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

September 22, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Sep-22 (PDF)

L045 - Wed 22 Sep 2010 / Mer 22 sep 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 September 2010 Mercredi 22 septembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

TUITION

OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FOOD SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

YOM KIPPUR

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL IN HORNEPAYNE

RAY TIMMONS

TAXATION

CANCER FUNDRAISER

WELLESLEY APPLE BUTTER

AND CHEESE FESTIVAL

ASSOCIATION OF PROGRESSIVE

MUSLIMS OF CANADA

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT

ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

RICHARD POTTER

PETITIONS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

RECYCLING

HIGHWAY 15

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL

VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

KIDNEY DISEASE

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 16, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit / Projet de loi 99, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour les activités des enfants.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s my pleasure and an honour to talk about this bill. At the outset, this bill is not going to do any harm, so New Democrats are going to support it.

But I have to say we are perplexed, we are puzzled and we wonder why this bill is here in the first place. Surely, when the government was looking at exemptions, this should have been one of them. When the government was looking at fast food and hamburgers, when you were looking at kids stuffing their face at McDonald’s and eating all the wrong foods, you thought that was a great thing to exempt. When you were looking at soft drinks and all—great things to exempt. But when it came to this—oh, no, this was not going to be exempted.

Now you’ve heard parents screaming, you’ve heard kids not being able to play and you’ve come up with a $50 maximum tax credit. I guess some families will want the $50, some families will welcome the $50; $50 may make a difference to some kids being enrolled in sports or music or something else. So we are going to vote for it.

But if you think it’s reasonable to tax children’s activity in the first place, then you should come up and say that. I’d like to hear someone from the government explain why this was not exempted in the first place. I’d like you to explain why the $50 tax credit is going to be approximately half of what parents are spending on HST. We know that if you spend $500 putting your child into a hockey team—any example would do, but a hockey team right off the top of my head—they’re going to pay approximately $40 in new HST. That’s what they’re going to spend just on that: one child, $40 on HST, which they didn’t pay before the HST came into effect. So you want to give some of that back.

We have a report. A recent study by a leading HST researcher, David Murrell, suggests that Ontario families spend $1.8 billion on now taxable recreational programs and facilities and that the McGuinty government’s 8% tax means that families will be paying $148 million in new taxes, double the amount of the $75 million that’s proposed in this bill that the McGuinty Liberals are spending on their fitness tax credit. So families, again, are losers; they are losers in the overall scheme of things.

We have seen what’s happening across this province in terms of the HST. Government numbers in opinion polls have gone down. People are starting to get very angry when they see HST coming up on their bills. In British Columbia, which has recall legislation, you are starting to see a government very nervous and worried as people are upset because they have to wait a whole year, or more than a year, until the time roughly of the next Ontario election, to vote to get rid of the HST in that province. People don’t like it. They don’t like what’s happening to them; they don’t like the costs of it.

I’ll tell you, what is happening in British Columbia, which is well documented because of the recall legislation, is also happening here. It may be more subdued, but when you go around and talk to your constituents, you are going to see that the government big sell on this new tax is not working. It’s not working because people are unhappy with what they’re being forced to pay. They are unhappy at all those little things, such as their children getting into hockey games or figure skating or piano lessons, now being taxed, and they will be unhappy in spite of this bill.

I have to say that I think the thing they’re most unhappy about is not necessarily the 8% on this expense. What they are most unhappy about and what we’ve received so many calls on is the 8% that’s being taxed on to the electricity bill. I ask my friends opposite—the HST is causing all kinds of grief. It’s causing grief to children’s minor sports, but it’s especially causing grief to families when they get their electricity bill, their heating bills, their natural gas bills, their oil bills, their gas bills when they are filling up the car.

The HST on electricity is probably the most heinous of the lot, because consumers are now paying HST on such a broad range of goods and services. It’s not just HST on the five cents or eight cents per kilowatt hour that they are using; they are paying HST on such things as the retirement of the debt. This is the first time I have ever seen a tax put on debt retirement in the history of this province. This government has chosen to tell people, “You are in debt.” I understand why we’re in debt: We went big, we went nuclear and we lost a bundle. We all understand what happened.

But now, ordinary citizens are being forced to pay HST on the retirement of that debt in order that the government—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Beaches–East York, I’m sure that you’re going to tie this in to the child tax credit within about the next 30 seconds.

Mr. Michael Prue: Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, you anticipated my very move. I’m talking about the HST, and then I’m going to go back into the HST as it relates to children and tax credits. But I’m just pointing this out as an example—probably the most heinous example—of where the HST has gone wrong so that ordinary people are now having to pay for things that it’s simply not right that they pay for.

To bring it back to this issue, it is not right that families in the first place are having to pay HST on children’s programs. It is absolutely not right, and it wasn’t right in the first place. Again, I bring it back to a statement I made at the opening of this debate here today: The government saw fit to take the HST off such things as fast foods and things that are potentially harmful for young children—in fact, probably harmful for all of us—and yet, they left that same HST on children’s programs.

A couple of points that I would like to make here: The first is that the families, in order to get this money, are going to have to jump through hoops. They’re going to have to fill out forms, they’re going to have to get records, they’re going to have to get a lot of things. That need not have happened. Had the government in its wisdom not taxed this in the first place, there would have been nothing to do; there would have been absolutely nothing to do.

But now, families are going to be forced to fill out forms, families are going to have to keep records, families are going to be limited in terms of how much they claim—because the maximum is $50 per child per year, and that doesn’t go very far in terms of expenditures on $500. Anyone who has a child on a hockey team, anyone who has a child registered in any number of programs will know that $500 of expenditure does not go very far. Yet, the return on this is only a maximum of $50.

In fact, for some of the cheaper programs, they’re not even going to see that $50; they’re going to see considerably less—that is, programs that are often run by municipalities, church groups and the like are going to see even less.

There’s the whole jumping through hoops, the whole keeping of all these records that I’m sure is going to make people angry. Better had this government in the first place simply not put the tax on children’s recreational and sports programs.

We know we want our children to be healthy. We know that the Minister of Health Promotion stands in this place, whenever the opportunity gives itself, and talks about children and the opportunity and the desire that parents have to keep their children healthy. We also know that the Minister of Health Promotion talks about obesity and that kind of thing, and what the government is attempting to do. Yet here we have a program where parents are going to have to jump through hoops.

We also know a University of Alberta study showed that the high costs of these activities meant that upper- and middle-income families were twice as likely to submit the claim as poorer families. So what we have here is a sop to the middle class, the middle class who were particularly angry at the HST. We know who is going to make this claim. Is it going to be families from Regent Park, where I grew up? I don’t think so. Maybe they will; I hope they do.

But it’s going to be primarily middle-class, upper-middle-class and rich families who know how to take advantage of this, who have accountants, who have lawyers, who have everything else, who have the wherewithal to keep their receipts and the monies that are being spent.

The University of Alberta set it out very well: This is not a fair tax, and it’s not a fair remuneration. It is more likely to be taken up by those who already have more money than by those who have less.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: I can hear my friend from Algoma muttering, but I can’t make out what he’s trying to say because he’s muttering so badly. If he has something important to say, I wish he’d say it right out loud.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: He’s muttering again. I still can’t hear what he has to say. I’m sure it’s of importance only to himself.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We’re not talking about the 15% in NDP Nova Scotia.

Mr. Michael Prue: Oh, I can hear the honourable minister a little better. He’s much more clear and articulate when he mutters. I thank him for his interjection, but I reject it all the same.

We also know that families are in particularly tight circumstances these days. Unemployment remains spectacularly high. We know that the cost of living and taxes have increased, for some families exponentially, and we know that they struggle to do a great many things. I am extremely worried, and I think most of us need to be worried, that families will find less and less money to put their children through sports and other activities, because those are some of the less-than-necessities that have to be met.

You have to first pay your hydro bill; you have to pay your mortgage; you have to buy food; you have to send your child to school, and you have expenses related to that; you have all of the families that are fundraising in schools these days because there isn’t enough money coming forward from the government. When it comes down to it, one ought to be worried about the number of children who will actually participate in these activities in the first place, never mind getting the rebate. The family has to first of all come up with the money in order to make sure the children have the opportunity.

Where is the government on all of this? If you have the money, if you can send your child, then you can get a rebate in the magnificent sum of $50.

To bring it all back together—and I may not use my whole 20 minutes here, because this is a pretty thin little bill—we have a government here that had choices to make. We have a government that could have done the right thing and exempted children’s activities from the HST. We have a government that decided not to do that. But then they went out and they saw and felt the political heat around all of this. They felt the political heat because people were upset. They know that activities that people enjoy doing cost considerably more—we know that children were particularly vulnerable—and they came up with a $50 tax credit.

I had the opportunity today to read the clipping service, and Christina Blizzard from the Toronto Sun wrote a very good column. It is slightly divergent away from this, but not too much, because one of the activities that many adults enjoy doing, me in particular, is fishing. She had a whole column about people who would travel from outside of the province to come to northern Ontario, to the area around Kenora, to the pristine lakes, to enjoy fishing.

It was found out—and her column is all about the HST—how this outdoor activity, that was enjoyed not so much by children but by adults, is now becoming very, very difficult and less likely to occur in this province than elsewhere. She talked about people coming from the United States who found that the additional 13% HST was onerous—an additional 8% from the province that was onerous—and took us out of the league, so that people would now choose to stay in the United States and perhaps go fishing in Minnesota.

She also talked about some of our brothers and sisters from other parts of Canada and how it now made more sense for people living in Manitoba, who had once come to enjoy outdoor recreational activities in Ontario—they are now more likely to choose to go to Saskatchewan.

The same thing holds true for children’s activities. If the activities in those border communities, be they on the border with Quebec, be they on the border with Manitoba or, potentially, even be they on the border with the United States, are that much cheaper without the equivalent of an HST on children’s activities in those places, then I would suggest that that is where parents are going to take their children as well.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: I can hear more muttering now, coming from the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I can’t make out what she’s saying. If it’s important, please say it loudly.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Quebec has had HST for the past 10 years.

Mr. Michael Prue: She’s telling me that Quebec has had HST for the past 10 years. Yes, they have, but they’ve lowered it, and I’m not sure that they have put it—

Interjection: They lowered it twice.

Interjection: To what?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order.

Mr. Michael Prue: I think there’s lots of argument there, but I leave that for my colleagues, if they—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I agree with the member for Parkdale–High Park: If you have something to say, you’ll be given an opportunity to do that.

The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: For Beaches–East York?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Beaches–East York; I’m sorry.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The member from Parkdale–High Park sits beside me, and she is usually far more eloquent—I think you can tell the difference that way.

In any event, other provinces do what other provinces want to do. Manitoba has chosen not to go down this road; Quebec, as the minister rightly pointed out, went down this road many years ago. But they have wonderful programs for children, and I have not heard any screams coming out of those places in terms of the opportunities available for children, or indeed the opportunities for parents to have full-day child care. They’ve had it for many years, and all the opportunities that children can avail themselves of in that province are far different from anything this government has been able to come up with.

In closing, I think that we, as New Democrats, have no alternative but to vote for this bill. We have no alternative because $50 in the pockets of families is better than nothing at all. But we have to ask those same families, and anybody watching this on television: Would it not have been better in the first place for the government to recognize the importance of children’s health, to recognize the importance of recreational activities and to have done at least the same thing for recreational health that they did for McDonald’s hamburgers?

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you for the opportunity to add a few comments to those of the previous speaker from Beaches–East York. I would have to say that this bill, and the government’s plan, are to try to do everything they can to help young children and families in Ontario. I can tell you, as a former soccer coach for close to 17 years, working with young children in house leagues and competitive soccer, that this is definitely an opportunity to help those families with some of their costs. I certainly will be supporting it, and I’m glad my colleague from Beaches–East York will be supporting it.

But I think there’s something very obvious that has to be noted. Unlike the federal children’s fitness tax credit, which is non-refundable and only applies to income tax owing, this government chose to make it a credit that everyone will receive, especially low-income earners in Ontario, whom this government has been trying over time to help, year after year, if you look at all the programs we’ve brought in, in the last couple of years, one of them being the Ontario child benefit program.

The whole revamp of that system has put more money into lower-income families. Full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds is certainly helping low-income families, with their kids being in school all day and reducing their costs in having to pay for daycare. If you look at what we’re doing, I think it’s very positive, and families are going to welcome this.

The one additional thing you need to note is that this particular credit does not apply to organized sports only. It applies to activities for young people like music lessons, language classes and dance classes. I think this is a very positive thing on the government’s part.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I give credit to the member from Beaches–East York for pointing out the trivialness of this bill, the knee-jerk reaction, you know, switching the channel. In fact, I know that in the Minister of Finance’s riding, the Windsor Star posted an

article that reads, “Cynical PR move.” If you put that into context, I think Andrea Horwath summed it up very nicely as well: “The announcement comes two months after the introduction of the despised harmonized sales tax,” and she says, “‘What would be the best is if the government had thought more carefully about the harmonized tax in the first place.’”

Clearly, we on this side understand. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has said this is a tax on people that was never talked about and never planned; it was just a tax grab. And our research has said it’s about $732 or more a year per family.

What does this $50 mean? Let’s put it in the context of the bill—the member from Beaches–East York did point that out. If you spend $500 and you do the tax, 13%, that comes out to $65 in tax. That’s money out of your pocket. It’s actually $500 plus $65. And no expense would be just $500; it could be $550 or $600. If you spend less than that, you don’t qualify. But if you’re already spending, or giving Premier McGuinty, an additional $65, they’re saying, keep your receipts and file your taxes, which is more red tape. But some of the receipts may not qualify.

If it is a specific “instruction,” as it says in the bill, it doesn’t include hotel costs, travel costs or anything like that. None of that is covered. So I don’t think it does anything for families at all.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Let’s name this child tax credit for what it is. First of all, to correct what my friend from Scarborough–Rouge River said, or implied, it’s $50 maximum. You don’t get $50 over and over again on programs your child is enrolled in. It’s $50 maximum.

For parents in my community, who probably spend, on average, over $1,000 on child programs every year, it doesn’t come close to matching the HST burden even for them. Let’s face it: This is a gnat-sized corrective for an elephant-sized mistake, which is the HST. As my friend from Durham said, this is a public relations move that will have little to no bearing on parents across this province.

A woman from my riding was talking to me about her hydro bill. She said, “How ridiculous. The government announces a $50 credit at the same time that I’m opening my hydro bill to an extra $100,” an extra $100 on one bill alone—one bill alone. Another member from my riding who runs a small business and also has children said that his hydro bill now represents a huge portion of his profits because of changes this government has made with their not-so-smart meters and their HST. In return, they get $50 back.

This is an insult to hard-working families across the province. This is a subtle way—maybe a not-so-subtle way—of saying, “Oops, we made a mistake. We didn’t look at the HST well enough. We didn’t look at the implications of the HST well enough. Now we’re trying to claw back some of that mistake.” It’s too little, too late. Too little and far, far too late for the majority of families across this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m so pleased to have a chance to talk this morning and bring a little bit of reality back to the conversation we’re having here. I would suggest that the members opposite who are saying this is meaningless to Ontario families are totally out of touch with Ontario families. This is $50 per child indexed with inflation, refundable to families, added to the $75 per child that the federal government provides.

I look at the programs in my community, where families line up, get on the phone early in the morning to get on the programs that are offered by Toronto Parks and Recreation. I brought some of those programs here today. Let’s be in touch with what families register their kids in.

Islington Community School offers a program through Toronto Parks and Rec, Kids in the Kitchen: $31 for nine weeks for kids nine to 12 to go from 5:30 to 7 on a Wednesday night to learn about healthy cooking and to be part of that program. It’s a great program, and when you’re paying $31 for nine weeks, to a maximum of 50 bucks at the end of the year—and the program that you’re registering your children in is a whole new program. You get to put your child in one additional program. Ball hockey on Saturday mornings at Islington Community for kids nine to 12 years old, from 12 to 1—again, $31 for nine weeks of those programs.

This $50 return allows you, as a parent, to say, “Do you know what? I’m going to put my child in one extra program because that’s the amount that I will get refundable to me.” These programs are also not subject to HST because they’re municipally provided.

I think we need to be clear about what we’re doing here. We’re in tune and in touch with families who want to put their kids in programs and we’re giving them some financial ability to be able to do more of that. That’s really meaningful to parents in Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the members from Scarborough–Rouge River, Durham, Parkdale–High Park and the Minister of Children and Youth Services for the comments.

I want to talk first of all about the member from Scarborough–Rouge River. He said that this is a credit that everyone is going to receive, and yes, it is a credit. But he wasn’t listening, I don’t believe, to what I had to say. You have to fill out forms and other things to get the credit.

We know from past experience, from the University of Alberta’s study, that people tend to apply for these credits who are better educated, more well-off, and that poorer communities—although poorer people can apply for these credits—are far less likely to do so for two reasons: first, because they may not understand it as well in some cases, but the second and more important one is they’re not likely to participate to the same level because they can’t afford the amounts of money that are going out for recreational programs.

To spend $500 for a child, if you’re a parent in Regent Park, Parkdale or Crescent Town, is an enormous sum of money for a family that barely makes ends meet. So to get the $50 tax credit, you would have to have spent the $500 at the outset. They simply don’t have it.

The second thing is the Minister of Children and Youth Services. She gave two examples of wonderful programs that are being offered by the city of Toronto in Islington. One of them, I think, is a great program teaching kids how to cook healthy meals. The city’s charging $31. How much tax credit is going to be available for this? I would think none, because it’s a city of Toronto program, but even if there is something, it’s to a maximum of 10%. They’re going to get $3.10 back. What good is that going to do—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill. The Ontario Children’s Activity Tax Credit Act, 2010, as proposed, would give an up to 10% of $500 tax credit per child and an up to 10% of over $1,000 for children with disabilities tax credit.

Let me say a couple of points at the outset. What I want to do eventually is sort of parse all the different elements of this tax credit, because I think there’s a lot of confusion being discussed here.

First of all, I think we should not trivialize any help we can give our families, especially our parents. Every little bit helps. I don’t think anybody is claiming that this is going to result in a big windfall for our families—of course not—but it’s substantive help. It’s going to directly help parents with kids to ensure that their kids can be involved in various physical and non-physical activities.

The other thing I wanted to make a point of is that we should not demean individuals who happen to be on low incomes by insinuating they don’t have the capacity or means to understand how a tax credit could work, that they somehow are able to file an income tax return every single year and not take advantage of a credit like this. I think those kinds of ideas are not appropriate. Just because somebody is on a low income does not mean that they do not have the capacity to take advantage of various government programs and various government tax credits that are available to them. I take exception to those comments that were made.

Let’s look at this tax credit closely. I have divided it into five different parts. First of all, the uniqueness of this particular tax credit is that it applies to both physical activities and non-physical activities. The comparison that is often given is the federal government’s tax credit, which is up to $75, but that only applies to physical activities like soccer, hockey, floor hockey, dodge ball etc.—those types of activities. This provincial tax credit goes beyond. It covers all that is covered under the federal government’s tax credit, and it adds on top of it. So that’s a significant amount. It’s $75 plus $50, and I want to make that very clear. It’s not one or the other; it’s both.

But it also applies to non-physical activities, because not all parents are sending their children to hockey, soccer or some other physical activity. Some of them are sending them for music lessons and for language classes, so those types of activities are also included in this particular tax credit, and I think it’s a significant point.

I’ll give you some examples of non-physical activities that are covered under this credit: cadets; chess; choir; cooking for kids, as the minister mentioned; dance; drama; first aid courses; Girl Guides; leadership development; lifeguarding; musical instrument lessons; and the list goes on and on. That’s fairly expansive in nature in terms of coverage.

I know I’ve got, for example, the Ottawa School of Speech and Drama in my riding of Ottawa Centre, which never qualified. Those parents who sent their children to the Ottawa School of Speech and Drama were not able to qualify for the federal tax credit, nor will they in the future unless the federal government changes its mind. But once this bill comes into force, if it’s passed by this Legislature, they will be able to get a tax credit for their activities. Up to now, they were getting nothing. That is, I think, a very important distinction.

I can tell you, from speaking to parents in my riding of Ottawa Centre, that they are very appreciative of this particular change. They are very appreciative of the fact that we are not covering just physical activities but that we are going beyond and also covering non-physical activities.

The second point, and this is a technical point—and it’s important because I think members from the opposition can muddy the water, so to speak, on this particular point—is that this is a refundable tax credit. Now, the question arises of what the difference is between a non-refundable tax credit and a refundable tax credit. Well, here is the difference: A federal tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit, which means that the only time you will get that money back, the $75 tax credit, is when you owe taxes. If you owe taxes to the federal government, they will make an adjustment by the amount owing for the tax credit. If you don’t owe tax, you get zilch, nothing, zero.

That creates a differentiation between those who are on middle or high income versus those who are on low income. This is where we should be talking about the differences between those families who live on low incomes—who, at the end of the day, do not owe any taxes and cannot take advantage of the federal tax credit because it’s non-refundable—versus those who earn middle incomes and higher incomes, because they owe taxes so they get some money back.

Let’s contrast that: This particular provincial proposed tax credit, which applies to both physical and non-physical activities, is refundable in nature, which means that it does not matter for a family whether they owe taxes or not. They will still get money. They will still get a cheque from the provincial government, which means that if you’re a low-income family and at the end of the day you do not owe any taxes to the provincial government, you will still be able to take advantage and either get $50 or $100, depending on the circumstance of your child, from the provincial government.

That is a very significant distinction because we are not creating classes; we are not distinguishing between various income levels. We’re helping all Ontarians regardless of their income—a very important point. This is not a subtle distinction. This is a very important discussion and I do not hear the opposition speaking about that.

The third point I want to make to distinguish this particular tax credit: that there is a higher amount that is available for children with disabilities. The eligible amount is $1,000, so it’s a tax credit of up to $100 for children with any disability, and the age—the definition of what a child is—is higher as well; it is 18 years. In the case of kids with no disability, the age limitation is 16 years. So not only is the age for disabled kids longer, at 18 years, but the amount is higher as well. I think the thinking there is that clearly, children who have disabilities tend to have higher needs.

They need services that tend to be more expensive, and government wants to do its part—modest in nature, no doubt about it—to help those parents who have kids with disabilities. So that is another very important distinction we have to keep in mind.

Point number four that I want to make in this regard is that this tax credit, if passed by this esteemed House, will apply retroactively. It will apply as of January 1, 2010. So parents who are incurring expenses this year should keep their receipts handy in a file somewhere so that they can apply for the tax credit.

My experience with all kinds of credits—and I think we all have experienced filing our income tax returns. We used to do it in paper form. I remember doing that, up to a few years ago, on paper, and now I do it with various services on the Internet. Some people have help they get from outside. These tax credits are easy to apply for because most of them just apply automatically. They do the calculations fairly automatically once certain criteria are determined, because you have to state, as basic information, whether you’re married or not, whether you have children, or how old your children are.

You have to put in certain information about that, so the rest of the calculation kicks in. The most you may have to do, probably, in this regard is check off a box and of course, if asked, provide receipts. When you’re filing your income tax return online, obviously you do not file any documentation unless the Canada Revenue Agency comes back to you to prove that your child was enrolled in music lessons or hockey lessons etc. So it’s not going to be that overly cumbersome as is being suggested, as is the case with many other tax credits, and it applies retroactively to January 1, 2010, for this year.

I’m really hopeful—and I’m sensing from all the members that they will be supporting this bill—that once it is passed through this Legislature, parents keep those receipts handy so that they can take advantage of this tax credit this year.

The last point: I think a very important distinction that applies in this bill which I want to highlight is that everybody is making a point that this is only $50 or $100 and that’s it’s not that much money. The government has made it very clear that that amount will rise annually based on cost of living. It’s indexed. The $50 or $100 is the amount which is in the first year, but every year, based on the cost-of-living indexation, this amount will rise. So we will see it reflective of the cost of living, which we all have to bear as we live. I think that is a very important point as well.

I want to talk about the idea that somehow this tax credit—because that’s the impression one gets—is something we’re just doing in isolation; there’s nothing else that government is doing to make sure that our children remain healthy. We know that is not an absolute truth. The government has been doing a lot of things to ensure that our families have the opportunity to ensure that their kids remain healthy and our children have the opportunity to ensure that they are active and healthy.

We know that in Canada, child obesity is a big issue. Just a few days ago, I was listening to some analyses and documentaries on CBC Radio talking about childhood obesity in Canada and comparing it to some other countries around the world. We need to do everything in our capacity to ensure that we allow opportunities for our children to be active. Now, we have done a few things in our school system alone to ensure that our kids are more active. I don’t know where the previous governments were on those issues.

For example, the most simple thing—I can’t believe we never had that before—is 20 minutes of mandatory physical activity in our elementary schools. We never had that. I can’t understand why our kids were not required, since they go to school every day, to have some mandatory physical activity. I mean, this is where we teach our students; this is where we educate our kids; this is where we develop good habits in them. What a perfect place to ensure that they get into the habit of having some sort of regular activity.

I’m sure all of us members have our routines, where we try to maintain our health by engaging in physical activity—some probably more than others, but we do our best. So by legislation, we have taken that step of ensuring that kids have 20 minutes of daily physical activity in elementary schools. Now it’s mandatory—a very important point. And guess what? There are no costs associated with that. Those kids are going as part of a publicly funded education system and they’re being helped to develop the right set of habits that will help them as they grow up as members of society.

The other thing which I think this Legislature dealt with in this Parliament—I believe that was in 2008 or 2009—was to ban trans fats from vending machines, school cafeterias and tuck shops—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Ottawa Centre, I’m sure that we’re all interested in those things, but that you want to bring that back to the context of the bill that’s before us this morning.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: And I will do so, Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds.

We want to make sure that we are giving our children all the right sets of opportunities, like this children’s activity tax credit is doing, to ensure that they continue to live a healthy life. We want to make sure that when they go to school, they are not eating foods that are unhealthy for them, because it is about creating and developing the right kinds of habits to ensure that our kids are living healthy lives. Through this tax credit, we are ensuring that parents have the opportunities available to them—again, modest in nature, no doubt about it—to ensure that they are helping their children by providing them the right kinds of sets of activities.

All in all, I think this is a good bill. This is a bill in the right direction. From a tax policy point of view, I’m hearing some comments about how things could have been made exempt from HST. I think those who have looked into the tax policy know that one of the best ways to deal with consumption taxation is to provide targeted tax credits, because that allows incentives to invest money in a particular area, and by providing a children’s activity tax credit, we are rewarding those parents, those individuals who are actually ensuring that their kids are enrolled in physical and non-physical activities.

I urge all members to support this important legislation. I think it’s a step in the right direction. It ensures that our parents have the resources necessary to continue to support their families. I know in my riding of Ottawa Centre parents are quite happy about it. I’ve received that feedback, and they encourage me to do more tax credits which are specific in nature to them.

The other thing I want to highlight from a tax point of view is that it covers a lot of services, a lot of activities, which have no HST; for example, music lessons. There is no HST on music lessons, while this tax credit will apply to that.

I think we need to be very clear to ensure that, be it services being provided by municipalities or a for-profit group, when it comes to helping our parents, we are not distinguishing between incomes and we are not distinguishing between what kind of activity. We are making sure that there is some directed help that is available to parents.

We’ll hopefully continue to work together as elected public servants for the people of Ontario by providing targeted incentives to help our families.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened to the member from Ottawa Centre carefully, and I probably don’t disagree with a lot of it. I think the stress and importance that he puts on it is a bit exaggerated.

Nonetheless, here’s a suggestion, and I mean this quite sincerely and humbly: What they should do is extend this tax credit to seniors.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Tai chi.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, exactly. The member from Peterborough is quite right. If people are participating in programs that are good for their health and fitness—mentally and physically, I suspect—they should be entitled, because our health care system is struggling under the burden of an aging population. We all know that, and we’re not sure just how we’re going to deal with it. But the point here is that it’s kind of tax discrimination. Young children—I would encourage them to have an active lifestyle, whether it’s soccer or ballet. It’s just being active that’s important, intellectually as well as physically, and I would say the same for seniors who are dealing with Alzheimer’s.

So I make a positive suggestion here this morning. There are a couple of ministers in the House, and I hope that they’re listening and that they’ll take this. And I would ask for public hearings, even if it’s just for a morning, so that the public—rather than introducing these tax changes without consulting with the public. This is another problem with your eco tax. I was speaking this morning with the former Minister of the Environment, who was quickly moved out of that portfolio right after the introduction of the eco tax, and it sounds like they’re going to introduce that again. I would say that what they should do is consult with the people of Ontario.

The member from Ottawa Centre is a young, very active president of the Liberal Party. He’s very active and eager to be in cabinet. Take back the suggestion of adding it for seniors. That’s a positive thing that our leader, Tim Hudak, suggested at our caucus meeting, that it’s tax discrimination. So there’s one way of improving it, we suggest to you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the honourable member and what he had to say. He took some umbrage at the fact that I had said that the poor are less likely to apply for these credits than people who are not poor. The reality is that that’s exactly what happens. One needs to look only at the Alberta report on these types of exemptions, written by Mr. Murrell, to know that that’s exactly what happens. But one need not even go to Alberta.

One has to go even back to the 20 or 30 years of all of the social reports that have been tabled in this House, all pointing exactly in the same direction: People who do not have the same kind of opportunity, people who don’t sometimes have the same educational opportunities, the same backgrounds, are far less likely to avail themselves of credits such as this. People who are new Canadians who don’t know about the availability of the credits—lots of people don’t get them to the same extent that many middle-class families will be eligible. That’s the reality of what I was trying to say.

Why he takes umbrage at something that is a known social and proven fact is beyond me.

The second thing: He talks about having children eat healthy food. He talks—he tried to talk, before the Speaker rightly told him to get back on topic. But the whole question, and I raised this—I ask him perhaps if he would comment on why this government thought it so important to take the 8% additional HST off fast foods, things that are not healthy for children, and didn’t think it was important to have children’s programs exempt in the first place.

This is a sop. This is $50 maximum in most cases. Parents are going to spend more than that on the HST on the programs all by themselves.

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I was listening very carefully to the presentation done by the member for Ottawa Centre.

With this bill, the people really got the answer they were looking for. I have to tell you that at the present time, over 1.1 million Ontarian families will benefit from this tax credit.

I have to tell you that during the sessions that I was giving on the HST, one of the questions that was brought to my attention—a gentleman from the municipality of Russell came to me, and he was a little upset about the HST at the time. He said, “It’s going to cost me $800 more to register my kids.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I’m the president of minor hockey,” and I said, “How many hockey players have you got?” He said, “About 300.” That amounts to about $24 with this tax credit today.

We are giving the answer to those families, really, that they were looking for. They will be getting a tax credit with which they will be able to continue having their kids play any of the sports that are recognized by the provincial government.

When I look at the other benefits that the families are going to get—when we said that some of the families are going to pay more than that for travel and everything, we have to remember that low-income families are getting $260 per head in the family, so that could amount to quite an amount of money. Also, the first year they get $1,000. When we explain all that to the people—“Oh, I will be able to continue having my kid registered at the YMCA or dancing lessons.”

This is exactly what we’re telling the people today, but it’s too bad that the people are being scared by the opposition. They’re not telling exactly what’s going to happen.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I think that this is an initiative worthy of debate in this chamber, one that is going to have far-reaching impacts on children and their families right across the province. That’s why I think we need to do it right.

The issue here is not that people don’t want children’s activity increased in the province. Of course every member of this chamber wants that to happen. I guess the question is, what has motivated this bill at this particular time? I look forward to speaking to that at a bit more length when it is our rotation in a few minutes.

I leave my colleagues with that, for the next few minutes: to think about what the motivation is, how we can improve upon it and why we are at the point we’re at right now, where people are actually calling this “a cynical PR move,” as my colleague for Durham did in this chamber at this time last week.

I look forward to speaking at greater length to this piece of legislation and I look forward to hearing the member from Ottawa Centre complete his remarks.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Ottawa Centre, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I do want to thank the members from Durham, Beaches–East York, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Nepean–Carleton for their comments on my 20 minutes earlier.

A couple of points I just want to make: I think, in terms of motivation, it’s as simple as us wanting to collectively do as much as we can to help our families, to ensure that in a very targeted fashion, when it comes to activity of children, we are helping them.

The member from Beaches–East York raised a point about a study from Alberta. I do recall looking at that study and I do recall that the study looked very closely at the non-refundable nature of the federal tax credit. You are absolute right, sir, that in that case, it does discriminate between those who are middle or high income and those who are low income, because the non-refundable tax credit only applies to those who owe any taxes,

whereas there is a very important distinction in this particular bill; that is, it’s refundable in nature. So it does not matter how much money you make; it does not matter whether you owe any taxes or not; you will still get the money back. That is an important distinction to make.

Again, I come to my original point that this is a progressive piece of legislation that is the right way of ensuring that we help families. It’s through the means of tax credits to ensure that there’s a directed investment being made to those parents who are taking that additional step of ensuring that they’re helping their kids in engaging in physical and non-physical activities.

I cannot stress how important it is that we are going beyond just hockey and soccer, which seem to be the mainstay, and also looking at things like music lessons, cadets, Girl Guides and language training, because those types of activities, especially arts activities, are also extremely important because they do help our children have a healthy lifestyle. We need to help those parents who engage in those activities.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this legislation.

This morning, when I was making breakfast for my little girl—she’s five years old—she said, “Mummy, will you play with me?” I said, “Mummy has to go give a speech.” It was about eight o’clock. She said, “What’s the speech about, Mummy?” and I said, “It’s the children’s activity tax credit.” She had a huge smile on her face because it said “children”—one of the few times that this Legislature is actually speaking to that five-year-old demographic that we all desperately want.

She looked at me with this huge smile on her face. I think, ever since we were visited by the tooth fairy a couple of weeks ago, she gets really excited when she thinks she’s getting something. So she was very excited. She said, “Do I get that?” and I said, “Yes, you do.”

I realized at that point in time that we have to be very careful when we put forward initiatives in this chamber where every little girl, like Victoria, or every little boy whom she will go to school with is eligible. While we’re saying “Yes, everybody’s eligible,” we have to be very careful, because the cost of ballet—I know this because I put her in ballet—has increased as a result of the HST. I know this because she’s in ringette, and that cost, as well, has gone up, as has our driving to and from; the cost of our fuel. I know also because she does play soccer, indoor and outdoor, that that has increased as well, and it has all increased beyond $50.

Hon. John Gerretsen: She’s one busy little girl, I tell you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, she’s a busy little girl, and I’m fortunate to be able to put her through those programs. I’m very fortunate, and she is fortunate.

But they say in life, children are the great equalizer, and my little girl goes to a public school and she goes to birthday parties. In a lot of cases, the little girls don’t know her mom is the MPP, and I want to keep it that way. But I’m going to tell you, when I sometimes go to birthday parties and accompany my little girl, I see single mothers who have done every single thing they can to put a birthday party on for their little girl or their little boy so that they haven’t done without.

Then I think of those mothers and those children who I know, and I know for a fact that those parents are not thinking about a $50 tax credit because right now, they cannot afford the registration at all, and I’m speaking from first-hand experience in this chamber. That’s why I’m encouraging people from all sides of the political spectrum in this chamber to consider doing what my colleague from Durham has suggested, which is bringing forward public consultation, and not just in Toronto. Because I think of Victoria’s little friends and I think of equality.

I also want to bring forward some research by the University of Alberta. This is a $50 tax credit. The federal tax credit is $75. The University of Alberta found that “overall”—and I’m quoting this and I’ll be happy to provide it to Hansard—“only 15.6% reported that it had increased their children’s participation in physical activity programs; however, lower-income families used the tax credit less than wealthier families because they couldn’t afford the registration ... for physical activity programs to begin with.”

This is a great idea, but we have to make it fair for every child across the province. We can talk about the semantics and talk about the government lines; I’m not interested in that today, because I want every little girl and every little boy in my daughter’s senior kindergarten class in Nepean to have equal access to sports and other children’s activities, whether that’s music or art lessons, whether that’s karate, whether that’s Cubs.

I think the timing is also suspect. I’ve often, and many people can point to this, been an advocate for this type of tax credit. In fact, in 2008, I requested that my colleague Toby Barrett, the MPP for Haldimand–Norfolk, put this idea forward. He put forward that—and I’ll read this to you. At the time, on page 16, it was entitled, “Health promotion sports tax credit.” What I put forward to Toby, who ended up bringing it to the finance committee, was:

“The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs recommends the Minister of Finance, within total planned program spending, create a provincial health promotion sports tax to match or exceed the federal children’s fitness tax credit to children in sports under the age of 16.”

At the time, the Liberals rejected that.

By the way, Mr. Speaker—I know I’m a little late—my colleague from York–Simcoe will be splitting the time with me.

The reality is that timing is everything. It’s sort of what we talk about: In life, timing is everything. Let me say this: Timing is everything. Two years ago, sports registration didn’t increase because of the HST. We didn’t see skyrocketing deficits, like we do right now at $20 billion, which is about $1,500 per family that is a debt burden on top of the $1,100 or $1,200 per family they’re now paying as a result of the HST. Timing is everything.

If we really, truly took this type of initiative seriously in this chamber, we would have adopted this approach during better economic times so that parents who might not be able to bring forward this type of initiative to their child or to be able to pay for this registration could have taken advantage of it earlier on.

My colleague from York–Simcoe will continue to speak to this bill, but I have a simple request to all members of this chamber: Think about those children whose parents cannot afford to send their child to an activity like the ones we’re talking about today. One of my colleagues said that anyone who doesn’t support this is out of touch. Well, I think it’s been very clear that we support this type of initiative, but you have to get it right. If we truly want to get it right, we have to think about those little girls and little boys who we want to have an equal opportunity.

Because of the tax burden on their parents, because of the regressive nature of the HST, it is difficult for those families to put their children through sports or any other type of activity. Right now, $50 might be a lot to some people, but they will never qualify for it unless you do something about the sports registration fees themselves.

Thanks very much. My colleague from York–Simcoe will now speak for me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s a pleasure to have a few minutes in which to make a few comments about this tax credit. There are a couple of things that we need to understand about a tax credit. First of all, you have to file. That’s the first thing. Then you have to have kept accurate records in order to have the information to be able to fill in the form to include the proof of registration and participation in one of the approved categories to receive the tax credit. And thirdly—and this is maybe the most important part of a tax credit—you must have the money already in order to have been able to sign up.

When we look at the kinds of costs that are associated with many of these children’s activities, we’re looking at hundreds of hard-earned after-tax dollars that parents put forward to provide these opportunities for their children. So immediately you have, by having a tax credit, funnelled the opportunity down to a much smaller part of the population than at first would appear to be the goal of this piece of legislation. I think that’s one of the issues that we need to understand.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, $50 is a very small percentage of so much of what would be the cost of having children enrolled.

I had an interesting conversation with a coordinator for minor sports in my community. This conversation took place a year ago June, and it demonstrates the kind of thing that we are discussing here. That was the fact that she suddenly realized, frankly well before most people in the community, how the introduction of the HST was going to impact on minor sports. Most people were focusing on the outlay of money on things like gasoline, haircuts and various other things, but she recognized that the rental of the facilities was going to be impacted by the HST.

Obviously, parents registering their children for any kind of municipally organized sport, whether it’s hockey or soccer—there’s still a rental fee and there’s still an additional burden.

So I actually convened a meeting where a number of the associations came together in response to this understanding. One of the things that came out of that was, certainly, the social benefits and the physical benefits that I think we all understand about participation in those community sports teams. But one of the other things was the danger of the tipping point: When is too much too much? The fact is that when parents look at the overall cost, that means, of course, equipment, not just registration, driving costs—that full cost. Where is the tipping point when people feel obliged to withdraw?

Is $50 going to make a difference? Not if they have to put out $500 or $1,000. Then $50 is not necessarily going to make a difference. Instead, the danger is that if too many families feel that they’ve reached their personal tipping point of not being able to afford this, when is the whole infrastructure of these activities going to feel that pinch? How many families depart from supporting those baseball, soccer and hockey organizations before they, then, feel the pinch because then they have to carry the cost over to fewer and fewer participants?

When you start looking at those kinds of dangers of increased costs, the question of the tax credit and how many people it is actually going to keep, literally, in the game, that’s what we’re really concerned about. That’s what we’re really talking about: Is it going to be keeping them in the game, or is it going to be seen as a government initiative that has all the elements of gesture politics, where everybody feels good because who is opposed to providing a $50 tax credit for a worthy cause?

Obviously, there are going to be many who see this in the way in which the government is portraying it: that it’s a feel-good piece.

It reminds me of a few months ago, when this Legislature debated a similar piece of feel-good legislation. That was the same mechanism again, a tax credit for northern Ontario, recognizing that there were cost burdens in terms of energy. So we as a Legislature then dealt with the proposed legislation—which, obviously, passed—that provided northerners with a tax credit.

This is a recipe, obviously, that the government has found that enables them to go out and talk to northern residents or families and say, “This is what we have provided for you. We are encouraging you. We recognize that there are further costs than perhaps you anticipated.” But I would remind you of the material that has been shared by other members of the House in regard to the fact that—who actually fills out all the forms for the tax credit? Well, we know from the information provided to us already this morning that it’s a relatively small number of people who are comfortable with the process of filing and registering and keeping track of all the paperwork that’s required for this.

The fact that now we’ve narrowed—dramatically, I would argue—those people who are eligible by virtue of their participation, certainly that makes it, again, another example of gesture politics, like, “We did our thing. We provided you with this, and now it’s up to you.”

I also thought it was very interesting that, a moment ago, the member for Ottawa Centre, if I have the right—

Mr. Michael Prue: That’s him.

Mrs. Julia Munro: —made an interesting comment about how this amount was going to be indexed to the cost of living. I immediately thought about the fact that the 8% isn’t indexed; that was arbitrary. We’re going to talk about indexing $50, but we’re not talking about having any kind of recognition of fairness. And when I think of my constituents who are on fixed incomes, I can assure you that that’s their biggest issue: “Where’s my 8% increase to be able to afford the increase in so many of the necessities and regular problems of my life: my energy costs, my heating, my hydro, my gas? I don’t get 8%.” And it’s certainly not indexed.

So I think that while, on the surface, this is something that obviously no one is going to be opposed to—it provides an opportunity for a part of the population with which, fundamentally, we all agree. But let’s us not kid ourselves: Fifty dollars? It’s a very small amount, and it’s a tax credit.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): It being 10:15 of the clock, and pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the west members’ gallery we have page Nick Jiang’s parents, Tony Jiang and Anne Hu. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Johnson: In the west members’ gallery I have the mother of page Brigid Goulem. Heather Stauble is here today from my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The mother of Anika Chowdhury, who’s our page, is here to witness the proceedings, and we welcome her here today.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: It’s my pleasure today. I’m delighted to introduce representatives in attendance from Professional Engineers Ontario—it’s their day here today at Queen’s Park: the president, Diane L. Freeman; CEO and registrar, Kim Allen; Diane’s son Scott Hicks, a high school student in Waterloo; executive intern Laura Jewell; and Marc-André Simard. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’d be remiss if we didn’t recognize Howard Brown, who is visiting us today in the gallery as part of the delegation of engineers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Ms. Ann Hamilton, a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, Toronto branch, seated in the Speaker’s gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Visiting Queen’s Park today from Saskatchewan is my cousin Theresa Anderson and her husband, Dale Anderson, seated in the Speaker’s gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I’ve laid upon the table the 2009-10 annual report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario entitled Redefining Conservation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. Premier, three weeks ago your Minister of Energy said that the Ontario Power Authority was putting together your long-term energy plan and that plan would come out in the early fall. Then this Monday, to the surprise of many, Minister Duguid backtracked, telling the energy sector that you’re not going to release that long-term plan until probably well after the next election.

Premier, what changed in three weeks to cause you to backtrack yet again and to keep your real plan from Ontario families until after the next election?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to receive the question and very pleased to speak about our plan. The first piece of good news is that we have a plan. The second piece of good news is that our plan is dedicated to keeping the lights on in the province of Ontario. Thirdly, we are making massive investments in new generation and new transmission. An important part of our focus, as part of our plan, is to invest in energy from renewables: the wind, sun, biomass and the like. That has the additional benefit of creating a whole new industry here in the province of Ontario which is creating new jobs for Ontarians.

Ultimately, we are going to be a powerful manufacturing base to export to the rest of North America. That’s all part of a comprehensive, long-term plan to make sure we keep the lights on here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, with all due respect—back to the Premier—nobody buys that line anymore.

Seven years of chaos, dithering and delay: I remind the Premier that back in 2006, Hansard for June 20 shows that they were all set to release their long-term energy plan with then-Energy Minister George Smitherman. You boasted that you had five rounds of consultations, including town halls, listening on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry. You had a website. You had public hearings by the OPA. All that time, all that money developing your plan, and you ripped it up four years ago, and you’re backtracking once again.

Premier, what’s with all this chaos at your Ministry of Energy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’m delighted to speak to this. I think my honourable colleague, in fact, understands that there is in place a 20-year long-term plan. I think he also understands that we’re required to revisit that plan every three years and modify it in accordance with our changed view of the future outlook. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

I will remind my honourable colleague as well that we are not in a panic mode the way that their government was. Their long-term plan, so to speak, at the time when we were experiencing brownouts, at the time when we were risking big blackouts, was to put in place diesel generators in our cities. That was their plan to deal with our electricity shortage in the province of Ontario.

We have a solid, reliable, comprehensive, intelligent long-term plan, and Ontarians can go to bed having confidence we’ve got a plan. We’re going to keep the lights on.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, while Ontario families are coping with spiking energy bills, Dalton McGuinty has turned backtracking into an art form. You backtracked four years ago. You’re backtracking again today. Premier, while you have dithered and delayed, your Ontario Power Authority has ballooned from 15 employees to over 300. The number of employees making $100,000 a year has skyrocketed from six to 75 in 2009. That is a spectacular 1,300% increase.

Premier, that same rot, that same bloat and waste we saw at eHealth, you’re now injecting in our energy sector. Why is it that Ontario families are stuck with a bill for your expensive energy experiments?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just so we understand our history together, in 2003 we were desperately short of electricity in the province of Ontario. We were experiencing brownouts, and we were in danger of blackouts. Their approach to that, in panic mode, was to put diesel generators in our cities; I remember that.

So far we’ve brought 8,000 megawatts of new generation online. We’ve invested in over 5,000 kilometres of transmission upgrades. We’re making a massive investment in clean and green electricity. We’re creating thousands and thousands of new jobs—all this in addition to ensuring that there’s enough electricity to keep the lights on. That’s good news for Ontario families, and it’s good news for Ontario businesses.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I think you know that Ontario families understand that you’re kicking down the road your long-term energy plan because you don’t want Ontario families to know how many more rate hikes you have up your sleeve, how many more expensive experiments you’re going to put on families in our province in your penchant for trying to socially engineer households across this province. I suspect Dalton McGuinty’s so-called plan will also show how you have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member of the comments I made last week on references to other members in the House. I will lay this out to all members that, as a warning, if this persists, I’m just going to bypass to the next question.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’ve bungled your smart meter scheme, turning them into nothing more than tax machines. You’ve failed to set out any path to renewing our nuclear capacity. You have signed expensive sweetheart deals to build more jobs in Korea through Samsung and stuck us with the bills for 20 years.

The PCs believe in stable, reliable and affordable energy. Why do you take a path that involves chaos, expensive experiments—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to revisit this issue again. There’s some really good news here for the people of Ontario, both families and businesses. We have a plan. It’s a plan to keep the lights on. It does not consist of that silly approach brought by the former government, which was to put diesel generators into our cities. We’re making investments of new generation and new transmission.

The other thing we’ve done is we’ve made heavy investments in conservation. In fact, in 2003, a national organization gave our province a C- as a grade. This past year, our grade for conservation is A+. So in addition to massive investments, new transmission, new generation and renewable electricity, we’re working very hard on the conservation front as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your approach has been clear. Ontario PCs believe in stable, reliable and affordable energy prices for Ontario families, and all we see from the McGuinty government is chaos, expensive experiments, dithering and delay, and Ontario families have been stuck with the bill. We need to look no farther than your new eHealth of the energy sector—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your Ontario Power Authority has ballooned beyond proportions, and they can’t get the job done. Your smart meters have become an expensive experiment in taking more money out of Ontario families’ pockets. Why is it that when you backtrack, whenever you flip-flop, whenever you add to the bloated bureaucracy, it’s hard-working Ontario families that are stuck with the bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think I made it very clear that we have a plan. It’s a long-term plan. It’s designed to ensure that we can keep the lights on.

The other thing that we are going to keep working on is, we understand that because of the new investments that we’re making in modernizing our electricity system, there are some costs associated with that, and we understand that consumers, ratepayers, moms and dads in our homes, families, have to deal with some of those costs. We are going to continue to work with families to address those costs. I want to make that perfectly clear.

I also want families to keep in mind the alternative put forward by my honourable colleague, such as it is. They have no plan. What we can draw from their past experience is that they believe in diesel generators; they believe in burning dirty coal. We don’t support that. They don’t believe in investing in conservation. We do believe in that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Durham.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Halton.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Folks from the Ottawa Valley sometimes bring a great deal of enthusiasm to this place; that’s not always a bad thing, I say to my honourable colleague opposite.

The point I was making is that we are bringing forward a thoughtful, comprehensive, intelligent, long-term plan investing heavily in generation and transmission; we understand there are costs associated with that. We have no choice but to move forward and modernize our system.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, come on. Your only plan is to say that some day you’ll have a plan coming. You said you had a plan back in 2006. Then you ripped it up and said you’d come back later. Three weeks ago, your energy minister said, “We’ll have a plan this fall.” This Monday he tossed that aside and said, “Well, maybe we’ll have a plan after the next election.”

In the meantime, chaos reigns in the energy sector. The OPA has bloated beyond all proportion. You paid Bruce Power, Premier, almost $60 million not to produce any power whatsoever. You surprised families with a $50-million backdoor energy tax grab. We’re going to pay for 20 years for your massive subsidy to the multinational Korea-based corporation, Samsung. Then you piled the HST on top of it all.

Premier, why is it that Ontario families always get stuck with the bill for your bungling in the energy sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think we might ask ourselves what created the absolute necessity for us to act so quickly and make these massive investments? It’s because they sat on their hands—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please retrieve the item that the member from Nepean–Carleton had on her desk. She very clearly knows the rules.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A lot of energy over there and not too much light.

I think it’s important that we compare and contrast. Remember, their electricity plan was to put in place diesel generators in our cities. We’re expanding Niagara Falls. We’re expanding capacity on the Mattagami River. We’re building new gas-fired turbines. We’re investing in wind turbines. We’re investing in solar panels. We’re creating a whole new industry of renewable electricity. We’re investing heavily in conservation. We know there are costs—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Households across Ontario are being shocked by huge increases in the cost of electricity, yet this government seems intent on making hydro even more expensive. Last year it paid Bruce nuclear $56 million not to generate electricity. With more and more Ontario families struggling just to make ends meet, why did this government cut a deal that adds another $15 to each and every hydro bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. John Yakabuski: When are you guys going to expand Lake Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the member from Renfrew to please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The fact of the matter is, our government is absolutely committed to ensuring the reliability of our energy system so that the power that Ontario families and businesses count on is there when they need it, and that’s what this is all about.

Nuclear power is a critical component of our energy mix. It’s an emissions-free, cost-effective source of power. We know the NDP doesn’t support that but it’s a critical part of our energy system.

This agreement provides the flexibility to ensure that there’s enough power there when we need it. You don’t build a fire hall and buy a fire truck just when the fire happens. You need to invest in that ahead of time. The NDP obviously doesn’t get that.

We need to invest in our system to ensure that the strength in our system is there when we need it, and that’s what this is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Fifteen bucks out of each household’s family budget might not seem much to this Premier or to his minister, but that’s an extra $15 that’s not going to the groceries of those families.

This Premier keeps saying that hydro bills need to go up if we’re going to keep the lights on. At a time when the Ontario families already feel they are being nickelled and dimed to death, why is each and every household in Ontario being forced to pay Bruce nuclear $15 to do absolutely nothing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let me be very, very clear about this: This agreement between the Ontario Power Authority and Bruce nuclear provides protection for Ontario ratepayers. That’s what it’s all about. Unlike in the past when the Tories and the NDP were managing the system, Ontario ratepayers will not be on the hook for overruns for the refurbishment of Bruce beyond the $3.4 billion. That’s important. That’s responsible. That’s protecting ratepayers as we engage in the refurbishment of our nuclear industry, a refurbishment that is absolutely necessary to ensure that we have the reliability in the system that we did not have seven years ago.

We’re committed to building a stronger, more reliable and cleaner energy system. We will continue to be committed to that with or without the support of the NDP.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I want to remind the honourable members again—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton—that it is important that they speak in the third person, that they speak through the Chair and that they not speak directly across the chamber to one another.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier and his minister just don’t seem to get it. His government quietly renegotiated a deal with Bruce. Now Ontario families are forced to pay more, even if Bruce isn’t generating any power. It’s yet another slap in the face for the people of this province on top of the HST on hydro and on top of not-so-smart meters.

At a time when Ontarians are finding it harder and harder just to keep their heads above water, why is this Premier asking them to dig even deeper into their pockets for essentials like hydro?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We believe in protecting ratepayers when it comes to making these investments. That’s what that agreement between the OPA and Bruce was all about.

We operate in reality. It’s very clear that the NDP do not. They voice opposition to all sources of power, in particular nuclear. We know that we need that baseload capacity for the sake of the power that our families rely on in their day-to-day lives and for the sake of the businesses that drive our economy.

The NDP’s vacuous and unrealistic energy policy would be absolutely devastating for our economy. It would be absolutely devastating to our efforts to create jobs. It would also be devastating for the 70,000 people across this country who make their living in the nuclear industry—jobs that would be extinct if that party had its way.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, but I’d have to say his minister needs to know that people tell me they want the government to actually protect their interests and their pocketbooks for a change.

The McGuinty government’s electricity equation is not pretty for the people of Ontario. Ontario families don’t think it’s pretty at all: $15 per household for private nuclear power that we don’t use, more than $1 billion on smart meters that don’t work and an HST that adds another 8% on top of all of that.

When will enough finally be enough?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question, but frankly I’m a little bit surprised that the leader of the NDP, a representative of a long-standing Ontario political organization, is not supportive of a plan that puts such a heavy emphasis on drawing energy from the renewables sector. This is a party that always stood for harnessing the power of the wind and the sun and biomass, that used to stand for investing heavily in conservation, that used to stand for creating the good new jobs that are associated with energy from renewables. I’m not sure what happened to that party.

But, on behalf of the people of Ontario, I would welcome the return of that party that supported a progressive energy policy in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier forgot our long-standing policy against nuclear energy. I don’t know why he forgot about that.

But families in Ontario are what I care about, and they are being zapped by higher electricity bills, and affordability is simply becoming out of reach. Davida Girard from the GTA writes this: “We just received a hydro bill for $300.... I realize it’s been a very hot summer but am at a loss to understand why our hydro has more than doubled!”

On Monday, the government announced a public consultation on their energy plans but said they won’t consider a second look at their nuclear program. Why is the Premier shutting the door on a public conversation about his expensive nuclear expansion dreams?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: All right, I think we’ve got the nub of it here finally: The NDP remains opposed to nuclear energy in Ontario. I understand that. I reject that, and of course I can’t accept it. Nuclear generation makes up about 50% of the electricity supply that we rely on today. It’s the foundation for a very strong industry, with thousands of well-paying jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I certainly do appreciate the efforts of individuals in here to assist the Speaker in his role, and I thank them for that. I do remind the honourable members that there’s nothing wrong with sitting in another seat, but if you’re going to be sitting in another seat, you must not be in any way heckling.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I was saying that obviously I can’t accept my colleague’s approach with respect to the nuclear industry in Ontario. It’s a very important part of the foundation of our electricity supply. It contributes about 50% of our electricity. It stands for thousands and thousands of jobs here, and we think it has an important and bright future for all of us. So as far as we’re concerned, it will remain an important part of the foundation of electricity generation in Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Jocelyne Drapeau writes, “I received my highest bill this month: $426.77, compared to $295 last year.” Patricia Austin in Etobicoke adds: “My hydro which was already skyrocketing is outrageous. I … live from paycheque to paycheque.” Yet this government plows ahead with a nuclear plan that is billions and billions of dollars over budget, even after a recent report found that the cost of nuclear power has tripled.

With the lives of people like Ms. Austin and Ms. Drapeau becoming more and more expensive each and every day, why is the Premier afraid to have a public conversation about his costly long-term nuclear plans?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There will be important consultations on the latest revision of a 20-year long-term plan, and we look forward to hearing from all Ontarians in that regard.

Again, I think Ontarians know that we were in a desperate circumstance in 2003, given the fragility, vulnerability and unreliability of the electricity system that we inherited. We’ve been making massive investments in order to change those circumstances. We understand that there’s a cost associated with that. We understand that families, in particular, have to help pick up some of the costs associated with that. We’re going to continue to find ways to work with our families to keep those costs down.

But I think that the first and foremost responsibility we owe to all Ontarians—families and businesses alike—is to make sure that when they go to the wall and flick on the switch, the lights come on, and we’re going to keep doing that.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Freedom-of-information records obtained by the Ontario PC caucus show that the same Liberal-friendly consultants who got rich from the sole-source-contract spending spree at eHealth also benefited from Cancer Care Ontario. John Ronson and Courtyard Group scooped up $15 million, while Will Falk and Accenture were handed almost $9 million. Ronson is the Premier’s former election campaign director. Falk is the former Liberal staffer they had on speed-dial back when they hired Sarah Kramer as the CEO of eHealth.

How could the Premier not know about all the money members of the Liberal family were making from the funds that Ontario families thought they were paying for health care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. It gives me an opportunity to say thank you to the people at Cancer Care Ontario and the people who deliver cancer care right across this province. We are extremely proud of the cancer care that is provided in this province, and we owe a big thank you to Cancer Care Ontario.

When it comes to the issue that you’re talking about, I think people understand that this is old news; there’s nothing new here. This was released some time ago. We changed the rules. Since the issues that you’re talking about we’ve got very clear accountability rules, and Cancer Care Ontario is a leader in following those rules.

We’re very proud of the changes that we’ve made. We have ended sole-source contracting. We have significantly more accountability and transparency when it comes to these contracts, and that’s all moving in the right direction. The people of Ontario deserve that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We agree that Cancer Care Ontario is doing a great job; that’s not the point. The point is about the consultant spending spree that’s been going on, and at Cancer Care Ontario it’s even worse than it was in the eHealth boondoggle. This government handed Courtyard $10 million from eHealth Ontario and $10 million more from the Ministry of Health. Accenture was handed just under $2 million from eHealth Ontario plus an eye-popping $72 million from different cabinet ministers.

A pattern has developed where, in eHealth, the LHINs and Cancer Care Ontario, it’s all been used as a slush fund for Liberal-friendly consultants rather than improving front-line health care. So my question to the Premier would be, how many different treatments could have been funded or emergency rooms kept open if this money had been used instead for developing proper front-line health care that Ontario families expect and deserve?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: With the greatest respect to the member opposite, she needs to understand that this is very old news. In fact, we requested an internal audit of Cancer Care Ontario. That audit was posted online in October 2009. So a year ago we released all this information. We have changed the rules when it comes to procurements and consultants. We think the people of Ontario demand that the money they spend on health care be used on health care. That’s why we’ve changed the rules.

I think it’s noteworthy that in the last year that the party opposite was in power, they spent $662 million on consultants.

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Culture. The Premier said he would look into funding for the reburial of the War of 1812 soldiers’ remains. Instead, this minister refused funding, telling Hamilton to utilize its one-ninth share of the western corridor bicentennial alliance, which is an amount of $50,000.

Instead of taking decisive, positive action, why are the Premier and this minister turning their backs on fallen soldiers by telling Hamilton it can lobby for its $5,500 share, which will in no way help this re-interment?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question and also for the opportunity to talk about 1812. The War of 1812 is an important part of our history and heritage. With regard to the city of Hamilton’s request, it is not within my ministry’s mandate.

Let me read the letter that I received from the mayor of Hamilton:

“That council direct staff to file a request for funding to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, Michael Chan, in the amount of $200,000 as the province’s contribution to the Smith’s Knoll project which includes the property purchase, demolition, archaeological dig, site restoration…site

interpretation and expansion of the parkette.”

As I said before, it is not within my ministry’s mandate to fund purchasing land and excavation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s an interesting response. The minister asked me to ask Hamilton city council to request these funds in writing, which I did. The minister then picked one small bit from the background notes—property acquisition—to refuse funding even though funding wasn’t requested for that piece of the project. In fact, the deal for the land closed by the city on Friday.

Will the Premier and this minister stop playing us and commit to all veterans across Ontario that they will provide $200,000 for the proper interment of these fallen soldiers?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question again. We are determined to celebrate 1812 come 2012. Our government so far has invested $27 million in funding to celebrate 1812. On top of that, we have funded $1 million to local organizations. We have aligned the province into seven regions and the region that is representing the city of Hamilton—the organization is called the western corridor bicentennial alliance. I would encourage the city of Hamilton to engage this western corridor bicentennial alliance to come up with a proposal so that we can, come 2012, celebrate 1812 in Stoney Creek.

TUITION

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Last week, Statistics Canada released a report on provincial university tuition fees. They found that Canadian full-time students in undergraduate programs this fall paid 4% more, on average, in tuition fees for the 2010-11 academic year compared to what they did a year earlier. Statistics Canada also reported that Ontario had the highest undergraduate university tuition fee increase in Canada, at 5.4%.

Minister, it was my understanding that Ontario university tuition was capped at 5% annually. If this is the case, why is Statistics Canada reporting that Ontario’s undergraduate tuition is higher than 5%?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. It gives me an opportunity to reassure this House that, as well as having one of the most generous student assistance programs in Canada, we also do cap tuition here in the province of Ontario. For first-year undergraduate students, it’s capped at 4%; for upper-year students, 4.5%; and for graduate and professional programs, at 8%. The way StatsCan reported its data, it mixed both professional and undergraduate programs; hence the higher number.

I want to further assure members that we work very closely with our institutions to make sure that they follow these guidelines. If they step over, we will take action against them. But I think it’s very important to stress to the House that since the tuition framework has come in place, there has not been a single instance of a college or university that has not followed the guidelines.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: My main concern is for the students studying here in Ontario. Students know they need to obtain a good education in order to compete in today’s high-skills economy. However, there are many people who feel that post-secondary institutions have become too expensive. My fear is that potential students will be discouraged from applying to our institutions because they don’t think they could afford it, and the debt they could accumulate is just too high.

I know that Ontario houses some of the best universities and colleges in the country, but the reputation of a particular institution alone wouldn’t retain students. What is the government doing to limit tuition fees and keep post-secondary education accessible?

Hon. John Milloy: As I noted in the first question, we have, experts tell us, one of the most generous, if not the most generous, student assistance program here in the province of Ontario. Through the Reaching Higher plan, we contributed $1.5 billion to enhancing student assistance, and a few months ago we announced further enhancements of $81 million to ensure that students have the resources they need to move forward. I also mentioned the student access guarantee, where we mandate institutions to automatically provide a student who is facing a high-cost program with additional funding.

We have an affordable system, and the numbers speak for themselves: Since we came to office, we have 140,000 more students in our colleges and universities, and the default rate on student loans is at the lowest rate that it has ever been. We will continue to work to make sure that no student is ever denied access to college or university for financial reasons.

OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. When the federal government introduced legislation to stop old age security pension cheques from going to jailed criminals, they asked the Premier of this province to help apply the same changes to the provincial rules, so that criminals in our provincial jails here in Ontario would no longer receive old age security. The changes have pitted child killers like Clifford Olson against hard-working Ontario seniors, who deserve this extra assistance above their Canada pension plan. So I ask: Whose side is the Premier on, hard-working Ontarians’ or criminals like Clifford Olson?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The question was a bit incendiary, I think, when he asked it of us, but I’m aware that the federal government has recently introduced the bill that’s called C-31. It pertains to people who are sentenced collecting old age security benefits.

As you know, I think there are 22 prisoners in our system who are eligible for any kind of benefits. In Ontario we have legislation now, as you would know, that suspends the entitlement to recipients who are in prison for more than 90 days. Such things as guaranteed annual income system, Ontario sales tax credits and HST transition cheques—all these are suspended for those who are serving 90 days and over. So we do that in the province of Ontario.

We have indicated our support for the federal legislation in principle. We want to, of course, see the details and work with our federal partners whenever we can.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Well, the federal government hasn’t heard you, I say to the minister.

You mentioned payments that are no longer going to criminals, but I’m asking specifically about old age security, which is to cover food and rent for Ontario seniors, not criminals in Ontario’s jails. Criminals like Clifford Olson already have their room and board covered: covered for life by the taxpayers. They do not deserve this extra assistance.

Could you please convey in a very clear way to the federal government that you will support the legislation, and will you stand up here today and say you will support the legislation and bring in the necessary changes here in this Parliament to make sure OAS cheques stop going to criminals?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think it’s reasonable that the federal government is, in fact, following our lead in the province of Ontario because, as I’ve mentioned to my friend, the guaranteed annual income system—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That is it. The Ontario sales tax credits, the HST transition cheques—we already do that in the province of Ontario, so it certainly would be consistent that we would not want to see them receive the federal cheque as well. All we have to do is get some detail from the feds. In principle, we’re there; we already do it. We want to look at any funding costs there might be to provincial governments, technical implications and other possible implications.

But listen: We already do it, so why on earth would we oppose what they’re doing? Of course we’re in favour of it. I don’t know why the member is trying to stir something up on this other than, perhaps—

Hon. Monique M. Smith: No, don’t say it. Don’t say it.

Hon. James J. Bradley: No, I wouldn’t say it’s for partisan reasons.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Don’t suggest anything about Jim.

Hon. James J. Bradley: My friend across would not do that.

But we already do it, therefore—

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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Premier, today’s annual report from Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner is an indictment of Liberal inaction on the environment. Ontarians are already paying big money to deal with extreme storms and other impacts of global warming. Why doesn’t your government have a plan to achieve your promised reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my critic for the question.

First of all, we want to thank the Environmental Commissioner for his annual report. He has the confidence of all three parties in this House. He plays a unique role: Over his 10-year tenure, and including today’s report, he has challenged the government of the day to do better. Because of the challenges that he has given all of us in the past, we now have protection for the boreal forest and for the greenbelt. We are protecting Lake Simcoe and have a greenhouse gas reduction plan—all of those things.

The fact that we’re getting rid of dirty coal-fired generation in this province, that we’re banning the use of cosmetic pesticides, is all because of the good work of the Environmental Commissioner, challenging us always to do better.

I want to say to the commissioner that I look forward to reading his report in detail—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I do hope that the minister reads the report in detail, because just as last year, when he said that the government, the Liberals, were not actually delivering on the plans and promises they had put forward, it continues to be the case. The government is not enforcing its own laws. Thus we have dirtier lakes, we don’t have protection in the north and we don’t have the protection on climate change that this government has promised it will give.

When will the Liberals actually deliver on the promises they’ve made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop just talking about it?

Hon. John Wilkinson: On this side of the House, that’s exactly what we do. We are the first government in North America to say that we will not burn dirty coal to generate electricity in the province of Ontario. It is the single most important thing that our government can do to meet our commitments under the Kyoto accord. That is why we are doing that.

I can assure the House that we are already 71% of the way there, and we have every intention of ensuring that coal-fired generation is a thing of the past. It is something that our children and our grandchildren will thank us for one day.

We want to thank the Environmental Commissioner. Because of the challenges that he lays out progressively to governments of the day, that is why these changes are taking place. I look forward to working closely with him and his office.

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Pat Hoy: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Many of my constituents have been worried about access to appropriate care for their elderly parents. They want to ensure that when their parents need help maintaining their health, they will be able to receive it in a timely manner.

I understand that the aging at home strategy has given Ontarians throughout the province access to the care they need without having to leave their home. Could the minister please update the House on the progress that has been made through our aging at home strategy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex for his work for the people of his community.

I’m very pleased to report that the aging at home strategy is successful in bringing long-term-care patients out of hospitals and back home where they get the care they need. They get the care they need so they can live independent and productive lives.

In August, I announced that our government is investing an additional $143.4 million as part of our aging at home strategy. It’s a $1.1-billion strategy that’s making a difference. It supports a wide range of personalized services to keep people at home as long as possible.

This funding, delivered through the LHINs, assists those who wish to remain at home. In the supplementary, I will talk about some of those investments—

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

Mr. Pat Hoy: My constituents will be pleased with an innovative strategy to help Ontarians get the right care at home or within the community.

Ensuring that we provide access to health care for long-term-care patients is an extremely important aspect in reducing wait times at hospitals throughout all our communities. I know there are programs in my riding that have helped seniors recover through tough surgeries, for example.

My constituents are also interested to know about their local aging-at-home programs. Could the minister please provide the House with some examples of useful programs that my constituents could use within the community?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Erie St. Clair LHIN is funding over 100 new and expanded programs through the aging at home strategy. I’m going to talk about two of them—just two examples.

The falls prevention program at the Chatham-Kent community health centre will target seniors who have had a fall or who are at high risk of having a fall because they’ve had recent hip or knee replacement surgery. In addition, a second program that complements the falls prevention program is a community-based rehabilitation team. It provides individualized rehab care to seniors with osteoarthritis, with a history of falls or seniors who are recovering from hip or knee replacement surgery.

The Erie St. Clair LHIN has the highest rate of knee replacements in the province, and we expect these investments will dramatically reduce ER visits and hospital readmissions. We know that—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. During the 2007 election campaign, the McGuinty government promised Ontarians an affordable housing strategy which was to be released this past spring. Can the minister answer when this government will follow through on their promise to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will please come to order. I would like to hear the question, please, and I’m sure the minister would like to hear the question as well.

Please continue.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is, when will this government follow through on their promise to release the long-awaited affordable housing strategy?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Affordable housing is very important in the province of Ontario. I want to congratulate the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario for finally standing up and asking a question about affordable housing.

I am very proud of the McGuinty government track record, and we will compare our track record against their track record any day. Ontarians will have a clear choice to make in the future. They will see our long-term housing strategy, implemented for the first time by a government in Ontario, compared to their strategy of disassembling affordable housing, slashing units, making sure that 19,000 of them—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I’ll take that as no, they’re not going to be releasing the report.

The minister’s rhetoric doesn’t fly with the almost 142,000 people who wait on the affordable housing list; nor does it fly with the almost 600,000 people who pay more than one third of their salary for rent; nor does it fly with the about 20% of tenants who pay half or more of their income on rent. Could the minister please tell Ontarians when he will be releasing this crucial report?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It is a very, very important issue. I am very, very proud of the consultation that we’ve done over the last little while. I’m very, very proud of how we’ve engaged the partners in affordable housing. I’m very, very proud that just yesterday, I was in Windsor speaking to the Ontario Home Builders’ Association about the importance of affordable housing. They get it. They understand the importance of it.

We’re not going to be cancelling 17,000 units as you did—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Member from Nepean. Member from Lanark.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: This is a strategy we will be unfolding after our consultation and our analysis have taken place, because we know the people who are interested in affordable housing know it’s the right approach to use. We will continue to use the right approach in developing a strategy, not cancelling 17,000—

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

FOOD SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Twenty-three Ontarians died of listeriosis arising from contaminated meat in 2008, and there are regular reports in this province of contaminated meat finding its way into Ontario stores.

With food safety at the top of mind, why does the McGuinty government want to reduce the frequency of licensing renewals and audits at abattoirs and meat processing plants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to speak to this because I can tell you that food safety is paramount. When we look at what is important to our farmers and what’s important to the people of Ontario—they know that when they buy Ontario product, it is safe. They know that when they make their purchases, that is what they can be guaranteed.

That’s why I am very pleased to say that since we formed government, we have implemented the Haines report, we have hired meat inspectors, and we have done that with the understanding of how important the abattoirs and free-standing—are to the local food movement. I can tell you that the people of Ontario get it. They know that our food is safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what I don’t get: It’s actually the annual licensing and auditing that keep Ontario families safe. In 2008 the Auditor General reported that “major and serious deficiencies” at abattoirs and meat processing plants were uncovered during audits.

Bob Lowry, a government meat inspector, is here with us today. He is worried. He’s very worried that reducing the frequency of audits from one year to three years will threaten public health in this province.

Will the Premier agree with this expert and with the Auditor General of Ontario and pull the plug on this very, very bad idea?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Food safety is our first priority. It always has been, and it will continue to be the case.

I want to say that we’ve provided $25 million in transition assistance for our processors in order to meet the regulations. We’ve worked with the Ontario Independent Meat Processors to provide on-the-ground understanding of the risks that are faced in our production of meat.

Let’s speak to what happened in the past and what we see today: under the previous government, 10 full-time meat inspectors prior to 2004. Today, our government has 170 inspector positions.

We understand how critical it is that food is safe; we know that it is. Everybody wins when you buy Ontario, and food safety—

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

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Ontario’s universities are world-renowned for the quality of their education and the calibre of their graduates. Our universities attract students from around the world to study science, engineering, medicine and other academic disciplines.

In my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, international students have approached me seeking career opportunities here in Ontario. They want to remain in our province after they graduate to contribute their skills, talent and education. However, these international students are concerned that they must first secure a job offer if they want to stay and work in Ontario.

Can the minister tell this House what the government is doing to retain more highly educated international students when they graduate?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I very much appreciate the question. Attracting the best and brightest talent in the world is a priority for the McGuinty government.

We recognize that in an open Ontario, a highly skilled workforce is absolutely essential to ensure that our province remains strong and prosperous. That’s why our government is taking action to ensure that high-value international students stay in our province when they graduate.

Our expanded provincial nominee program will make it even easier for international students to remain in Ontario after they have obtained an advanced degree from an Ontario university. International students who have earned a master’s or a Ph.D. degree in Ontario will no longer need an offer of employment in order to apply to be fast-tracked for permanent citizenship.

These changes are part of our Open Ontario plan to build a strong economy by creating opportunities for international students to pursue their professional aspirations—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: As experts have been reaffirming for some time now, our economy is going to be dependent on the production of highly skilled educated graduates. The provincial nominee program is one way to help Ontario retain this talent.

Would the minister tell us what other incentives this government is planning to offer to reach a goal of increasing the presence of international students at our institutions by 50%?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m pleased to report to the House that during the last academic year, we had over 38,000 international students in the province of Ontario, which makes it about a billion-dollar contribution to our economy.

As was outlined in the Open Ontario plan, we’re working aggressively with our colleges and universities to promote Ontario internationally and undertaking a number of programs and initiatives, including those that my colleague outlined in his first question.

Just to give you one other example, I visited U of T earlier this summer to announce our support for MITACS’s Globalink India-Ontario program. This international internship program brought 45 students from India to work in research and with our leading-edge companies for the summer. It’s a way to acquaint some of the best and brightest students with what Ontario has to offer, and we are confident that it will attract—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last fall, the Auditor General reported what everyone has long known: The WSIB is broke, it’s broken, and it’s an utter failure. Because of the mountainous WSIB debt, worker benefits are in jeopardy.

We are all too familiar with the shenanigans of the Liberals’ old friend, the nebbish WSIB chair Steve Mahoney. Remember him? He billed taxpayers for more days than there are in a year. Under Mr. Mahoney’s keen and frugal eye, the WSIB unfunded liability has doubled from $6 billion to $12 billion.

Minister, why is Steve Mahoney still the chair of the WSIB, even though he has defrauded the workers of Ontario? Is it because he is a member in good standing of the Ontario Liberal Party?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First off, I’m not going to engage with that member in a personal smear of an individual. That’s his approach. I think the member should speak to the leader of his party, who actually gave the chair of the WSIB a pat on the back with a letter saying he’s doing a commendable job. So speak to your member.

But further, the WSIB is such an important institution to the health and safety of Ontario workers, and that will be our top priority: to ensure that the WSIB is financially stable and sound, that they have a plan moving forward, that they are that security for when workers go to work, so they know, if they are to get injured, that the WSIB is there for them so they can get those benefits—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Minister of Labour: The people of Ontario are sick and tired of your sweetheart deals for your Liberal friends. Ontarians want accountability.

In February, Tom Teahen, a failed Liberal candidate and former aide to the Minister of Labour, was anointed as chief of corporate services at the WSIB without any external competition.

You promised Ontario better, but one year later we’re still getting more of the same: Liberal friends getting rich off the broken backs of Ontario workers. One year later, your friends are still getting untendered contracts. Minister, when you promise something and you break that promise, what does that make you?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I just would caution the member that even implying something can be unparliamentary.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We’ve all seen where they on that side of the floor stand when it comes to workers’ health and safety, and it’s shameful. It’s shameful that I’m getting a question from that party that cut injured worker benefits by close to 30% when they were in government.

That is not the approach that we are taking. We understand the importance of the WSIB as an institution to provide those benefits to injured workers, to be that safety net for workers so that when they go to work, they know that if something happens, they are going to be taken care of.

It is also an important institution for businesses, as it provides businesses with no-fault insurance. We don’t want to see the litigation that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions when it comes to health and safety in the workplace.

That party cut—

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

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Two years ago, the Premier warned parents to limit their children’s cellphone use until the health effects are better understood. Now he is encouraging cellphones in the classroom. Does the Premier still stand by his warning? And if so, what has his government done to communicate this message to parents?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I have had a great deal of opportunity to speak to this, and I would say that the position that we’ve taken is that clearly, technology in the classroom is ever-evolving. I believe that there was an excellent example used last week when we talked about calculators. I had an opportunity to remind some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when I was in school, calculators weren’t allowed. Now I know that many families get lists home, and that is a requirement for students in many classes.

What we do encourage is that whenever there are opportunities to improve student learning by considering new technology, we—

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

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: My question was about the safety of cellphones. The Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion just released a much-anticipated report on the health effects of wireless technology. The study did raise a red flag about the health impact of cellphones. It said that “there is emerging evidence that long-term frequent use of cellphones may be associated with an increased risk of tumours on the side of the head where the phone is used.”

Given these findings, will the government clearly communicate the risk of cellphone use to the public so that Ontarians can protect themselves from the risks that the experts have identified?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, I think it’s important that I clarify for the honourable member that we’re talking about technology. There’s technology where students can use an iPod, for example. They don’t put it up to their ear; they use it in front of them.

I know that school communities and health officials across Ontario are very aware of these issues that parents—

Interjections.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: iPhones—I apologize.

We’re talking about technology, and if it supports student learning I think that we do have a responsibility to ensure that we work with families to ensure that we can support student learning with—

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

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. John Milloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In answering an earlier question, I inadvertently reversed two numbers, and just for the record, I want to explain. Ontario’s tuition cap is 4.5% in the first year, 4% for upper years of undergraduate and 8% for graduate and professional, with the overall average per institution not to exceed 5%.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry to hear that the Liberals have lost their rump.

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

VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today, I wanted to, but I wasn’t here, introduce Guy Boone and Ray Barton, both from Ottawa, professional engineers. I welcome them to the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That was not a point of order, but welcome.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursu