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

May 14, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-May-14 (PDF)

L041 - Tue 14 May 2013 / Mar 14 mai 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 14 May 2013 Mardi 14 mai 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

TRANSPORTATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

POWER PLANTS

TRANSPORTATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

NORTHERN ECONOMY

POWER PLANTS

ELLIOT LAKE INQUIRY

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DOUG FINLEY

ISLAND AIRPORT

M&M MEAT SHOPS

GUL NAWAZ

NURSES’ AWARDS

EDITH HEMINGWAY

TED BLOWES

LOCAL FOOD

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK

PETITIONS

FISHING REGULATIONS

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

CHILD CUSTODY

AIR QUALITY

UTILITY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

JOB RELOCATION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TRANSFERT D’EMPLOIS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LAND USE PLANNING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LABOUR DISPUTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 65, Loi visant à mettre en œuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s my pleasure to speak to the budget today, although I do it with a heavy heart. As you know, an incredible thing happened last night in Boston. Being a Leafs fan for so many years, back to the days of Johnny Bower, I can never recall such a sad, sad night. But anyway, Leafs fans are loyal and we’ll carry on.

Interjection: They made it to game seven.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes. Anyway, it’s not easy.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: I know it’s funny to people outside of Toronto, but Leafs fans have suffered long and the young lads played well last night.

I’m here to speak to the budget, and I just want to go through a number of things. First of all, the one thing I am happy that is in the budget is the $35 billion over three years for infrastructure. That means that men and women across the province will work on building bridges, roads, sewers, public transit. They’ll build hospitals and schools. That is critically important, because I think we don’t spend enough time recognizing the importance of construction and the people who work in construction, whether they be small renovators or whether they be big construction companies.

One of the backbones of Ontario’s economy is people who work in building. In this province, we’re blessed with so many talented people who are wonderful at building our incredible tall buildings, building our sewers, building our roads. They are very expert, and we’re blessed to have them. This investment by the provincial government ensures that people work and ensures that we have good roads, schools and hospitals, which is critically important.

My own riding of Eglinton–Lawrence—right next door, in the riding of York South–Weston, on the border, we’re building a new hospital, Humber River Regional Hospital. It’s going to be the first digital hospital in North America. It’s well under construction, and a lot of men and women are working there. It’s not only the construction trades; all kinds of talented people are working on all the design aspects of this project. I visited the hospital site, and it’s an amazing work in progress.

Also, along Eglinton we’ve finally started work on building the underground Eglinton crosstown transitway. Again, the work is under way. The tunnel boring machine is about to do its boring at Keele Street. We’ve waited for that since 1995, when unfortunately, the subway that was already three years under construction was stopped and filled in. We waited, because we need that transit in the middle of the city, and we’re back at it. The only trouble now is the cost of that, compared to what it would have been. We would have gone to the airport for about $800 million; now we’re looking at about $5 billion.

Anyway, the fact is they are building it again. It’s going to be urban renewal—jobs. People are already building new homes and apartments. Good things are happening as a result of the transit.

Also, I’d like to mention the youth investment. We have young people who want to work, want an opportunity, and we’re investing in a youth job fund—about $300 million in young people. That is critical, because these people want a chance and want to contribute. This investment in young people is also a very important investment.

A lot of our seniors are very anxious to get more home care. In this budget, there’s going to be home care for 46,000 more Ontarians. As I mentioned, building hospitals is critically important; bricks and mortar are important. But as we transform our health care system, we have to provide more services at home. That’s where people stay healthier, and that’s where they want to be. They don’t want to go to a hospital. The investment in keeping people healthy at home is critically important and something that really helps deliver quality home health care. That is a critical investment.

I also want to make sure that we look, in this budget, at auto insurance. There’s a serious

section in the budget on trying to deal with our auto insurance challenges, and there’s a commitment to reduce rates by 15%. Many of us here are certainly familiar with some of the challenges in auto insurance. The main thing about auto insurance is that it is mandatory in Ontario, so you have to have it. This investment in ensuring that auto insurance is available at a reasonable price is critically important, because so many of us depend on cars. This is a critical issue that we’ve tackled.

Just to mention, one of the things about auto insurance that we’ve got to keep in mind is that it’s not just about reducing rates. We have to make sure people have protection when they are in accidents—that they can get their car fixed and get the medical support they need—and also eliminate the gaming that is going on.

There are too many people—not too many people, but a certain aggressive minority of people who are gaming the system, anything from staged accidents—in committee we’ve heard so many examples. It was just shocking, the testimony we heard before general government. They said that this kind of gaming has essentially been going on in auto insurance in Ontario for 40 years. It’s systemic, and it’s costing not just the insurance companies—everybody says, “You can game the system and the insurance company pays.” No, we all pay. These gamers, these fraud artists, are taking advantage of a system, on a daily basis, that’s meant to protect people and costing all of us higher premiums.

That’s why this anti-fraud task force is critically important. We can’t let this small minority abuse the system and make everybody else pay. It’s a good system, but the fraud artists are too prevalent. Sadly enough, they’re abusing the system for their own advantage and their own profit at the expense of everybody else. So I’m glad to see that the government has made a commitment to take upon itself the implementation of the anti-fraud task force, which is critically important.

I just want to mention that another thing that doesn’t get much attention in the budget is the uploading that has been taking place. That means that in past years, there were costs that were driven down onto the backs of the property taxpayers. Those were the costs of maintaining highways and maintaining services at the municipal level. But over the last 10 years, billions of dollars have been brought onto the provincial tax roll and off the municipal tax roll, meaning that property taxes in Ontario have stabilized, because those costs—in many cases they’re social soft costs—have been uploaded by the billions of dollars onto property taxes.

That is of great benefit to the municipalities, but it’s really of benefit to homeowners. Whether you rent or whether you own a home or you have a mortgage, keeping property taxes under control is critical. So over the last number of years we have systematically brought these costs back to the provincial government—of great benefit to every municipality, large or small, from Kenora to Cornwall. That uploading is critical.

I know that in Toronto itself, we’ve uploaded billions of dollars off the city of Toronto’s property taxes back onto the provincial tax, which is of great benefit to Toronto, so they can do what they have to do for their citizens.

I just want to mention briefly—oh, God, it’s overtime. Anyway, it’s a budget that helps working people. It helps stabilize our economy and it helps build for the future. That’s what this is critically important for: building for the future, so we have a good workforce and a competitive and a caring society.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Eglinton–Lawrence did say one thing about the discussion about municipal property taxes, and I just want to make this statement: Yes, they are uploading stuff, but they’re also uploading the OMPF, the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund, so the municipalities have no net gain on it.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s not true. That’s blatantly false.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s absolutely true. They are clawing back the OMPF funding, and—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I think I’ve made my point. I touched a sore point, so I’ll leave it at that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to stand up and speak to this important bill. As the debate plays itself out—and it should be coming to a close fairly soon—I think it has been very clear that we as the third party have been able to hold the government to account on several key issues, namely home care, auto insurance, youth employment. Certainly, the conversation around closing those corporate tax loopholes and generating revenue to pay for the plans that are contained within the budget—certainly we need to get some clarity on that issue as well.

I think there is a good case for the financial accountability office which our leader, Andrea Horwath, has put forward. From an accountability perspective, that’s what the people of this province actually expect, because we also have to acknowledge that there is a serious trust issue with this government.

The people of the province and the people of my riding have been very clear in communicating to me about the priorities that are expressed in this budget. We’ve seen promises, we’ve seen plans, we’ve seen strategies, but we need accountability. I think that what we have tried to do on this side of the House, notwithstanding what the PCs have tried to do—which is nothing—is try to hold the government to account, to ensure that the Ombudsman actually also has oversight over the health care sector so that we don’t have another Ornge, so that we don’t have another eHealth, so that the chemotherapy drugs scandal, which has just recently played itself out, doesn’t happen again.

These are two accountability measures: the financial accountability office and the Ombudsman. These are long-standing asks that the people of this province actually deserve. If we put this into play, we will have an opportunity to rebuild trust back in this Legislature. I think that’s a long time coming and I think that it’s possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m pleased to provide a few comments to the input my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence has given on the government’s budget for 2013. My good friend has mentioned that in the budget there are initiatives to provide more opportunities for youths to access employment and training. I can tell you, from the riding that I represent, that would make a significant difference to the young people in my riding who need these opportunities.

Also, I think every member of this Legislature has heard over the years that people who are recuperating from some form of surgery or illness in their homes require additional home care, and this budget clearly provides that opportunity. There are people out there who are actually waiting for the implementation of this particular initiative by the government.

But I think one of the bigger ones that is in the budget, and we should all be supporting it, is the auto insurance initiative. Many of you will remember in 2004, the government of the day actually took a huge initiative to reduce insurance by 10%. In 2010, the government again initiated some changes in the whole auto insurance industry. As a result of those changes we are starting to see some activity out there that is causing the insurance rates to go down. So in 2013, we’re taking that next step, and it is in this budget to move there.

I’m going to tell you, one of the steps that I hope we can get in place quickly is the auto fraud. The area that I live in and the area that I represent is paying high rates because of significant fraud. I need those initiatives to be in place quickly so we can benefit from them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: We are debating budget Bill 65 here this morning, a bill that actually spends $3.6 billion more than the revenue we take in.

The member opposite just talked about auto insurance initiatives. We do sit on committee together. I think he knows, after hearing all the testimony that we heard regarding the auto insurance industry, that what they have in the budget is going to be very, very difficult to achieve. So if they believe that they’re going to be able to get auto insurance customers a 15% break on their auto insurance premiums—there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors contained in this budget, as well.

He also addressed youth unemployment, which is at 16.5% in Ontario. It’s an unbelievable number, and this budget doesn’t go nearly far enough to address that situation with our young people under the age of 25.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time for questions and comments, so we now return to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to thank the members from Durham, London–Fanshawe, Scarborough–Rouge River and Prince Edward–Hastings for their comments.

I think that what people in our ridings want is government to help when they need it. They don’t ask very often. If they get sick, they want good health care. If young people are out of work, they want government to give them a bit of a hand. They want good, safe streets. They want a good place to live and grow up for their kids.

I know in this Legislature we spend so much time being critical—and that’s the job of the opposition, and even some of us in government, to be critical, but we forget that this is an amazing province with so many incredible, hard-working people. Despite the high Canadian dollar, despite the price of oil, despite the recession, the people of Ontario have really stood up and overcome all this adversity because the people of Ontario are not afraid to work. They’re not afraid to invest. They’re not afraid to innovate. They’re not afraid to take on challenges. They’ve done amazingly well.

When everybody said, “Well, Ontario isn’t going to make it”—we heard about all the talking heads on television saying, “Oh, Ontario this and Ontario”—hey, Ontario has shown that we can do it.

We’ve got incredible people. We’ve got incredible resources. Our agricultural resources, our natural resources and our human resources are second to none. That’s what I hope this budget can reinforce: joining with those incredible people of Ontario, giving them the opportunity to continue to defy all the negative pundits that keep putting us down. You can’t put us down, because we are strong, and we will overcome. We’ve shown that over and over again, and we’ll show them again that Ontario is strong and going to get stronger.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 65 on behalf of the NDP caucus but, more importantly, on behalf of the residents, the taxpayers, in my Welland riding.

When I was first elected, in 2011, that election resulted in a minority government. The expectation of the people across this province was that we have a minority government, we have three parties, and they purposely did that so that these parties would have to work together on behalf of them. The message was clear then, and it’s still clear, that those people who elected us want results. They’re sick of the cynical political games, and they want to see action and results from this government.

Andrea Horwath, our leader, has been committed to getting results for Ontarians. We’ve been out over the last few months speaking to Ontarians across this province. We’re now here in a budget situation, and we have had an opportunity to actually put forward some proposals that will achieve some results for the people who live in this province. We’re ready and willing to add our ideas to that budget.

I think we owe the people of this province, in this minority government, to get some action and to get something results. Unfortunately, the people on my far right, the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party, don’t feel the same way as we do about getting results for the people in this province. They have refused to listen to Ontarians, they’ve refused to put aside some political games, and they vowed to vote against the budget before even reading it. I don’t think that is a responsible way to represent your constituents and the people in this province.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I agree. Absolutely.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Right? We also were kind of tied up in prorogation, because the Liberals actually chose to prorogue this government last fall while we had already introduced and debated—I don’t know—110 or 120 bills. That was all for political gain, to elect a new leader and to see if they could get some improvement in the polling results.

They scrapped a lot of bills, and today we are here debating those bills again so that they can use them as announcements, as if they were actually new bills, in the event that there is an upcoming election.

In fact, they even co-opted some of our bills as their own. Our tanning bill and our sprinkler bill are now Liberal bills.

Interjections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: But we’re getting results. It doesn’t matter. It’s getting it done.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes. Anyway, it is a shame. Dalton McGuinty actually could have preserved all these bills, and we could have been much farther along. We probably could have been at Bill 250 by now.

But anyway, it’s our job, it’s our responsibility, to take our job seriously, to understand who we’re here to represent, and that it’s the lives of our constituents that we’re talking about here.

The Liberals have introduced a new budget. We have put forward a lot of good ideas. We asked for a youth jobs plan, a Youth Jobs Strategy. There’s some money going to that. It will address some of the youth employment issues in this province and, hopefully, kids will be able to move out of their parents’ basements and actually get on with their lives.

We also asked the government to remove the barriers, the clawbacks, for people on ODSP and OW, and that actually was in the budget. Now, that is one small step of a much larger strategy that needs to be implemented and developed to move people out of poverty. You know, $200 a month is not a whole lot of money. I don’t know about you, but my family can spend that at the grocery store in one week. So we’re not talking about giving people a whole lot of money here.

We asked for an increase in home care and a guarantee that nobody would wait more than five days to actually get home care once they qualified. Unfortunately, the government isn’t prepared to make that guarantee. I don’t know why that is, because certainly they’ve done those kinds of things with wait times, where they’ve given hospitals additional dollars if they were able to meet the wait times around hip replacements, knee replacements and cataract surgeries. Surely they should be able to give a guarantee to people desperately waiting for home care—a list, I think, of about 6,100 or 6,200.

I can tell you that home care today, as it sits, is not the most satisfactory system. I can give you an example in my own riding, where my neighbour actually called for some physio. She was very fragile. She wasn’t able to get from her walker to a chair or from her walker to the bed without help. She got one physio assessment, and then she got a list of exercises to complete by herself. Then she got one assessment two weeks later to say, “Oh, you’re doing well.” I don’t actually call that home care; I don’t call it a service. She would have been better off not to have it at all.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s the bare minimum.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, it’s the bare minimum.

In order to make sure we were able to fund some of these initiatives, we also came forward with proposals to do things, as we did in the last budget, to cap public sector CEO salaries. We believe that would have generated about $0.7 billion. We also asked for the loophole to be closed on HST input tax credits. That is actually a loophole that will see big corporations, which can well afford to take their clients to a Blue Jays game or out for an expensive dinner at a steak house—

Ms. Catherine Fife: No more Leafs.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, no more Leafs games, unfortunately.

The average taxpayer doesn’t get to write off those expenses. They’re the ones paying the freight here. The big corporations are already getting a quite satisfactory tax rate, unlike the taxpayers of this province. So we said, “Close those loopholes, and you’ll save $1.3 billion.” To date, the only thing the government has done is send a letter, on May 1, months after we first proposed it.

So I’m actually—time goes very quickly when you’re up here. We also proposed a number of other things, but I’m going to concentrate now on the last two things we addressed last week.

The financial accountability office: The reason that is important is because we have asked for a balanced and accountable budget process. We’ve been talking about this for several months. We’ve been talking about scandals at gas plants, where millions, which could be leading to billions, of dollars have been wasted. We talked last year, and we’re still talking, about the Ornge air ambulance fiasco, where millions and potentially billions of dollars have also been wasted. Prior to that, it was eHealth, and I’m sure there are many more to come.

What we’re saying is that if we had a financial accountability office, we could in fact be dealing with these things at the front end instead of at the back end. That, in itself, would save taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.

We’re also asking for Ombudsman oversight, which is not a stretch. I mean, a $48-billion, $49-billion health care budget; it’s, I don’t know, 40%, 50% of the budget—maybe even more—60%.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Hospitals are about $24 billion or $25 billion.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Right. It’s a lot of money. We can’t understand why the government wouldn’t want to have Ombudsman oversight. We are the only province in Canada that doesn’t have it. In fact, there is Ombudsman oversight of the LHINs. So it’s not a stretch to actually expand that to hospitals, home care, clinics—there are so many different clinics now. There are the family health teams, there are the CHCs and then there are all these other things the government funds, like the private eye clinics—it goes on and on. We need to be clear that there is some oversight.

Hundreds of patients complain every year. We know that because they complain to the College of Nurses, for example, about their care. They may complain about their care providers or they may complain to some other college that represents professionals in the health care system, but they also complain directly to the Ombudsman. So, certainly, it’s our position that we need to have that financial accountability office to save the taxpayers a lot of money, and we need to have Ombudsman oversight so that patients in this province have a venue to go to to get their issues addressed.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this. I look forward to further debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m happy to rise again to speak about the Ontario path to balance the 2013 budget.

I want to respond to a couple of comments that the member from Welland made. She made a comment about the Liberal government co-opting some of their private members’ bills. I do think it’s important to set the record straight. I mean, if we want to talk about who brought forward what, there are many examples that the Liberals brought forward that I think she is alluding to and suggesting were co-opted. We can talk about the sprinklers in seniors’ homes bill that was brought forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing some time ago.

And the tanning bed one; that was originally brought forward by a former member from the government side. But the important thing is that most Ontarians are not that focused on who brought forward what bill. Locally, it’s important who brings it forward; it resonates in certain communities, of course. But when we get in the Legislature, at the end of the day it’s about bringing forward the best ideas that will serve Ontarians as a whole.

I think that’s the spirit that people expect us to work with, and the intent: to do what’s best, take the good ideas of all the bills that are before us and call them forward and get them to committee so we can refine them and work on them and make them better for the benefit of Ontarians, and be less focused on who brought forward what.

The member also talked about financial accountability. When we look at the budget, there’s certainly a number of very strong measures around fiscal responsibility and an accountable government. There’s quite a list. I won’t have time in my two-minute response to cover them all, but there are many things related to managing program spending, to continuing with recommendations from Drummond, managing compensation costs, slowing the growth rate of health care while still delivering core services—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened carefully and attentively to the member from Welland and I think she was directly on course when she was talking about the state of where we are. She mentioned, I think quite informatively, about the gas plant scandal; she mentioned about the Ornge scandal; she mentioned about the eHealth scandal. And she kind of wound up by talking about the Liberals plagiarizing bills. In that respect, I think they’re right.

But I ask them one question, rhetorically: How can you possibly be supporting this government on this bill? This is the question. In your response I expect you to explain, why are you supporting the Liberals who you think so poorly of?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I congratulate the member from Welland. She covered a lot of ground.

I appreciate the Tories responding to the member from Welland in the way that they do. I know that the leader of the Conservative Party is in a hurry to either be the Premier or to skedaddle away from here. I understand the urgency of that Conservative imperative.

Mr. John O’Toole: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Durham?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d ask the member to direct his comments to the budget bill, Bill 65.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Trinity–Spadina has the floor.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It was a wonderful interruption, of course.

So I really do appreciate what the Conservatives are all up to. They are all in a hurry to get out of here; I understand that. But we have a job to do and we’re doing it as best we can. One of the deficits we have in this place, in this Legislature—and in the federal government—is a deficit of accountability. The point is, how do we make ourselves accountable to the citizens of Ontario?

We propose a couple of things: One is a financial accountability office similar to—à la Page at the federal level that held the Tories to account each and every day while he was there, God bless. He did one heck of a job. We’re looking to do the same here in Ontario because I think we need it. Secondly, we’re calling for Ombudsman oversight over our hospitals and long-term-care facilities. We believe we need that accountability. Now, the Minister of the Environment says we’ve got the auditor. No, they’re two different functions.

One does audit for money and the other one hears appeals from people and says, “Here’s the problem I’ve got.” Then he researches that, investigates and makes recommendations to make government better. That’s what we want.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I thank you, Speaker. Just a couple of comments. I appreciate the remarks by the member from Welland on the presentation today.

I just want to spend my two minutes on three or four particular aspects that are within the budget. One is, of course, the 15% which our colleagues on the other side, the NDP, have brought forward, I have to say, very vigorously. I think at some point in time I know that we all wanted to do something very, very major, so I think this is important to see that it’s in the budget.

The other thing is home care and the changes that we are making. The hard-working Minister of Health here is making changes to the health care system. It’s about time that we do bring some changes, and they are very major and positive changes as well.

The other one is jobs for youth. I think we have heard this morning here how frustrating it is to see our young people still unemployed, if you will. We have a good percentage that is looking for work, and $295 million is to create some 30,000 jobs for youth. I think this must be taken into consideration.

The other thing that I really want to speak on, because we hear so much about infrastructure, Metrolinx and transportation—now is the time. It is within the budget: $35 billion over two years; we are looking at 100,000 jobs a year. This is not only for Metrolinx Toronto; we are helping some 97 municipalities throughout Ontario with respect to remodernizing infrastructure within those municipalities. I think we have to take that into consideration. I thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member from Welland has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to thank the Minister of Consumer Affairs, the member from Durham, the member from Trinity–Spadina and the minister for seniors.

It’s interesting—actually, the member from Trinity–Spadina raised it—that our friends here to the right aren’t debating this bill, because certainly in the last session they were ringing bells, delaying debates, and now they’re wanting to speed this debate along, I guess so they can get on with summer or something, I don’t know—

Ms. Catherine Fife: Cottage time.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —cottage time, whatever that is. But you know what? Our proposals are about accountability. This government has not been accountable in many ways—millions and millions of dollars wasted over the last couple of years. So this is really just about making the government accountable. It’s about making the government keep their promises. I can remember there being advertisements back in 2011 about the 100 or so broken promises of the Liberal government in the 2007-11 period. So accountability, I think, needs to be part of this budget.

The Ombudsman piece—once again, this is a huge budget—a large part of this government spending. I see no reason why the government would not want accountability. People want to make sure that every one of those valued tax dollars is spent in a way that provides excellent services for the people who live in this province.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: They must be afraid.

Ms. Cindy Forster: You know, that may be the case, but in fact there’s no reason not to have Ombudsman oversight. As I said, it’s already at the LHIN level. The LHINs are the people in the 14 regions who are out there passing budgets in each one of those regions. If they have oversight, why shouldn’t the rest of the health care system?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to begin by speaking out to Leafs Nation across the province, who I know are in a bit of despair today. I suggest, be not despaired. Our boys did us very, very proud last night and they did us very proud in this playoff battle with the Bruins. When you think about it, this is the youngest team in professional hockey today. What great experience they had over the course of seven games. They got to overtime in that seventh game. Yes, they didn’t get the overtime goal to go on, but our boys did us proud. Leafs Nation ought to be proud of each and every one of those players. I’ll tell you, I certainly am as well.

On to the budget, Mr. Speaker. I want to begin by presenting seven reasons—there are many others—why I think we ought to be supporting the budget. I’ll go through them quickly and then I’ll try, in the time I have, to go into a little more detail on each and every one of them. I probably won’t get to them all.

The first is, let’s face it, we ought to be supporting this budget to avoid what I would consider to be an unnecessary election that I don’t think any Ontarian really wants. Number two, if you believe in fiscal responsibility, you ought to be supporting this budget. Number three, if you believe in creating jobs and opportunities for our young people, you ought to be supporting this budget. If you believe in a strong economy, you ought to be supporting this budget. If you believe in affordable auto insurance rates, you ought to be supporting this budget.

If you believe in the importance of caring for seniors in their homes, then you ought to be supporting this budget. If you’re concerned about the vulnerable, then you ought to be supporting this budget. The point I’m making is, whether you swing a little to the left or a little to the right, you ought to be supporting this budget, because this is a budget that is supported by the majority of Ontarians.

Let me begin with the fiscal responsibility piece. We’re the only government now in all of Canada that for four consecutive years has met our budget targets. We’re well on target to meet our deficit reduction targets and have the deficit slayed by 2017-18—a reasonable, doable but an aggressive target to meet. I’m confident our track record demonstrates that we’ll be able to get there.

If you believe, as I said, in creating jobs and opportunities for young people, then our Youth Jobs Strategy does just that. It’s a $295-million, almost $300-million investment in our young people. The centrepiece of that strategy is a Youth Employment Fund—about $195 million of that investment goes there. What that strategy does is it works in partnership with the private sector to create job opportunities for our young people. The fact is, our young people need that foot in the door to get that job experience that they need. It’s the old adage: You can’t get a job without experience, but you can’t get experience without a job. A lot of our young people are facing that dilemma.

This program is very important to our young people, and it’s very important that we get this budget passed, because we want to have that program up and running, if possible—a very aggressive timeline—by the fall. We can do it, Mr. Speaker, but we’re going to have to get that budget passed by the spring in order to allow us to be able to meet that timetable and start helping our young people get that first crack at a job by the fall.

The second piece of that Youth Jobs Strategy that I find very exciting is the Youth Entrepreneurship Fund. I think that’s incredibly exciting, because we need to build a culture of entrepreneurship in this province. It’s something that some would say isn’t naturally a part of Ontario or Canadian culture, but it’s something that needs to be built in. It’s not just for our young people to go out and start up businesses. That’s important; that’s terrific. That helps create jobs, rather than just going out and getting a job yourself, but it’s also to build that entrepreneurial mindset.

Companies around the world are looking for workforces that have people who have that entrepreneurial mindset to be able to do that. This program will provide mentorship, which is critically important; seed-stage capital, which is also important; and it will provide opportunities to provide outreach in high schools, which will help breed that culture of entrepreneurial thinking that I think that next-generation workforce is going to need to be globally competitive.

The other piece of the strategy that also excites me is the Youth Innovation Fund. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater success story in Ontario than in many of our campus accelerator centres that are located right across the province. There’s the U of T accelerator centre that’s near here; there’s also the DMZ, the digital media zone that Ryerson set up. When you go down to Silicon Valley, what they’re telling us down there is that Ontario is now producing the best entrepreneurs in the world, and many of them are bubbling up through these centres. VeloCity in Waterloo is another great example of that.

It’s something we can be proud of and something we can build on, and that’s why I’m so excited about the Youth Innovation Fund.

The fourth piece of the strategy is the business connectivity and training fund. That’s important because it brings everyone together to tackle the issue of training.

So I think the centrepiece of this budget, and one of the reasons why all parties ought to be supporting it, is the $300-million investment that we’re making in job opportunities for our young people. It’s critically important in building that economy of the future.

Mr. Speaker, if you believe in a strong economy—and I say this to people who might be on the centre to right area of the political spectrum across the province—the single most important ask of the Jobs and Prosperity Council, which represented our business community very, very well, was to move forward with the extension of the capital cost allowance for manufacturing. That was their single greatest ask. That’s in this budget.

That’s a $295-million savings to our manufacturing sector for investing in processing machinery and equipment over three years—very significant in trying to tackle the productivity gap between Ontario’s business community and the US. That’s another reason to support the budget.

One of the major asks of small business and the CFIB was to provide them with a greater exemption with regard to the employer health tax levy and relief for small business. We’re moving that exemption rate from $400,000 to $450,000 for payroll. That’s going to benefit thousands of small businesses. I think it’s 60,000 small businesses that are going to benefit significantly from that. That’s going to help create jobs across our economy.

I’m also really pleased with the $45-million grant for the music industry. That makes good business sense, because when music is made here, the residuals of those artists flow into our economy instead of somewhere else. That’s not just when Canadians make music here; that’s when anybody makes music here. That grant is a good investment because, ultimately, if there’s a good business case, that will pay for itself. It’s good for our music industry, which is terrific, but it’s also really good for our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the $35-billion investment in infrastructure: I think there’s something like 100,000 jobs that are attached to that, at least. These are tough fiscal times. The fact that this government continues to invest in our roads, bridges, transit, hospitals and schools across this province is really important, because that’s helping to ensure that we continue to build a strong economy.

I also mentioned auto insurance rates. If you believe in more affordable auto insurance rates, then you ought to be supporting this budget, because this budget will lead to a 15% reduction in auto insurance rates. When you look at the track record of this government with auto insurance rates—this is something that’s good to get on the record—and you compare it with the nine years before, from 1995 to 2003, inflation was at around 18%, and auto insurance rates shot up 45% in that time. If you look at the time we’ve been in office, from 2003 to 2012, inflation was about the same, around 18.1%.

Auto insurance rates went up 11.4% during that time, less than the cost of inflation. That tells me we’ve been managing this file reasonably well. But in recent years, we’ve seen a very high increase in fraud and things like that that is jacking up auto insurance rates, so we need to take action once again. This will be the third time that we’ve intervened and taken action, and I’m very confident that we’ll be able to meet our objective of 15% auto insurance rates.

In the 30 seconds or less I have left, I didn’t get to touch on the investments we’re making in home care—a $700-million investment. That’s going to touch the lives of 46,000 Ontarians to help them stay in their homes longer and to stay there safer. That’s important to our families—also the investments we’re making for the vulnerable: the increases in social assistance and the adjustments we’re making to that.

There’s something in this budget for all Ontarians. It’s a balanced budget that leads us to fiscal balance. It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the vulnerable. All members of the Legislature ought to be supporting it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Scarborough Centre, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, started off by outlining the seven reasons to support it. I call it the “seven deadly sins.” Basically, obesity would be one of them.

The seven issues that I like to focus on—they’ve doubled the debt from $139 billion to $273 billion. Beware. They’ve doubled the deficit, really. In longer terms, when they started, it was $5 billion; it’s now going to be $11 billion. So they’ve doubled pretty well everything but have delivered nothing. In fact, if you really look at the scandals that we’ve had to deal with in Ontario: the gas plant, the billions wasted there; Ornge, the billions wasted there; eHealth—those are the seven things people should keep in mind.

I can’t think for a moment why the NDP is still going to support them. They’re in bed together on this, and I can’t wait for the member from Trinity–Spadina.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know that the Tories are eager to get out of here. I am afraid that some of them are saying they want an election so they could get rid of their leader. I don’t know. I’m worried about that, but I could be wrong. I want to be wrong, of course.

I have a question to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, because he talked about the payroll tax. The NDP made a proposal, as you know, that we keep the payroll tax exemption at $400,000 for small businesses and that we eliminate that payroll exemption for those corporations that earn $5 million and up, which you have done. God bless.

You did one thing, but then you did something else, and that is, you raised the exemption from $400,000 for small businesses to $450,000, thus making the whole package revenue-neutral. My question to you is: Did you not think that that tax exemption of $400,000 for small businesses was enough, and why increase it to $450,000, taking away from governments the ability to have a few dollars extra? God knows you need the revenue, because your deficit—it’s not that small; it’s quite huge.

So I’m asking you why you wouldn’t take the opportunity to raise a little revenue, because the exemption for small businesses of $400,000 seemed and seems reasonable, but you opted to increase it as a way of losing potential revenue that you desperately need.

The exemption helps small business people. I understand that. But did you need to increase it and thus get rid of all the potential revenue that you so desperately need? Perhaps you might answer that question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m pleased to join in on the debate and make a few comments about my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and some of the comments from the member from Durham and the member from Trinity–Spadina.

It’s kind of interesting sitting here, but I remember being a city councillor when the then government of the day filled in the Eglinton subway that all of us in Toronto wanted. We don’t seem to want to remember that and remember the costs that occurred then by my friends on the other side.

I remember, in early 2000, the blackouts in Toronto, when my fridge went down for four days and everything in it I had to throw in the garbage. That was as a result of my friends across the other way would not deal with the power shortage that Ontario had at the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Now you’re hearing the noise on the other side because the truth is coming home to roost.

Madam Speaker, I’m part of a government that resolved that power shortage by building 17 power plants in the short period that we’ve been in office. Yes, there have been two of them that have caused a problem, and we accept that. But nobody’s perfect. You’re not perfect; we’re not. But we built 15 power plants in Ontario that are up and running and working, and we should be very proud of that.

My colleague talked about the grants to the music industry. That would be something that the industry needs and would create new jobs. That’s what my friends across the way want; they want us to create new jobs.

My friend from the NDP says we just increased the employer health tax credit for small business. We did that so it will create opportunities for new jobs. It will create—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to join the debate again here this morning on the budget bill, Bill 65.

I would agree with the member from Scarborough Centre, the minister, on his comments regarding the Toronto Maple Leafs last night. Although it was a tough, tough loss—my friend here from Northumberland is a Boston Bruins fan, in front of me, so don’t mind me if I smack him in the back of the head. But a tough loss for the Leafs last night and all of Leafs Nation.

As far as his comments on young entrepreneurs, he is right: We are producing some great young minds here in Ontario. Unfortunately, those great young minds, as he alluded to, are being sought after by Silicon Valley and places far away from Ontario because they can’t find work here in this province: 16.5% of young people under the age of 25 can’t get a job in Ontario. I know lots of people, and they tell me that all the time in Prince Edward–Hastings—parents whose kids have graduated from university and college who just can’t find a place in the workplace. This budget really does nothing for them.

My friend across the way is blaming the Conservatives for the blackout in 2003. There was a little event in Ohio that actually precipitated anything that may have occurred here.

We will not be supporting the budget, and I can’t believe the Liberal farm team and, to my left, the NDP will be supporting the budget. I look forward to a vote on this bill in the very near future.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Durham, the member for Trinity–Spadina, the member for Scarborough–Rouge River and the member for Prince Edward–Hastings for their comments.

I wouldn’t hold too much against the member for Northumberland–Quinte West for supporting the Bruins. They are my second favourite team; the Leafs are my favourite, growing up in Toronto, of course. But anybody my age would have grown up in the Bobby Orr era, so you’ve got to forgive Bruins fans for being Bruins fans because that was the be-all and end-all back then, and we’re all about the same age.

I do want to comment that he actually made my case, I think, for me when he talked about the fact—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: He did?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Yes. Youth unemployment is at 16.5%, and that’s very high. That’s why it’s so important that he ought to be supporting this budget, because the Youth Jobs Strategy will provide 30,000 jobs for our young people, something very, very important. Now is the time that our young people need those job opportunities. The budget provides that. So I think maybe he ought to reconsider his lack of support for the budget.

I thank the member for Scarborough–Rouge River for his comments. They’re chippy and spot-on, as usual.

The member for Trinity–Spadina is no longer with us right now, but I thank him for his comments. I do think, though, that helping small business helps our economy in many, many different ways. It creates jobs. They are the backbone of our economy. So providing our small business owners a break through the employer health tax levy is something that, I think, we ought to be doing and something I would have thought the NDP would be very, very supportive of. Traditionally, they would have been.

Madam Speaker, in the 20 seconds or less, I want to say that if you’re a young person in this province, you ought to be supporting this budget for the opportunities it presents. If you’re a senior in this province, you ought to be supporting the budget because it helps you stay in your home. If you’re a driver in this province, you’ll want to be supporting it because it helps keep your insurance rates affordable. There are a lot of reasons to support the budget, not a lot of reasons not to. So I’ll be supporting it, and I urge my colleagues opposite to as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m pleased to join the debate today. It’s always important for us to voice the concerns of our constituents. When we go back to our ridings, those are the people who bring substance to the job that we have and that we were elected to do. When we listen to the people of Ontario and the people of our ridings, they’re giving us a message. The message they gave us in the last election, in October 2012, is that this is a minority government.

We’ve elected a minority government, and it’s a democratic process. Their voices were heard, and New Democrats have respected that decision of the people of Ontario. That’s why we’re here. We’re here debating the budget because it is a democratic process. Each one of my constituents in London–Fanshawe and every person in Ontario needs to have a voice in this budget. By not participating in debate, you’re really doing a disservice to the people you represent. They sent you here for their voice. They can’t speak in the Legislature, so they elected you. They elected each and every one of us to stand up for them and to give feedback to this budget.

Also, New Democrats went one step further. We also put up a website and a phone number, because if I can’t get to people in London–Fanshawe on the weekend when I’m there to do the work of the constituency, then I want to hear from them 24/7. We have certainly made sure we’re respectfully listening to the people of Ontario and we want to hear what they have to say before we make up our minds. We can’t just say, “No, before the budget is even released, we’re not voting on it. Sorry, we’re not going to participate in a democratic process. We’re not going to debate.”

Unfortunately, that’s what the Conservatives have done. They have stepped out of this vote—well, sorry, they’ve made it clear that they’re not voting, before even actually taking the time to consider what the people of Ontario have been telling them. Maybe they’re only talking to one particular constituent, but you have to broaden your conversations. It’s not just about the people you represent. It’s about all the constituents in London–Fanshawe. When someone calls my office, regardless of who they voted for, we are there to serve them. We are there to make sure their needs are met, and we do the best we can. That’s what our office is there for, and that’s what I’m here for.

I’ve heard many, many people talk to us, call the office and phone line, and write to us, and they’re saying, “We elected a minority government, so we want to see you get results.” There are some good things in this budget, and that’s because we participated in this budget, as we should. This is not an NDP budget; it’s a Liberal budget, but the ideas that we’ve put forward, this government put in the budget. Yes, I’m glad that those things are there, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a carte blanche—“I’m going to vote for the budget” or “I’m not going to vote for the budget.” It means we take considerate time to look at a document before we make decisions.

When I hear some of the comments from one particular member, they seem so unpredictable. They seem to be off-the-cuff, and that’s not how a debate should be. A debate should be considerate, with factual knowledge and logical arguments back and forth before you make your mind up. I hope that some of the Conservatives will take the time to rethink just making a decision on a knee-jerk reaction because they don’t think it’s a process that should be considered consciously, in a democratic way of doing things before you decide. You can’t do that. You have to have discussions on all things before you say no. You just can’t say no without having some forethought into something before you do that.

We know that Ontarians feel they’ve been taken for granted. We know that they’ve lost a lot of faith in this government, and they’ve told us. I’ve heard in my riding, “I don’t want an election, Teresa, but I want to make sure that this government delivers, so go out there and hold them accountable.” We have that piece that we asked for, the financial accountability officer. That makes sense. That’s something that people understand.

This government has failed in many ways. They have failed in eHealth; that’s billions of dollars spent unwisely, wasted, when we have a health care system that has, of course, world-class facilities, nurses and doctors. Everyone who works in those institutions, I value what they do and they certainly do a wonderful job, but our job as a government is to make sure the tax dollars, the people’s precious health care dollars, are spent on those services.

So we asked also for the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman said back in 2012—and this is the part where I talk about maybe some facts, some logic when we’re debating this budget. In 2012, the Ombudsman said the following: “I’m often asked—especially now that budgets are so tight—how much it would cost to extend the Ontario Ombudsman’s mandate to include hospitals. The naysayers—and we’ll use the Conservatives as an example”—excuse me; the Ombudsman didn’t say they’re going to use the Conservatives as an example. I’ll correct that record just right now. So this is the quote from the Ombudsman—

Interjection: It would have been funny if he had.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, I certainly wouldn’t want to put a shadow of a doubt on that.

“The naysayers envision a huge, expensive new layer of bureaucracy. But there’s no reason it can’t be cost-neutral. Indeed, that was the experience in Quebec—resources were simply reallocated from the health ministry.

“And it’s worth noting that my office is already extremely cost-effective. In the past fiscal year, we handled about 18,000 complaints on a budget of ... $11 million.”

So here is the expert, the Ombudsman, André Marin, who is trusted by the people of Ontario and, I think, also trusted by the members of this Legislature. From what I have seen from André Marin in the short time that I’ve been here, I think that man has a lot of integrity, character and expertise. I believe he could be the Ombudsman to oversee the hospitals, the health care sector and the long-term care. We are the only province in Canada that doesn’t have an Ombudsman. We need the Ombudsman.

I get quite emotional about the underdosing of chemotherapy drugs in London, Windsor and Peterborough. That is a tragic situation. I know the minister is trying to do her best to put in some oversight and she’s got some new regulations in. But the fact remains that if the outsourcing of those drugs was done five years ago, which it was, that would have been maybe a recourse that could have happened, where the Ombudsman could have looked at that process and said, “You’ve outsourced the drugs. Now here are the checks and balances that you should have in place by changing that system.” And maybe we wouldn’t have this tragic situation today.

I had a press conference on Friday in my office with one of the victims of the underdosing—a very wonderful man, very gracious to come and tell his story: Barry Vickery. Mr. Vickery has an optimistic attitude, because you have to have that kind of attitude and not be self-defeating until you know what the reality is that you’re going to be dealing with, especially with your health. He was very passionate about what he talked about, and his experience. But he agrees that a third party is needed—an impartial third party.

When something goes wrong in the health care system, we need to investigate and people need to have confidence in that investigation. It can’t be a partisan, tainted process where people don’t feel that they’ve got the answers.

So I think that’s also what we’re talking about here when we talk about the budget. We don’t want a knee-jerk reaction saying, you know, “Let’s vote it down,” or “I support it”; we want accountability. When we talk about the two pieces that we introduced currently, they make a lot of sense. They’re very reasonable and they’re very practical. When you have money that has been spent unwisely—people are tired of that.

Therefore, we are saying there are ways to bring trust back to this government. There are ways to bring trust back to government in general. That’s by making sure any government is held accountable with an accountability financial officer. Be it the Liberals, be it the Conservatives or be it New Democrats, we are responsible to the people of Ontario. We are accountable to the people of Ontario, whether it be a majority or a minority, and we should make sure their precious tax dollars are spent on the services they expect—

Ms. Catherine Fife: And they deserve.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —and they deserve—well deserve. Because we all know how hard it is to go out there every day and make sure that there’s food on the table and that you have a roof over your head and then, when you need health care, it’s there to rely on and the money you’ve contributed to the health care system is being used to look after yourself and your family and your community.

Speaker, I just want to put that out there, that I really feel passionately about the Ombudsman and this government, I hope, really understands that that should be in their proposals. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce Margaret Howard. She is the grandmother of page Brigid Howard-Waddingham. She’s from the great city of Owen Sound in the wonderful riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d just like to congratulate the Toronto Maple Leafs for making game seven, but I also want to congratulate the Ottawa Senators, Canada’s only hockey team—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I might have thought somebody might have learned that we want to maybe do it as a point of order after introductions, but we’ll see what happens.

The Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce some summer interns who’ll be working in the Ministry of Rural Affairs this summer, in the members’ east gallery: Matthew Scoon, Gabrielle Schachter, Parker Mackay and Zahin Chowdhury. They will be serving Kawartha Dairy ice cream tomorrow during Peterborough Day from 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon in rooms 228 and 230. I want to put them to work early.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to welcome some special guests from the riding of Niagara West–Glanbrook—they are the proud parents, grandmother and brother of Benjamin Comley, who is our page captain here today.

Benjamin is an impressive young man—a grade 8 student from Bellmoore Elementary School. He returned to school after a very serious injury and still was at the top of his class. He is an MVP and most dedicated player in hockey and, despite his young age, also very hard at work in supporting local charities. So I’m pleased to introduce his very proud parents, Michelle and Greg Comley, brother Jacob and grandmother Linda Moore joining us here today.

Mr. Rod Jackson: I’d like to introduce two residents from my constituency in Barrie: Sylvia and Terry Stutz, who are joining us, visiting the Legislature today and joining me for lunch.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for page Brigid Howard-Waddingham, grandmother Margaret Howard is here visiting her granddaughter.

For the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, on behalf of page Brendan Adamo, mother Rita, father Stephen, sister Robyn—a twin, I think—grandmother Collen and grandfather Louis are here. Congratulations and thank you for joining us here at Queen’s Park.

Point of order from the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this Legislature—even those whose loyalties are misplaced—and all Ontarians to help me congratulate the Toronto Maple Leafs on an outstanding season, even though our hope will have to be deferred until next year.

I’ll say this: Now that the Leafs are no longer in the game the only Ontario team left is Ottawa, and let’s lead again in the province of Ontario in hockey with the Ottawa Senators.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will note that the members from the Ottawa region all stood up and applauded. It is now time—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: With the exception of Yakabuski.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somebody turn her mike off.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, it is off.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, at the justice committee today, we saw one of your Liberal members conducting himself in a way that clearly is putting the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

I’m worried that there has been direction from the Premier, or the Premier’s office, to try to turn a committee—instead of trying to get answers for taxpayers on why you cancelled gas plants, the costs, and why you engaged in an orchestrated cover-up—to try to turn that into a circus instead of actually getting answers for the committee.

So let me ask the Deputy Premier: In light of this approach that Liberals are taking to create chaos instead of getting answers for taxpayers, will you support our call for a full judicial inquiry into the gas plants scandal?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question, and I am delighted to know that he actually appeared at committee this morning. That is fantastic and a big and important step.

I am, however, terribly disappointed to learn that he had no answers to any of the questions that were asked. He appeared, and we applaud him for appearing, but unfortunately, the answers were simply lacking in any substance, in stark contrast to the Premier, Speaker, who appeared before the committee. She answered questions; she’s committed to being open. Nobody wants to get the answers to these questions more than our Premier, and her actions are demonstrating that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier: I will say, and I’ll give credit where credit is due, that the former energy minister, Ms. Cansfield, the member from Etobicoke Centre, did conduct herself and ask responsible questions that were productive, and we commend her for that. But there’s certainly a different tone from your members, so I wanted to see who was making the call. Was the member for Vaughan acting on his own, or was it Etobicoke Centre?

Clearly, then, when the Deputy Premier gives that kind of answer—your approach on this gas plant committee, obviously, then, is to create as much chaos as possible instead of trying to get responsible answers for taxpayers, who are stuck with the bill. I find that highly regrettable. I expected better from Kathleen Wynne, but she has chosen her course.

Again, in light of this orchestrated attempt by the Liberals—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just quickly, I’m going to remind the leader to use the title or the riding, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize.

I expected better from Premier Wynne. So let me ask you, in your capacity as Deputy Premier—given that your early efforts show no interest in actually getting answers for taxpayers on the costs of the cancellation of the gas plants, I’ll ask you again: Why not then support a judicial inquiry which can compel truthful testimony and get answers for taxpayers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important that we review the actions that the Premier has taken since she became Premier of this province. She is taking full responsibility for improving the planning of these large energy projects. This new approach will include strong public consultation. It will include formal municipal input. It will include better decision-making. This report will come back to us by August 1. I think that’s a very important piece of what we need to do to fix the problems that got us to where we are today.

In addition, she has written to the Auditor General and asked him to review Oakville. He has agreed to do that. She immediately called the House back and struck committees, expanded the scope of the committee, offered documents from across government.

I am extremely proud of what our Premier has done, and I only wish the Leader of the Opposition—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll respond to the Deputy Premier: With respect, the Premier has failed to apologize. She has not given direct or straight answers on some pretty basic questions about what she knew and when, and clearly was there at the cabinet table, at Dalton McGuinty’s right hand, when they chose to cover up this information.

Again to the Deputy Premier: I think the motive of the Liberals was revealed today by the actions of your members at committee, which is more so to obscure facts, to throw mud, instead of getting answers for taxpayers at the end of the day. Let me ask an important question. If you’re rejecting—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess, what’s wrong with this? What is wrong with having a judicial inquiry, just like we saw with Justice Gomery, which can compel truthful testimony and get answers? Will it take the threat of jail doors closing behind members from the Liberals to actually compel truthful testimony and get answers for taxpayers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Let’s talk for a second about this call for a so-called judicial inquiry. I’d like to quote an expert in the field—actually, a noted expert in public policy. He had this to say: “The cost of a public inquiry is excessive; we don’t believe that that’s necessary. We’re paid as individuals to represent our constituents and to hold the government. And that’s where we expect this, this hearing to take place.”

That was the member from Cambridge who said that. So, basically, we have a Leader of the Opposition who stood there in that field on YouTube and said that if he was Premier, it’d be “done, done, done.” He is standing today to ask for a judicial inquiry, which his members opposed, into a decision that he supported.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier, and I do hope that you’ll take the time, Deputy Premier, to answer my questions instead of engaging in the types of games your House leader tends to.

We’ve been very clear for months now that we believe in a full judicial inquiry, just like we saw with Justice Gomery with the sponsorship scandal involving the Liberals in Quebec at the federal level. We think a judicial inquiry is preferable, and at least my colleagues in the NDP have put an option on the table on a public inquiry. We think a judicial inquiry, though, will empower a judge to actually compel testimony with the threat, quite frankly, that if you do break the law by perjury, if it’s found you have buried or intentionally destroyed documents—these are very serious accusations. That’s why we support a judicial inquiry.

Let me you ask you, if you truly want to get answers for taxpayers, why do you oppose a judicial inquiry to actually get the truth once and for all?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The Leader of the Opposition has the gall to talk about games. I watched his appearance in front of the justice committee this morning. Mr. Speaker, 28 times direct questions were put to the Leader of the Opposition, simple questions like what was his costing? Who did he consult when he made the decision to call for the cancellation of the plants? Even to acknowledge his opposition to the plants—28 times he would not answer a single question. I have not seen skating like that since I saw those old clips of Barbara Ann Scott on TV.

It was incredible to watch the evasiveness of the Leader of the Opposition. The fact that he will not hold the PC Party even to a minimal standard the way he’s holding the government—he should be apologizing and offering answers to those very straightforward questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Obviously, we can see what the Liberals are trying to do here. They’re trying to create chaos; they’re trying to avoid answering. They’re trying to obscure the essential issues as much as possible. I think that’s very clear now.

I just want to say that I find it regrettable that Premier Wynne is engaging in this. I thought she was going to be different. I thought she was going to take it down a different path, but she’s engaged in the same old Liberal games of obfuscation, dithering and stonewalling. That’s why a government I lead will bring in a full judicial inquiry to get answers on behalf of taxpayers once and for all.

Let me ask this in a different way, then. I think that a government so prepared to play these types of games, so prepared to bury the truth and so prepared to put Liberal interests ahead of taxpayers—clearly you’ve lost the moral authority to govern. Will you call our confidence motion to the floor of the assembly to vote up or down whether we support this government or want to see it change?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, obfuscation, dithering, stonewalling—I think they are great descriptions of what we saw today from the Leader of the Opposition. He would not even acknowledge this pamphlet here that was passed out to thousands of Ontarians that said the following: “The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party. On October 6, vote Ontario PC.”

Mr. Speaker, we have Twitter, we have press releases, we have newspaper clippings and we have a YouTube video showing the Leader of the Opposition clearly opposed to the Mississauga plant and his promise to cancel it if he was Premier, yet he refused to acknowledge it today. There was so much obfuscation I half expected him to come up with the evil-twin-brother defence.

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

Hon. John Milloy: Withdraw.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me try the Deputy Premier one last time, Speaker. Deputy Premier, this power plant scandal is extremely serious and Ontarians would expect you to take it seriously, as opposed to the clownish approach of the House leader, which has tended to turn this whole thing into a circus.

We all know that the Liberals are willing to throw money at any kind of situation to try to save Liberal seats. That’s clearly evident with Mississauga and Oakville. Now you’re trying to throw money to buy the support of the NDP for a budget—in short, an NDP budget written by the Liberals to support Liberal seats. I don’t think that’s in the interests of taxpayers. I don’t think that’s in the interests of the 600,000 men and women who have no job to go to this morning.

I think, clearly, if we want to restore hope to this great province of Ontario, if we want to get this province back on track, to bring good jobs to Ontario, to respect every taxpayer dollar, to make sure that we live within our means and end these scandals, it’s time to change the government, it’s time to change the leadership and to put Ontario on the right track and make Ontario lead again.

Call our motion. Allow the vote. Don’t you agree?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. In the thrust and parry of the House, I may have missed an opportunity to ask a member to withdraw. Under the circumstances, I do my best to try to hear all of the different—and I do read my thesaurus as often as I can, to make any references that you’re unparliamentary. I also leave it to members themselves: If they find themselves in a situation where they can withdraw, they can withdraw themselves. Having said that, I’ll do my best to stay on top of things.

Hon. John Milloy: The Leader of the Opposition just doesn’t get it, Mr. Speaker. This is about the standards that they are holding the government to. We have a committee of the Legislature which is looking into the decision to cancel the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. The simple fact of the matter was that every single party of this Legislature supported the cancellation of that plant. The Leader of the Opposition aggressively campaigned in the last election to do that. He cannot appear in front of the justice committee this morning and deny that fact. It is a matter of public record.

If he wants to talk about obfuscation, Mr. Speaker, he should be looking in the mirror, because his appearance in front of the committee this morning was outrageous. Twenty-eight times he was asked direct questions on very, very simple matters, even to acknowledge the fact that he opposed the plant. Instead, he decided to go for obfuscation and disrespecting the committee and its members—

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

By continuing to make that reference—I’m going to call everyone to order on that issue. So just tone it down.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I put my question, I’d like to take an opportunity on behalf of Ontarians and members of the Legislature to let the family of Tim Bosma know that we are grieving with them. We found out today that his remains were found by the police. His wife, Sharlene, and his daughter, and his mother, Mary, I’m sure, and all their friends and family are grieving very much today. I think it’s important that we say that we’re grieving along with them.

Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. While the Premier has been campaigning and electioneering around the province, New Democrats have been actually listening to Ontarians about their thoughts on the budget. They’re saying that the government has to do better if they expect Ontarians to trust them. Is the government going to listen to Ontarians and bring some accountability, some transparency and some fairness to their budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I too want to express sincere condolences to the Bosma family. This is news that we have just received, and I think all of us have hearts that are breaking as a result of that news. We are together on that sentiment.

Speaker, as we move to the budget and who’s-saying-what about the budget, it might be helpful if we look at what some Ontarians are saying about the budget. Sid Ryan—I think the member opposite will know who Sid Ryan is. He is, of course, a big supporter, a former NDP candidate, and what Sid Ryan says is: “There are good things in this budget that I think we can work with in labour, that I think the NDP can work with.”

Fred Hahn, the president of CUPE—again, someone more well-known perhaps to the members opposite than to our side—says, “I don’t think the people of Ontario”—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the last 12 months, Ontarians have seen scandals grow at Ornge; they’ve learned that not one, but two Premiers have hidden the true costs of moving the gas plants; and they learned that over 1,000 people were given the wrong cancer medication. Does this government really believe that it is doing enough when it comes to accountability and oversight?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s talk about what some other Ontarians are saying about the budget. Smokey Thomas, the president of OPSEU, says, “I don’t see it as an election budget.”

Gail Nyberg, the executive director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, says, “Key initiatives in this budget will help more people afford to pay the rent and put food on the table, whether they are families with children or single people who are making the move from social assistance to employment. We encourage all parties to support the budget and the positive changes that will help low-income Ontarians facing poverty and hunger.”

Sarah Blackstock, who is with the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction, says, “We think this budget is an opportunity to continue reducing poverty in Ontario. We are really eager to see the opposition parties work with the government to ensure that we continue making progress.”

Many Ontarians are weighing in, and they’re pretty positive about this budget.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After the budget was introduced, New Democrats asked Ontarians what they thought, but, at the same time, the Liberals started printing election pamphlets and campaigning. New Democrats are interested in delivering real results for people, while the Liberals seem to be more interested in their own political power.

Will the government listen to people and bring accountability and transparency to their budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s listen to what the Canadian Auto Workers and Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union has to say: “The 2013-14 Ontario budget represents an important shift in emphasis by the provincial government and will make a positive difference in the lives of many Ontarians.”

David Coles, the national president of the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union says, “This [budget] is proof that minority government can work to the advantage of working people.”

Ken Lewenza, the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers, says, “These [budget] investments in our social and economic fabric are both badly needed, and appreciated.”

The people of Ontario have spoken. They have spoken loud and clear. This is exactly the right budget for these times, and I look forward to the third party supporting it.

TRANSPORTATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance still committed to a poorly thought-out network of tolled carpool lanes that will cost Ontarians more than $300 million to build before they even generate a nickel?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, I find it odd that the third party—or, for that matter, any of the opposition members—would feel that it’s inappropriate to invest in our infrastructure, in our public transit, in the construction of roads and bridges, enabling our gridlock to ease so that we can be more competitive in the long term.

Constructing more HOV lanes is about facilitating people to get to and from home more quickly, more safely. It’s also about enabling our businesses and transports to get around the city and to get around Ontario more effectively. An hour in gridlock is an hour lost to their competitiveness. We have to invest more for the benefit of all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find it surprising that this government is about to embark on a new Lexus lane boondoggle in the province of Ontario.

While the Premier has been sending campaign staff to transit stations, New Democrats have actually been listening to Ontarians about what they think about transit. They think that transit and transportation infrastructure should be funded fairly and transparently.

Will the finance minister commit to cancelling his poorly-thought-out and outrageously expensive tolled carpool lanes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m going to allow the Minister of Transportation to speak in a moment, but I think it’s essential that we all appreciate and understand that we need to continue to invest to be competitive in the long term. This is not about making election-cycle decisions; this is not about playing partisan politics; it’s about playing for the people of Ontario.

As for constructing more HOV lanes, for the member opposite to suggest that that is somehow inappropriate—it works in other jurisdictions around North America. It eases gridlock and it enables things to move more quickly, more safely and more effectively. Don’t be short-sighted about this, don’t play politics with this and don’t spin it. This is about moving people quickly and more safely, and we all have to be together on this issue.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government plans to spend $300 million to toll carpooling lanes, but whether it’s gas plants, eHealth or the Presto fare card system, which has ballooned to almost three times its initial cost, this government cannot seem to manage Ontario’s money. Will the finance minister put his plan for a $300-million network of tolled carpool lanes on hold?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m not sure where the leader of the third party gets her information. First of all, we are not tolling HOV lanes. There is an expansion of HOV lanes. The system of HOT lanes does not diminish by one car the access to the entire system, including the HOT lanes, for people who have more than one vehicle.

The member of the third party said that there’s no plan. The Big Move has been around since 2008. KPMG put out a detailed study that explained in detail how HOT lanes work. I am confused, given that there is a plan and a detailed explanation, how someone with a party that really tops the charts for luxury car ownership can make those kinds of statements.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. The stench from Ornge just continues to get more offensive. Last week at the public accounts hearing, we heard that the director of the forensic investigation team at Ornge confirmed that millions of public dollars were siphoned from health care into the Mazza scheme.

At the same hearing, we heard that the director that the minister and her deputies put in charge of a new oversight program of Ornge and his newly appointed staff have no experience in either air or ambulance services—none, and yet they’re responsible now for overseeing a multi-million dollar organization that has serious financial and organizational challenges.

I want to know from the minister: Who will she hold accountable for this last experience of incompetency—the deputy minister, or will she accept responsibility herself?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that it saddens me to see the member from Newmarket–Aurora continuing to hammer on the very hard-working people who are making our air ambulance system work.

He raises the issue about experience at the air ambulance oversight branch in the ministry, so let me tell you, Speaker: There is plenty of expertise in land and air ambulance operations at my ministry’s emergency health services branch. Let me just discuss some of the people, the staff, who are experienced in land and ambulance operations.

They include the senior manager of operations, along with three senior field managers and the manager of investigation services; the senior manager of corporate planning and regulatory compliance; the senior manager of performance and quality management; the senior manager of finance and corporate support; the manager of inspections, certifications and regulatory compliance; policy and operational assessment; and financial planning and reporting monitoring.

The member opposite does not know what he’s talking about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, thank you, Minister. I have a response, Speaker, but I’ll hold it back.

The fact of the matter is that the one program this minister put in place to oversee Ornge—that director has no experience in air ambulance. He admitted that at the committee hearings. Not one of the six people he hired to help him in oversight responsibility has any experience in either air or land ambulance. That is who we expect would have some experience.

The minister knows full well that she and her deputy, Patricia Li, and her deputy minister, Mr. Saäd Rafi, have yet one more time made a huge mistake in terms of their responsibility of oversight.

I now want to know this: Does she know anything about this document that sets out the requirement for $22 million more in expenditure every year to cover off the debt that she allowed to incur? Is that $22 million included in the budget, or will she allow a cutback in more health care services at Ornge to pay—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the air ambulance program oversight branch, on the other hand, has substantial expertise and experience in ensuring that transfer payment agencies are transparent, accountable and get value for money when spending taxpayer dollars. That’s their job.

Richard Jackson, whom the member has mentioned, is the director of the EHSB and AAPOB and has extensive experience in oversight of transfer payment agencies, including community colleges, private career colleges, the Ontario Student Assistance Program, Toronto’s children’s aid societies, children’ mental health agencies, developmental services agencies and women’s shelters. Speaker, this is an expert in oversight—fiscal responsibility.

I think this is exactly the kind of expertise that the member opposite would like to see looking over Ornge air ambulance services. It’s what he has been calling for, and it’s what we’ve delivered.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The question is to the Acting Premier. For months, Ontarians have been learning how interference by the Premier’s office ratcheted up the cost of the gas plants. The Premier’s principal secretary agreed to “preserve the value of TransCanada’s project.” It’s unaccountable; it doesn’t respect Ontarians.

Will the Acting Premier admit what everyone else knows, that the interference of Liberal political staff drove up the cost of the gas plant cancellation to more than half a billion dollars?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: This is a matter that has been discussed in great detail at committee. We’ve heard from a number of different witnesses, including Jamison Steeve, formerly of the Premier’s office, who testified that, “My discussions with TransCanada were exploratory in nature....”

Sean Mullin, another Premier’s office employee, said, “We were not authorized to … and we did not engage in” any negotiation.

Representatives from TCE themselves—the gentleman Chris Breen said that “they were—certainly not negotiating in the sense of fine-detail dollars and cents.”

This is something that the committee has looked at and I think has been dealt with by the witnesses who have appeared before the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the Acting Premier: The promises made by the Premier’s office made it impossible for the Ontario Power Authority to negotiate a good deal for ratepayers. When the OPA made an offer to TransCanada to cancel the plant in Oakville, TransCanada turned them down. They said, “The Premier’s office has given us a sweeter deal.”

Ontarians deserve accountability. They expect that their money will be spent wisely, not wasted on Liberal seats. Will the Acting Premier admit that the interference of senior political staff drove up costs so that Ontarians have to pay more?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I think we have to go back to first principles. There were 19 gas plants that were sited in this province, and the government clearly acknowledges that in two of those cases we made an error. We went forward to the people of both Mississauga and Oakville—indeed, the people of Ontario—and said that we would cancel those decisions. That would have costs associated with it.

I remind the honourable member that his leader and his party, and indeed even himself, in public comments said the exact same thing. I would remind him that the Leader of the Opposition, despite the fact that he refused to answer 28 direct questions to him this morning, aggressively said that he would cancel the project.

There were to be costs associated with the cancellation of the project. We knew that. The leader of the New Democratic Party knew that. The leader of the PC Party knew that. Everyone knew that. We listened to the people in those communities and acted accordingly. As to the detailed questions he’s asking today, they have all been dealt with in front of the committee.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. We all know that women play a very important role in the province and in this country. Approximately half of Canada’s workforce is female. In 2011, female graduates from Ontario’s colleges and universities made up nearly 60% of the total. I’m a proud member of this government led by Ontario’s first female Premier, and our cabinet and caucus include a large number of women.

Unfortunately, these successes do not translate into the private sector. Women are still critically under-represented in private sector leadership positions, in both management roles and on boards of directors. Several recent reports suggest that the pace at which women in the private sector are reaching senior positions is slowing down, not speeding up.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is our government doing to promote gender diversity in the private sector?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you to the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for this important question. We need to tackle this issue as a province because having women in leadership roles drives innovation, improves corporate social responsibility and paves the way to a greater number of women in senior executive roles. In fact, research tells us that companies with high representation of women in senior management positions and on the board outperform those with fewer women on key metrics in financial success.

I’m proud that our government is doing our part by taking strong action to promote the benefits of gender diversity and equal representation in the private sector and on corporate boards and in senior management. In fact, page 291 of the 2013 Ontario budget reaffirms the government’s commitment to delivering programs that promote women’s equality and addresses the lack of gender diversity on boards and in senior management of major businesses, non-profits and other organizations. We will enlist the Ontario Securities Commission to help us determine the best way to proceed on this disclosure issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for that very comprehensive answer. The initiatives that the minister discussed are extremely important in helping ensure that Ontario’s hard-working women are fairly represented in private sector leadership positions.

While women are still under-represented on corporate boards and in management positions, it has been shown that women can find great success in small businesses as well. Small businesses are the source of more jobs in Ontario than any other sector, and female-owned small businesses are one of the fastest-growing segments of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is this government doing to provide women with the opportunities and the resources to become successful small business owners or operators?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: There is no doubt that small businesses are the backbone of this province’s economy. Small businesses, particularly those run by women, play an integral

part in driving innovation, creating jobs and growing the economy of Ontario.

Ontario’s 2013 budget makes smart investments that will strengthen the economy and takes action to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. It recognizes the importance of small business and entrepreneurship. The budget is a testament to that through measures such as the Commercialization and Innovation Voucher program, the establishment of the venture capital fund in partnership with the private sector and more support for women entrepreneurs.

We see women being able to get their businesses off the ground through the help of our small business enterprise centres and the new microlending initiative that will help low-income women build and grow their small businesses. These initiatives are good for women and they’re good for the province of Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning. My question is for the Deputy Premier. Three months have passed since they promised to be “open and transparent” regarding the gas plant scandal, yet the Liberals continue to go to extraordinary efforts to keep the facts from the public.

We’ve learned that the email accounts of three of the former Premier’s former staffers, including his chief of staff, no longer exist and can’t be recovered; this, despite a legal requirement to keep those records for five years before going to Ontario archives. Vital documents that could have helped the justice committee get to the answers are conveniently missing. This warped version of “open and transparent” is not the kind of Ontario we want.

My question is, will you support our motion for a non-confidence vote on your scandal-plagued government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, he has the gall to stand today and talk about transparency after the performance of his leader in front of the committee. Twenty-eight times he was asked direct questions—not complicated questions; not even trick questions. We asked him to simply acknowledge the fact that he starred in a YouTube video, saying that if he was Premier of the province, this gas plant would be “done, done, done.” We asked him the simple question as to what was going to be his costing, what experts he had asked, and who in his party had reached out to do the proper analysis. He put on his ice skates and avoided every single question.

We got no transparency from him. If the Leader of the Opposition will not tell us, will the honourable member in his supplementary tell us whether he will encourage the Conservative candidates in those ridings to come forward? We’ve been asking them; we’ve been begging them; we’ve been pleading with them. We want some answers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We bring out sworn testimony and he brings out dance routines. We’re getting tired of that.

Let’s move on from the destruction of documents to the withholding of the real costs of this Liberal scandal and when you knew them. Michael Lyle of the Ontario Power Authority was asked at the justice committee last week when the Liberal government knew the Mississauga cancellation was much more than you publicly stated. His response was, “They would have been aware that there were costs that had been paid more than the $190 million,” and that was back in July 2012. Yet you and your cabinet colleagues clung to that figure for nine months until the Auditor General told us what you already knew.

This is failed leadership at its worst, and it’s time for a test of confidence. Will you support our motion tomorrow to allow a non-confidence vote in this Legislature?

Hon. John Milloy: I would remind the honourable member that in the testimony of the Premier several weeks ago—she appeared when asked, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. But in the testimony of the Premier several weeks ago, I believe there were four or five different numbers that came forward from the OPA.

I think that all of us in this House realize the reasonable thing to do is to have the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, finish his report on the Oakville situation. That report was undertaken at the personal request of the Premier upon receiving office. Let us let the Auditor General do his work. I think the one thing we’ve found through testimony of various experts at the committee is that this is a very complicated and technical matter. I think we should leave it with this fine officer of the Legislature, the Auditor General.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday the minister appeared to take a step back on high-occupancy tolls. While the budget speech said that the government would commit to moving quickly to implement tolls, the minister now says that the government is not rushing into anything. Has the minister now realized that putting high-occupancy tolls on hundreds of kilometres of Ontario’s highways is an expensive and risky scheme that Metrolinx agrees is not a significant revenue source for transit?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, no, we are not taking a step back, and no, we are not rushing into anything. We are going forward steadily down the path we committed to in the budget. I’m sorry that people in that party are feeling hoisted on their own petard with their confusing positions on transit that we’re getting into this word detail.

Let me read the budget very carefully so it’s not lost on anyone: “The province is committing to convert select high-occupancy vehicle ... lanes in the GTHA into high-occupancy toll (HOV/HOT) lanes, in which carpooling drivers would”—and I want to emphasize—“continue to drive for free, but other drivers would be able to choose to drive in these lanes for a toll. Toll-free options would exist on all highways that have HOV/HOT lanes. This model has been successfully implemented in several places, including in Florida, Texas and California.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I appreciate the simplicity of the message.

The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance appear to be awfully optimistic about the revenue potential of high-occupancy toll lanes. But in February, we learned that the new HOT lanes in Washington, DC, lost over $11 million in just their first six weeks of operation. The Washington, DC, HOT lanes are only 14 miles long. Meanwhile, the province has committed to building up to 450 kilometres worth of HOT lanes.

Will the government stop wasting time with risky tolling schemes and instead focus on the real job of building new transportation options for Ontarians?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Would the third party stop futzing around and decide whether they’re going to support what is the largest investment in infrastructure and transportation in the history of this province? We have more projects out there, like the Eglinton Crosstown, which is, quite frankly, the largest—just on its own—transit project in the history of Ontario.

We introduced HOV lanes in 2005. They’ve been a tremendous success. There were naysayers at the time. We are prudently looking at the experiences. The member opposite’s view is somewhat limited. California has had these for three years. They did not make money in the first year. By the second year, they were successful. By the third year, they were a roaring success. Their valuation was released just two weeks ago.

So, yes, we are prudently looking at all the evidence, the experiences of other places, and we will make sure Ontarians get solutions to their congestion challenges.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Last night, I held a town hall in my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville, where we discussed the budget. Some of the things we talked about, as you can imagine, were auto insurance, increased investments in home care, our infrastructure plans and our deficit-control plans, but one area that generated a lot of interest, a lot of questions, was our youth employment strategy. Would the Minister of Economic Development and Trade please tell us what plans we have in our budget to increase well-paying jobs for our young?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for her question and her hard work on this issue.

Our budget proposes a comprehensive Youth Jobs Strategy of $295 million over two years. This strategy actually incorporates many of the good suggestions that came from the NDP but goes substantially further on additional measures to help youth get jobs.

Our Youth Jobs Strategy is designed to create employment opportunities for about 30,000 youth across the province and to promote entrepreneurship and innovation in Ontario. Our government’s already begun consulting on the strategy. In fact, last Friday I had the opportunity, together with the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, to consult with about 30 individuals from business, union representatives, academics, obviously many youth themselves and not-for-profit organizations to talk about how we might refine the strategy so it’s most impactful.

I encourage both opposition parties to work with us to pass the budget so we can move forward with this important initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister, for your great response.

I just want to give a shout-out to all the people in my riding who came out for the town hall despite the Leafs game. It was a great town hall. I just wanted to say that.

I do want to say that we are all about building our community. As great as it is to have a good employment strategy for our youth, we want to make sure that we can employ our youth in the communities they live. So I’d like to ask the minister what our plans are for our rural youth to make sure that they have equal opportunities for good well-paying jobs.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to commend the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for her wonderful leadership in her community.

Our 2013 budget delivers for rural Ontario. The $295-million youth strategy will benefit young people across Ontario, and will strengthen rural communities.

In addition to this investment, our government has been helping to connect students with jobs in rural Ontario communities through our Rural Summer Jobs Service. Since 2007, this program has connected 18,000 students with jobs and helped over 7,000 rural employers. The Rural Summer Jobs Service is part of our government’s Ontario summer jobs strategy. It’s another way we’re helping to promote innovation and entrepreneurship amongst our people.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Havelock, Ontario, last Saturday, meeting with my good friend Elmer Buchanan. They’re excited in Havelock about the summer jobs for rural youth.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Deputy Premier. It’s clear from your answers here in this House and the actions of your Liberal members of the justice committee that you have no interest in seeing the committee get to the bottom of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plant scandals.

The public deserves accountability. They deserve to know how your government wasted $600 million. The Ontario PC Party has moved a want of confidence motion. If you’ll agree to support our opposition day motion tomorrow, we can settle once and for all who stands for the people of Ontario and who stands to support the Liberal Party and its scandals.

Acting Premier, will you do the right and proper thing? Will you support our opposition day motion and bring our want of confidence motion to the floor of this Legislature?

Interjections.

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

Acting Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The line of questioning that was pursued this morning, the answers that I’ve given in the House—there’s nothing frivolous here. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a concern about the cancellation of these gas plants. The point that we’re trying to make is that every party of the House—particularly the opposition party aggressively campaigned that if the Leader of the Opposition became Premier, he would do the exact same thing: He would cancel the plant.

I believe those are relevant facts that the committee needs to know, so we invited the Leader of the Opposition this morning in front of the committee. We didn’t ask him tough or technical questions; we simply asked him to acknowledge the fact that not only did he appear in a video and hold a press conference and his candidates put out tweets, and asked him about his costing and about the due diligence that he did. Twenty-eight times he refused to answer those direct questions.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Liberal Party has no—its track record is one of obfuscating and scandals, billions—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Withdraw, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw. Maybe the House leader could withdraw the 30 times he said it.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sit down, please. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

The member from Pembroke will simply withdraw with no comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

Your Liberal track record is a laundry list of billions of dollars wasted on scandal after scandal. Whenever you’re caught red-handed, you conveniently say, “We’re going to set up this committee or that committee,” and “This will never happen again.”

The problem isn’t just accountability; it’s the arrogance of that government over there. There’s one thing that the people of Ontario can be sure of: If you think you can get away with it, you’ll do it again.

So I’m asking you, given your record, once again, will you do the right thing? Tomorrow there’s an opposition day motion that will bring a want-of-confidence motion to the floor of this House. Let the people decide—

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

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, you want to talk about caught red-handed? This was the party that went out and paid for robocalls throughout thousands of homes, saying the only way to stop the gas plant was to elect a PC government. This was a party that went out and held press conferences, that dropped leaflets that said, “The only party that will”—and “will” is underlined—“stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party. On October 6, vote Ontario PC.”

The minimum we wanted was for the Leader of the Opposition to at least acknowledge that position, a very public position, and 28 times he evaded that question in a series of simple questions about his due diligence and his analysis.

There’s a double-standard going on here, and I think it’s time that the Progressive Conservative Party stood up and acknowledged the very simple fact that they opposed the principal—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. More than a month after we learned about the errors in chemotherapy dosing, patients are still left with the most basic questions of what went wrong. We’ve seen a lot of finger-pointing and it’s only getting worse. This week, Marchese, the drug provider, threatened to sue the Windsor Regional Hospital for defamatory remarks after the hospital did its best to communicate the situation to its patients. My question is simple: Does the minister think that escalating conflict and finger-pointing is benefiting patients in any way?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that my first and last concern has always been for the patients who are affected. That’s why, immediately upon learning about this underdosing issue, the appropriate steps were taken. Patients were notified. They had rapid meetings with their oncologists. They had group meetings where they could get answers to the questions that they of course had. We set up a working group with all of the partners around the table, who are working through the issues. We’ve appointed a third party investigator to look at the entire safety of our cancer drugs supply chain. That work is well under way.

We owe it to the patients of Ontario, not just the patients affected by this underdosing but all patients, that we get answers to the very legitimate questions that they have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister response would be all well and good if it wasn’t simply after the fact that these measures were brought into place. Ontario’s patients seem to be the ones who continue to be left out of the equation. They want transparency, accountability and answers on how this could have happened.

This week, New Democrats urged the government to grant Ombudsman’s oversight over our health care system because patients need someone rooting for them and asking the tough questions. Will the minister finally make sure that someone is working for patients and grant Ombudsman’s oversight over our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ontarians have well-deserved confidence in our health care system. Our cancer outcomes are amongst the best in the world. The safety of our cancer care system is beyond reproach, but we must always strive to make it better. Whenever an issue arises that instructs us on how we can strengthen the system, I can assure you that we will move on those recommendations.

Even the member from Nickel Belt acknowledges that an Ontarian who gets cancer has one of the best chances of survival anywhere in the world. The member from Nickel Belt said that “we have an excellent health care system” and “an excellent cancer care system.” The member is right. I have said over and over again that we have an excellent system but it is not a perfect system, and we are striving every day to make it better.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, a strong northern Ontario economy is important not only for people in northern communities but for the health of the province in general. Our government has been a strong supporter of the north and is taking action to address challenges such as job creation, revitalizing transportation infrastructure and improving vital access to the Ring of Fire.

Part of helping the northern economy grow is ensuring that our largest job creators are supported. Will the minister please update the House on what our government is doing to help northern industries?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for Ottawa–Orléans for the question. The member is right: A strong northern economy is vital for the province as a whole. That’s why we introduced the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program in 2010 to assist Ontario’s largest industrial electricity consumers reduce their energy costs. These firms are key economic contributors and job creators in the north, and this program supports their employees and communities while maintaining global competitiveness.

Our government is committed to helping the north succeed. That’s why we announced in this year’s budget that we are investing $360 million to extend the program for an additional three years, thanks to the advocacy of our northern caucus members. That’s why the members opposite should be supporting this budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I’m glad to hear that our government is continuing its strong support for northern communities with this investment.

The Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program has been an important program for large firms across the north as they grow and create jobs, but the global recession and its after-effects have created unprecedented challenges for the north, especially the forestry sector. Can the minister provide more details about this program extension and how it will help forestry and other sectors continue to thrive as the economy continues its recovery?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As I mentioned, we are making a $360-million investment in northern Ontario in this year’s budget. The Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program was created to help key northern industries like forestry. It reduces energy bills for large consumers in the north by 25%. In fact, since 2010 this rate program has created or protected nearly 16,000 jobs in the north. Those are jobs across 24 northern forestry, steel and mining-related facilities.

As the member mentioned, these industries have faced unprecedented challenges through the global recession and its after-effects, so I hope all parties in this House stand with us and support the budget to help northern Ontario residents.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the government House leader. Today in the justice committee investigating your government’s gas plant scandal, things took an interesting turn. Your party adopted a new strategy: Instead of evading questions in justice committee, you’ve now undertaken to ask irrelevant questions. The member from Vaughan asked question after question unrelated to the true government costs and the cover-up that the government instituted, instead using his 30 minutes taking cheap political shots—

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I’ll withdraw.

This is a committee with a mandate to get to the bottom of a $600-million-and-counting scandal that leads directly to the Premier’s office. Government House leader, will it take a judicial inquiry and the threat of jail time for this Premier and her party to start taking this matter seriously?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to ask, if the questions were so irrelevant, why did the Leader of the Opposition not answer them? The questions that we were asking were very straightforward. We asked why he was so aggressive in his campaign to cancel the gas plant, why he said that if he was Premier he would cancel it. We asked similar questions to the ones they’ve asked our members: What kind of analysis and due diligence was done? Mr. Speaker, 28 times questions of that nature were put to the leader of the opposition, and 28 times he avoided asking them.

If they are so irrelevant, I am not sure why he would not be forthcoming. If they are so irrelevant, I’m not sure why the PC candidates from that area are not forthcoming. Maybe in the supplementary, the member can talk about the efforts they’re making to have those PC candidates come before the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: I have a little message for the government House leader: As the government corruption meter rises, so too do our calls for a judicial inquiry go louder.

After acknowledging YouTube videos and reading quotes—many quotes—the Liberals weren’t getting the answers that they were looking for. The government House leader begged the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition to come to the justice committee, and this morning he did. What the Liberals’ star witness said this morning is that the McGuinty-Wynne government has not learned its lessons from this scandal, and that they’ll do it again if given the chance. That’s right, Mr. Speaker: They will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy another election if given a chance.

We expect the Premier and her office to act responsibly, or at least be truthful with the people of Ontario when her government officials come before a standing committee of this Legislature.

Government House leader, will it take a threat of jail time to achieve some honesty from the party across the aisle, or are you so committed—

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

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Let me get this straight: When the Liberal Party, in the last election, promised to cancel the gas plant, it was the worst thing that has ever befallen this society since the Macarena or the plague, and when the Progressive Conservative Party makes the exact same promise, we don’t want to talk about it. Some 28 times we a