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

March 31, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-31 (PDF)

L101 - Thu 31 Mar 2011 / Jeu 31 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 31 March 2011 Jeudi 31 mars 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2011 ONTARIO BUDGET

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

WORKING FAMILIES COALITION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AUTISM TREATMENT

TAXATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

CONSERVATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

VISITOR

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FARMLAND

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SHOUTER BAPTISTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

JOHN DRINKWATER SIBBALD III

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(PROTECTING CHILDREN

FROM TARGETED ADVERTISING

OF UNHEALTHY FOOD

AND DRINK), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR (PROTECTION

DES ENFANTS CONTRE LA PUBLICITÉ

CIBLÉE À L’ÉGARD DES ALIMENTS

ET DES BOISSONS MALSAINS)

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

PETITIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

RURAL SCHOOLS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS /

TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS

PARAMEDICS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CEMETERIES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HOME CARE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

IMMIGRANTS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

IMMIGRANTS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

The House met at 0900.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2011 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 30, 2011, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As I call the order this morning, I’d like to wish the Minister of Revenue a happy birthday, and I’d like to call government order 51.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I begin my remarks, I guess I’ll start with the one congratulatory note that I’ll strike this morning and that is to also wish the Minister of Revenue a happy birthday. In terms of congratulatory notes, that will be the end for this morning, from my perspective, but I hope she has a lovely day.

It’s my pleasure, my privilege, to rise on behalf of New Democrats and my colleagues here in this caucus to talk about the McGuinty government’s budget, which, of course, they introduced earlier this week.

It’s certainly an interesting budget, I think all would agree, but when all is said and done, I’m convinced that this budget will go down in history as much ado about nothing. It’s disappointing, to say the least—extremely disappointing. I say that because families in Ontario were seeking and were expecting so much more from this budget.

If there’s one thing that’s extremely clear it’s that Tuesday’s budget shows us again that Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are simply out of touch with the pressures that are facing recession-weary families.

Ontario families are scrambling to deal with soaring electricity bills; they’re scrambling to deal with rising prices; they’re scrambling to deal with increases at the gas pumps and the unfair HST, of course, which makes life so much more unaffordable for most people. They’re worried about jobs, jobs that are still very difficult to find; and they’re worried about paycheques, paycheques that have not kept up with inflation.

The job losses, the destroyed savings and the overall economic anxiety of the past couple of years have put the squeeze on Ontario families, particularly middle-income families. Dalton McGuinty’s answer has been a new sales tax on people’s everyday essentials and multi-billion-dollar handouts to some of Ontario’s biggest and richest corporations. How is that fair? How is that fair to the people of Ontario? Frankly, it’s not fair. It’s anything but fair.

The McGuinty government had a chance to actually turn things around this time, turn things around for families in this budget, but they chose instead to stick with the status quo that simply is not working. Despite making outrageous claims about the potential that corporate tax cuts had to create jobs, it is very, very clear from the numbers in the very budget that this government brought forward the other day that the Premier’s so-called jobs strategy is not working. It is not working at all.

Mr. Paul Miller: A failure.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As my colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek indicates, it is an abject failure. In fact, the so-called jobs plan is in disarray, and with only six months before the next election, the Liberal government is scrambling.

On this side of the House, we are not at all surprised that the government in this budget has quietly reduced their jobs creation estimate by 75,000 jobs over the next three years. That’s 75,000 jobs fewer that this government admits are going to be created over the next three years, a change from just last year’s forecast. That’s a significant climbdown—75,000 jobs. And at the same time, the government continues to hand over billions and billions of dollars to corporations—$6 billion, to be exact—without any job guarantees; not a single job guarantee for over $6 billion in corporate tax giveaways.

The Ontario New Democratic Party does not believe that doling out cash to corporations on a no-strings-attached basis actually works. We don’t believe it works for a minute. We have not seen the evidence at all. Over decades of the same kind of program that comes from Liberals and Conservatives, we don’t see the evidence that it actually creates jobs. That’s been proven over and over and over again, yet this government just doesn’t seem to get it.

That’s why in fact my federal leader, Jack Layton, has structured his jobs package the way he has. His jobs package actually has strings attached. What a novel idea. It actually achieves something for the people of Ontario. As Jack’s jobs plan makes clear, New Democrats have no problem at all providing incentives to business, but the incentives have to be ones that reward businesses for real investments in things like plant, machinery, training and jobs. That is what I call results-based investment with business, as opposed to across-the-board tax cuts that achieve nothing whatsoever.

There have to be real strings attached, and I’m going to return a little bit later to Mr. Layton’s jobs package in my speech. It’s something that I’m extremely proud of, so I’m going to detail it a bit more in a little while.

But of course jobs aren’t the only issue that Ontarians are concerned about. It’s a major concern, but it’s not the only one. This government will try to hang its hat on a very few items that they have put in this budget. Let’s take a minute or two to talk about what those items are.

First, I want to talk a little bit about the government’s health care announcements in the budget. I find it extremely ironic—in fact, I find it bordering on insulting—the way that the budget deals with this particular issue. After closing breast cancer clinics in London and forcing patients to fight for their breast cancer treatments, this government puts something in the budget that makes people wonder, “Why should we even believe it? Why should we even believe that they care at all about the breast cancer issue after the way that they’ve behaved over the last several weeks and, in fact, longer than that—several months?”

And yet, they put together a “breast cancer strategy.” I’d say it looks a little bit more, and smells a little bit more, like a government-saving-its-political-bacon kind of strategy.

Because they should be ashamed of the way they’ve behaved, not only in London, with removing those nurses from the breast-screening clinic who were supporting women who were suffering with the horrible disease of breast cancer, but then preventing Jill Anzarut from getting the medication that her oncologist had prescribed for her because her tumour was just a little too small—until, of course, the media got involved and New Democrats got involved and forced the government to back away from that callous and horrible position they were in.

It’s disgraceful, and it’s absurd to think that a nominal investment in breast cancer screening over three years absolves this government from anything at all in terms of their behaviour over the last little while on this issue.

Then there’s education, specifically post-secondary education. I want to talk a little bit about that. When Ontario is the single most expensive province in which to obtain a university degree in Canada and students are carrying an average debt load of approximately $30,000 upon graduation, why would anybody believe that this government has a plan to help families struggling with the cost of putting their kids through university? It is obvious that they have no plan whatsoever, especially when the plans that they’ve advanced before have been scrapped so quickly. I’ll talk about that in a minute, but I want to go back to post-secondary education.

We have a government that in their budget made this announcement about 60,000 new spaces. Sixty thousand new spaces? I think that’s okay. I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that people can’t afford to put those kids in those spaces. Families can’t afford to fill those spaces with their children, with their youth. Why? Because it’s too expensive. The budget doesn’t speak to the affordability of post-secondary education, which is the most pressing issue in post-secondary education right now. The government all but ignores it. How shameful is that?

It’s like dangling a carrot out there for young people, saying, “Oh, we’re opening all these spaces, but whoops, we’ll pull that carrot back. Guess what? You’re not going to be able to afford to go.” It’s shameful. It’s absolutely shameful.

That doesn’t even address some of the other issues that we know are quite embarrassing for the province of Ontario, like the fact that we have the lowest per capita investment in post-secondary education of all the provinces in this great country.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Number 10.

Mr. Paul Miller: Number 10.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ten out of 10. It doesn’t address the fact that there continue to be growing and growing numbers of students in classes, and professors are not growing at the same rate. Needless to say, the ratio between students and professors is alarming.

What does that say? That says we have an issue about the quality of post-secondary education if we continue to ignore those growing class sizes. And yet, nothing at all from this government on that very important issue. They think a shiny announcement of 60,000 new spaces some time down the road—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Over five years.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —over five years—is the panacea, is the solution, is the answer to our post-secondary education crisis.

I think parents would disagree, and I think students—although I know students are happy about the idea of having more spaces—are still very, very concerned about access, about quality and about affordability.

I was starting to say how the government likes to make all these plans. They talk about the breast cancer strategy and the student strategy and post-secondary and all these wonderful, shiny plans, but we know that the government announces lots of plans and they don’t follow through. In fact, this very budget was used to announce the rollback of previous plans that they had announced in other budgets; for example, the brand new courthouse in west-end Toronto that was supposed to be helping to deal with the massive backlog of cases in the court system. I mean, let’s face it; there are cases being thrown out of the courts because people are waiting far too long to get to trial.

What does that mean? What’s the implication of that? I would suggest that the implication is that in some very serious crimes that have been committed, the perpetrators of those crimes are not being held to account through our justice system because our justice system can’t handle the number of trials that are on the docket. So they wait months and months and they stretch to years and years, and guess what? The cases get thrown out of court because people have had to wait too long to go through the justice system.

So congratulations to the government creating even more pressure in our justice system that is already overburdened. That’s what this budget did: It scrapped that courthouse in west-end Toronto.

Why would anybody believe at all that this tired, out-of-touch McGuinty Liberal government has any real plan at all, on any front? There may be a plan somewhere there, and in fact that’s one that concerns me. Because there may be a plan in there that they’re not really making clear, not making obvious; it’s one that’s not out in the open, if you will, within the pages of the budget. It’s referred to, it’s suggested, it’s a little murky, which is what makes it, potentially, the most dangerous thing of all.

That plan is a shift—it’s a shift towards the privatization of public service delivery. That is laced throughout this budget—that concept, that idea, that prospect—in a couple of different areas.

In this budget, the government has opened the door to American-style privatization of service delivery. That has New Democrats very, very concerned. That model has not worked; it has not worked south of the border and it will not work here.

If this government thinks that it can parcel off the delivery of important public services to the private sector, it will find significant opposition from Ontario’s New Democrats.

This government must reveal all of their plans, all of their intentions, all of their details before any decisions are made in that regard. Every single one of those plans, every single one of those schemes to hand over our public services to the private sector must come into this Legislature for full debate and full discussion, because I can tell you, not only will we be very, very vocal in our opposition to such a move, but I trust that many, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Ontarians will be speaking with the same voice as New Democrats on that issue.

It’s my expectation—in fact, it’s my demand—that if that is the direction that this government intends to pursue, we need to know about it and we need to know about it in all its clarity straight up front so that it can be appropriately reviewed. It’s my expectation and it’s my demand.

In the lead-up to this budget, New Democrats asked the McGuinty government very clearly, for weeks on end in the lead-up to the budget—asked them very, very clearly—to do one simple thing, and that was to put people first in their budget for 2011; to actually put the people of Ontario, the families of Ontario, at the front of the line when it came to their considerations about how to deal with the $124-billion program. I think it’s pretty clear that they utterly failed to meet our expectations.

They could have made life more affordable for families by taking the HST off of home heating and off of hydro. That would have helped people keep money in their pockets, that would have helped them through what is a very, very difficult financial time for them. But did we see that in the budget?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: No.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No, we did not, as my friend from Toronto–Danforth says; we did not see that in the budget.

The government decided to just cut families loose, cut Ontarians loose, not help out with the affordability of everyday life, which we know, which I know from going across this province and talking to people pretty much every day, is top of mind. The people of Ontario are very, very concerned.

Instead of addressing that, by taking the HST off of hydro and home heating, what does this government do? They put another $400 million into a corporate tax giveaway. They could have ensured front-line health services were there for families who need them. That’s what they could have prioritized in this budget. What do they do instead? Instead, they continue to slash important health programs and services, announcing more than $100 million in new cuts in this budget, and refusing to put a hard cap on an outrageous situation of constantly rising CEO salaries, particularly in hospitals.

It’s interesting, because the government has a little phrase in their budget—I think you could call it a phrase. It says in the budget that they’re going to reduce the funding of executive offices for transfer payment agencies by 10%. That’s what they talk about. So I started thinking, what is that all about? And again, what that is all about is a Liberal government that’s more concerned about their own political bacon and more concerned about setting up an illusion that they’re actually getting at the nub of the issue by putting in this phrase that is really quite amorphous. It’s quite uncertain.

Nobody knows exactly what that means. What does that mean, reduce the executive office budgets of transfer payment agencies by 10%?

Does that say a hard cap on CEO salaries? Is that what it says? Does it say a hard cap on CEO salaries? CEO salaries in the public sector, by the way, in some cases are pushing seven digits. Some of those hospital CEOs are just a hair under a $1-million pay annually, and they’re getting that $1-million pay for laying off front-line nurses. That’s their achievement; that’s why they get those big bucks.

There are CEOs who are getting pay increases annually that are two and three and four times what an average worker in Ontario makes—and that’s just for the pay increase for the hospital CEO. There’s something seriously wrong when we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the obscenity of that situation and refuses to do something serious about reining it in. That’s exactly what we have with the McGuinty Liberals: a government that’s prepared to maintain the obscene status quo when it comes to CEO salaries in the broader public sector, and that is quite shameful.

You know, this government could have done something to ensure that the concerns of northern Ontario families were addressed in this budget. But what did they do instead? Instead, they slashed the budget of some of the most important ministries that connect with northern Ontario communities, some of the ministries that are most involved in northern Ontario: the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. These two ministries get slashed; this is what the government has to offer for northern Ontario. It’s as if, for the McGuinty government, northern Ontario doesn’t exist.

That’s how bad it is. I invite anyone to go to northern Ontario and talk to the folks up there, because that’s certainly how they tell me they feel. They’ve been telling me they feel that way for an awfully long time.

I now want to discuss some of the recent Ontario economic history so that we can show why we think this budget is as inadequate as we believe that it is. Between September 2008 and May 2009, 250,000 Ontarians lost their jobs. That’s a quarter of a million jobs that are gone. In 2009 alone, real GDP in this province contracted by 3.6%. The unemployment rate in cities like Windsor and Oshawa spiked well into the double digits during that time, and Toronto was not all that far behind. From retail to information technology, no sector was safe from what we now commonly refer to as the great recession.

Although there are some signs of recovery on the horizon, economists to this day continue to warn of a prolonged period of sluggish growth. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, and while other provinces have recovered to their pre-recession employment levels, Ontario is in a different situation. At least 16,000 fewer Ontarians are working today than were in 2008.

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Some of the members across the way think that’s funny, and they’re chuckling over there. I don’t think it’s funny at all, particularly for those 16,000 families.

Meanwhile, what’s happening is, real wages are stagnating. In fact, after inflation is taken into account, the average hourly wage has not changed at all since 1991. Imagine that. The average wage hasn’t changed; it has flatlined since 1991. Most people are getting by with less.

But that’s just most people who are getting by with less. There are some exceptions to that scenario. For example, Canada’s CEOs are doing better than at any time in the history of our country. By 3 p.m. on January 1, they had already collected more in pay than the average person earns in an entire year—by 3 p.m. on their first day of work.

Instead of addressing this inequality, government after government in Ontario has sacrificed fiscal capacity for corporate tax cuts. It’s a shameful, shameful recipe that leaves people behind. From 1999 to today, successive Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments have handed out more than $20 billion in corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, corporate profits increased 7.9% last quarter, to $66 billion. That’s good news for the CEOs and the shareholders, but it raises serious questions about the economic usefulness of the McGuinty government’s multi-billion-dollar corporate tax cuts.

As I indicated earlier, Ontario’s record on post-recession job creation is not as strong as other provinces. Other provinces are doing much, much better in terms of their post-recession job creation—like Manitoba; there’s a good example. In that province—with an NDP government, I might add—things are quite different. They have stopped further corporate tax cuts. While Ontario remains 16,000 jobs below its pre-recession peak, Manitoba has gained 15,000 more jobs than it had before the recession.

To get a real sense of where this corporate tax money is going in Ontario, it helps to look at a sector of our economy and see what the government has done with the additional revenue. The Ontario government’s own budget says the corporate income tax cut will hand $535 million to banks and $135 million to insurance companies. I should add that those are immensely profitable banks and immensely profitable insurance companies. They are receiving that largesse on top of $520 million more already provided to the banks through the elimination of the capital tax—because we all know the banks just need that money; they’re just suffering so bad.

In total, of the $4 billion of corporate and capital taxes that the government has cut, a whopping $1.2 billion of that will be pocketed by banks and insurance companies. The vast majority is going to only eight companies which dominate Ontario’s financial sector. Who are these eight companies? I’ll list them off for you: Scotiabank, Royal Bank, TD Bank, Bank of Montreal, CIBC, Sun Life Financial, Manulife Financial Corp. and Great-West Life.

Over the past year, and this is what adds insult to injury, while they are reaping in the largesse that is showered upon them by this government and their corporate tax cuts, employment in this very sector, the financial sector—get ready for this: Has it increased? Because that’s what the government says, “Corporate tax cuts create jobs.” That’s their mantra.

So do you think employment has done well in the financial sector? You would think so. That’s what the government thinks. Well, I wonder if anybody is surprised to know that in fact that sector shed 25,000 jobs in the last year alone. The very sector that’s getting all the money from the McGuinty Liberals is cutting jobs to the tune of 25,000 in a single year.

If the money didn’t go to create jobs in the financial sector, then where did it go? If the very sector that gets the lion’s share of the goodies doesn’t create the jobs, where did it go? Where did the benefit go? Where did that money go, instead of to job creation? Of course, it went to profits. All of the money that the government gave to the banks and insurance companies—$4 billion; $2.2 billion every single year from here on in, mind you—all of it went into their pockets, went into their profit lines. Profits have increased significantly.

CEOs have been awarded significant increases in their salaries as well—no surprise. With those increased profits come huge compensation package increases for the CEOs of those financial institutions.

I have a little chart here. I wish we had one of those functions where I could actually hold up the chart—although it’s a prop—and have it on the screen for the families at home who are watching, because it’s extremely interesting. Let me just pick a couple of them off the top of my head here. Let’s go for the highest one, Sun Life Financial. Their quarterly profit in the most recent quarter went up by 72%—72%. Congratulations to them. Their CEO pay went up more than 100%, to $8.27 million for one year.

So we have one person at the top of this corporation making $8.27 million, up 100%, so he doubled his pay, and in the last quarter, that company increased their profits by 72%. I rue the fact that there isn’t another line, another column in my chart, that also has in it how many jobs that particular company shed, because that would be an interesting juxtaposition as well.

Here’s another one for you. Scotiabank: Their quarterly profit for the last quarter, the most recent reported quarter, was $1.2 billion—a $1.2-billion profit in one quarter. How many months is one quarter? It’s three months, right?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Three months, $1.2 billion. The CEO pay for Scotiabank: $10.6 million, up 10%. Royal Bank: $1.8 billion, up 23%. Their profit went up 23% in the last reported quarter; $11 million in CEO pay, up 6%. Bank of Montreal: $776 million, up 18%; $9.5 million is the CEO salary—$9.5 million, up 28%. CIBC: an increase of 19% in their quarterly profit, up by $799 million; the CEO pay went up by 50%—a 50% increase in the CEO pay, up to $9.3 million.

I wonder where they get the money for all those profits and all those salary increases. Oh, it came from Ontario families. That’s where they got it from.

Dividends for shareholders have been boosted, but the hiring spree hasn’t materialized; the jobs are not being created. The truth of the matter is that corporate tax rates are only one of the many, many factors that a business considers when making investments. Evidence shows very clearly that corporate tax cuts have very, very little impact on job creation, yet it’s the strategy that this government stubbornly and wrongly clings to. Why is that? It’s because those corporate tax cuts have almost no impact on business capital investment spending. That’s the bottom line.

Since 2000—so that’s 11 years—the combined federal-Ontario corporate tax rate will have been reduced from 44% to 25%; that’s combined federal-provincial. Yet do you think that business investment in that same time frame, now that they have all this extra cash flow because they’re not paying the taxes anymore, is increasing? It’s not. At the very same time, business investment has been decreasing since that time.

In fact, rather than investing in productivity, things like machinery, plant and equipment and creating jobs, corporations have been accumulating cash and similar liquid assets at an alarming rate. They are increasing their cash liquidity.

According to StatsCan, corporate holdings of cash and similar assets reached nearly half a trillion dollars by the third quarter of 2010—half a trillion dollars. Since the beginning of the recession, businesses added $83 billion to cash holdings. No-strings-attached corporate tax cuts will only boost already astronomically high cash holdings that these corporations have. That’s the only thing that those corporate tax cuts do.

Perhaps most importantly, when compared to the industrial regions of the United States, our real competitors when it comes to jobs, we are already very, very competitive. In fact, we are already more competitive than many of those jurisdictions. Why do I say that? Because, of course, I have the numbers, another nice little chart that we’ve put together to illustrate the comparison, because our finance minister says, “We have to compete. We have to reduce our corporate tax rates. We have to be competitive with other jurisdictions.”

Well, let me show you, Speaker—I wish I could show you but I can’t because it’s a prop, so I’ll read it off:

Location and the combined tax rate: Michigan, tax rate 38.2%; New York—I think it’s fair to say we compete with the jurisdiction of Michigan and the jurisdiction of New York—36.1%; Pennsylvania, 37.8%; Great Lakes weighted average—the jurisdictions around the Great Lakes, the states around the Great Lakes—36.6%; the US weighted average, 36.1%. So, 36%, 38%, 36.1%, 36.6%, 37.8%.

Where is Ontario? What’s Ontario’s combined tax rate, the tax rate that this government is going to continue to reduce over the next couple of years, based on their wonderful failing plan? It’s 28.5%—28.5%. Go figure; we’re already a heck of a lot lower than most of the jurisdictions with which we’re competing—all of the ones on this list.

So you have to wonder: What is this finance minister talking about when he says that the reason for his corporate tax giveaways is to help Ontario be more competitive? It looks like we’re already very, very competitive. In fact, I know that we are. So if across-the-board corporate tax cuts won’t create jobs, which they won’t, and we’re already competitive in that regard, then the question is, what will create jobs? What are the alternatives to this wrong-headed direction of the McGuinty Liberal government?

What we believe in is highly targeted incentives that actually reward job creation, something that is actually beneficial to the economy of Ontario and, particularly, for Ontario families and workers who need decent jobs.

Quebec’s investment tax credit is one good example of this kind of approach. Manitoba’s manufacturing investment tax credit is another success story. In Manitoba, the 10% tax credit against payable income tax for investment in buildings, machinery and equipment makes a huge difference. It’s partially refundable, meaning that manufacturers benefit even during the bad years when they’re, perhaps, not making a profit.

This will come as no surprise to anyone, as I mentioned: The jobs package announced by my federal leader, Jack Layton, is also a terrific model, in our opinion.

Here is the reader’s digest version; I’m going to go over it really quickly. The federal NDP initiative is going to cost $2.2 billion and generate 220,000 jobs each year. The plan will be paid for by returning the corporate tax rate to the 2008 level of 19.5%, compared to the current rate of 16.5%. The restoration of rates will add $5.9 billion to the federal government coffers, so you will still have $3.7 billion left over to pay for other investments.

What are the specific measures? There’s a job creation tax credit for businesses that would give them $4,500 for each new employee hired. That’s a job incentive program. The employer would receive the funding in the form of a rebate of employer-side Canada pension plan and employment insurance contributions for a year. There’s a $1,000 tax credit if that employee is retained for over a 12-month period. So if they get beyond one year and that employee is retained by the company, another $1,000 tax credit. There’s a reduction in the small business tax level to 9% from 11%.

The bottom line: With a plan like that, if you create jobs, you get rewarded. Sounds like a good idea: actually getting something for something. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Somehow this government just doesn’t get it. How very, very different that idea is from what the McGuinty Liberals have on offer.

I want to talk a little bit about the least favourite topic of Ontarians, which started, I guess, in the middle of last summer and has seriously continued until this very day, and that is the least favourite new tax, the HST—the unfair HST, I may add. Here’s a key question for the government: With household budgets facing a real strain, does harmonizing sales taxes with the federal government really make any sense?

Now, we have been saying no. But while the McGuinty and Harper governments signed their backroom deal, other provinces, like Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba, were not convinced. They were not convinced that the HST was the right thing to do. They saw the added burden on consumers, who were already feeling the pinch, as a drag on the economy. The NDP government in Manitoba looked closely at the HST and found that the benefits to business were simply not there.

Here is a brief excerpt from a comprehensive report that their government released to explain its rejection of the HST; I find it quite instructive:

“[C]ompetitiveness gains, particularly for those sectors exposed to export competition, are very modest:

“—… relative tax competitiveness ranking of Manitoba manufacturers against other competing cities would not improve with an HST.

“—A very large part of the savings to business would not directly or significantly improve the competitive position of the export sector....

“[S]ales tax harmonization is just one dimension of overall tax competitiveness and must be considered in the context of other tax measures.”

The report goes on to talk about the burden on consumers, and I’m going to quote again:

“A key conclusion of this analysis is that Manitoba consumers would face $405 million in additional sales tax costs under an HST as the sales tax burden shifts from businesses to consumers. The province is concerned about the potential impact that this increased sales tax burden could have on Manitobans’ resilient consumer confidence....

“Manitoba does not support harmonization at this time because of the potential risk to the economic recovery and the burden it would place on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty.”

Oh, woe that our provincial Liberals didn’t think the same way as the New Democrats in Manitoba when they were considering the HST.

So, where are we now? Nearly a year after implementation of the HST in Ontario, Manitoba’s conclusions seem very prophetic. While that province has recovered all jobs lost during the recession—in fact, 15,000 more than they had before the recession started—Ontario continues to lag behind.

What else would have been in the budget, from our perspective, to create jobs and ensure prosperity? Well, world leaders like Bombardier, for example, don’t just appear out of anywhere; they were nurtured to achieve their current scale by a creative blend of public sector procurement and export-oriented financing. Of course, we can’t simply replicate what Quebec has done, what Manitoba has done and what other jurisdictions do, but we can—and shame on us if we don’t—draw on the lessons that governments need to play a constructive role in helping businesses grow.

Government does have a role to play. I firmly believe that—a significant role. If we’re going to grow our economy, we need to understand the challenges that we’re facing and we need to be very innovative about how to deal with those challenges that we face.

In Ontario, in 2011, what that means is being honest about some of our technological and productivity deficiencies. The Premier recently expressed confusion about Ontario’s dismal progress in that regard, and I don’t think it’s all that much of a mystery. There’s simply not enough business investments in plant, machinery and information technology in this province, and, just as importantly, not enough investments in people. As I’ve already said, we need a far better, more targeted financial incentive program for businesses to make those capital investments.

Ontario also needs to do a much better job with training—on-the-job training and training more generally. Government has a role to play here as well. If we want to create prosperity and ensure a strong economic future, people need the skills to perform the value-added jobs of the future. Tax incentives like those used in the Quebec scenario provide important lessons. Quebec’s training levy means larger employers are required to invest at least 1% of their payroll into employee training. Now, if they choose not to make that investment, they can pay into a collective fund; that’s used to support sectoral training projects instead. It seems pretty smart.

I’m not saying that we just pick up the Quebec model and drop it here in Ontario, but Quebec’s levy not only guarantees investment in training; it ensures that everyone is investing. We need to level the playing field between employers that train and those that simply poach the trained workers off of the ones that did the training. Again, an innovative way for government to help create the right business climate, not based on ideology but based on results—based on the proven results of what’s happening in another jurisdiction.

Using government procurement for economic development is another issue that simply makes sense. We can respect our international agreements and at the same time still support Ontario businesses through procurement. Governments all over the world protect local jobs through effective buy-local policies. It simply makes sense. It makes sense to ensure that the billions of dollars that we invest in transit and other infrastructure investments create good-paying jobs right here in the province of Ontario, not somewhere else.

Talk to residents of Thunder Bay about the growth that their community experienced because the city of Toronto ensured that its streetcars and subway cars were going to be created, built and assembled at Bombardier in Thunder Bay. With that kind of commitment to good jobs, innovation and investment will come to Ontario. It’s more important than ever for the province to show leadership on this file.

Finally, I want to touch on the challenges facing Ontario’s electricity sector because I think the challenges we’re facing are an example of what can go wrong when government abandons its role and ideology trumps common sense. For generations, reliable, affordable electricity delivered at cost was one of the pillars of Ontario’s economy. In the late 1990s, Ontario’s Conservative government—with the support, it should be noted, of their Liberal opposition of the day—decided it was time to deregulate and privatize Ontario’s hydro system. I would put to the people of Ontario that that experiment utterly failed, so badly that we are still to this day dealing with that costly mess.

Unfortunately, the current government’s obsession with stopgap solutions has left Ontario with a confusing series of hydro bureaucracies and very, very expensive power. We’ve been pressing for government action on industrial hydro rates for some time, and the current government has started, belatedly, to recognize the problem with a temporary northern industrial hydro rate and a new rate for large industrial users throughout the province. But we can’t be satisfied with political stopgap solutions. Stopgap solutions do not provide a secure investment strategy, a secure investment future for companies.

Measures that only last a year or two or three don’t provide the kind of outlook that’s necessary for investment to be attractive. Our challenges around energy prices are not going away in two years, so the solutions can’t go away in two years either.

Energy pricing is one of the big issues that we’re going to be talking about over the next several months. It’s a significant issue that we need to resolve in this province. It’s vitally important to just about everyone who has an interest in Ontario, from corporations to individuals.

In closing, I have a few comments to make to wrap up. We live in a province that’s facing some serious and enormous challenges, I think everybody would agree, but we also know that Ontarians, by and large, are very resilient. We’ve been through ups and downs in the past, but we always bounce back. The key is that we need a government that has a vision, that’s going to actually take us to where we need to go, where we want to be. I would put to you that the McGuinty government has shown for years now that they lack that vision. This is a tired government. This is a tired, out-of-touch government.

This is a tired, out-of-touch government that is out of gas. It’s very clear, and I think this budget is just a reflection of that sad reality.

So, sure, they claim that they’ve turned the corner—I think the budget is called “turning the corner to tomorrow” or something like that. Unfortunately, they turned the corner, yes, but they left families on the side of the road as Dalton McGuinty waved goodbye. That’s the problem with the budget overall. Turning the corner and leaving families behind is not a good strategy from my perspective, and never has been. Unfortunately, it has been the ongoing strategy of this government.

They claim that they’ve turned the corner, but when you look at the recent decisions that they’ve made, when you look at the budget carefully, it’s really clear that, although they’ve turned the corner, they are on a road to nowhere, and they’re trying to take the rest of the province with them. Unfortunately, as they drive along that highway to nowhere, Ontarians are the ones who are left in the dust.

It’s very fortunate that the people of this province will have something to say about the vision, or lack thereof, of their provincial government because, of course, 2011 is an election year. It’s a chance for people who have been observing their bills going up, who have been watching as the HST continues to take a bite out of their pocketbook each and every day, who have been frustrated by the lack of opportunity in terms of new jobs being created, particularly new jobs that replace the good jobs of the past.

It’s an opportunity for them to reflect on the fact that they can’t afford to put their kids through post-secondary education, or for those who do, end up watching their children struggle with debt loads the size of mortgages once they graduate. They can reflect on the fact that, although the government likes to crow about its all-day learning program in Ontario, we see child care spaces closing by the day and fees in those child care spaces that remain open in Ontario going through the roof, child care becoming less and less affordable at every turn.

They can reflect on a government that, really, has spent a lot of time over the last couple of years feathering the nests of their friends, of their closest colleagues—insiders, that get their lucrative little contracts without any tendering, lobbyists that use public money to come and ask the government for more public money—a government that’s focused on billions and billions, in fact over $6 billion, in corporate tax cuts that don’t create jobs. These are the things that Ontarians will be focusing on as they continue to struggle to pay the bills which they are not able to pay because this government has yet again ignored the fundamental issue that Ontarians are grappling with.

It’s pretty simple: The affordability of everyday life is on people’s minds and it’s been there for a while, but this out-of-touch government comes forward with a budget that completely ignores that reality. How shameful is that? Some $6 billion out the door to the richest corporations that aren’t creating jobs, and families are basically told, “You’ve got to make it on your own.” No break on the HST on home heating and hydro, something that would have been very, very easy, to take that unfair tax off of home essentials. Did the government even consider it? No; the government didn’t even consider it.

It would rather just shove hundreds of millions more—$400 million in one little program this year—to the banks and insurance companies while families get told, “Too bad, so sad; you’re not important.”

I really believe fundamentally that if the families of this province are strong again, that if the families of this province have hope again, that they’re doing well, then the province itself is going to be doing well. I think the government’s got it all backwards. They haven’t figured out that strong families and strong communities create a strong province. They have it backwards; they think it’s all trickle-down. Whatever happened to that? I don’t understand that. I thought that trickle-down stuff was debunked a long time ago; Reaganomics—remember that?—Thatcherism, all that stuff.

Yet here we are—how many years later? Three decades later?—and this government is still implementing the same tired kind of policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Holy smokes; there’s something wrong here.

Given the state of things, the stagnation that now marks this government, issues and concerns that I hear from Ontarians as I travel across this great province, the frustration they feel, the neglect that they feel from a government that just doesn’t seem to get it; this budget is proof of that. That election that’s coming at the end of this year simply cannot come fast enough. I am looking very much forward to the next couple of months because New Democrats are going to be out there on the campaign trail and we’re going to be advancing ideas, ones that are responsive to what families have been telling me over the last couple of years.

I’ve been listening to those families. We are developing a program that responds to the issues that they’re telling me that they’re concerned about and that they’re telling my caucus members that they’re concerned about: the member from Welland, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Toronto–Danforth, as well as those others who couldn’t join us because they’re in committee this morning. New Democrats will be going around the province talking to the people of Ontario about a plan that actually puts them first, that puts them at the front. So that election can’t some soon enough.

I’ve outlined some of those ideas in my speech today but we have many, many more. I can tell you that in every one of those ideas our focus is going to be the families and people of this province, the ones who have been ignored by their government for so many years. I know that New Democrats are going to be proud; we’re going to be proud of what we bring forward to the people because it’s not going to be something that we sit on Bay Street in a big boardroom with oak-paneled walls and talk to the bankers about.

It’s actually something that we are developing right now sitting in the kitchens and the community centres and the church basements of the people of Ontario, in their communities. That’s what we’re all about. That’s what we’re committed to.

I’ve outlined some of those strategies today and I look forward, with my caucus colleagues and our candidates, over the next several months, to talking to the people of Ontario about what we think our vision should be, what we think this province should look like and who we think should be the priority in all of the plans, all of the programs, all of the decision-making that a provincial government has before it, because that is what will make our province strong again.

I look forward to sharing these ideas with all of Ontario, and I know that my caucus colleagues are looking forward to doing that as well. Thanks very much for the opportunity.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Ms. Horwath has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): There being no further business called, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1000 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to recognize and would like the House to help me welcome the grandparents of page Riley McPhail. His grandparents Karen and Peter McPhail and Linda and Lawerance McLaughlin, and great-aunt Elizabeth Westley.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: As you know well, there are many representatives from the francophone youth federation who are here today at Queen’s Park. I believe they will be taking

part in a mock Parliament as well today. There are two representatives I wanted to introduce to the Legislature, both of whom are from northern Ontario: We’ve got Caroline Gélineault, who is the president of the francophone youth federation and who’s actually from Longlac but goes to De La Salle secondary school in Ottawa; and Gerrit Wesselink, a former page here in the Legislature from Thunder Bay, who is the northern representative and goes to La Vérendrye high school in Thunder Bay. Welcome to all of you, but welcome to those two in particular.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I’d like to introduce the grandparents of page Emma Redfearn: Lillian and William Korhonen.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais présenter mon bon ami Gilles Morin, qui était député ici pour la circonscription d’Ottawa–Orléans et qui est maintenant le président du conseil d’administration de l’Hôpital Montfort.

Je voudrais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue aux étudiants de ma circonscription de l’école L’Alternative et de l’école De La Salle avec leurs professeurs.

L’hon. Monique M. Smith: Je voudrais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue aux étudiants de F.J. McElligott de Mattawa et de l’Odyssée à North Bay qui sont ici parmi nous aujourd’hui, les jeunes parlementaires francophones. Bienvenue.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Now, before the full House, I’m running the risk of violating standing orders by reporting that the Minister of Revenue is in fact one year younger today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That means “happy birthday.”

Notwithstanding the introduction, I’d ask all members to join me in welcoming Mr. Gilles Morin, former Deputy Speaker and MPP for Carleton East during the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliaments. Mr. Morin is here assisting with the fifth annual Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario.

In the galleries today we have students, educators and coordinators from the federation from across Ontario who have come to Queen’s Park for a three-day long student Parliament. It’s the only youth Parliament in Ontario that runs while the House is in session. We may very well have future MPPs amongst us today. Welcome to all of our guests in both galleries.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Premier McGuinty has come up with more doom schemes to restrain spending than Wile E. Coyote has to catch the Road Runner, but no one believes his so-called restraint measures any longer. This is a Premier who doubled the debt, tripled the number of bureaucrats making over $100,000 and turned Ontario into a have-not province.

Premier, why do you think Ontario families will believe your so-called pledge to cut executive salaries that you made on page 56 of the budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m delighted to take the question and welcome it from my honourable colleague. I want to begin by reminding her that we expanded the sunshine law to cover OPG and Hydro employees. That was in stark contrast to the previous government. We also put in place a new law on the books in Ontario that prevents governments from hiding deficits. Again, that was also the result of the activity on the part of a previous government.

I’m pleased to note that this year the average OPS salary on the list dropped by 1%. I’m also pleased to note that our 400 top-earning OPS employees on the list saw their salaries decrease this year. I’m also pleased to note that the average broader public sector employee salary has also decreased this year.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: To reiterate, in seven years Premier McGuinty has doubled the debt, tripled the sunshine list and turned Ontario into a have-not province.

Ontario families know a cut to executive salaries is never going to happen because you never keep your word. You said you would get a public sector wage freeze. You failed. You said you would streamline agencies to save money. You failed.

The Premier acts as though his job is done as soon as he has finished announcing the latest doomed restraint measure. Why do you treat spending restraint like a PR scheme, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s a lot of negativity. There’s a lot of gloom and doom on that side. I think that is grounded, in large measure, in a psychology of not being able to take a stand, not having a plan, not being able to be forthright with the people of Ontario in terms of the kind of alternatives that you want to propose.

Let me speak about yet another announcement we made this morning. The Minister of Transportation and I made an announcement to invest $8.4 billion in a new LRT line. It’s 25 kilometres—the biggest investment of its kind. It’s $8.4 billion. It’s a multi-year project.

We know that when they had the job of government, they cut all funding to public transit. So what I think Ontarians, but especially Torontonians, want to know today is: Will they respect that $8.4-billion commitment to public transit in the city of Toronto?

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Things are not nearly as rosy in Ontario as the Premier would suggest. You have doubled the debt, tripled the sunshine list and turned Ontario into a have-not province—not really something to be proud of. Every dollar Ontario families have to pay toward your debt is a dollar that’s not going to their priorities, like front-line health care.

Our Ontario PC leader has a plan to reduce spending on government waste and to give relief to families and seniors. His sunset review bill will have a committee of elected members review spending to save the programs that work, fix the ones that need fixing and get rid of the rest. You want to hand the control of this to a panel of high-priced, hand-picked consultants. Why is Premier McGuinty’s solution for waste and bloat to create more waste and bloat?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it is informative and telling that when my honourable colleague’s leader had the opportunity to speak to our budget—he was allocated a full hour—he only had 15 minutes to speak to this budget, and that consisted exclusively of a litany of criticism. I think the times and the office demand a bit more than that. At some point in time, you have got to put up—

Interjections.

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

New question?

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, my question is for the Premier. Premier McGuinty, you’ve doubled the debt, tripled the sunshine list and turned Ontario into a have-not province. The latest sunshine list of bureaucrats you pay over $100,000 a year is due to be released today. The anticipation is killing us, so tell us now: How much more did the McGuinty government cost Ontario families this year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ll have an opportunity to review the sunshine list together. As I indicated a moment ago, we have taken a number of steps in order to ensure that we bring more transparency, more accountability and more public scrutiny to government expenses, including putting in place an expansion of the sunshine law and a new law that prohibits the government from ever hiding a deficit in the future.

I think what we really want to get on to, hopefully sooner rather than later, is where that party opposite stands on all those issues that weigh heavily on the minds of Ontarians. They’re very concerned about their unwavering commitment to cut $3 billion out of their health care. They’re very concerned about their unwavering and solemn commitment to shut down full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario. They’re very concerned about where they’re going to go when it comes to water inspectors and meat inspectors. That’s part of their litany—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Sarnia–Lambton will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I think it’s really important for Ontario families to know what’s happening here. Premier McGuinty has doubled the debt, tripled the sunshine list and turned Ontario into a have-not province. No—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing keeps making reference to another member in this House. There have been other members in this House who have been named for a wide variety of reasons. I just ask that you not persist in making comments.

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Premier, no one believes that you’re going to restrain spending when the sunshine list has ballooned to 60,000 bureaucrats under your watch.

The recession has forced many seniors to put off retirement. Families have had to take second jobs and make other sacrifices. But it’s no wonder that you didn’t do anything in the budget to help them make ends meet: You’ve spent everything on bloating the bureaucracy.

How did you get to be so insensitive to Ontario families and seniors who had to weather the recession so that your bureaucrats didn’t have to?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians were disappointed that we didn’t get the support of the party opposite on our budget.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What about risk management for farmers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The risk management program, for example, is the single greatest commitment to the Ontario family farm in 30 years.

What my friends opposite don’t understand is that this will not only benefit the family living on that farm; it will also benefit and strengthen the rural economy. It will benefit and strengthen the vitality of rural education and rural health care. And more important, perhaps, than any of that, it will strengthen our continuing capacity as families all around the province to have access to the best-quality locally grown food. That starts with our risk management programs. That’s why it’s a mystery to me that the party opposite won’t support our farmers.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I think the answer just shows that it takes a special kind of insensitivity to make Ontario families and seniors pay more for bloated government that they can’t afford.

While families and seniors made sacrifices for you to keep spending and spending, life in the McGuinty government is recession-proof. Since taking office, Premier McGuinty has increased the number of assistant deputy ministers from 95 to 160. It’s your way of getting around built-in restraint rules. Instead of bureaucrats living within a salary cap, you just create new high-paid executive positions for them to fill.

What makes you think Ontario families will believe in your latest restraint measure when you have a track record of trying to get around salary caps?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s interesting, the pattern that develops in the party opposite. They tell us that we’re spending too much money, except when it comes to matters of concern in their own ridings. I just want to review some of those things so that they’re reminded of that.

The leader of the official opposition says that he wants us to invest in a development program for Flowers Canada in his riding. The MPP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke wants money to go into Highway 7 and extend it from Arnprior to Renfrew. The MPP for Carleton–Mississippi Mills wants us to improve roads around Foy Provincial Park. The MPP for Durham wants us to spend more money on broadband Internet, extended through the municipality of Clarington. The MPP for Aurora wants us to invest in the Buttonville Airport.

Why is it they want us to cease and desist on all spending except when it comes to matters specific to their ridings?

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Hot on the heels of this government’s underwhelming budget, later this morning the sunshine list will be released. As in previous years, Ontarians can expect countless public sector CEOs receiving half-million-dollar-plus salaries. These executives work in health care, in education and in energy.

Why didn’t the McGuinty government use the budget to rein in some of these outrageously excessive CEO salaries?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague the leader of the NDP. But I’m a little surprised at her characterization of the budget presented just recently in this Legislature. She said it was “much ado about nothing.”

Is that really how she chooses to describe our risk management program to support the Ontario family farm? Is that really how she chooses to describe 60,000 new post-secondary education spaces? Is that how she chooses to describe our commitment to the next 50,000 four- and five-year-olds who are going to be enrolled in full-day kindergarten? Is that how she chooses to describe our breast cancer screening program being extended to women between the ages of 30 and 49 who are at high risk?

Is that how she chooses to describe our initiative for a mental health and addictions strategy, starting with children and youth? Finally, is that how she really chooses to describe the fact that we are expanding pharmacy services for seniors and social assistance recipients?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government’s commitment to reining in public sector executives’ salaries is flimsy at best. In his budget speech, the finance minister spoke of “reducing funding for executive offices at hospitals, universities and other government agencies.” Well, that’s hardly definitive.

Rather than play around the edges, why didn’t the government come forward with a hard cap on public executive salaries? Why did he not do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the advice received from my honourable colleague, and I hope we will have her support, if not on the budget in its entirety, then certainly with respect to the particular provision which we are now discussing.

What we are putting in place is a provision that will require that funding to executive offices at our hospitals, universities and a number of other government agencies be reduced by 10%. You can’t do that and not get at salaries; that’s exactly what we’re both talking about.

I express recognition of the sentiment put forward by my colleague. I would ask her for her support of this particular provision. We’re going to cut those salaries by 10%.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what struggling Ontario families see: hydro bills going through the roof, hospitals slashing services and cutting front-line staff, the cost of post-secondary education soaring; all the while, the very people running our energy, health care and education sectors are doing very, very well.

What will it take for the Premier to realize there’s a problem here?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I say to my honourable colleague, and I would ask for her support in this regard: We are going to reduce funding for our executive offices at hospitals, universities and government agencies by 10%.

We’re also requiring of our major agencies that they deliver $200 million in efficiencies by 2013, agencies like Ontario Lottery and Gaming and the LCBO. Those are two specific provisions.

My honourable colleague also knows that we’re making efforts to reduce the size of the OPS in a way that does not compromise the quality of services that we have enhanced for the people of Ontario.

We are bringing a balanced, progressive, thoughtful, responsible approach, and I would recommend that to my honourable colleague.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. This is a fundamental question of fairness; that’s what this is. Ontario families are being squeezed for every last penny. They’re being forced to pay more to receive much less; all the while, they see CEOs cashing in on the public dime, making exorbitant salaries and raking in even more when they’re fired. How is that right?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’re very proud of the fact that the CEOs at Hydro One and OPG are making less than half of what they made when we came to office.

We are very proud of the initiatives we put in the budget that will, in fact, reduce the executive compensation packages for executives of the broader public sector. A good example of that is OLG, which has just announced several weeks ago that not only are they bringing it down; they’re reducing the number of senior executives.

The member opposite knows that these are difficult times, and we welcome her support of this. I’m just looking forward to see if, in fact, she’ll vote for this initiative in the budget when it comes to this House for a full vote at—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, and notwithstanding the fact that you’re moving back to your seat right now: The persistence of your interjections gets to be a little overwhelming. I’d just ask that you be a little more cognizant of your leader in her wanting to hear the answer.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are some recent examples of how broken the public sector executive compensation model is: The former head of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor got $300,000 after being fired; in Cambridge, the hospital CEO got $650,000 in severance; in Waterloo region, the hospital CEO got almost $750,000 for leaving. The people of Niagara, in fact, are still waiting to learn the amount a dismissed hospital CEO is going to pocket in their area.

These are all communities that have seen significant health care cuts, from staff to clinics to surgeries, while the hospital CEOs walked away with a sweetheart deal. Does the Premier really think that this is the best use of our precious health care dollars?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Every one of those communities has seen a serious increase in funding for health care, reductions in wait-lists, more long-term-care beds, better emergency treatment, more nurses and more family health teams. The leader of the third party wants to pretend that you can make the legal environment of the province and the country, the constitutional environment of the province and the country, go away. You can’t. She ought to know that. Most thoughtful people do.

When these situations happen where there are terminations, we have to rely on the goodwill of boards—who serve the province well overall, in my view—to make decisions that minimize the costs associated with this that are, frankly, beyond the control of any government, regardless of political stripe.

What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the way she characterized health care is wrong. This party has not only—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know what? New Democrats have been very clear: We believe that there needs to be a hard cap on public sector executive salaries, and we’d make sure that these sweetheart severance deals are a thing of the past.

This government doesn’t seem to take this issue seriously. The finance minister said they’re just washing their hands of that responsibility. They may claim that they are trying to tackle the problem through their strange words in the budget, but at the end of the day it’s clear this government is not prepared to rein in the sky-high salaries of their CEO friends.

When will this government finally stand up for Ontario families and actually clamp down on public sector CEO salaries?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, she talks a good game, but she couldn’t possibly do what she says. You know what? I remember a period of time a number of years ago where we were buying forests in South America and compensating hydro CEOs probably at a higher percentage based on revenues and return than we are today.

The other thing that I think the NDP has an absolute obligation to talk about is: Does that mean severance payouts and collective agreements will no longer apply? Our laws are designed to protect working people. The jurisprudence around these things protects far more people who make a lot less money. She wants to undermine that principle; we don’t. We think severance is appropriate for working men and women.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, your latest budget reveals that Ontario will receive $2.3 billion in equalization payments next year, thanks to your record of mismanagement. That’s a 142% increase over last year’s have-not-province bailout. When asked yesterday, you claimed Ontario is not a have-not province.

Minister, are you so out of touch that you don’t even recognize anymore what you’ve done to Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This year, the coming year, the people of Ontario will put in $6 billion and get $2 billion back. That is a system that doesn’t work. This year, provinces with much smaller economies than ours will get more money per capita for hospital beds, for roads, for schools than Ontario will.

This is about a formula that harms Ontario. Instead of referring to the strongest economy in North America as have-not, he ought to stand up to the federal Conservatives and say, “Fix this now.” You don’t need to take my word for it; take the word of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Take the word of the Mowat institute. Take the word of Queen’s. Stand up for Ontario. Let us undo this injustice. Help us build a better education and health—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just say to the honourable members of the opposition: Please don’t encourage them.

Members will please come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: I must have hit a nerve; I can see that. The finance minister and Premier McGuinty have done to Ontario what Harold Ballard did to the Toronto Maple Leafs: You took Ontario, Canada’s storied franchise and the leader of Confederation, and turned it into a have-not province. Fortunately, the difference between Harold Ballard and Premier McGuinty is that Ontario voters have a chance to choose change and get rid of Premier McGuinty.

When will you come to your senses, accept responsibility and apologize to Ontario families for turning Ontario into a have-not province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing I will agree on with the member opposite is that he hit a nerve, because Ontarians are proud Canadians. We’re proud of the fact that we put $50 billion in equalization over the last 10 years. What needs to be fixed is a system that takes the strongest economy in the country, the largest, most diverse, one that has a huge automotive sector, financial services and a growing sector in information technology and intellectual property—what is wrong is a situation where we have less dollars per capita for hospitals, less dollars per capita for schools, less dollars per capita for roads, less dollars per capita for all the vital public services.

Let’s stand up together for Ontario and demand, as the chamber of commerce has, that equalization be changed once and for all. Please join us in that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to remind the members from Lanark, Simcoe–Grey, Leeds–Grenville, Nepean–Carleton and Renfrew that you asked the question, and with the interjections that you were putting forth, none of you could hear the answer.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Four years ago, Premier McGuinty promised Toronto residents relief from long commutes on overcrowded buses. He promised a comprehensive light-rail network called Transit City. Last year, the government cut $4 billion from Transit City. Today, the Premier effectively killed the plan. Why did the Premier so easily capitulate to Mayor Ford and abandon his promise of a comprehensive transit plan for Toronto?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It takes a—

Interjection: A New Democrat.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I didn’t want to say that. I was going to say that it takes a particularly unique and idiosyncratic perspective to somehow interpret $8.4 billion in the largest LRT project ever in the history of this country as somehow a negative.

We are very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish working together with the city of Toronto. We’ve never lost sight of the fact that ultimately, we’re working together for the people of Ontario, but more specifically, for the people of Toronto. It’s the people of Toronto who have won today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a good thing that the Eglinton line is proceeding, but it’s been cut by 13 kilometres and delayed by four years. The 17-kilometre Finch West line has been cancelled outright and the Sheppard line is completely up in the air, dependent on uncertain private funding.

Why did the Premier so willingly abandon Transit City and sign on to a scaled-down plan that will cost twice as much per kilometre and serve 250,000 fewer people?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we’re very proud of the announcement that we were able to make this morning, together with Mayor Ford. We’re talking about, again, a 25-kilometre-long line that extends north from Kennedy all the way up to Scarborough Town Centre. It is nothing short of historic. We’re talking about 82,000 jobs. Every one of those 130 LRT cars will be built in Thunder Bay by Bombardier, benefiting the people of the north.

My colleague opposite somehow interprets it as a negative if we find a way to work with the government of the day at city hall—any city hall. I think we have a shared responsibility at Queen’s Park to find common ground, to build on that common ground and to advance a case on behalf of the people we are privileged to represent. That’s exactly what has happened here today.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, you and I have had the pleasure of sitting down with commodity groups and farmers in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who have told me the current programs are not meeting their needs. The economic impacts of volatile crop prices, among other challenges, have left them in a vulnerable situation. For that reason, my farmers were very happy to hear the announcement of risk management programs in yesterday’s budget.

Charlie Clarke, president of the Victoria Haliburton Federation of Agriculture and a local farmer who lives just south of Lindsay, said, “This is the best announcement we’ve ever had from a provincial government. This is something that farmers have lobbied for for a long time. Finally, a provincial government has listened. At least now the next generation of farmers has something to come home to.”

Minister, why couldn’t the government have introduced this type of program sooner?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do thank you for the question. This budget supports the years of hard work on the part of Ontario’s farmers with the leadership of the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition. Commodity organizations developed their own proposals—programs by farmers for farmers. These proposals built on the pilot RMP for grain and oilseed farmers, a program that was developed by farmers for farmers.

Ontario’s farm organization leaders deserve to be congratulated for a job very well done. They have worked very hard, not just for the betterment of their own sector, but also to strengthen the province’s agri-food as a whole. The federal government needs to come to the table to support our Ontario farmers—

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: Minister, I appreciate you informing the House and I appreciate all the work you did on making this happen.

Our government has worked hard in helping farmers across the province. However, there is still one thing: Ontario farmers continue to express concern that the current suite of programs is not meeting their needs, and the federal government has acknowledged this position and committed to explore other options, but they haven’t come to the table.

What more can be done to help?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Ontario farmers have told the federal government that the current suite of programs is not meeting their needs. They need predictability, bankability, stability. In an open letter to Prime Minister Harper, the ag coalition wrote, “We share a common interest in securing a sustainable future for farmers in Ontario and across Canada. But we have yet to see a tangible expression of that interest from your government in a time of great distress across rural Ontario.”

I can tell you that we have listened and we have acted, and we need support to get the federal government onside with our risk management. I ask the members from across the way to pick up the phone, call your federal cousins, and while you’re out helping them go door to door—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Oxford. The Minister of Agriculture.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Oxford will please come to order. Attorney General. Minister of Community Safety. Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Oxford, I’ve just warned you. You’re interjecting so much, you can’t even hear me.

I’d just remind the honourable members again of a statement that I delivered earlier in the week and to do everything they possibly can to focus in on issues that pertain to the province of Ontario and not issues dealing with a federal election.

New question.

WORKING FAMILIES COALITION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It looks like my colleagues opposite are all riled up to help Michael Ignatieff today.

My question is to the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d remind the honourable member of the statement I just made. I sat down and she jumped right in.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the last provincial election, the former finance minister met with the Working Families Coalition. My question for the Premier today: Do you stand by the statements made by your spokesperson Christine McMillan to the Toronto Star that there are absolutely no connections between Ontario Liberals and the Working Families Coalition?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that this was a matter of an independent, impartial, objective review. An assessment was made; a determination was made; a response was given. We believe that finalizes the matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again to the Premier: She speaks on behalf of you and your party. Public accounts revealed last year that she made over $100,000 off of the Liberal caucus research bureau. So the question is very simple: Do you stand by the statement that Christine McMillan made that there are absolutely no connections between the Ontario Liberal Party and the Working Families Coalition? I’d like an answer.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we need to get to the nub of this. My honourable colleagues opposite would like to place some constraints on freedom of speech in Ontario. When people come together and decide they want to be critical of that party and their policies, what they’ve done and what—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just think we need to be honest about this discussion. My honourable colleagues opposite are very concerned if Ontario citizens should assemble in groups, small or large, and launch criticisms directed at that party and their policies. They are unhappy with that. Well, that is a vital characteristic of a democracy and they’re going to have to get used to that. From time to time, people are going to say that they don’t like what they stand for.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member from Welland.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final warning to the member from Renfrew. The honourable member right next to you from the third party was about to get up and speak.

Member from Welland.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Why wasn’t the Ministry of Labour getting the consent of its labour inspectors before it conducted secret criminal record searches on them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Charles Sousa: First and foremost, we have a great deal of respect for our health and safety inspectors in this province. We’ve doubled them since coming to office, after massive cuts and disrespect from the Progressive Conservative government, and that was unacceptable.

There is a process that has occurred if an inspector is going to testify in a prosecution case, and that includes background checks before they appear before the court. The crown prosecutor can request criminal record checks and, as such, in this case, it’s about balancing the rights of the defendants and the rights of the inspectors.

Working with the Ministry of Government Services, who are looking into what has happened, we’re reviewing the decision made by the Grievance Settlement Board. As such, I have no further comment on the case.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Can this government assure this House that no other government employees are being subjected to surreptitious criminal record searches?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As mentioned, through the crown attorney they do request criminal checks. I am not going to comment as to what has taken place. Obviously, they occur on occasions with consent and so forth with the others involved.

I do want to, though, talk about our Ontario public servants, especially our inspectors, who have made our food, water, communities and workplaces safer. They’ve educated our children, and they keep our families safe and healthy. We have doubled the number of inspectors who are operating in our province; they do outstanding work, and we value the work of our employees. We do not want a return to the Walkerton tragedy or tainted meat scandals. We will continue to support our public servants.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, I have a constituent whose son was diagnosed with severe autism at 17 months. In February 2010, he began the intensive behavioural intervention, or IBI, program. After several months of excellent progress in the program, my constituent was informed that her son was being transitioned out of the program and into school.

My constituent fears for her son’s progress now that he has been removed from the program. She is unsure of how she can see that his needs are supported and that he continues to make progress so that he can be a productive, happy, healthy member of society.

It’s clear that kids are making progress with the IBI therapy. Will the minister tell us how we can ensure they are getting the support that they need?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for the question and his advocacy for this family, and I’m so pleased to know of the progress the constituent’s son is making.

We’ve worked hard to make sure that all Ontario children will make that progress. Since 2003, we have removed the previous government’s discriminatory age six cut-off and we’ve more than quadrupled autism investment and tripled the number of kids getting intensive behavioural intervention to over 1,400 kids, an increase of 164%.

To look for answers under the McGuinty government, we’ve committed more than $15 million to autism-related research, and we’ve increased supports in schools, training over 13,000 educators, and made transition teams available in every publicly funded school board across the province to help kids like your constituent’s son make the transition from IBI into school.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. Those investments and programs are so critical to the families. I know that our government really has made an unprecedented investment in autism therapy and research, and that is something that we should be very proud of.

The unfortunate part seems to be that more and more kids are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and the need for IBI services continues to grow. Kids who have already progressed through the IBI program or whose autism is on the less severe end of the spectrum also deserve the opportunity to reach their full potential through programs that help them develop their social skills.

I have met with many parents who have told me that their children would benefit greatly from autism therapies. Can the minister tell us what our government is doing to support children who do not currently receive therapeutic interventions but who would benefit from doing so?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: We absolutely understand that parents want to know how their children are progressing and that they are receiving services to meet their needs. We are responding to the calls from parents and establishing an independent review process that will provide advice to us on these matters, and that’s going to be operational this fall.

We listen to two groups when we make decisions: We listen to experts and we listen to parents. Parents and experts have told us that kids with autism, across the range of the spectrum, would benefit from a broader range of expanded services. That’s why we’re investing an additional $25 million annually to deliver applied behaviour analysis, or ABA-based skill-building interventions and support, that will benefit about 8,000 additional kids each year.

These new ABA therapies and services are in addition to the IBI services that are already being provided to 1,400 kids across the province.

We’re always working hard to make progress. We continue to do that important work.

TAXATION

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, as you know, an active lifestyle for our youth is crucially important. Some very talented youth in Burlington participate in a synchronized swim team. This team is composed of about 40 families; it’s a small group. It rents the city’s pool at a cost of about $90,000 a year.

Since your government’s HST, the recreational rental fees have gone up and the cost increase for these families is over $200 a year.

Why do you continue to penalize hundreds of thousands of Ontario youth and their families with your HST?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I thank the member for the question. We have one of the most comprehensive tax packages for the people of Ontario. We have provided to families about $12 billion in tax cuts and tax credits. We want to make sure that all families receive the tax credits and the tax cuts they deserve. We want to make sure that families fill out their taxes this year, including families that are getting tax credits when it comes to recreation.

At the end of the day, this is all about jobs. We want to make sure we have a stronger Ontario, and that is investing in families and businesses in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Maybe the minister needs a refresher course in basic mathematics. Let’s do the math: A $50 tax credit does not cover an additional $200 a year to each of these families. You know what? Unlike the swim team, your credit is not in sync.

Your government boasted that the HST would be revenue neutral. It is not. An additional $200 due to HST, minus the $50 tax credit, still leaves a net cost of $150 for these families. Why do you continue to penalize Ontario families with your HST?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I respectfully disagree with the member opposite. When it comes to our children, we have a children’s activity tax credit which helps families, $50 per child under the age of 16.

When we talk about a large, comprehensive tax package like the HST, I want to talk about some of the people who are supportive of this tax package—like someone who said, “The HST, which many people love to hate, is nonetheless good economic and tax policy if we want to create jobs in the province of Ontario. And you know what, it took some courage to do it.”—John Tory, CivicAction summit, February 10, 2011.

We’re committed to the people of Ontario. We will continue to keep investing. That’s $12 billion to families—

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

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The minister gave to her hand-picked applicant a secret $118,000 contract to review the benchmarking process for terminating children’s autism therapy.

Dr. Louise LaRose asserted that no psychological data from discharge assessments existed, as required by the ministry’s guidelines for autism intervention before ending a child’s IBI therapy.

Recently, the minister wrote a letter contradicting her own expert, stating that final assessments are always being done and that there is no benchmarking taking place.

If this is the case, why are so many parents reporting that benchmarks have been used to end their child’s IBI therapy, and without the required and complete discharge assessments?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m glad that the leader of the third party has raised this question in the House, because I have to say, frankly, I was very disappointed to hear that the leader of the third party was recently distributing misinformation to parents about how kids are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask you to withdraw that comment, please.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I withdraw.

The leader of the third party is releasing inaccurate information out into the field, and it’s confusing parents.

Let me be perfectly clear on this point: We have not implemented any of the proposed benchmarks for assessing progress, and all assessment decisions are clinical decisions. Every child who is being discharged from the IBI program must have a clinical assessment. We have reinforced this directive with our service providers.

This is the appropriate avenue. Our clinical experts should be making these decisions. We should not be playing politics with these important decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems to me that parents are not the confused ones; the minister is.

Parents are experiencing their kids being cut off for very suspicious reasons. The minister may choose to disbelieve her hired adviser, but she can’t possibly dispute the reports from affected families across Ontario.

Viano and Maria Ciaglia are here today with their son Luca, who has autism. IBI worked wonders for six-year-old Luca, but he’s being discharged without a final assessment. His parents paid out of pocket for Luca’s IBI while he was on the wait-list. They know that if he loses his IBI, he will begin to regress.

They are financially exhausted and they are deeply, deeply worried. If benchmarking doesn’t exist and if ministry guidelines are being followed, then why can’t children in Ontario like Luca receive therapy while they continue to benefit from it?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The leader of the third party continues to play politics with this critically important issue. Our government is one that has made historic investments, significant investments in reducing the benchmark. We’ve removed the previous government’s discriminatory age cut-off. We’ve more than quadrupled autism investments to over $186.6 million. We’ve expanded ABA supports, where 8,000 kids with ASD will benefit annually from these services who did not receive service before. We’ve tripled the number of kids getting intensive behaviour intervention and we’ve invested more than $15 million in autism-related research.

Transition teams are in place in every school across the province. We know that there is more work to do, but again, let me be perfectly clear: IBI assessments are done by way of clinical decisions. That’s the appropriate forum to make those decisions and—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Legislation was passed that will address the unique and specific transit needs of the city of Toronto. As members of this House know, on December 16, 2010, Toronto city council made a request through a motion, asking the province to designate public transit in Toronto as an essential service. The city motion stated: “Over one million Torontonians rely on the TTC to get to work, school and conduct their lives each day. The city of Toronto is simply not designed to function without an operating ... transit system.”

Can the minister tell this House the major factors for agreeing with the city’s request?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Our government respects the right of the elected city council to speak on behalf of the people of Toronto. Our response to the city of Toronto’s request has taken into account the unique circumstances of Toronto and its public transit system.

The Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, which prohibits strikes and lockouts at the TTC, passed yesterday in the House and addresses these unique circumstances. The TTC plays a critical role in the life of the city of Toronto and, indeed, in ensuring the health and safety of its people.

All parties in this House set a precedent on this issue five times unanimously. In 2008, the TTC strike began on a Friday night and was ended by the time Monday’s rush hour began. By our actions in this House, we have responded to the TTC as an essential service.

City council has stated that TTC strikes are an economic, social—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Minister, some labour activists have expressed their concern that by declaring the TTC an essential service, our government is taking away the rights of workers to freely bargain. Will the minister tell us what the legislation actually does?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me first say that our government firmly believes in the right of collective bargaining. We know that the best collective agreements are those reached at the bargaining table. The legislation does not take away or limit the right to bargain; it only prohibits strikes and lockouts.

Binding arbitration is a neutral means to resolve bargaining impasses. It’s the same basic means of resolving impasses used by our police, firefighters and hospital workers. Some 80% of those agreements don’t go to arbitration.

We value the men and women who work at the TTC. We all know that—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of the Environment: Last May, the minister told his constituents in Wellington county that if a municipality did not sign off on a wind energy application, the government would not approve the project. He later backtracked, saying the municipality must only be consulted. Then he said a letter from the municipality was as good as a consultation.

On Monday, the same minister, in media reports, said that the eco tax mess his government created will not cost $18 million, as Stewardship Ontario indicated; rather, it will cost $8 million. How can the minister expect Ontario families to believe him when the story keeps changing?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’ll tell you what story hasn’t changed in the province of Ontario: That party over there has a love affair with dirty coal-fired generation. That is a fact.

When it comes to green energy, we believe in the province of Ontario that for a proponent to want to have a green energy project, whether it’s biogas or solar or wind, they need to consult with the public first. They need to consult with the municipalities first. That is a requirement under the law.

When it comes to our ministry, we have received some 44 applications for renewable energy approvals. We have already rejected 23 of them because they have not done the required public and municipal consultation. We’ll continue to hold those companies to that new high standard, and we will take consultation from the public or the municipalities in any form that they would like to render it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the Minister of the Environment. After the Toronto Star reported Stewardship Ontario was seeking $18 million for the failed eco tax scheme, he said the numbers were wrong. When asked if it was $10 million, he said, “Nowhere near $10 million,” but now the McGuinty government has agreed to pay $8 million.

The eco tax program was botched from the start. It even cost your predecessor his job. Considering the mess the McGuinty government has made of eco taxes, again, how can Ontario families believe these kinds of numbers now?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I thought that was a bit of a meandering question, but let’s get back to green energy.

I wonder if the member still agrees with what he said, which is that coal is “both affordable and abundant,” and that “there are significant benefits.” Well, I’ll tell you, with all the children who end up going to emergency rooms in this province because of asthma, because of air pollution, and that this province owns the largest source of air pollution in North America—that source of air pollution needs to be shut down, and we will do what’s required to improve air quality, because our children are counting on it. The people who suffer are the people who are already ill, the elderly and children.

I would ask the other party opposite: Would you please get out of the 19th century and join us here in the 21st century? Let’s ensure that our children have a greener future with cleaner air to breathe. That is what’s important in this province.

Again, I say to people who have concerns about green energy that we will not make a decision unless the public and the municipalities have been consulted, and we will continue to take their feedback—

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

CONSERVATION

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. The city of Hamilton’s recent amendment to the Stoney Creek official plan to protect the Eramosa karst feeder lands from development so far hasn’t been appealed. The city of Hamilton planning staff have cautioned that the province has left the door open for potential development of the feeder lands, and these loopholes are very concerning to me. Will the Premier, right now, commit to the city of Hamilton to close those serious loopholes that leave this land open to future development?

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the Premier for giving me the opportunity to answer this question. At the same time, I want to be able to say, very genuinely, thanks to the member from Hamilton Mountain for the excellent work she has done with this.

Those lands are going to be protected. The reality is, I have never heard from the member for Hamilton East with regard to this issue, but the member from Hamilton Mountain has been very, very vocal about this issue. She has ensured that this particular government understands the sensitivity around these lands and that we do the right thing. We will continue to do the right thing, thanks to the member from Hamilton Mountain.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Last week, the minister from Hamilton Mountain said that the government absolutely intends to donate the land by the Eramosa karst to the Hamilton Conservation Authority, now that it has backed off on plans for housing there, and said, “We want to protect this land. That’s the bottom line.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing accepted a new city official plan designating the 32 hectares of mostly open field to the immediate east of this national treasure as open space. This all sounds great, but to be sure, will the minister actually responsible for the lands transfer them immediately to the Hamilton Conservation Authority, no strings attached?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It’s interesting—which is so typical of the third party. They’re after the fact. We’re working with the Hamilton Conservation Authority to arrange for a land lease or transfer of the provincially owned lands and to determine how the lands will be used and managed over the long term.

The reality is, thanks to the member from Hamilton Mountain, who has been directly involved in this, the concerns of the people of Hamilton are being heard. I want to thank that member again for her advocacy, for making sure that we understand the importance of these lands.

I am, of course, not surprised that finally the member from Hamilton East has spoken about this issue.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Two days ago, the Minister of Finance delivered the government’s budget for Ontario. In one of his opening lines, the minister said, “The 2011 budget identifies over 20 new initiatives to drive change and reform” in Ontario’s public service.

One point that stuck with me was that our government required several government agencies in the broader public sector organizations to reduce the cost of the executive offices by 10% over two years. I know that my constituents would like to know more about this and how it will contribute to balancing the budget while maintaining a high quality of education and other crucial government services.

Would the minister tell us what the government hopes to achieve by reducing executive offices by 10% over the next number of years?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I thank the member from Peterborough for asking this question. He’s absolutely right: We are moving ahead to reduce expenditures in the broader public sector. All of the organizations covered under this restraint will reduce their expenditures by 10% over a period of two years. This will help us to not only balance the budget, but more importantly, to preserve our very important services like health care and education.

The organizations covered by this initiative include the hospitals, the colleges, the universities, the LHINs, and also the community care access corporations and 21 of our largest government agencies. We are moving ahead to reduce the executive expenditures by 10% in these organizations so that we can move towards balancing the budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I know these measures will go a long way to help fight the deficit without recklessly taking a chainsaw to the crucial services Ontarians elected us to protect.

The Minister of Finance also mentioned that approximately 20 measures would help reduce costs and allow for investments in our future growth.

Constituents in Peterborough have praised our government’s move to find savings in these difficult times, and appreciate the efforts we have made over the past seven years to replace private consultants with highly skilled and efficient full-time staff.

I recall that in the 2009 budget we committed to reducing the size of the OPS by 5%, and I’m told we’re on track to achieving that goal by March 2012. Can the minister please describe for my constituents how a further reduction of 1,500 OPS employees will affect the valuable government services that millions of Ontario families and Peterborough families depend on each and every day?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member again for asking the question. We are on track to reduce our OPS by 5%. We also have a plan to reduce it by another 1,500 people in the OPS. These 1,500 employees are over and above the 5% target that we already achieved or that we are on target to achieve. When this is fully implemented, it will save us about $500 million going forward.

I also want to assure Ontarians that public services will not be impacted, as we will be doing this by attrition and also by improving the productivity and the efficiency of the public service as we move forward. We have great faith in our Ontario public service because it provides great service to all Ontarians.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Premier. “High-Risk Sex Offender to Live in City,” February 5 of this year; “Cadets to Bar Sex Offenders from Working in Organization,” February 23 of this year; “Multiple Child Molester Guilty Once Again,” March 1 of this year; and the list goes on and on and on.

Premier, earlier this week we passed second reading of Bill 163. Earlier this month, I was asked once again to be a keynote speaker at the lacrosse Ontario annual general meeting on the bill that I’m trying to bring forward regarding protection of kids in sports.

The legislation that’s being brought out in Bill 163 will have no impact on background checks for individuals in the province of Ontario to ensure that those individuals who should be working with kids are working with kids. Organizations are asking me on a regular basis to come forward to give them guidance and direction and to make sure that we, as a province, can work together.

Premier, what is it that you’re willing to do to protect our kids and those organizations in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It’s interesting; Ontario’s sex offender legislation was and is leading legislation throughout Canada. In fact, it was legislation that finally spurred the federal government to make the recent changes that they made to make sure that extended protection was granted in their areas of jurisdiction.

We’re taking further steps through this piece of legislation to make sure that there is no doubt, no question, that the protections which must be afforded to Ontarians are afforded.

I don’t know what my friend is referring to, because background checks are being undertaken. People are being checked out. Ontarians are being protected. There are, in fact, thousands of checks done every year by police throughout the province of Ontario. Those who seek to work with children must undergo extended background checks for the protection of the people of this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome back to the Legislature, here for the model Parliament, former page Myriam Faucher, a student of Algonquin secondary school. It’s a pleasure to have her back at the Legislature today.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With reference to standing order 23(f), the subject of the point of order is the increasingly frequent reflection by members on previous votes of the House. This happens most frequently during question period, and while I can see that, from time to time, opposition members have breached this standing order, the most frequent breach of the standing order is by members of the executive who, while responding to questions, would refer to votes and how particular members or caucuses voted from time to time on any number of bills passed.

I refer the Speaker to the text The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form, by Josef Redlich, volume 3, page 58:

“Another regulation having the same praiseworthy object is that a member is not allowed to speak against or reflect upon any previous determination of the House during the current session except on a motion for rescinding it. There are solid grounds for such a rule.”

I refer you to Bourinot, in this particular instance, the fourth edition, although there are other editions which have similar commentary, on page 329: “The latter part of the 19th rule of the House of Commons provides: ‘No member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.’”

I refer you, sir, to Beauchesne, and we’ll start with the fourth edition, citation 124(3), page 113: “A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the House unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.”

I refer you to Beauchesne, edition five, where at citation 319(3) it’s written, “In the House of Commons a member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself ... or to reflect upon, argue against or in any manner call in question the past acts and proceedings of the House, or to speak in abusive and disrespectful terms of

an act of Parliament.”

As well, in the most recent edition, sixth edition of Beauchesne, citation 479 on page 141: “A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the House, unless intending to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.”

The Speaker will know that standing order 18 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons contains, as the final part of that standing order, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.”

This, of course, is the same language as is used in standing order 23(

f) of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. That reads, “A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she:

“(

f) Reflects upon any previous vote of the House unless it is the member’s intention to move that it be rescinded.”

O’Brien and Bosc, second edition, at page 617: “Members may not speak against or reflect upon any decision of the House. This stems from the well-established rule which holds that a question, once put and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again.”

I then refer you, sir, to a number of rulings by the Speaker of the House of Commons. These rulings are referred to in footnote 174 on page 617 of the second edition of O’Brien and Bosc.

May 19, 1960: “Mr. Speaker: I find myself in some difficulty about this because, as I recall the practice of the House, it does not criticize its own decisions, and in effect what the honourable member is doing by raising this point as a question of privilege is reflecting on the vote which the House took yesterday with respect to the production of this document.”

October 20, 1970: There was a reference by a member, Mr. Winch, to a vote that had been taken yesterday. The Acting Speaker, Mr. Laniel, says, in part, “At this time, I think I should remind the honourable member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) that he may comment on the situation and the events that have occurred, but he may not be permitted to reflect on the vote taken by this House or any position taken by members of the House.” It’s the latter part of that that’s very specific.

And once again, further on, the Acting Speaker, Mr. Laniel, asked the honourable member from Timmins to withdraw that part of his remarks; that is the part referring or reflecting on the vote by another member or another group of members.

May 11, 1983, Acting Speaker Corbin: “Order. I must draw to the attention of the honourable member standing order 39”—as it was then—“which reads: ‘No member shall speak disrespectfully—’ And the last sentence of that paragraph reads: ‘No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.’ Therefore I would ask that the honourable member choose his words very carefully with respect to a procedure which occurred in this House at an earlier time.”

May 4, 1993: “Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Kamloops knows it is completely improper to question the motivation of a vote of an honourable member.”

April 6, 1995: “The Speaker: Colleagues, we are all aware of the traditions of the House that we do not refer in any way to a vote that has been taken in the House. I would hope that the honourable member is not going in that direction. May I gently caution the honourable member not to mention any votes, reflect on any votes, or the way members voted in the House.”

Similarly, April 6, 1995, later during that same sitting: “The Speaker: As I explained earlier, we have a tradition in the House of not referring to any votes taken in the House or how members have voted. I ask honourable members to please be cognizant of this in framing their questions and also in giving their answers.”

September 24, 1996, the Acting Speaker: “Let me remind the House that we cannot reflect on a vote previously taken in the House.”

May 11, 1999, the Deputy Speaker: “It is certainly contrary to the standing orders to reflect on a vote in the House.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You’re going to get to your theme?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Yes. I want that theme to be as strong as possible because it bolsters the argument. I want the Speaker to sense a trend as well as a theme.

Finally, on September 16, 2003: “The Speaker: The honourable member knows that the rules of the House prohibit any reflection on a vote in the House. The vote has taken place so I am afraid he is out of luck.”

I suspect that there are other references that could be made to Hansards, but I don’t believe that they’re necessary. Those references are from the House of Commons.

I put to you that the standing order is very, very clear. It is historical as a practice, as a custom, as a rule of the House. It’s been codified in the standing orders of the House of Commons and in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. I put to you that it is improper for any member to refer to another member’s vote, identifying how that member voted or, even more so, to suggest their motivation for voting in that way.

I accept that the enforcement of this standing order will require the diligence of opposition members as well as government members. But I welcome your ruling and I welcome the opportunity to exercise that same diligence. It’s my submission to you that you should find that it is improper and contrary to the standing orders to refer to votes made by any member of the House. As I say, I’m referring particularly to the frequent use of that tactic in the answers given to questions put by members of the opposition during question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on the same point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the House leader of the third party bringing forth this very valid point of order this morning.

I, too, share his concerns. We see this increasingly being used, as the member said, particularly by members of the executive council when answering questions during the period we call question period.

I can understand completely the logic of this standing order. Let me read it again. It is that you’re not allowed to reflect “upon any previous vote of the House unless it is the member’s intention to move that it be rescinded.” We can understand why, because the voting on every particular bill or motion in this House is a matter of public record, but it stands on its own as recorded in Hansard, not to be used as a tool by the members of the government to perhaps try to confuse the context associated with that vote.

That seems to be the modis operandi of members of the cabinet when they’re answering questions, to say, “And that member voted against it.” I’ve never once heard members of the cabinet stand up and say, “And that member voted for it.”

You see, the vote, as recorded in the public record, talks about the bill. It will show the vote and how each member voted on it. But when they’re doing it in the context of debate here, it is so easy to try to throw that out there in an attempt to actually confuse what may have been the intention of the member when they voted.

That’s why I think the standing order exists, or at least part of the logic, because many of those votes are portions that may have been included in a bill, maybe even an omnibus bill, where the member never, ever had the opportunity to judge the merits of that particular piece of the bill on its own, because the government chose not to deal with them on an individual basis but chose to deal with them on a collective basis. So I think the standing order exists there for very valid reasons.

I would ask, Speaker, that you would look carefully at the point of order being raised by the member from Welland and the third party House leader today, and I ask that you listen carefully as to the way that the members of the cabinet, in my opinion, take significant liberties when this standing order is being considered.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Government House leader.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this point of order today. It’s been a little while since the member for Welland has brought us up to date on his view on the standing orders, so I think it only appropriate that we take the time today to look at standing order 23(f), which reads: “In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she reflects upon any previous vote of the House unless it is the member’s intention to move that it be rescinded.”

I think in the past, this rule has often been used in order to ensure that members do not circumvent the rule about speaking of members’ attendance in the House; whether or not they attended could be reflected by how they voted on a particular issue. I’m not going to address all of the precedents, some dated far before I was born, that the member from Welland raised. I will, however, draw to your attention O’Brien, second edition, which was produced in 2009, page 617.

The member for Welland quoted from this particular text; however, he stopped when it was convenient for him. I would like to actually give a more fulsome quote from the text: “In the past, reference to prior debates of the current session were generally discouraged in order to conserve the time of the House and to prevent members from reviving a debate that had concluded, unless the remarks were relevant to the matter under discussion.” I would suggest that how people have voted in the past can be directly relevant to a matter under discussion in the House if they are raising, in fact, an issue that is being discussed in the House.

However, this is th