasure to welcome four visitors to the members’ gallery this morning. First, I welcome two women from the alzheimer society, who are here taking

part in awareness day activities at Queen’s Park: Sharon Osvald, a caregiver from Brighton and volunteer with the organization; and Laura Hare, the executive director of the alzheimer society

chapter covering Hastings, Brighton and Quinte West. Your knowledge and insight into this disease is appreciated, and I thank you for travelling to visit Queen’s Park today.

Secondly, I welcome two very bright students from St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Secondary School in Brampton. They have become YouTube superstars in their quest to restore choice to high school cafeterias. Mr. Brian Baah and Samuel Battista, welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait extrêmement plaisir de présenter une de mes bonnes amies, M me Lorraine LeBlanc, qui est également la directrice générale de la Société Alzheimer de Sudbury, as well as one of her volunteers, Mrs. Sharon Barthel, who came today for Alzheimer Society day at Queen’s Park.

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Je veux accueillir un ami et un collègue. Speaker, I take this opportunity to welcome a friend and colleague, the honourable Naguib Gouda, who is formerly of that noble institution, the Ontario Medical Association, and now part of the Alzheimer Society of Toronto. I recognize him, as he was one of my mentors during the master’s certificate in leadership at the Schulich School of Business.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to welcome here today one of my constituents, Michael Skrobica, who is vice-president of the Air Transport Association of Canada. He is here with three of his colleagues from the Air Transport Association of Canada. Welcome, Michael.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really pleased to introduce some special ladies from my riding of Niagara Falls. They’re here with the alzheimer association of Ontario; they’re with the Niagara chapter. Across from me are Teena Kindt and Elco Drost. Welcome.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Loren Freid, the executive director of the Alzheimer Society of York Region.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to welcome some people from Windsor as well. It’s Sally Bennett, who’s the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of Windsor and Essex county and is of course here for the focus today, and another introduction of Bob Renaud, who’s involved both in Windsor and provincially with the alzheimer society. Welcome, and I look forward to meeting with you later.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not that anyone would want to steal the Speaker’s thunder, but in the Speaker’s gallery today, we have, from the great riding of Brant, Vic Prendergast, the incoming president of the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. Joining Vic, we have Gale Carey, the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m working on it.

WEARING OF BRACELETS AND PINS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear bracelets in recognition of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have had a request for unanimous consent to wear the bracelet, and I believe there’s a pin that’s attached to it so we can wear the pin and the bracelet. Do we agree? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Acting Premier. It has now been literally months since this Legislature expressed its will to have a select committee of the Legislature to look into the Ornge scandal. The government has refused to accommodate that. Then the public accounts committee passed a motion asking for an expanded mandate to better do its work to get to the bottom of this scandal. The government continues to ignore that request.

Yesterday, we had evidence of why the Standing Committee on Public Accounts needs that expanded mandate. We heard once again that a senior person in the Ministry of Health was told in July 2008 of ongoings at Ornge that should have been of serious concern to the minister of the day. Now we don’t even have time to call that witness.

I want to know from the government: Will they, today—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: —agree to the expanded mandate of that committee so that we can get on with doing our work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I think all members of this Legislature should recognize the good work that is being done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Based on the testimony or the hearings that were heard yesterday, I’m pleased to report that the public accounts committee has sat for 29 hours. They’ve heard from 33 witnesses. The meeting of that committee is governed by a motion that was passed unanimously in this House. The committee will continue to meet. They have plans to hear from other witnesses.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the member used to stand up and say that there’s not enough time to hear from witnesses. Do you know what? The committee, finally, as it has the right to do, has changed and will in fact be devoting more hours to those witnesses. As well as the work that’s being done by public accounts, it’s based on a very comprehensive report done by the AG. We have the OPP looking into it—

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

Hon. John Milloy: —and we have a piece of legislation in front of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we move to the supplementary, I want to remind all members to try to stay within the time allotment for answering and questioning, please. When I say “thank you,” that’s the end of your wrap-up.

Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, could it be possible that the government is refusing to agree to the additional sittings because it doesn’t want to have insiders exposed for their contradictory statements, overt lies to the committee about their lobbying efforts of the government, as we heard yesterday? Is that the reason that the government is blocking the work that the public accounts committee wants to make?

I want to hear from the House leader why possibly he would not be willing to give us the mandate that the committee has requested. What are you hiding?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if I’m the only one here who finds it ironic that the honourable member whose party has been blocking legislation, has been tying up committees and is in fact blocking Bill 50, a piece of legislation which will enact the recommendations that we heard from the Auditor General—that he has the gall to stand here today and somehow criticize us as blocking a committee. The fact of the matter is—as I said, 29 hours and 33 witnesses.

If the honourable member wants to hold hearings on the floor of the House, then let’s talk again about Kelly Mitchell. Let’s talk and this document that I referenced last week on how to lobby the Progressive Conservative Party, which Mr. Mitchell was paid $7,000 for writing. Let’s talk about the section, “step 1—Make Peace with Frank Klees.”

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

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I know you’re saying thank you. I will be happy in the supplementary to quote—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: First, I want to thank the House leader for pointing out that the only member that Ornge was intending to make peace with was with me, because I was getting under their skin for exposing their scandal. That’s what that was about.

The fact of the matter is that this House leader continues to block our intention to get to the bottom of how the Premier, how the Minister of Finance, how the Minister of Health was lobbied and told, basically in no—there wasn’t even an attempt to hide the fact that they were trying to massage the Ornge deal past the Minister of Health. That’s what was testified to yesterday.

I’m going to give the House leader one more chance. Will the House leader, in front of everyone who is watching him, agree to stand up and say that the public accounts committee will be given all the time that it needs to get to the root of the problem of this Ornge—

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

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, if the member insists upon having hearings here on the floor of the House, let me continue to quote from this document about how to lobby the PC Party. This is my favourite, Mr. Speaker; they will enjoy this:

“It will be important to tell the Ornge story—from beginning to present—during any meeting narrative—and to show how Ornge’s business model and practices are entirely aligned with the Conservative platform....”

Kelly Mitchell, a prominent Conservative lobbyist, someone who raised tens of thousands of dollars for that party, was paid $7,000 to write that. There are questions about Kelly Mitchell and his relationship with Lynne Golding, with Guy Giorno, with a whole cast of Conservative—

Interjections.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Nobody’s buying that, John.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’ll do.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member will withdraw.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’ll withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You may finish.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, 29 hours, 33 witnesses, and the committee will continue to meet. I think it’s fascinating the information that has come forward about individuals like Kelly Mitchell and other prominent Conservatives and what they were doing with Ornge.

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

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, if there’s anyone who’s hiding anything, I don’t think you would look at this side of the House.

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Health. For months now, Ontarians have watched as the Minister of Health, through her inaction and an absence of leadership, undermines the integrity of the province’s air ambulance system. The Minister of Health has continually denied responsibility for the corruption and has refused to be held accountable for the serious risks to patient safety. The minister has done a severe disservice to the people of this province with their failed leadership and refusal to put the safety of patients above her own political ambitions.

Yesterday, the public accounts committee heard yet even more damning testimony from former Ornge executives. Yet again, we learned that several highly connected Liberal insiders lobbied the government on behalf of Ornge.

So I ask the minister, when will she come clean and admit to this House that Don Guy and Alfred Apps played significant roles in facilitating the corruption that occurred—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I think all of us recognize the good work—certainly on this side of the House—that’s being done by the public accounts committee. I think we should let that committee do its work.

But if the honourable members across the way insist upon engaging in some sort of kangaroo court here on the floor of the House with these drive-by smears, let me raise some other issues, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to know more about how it came to pass that Ornge established a satellite operation at the Oshawa Municipal Airport. Here’s what we know from the committee: Last week, a former Ornge executive said that he opposed the move and that it was a very poor choice, for a host of the reasons. We also know, however, that the member for Whitby–Oshawa not only lobbied to get a base at the airport in her riding, but she posed for a very snazzy photo which appeared in a local publication.

So again, if they want to hold hearings on the floor of the House, perhaps they could stand and answer some of those questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Again to the minister: The minister must be embarrassed by that pathetic response. Surely the people of Ontario deserve better.

It is no longer fair to say “corruption” at Ornge. The corruption and ineptitude is now very much entrenched in the Liberal Party and this Liberal government. Liberal Party president Alf Apps and the Premier’s former chief of staff and current campaign director, Don Guy, lobbied numerous government ministries and political staff to prevent accountability and mask serious legal and safety issues at Ornge.

Speaker, when will the minister apologize to the people of Ontario for her party and government’s role in the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Before I turn to the minister, I will offer a caution. The member is getting desperately close to being unparliamentary. I caution him—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I don’t need your coaching either. Order, please. This is serious stuff that I need to deal with, and I need to hear clearly.

I’m offering a caution. The member is desperately close to using unparliamentary language to the place. I caution him.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, members of this Legislature know the strong action that was taken by the Minister of Health. We now have a new board at Ornge. We have a new CEO at Ornge. She called in the forensic auditors, and unfortunately, due to information that was uncovered, she had to call in the OPP, which is undertaking an investigation. The Auditor General has looked into the Ornge situation. We have hearings before the public accounts committee and we have a very important piece of legislation in front of this Legislature.

The answer I want to know is why a piece of legislation that is based upon the Auditor General’s findings is being held up by the actions of the members opposite.

If they want to continue with the drive-by smears and throw partisan barbs, tell us about Rick Potter and Guy Giorno and Lynne Golding and Kelly Mitchell, and the list goes on—some of the most prominent Conservatives in the province of Ontario, who are up to their eyeballs in the Ornge fiasco.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, that’s simply not good enough. You’re a minister of the crown and you failed to act accordingly. Your behaviour on this matter is unbecoming of the office you hold. You and your government owe the people of this province an apology.

Your government has stonewalled every single attempt this Legislature has made to get to the bottom of this scandal. I’ve said in the past weeks that this scandal was knocking at the Premier’s door. Speaker, I was wrong. This scandal has let itself in, poured itself a drink and taken a seat at the Premier’s desk. This isn’t an Ornge scandal; this is a Liberal scandal.

I ask the minister: Who in your office and the Premier’s office spoke with Alf Apps or Don Guy or the myriad of other Liberal insiders about the schemes to defraud Ontario’s taxpayers?

Hon. John Milloy: On this side of the House, we are not going to disrespect the good work of the public accounts committee. The fact of the matter is, they have sat for 29 hours, they have heard from 33 witnesses and they continue to conduct hearings.

The real question is, when the Auditor General came forward with recommendations, those recommendations were put into a piece of legislation, Bill 50. Why does the opposition, through childish games, through bell-ringing—not through debate, but through a childish, juvenile approach—why are they blocking an important piece of legislation, the final piece of the puzzle addressing the problems that have been discovered at Ornge? That is the real question and that is where the opposition has to show some responsibility and allow Bill 50 to proceed.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre adjoint. Last month, the Premier told this House that he had had one meeting with Dr. Chris Mazza. He even told us the date: October 30, 2005. Testimony introduced yesterday at public accounts completely contradicts that statement.

Does the Acting Premier have anything to say about that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I had an opportunity to review the testimony yesterday, as well as the Hansard, and I found the two to be entirely consistent. The Premier did indicate in his response in the House that in fact the one meeting that he did reference was the one that he had a clear recollection of, and then he also indicated there may have been other meetings because—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —literally with thousands of people every month. He was very clear, in my view, about that response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: An email tabled yesterday at committee said that former Liberal Party president Alfred Apps—I think everybody is familiar with this name by now—referred to a meeting between the Premier and Dr. Mazza that took place on June 19, 2007. I will quote from Mr. Apps: It “went perfectly.”

Is the Acting Premier able to tell us, as we continue to dig into Ornge, how many more of those meetings will we find?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: The Deputy Premier has answered the question about the Premier’s meeting. But again, if the members want to hold hearings on the floor of the House, then let’s talk about the Oshawa airport and why, when senior Ornge executives were against it, did one of the prominent members of the Conservative Party opposite not only lobby for it, but get her picture taken so that she could go out and support Ornge and now, all of a sudden, seems to be forgetting that incident.

What about Kelly Mitchell and his very, very close ties to the Conservative Party and the fact that he was paid $7,000 to put together a strategy document—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. John Milloy: —go to Conservatives to talk about how Ornge fit nicely—as I said, to show how Ornge’s business model and practices are entirely aligned with the Conservative platform.

Again, if they want to hold hearings on the floor of the House, I think there is a myriad of questions about the ties between the Conservative Party and so many people involved with Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, Mr. Apps also referred to plans for further meetings with the Premier over dinner, yet another contradiction to the Premier’s claim. I think, frankly, that this government has some explaining to do. The Premier said that he met Dr. Mazza once, but evidence keeps emerging that well-connected Liberal insiders arranged more than one meeting.

When is our Premier going to come out of hiding and clear this up?

Hon. John Milloy: The Deputy Premier has responded to the issue of the Premier meeting these individuals, and the Premier himself, on April 25 in this House, spoke to this. He has indicated that he may have attended an event where Dr. Mazza was present, but I think we all recognize that the Premier of this province meets thousands of people at events.

The bigger question is, how do we move forward to improve the governance of Ornge? The Minister of Health has taken some very strong steps but there’s one piece of the puzzle missing, and that is incorporating the recommendations of the Auditor General into a piece of legislation, Bill 50.

I ask my friend in the New Democratic Party, will she join with the Liberal government to make sure that we can stop the childish bell-ringing of the official opposition and make sure this very important piece of legislation moves forward? If she really believes in making improvements at Ornge, she would join us in those efforts.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, Mr. Jacob Blum, a former executive at Ornge, provided his diary to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. His notes indicated, from December 10, 2007, that Don Guy, the former chief of staff to the Premier and the Liberal campaign director, had meetings with the Ministry of Finance and would set up more meetings with finance and the AG.

As you know, lobbying consists of meeting public officials and arranging meetings with public office holders. Is the Acting Premier ready to say that Mr. Guy did not arrange or attend meetings with public officials or office holders regarding Ornge?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think we need to correct the record, again, if they want to hold hearings here on the floor of the House. There was a partial diary that came forward from Mr. Jacob Blum. He was there at committee. I think it’s important, when he speaks about Jacob Blum, that he should also talk about his sterling Progressive Conservative ties. In fact, members may want to know that Mr. Blum was the PC campaign manager in Toronto Centre. He joins a growing list—from Rick Potter, Guy Giorno, Lynne Golding, Kelly Mitchell—of members of the Progressive Conservative Party with ties to—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are you calling him a liar?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order—second time.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we should allow the committee to do its work. They have now heard from 33 witnesses, including a number of individuals that he asked about in his question. They’ve asked for information coming forward. Let’s let the committee do its work, but let’s look forward to Bill 50.

Again, I ask the New Democratic Party, will you join with the government in trying to defeat this childish bell-ringing that we hear from the Progressive Conservatives?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Acting Premier: Mr. Blum’s diary goes on to say that Don Guy will ensure that Ornge gets a fair hearing and that he was confident that he can manage the outcomes. Is that a service that Mr. Guy regularly performs for this Liberal government? If so, isn’t that lobbying?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, I don’t favour holding hearings in question period through some sort of kangaroo court, but if the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton wants that, then perhaps he can explain to this House why he opposed a motion in front of the committee to ask Mr. Blum, this prominent Conservative, to produce his full diary. Why did he oppose such a motion so that we could have seen all the facts, going forward, about Mr. Blum and his ties to Ornge, as well as, as I say, his ties to the Conservative Party opposite?

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Again, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier.

Here’s what people really see. Liberal insiders with close connections to the Premier and to the cabinet—including Don Guy, a man who some would say got them their jobs—were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and claim that they never raised Ornge with the Premier and never arranged any meetings with the government. Evidence submitted yesterday contradicts this claim completely.

Who does the Acting Premier think the people of Ontario will believe? Isn’t it clear at this point that we need more time to get to the truth, to find out what really happened with Ornge?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Cambridge, come to order and be in your own seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I got a sense you might not have heard me. The member from Cambridge will come to order, and he’s not in his own seat.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, if the honourable member wants to get to the truth, maybe he should stop defending the Progressive Conservative campaign manager in the riding of Toronto Centre.

The fact of the matter is, he asked what the people of Ontario want. You know what? The people of Ontario want to make sure that we have strengthened oversight of Ornge. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health, who has taken some very, very important steps to change the structure and the governance of Ornge, with one exception; there’s one exception left, and that is responding to the Auditor General’s report through a very important piece of legislation in this Legislature.

I ask all the opposition parties: Why are they blocking that legislation? Why are they blocking the good work of a highly respected officer of this Legislature, the Auditor General?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey has a problem; he sits right beside me. So I would ask him to refrain.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t either.

New question.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, yesterday I raised a question regarding the protection of the personal and private information of Ontarians now that this information is being stored in the United States. You stated, “We have built ... tough protections into the company’s contract. They cannot disclose any information without prior approval from us.”

It sounds good, but Minister, were you aware that under the terms of the United States Patriot Act, the United States government has the right to access information on Canadians if it is stored in the US or accessible electronically? The Patriot Act supersedes any private contracts. Minister, do you still maintain that the personal information of Ontarians is well protected?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I do appreciate the question, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. We take privacy very, very seriously. I want to be able to say very clearly that the company awarded the contract is contractually obligated to follow Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as part of its agreement with us. The company cannot directly or indirectly use, collect or disclose any personal information for any purposes not authorized by our ministry. They must keep these records secure. They must prevent any loss, misuse, unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction.

The fact is, we are very, very clear in terms of those protections, and we have every confidence that the privacy of Ontarians is secure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question was about United States laws, not the company’s. According to your own ministry, 730,000 licences have been processed by Active Outdoors in Tennessee; 730,000 Ontarians have now had their personal information shipped to the United States, and it can be accessed by the US government.

In light of the provisions of the United States’ Patriot Act, do you now agree that your ministry may be responsible for a serious and major breach of privacy protection for Ontario citizens?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, we are very, very confident that the privacy of Ontarians is secure based upon the contractual agreement we came to with the company that was awarded the contract. I’ll repeat what I said. The obligations are very clear. They agreed to it. They signed off on it. They need to keep the records secure. They need to prevent any loss, any misuse, any unauthorized access, any disclosure, alteration or destruction of the records themselves. They cannot directly or indirectly use, collect or disclose any personal information—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member has reached the point where he is now warned—the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Finish, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, may I say to all the members of the Legislature, we are very confident that the privacy of Ontarians who are using that system is indeed secure. That is something that’s an absolute priority for us. It will follow the freedom of information, privacy and protection act.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday the United Nations special rapporteur on food security raised concerns about hunger and food bank use in Canada. He called Canada’s social protection system “broken” and urged governments to make sure “the poorest families are not obliged to sacrifice food in order to pay for ... housing.” Can the minister, under these circumstances, explain to struggling families why his government is cutting the community start-up and maintenance benefit, which helps people on social assistance faced with emergency moving or repair costs?

Hon. John Milloy: As I’ve said before in this House, I don’t think any member or any party has a monopoly on concern for those who are marginalized in the province of Ontario. We recognize the fact that we need a major transformation of our social assistance system, which is why we have taken a number of very important steps, including the appointment of Frances Lankin, a highly respected former member of this Legislature and a former minister, and Munir Sheikh, to take a look at the social assistance system.

On the housing system, Mr. Speaker, I’m proud of the work that my ministry has been doing in the Ministry of Housing in terms of bundling together and transferring a number of programs aimed at homelessness and preventing homelessness and giving municipalities the flexibility they need so that they can provide support where it’s needed. As part of that, we are taking a portion of the CSUMB program and adding it to that program where it makes sense and gives the flexibility that’s needed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I can’t believe that the minister is proud of cutting funds to people on social assistance. That’s sad; it’s shameful. He should be ashamed, not proud.

Thousands of families on social assistance are losing—and this is how much they’re losing—up to $1,500 in emergency support every two years. This money helps people who face unforeseen events—like bed bug infestations, hospitalization, even those escaping domestic violence—that force them to move or pay for repairs.

People from London to Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie are emailing us, protesting this unnecessary and harsh cut. They want to know: How does taking hundreds of dollars away from families who can barely afford a roof over their heads or food on the table constitute a step forward?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, we are undertaking one of the most significant reviews of social assistance that has been done in decades.

I think I’ve noted here, Mr. Speaker, during the last election being asked to go to a round table on poverty with other candidates. I looked through the New Democratic Party platform four times until I could find the three sentences at the bottom of their platform that talked about—guess what?—the review of social assistance that we’re taking and the fact that they’re looking forward to it.

Our government’s record when it comes to supporting the most vulnerable—through work that we’ve done in terms of the Ontario child benefit; in terms of the student nutrition program, which supports over 600,000 children; through the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that we’ve put into supportive housing; through the new, innovative long-term housing strategy we’re putting forward—I am proud of our record and I am proud of the work that we’ll be doing as the commission reports in the next month or two.

GREENBELT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of the Environment. We saw a new study that was released on Wednesday. It’s showing that jobs are just flourishing across the greenbelt. The resource-rich region of Ontario is more than just green space and vibrant countryside; it’s also a major and considerable contributor to the job market in this province. The greenbelt has got over 1.8 million acres of green space, it’s got farmland, vibrant communities, forests, wetlands, watersheds, and they are all permanently protected now under this world-leading legislation.

But, Speaker, what I want to know through you: I’m wondering if the minister could please speak to the details of the report that was released on Wednesday, which was prepared by the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to share that with the House. I want to first of all take the opportunity to convey our appreciation to the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation for the very important work they do of promoting greenbelt-grown food, helping greenbelt farmers implement environmental farm plans and publicizing recreation opportunities on the greenbelt.

The greenbelt has been globally recognized as a successful land use planning model, and now I’m pleased to say we can add successful economic model to the list of greenbelt accomplishments. The study was released yesterday, and it found the total economic impact of greenbelt-associated activity exceeds $9.1 billion annually province-wide, and $1.5 billion of that economic activity takes place in Niagara. Some 161,000 full-time equivalent jobs in sectors such as agriculture and tourism are dependent on the greenbelt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the minister for that response.

The same study goes on to show that the greenbelt, with its 1.8 million acres of protected farmland and green space, is not only the greater Golden Horseshoe’s bread basket, but it also proves to be a key economic driver. The report identifies that farmland is one of the leading land use classifications within that greenbelt. More than half the greenbelt is used for agriculture, and we find out now we’ve got over 7,000 farms, primarily because of ideal farming conditions, that can be found on the greenbelt itself.

Speaker, again through you: Would the minister please speak to the role that agriculture plays in the economic success of the greenbelt here in Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m very proud to applaud the continued vitality and growth of greenbelt farms, businesses and communities important to the Ontario economy. Many greenbelt-grown foods are available in grocery stores, farmers’ markets and restaurants. The greenbelt is indeed providing a source of fresh local food to Ontario consumers, which research tells us Ontarians prefer and tend to purchase over other products.

Our government is very proud of the strong work of greenbelt farmers, municipalities, food processors and businesses. I’m going to join the Minister of the Environment in thanking the greenbelt foundation for this study, which showcases the economic contributions to the provincial economy—$9.1 billion—by ordinary, everyday farmers.

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Minister, I’m sure you’ve seen the video by two students from Brampton. In that video, Brian Baah and Samuel Battista, who are present in the gallery today, offer a very important message. These two young adults provide an informative yet funny presentation on how their freedom of choice has been violated by this Liberal government. Brian and Samuel are two of the students you have denied precisely the food options which are available to you and your Liberal colleagues every day, right here in the Legislature.

Minister, why are you denying students—who in some cases are old enough to vote and join the armed forces to fight and die for this great country—the freedom to buy the same foods you can buy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Children in Ontario deserve the best start in life. Childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions, not only here in Ontario but in Canada and around the Western world. We are convinced that the policy of healthy foods in our schools is good for kids.

Interjection: Nutritional guidelines.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We follow nutritional guidelines, my colleague reminds me. So, Mr. Speaker, we don’t agree with your guests who are here in the House. We don’t agree with you. We’re not going to change the policy. We choose, in fact, to make sure our children have healthy choices, and those healthy choices include apples that are grown on Ontario farms. They include all kinds of healthy choices, part of Foodland Ontario.

Instead of protecting cheeseburgers, protect Ontario farms. Sell apples and other fruits that are grown right here in Ontario—

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

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Minister, the cafeteria in the Catholic high school in Trenton has closed due to the lack of sales since your new policy was implemented. The TDSB has suggested they have already lost $700,000 in cafeteria revenue, money that went towards school trips, sports equipment, and arts and music programs. The Toronto Catholic board has said they are considering closing their cafeterias—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m hearing shouting back and forth while the question is being asked.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like the Attorney General to listen. I’m hearing shouting back and forth, even when the question is being asked. Thank you.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: [Inaudible] closing their cafeterias. The Premier has indicated he doesn’t care. So your so-called food choice program eliminates students’ ability to make conscious and independent choices for themselves.

The Ontario PC Party believes in empowering students and educating them on healthy choices, not dictating to them what they can and cannot eat. Minister, before more cafeteria workers are fired, before more students are forced off school grounds to eat lunch, will you do the—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think this is the new Tory white paper, Pathways to Obesity.

Mr. Speaker, we completely disagree with you. To those creative young people here, we don’t agree with them. You may be the party of cheeseburgers; we’re the party of healthy kids and healthy lifestyles.

I hope those young people will turn their creative juices to extolling the virtues of Ontario-grown fruits and vegetables. I hope they will turn their creative juices to produce a video on the benefits of milk that’s produced right here in Ontario. I hope they will make a YouTube video that urges people to eat chicken that is produced right here in Ontario.

The party of cheeseburgers and whitewash, we have to—

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

Interjections.

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

I did hear a few comments that were very dangerously close to unparliamentary, and I couldn’t identify the individuals. So I would recommend very carefully of the type of language that gets said in this place.

Having said that, it’s now time for the next question.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for—

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Kenora–Rainy River.

Interjection: Kenora–Rainy River.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s all do that together: Kenora–Rainy River.

Interjections: Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. About a month ago, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources why he decided to take jobs out of Ontario and outsource them to Tennessee. The answer to that question was not satisfactory.

Since that time, people across the province have raised serious concerns relating to the privacy of information that is collected and stored in the United States and subject to their privacy laws. This morning, I shared those concerns with the privacy commissioner and have urged an investigation.

Why are Ontarians losing out on jobs because services are being sold off to companies in other countries, all while putting our privacy at risk?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation. The fact is that the contract was awarded in a fair and competitive procurement process to a company in Tennessee to help us automate a system to provide licences to anglers and hunters in a more efficient and faster way and a way, that allows them to access it from their home, from ServiceOntario centres, from a number of issuers.

In terms of the privacy issue, again, I want to provide real assurance that the company that was awarded the contract is contractually obligated to follow Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They cannot in any way, directly or indirectly, use, collect or disclose any personal information. The fact is, if indeed the privacy commissioner chooses to investigate this or look into this, we will welcome, obviously, the comments of the privacy commissioner, but we feel very confident that the privacy of Ontarians is secure.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: There’s close to 600,000 people out of work in this province, and now more jobs that could very well be performed by people in this province as a public service have been outsourced to the United States for profit. Ontarians have to call a number in Tennessee to get their Outdoors Card, fishing licence, and to report their wild turkey hunt. Even the moose tag draw happens in Tennessee.

Given the fact that we’ve had many complaints about the moose tag draw, Minister, do you think the fact that this draw happens in Tennessee will increase their confidence?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The fact is that the Outdoors Card centre is still in Peterborough. Our Ministry of Natural Resources people are still in charge of that process. They’re still doing that. The company in Tennessee that was awarded that contract is working, in terms of the vendors and the machines, to help make the licensing process run in a more efficient fashion. There are by no means significant jobs attached to that We are still very much in control of the Outdoors centre and our MNR offices in Peterborough.

The fact is that, indeed, we’ve got 730,000 licences that have been issued. We are very, very pleased about the fact that, now, a system is in place that is going to be easier and more efficient for people to access and get their cards. Indeed, I do not think those concerns are warranted.

PAN AM GAMES

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question today is for the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games.

Minister, during the next three years, the games will be one of the largest economic drivers in the Golden Horseshoe. The games will create thousands of jobs, and the long-term community benefit will be felt across Ontario and in my wonderful riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, the host of the state-of-the-art aquatics facility at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus. This will be a legacy long-term training facility; it’s not a two-week event.

My constituents have asked about the Pan Am budget. They want to know how much the games will cost and how the plans are progressing. Minister, what’s the status of the 2015 Pan Am and Parapan Am Games budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member for Pickering–Scarborough East for her question. She is correct: Many were anxious for this update, and none more so than me.

Ontario is proud to be hosting the 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games, and we look forward to welcoming athletes and officials from over 41 countries to Toronto and Ontario. The games will create, indeed, 15,000 jobs and showcase Ontario as a great place to visit, invest and do business. As the member correctly mentioned, it will be one of the largest economic drivers in the region over the next three years.

Together with Toronto 2015, we recently released the updated Pan Am and Parapan American Games budget. The overall budget remains unchanged at $1.449 billion, and the government of Ontario’s commitment remains at $500 million. The federal government is also committing $500 million.

I’m very pleased that the games are moving ahead well and they are on track.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: I know my constituents of Pickering–Scarborough East are very excited about the opportunity to host the games set to be played at the U of T Scarborough campus.

While we’re all looking forward to watching the games and cheering everyone on, we know that organizing the games is an enormous undertaking. Knowing this, it’s especially important we do everything possible to manage the costs.

Minister, what steps are being taken to deliver the games on budget and manage any risk? How will Ontarians be kept up to date as the planning process proceeds?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you again to the member.

We recognize the importance of budget oversight, and I take that responsibility very seriously. As of March 31, 2012, 3.7% of the total 2015 Pan Am Parapan American Games budget has been spent. The majority of the budget will be spent in 2014 and 2015, and the organizing committee is taking extra steps to contain those costs by reducing the footprint of the games through venue clustering.

We’re also pleased that there’s an $82-million contingency reserve in the operating budget. We’re implementing strict financial reporting and risk management processes. Moreover, 2015 has committed to providing ongoing public status reports, including budget updates, beginning this fall.

I’m pleased to say that the budget has been reviewed and confirmed by independent third party auditors and financial experts.

The people’s games, Mr. Speaker, will be an enormous social and economic benefit for the whole province.

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you know the challenges that businesses face in Ontario today: a $16-billion deficit, soaring energy costs, and a red tape burden that takes $11 billion out of our economy each year.

This afternoon, you and your party will have the opportunity to support my private members’ bill that takes real, legislated action to tackle the red tape burden in Ontario. It’s my belief that we can face this challenge together and head on and help clear the way for job creators to not just survive, but thrive.

I’m asking you, Deputy Premier: Will you support this important bill, Bill 62, the Legislative Oversight of Regulations Act?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Members on this side of the House, in private members’ hour, all vote the way they see fit. I applaud the member for his initiative, and I look forward to hearing the debate this afternoon to see where that goes.

But I want to know why the member won’t allow the southwest economic development fund to get approval. When I think of Chatham and Blenheim and Leamington, which are all in that member’s riding—instead of standing up for Chatham, instead of standing up for Blenheim, instead of standing up for the good people of Chatham–Kent–Essex, he stands back. That region has gone through a number of challenges related to the economy. We’ve worked to bring investments. We’ve created the new southwest fund. I hope the member opposite will stop ringing the bells and start speaking for his constituents, many of whom I’ve heard from, who want this fund passed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Deputy Premier. I still remain optimistic that we can address this challenge, but your response does disappoint our small business owners. One such employer tells me that he spends hours filling out redundant paperwork for trucks at his building shop in London with information the government already has.

It’s 2012. Unemployment is still above the national average. CFIB says that we’re still seeing billions drained from our economy through hundreds of thousands of regulations and red tape. And now we have to factor in credit rating downgrades from Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s.

So, Deputy Premier, I ask you again, will you encourage your members to stand up and support legislative action against this crippling red tape that holds back Ontario businesses?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would like to remind the member opposite about our Open for Business initiative, which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave us a B minus on. They welcomed it.

Here’s what it did: It reduced the red tape and regulatory burden by 17% and eliminated 80,000 regulatory burdens. That B minus was a higher grade than the previous Conservative government got in their initiatives.

We also harmonized the sales tax and had the largest regulatory reduction in the history of the province. That party voted against it, Mr. Speaker. Their federal colleagues had the good sense to support it, both with cash and with moral support.

So to the member opposite, I hope you will vote for the southwest Ontario economic development fund so that we can work with the greenhouse growers in southern Ontario, we can work with the automotive manufacturers and automotive parts suppliers that are laced between Windsor and London, and many who are in Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Our plan is working. It’s the right plan. I urge the member—

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

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. CLUAH was intended to serve as MNR’s poster child for turning large tracts of land in northern Ontario into a model for tourism development, but citizens’ committees tasked with providing input in the limited instances of consultation weigh heavily on the side of special-interest groups, and the public cannot participate. As a result, people in Wawa, Gogama, Massey, Hornepayne and Dubreuilville, to name a few, have seen public access to lands severely restricted in areas that have been available to them for generations.

Minister, when will this government respect and recognize the rights of citizens of Ontario and ensure fair access to our natural resources?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I very much appreciate the question from my colleague. The fact is, Ontarians have tremendous access to crown land. The vast majority of crown land has no restrictions at all. We are really fortunate, I think, to have a free land use policy where people can enjoy all kinds of activities in terms of our crown land.

But in the interests of Ontarians’ safety, not all crown access roads can always remain open. I think the member knows that. When forestry access roads, for example, are built and companies are no longer accessing them, it’s difficult to maintain them and keep them safe for travel. I think the member, again, will understand that. Crown roads are then only closed to vehicles and remain open to Ontarians who want to enjoy outside activities.

Certainly we are always open to more discussions about this, but the fact is, we are very lucky to have a free land use policy in the province of Ontario and—

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Minister, I need to remind you that the long weekend is upon us, hunting season is around the corner, and constituents in my riding are looking for answers—also in northern Ontario.

MNR is preventing public access on roads bordering crown lands simply because a remote tourism operator has a lot on a huge lake. The Public Lands Act,

section 3, outlines that 25% or more of crown land that borders a lake must be reserved for public use. By ignoring its obligation to the people of Ontario, MNR has created a two-tier system of access to our shared resources.

What right does MNR have to violate the law and to restrict the access of traditional users to those lands but allow access to only the privileged few?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I do appreciate the question. I want to say, again, that Ontarians have extraordinary access to crown land, and the vast majority of crown land has no restrictions at all. There are some cases, I will obviously acknowledge, where access to crown land is restricted, to help create and build strong local economies by supporting Ontario’s remote tourism industry, and that’s about us always trying to find a balance. Even at that stage, crown lands are only really closed to vehicles and remain open to Ontarians to enjoy outside activities in these remote areas and to get there.

I’m certainly very happy to have a further conversation with the member about this, but I think he’d be very, very pleased with the open access to Ontario’s crown lands that all Ontarians enjoy.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Attorney General. It’s important to bring to light the extraordinary challenges that everyday Ontarians face after being victims of crime, and the Attorney General spoke last month of the importance of victim of crime awareness.

Many of us in this House know someone who has been a victim of crime, some more serious than others. For many, it is often a long and difficult road back to recovery. As the member for York–South Weston, I am aware that victims of crime rely on friends and family for support during these difficult times, although sometimes the support of loved ones is not enough and can often put strain on even the strongest of bonds.

Acknowledging these challenges is an important demonstration to those who have been victimized by crime, and the government has a responsibility to help on the road back to recovery. What measures are we putting in place as a government?

Hon. John Gerretsen: National Victims of Crime Awareness Week is a very important part of our whole criminal justice system, and the services that are provided for victims of crime are certainly light years ahead of where they used to be 20 or 30 years ago.

The work that our ministry and government does for victims of crime includes delivering innovative support programs and making it easier for victims and families to seek the justice they deserve. I’ll just give you a couple of examples.

Victim crisis assistance and referral services work closely with local police. VCARS staff and volunteers help victims and provide much-needed support. Last year, you may be interested in knowing, 71,000 individuals—our neighbours, friends and loved ones—were helped by VCARS. More recently, we launched the Family Court support worker program, which helps victims of domestic violence who are involved in the family law process.

As well, the Office for Victims of Crime released a handbook, which is very useful as well in that regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Mr. Speaker, my next question is again for the Attorney General. The needs of victims of crime need to be addressed in a fulsome manner. I’m proud to live in a province and to be part of a government that shows compassion, courtesy and respect for all crime victims.

But a prevalent reality for victims is not to proactively seek the community supports that are available to them. In most cases, especially at the outset, victims or loved ones of victims are too distraught to effectively learn about victim programs that can help them. In other cases, some are initially in denial of the potential impacts of being a victim and don’t bother to seek help. Having a good victim support system is one thing, but if victims aren’t using it, what is the use of having it? How are we creating an appropriate and effective link?

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

Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is looking forward to answering this question.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you for this very important question. It’s absolutely necessary that we help victims get back on their feet in the aftermath of a crime. That’s why my ministry has recently worked with police and victim service providers to strengthen the police guideline for victim assistance.

We have streamlined the process to ensure victims are connected quickly to the support services available in their communities. Now, not only are police officers providing victim services information to victims; they are also providing victim-related information on a timely basis to the appropriate community agency unless the victim especially declines this assistance.

Today I want to thank the AG for releasing this handbook, Living Beyond the Murder of a Loved One: Information for Families and Others Affected by Homicide.

MINISTRY GRANTS

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to read a quote from a local newspaper, attributed to the mayor of the municipality of Bluewater upon receiving $7.5 million: “‘I still wake up at night, wondering if this is going to happen,’ he said.” The March 22

article goes on to say that, “Unlike most funding, the municipality didn’t apply through a grant application but was approached by the province.”

Minister, is this standard practice?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We’re very proud of our rural economic development program and the funds that we’ve been able to provide to municipalities. My understanding is that this project will support economic development in the Bluewater area, and that’s good. If the member opposite is anxious to not see that money extended to that municipality, perhaps she could get the council to say that they don’t want it, but I doubt very much that’s going to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you. Minister, four years ago, right before an election, the Minister of Citizenship was caught shovelling money out the door, like the million-dollar cricket club grant, without bothering with things like applications or accountability.

The reckless use of taxpayers’ money doesn’t stop there. The previous Minister of Agriculture signed the formal agreement with the municipality of Bluewater and you amended it less than two months later to rush the cash out the door, and took reporting and accountability measures out of the agreement. Minister, something isn’t right. The ministry never announced this money and reportedly had the municipality sign a confidentiality agreement. Will you ask the auditor to look into this, or, if you have details of the grant, share them with the people in the Legislature?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m a little confused. This is the party opposite that wanted to stop the uploading to the province. This is the party opposite that, in the election campaign, wouldn’t stand in their place and make a commitment to municipalities like Bluewater. Our government is proud of the strategic investments that we’ve made in the municipality of Bluewater in support of the economic development in that region.

This area has faced significant barriers. I’ll tell you, notwithstanding the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All of you, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —mischievousness of the question, they were very, very pleased to get the money.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain on a point of order.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just quickly like to introduce my daughter, Destinee, to the House today. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We absolutely know that that’s not a point of order, but we do absolutely welcome your daughter for being here.

Don’t go away with any bad impressions.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would want to use that moment to also say to this House at this time that this is the last day for our pages. As I have always done, and I even heckled that we should make them stay, they have to be on, so I think we should show our appreciation for the wonderful work that they’ve done. To all our pages: Thank you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to make a quick editorial. I was told that this is the brightest group that we’ve ever had here during this time period.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I can add that they have great taste in vocals and music.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There is no deferred vote. This House stands recessed till 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome some people from my area. Chris Braney is the CEO for the Durham Alzheimer Society. Chris is in the members’ gallery, along with Janelle Bush, who is from my home riding but is working in Durham for the summer. Also, we have Laura Hare, who is the executive director of the Belleville-Hastings Alzheimer Society and my old golf partner; and Linda Jackson is the executive director of the Prince Edward County Alzheimer Society. We have Sharon Osvold, as well, who is an Alzheimer’s caregiver. Welcome to the Legislature. It’s great to have you here.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: It’s my great honour to welcome to the Legislature a number of guests who are on hand today to lend their voices for the support of Bill 81, Inherited Heart Rhythm Disorders Awareness Act, 2012. We have Blake Hurst, founder of Parents Advocating for Cardiac Education; Mary Lewis, vice-president of research, advocacy and health promotion, Ontario, for the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Dr. Joel A. Kirsh, pediatric cardiologist for the Hospital for Sick Children; and Alan and Debbie Corrance. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you so much for being here.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to introduce Connor Maitland, who is here. He’s the brother of page Carley Maitland. Actually, Connor was a page here six years ago. Welcome, Connor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All in the family.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, there is—and I’m embarrassed to say this, because I’ve lost my note. The parents and friends of lesbians and gays are here today, having a reception this afternoon. I don’t have the note with me with the time and the room.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s 4:30, room 230.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s 4:30, room 230. I want to thank my friend from Parkdale–High Park. It would be very wonderful if a number of us would show up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That heckling, I’ll accept.

Further introductions? Members’ statements. Oh, is that an introduction—

Mr. David Zimmer: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Willowdale for an introduction.

Mr. David Zimmer: Thank you, Speaker. I was just a little slow on my feet there.

I would like to introduce some members of the Ontario Museum Association. They are Marie Lalonde, who is the executive director; and Yves Théoret, who is the vice-president, the managing director, and he has special responsibilities for the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome our guests.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PFLAG CANADA

Mrs. Jane McKenna: It is my honour to rise today in the House, on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, to recognize PFLAG Canada, Canada’s only national organization that helps all Canadians who are struggling with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Irene Miller, president of Toronto PFLAG, is here at Queen’s Park today, along with Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, to recognize and stand in support of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

PFLAG Canada offers support for LBGTT individuals and also for parents when sons and daughters come out. PFLAG Canada educates and provides resources to parents, families, friends and colleagues with questions or concerns 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

All people, whatever their path in life, have a right to equal treatment without discrimination because of gender identity or gender. When it comes down to it, reaching the full potential of who you are as an individual is really about fully experiencing the authentic you. It’s about being secure in yourself and living your story. On this journey, PFLAG offers valuable support. The organization is there to help all those who are navigating these issues in a world that doesn’t always make room for diversity.

REMIX PROJECT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I would like to acknowledge the phenomenal work an organization in my riding is doing for at-risk youth in communities across Toronto.

The Remix Project, which has offices in Liberty Village, is empowering young people from some of Toronto’s most impoverished areas through the arts. By providing training and partnering with groups such as Music Canada, the Remix Project gives at-risk youth an entry point into a myriad of creative fields, including graphic design, illustration, fashion design, videography, photography, writing, music recording and film.

Organizations like the Remix Project remind us that our most impoverished communities are not a liability but an incredible reservoir of untapped potential. The artists who graduate from this organization are proof that investing in our less-privileged young people not only yields a great return on investment but also trains young professionals who can share their skills with other members of their communities.

It was a great honour to tour the Remix Project and meet the members of this organization, many of them graduates of their own program, but it is an even bigger honour to know that they are changing the lives of so many people by doing their work in my riding.

UNITED BAKERS DAIRY RESTAURANT

Mr. Mike Colle: This month, an incredible, iconic landmark in Toronto and in my riding, the United Bakers restaurant, is celebrating 100 years. UB, as it’s called, used to be on Dundas, then it moved to Spadina, and now it’s in my riding at Bathurst and Lawrence.

It is really the heart and soul of the Jewish community in Toronto. If you haven’t been there, you’re not Jewish. You have to go there. You meet everybody: judges, mayors, schleppers. You meet Toronto’s Toronto people.

They have incredible pea soup—the best in all of the globe—bagels, the scrambled eggs, the coffee, the blintzes.

It is a true meeting place where people will argue, yell at each other, hug each other—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just like this place.

Mr. Mike Colle: But the food is much better there at the United Bakers Dairy Restaurant.

It is owned by the Ladovsky family that came from Poland in 1912. They put their heart and soul—in fact, they were part of the union movement. They organized the confectionary workers on Spadina back in the old days.

Anyway, if you want to really say you’ve visited Toronto, you have to go to the United Bakers Dairy Restaurant. You’re always welcome, but make sure you’re not on a diet. Go there any time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m very hungry. Thank you.

Member from Sarnia–Lambton.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr. Robert Bailey: I as well, Speaker.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is taking a dangerous risk with the safety of corrections officers and inmates at the Sarnia Jail. The ministry is overcrowding the Sarnia Jail and is now operating this facility at 145% capacity. Inmates are being stuffed three to a cell and forced to sleep on the floor in day areas outside of regular cells. At the same time, the ministry has left the jail critically understaffed and important security roles are being left unfilled.

In the event of an emergency, this understaffing jeopardizes both the safety of staff on duty and the safety of the inmates themselves. The local jail guards’ union has written to the minister’s office, saying, “We are in serious trouble here. Hopefully no one gets killed or injured because of the lack of staff.”

The inevitable outcome of overcrowding in the Sarnia Jail will be a tragedy. At larger facilities like London’s Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, where violence is rampant, overcrowding has been cited in numerous lawsuits, two coroners’ inquests and a homicide investigation.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services must act now to address the dangerous conditions they’ve created at the Sarnia Jail before there is an incident leading to serious injury or loss of life.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr. Michael Mantha: Today I would like to highlight the important work of the Royal Canadian Legions. Across my riding, this province and this country, Legions are working hard at making our communities a better place. As one of Canada’s largest community-based service organizations, who have contributed millions of dollars in volunteer hours, I want to thank them for all that they do.

I have had the opportunity to attend many events this year sponsored by the Legions. I recently attended their public speaking competition. Important initiatives like this are key in the development of self-confidence in our youth.

I am looking forward to this week, when my wife and I will become associate members of Legion Branch 561—and I encourage you all to do so in your communities.

I am proud to say that family members of mine have served in the Canadian military and served in World War II.

I also want to send my thoughts and prayers to Comrade Manuel from Legion Branch 561 and his family. Comrade Manuel is undergoing triple bypass surgery today and is presently in intensive care. His fellow legionnaires, friends and I wish for a speedy recovery.

Thank you to all the men and women in the Royal Canadian Legion for your hard work and dedication in making our society a better place.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to share that now more children will have access to mental health services in Peel region.

Last week, the Minister of Children and Youth Services joined me at Associated Youth Services of Peel to announce funding that will help create a more coordinated and responsive mental health care system in Peel region.

In a May 9 editorial, the Toronto Star wrote, “Without proper health services and community support, childhood mental illness can stress families to the breaking point. Children drop out of school, wind up in homeless shelters or, worse still, the prison system.” I agree.

The federal government should implement the recommendations of the Mental Health Commission of Canada without delay.

The Peel region can do even better as our government is now funding to the Peel region proportional to its population.

I commend Associated Youth Services of Peel for their hard work and dedication.

WASTE DIVERSION

Mr. Michael Harris: Recently, the Minister of the Environment chose to make businesses pay for the Liberal government’s failure to properly manage waste diversion in Ontario.

Last year, the Liberal government idly stood by, allowing Stewardship Ontario to rack up massive deficits in eight of the nine phase 1 hazardous waste categories it manages.

Now, the Minister of the Environment is forcing businesses to clean up the Liberal government’s financial mess by charging additional fees for his deficit recovery plan. With no regard for accountability, the minister rushed these changes through the back door and is now hiding behind a complex layer of bureaucracy involving Stewardship Ontario and Waste Diversion Ontario. As a result, companies like Monarch Oil in Kitchener-Waterloo have received bills from Stewardship Ontario with recycling fee increases reaching as much as 120%.

Businesses must do their part to help promote recycling, yes, but they should not have to finance multi-million dollar deficits which are the result of bad policy decisions by this government.

Clearly, Ontario’s waste diversion apparatus is broken. When businesses are just handed a bill by a government-assisted monopoly with little to no explanation, something has got to change.

We’ve all seen what happens when governments and the agencies they are responsible for operate under a shroud of secrecy. You end up with Ornge.

It’s time that the Liberal government recognizes that the only way to move waste diversion forward in Ontario is to establish proper oversight of the recycling program.

MUSEUMS

Mr. David Zimmer: I rise today on behalf of the Ontario Museum Association to recognize Museum Month and International Museum Day on May 18—that’s tomorrow. It’s a time when museums around the world and in Ontario celebrate their important role in building vibrant, livable communities where authentic learning experiences are enjoyed by all visitors.

During the summer season and throughout the year, Ontario’s 600 museums, art galleries and historic sites will welcome about 19 million visitors, providing a real exploration of Ontario’s heritage.

Ontario’s museums act as catalysts for tourism and innovation in our province. This year is especially important because of the War of 1812 commemoration activities.

Across Ontario, the museum sector employs 8,000 professionals and 16,000 volunteers who create these outstanding programs and visitor experiences.

On International Museum Day on May 18, I encourage everyone in Ontario in every city and town to visit a museum in Ontario of your choice; in fact, visit several.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Ted Arnott: On behalf of the people of Wellington–Halton Hills, I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for his decision to cancel alternative 4-3 of the GTA West Corridor study. Sometimes the wheels of government move slowly, but other times they move at breathtaking speed. On Tuesday, I tabled a resolution calling on the minister to announce that he was ending further consideration of alternative 4-3. Less than 24 hours after that resolution was tabled, the minister decided to deal with the issue, and yesterday he initiated a meeting with the mayor of Halton Hills to deliver the good news.

I want to thank the countless individuals who have worked so tirelessly to bring about this resolution: the town of Halton Hills council, Halton regional council, and members of CRASHH, especially Wendy Bruchal, for all the work that they have done. This victory belongs to them.

For almost a year, my staff and I have worked hard to bring attention to the issue in this House. In September, I outlined a 10-point plan of the steps I wanted to take. One by one, we checked off the points before Christmas. I have raised it on multiple occasions in this House. I have written and spoken directly to both the Premier and the Minister of Transportation, drafted a petition, and pushed for a briefing with senior staff at the Ministry of Transportation.

Over