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

May 30, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-30 (PDF)

L047 - Thu 30 May 2013 / Jeu 30 mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 30 May 2013 Jeudi 30 mai 2013

WEARING OF UNIFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSIT FUNDING

TEACHERS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SCHOOL SAFETY

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

SENIOR CITIZENS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATERLOO AIR SHOW

BATTLE OF STONEY CREEK

MARK CREEDON

PASQUALE PALETTA

ESSEX COUNTY

STOPGAP

MARJORIE LIPKA

HIGHWAY 427 EXTENSION

AL STRIKE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(PRESUMPTIONS

FOR FIREFIGHTERS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (PRÉSOMPTIONS POUR LES POMPIERS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INJURED WORKERS’ DAY

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

INJURED WORKERS’ DAY

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

INJURED WORKERS’ DAY

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FAMILY SAFETY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

AIR QUALITY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTING EMPLOYEES’

TIPS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POURBOIRE DES EMPLOYÉS

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

VISITORS

REGULATED HEALTH

PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT (SPOUSAL EXCEPTION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS

DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES (EXCEPTION RELATIVE AU CONJOINT)

PROTECTING EMPLOYEES’

TIPS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POURBOIRE DES EMPLOYÉS

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DU PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

REGULATED HEALTH

PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT (SPOUSAL EXCEPTION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS

DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES (EXCEPTION RELATIVE AU CONJOINT)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

WEARING OF UNIFORM

Mr. Paul Miller: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: I seek unanimous consent to wear in the House later today a full War of 1812 regimental officer’s uniform.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Miller has requested unanimous consent to wear his full regalia this afternoon for statements. Do we agree? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 29, 2013, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion to apply a timetable to certain business of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s one of those very long riding names.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the Liberal-NDP programming motion regarding the scheduling of the budget bill and the government’s handouts to the NDP, which is the price of their support.

Since the Liberal-NDP alliance didn’t consult with the PC Party regarding this programming motion—and I know the member from Simcoe–Grey was very eloquent the other day in saying what had happened historically, because he is House leader—I can only assume that this is a continuation of the government’s refusal to consider any ideas or proposals from the official opposition which might differ from their own view of the world. Of course, we’ve heard that throughout the debates in the Legislature, but nevertheless we have the right to bring forward those ideas. I guess the member from Simcoe–Grey was saying to the House leader from the Liberals, “Pick up the phone and give me a call.”

Anyway, we’ve seen this pattern develop with the McGuinty-Wynne government. A few months ago we listened to the, I say, Kumbaya, feel-good throne speech that contained lots of idealistic rhetoric—little substance that is going to back it up. The budget contains much of the same, which is partially the thrust of the debate here today.

The finance minister also delivered one of those touchy-feely budget speeches that really did nothing to address the problems that are facing Ontarians, which I hear about every day in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

For a bigger picture, I think we have to say our economy has weakened under the Liberals. They have called their budget plan “a prosperous and fair Ontario.” We on this side of the Legislature would say that you can’t have the second, which would be fairness, without the first, which is prosperity, according to their title. It’s ironic, then, that over the last 10 years this government has taken Ontario further and further away from prosperity.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I know it’s early in the morning, but I’m going to give you some numbers, if you want to follow along. It’s replayed later in the day for those who want to see us in the Legislature in the reruns, which we hope some people do watch.

Let’s look at some of the numbers. Ontario’s unemployment rate is 7.7%; in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, it’s higher than that. That number is hard to wrap your head around, so I can put it another way. This morning, 600,000 men and women woke up with no jobs to go to—600,000 of our friends, neighbours, family members. They want a job. They want to be productive members of society and contributors to the economy. They’re denied that opportunity. Our world-class manufacturing sector, one of the engines powering our economy forward, it once was, has shed 300,000 jobs alone under this Liberal leadership.

Underlying these dismal statistics are some worrying trends that the government should have been addressing. Let’s talk about productivity. Ontarians have been losing ground in comparison with our neighbours to the south, making us less competitive for attracting businesses and creating jobs. Along with our lagging productivity, our labour costs have soared.

The end result of those two things together is a pretty bleak economy. It’s projected to grow a mere 1.5% this year, our third consecutive decline year over year and trailing the US. This has all added up to not only those 600,000 people who don’t have a job this morning, but we’ve become the have-not province of this Confederation. People are—understandably—asking why.

Well, there are many reasons, and I’ll go through some that I can get to in my time allotted.

Government spending: A significant part of the blame of our province’s current condition can be pinned on some deliberate choices—bad policy decisions, I say—made by this government over the past decade. My colleague from Leeds–Grenville, in his address, put it: You can’t spend your way to prosperity. We are going to see an increase in our deficit this year. They are still spending, Mr. Speaker. This is largely due to something the Liberals are very good at: their addiction to tax increases and their addiction to spending.

According to the Fraser Institute study, the Liberals plan to increase program spending by 3% this year, in 2013-14, but in last year’s budget they promised to hold spending growth to 1.1% for 2013-14. The math is not adding up. As I said, I know it’s early in the morning, but there’s a lot of math here, and it’s all about the math.

The Liberals have basically tripled the growth in 2013-14 spending from last year’s plan to the one they put forward in front of us this year. That fact should make Ontarians pretty skeptical when the government talks about its plans to eventually balance the budget. Can we believe that? Well, the math—as I said, it’s all about the math—is pretty hard to believe.

A balanced budget will only be possible if we put the brakes on growth in government spending going forward. I don’t think we can expect anything you could call restraint from a government that clearly can’t say no. The spending is up; I know they increased their spending, but I think it’s up 75% or 80% since they took office. In 10 years, government spending is up that much. It’s unsustainable, and it’s affecting the way of life in the province of Ontario for the people.

Because of these increases in program spending planned for this year, we’re going to see the deficit grow, skyrocket back up to nearly $12 billion. Okay, that wasn’t the plan, and I don’t see how that helps balance the books by the 2017-18 year that they project.

I can talk about public sector wages. The biggest share of Ontario’s government program spending goes to public sector labour costs. So naturally, you’d think that if the government was sincere in wanting to achieve fiscal balance, this is the first place they’d look for savings. But I go back to the throne speech and the appointment of cabinet: They actually increased the size of the cabinet by 25%. I think that gives you a clue to the lack of enthusiasm this government has for being frugal.

We in the Progressive Conservative caucus have called for a two-year across-the-board broader public sector legislative wage freeze, which will save $2 billion each year and begin the process of controlling government spending. Look, ladies and gentlemen, we have all got to take our share in shouldering this debt and deficit that we have in the province. The public sector also has to be part of that. A wage freeze for two years I don’t think is too much to ask at all. But Instead of taking action, the government is happy to do nothing, just let that debt and deficit grow.

As just one example, they’ve made no attempt to fix our broken arbitration system, which is impacting the province and bankrupting municipalities. You hear it constantly from municipalities, and they’re talking to the Liberals as well as talking to the Progressive Conservatives.

Another study said that public sector compensation now exceeds that of the private sector by 14%, and if you add in pensions and health benefits that a lot of people don’t enjoy, the difference can hit a breathtaking 27%. Let me tell you, the private sector out there is rebelling every day. It is just not fair. I go back again to the title of their budget: There is no way this is fair to the people—all the people—in the province of Ontario, only a select few. When we heard a couple of months ago that the sunshine list increased by 8,823 people this year, it’s clearly not hard to make the big bucks working for the government, Mr. Speaker.

Add to that the cost of the government caving in to NDP demands, which themselves add up to about $1 billion to this bill. As the saying goes: A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Instead of creating opportunities for our young people to learn skilled trades and stay in their communities, this government saddled the province with the College of Trades, which is at best a tax grab, at worst gross incompetence. It’s not a college building that’s going to help young people get into apprenticeships; it’s a tax. It’s not reforming the antiquated apprenticeship ratios which are out of line with the rest of Canada, and it’s not standing up for the trades, which is actually where the jobs are. We have a shortage of skilled tradespeople.

So it’s maintaining this artificial shortage, because if they changed the system, we would hopefully work our way, over a few years, to getting our young people into the skilled trades. Instead, I hear grandparents, when I go to anniversary parties, say, “My grandchildren are going out west, and I don’t blame them. There’s no jobs, no opportunities here.” When a government puts society in that situation, it’s a disgrace.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Tell them to come north. Tell them to come to Sudbury or Timmins.

Ms. Laurie Scott: You bet. I was up in northern Ontario last summer, and they are like, “Send us your young.” They need skilled tradespeople. We all need them in the province of Ontario. It would make it a better province. Our young people could stay. They would be adding to our economy, paying their taxes, increasing revenues for the government. Instead, we hear stories of skilled tradespeople from other countries coming to Canada because we can’t fill the positions here. It’s a shame that we are doing that to our young people.

There’s a litany of costly scandals which I’ll maybe get to later if the time allows me. The government has been wasting real money for a decade. If you say the government increased spending by 80% since they’ve taken office, I can tell you that people on the ground don’t have a better way of life. They can’t say their life is 75% better because the government is spending more money. They used our money for partisan purposes and not to help the people of Ontario. They used the taxpayers’ money to buy those seats from those power plants, Mr. Speaker, and that is not acceptable. We on this side of the House will not tolerate that.

So what has the Liberal spending bought us? Well, a mountain of debt. We’re on track now to not only doubling our debt but tripling our debt. At about $270 billion, we outclass all other provinces combined when it comes to owing people money. On a per capita basis, we even leave California in the dust. California is the most indebted state in the US. We’ve brought that up a few times, but I think it’s important for people to compare that that is the situation we are in today.

I’ll repeat a statistic which we keep repeating because we want to educate the people about the crisis we are in in the province of Ontario: A baby born today owes $20,000 as his or her share of debt, a number that has doubled during the Liberals’ time in office. It’s unconscionable. We have to do better for the province of Ontario. But $20,000 is what a baby born today has as a debt. So we carry the highest debt in our province’s history. Within the next couple of years, we’re looking at $300 billion in accumulated debt.

There has been a lot of talk about bond rating in the last few days. When spending outpaces our ability to pay, there are real consequences. Because the government has piled on more debt and has totally lacked a credible plan for paying it down, both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s questioned and downgraded Ontario’s rating last year.

You even heard the former finance minister from the Liberal government, Dwight Duncan, mention that a couple of days ago when he spoke to small businesses. He’s pretty concerned that there’s going to be a downgrading, and that means interest rates go up and we pay more on the debt and deficit.

Instead of showing investors and entrepreneurs that our province is a solid, stable place to do business, and wants to create jobs and wealth, we don’t project that. We’re not attracting them. They’re not coming into the province of Ontario saying, “Hey, you guys are running a good ship. We want to come and invest here. You’ve got a great workforce.” They’re not saying that. We’re going to be like Greece, and you don’t see a lot of businesses flourishing in Greece right at the moment.

Another key point is that borrowing money is not free. Spending beyond our means actually reduces our ability to pay for things we care about. When we say that the third-largest budget item is servicing our debt—just the interest alone is $11 billion—we could have paid for education, for health care, for helping those older parents who have disabled adults at home. We’ve heard many of those stories that break your heart, because there’s nowhere for them to go, as their parents age, for the care they need and to be watched so they don’t harm themselves.

Infrastructure that’s badly needed across the province—again, $11 billion has gone down the drain because of mismanagement and servicing our debt. It’s a shame, as I said, that we cannot manage our books and invest in things we all care about: health care, education, infrastructure, the many programs that are in jeopardy because taxpayers’ dollars are servicing debt from a mismanaged government.

We can talk about the Drummond report. Economists like Don Drummond have told the government it needs to get its spending under control. The Liberal government hired Mr. Drummond to give us the economist’s point of view. He came up with some pretty clear and forceful recommendations; namely, cut spending and stick to a strict debt-reduction plan. He made it clear that these aren’t half measures; you had to do them all. Instead of following his prescription, the government has only attempted maybe 60%—you can guess that.

That’s 60% of his recommendations, when he said, “You’ve got to stick to this plan or you’re not going to get your debt and deficit under control.” They didn’t take that seriously.

The longer we wait to tackle the program and this problem of overspending, the more the reality is going to hurt when we finally have to face it. As I said, we don’t want to be Greece. We don’t want to head down that path. That’s the path we’re on. I say to you: Listen up over there. You can call us partisan over here, but we are speaking for our constituents. We hear every day about their problems out there, about their concerns. But when mutual parties, such as Don Drummond, give you a report, which you asked him to give, and you don’t follow those instructions, we are in trouble.

I want to talk a little bit about some issues from my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Health care and physiotherapy have been a hot topic of late. The budget makes this worse. A perfect example is what this budget will do to physiotherapy services for seniors across Ontario. The health minister can spin a wonderful web of how this is not going to impact physiotherapy treatments, mainly for seniors, but the facts simply don’t support that.

In the 2012-13 fiscal year, over $200 million was spent for OHIP-funded physiotherapy. The current budget reduces this funding to $156 million, which includes $20 million of exercise classes, which are not physiotherapy. OHIP-funded physiotherapy hasn’t cost $156 million for about three years. The physiotherapy funding in long-term care is going to be cut from $110 million to $58.5 million. In retirement homes, the funding will be reduced to almost nothing, and only bedridden and acute residents will qualify for a CCAC visit; the rest will be expected to leave the home in order to access services.

The in-home therapy services currently provided by the designated physiotherapy centres will end, and those residents will have to access their physio through the community care access centre.

Now, it’s widely accepted among physiotherapists that CCACs have a cost per home treatment of approximately $120,

whereas the designated physiotherapy centre members have a cost of $12.20 billed to OHIP. Those figures alone—what are you doing? The math does not make sense. The physiotherapy file is undergoing an extremely detrimental overhaul that will hurt many of our most vulnerable citizens. To try and portray this as an improvement in services and an increase in funding is disrespectful to the people of Ontario. To think that they can sham the people when the math doesn’t add up. You can talk to the physiotherapist themselves, and I believe they are coming to Queen’s Park next week.

I have so many topics to talk to. Green energy, the McGuinty-Wynne government’s obsessiveness with these ideologically based green energy initiatives, has created chaos. As a result of these subsidies for wind and solar projects, we’ve seen our energy costs spiral out of control for individuals, businesses, community organizations. I have a Legion that comes to me—and Legions have a hard time keeping the doors open, but they are foundations in our communities. I have about 16 of them throughout my riding. They are contributors to my community which I cannot praise enough.

One told me their hydro bill was $4,000 a month. How does a community organization that has a hydro bill of $4,000 a month survive? Its days can be numbered, because that’s not going to be an unusual story. It’s excessive. I think most people’s hydro bills—and I’ve said this many times: They have had to leave homes in my riding. People who are on fixed incomes just cannot handle the increase in this essential service.

When this Green Energy Act was thought up—sure, we all want green energy, but at what cost? Putting people out of their houses? Shutting down community organizations? Shutting down businesses? And we haven’t got any more green energy. It has cost us at least $1 billion more because we keep having to pay the states or the provinces to take our water power, which is green energy. So that has been a failed energy plan that we’d like you to put a moratorium on, abandon. It’s not working. It’s putting businesses out of business, and it’s putting people out of their homes.

I can talk a lot about horse racing and ending the Slots at Racetracks Program without warning. That has created more job losses in rural Ontario. The Minister of Rural Affairs gets up the other day and says, “You can support the horse racing industry by going to the races.” Well, I can tell you, at Kawartha Downs, they used to have 100 races. Now they have 20. We’re supposed to be celebrating that they did a great thing for the horse racing industry. I can tell you, they’re not going to be employing the same number of people they did when they actually ran 100 races throughout the year. Now they’re at 20 races. It’s just beyond comprehension.

Mr. Todd Smith: Disgusting.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is disgusting. I will mention that they can have the blood on their hands for those 13,000 horses that are going to have to be euthanized because this government just decided that the Slots at Racetracks Program will end, and those people can just suffer in rural Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’m advised we’ll move into further debate.

M me France Gélinas: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear what you just said.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Because of the substantive motion, it’s not questions and comments; it’s further debate.

M me France Gélinas: I’m ready for further debate, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Okay.

M me France Gélinas: Actually, before I go into my debate, I’d like to echo some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker. I too have a horse racing track in my riding. I too am seeing the devastating impact of the decision that this government has made. We used to have, I would say, 80 race days at Sudbury Downs; we are down to 20. We used to have a purse of $50,000; we’re now down to $20,000. I will let you do the math, Mr. Speaker. The cost of feeding a horse and training a horse has not gone down. Like everything else in life, it keeps going up.

But the purse money available to them has been going drastically down. So yes, some of the decisions that have been made by this government are hurting rural Ontario and are hurting northern Ontario.

Another thing that she mentioned was the changes to physiotherapy. There is a date coming: August 1. On August 1, tens of thousands of patients of physiotherapists are going to be discharged to nothing. We have no idea what’s going to happen on August 2. So the comments that she brought forward are valid, except that they have nothing to do with the budget. Whether we pass the budget or not, those decisions have been made. Those decisions are happening.

What New Democrats are saying is that we have a document in front of us right now. We have a budget for the fiscal year 2013-14. Let’s roll up our sleeves, and let’s make this work for the people of Ontario. Let’s get results for the people of Ontario that we can all be proud of.

When the House was prorogued last year, New Democrats decided to use that time to listen to the people of Ontario. We opened up the lines of communication. We were back in our ridings. We did what New Democrats always do: connect with people, listen to them, try to bring solutions, try to help out, or at least get out of the way of a good idea that is moving forward.

What did people tell us? They told us that the home care system was broken. It wasn’t working for them. The wait times were too long. What did New Democrats do? We brought forward the idea that everyone in Ontario, no matter where they live, should have access to home care within five days. In some areas of the province this is going to be fairly easy to do. In other areas of the province—maybe not in Beaches–East York, but certainly in Algoma–Manitoulin and in Nickel Belt—it will require quite a bit of work. In some of the little communities that we serve, the wait times are quite long.

So let’s bring a measure of equity into access to home care services. Let’s make it so that everybody in Ontario, no matter where they live, will have access within five days. So we put that out there.

We continued to talk to the people of the province, and the people of the province asked us, “How could it be that mega changes have been done to the auto insurance industry, yet our bills keep going up and up and up? How could it be that we now don’t have the same kind of coverage that we used to have, don’t have the same kinds of benefits that we used to have? How can it be that the profits for the insurance company went skyrocketing in the billions of dollars, yet our bills for auto insurance keep going up?”

You have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that auto insurance is not like any other good or service in the province. As opposed to every other good or service, where you decide if you want to buy something or you don’t, and then the forces of the market kind of work to bring prices down and competition, there’s none of this in auto insurance because in auto insurance, the government tells you, “You have to buy this product.” Whether you want to, whether you can afford it, whether you think it’s fair, whether you can get a good price, the government tells you, “If you want to drive in Ontario, you will buy this product, and you will buy it at the price that they tell you to buy it at.”

This is not working for the people of Ontario. This product’s price keeps going up and up and up, and the services we get out of them were adjusted downward dramatically. What did New Democrats do with that information? They decided that the savings that had been planned through those mega changes in auto insurance were to be passed on. They were to be passed down to the consumers, to you and I, to everybody, to the nine million people in Ontario who drive. Those savings were supposed to be passed down to us, but they were not.

So we put forward that idea, to roll back by 15% the cost of auto insurance because this pretty much equates the savings that the last series of regulations had brought forward.

We continued to talk and listen, mainly listen, to the people of Ontario. Everywhere we went, like the member said before, they were telling us that the young people in their households had a hard time finding jobs, that some of them had huge debts from having gone to post-secondary education. They were well educated, they were eager, they were full of energy, they wanted to work—and they had no work.

There is work out there in our province. Hell, I come from Nickel Belt, where right now the mining industry is doing pretty well, where there are lots of jobs. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? They want somebody with experience, so for the new tradesperson starting, for the young person out of school full of energy and eager to work and put their skills, it’s hard for them to get that first job. So we put forward this idea to have a jobs creation strategy targeted at youth, targeted at those young people full of hope and energy who want to work. We put it out there.

We also put out there a way to pay for all of those ideas. The five-day home care guarantee came at a cost of $30 million. That $30 million did not have to come by making the deficit bigger; that $30 million could have easily been found by, first of all, putting a cap on CEO salaries. You know, we don’t ask CEOs to work for minimum wage or anything like this. We ask them to be capped at no higher than twice the salary of our Premier. Our Premier has a pretty big responsibility. She manages a budget of billions of dollars; she looks after 13 million people.

So we said, “Well, CEO of health care agency, you’re allowed to make twice that amount but then be capped.” The money we’d have recouped would have helped to pay for the five-day home care guarantee.

We also thought that there were economies that could have been done. There have been some mega changes within—it’s called CCAC, community care access centre. That’s the name of an agency that looks after our home care services, and we thought that there were economies to be done there, just by changing the way—and the Association of Community Care Access Centres agreed with us. So we had put forward a balanced way. Not only did we say we want an investment of $30 million in home care to bring equity of access to all Ontarians, but we also said how you’re going to pay for it without bringing Ontario further debt, without bringing a deficit to our budget.

When it came to auto insurance, that came without any cost to the government because right now, as you know, you don’t pay the government for auto insurance; you pay an insurance company, and the insurance company—so that was cost-neutral. And then, when it came to the youth employment strategy, it was coming targeted at specific jobs. So what we had brought forward was something that did not increase the deficit, did not add to the debt, but was going to deliver real results for the people of Ontario, for the people who needed it the most.

Are there other issues that need to be looked at? Absolutely. Absolutely. The previous member talked about a series of them, and I would say we would agree. But those are the ideas that we had put forward.

And there is another what I would call elephant in the room. It is a fair-sized one: $1.3 billion. That buys you a few hours of home care when most home care workers don’t make 15 bucks an hour. There’s a $1.3-billion elephant in this room, and that $1.3 billion is a new tax credit coming to big corporations so that big corporations, when they bring their fancy friends to see—well, the Leafs are not playing any more—we all know why—but they will play again.

If you bring them to a hockey game or if you go to a fancy dinner, you could expense those, and that will mean $1.3 billion of taxes that the government of Ontario presently collects—we’re not going to collect that anymore. Well, New Democrats thought that everybody should contribute their fair share. People who are able to pay for box tickets at the Leafs and fancy restaurants and all the rest of it that goes on in the corporate world that I can only dream of—if you can afford box tickets, you can probably afford to pay the taxes on them.

If you can afford the fancy dinners and the expensive wine and everything else, you can probably afford to pay your taxes way better than the people on minimum wage who have to pay HST on everything that they buy.

But no, the Liberals listened to some of our ideas. They listened on home care—kind of; they listened on a youth strategy; and they listened on the 15%. But for reasons unknown to me, they didn’t listen to the other side of what the New Democrats have put forward, the side that would make sure that we don’t go further in deficit and the side that would make sure that we don’t grow the debt.

New Democrats are socially progressive but are fiscally responsible. We fully understand that you cannot spend your way out of the mess that they have created. We fully understand that you have to have a balanced budget. We do this in our own lives; the government has to do the same. This is the plan we have come forward with.

The budget came, and the big three that we had put forward were there, front and centre, in the budget. The budget talks about home care, the budget talks about auto insurance and the budget talks about job creation for youth.

So we did what New Democrats always do. We opened up the lines of communication again, and went to Ontarians and asked them what they thought about the budget. They had told us that this was important, and it is now in the budget. Are they happy about it? We had done the same thing last year. Last year, when we went out with the budget, the comments were coming in fast and furious. They liked this. They didn’t like this. They wanted that changed.

This year the comments came in as fast and as furious, as they did last year, but people were not really talking about the budget that much. They were telling us that they don’t trust the Liberals. They were telling us that it doesn’t matter that what’s in the budget looks pretty good—they do want the home care, they do want the 15% reduction in auto insurance and they do want job creation—but they were saying that what they were promising us is not worth the paper it’s written on. They lost faith. They lost confidence.

I can’t say that I blame them. I mean, I’m the health critic. I was there when all of the dirty money from eHealth was exposed for everyone to see. It was disgusting, Mr. Speaker: $1 billion worth of disgusting. This is what eHealth was all about. We saw well-connected Liberal insiders making money hand over fist and delivering nothing in return.

Then they saw Ornge. Ornge was just as disgusting. At Ornge, we saw people paid $1.4 million a year. We saw a shambles of for-profit companies helping themselves to taxpayers’ money as if it was their own with a big Liberal lawyer at the front of the parade so that nobody looks at what’s behind. That shakes people’s confidence quite a bit.

Then came the gas plants. The gas plants were kind of the nail in the coffin, weren’t they? Here again, you see decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars made by the Liberal government for the Liberal government, not for the people of Ontario. But they stick us with the bill. They use that money as if it was their own to help their own party and they stick us, as in all of us, with the bill. So we opened up the lines of communication, talked to Ontarians, and they told us that they had lost faith. What did we do? We did what we always do. We rolled up our sleeves and asked, “How do we bring confidence back?”

One of the two that we brought forward was a Financial Accountability Office. The Financial Accountability Officer—the name is pretty well self-explanatory—will be an officer of this Legislature, which is fancy words to mean people who report directly to all of us. They don’t report to the party in power; they report to every single MPP. They report to the House. This will be an officer of this Legislature who will look at, basically, the expenses before they are made.

If you think that a promise—which is what a budget is; a budget is a promise to do something—looks like we don’t have the money to pay for this, or they’re not sure of the way that the money’s going to be funnelled will actually give us results, you call the Financial Accountability Officer and you ask him or her to have a look.

We have some of those officers right now for the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor General is a well-known one. The Auditor General comes with credibility. He knows his way around a balance sheet and a financial book, and he looks at value for money. He looks in the past. The decisions that were made, did those decisions bring us value for money? He is credible. He brings good recommendations forward, and he directs changes.

The Financial Accountability Office will be sort of a similar idea, but think of it as an Auditor General for the future. That is, you don’t do an audit of what has already been done; you look at the promises that are made for the future.

Putting something like this in place is one step to help regain that trust in the government, because democracy may not be a perfect way of government, but it is the best way that we have found so far. If people lose trust in their government, if they lose trust in our democracy, I have no idea what we’re going to change this for, because this is as good as it comes.

There’s an impetus on each and every one of us to make sure that the people of Ontario can trust their government, can trust what we represent. You can only do this when, like New Democrats, you roll up your sleeves, you look at the problem in front of you and you suggest solutions to make things better. This is what we have done.

Is this budget perfect? Absolutely not. Is this an NDP budget? Absolutely not. You still see austerity in there. I’ve had it up to here with the austerity agenda. But in the situation we have now, it was tangible results that we delivered and brought back a measure of confidence.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see you this morning. It’s going to be a steamy one in the Quinte area and across the province, that’s for sure: 30 degrees today—long overdue.

Listen, I don’t quite know how to describe what I just heard for the last 20 minutes from the member of the third party. Here we are debating the programming motion—another year, another programming motion. This one has a little less drama in it, though, than last year’s programming motion, in spite of the protests that we’ve heard from the members of the third party, specifically the leader of the third party. She tried to make a little bit of righteous indignation at times yesterday during question period, but we know that it’s a done deal, that her caucus is going to support the upcoming budget.

Yesterday, we voted on the budget. Our party was the only party to vote against the budget, for a myriad of different reasons, but the biggest reason was the reason that the member of the third party just mentioned moments ago, and that’s trust. We have no trust in this government anymore. The member of the third party just said she had no trust as well, but they’re rolling up their sleeves in an effort to do the best they can for the people of Ontario with a government that they don’t trust. That’s the problem and that’s why we voted against this budget.

Quite simply, the third party has given up their duties as an opposition party. They really have. They’ve become the excuse for keeping the Liberals in power. The whitewash to cover the multitude of scandals, which we’ve mentioned throughout the morning already—it’s only 9:45 and we’ve mentioned many, many scandals that have cost us hundreds of millions and billions of dollars as a matter of fact. Every new cost that comes out of these scandals—we’re about to get a couple of hundred million dollars more, I’m sure, on the Oakville scandal in August when the Auditor General reports on that issue.

It’s going to come with a big orange NDP seal of approval on it. We know it’s going to cost up to $1 billion. It’s going to cost close to $1 billion. For some reason, the third party forgets the fact that we can’t trust this government.

The member of the third party talked moments ago about auto insurance and the fact that she can’t trust the government, but they agree with the fact that the government says they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do and lower the cost of insurance. Well, over the last week we’ve seen the insurance rates go up again. It seems to me that it’s the height of hypocrisy, really, to come into this chamber every day and berate the government for being a scandal-ridden—yes, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: I withdraw.

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m not exactly sure—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: Okay. I’ll continue on.

It just seems to me a bit unrealistic for the party to come in here every day—it’s the third party I’m speaking of—and continue to hammer away at the government for being a scandal-ridden, elitist government and incompetent government, and then they vote after question period to keep them in power. It doesn’t make sense to me. The funniest thing about this is—the member who just spoke: I have a lot of respect for her. She speaks with some degree of intelligence on many different issues. I hear her in the Legislature speaking on different issues.

I hear her outside the Legislature at different events that we’re at. She often speaks about the fact that we just can’t trust this government anymore. So why are we continuing to support this government? Why are we continuing to believe the promises that they’re making when time after time after time they break those promises over and over again?

When they were first elected in 2003, it seemed like it was minutes after they were elected that they broke the promise and brought in the health premium that was going to save our health care system. Everybody remembers when the member from Ottawa South stood in front of that camera and said, “We will not raise taxes.” But then he made his case, as he often does. He talks about the fact that we need to protect our health care system, that we need to make sure that it’s strong and every tax dollar that we bring in from this health premium is going to go to save our health care system.

The health premium, everybody knows, was a tax, and that money doesn’t go to protect our health care system; it goes into the general reserves and it gets wasted on things like a power plant scandal to save five Liberal seats in the GTA.

So now we’ve had the interesting debate over the auto insurance, as I mentioned. The NDP tells the government that they want a 15% reduction in auto insurance premiums. Nobody really knows where the 15% number came from. It just seems to have come out of the sky.

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: There it is. Mr. O’Toole just pulled it out of the air. It does seem, though, like it was pulled out of the clear, blue sky. They asked for it, and this government, as desperate as it is to stay in power, said, “Yes, sure, we’ll do the 15% off auto insurance. We’ll do that. We’ll do whatever you say as long as you support us so that we can stay in power.” That’s what the people in my riding are saying. That’s what anybody who knows about the auto insurance file is saying as well. We can’t do that. We can’t accomplish it.

We can go in there and start to make the changes, and our member from Elgin–Middlesex–London has done a fantastic job at breaking down the auto insurance file, figuring out the ways that we can find savings in that file, like the anti-fraud task force, and other areas—reducing the backlog.

That’s the thing with the auto insurance file: There’s this huge backlog of 60,000 cases out there. The government has taken a few steps over the past couple of years to lower auto insurance premiums. We just haven’t seen those become a reality yet, and that’s because that backlog exists. The cases haven’t made their way through the system that’s eventually going to result in some lower premiums for our drivers across the province.

We all want lower auto insurance premiums, no matter which party we’re in. But the fact that the NDP said, “We need 15% off,” and the government just said, “Yeah, we’ll do it,” and they trust them that this is going to happen when we know it can’t really happen—it’s hard to determine, Mr. Speaker, whether the third party is a bit naive or just ignorant on what’s happening here with this budget and this budget motion. You know, there are some very distinguished members of the third party and the veteran member who just spoke up. They’ve been sitting here on the NDP benches through governments of all stripes.

Surely, really, they could have seen this coming, especially what’s happening on the auto insurance file.

I believe that there are a number of members of the caucus—and I know there are members of that caucus over there—who are hearing the same things from their constituents that I’ve been hearing from mine. And my constituents are saying loud and clear that it’s time for a change in the government of Ontario, and I know there are members over there who are hearing the same thing, because I talk to their constituents as well.

As the small business critic I get out there across the province—I’m in lots of other ridings—and speak to people in Brantford and I speak to people in London and I speak to people all over the province. They’re frustrated with the fact that this government continues to be the government of Ontario, that the third party continues to prop them up. We know that this government can’t be trusted. So I know they’re hearing the same things.

I really wish that they would have released the findings of their 1-800 “Call Andrea” number. I would love to know what the responses actually were on that website. I don’t know if we could get them to release those findings or not, but I think it would be interesting to actually see how many people out there that responded to the website and responded to the 1-800 number actually believe that this government deserves to remain in power, or if that was even a question that they asked.

Anyway, another budget deal has gone south, so now we’re subjected to this daily ritual of the leader of the third party, who’s normally quite a smart politician, standing up and protesting that she trusted the Premier. She trusted the Premier—this is what’s going to happen—in this budget deal and she never expected to be double-crossed. You can almost see the theme evolving here, and we’ve just had the vote on the budget motion yesterday. Apparently every other time this government went back on a promise over the last 10 years, it wasn’t enough evidence for the third party that this was going to happen again.

Perhaps I shouldn’t place sole blame for this at the feet of the leader of the third party, because I’ve heard here in the halls at Queen’s Park that there were a number of members of the third party who actually wanted to vote no on this budget. They actually wanted to vote no because the trust is gone. They wanted to prevent this government from wasting one more dollar, and apparently, from what I understand, their voices were ignored. Why were their voices ignored, Mr. Speaker, within their own caucus? I think it’s an important question to ask.

Why, if so many members of their caucus were willing to do their jobs as members of the opposition, did the leader of the third party decide to put a New Democratic seal of approval on the actions of this government? Well, it’s because there are a lot of outside interests that are tapping them on the shoulder. People like Sid Ryan and Smokey Thomas and others that are saying that—it’s almost kind of scary that these big guys—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You know so little. You know so little.

Mr. Todd Smith: Oh, is that right? I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I mean, the deputy leader actually stood up in the House and read the comments over and over again in the Legislature. Time after time—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m sure it had to be boring a hole through the hearts of those members on the third side. But big labour is actually the one that’s running the third party right now. They’re the ones that are giving them their marching orders whether or not they should support a budget or not. I think, frankly speaking, Mr. Speaker, it’s kind of scary to the people of Ontario who are paying the tax dollars that these outside interests are actually running this place. Frankly, they’ve shown that it doesn’t matter who they sell down the river as long as those marching orders are followed.

You can talk to the people in the harness racing industry. I know that they support the harness racing industry—at least they want to stand up for the harness racing industry; they really do, in their heart of hearts. They stand up here every day and they talk about the fact that the harness racing jobs are so important. But there’s this tap on the shoulder saying, “I’m sorry, you can’t support that harness racing industry. We won’t allow that to happen.”

There are members here who have people in northern Ontario, and they rely on the Ontario Northland transportation. They rely on that, but again, they’ve had this tap on their shoulder telling them that, “No, you can’t stand up for your constituents.”

Last year in the budget process, they sat on their hands in the third party and didn’t stand up for their constituents. This year, with this budget, they’re actually supporting this scandal-plagued government. It’s quite sad, actually.

You had members whose ridings benefited from harness racing. The member from Nickel Belt just stood up moments ago and talked about the fact that she used to have 80 race days in her riding. The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock just stood up prior to her and said that she used to have 100 in Peterborough at Kawartha Downs. We have 20 now in Nickel Belt; we have 20 now in Kawartha Downs in the Peterborough area. Unfortunately for the harness racing industry, there is only one party that stood up for them in this Legislature—really stood up for them when the rubber hit the road.

It was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The facts are simple. All you have to do is go back and look at the voting record. It’s quite simple: There’s one party that’s standing up for harness racing. There’s actually one party in the Legislature that’s standing up for Ontario Northland. It’s the PC Party. It’s quite sad.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would like to bring the House to order. So if I could say to the member from Timmins–James Bay: Order, please.

Carry on.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But I’m trying to protect him about Santa Claus.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s kind of hard to get through question period every day, Mr. Speaker. And sometimes it’s hard to get through these debates, because I know the NDP really do want to stand up for their constituents; they really do. But there’s this big finger tapping them on the shoulder telling them that they just can’t do it.

Interjection: And it isn’t Santa Claus.

Mr. Todd Smith: No, and it’s not Santa Claus.

To the budget motion: Quite simply, Dwight Duncan, the former finance minister, was one of the most disastrous finance ministers that we’ve ever had in the province. I think we can safely say that. Under his watch, we saw the province nearly double its debt. We posted all-time record-high deficits. Billions had to be taken out of the treasury year after year to cover up scandal after scandal.

On Tuesday of this week, the former member for Windsor–Tecumseh spoke to the Economic Club of Canada. He actually said that the credit rating agencies would have stern words for the government about this budget that the NDP just supported. This is a guy who presided over three credit downgrades—more than any finance minister in recent memory.

Think of how low that bar actually is to get over; this government somehow failed to get over it. A billion dollars in new spending, and a lot of it comes from the NDP’s support and the promises that were made. We’ll see if they actually become reality; $3.6 billion in new spending overall in this budget, and this at a time when the deficit is actually going up, not down.

By 2015, Ontario’s debt will be over $300 billion. In the last three years alone, this government has added 122,000 public sector jobs to the payroll, or almost half of the 300,000 that they’ve added since taking office, while 300,000 manufacturing jobs have left the province, for a number of different reasons: the sky-high green energy prices and the global adjustment that now appears on their hydro bills, and the thicket of red tape that exists in the province.

To say the very least, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Finance get up and talk about the jobs added since the height of the recession, but we simply don’t believe them. We don’t. As long as the government keeps hiring people, then you’ll keep adding jobs—there’s no question about that—but you’ll keep shrinking the tax base because you’re adding to the public sector jobs and we’re not creating private sector jobs in Ontario.

So the question is: Do we have a real deficit-cutting strategy in this budget? The answer, quite simply, is no. Do we have a debt-reduction strategy in this budget? The answer is no. You can look at the tables for 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and they’re blank. There’s just nothing there. Do we have even the smallest symbol of acknowledgement that these things are priorities for the government? No, we don’t.

We got news yesterday that the Bank of Canada is actually looking to raise interest rates in 2014, which could be disastrous for our province. This means that the Bank of Canada basically just called this government’s bluff. A 1% increase in interest rates is going to cost us $500 million; that’s a half-billion dollars. It’s going to increase the costs for us to borrow money, and we’re borrowing money at record speed in Ontario.

The debt clock is ringing up by $1.8 million every hour that passes, and we’re racking up on the actual debt and interest on that debt. In the budget, it clearly says we’re paying almost $12 billion this year to service the debt and interest payments. In two years’ time, we’ll be paying $14.5 billion to service our debt in Ontario.

What Ontario really needed was a serious budget to deal with these problems. What Ontario needs now is a serious Premier and a serious government to deal with these problems, not a government that believes the solution to every new problem is a new tax, which we’re now seeing with the Metrolinx project. The Premier’s stance on that is to bring in more taxes when we have record revenue generation in the province right now because of the two largest tax increases this province has ever seen, under this Liberal government: the health premium, which I alluded to earlier; and, of course, the HST.

Government revenue is up more than $30 billion over the last decade. We’re taking in more money than we ever have before, and we can’t find $2 billion—a mere 2% of the annual budget—to pay for transit. Sometimes in government you have to make the tough decisions. You have to start to make difficult decisions. The easy decision for this Premier—this new Premier of Ontario—was to cozy up to the side that was going to allow her to rack up the credit card total even further. That was the easy thing for her to do to stay in power, and you have a willing partner because everybody knows they love to spend money too.

Sometimes you have to tighten things up. You have to make the tough decisions. Ontarians do demand more from their leaders. Now my friends in the third party are going to get up, they’re going to look into the camera, and they’re going to say—because they’ve been saying it for the last couple of days—that all the Tories know how to say is no.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s right.

Mr. Todd Smith: To them, I say, “Darn right!” Darn right, we’re going to continue to say no. We’re going to say no to passing on record debt to my two daughters in Prince Edward–Hastings. We’re going to say no to increasing the debt without a plan to deal with it. We’re going to say no to propping up a government so scandal-plagued that it regularly blows $1 billion for its own partisan political purposes. I say no because there’s no price high enough that that government will be able to buy my support.

That, my colleagues, is something that you can’t say in the third party, despite the fact that you know that you should be saying no to this government. You’ve got that big hand on your shoulder telling you, “No, do what’s best for us, not what’s best for the people of Ontario.” That’s why we’re saying no.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Again, it’s a pleasure to rise today and to speak to this programming motion. You know, this motion looks to speed up the passage of the budget, a budget that will add to our debt and do little to assist in the jobs crisis in Ontario; as well as establish a Financial Accountability Office, which was an item on the NDP’s ransom list.

I’d like to take a few minutes and talk about the harm that the Liberal overspending has caused the province and the potential impacts of the Liberal-NDP coalition coming together to avoid action on our disastrous debt. At a time when we should be doing all we can to reduce the debt and to lighten the load that our children will be forced to carry, this budget actually increases spending by $3.6 billion. If any one of us here has been in business before, we know that you cannot stay in business if your expenditures exceed your revenue.

Well, this government, Speaker, since 2003 has increased the debt—that’s the accumulated debt from Confederation. When they came into power in 2003, the debt for Ontario was $125 billion. Today, just 10 short years later, that debt has increased from $125 billion to almost $300 billion, an increase of around 240%—an increase. How can any business stay successful and stay in business—how can this government, how can this province stay competitive and stay in business with a global economy when in fact we’re faced with rising debt continually?

As my colleagues pointed out this morning, with the interest rates at an all-time low but threatening to increase by 2014, we’re going to have very serious problems. An increase of 1%—just 1%—in the interest rates will mean that Ontarians will have to pay an additional $500 million in interest payments, and we get nothing for it. We don’t even get a hug for that. They continually add to our debt. If we take a look at it, every child that’s born either at the Leamington District Memorial Hospital, in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, or the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, also in my riding, will have on their backs a $20,000 debt load from this province.

Currently, we have 600,000 men and women in this province who don’t have a job. The budget does nothing to help give them a brighter future. Every year, we toss away $11 billion just to service the debt, as I was talking about earlier. If there was a ministry of debt retirement, that ministry would be the third-largest ministry in this provincial government; health being number one, education being number two. It’s awful when you take a look and you see what kind of money we are just losing continually. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs.

We look at the track record. I’m a firm believer that past performance is an indication of future performance. I look at the budget right now—we were accused of not even looking at the budget. What would make anyone think that this year—this year of all years—would be any different than the other 10 years before, when in fact all they did was add, add, add to the debt and deficit of this wonderful province that we are struggling to hold on to? We don’t want to become another Greece; we don’t want to be called Ontariopolis. Speaker, we want to remain a leader in Canada today as the number one province, not a bottom-feeder, and that’s really where we’re at right now.

You look at the scandals—scandal after scandal. I’ll start with eHealth, then followed by the air Ornge scandal. We look at the Mississauga and Oakville gas plant scandals. Those account to billions upon billions of dollars.

Now we’ve got this NDP-Liberal coalition. As we begin to get serious about this, we as the PC Party brought forward a number of bills, good solid healthy bills, to help slowly turn this province around. We presented them here in this wonderful Legislature. We explained it to both the government and third party opposition, how it will help. But oh, no, they think that the PCs don’t have any good ideas.

Unfortunately, prior to former Premier McGuinty proroguing the Legislature for four months when we couldn’t get anything done, they shut down four of our private members’ bills that would have helped to turn this around. Then the McGuinty-Wynne government comes in, and we had three other bills, one of them being the Ability to Pay Act, and again, they wouldn’t listen. Well, they listened, but they didn’t want to do anything about it. Again, the NDP propped up the government and assisted in defeating our bills.

The NDP-Liberal coalition—I say that with a small C right now, but one of the things I might want to add is the fact that the NDP have propped up this government many times, time and time again. Maybe their call letter should be different; maybe their call letter should be the NDPP, the New Democratic prop party, because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

They go to this government and they try to negotiate and talk more about, “Well, listen, give us this, give us this, and we’ll support your budget.” Well, they held the government ransom as well, and because they held the government ransom, the government caved to seven of their demands, which will account for hundreds of millions of dollars on the taxpayers’ backs. But what do they care? Right now they feel that they’ve got the reins of this government in their fingers, and that’s not right. They don’t have it, but right now they’re holding everyone ransom. What they’re doing is they’re holding Ontarians ransom.

They’re holding us all ransom. I look at it, and I go, “Come on, guys, give us a break. The cost is going to be astronomical.”

I look at the budget right now. It’s around $127 billion—$127 billion, with a B, and then we hear the papers saying, “Well, you know, the cost of an election is $92 million,” with an M. That’s $92 million; $127 billion—let me see here—and if we don’t have that election right now—well, we’re not going to have that election, so what’s it going to cost us?

I guarantee you that between now and whenever the next election is going to be, the cost on the taxpayers’ backs is going to be far more—it will be times, times, times more than that $92 million for an election, when, if we got into power, we would slowly start to turn it around. And would we work with the Liberals and the NDP? Of course we would, but we’ve got to start to turn things around.

We’ve got to stop this scandal. I look at the people within my own riding, and they see how this government has blown its money and won’t hesitate to reach again into the pockets of citizens just a little bit more. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs. When we look at it, we say, there’s talk about Metrolinx right now. There’s just talk, but the concern that we have, and especially the people of Chatham-Kent are saying—hey, listen, we have our infrastructure problems, but we also have our infrastructure solutions.

But when I look at this, they want to add 1% to the HST and maybe some other taxes along the way, once again putting their hands into the pockets of Ontarians. The people in Chatham–Kent–Essex are concerned because what will that do maybe to the cost of gasoline throughout the province? You know, 1% on a dollar means a penny, but if it’s 1.5%, that’s one and a half pennies on every dollar this government is going to grab, and that amounts to billions of dollars once again.

So, again, I appeal to the NDP-Liberal coalition. We need to take a look at this budget. We need to take a look at really what is actually happening here, and we need to find a substantive way to turn things around.

Even seniors in my riding are very, very upset. Last week in Chatham, they organized a protest at the Chatham Retirement Resort to fight changes that are happening with regard to physiotherapy, as an example. Physiotherapists, caregivers and even seniors themselves braved the cold and the rain to have their voices heard, and I am immensely proud of the fighting spirit of the people of Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Don Rhodes, a senior at the retirement resort, was quoted this past week in Chatham This Week. He said that changes will hurt seniors like himself: “When you’re not mobile, it’s a whole different story. We need these programs. We have a lot of people here that need to keep active, and without being active every day, you’ve got more people in wheelchairs than you’ve already got now.” We don’t need to add to that. These people need access, and there needs to be that funding available, rather than cutting $44 million out of that particular budget.

Speaker, I get the feeling right now that you’re about to stand and cut me off because it’s time to break for—

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

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure to introduce special guests from Ottawa who came here today to meet with our health critic, Christine Elliott, and deputy critic, Bill Walker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Jennifer and Deborah Wyatt from the TIPES autistic training facility; Dr. Jeff Sherman, a psychologist from Ottawa here to speak about autism; and John Light from John Baird’s office in Ottawa.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It gives me great pleasure to introduce, from Access Alliance, Julie Chamberlain, Naseema Dar, Pinky Paglingayen, Mofazzal Hoque and Sheila Htoo. Also, from the Society of Energy Professionals, we have Judith Logan and Guntis Berzins. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I’m pleased to rise to welcome the Society of Energy Professionals to Queen’s Park and to recognize all those who are in the gallery, including president Scott Travers; and Frank Pierce, from my riding of Scarborough Southwest.

The society is here to help members understand the issues facing Ontario’s energy generation and transmission sector. I hope members will take time to speak to them and enjoy the reception at the end of the day in the legislative dining room.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to welcome a good friend from the great riding of Kitchener Centre: Ken Silvester, who is here with his granddaughter Katelyn, who’s a grade 5 student studying civics. They’re here today to learn about good government.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce someone who has actually won a very big spot in heaven because she puts up with me all the time. She’s the biggest reason why I have the privilege of serving here. I’d like to introduce my wife, Pauline.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Rev. David ManHong Kim and his wife, Esther, and, along with them, a delegation from South Korea: Rev. Soon Ok Jung, who is the former director of the Korea National Reconciliation Committee, and also Mr. Noh Il Kwak, the chair of the Advanced Political Society in Korea. I’d also like to acknowledge Mr. Jae Chong, who’s the executive director of the Dr. Scofield Memorial Foundation; Julia Jung, who’s the senior deaconess of the church; and HeeJu Yun, who’s a volunteer with the Dr. Scofield Memorial Foundation. I believe they are touring the Legislature, so soon we will have them come in and partake of our question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Before I recognize the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, I’d like to announce that earlier this morning, just before the proceedings started, unanimous consent was granted, so that no one else gets the idea that they can just start dressing like that any time they want.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to invite all the members of Parliament to the Battle of Stoney Creek this weekend. We’re having over 800 to 1,000 re-enactors. My portrayal in the battle will be an artillery captain in the 8th regiment of Her Majesty’s Royal Grenadiers.

Also, if I didn’t introduce my wife, I’d be in big trouble, as she helped me get in this: my wife, Carole.

It’s going to be a great weekend. We’re expecting thousands of people.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Hello to Joe. Welcome back.

It’s my pleasure to introduce two constituents from my riding: Andre Ramsaroop and Scott Travers, who are here with the Society of Energy Professionals. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’d like to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Ahamad Abdullah, who is the parent of one of our pages here, Lamiha Abdullah. He’s here visiting with us in the east gallery.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, my wife is supposed to be here with a delegation from my riding, attending the Italian flag-raising today. The traffic is probably holding them up. They are here to assist and enjoy the celebration.

As well, I want to invite everyone in the House to join us for the Italian flag-raising.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It is my pleasure to welcome Julie Pontarollo here to Queen’s Park. She is the mother of Jessica Pontarollo, the wonderful page from the great riding of York South–Weston. Mrs. Pontarollo will be joining us this morning in the public gallery.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce Virginia Morra and Dave Mauro, who are here for the Italian flag-raising this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to introduce Graham Malcolm, accompanied by his wife, Victoria. They are here to see the workings of Queen’s Park. I welcome them here from the riding of Brant.

As most members can see, my other brother, Joe Peters, is here, and his son Nick. Welcome.

Depending on whether or not the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is able to sustain himself in the House today, I may let him dress that like for the entire time.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier.

On February 19, just a few weeks ago, here’s what the Premier told Ontarians and this Legislature, through the Lieutenant Governor, in her speech from the throne: “For the benefit of the entire province, your government intends to work with opposition parties, in a spirit of renewed co-operation, to get the people’s business done.”

Speaker, we want to take the Premier up on that offer. In that same spirit of co-operation, I’d like to ask the Premier: Will she agree to strike a select committee of the Legislature so that we can help the government find the additional $2 billion to pay for transit without burdening taxpayers and businesses of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really wish that as a result of the conversations that I had with the Leader of the Opposition and the opportunities we had to exchange ideas—once the budget was introduced, there was an immediate response that the opposition was not going to support the budget. Without even reading the budget, Mr. Speaker, that was the response.

I truly believe that I have reached out, that I have done my best to work with all members of the Legislature, and I will continue to do that.

The reality is that for decades there has been no commitment on the part of the provincial government to have a dedicated revenue stream to build transit. The member opposite knows full well—he was a Minister of Transportation—there was no dedicated revenue stream for transit. There needs to be, and we’re going to make that happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: That’s precisely why we’re making the offer that we’re making.

That spirit of renewed co-operation seems to have evaporated, or is it just in order to prop yourself up to stay in government?

I want to read further from that throne speech, Speaker: “Your new government believes that complex times require thoughtful, collaborative solutions.” We agree, and that’s why we are asking the Premier to take our offer very seriously.

Why will the Premier not agree to strike that select committee of all parties of this Legislature so that we can get to work, while she’s having her conversations, with finding that $2 billion in savings and waste right across this government so we can get on with the construction and dedicate $2 billion of revenue to transit in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: A few weeks ago, what the members opposite were asking us to do was to focus on implementing the Drummond commission recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and do that transformation of government that was laid out in Don Drummond’s report. We’re doing that, and 60% of the recommendations are already in the works or have been implemented. We continue to do the transformation of government. That is finding savings. That is constraining the costs. That is constraining our spending. We’re doing all that.

All of that is not going to deliver $2 billion a year to deal with the congestion issues in the GTHA. The member opposite knows that. He’s been a Minister of Transportation. He knows that that has not been a focus of the provincial government for decades. We need to make it a focus, because people need to be able to get around the GTHA, to their homes and to their work.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: February 19 was not that long ago. I remember the ceremony here and I remember the awesome commitment that this Premier made to co-operation.

I want to read from the closing remarks of that throne speech: “All parties and each member will be encouraged to contribute to this process, to make their insights known.

“Your new government hopes that ideas will be put forward with optimism and purpose, and that voices will not be raised solely for the pursuit or retention of power.

“Your government is committed to finding real, creative solutions to the issues we face.” And then it goes on to say that to do this, it will direct its efforts across the aisle. That’s from your throne speech.

Speaker, I ask the Premier one more time. In all seriousness, I ask her: Why will she not agree to the creative idea, to work collaboratively with opposition parties, strike that select committee so that we can get on with our work and fund transit in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Leader of the Opposition. We have had a number of very good conversations. There are some things where it would be great if we could find a way to co-operate on. For example, I have already mentioned it would have been great for the opposition, the PCs, to have read the budget before rejecting it. It would have been great for the opposition not to have rejected the throne speech.

It would be wonderful if every single piece of legislation was not being stalled in this Legislature, legislation would protect kids from cancer, legislation that would support Ontario farmers, legislation that would bring the budget through the process. It would be terrific if we could have that kind of co-operative working relationship.

We’re working to constrain expenses. We’re working to transform government. We also have to work to invest in transit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question? The member from Nepean–Carleton.

TEACHERS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. I have a question to the Premier today.

Last summer, your government handed over hiring rights in our schools to the provincial unions. As a result of Bill 115, we said we would support the bill, but we demanded that the hiring provision be stricken. The government said that they would do that, but after the bill passed, they snuck in a regulation, 274/12, to appease their union friends.

Now, predictably, school boards and teachers are opposed to this, and that’s why our party put forward an opposition day motion to rescind regulation 274. The government opposed that.

But now the metal is hitting the floor, Premier, and school boards are concerned about next year. How is your government going to address the drastic decline of the quality of teaching in our classrooms as a result of your hiring policies? And why aren’t you committed to putting the best teacher in the room, not the teacher with the most seniority?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education is going to want to speak to the specifics of that discussion with unions, but let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am so pleased that in the time that we have been in office and that I have been in this office we have been able to begin to re-establish the positive working relationship with the education sector, with the teachers, with the support staff and with our school boards, because that relationship, I believe, is fundamental to the achievement and the success of our students in this province.

I do not expect the member opposite to value that relationship; that has not been a cornerstone of their practice in this House or when they were a government. It is ours. We believe in that relationship. We believe that it’s important that publicly funded education works best when government and the education sector are working together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Look at this caucus. Most of us have kids in the school system. We value quality education. I know I speak for all my colleagues who actually have kids in the classrooms.

Let me read from three teachers who wrote to the Premier and myself—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to hear both the question and the answer.

Please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Let me read from three teachers who wrote to me and to the Premier. Karrie from the Upper Grand district says, “I was hired based on merit” but “with the implementation of regulation 274, I am being denied any opportunity to work within a school community that I love.”

Sam from the Ottawa Catholic School Board wrote to me and the Premier and said, “Regulation 274/12 is destroying the concept of merit.” And if it was “really about putting students first, let’s give them the best and rescind regulation 274/12.”

Chris, who wrote to me from Guelph, is very disappointed that the Minister of Education, his own MPP, refuses to meet with him and other teachers in this situation. He writes, “I am afraid the regulation is going to force me to leave the teaching profession.”

Premier, will you listen to Karrie, will you listen to Sam and will you listen to Chris, and put the best teachers back in the classroom, rescind 274 and stop putting—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s important to understand that, in fact, regulation 274, although it does look at past experience and issues like seniority, is actually there to make sure that young teachers have an opportunity to get jobs. We want to make sure that we’re not looking only at seniority, and we’re not looking at family relationships and things like that—that we’re actually giving young teachers an opportunity to apply for jobs. We want to make sure that they’re posted so that they even know when there is a job available. Boards still have the ability to make the ultimate hiring decisions.

I think we need a bit of an update on regulation 274. In fact, as we speak, there is a working table between OSSTF and the public boards, looking at whether they can agree on modifications.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the minister were reading her correspondence as I most certainly am, she would realize that’s it’s young teachers who are writing in to her and I. If she would meet with her own constituents about this she would recognize that this is a big problem. If she were to talk about boards, she would know that the Toronto District School Board, last evening, wanted to address nepotism and to make sure that not only is this regulation rescinded but that they are actually part of the process. They want to actually eliminate that through conflict of interest so that this would be redundant.

But let me talk about Leslie from Toronto. She says, “It won’t matter that the schools’ students already know and love the sixth most senior or the 60th most senior applicant, or that none of the five most senior applicants is interested in doing co-curricular activities or that a newly graduated teacher speaks the language of 70% of the schools’ parents.”

The Toronto District School Board, last night, adopted Leslie’s approach. They know as well as I do and Leslie knows that regulation 274 isn’t about the best teacher in our classroom. I will say this—

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

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m sorry; I don’t think the member opposite heard what I said about a working group looking at exactly some of the issues that have been raised by the individual teachers, by school boards and, quite frankly, by the union, because we have been working with our teachers and with our unions. We have been working with our school boards. One of the things that we agreed to was to set up a working table to explicitly look at the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, I want to hear the answer.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We have, as I speak, a working group that’s been set up between the OSSTF and the public school boards looking at whether there are changes they want to make to the regulation, because we believe that the best way to get a resolution for this issue is for us all to sit down and work together and come up with a sensible solution that solves everybody’s needs.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that staff in the Premier’s office should follow the laws of the province when it comes to retaining documents and keeping government accountable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes, I do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Documents and emails in the cabinet offices are not the personal property of the cabinet ministers; they belong to the public and are supposed to be kept in the public interest. Does the Premier think it is acceptable that staff in the Premier’s office and other ministers’ offices have failed to keep—and at times deliberately deleted—emails and other documents?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have taken these obligations very seriously. I have ensured—and the government House leader went over this yesterday—that all staff are aware of our responsibilities in terms of retaining documents. There has been training for staff, and for new staff, so that they understand what the responsibilities are.

We have provided more than 130,000 documents of the nature that the leader of the third party is asking about. So it is very important to me that we follow the rules, that we retain the documents that we are meant to retain, and that that applies to all staff.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are very worried today because they feel that governments that are supposed to be working for them seem more concerned about protecting their own political hides. They see it at city hall in Toronto, they see it in Ottawa and, sadly, they see it here day in and day out. Political staff in the government are supposed to follow the rules and not bury politically inconvenient details. How can Ontarians trust that this Premier won’t allow this to happen in the future when the same abuses keep happening over and over and over again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, I came into this office and I made it very clear that we were going to have an open, transparent process around all of the issues that we deal with, but the issue of the relocation of the gas plants was obviously front and centre. I made it clear that all staff were going to be following the rules, retaining documents that we were meant to be retaining, and provide training for staff so that they would understand, even if they had understood before, that they were going to have a renewed understanding of what those rules were.

We have done all of that. We have provided documentation as we have been asked by the committee, and we will continue to do so.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. In tough times, people need their government to be accountable and transparent. They’ve been asked to make sacrifices, to make tough choices, and when they see their government scrambling to hide facts and squander scarce public resources, they feel like they’re being played for fools.

Yesterday I met with the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. We talked about the importance of real accountability and giving families access to real information about how the government is spending their money.

Is the government prepared to use the new Financial Accountability Office to give people accurate, independent information on government decisions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we’ve said quite clearly in the process of our discussions around the passage of the budget that having a Financial Accountability Officer in place as an independent voice on these issues was something that we believed, as a team, was a good idea. It was a good idea that the leader of the third party raised, and we are going to work to that end and introduce legislation to create that office. So yes, I think it’s a good idea. We’ve said yes, and we look forward to working with the leader of the third party and, I hope, the Leader of the Opposition on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government is moving ahead with plans for a sell-off of government assets such as plans to sell ServiceOntario and Ontario Northland. The government has also made it clear that they plan to move ahead with plans for more corporate tax giveaways and tax cuts for Ontario’s highest income earners as soon as the books in this province are balanced. Is the Premier ready to put these schemes on hold until the new Financial Accountability Office has a chance to actually review them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are going to continue to make decisions to bring policy forward, to bring legislation forward. One of the pieces of that will be the creation of the Financial Accountability Office. But everything that we are doing, we are doing with an eye to what is in the best interests of the people of the province and how we can maximize service to people and reduce costs as we go along. We will continue in that work. We are not going to put all of the work of the government on hold while we bring forward one piece of legislation.

There has to be a complex introduction of various pieces of policy and legislation over time. We will continue to do that, and one of the pieces of legislation will be on the Financial Accountability Office.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People feel like they’re falling behind. Too often, when they look at their government, they see their needs being pushed aside so the government can move ahead with plans that help their well-connected insiders, and leave them paying more and getting less. A Financial Accountability Office is one small step towards greater transparency and greater accountability, Speaker. Can the Premier ensure that she will allow this new office to do its job, and not ram through decisions before it can be established?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I look forward to the discussion on the legislation of the Financial Accountability Office; it will be a good discussion and I think that it’s a good idea.

I want to just let the people of the province know that we are in the process now of bringing forward a budget that is going to make a difference in their lives. It is going to be a budget that’s going to help young people find jobs, Mr. Speaker. It’s a budget that is going to invest in infrastructure, in communities across the province. It’s a budget, when it is passed, if it is passed, that will allow us to help people to make changes in their day-to-day lives.

The good news that we have received in the last couple of days is that the credit agencies have said that we are on the right track. Standard and Poor’s yesterday said, “Supporting the ratings are what we view as Ontario’s large, wealthy and well-diversified economy.... The province is forecasting an improvement in its operating deficit and after-capital deficits; both deficits outperformed the government’s forecast for the fourth consecutive year.” We’re on the right track.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, earlier this week we spoke about the 25,000 jobs now at risk throughout Ontario due to the Liberal-NDP decision to cancel the Apprenticeship Tax Credit without any consultations. We spoke about 8,000 jobs that the NDP is risking in northern Ontario and we spoke about the thousands of jobs in and around London and Windsor now in jeopardy.

In Brantford, an area that our Speaker knows well, this Liberal decision has put four call centres at risk. Together, NCO, Wipro Technologies, Union Gas and Extend Communications add over 1,000 important jobs to Brantford and Brant county. Premier, you blew nearly $1 billion to cancel the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. Are you so desperate for revenue that you are willing to risk 1,000 good jobs in Brantford?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of this government’s record over the last several years of creating more than 400,000 jobs in this province, many of those jobs in the manufacturing centre; many of those, frankly, are call centre jobs as well.

In Brantford, which is a place I know well and which I know is an important place—you know, Brantford just recently benefited from a project that we funded under the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. I was proud to be able to be part of an announcement of $1.5 million to a company called Hematite in Brantford to support jobs, for them to add more lines and more employment in that important city as they recover from this difficult recession that we’ve all.

So I’ve had the privilege of being able to announce a number of projects, as the member opposite of course knows well, two of those projects being in his riding. The Southwestern Ontario Development Fund is making a big difference and impacting precisely the way the member opposite would like.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Earlier this week I received an important letter from the mayor of Chatham-Kent, Randy Hope, addressed to Minister Duguid. Mayor Hope expressed concerns as a result of the proposed changes to the Apprenticeship Tax Credit and the thousands of jobs at risk in Chatham-Kent and across this province.

The letter outlines the case of Minacs, one of Ontario’s largest contact centres, which wishes to continue its expansion into Ontario but is now being forced to look at US locations, putting 3,400 current jobs at risk. Mayor Hope’s letter outlines a simple and easily implemented solution to your problem.

Premier, are you going to listen to the mayor and reverse your decision to kill the Apprenticeship Tax Credit? Or will you continue to risk up to 25,000 good-paying jobs throughout this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Of course, we respect the opinion of Mayor Randy Hope of Chatham-Kent, particularly when it comes to his views on the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. He was instrumental in providing his support to ensure that not only the program existed—despite the fact that the official opposition voted against the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund and put measures in place to even delay its passage in the Legislature and delay these funds getting to the good people of southwestern Ontario.

The mayor, whom I’ve met personally as well and spoken to on this and other issues—his recommendations are always welcome on this side of the Legislature. I have to say that in terms of call centres as well, in Barrie, I was very proud to hear not that long ago of a $20-million annual investment by HGS in Barrie. The mayor there, incidentally, was also very happy, because that’s created 500 new jobs in Barrie in call centres.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. When the government established the Green Energy Act, it promised that green energy technology in Ontario would be built in Ontario and create jobs in Ontario. Can the Premier confirm that her government now plans to abandon provisions that require green energy companies to build equipment and create jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In the introduction of the Green Energy Act and the work that we’ve done in renewable energy over the last couple of years, we have jump-started an industry that really didn’t exist in Ontario. Our commitment to continuing to work with the green energy sector and maximize the job creation out of that sector is firm. We believe this is an important industry to the province of Ontario, which is why our commitment to it remains strong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, that doesn’t actually answer the question. The push for renewable energy was supposed to be an opportunity to create good-quality manufacturing jobs here in Ontario. Sadly, your government’s approach has been marred by broken promises and flip-flops. Now it looks like you’re giving up on good manufacturing jobs here in Ontario.

Provinces like Quebec and countries around the world have been able to ramp up renewable power and ensure that the manufacturing happens locally to create local jobs. Their programs haven’t been scrapped by the WTO.

Will this government finally admit it has made a complete and utter mess and look to other provinces to ensure that we keep manufacturing jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, I won’t admit that, because we’ve created 31,000 jobs in Ontario. We’ve built enough clean energy to power 900,000 homes. I really would have thought the member opposite would have been supportive of that initiative, that the member opposite would have thought that was a very good thing.

What we have announced today—and the Minister of Energy is speaking about it today—is that we believe that the process whereby some of the green energy infrastructure that has been sited needs to be modified. It’s one of the things that, when I became the leader of the party and the Premier, I said we were going to deal with: a better process going forward for municipalities to have a stronger voice. That’s what we have announced, Mr. Speaker. That’s what the Minister of Energy has been working on.

We recognize that programs need to be modified and that processes need to change, but they need to change based on the evidence of good successes and the gaps we have discovered.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. In our schools, we have some of the best teachers, we have some of the best students, working hard, and our parents are doing their best to ensure our schools remain the best, along with our teachers.

But one of the concrete issues that parents have come to me about, over the last while especially, is about the safety of their children. They are worried about how safe our schools are. They are worried about their kids coming to school safely and going home safely. They really get upset when they hear that there’s a lockdown in one of our schools, so the question I want to pose to you, Minister, is: As this education system delivers great education, what are we doing in a concrete way, as a government, to work with school boards to make sure our kids are safe in school?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, who is always an advocate for the schools, parents and kids in his riding.

Our government knows that in order for our students to learn well, they need to learn in a safe and accepting school environment. Since 2003, we’ve invested over $360 million in safe schools and equity and inclusive education initiatives. We actually recently reopened the Safe Welcome Program with an additional investment of $10 million to give school staff more control over who enters the schools, so that we can keep our kids safe once they’re inside the school.

Through working with organizations like the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the committee of youth officers of Ontario, we’ve developed safety protocols. Elementary and secondary schools are required to work with local police on safety protocols, on lockdown protocols, to make sure we keep our kids safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Minister. The principals, the parents and the students are telling me very directly that one of the things that we’ve done with the school boards that really makes our schools safe is our police officers in the schools. That is being very well received, and it is working to prevent crime from coming anywhere near our schools.

The other thing that is very apparent is that in some neighbourhoods, there are very few issues about safety, but in other neighbourhoods in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, there are some serious risks. These are in our vulnerable, at-risk neighbourhoods where—I know it’s hard to believe in some situations, but some kids are basically afraid to go to school. They may get shot going to school or shot on the way home from school, so this is a very, very traumatic concern for our parents, our principals and our students.

I want to know: What are we doing to ensure that, in these at-risk neighbourhoods which are real and very, very challenged—what are we doing extra to protect the kids in those schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member. I too would like to thank the local police and the school boards who have worked together to provide school officer programs. They certainly have an impact.

With respect to demographic issues, we actually have something called the Learning Opportunities Grant, which is targeted at school boards that have a higher-than-usual number of low-income neighbourhoods in their communities. That’s actually almost half a billion dollars a year that goes specifically to the Learning Opportunities Grant to support kids.

Our government also provides $10 million annually to specific high-needs schools in urban areas that face challenges like poverty and crime. We’re also working to provide children in low-income areas with summer learning opportunities. If we can get this budget passed, we have an additional $12 million targeted at summer learning camps in high-risk neighbourhoods.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, a few minutes ago, you spoke about a new, open and transparent style of governing. In fact, you mentioned the fact—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities will come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you for your new style of open and transparent speaking.

You mentioned that your staff and your government has been given training with respect to the gas plant scandal documents. My one question is: Does that training include using Gmail accounts for your staff to hide the information from the freedom of information officer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: We’ve addressed issues around emails, both yesterday and today, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner is looking into the matter.

I would also remind the member that we’ve had 130,000 documents—that’s an estimate of the number of pages that we’ve given the committee.

What’s interesting is the way that the honourable member keeps trying to escape from the simple fact, and it’s still there: They opposed the very gas plants.

Again, we ask what their estimate is. We also ask, when they did their estimate, whether they added the extra $85,000 that they were paying because of the robocalls that they had to promote the fact that they were opposed to the gas plants and they were the only ones who would cancel it, according to their very own robocall.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Unfortunately, I didn’t get an answer to my question about whether the training included using secret Gmail accounts for the Premier’s staff—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I can imagine why they’re a little riled this morning, Speaker.

We have melaniefrancis28@gmail.com—of course, you know who I mean. She’s the lawyer in the House leader’s office, using a Gmail account to talk about the gas plant transaction. We have mmsmith442@gmail.com —that’s Monique Smith—talking about the gas plant, dealing with your office.

There are a lot of Gmail accounts here. Let me ask you a question, Premier. Are these Gmail accounts because the freedom of information cannot get at these—

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I understand some of these people are gone today, but we also understand—and I’d like you to answer—were these Gmail accounts used because you have trained them that you can’t have a freedom-of-information request for Gmail accounts? Is that it?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, are you okay? Just checking.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound: The time that I’m standing, you’re not supposed to be making any sound.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it’s kind of passing strange that he’s saying we’re hiding documents and he in fact has the documents. We have made—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, even when I’m sitting, you’re not supposed to be making some of that sound. Thank you.

Hon. John Milloy: We have made every effort to provide the committee with documents; in fact, the Premier, when she assumed office, offered to have a government-wide search for relevant documents, and the opposition turned it down. As I say, 130,000 pages is the estimate of what we’ve given the committee. We also have, within that, 30,000 which have come from the Premier’s office.

In terms of the responsibility of all government officials, including political staff, we have instituted training and systems in various ministers’ offices to make sure that records are safe and in compliance with the law.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The minister, yesterday, made promises to EMDC workers that she would do something about the conditions at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, but the minister has made many promises, and conditions have only deteriorated in London and at jails across the province. Can the minister explain why this time we should believe that she is serious and will finally take the necessary actions?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from London–Fanshawe for her question.

Yes, indeed, yesterday I had a great meeting with the leadership of OPSEU with regard to EMDC. As you know, the health and safety of the correctional officers and the inmates at EMDC is my number one priority. So we discussed the 12-point plan, what should be the first thing that is burning, that we can do as soon as possible. We had a great dialogue. We agree on what we’re going to do from now until the end of June, and then we’ll move forward with the rest of the improvements in this detention centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The minister has talked about creating a board to oversee EMDC and outright dismissed my suggestion to include correctional officers on the board. Without this representation, we know that this board will be nothing more than a PR exercise. It will be destined to fail. Years of promises did not fix the problems at EMDC, and a weak board will not, either.

It’s clear that this minister is unable to do her job, and the lives of workers and inmates are on the line. Will the minister resign so her government can take action to resolve the problems at EMDC immediately?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I want to thank everyone, the seven members of the OPSEU with whom I met yesterday, and those who work as correctional officers in EMDC. We had a very frank conversation. I wanted to take the opportunity to thank them, for, on short notice, they came to meet with me. Most importantly, we discussed how to work together to improve the conditions at EMDC and across the province.

The president of OPSEU was happy with the meeting and said, “I’m glad that Minister Meilleur is giving” correctional officers “the attention they deserve. If we can continue on this path, it” will “lead to much-needed improvements and will ultimately save lives.”

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please tell the House what measures are being taken to ensure that seniors in diverse communities like mine, like Scarborough–Agincourt, are supported in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I would like to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for a very important question indeed.

Our government is dedicated to serving Ontario’s diverse population. It is my commitment and that of this government to ensure that seniors in Ontario live in a secure and very supportive environment.

We are working hard to collaborate with our partners across government to develop and support culturally appropriate services and resources which cater to the various languages spoken to and by Ontario seniors. Some of these services include: multicultural seniors’ fairs; seniors’ active living fairs held throughout the province, including northern Ontario communities; presentations by the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat, with a range of multicultural seniors’ organizations; and also a guide to programs and services for seniors in five different languages.

Speaker, we do this and we’ll continue to do more on behalf of our seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: It’s good to hear from the minister that our government has taken action to ensure that Ontario is supporting its diverse seniors population.

I know that in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, local agencies and community groups such as ACSA and CICS help inform seniors of some of the programs available in our province.

We also are aware that in just five years, Ontario’s seniors’ population will outnumber children aged 15 and under. The fastest growth will occur in the oldest age group, as over 75 years of age is projected to be more than double and the 90-plus group will be more than triple.

Can the minister inform this Legislature of some of the initiatives and public education efforts implemented by our government to improve the quality of life of all Ontario seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: This government is working very hard to make Ontario the best place in North America to grow old by:

—continuing to deliver information fairs in northern Ontario and remote communities;

—funding the seniors’ infoline through ServiceOntario that provides a multilingual capacity as well;

—providing a guide to programs and services for seniors in French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Punjabi; and

—providing a guide called Diversity in Action: A Toolkit for Residential Settings for Seniors to increase cultural awareness in seniors’ homes.

Most recently, I was also very glad to join the MPP for Scarborough–Agincourt for a seniors’ round table and the Minister of Rural Affairs for the launching of the Seniors’ Month kickoff in the beautiful city of Peterborough. We are continuing to demonstrate this government’s will and commitment to a healthy and secure environment for all our citizens in Ontario.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, during your government’s term of office, we’ve seen the prison population at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and other prisons in Ontario increase from one to two inmates per cell to three and four per cell. Today, Ontario’s prisons are bursting at the seams. I’ve seen this first-hand, Minister. Your decision to close five jails in southwestern Ontario and strip hundreds of beds from the corrections system has contributed to this.

On Tuesday of this week, you blamed everyone else for the knives, drugs, riots, fires and overcrowding in our prison system. They’re wreaking havoc on Ontario’s prisons.

Minister, the buck stops with you. Will you stand in this House today and admit that there’s no one else here to blame but yourself and your inept government?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I’m very, very confused here. This question is coming from a party that closed 19 jails in Ontario and did away with almost every rehabilitation program, so I’m not about to take any lessons from that party.

What I want to do is to improve the situation in our correctional facilities, and since I’ve been appointed to that ministry, that’s what I’m doing. That’s why I have regular meetings with OPSEU, and we will continue to have regular meetings with OPSEU to make sure that the situation improves. At the end of the day, I want to make sure that everybody is safe: those workers who come to do a good job every day and those inmates that we have responsibility for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Minister, I’m going to help you out with your confusion here. The problems at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre this week are a result of your neglect. The spread of the fires on Wednesday was a result of EMDC’s antiquated meal hatches. Your 12-point plan introduced last August promised new meal hatches for this very reason. However, construction has not yet begun. During these fires, correctional officers lacked enough fire-related equipment and many had to use their own shirts to avoid smoke inhalation. Adequate fire-related equipment was also on that 12-point plan that you did not deliver on.

Minister, you’re not doing your job, and when there are lives at stake, you don’t deserve a second chance. Will you do the honourable thing and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m going to let the member from Elgin–Middlesex know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Let me say to the member what we have done so far. We have hired 11 new full-time correctional officers. We now have 24-hour nursing that was implemented. We have a mental health nurse. We hired three more operational managers. We are building a new control module for staff. We have a superintendent and deputies touring many times a week. We have operational managers, and what they should do is tour every day, and that’s what they are doing now. The capacity is monitored every day.

Again, the previous government closed 19 jails, slashed funding and gutted our rehab program—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member from Halton to come to order and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings to come to order, and if he wouldn’t mind going to his seat so I can tell him the same thing just in case he doesn’t get it.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: What they have done is, they have adopted a failed American state warehousing approach, and that’s what we’re trying to correct. Your party’s decisions have led to the majority of the challenges that we are facing today.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Give me a break. You’ve been in government for three terms. Do your jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nepean–Carleton will come to order as well.

New question.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Infrastructure: The Mary Berglund Community Health Centre in Ignace is one of the top health care facilities in the north, with people from across the region travelling to the CHC to access its services.

In 2010, through the Ontario Realty Corp., this government more than doubled its rent, putting their long-term viability at risk. After much pressure, the North West LHIN agreed to provide the Mary Berglund CHC with a temporary and partial funding increase to 2015, after which time the CHC will be forced to further cut staff and services or close its doors.

My question is simple: Is the Ministry of Infrastructure so short on cash that it has to pillage other departments to pay its bills?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Let’s be clear here: The Mary Berglund Community Health Centre is paying $5-a-square-foot rent. I would hardly describe that as an onerous level of rent. I don’t know if anyone in this House knows of an organization that pays $5-per-square-foot rent. Outside there it’s $30 or $40, and in most small towns, in Peterborough, you pay a lot more. As a matter of fact, what we can determine is that the going rate for rent right now is $12 a square foot. By any measure, Mary Berglund has a very good deal.

We have been working right now because the policy of the government, so that we don’t artificially subsidize through the back door, is to have a market rent, which would in this case normally be $10 or $12. But there is a default position for some centres which has been in place for about 15 years which is to go to a standard $5-a-square-foot rent.

We’re working on other solutions, but right now I don’t think the challenge is the rent they’re paying.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Minister, this situation is not acceptable. Your department is working with facts and figures that are way out of line with a community of Ignace’s size and northern location. Other comparable CHCs in the north that occupy similar spaces pay $60,000 rent while Mary Berglund CHC is forced to pay $200,000 a year. Something is not right. They do not have 40,000 square feet; they have 1,700. They are not paying $5 a square foot, let me tell you.

Minister, I urge you to fix this problem by either lowering the rent to a more reasonable amount or selling the building to the CHC for a nominal amount. We need action now to avoid another health care crisis in northwestern Ontario.

Minister, what are you willing to do to ensure that your department fixes this situation?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: That being said, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member’s point. She’s absolutely right. We have to reconcile to get a rent. From what I understand—I am working with you on this and we’re on the same page on it—the volume of space that I understand Mary Berglund has is part of the problem. They’re in a building that has a lot of challenges with it.

What can we do about this? Well, the local LHIN and Infrastructure Ontario are working with the health ministry to try and reconcile the rent and the payment system right now because they can’t afford it. We’re also looking at the amount of room, which I am told—and I will be going up there as soon as the House rises to personally visit the site and I would be happy to tour it with you, to try and see if we can reduce the amount or find other ways to reduce the amount of space so that the storage or surplus space they don’t need they don’t have to pay for.

We’re very committed to working with you on a solution. The point that rent is very high: Until someone shows me other evidence, it looks like it’s about half what the going rate is.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Attorney General. Currently, on-site winery retail stores are open on Labour Day, Canada Day, Thanksgiving, Victoria Day and Family Day in areas where there is a tourist exemption bylaw as implemented by the local municipality.

However, there are still many statutory holidays when winery retail stores cannot open for business and take advantage of opportunities to sell our fine Ontario wine on some of their busiest days. I know that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, an agency that reports to you, the Minister of the Attorney General, administers a variety of authorization policies for liquor manufacturers’ stores. Could the Attorney General please tell us what recent progress has been made to further improve the conditions that encourage the success of small businesses that serve tourists across Ontario, particularly those in rural communities?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I want to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for that excellent question. We all know that wineries, breweries and distilleries form an important part of Ontario’s economy, and the culture of Ontario wines and beers has become world-famous and renowned over the last number of years.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission was asked to revise their policy on operating days for on-site retail stores, and I’m pleased to announce that the on-site stores are now permitted to open on all nine holidays listed under the Retail Business Holidays Act, which include Easter Sunday, Good Friday, New Year’s and Christmas, in addition to the days that they’re already allowed to.

This new policy means that if a local municipality passes a tourist exemption bylaw, which is necessary, on-site retail stores will be able to offer tours and sell their products to visiting tourists and local residents on long weekends and holidays. Small businesses in both rural Ontario and urban communities are the cornerstone of Ontario’s economy, and we want to make sure that this business prospers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. It’s good to hear that this government supports our small businesses and local wineries and breweries.

While an expansion of days open for business is a welcome change, there is also an issue of operating hours. Currently, on-site retail stores selling alcohol on Sundays are limited to operating hours between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m., yet many of these stores are busiest on the weekend, and longer hours could provide retail stores with an opportunity to maximize their business potential and consumers with greater access to their products. Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney General please inform this House if action has been taken on this issue?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Action has been taken, because in addition to extending the operating days to include all statutory holidays that I mentioned before for on-site winery, brewery and distillery retail stores, they