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

December 12, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Dec-12 (PDF)

L100 - Thu 12 Dec 2013 / Jeu 12 déc 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 12 December 2013 Jeudi 12 décembre 2013

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF PROFESSIONAL AGROLOGISTS

ACT, 2013

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF PROFESSIONAL AGROLOGISTS

ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE II LIMITED ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE II LIMITED ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE III LIMITED ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE III LIMITED ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE IV LIMITED ACT, 2013

KINGSGATE IV LIMITED ACT, 2013

WESTMOUNT RIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED ACT, 2013

WESTMOUNT RIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED ACT, 2013

SENCHURA HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

SENCHURA HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

SEASON’S GREETINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE TAX

GASOLINE TAX

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

GASOLINE TAX

GASOLINE TAX

CHRIS MAZZA

EDUCATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

NELSON MANDELA

SEASON’S GREETINGS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PENSION HEARINGS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MATTHEW MILLER

CHRISTMAS CELEBRATIONS

IN DURHAM

CHARLIE DIEMER

PENSION PLANS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS 88 AND 105

SEASON’S GREETINGS

PROCTER AND GAMBLE

SEASON’S GREETINGS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (HST REBATE

FOR HOME HEATING), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

(REMBOURSEMENT DE LA TVH

POUR LE CHAUFFAGE DOMESTIQUE)

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(PREMIUM RATES FOR DEEMED

WORKERS IN CONSTRUCTION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(TAUX DES PRIMES POUR

LES PERSONNES RÉPUTÉES

ÊTRE DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY

AMANDA PHILP

AND JACQUI DELANEY

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

ALEX BEDUZ

RAMIRO MORA

HOUSE OFFICERS AND TABLE STAFF

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PAVED SHOULDER CONSTRUCTION

AND BICYCLING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA CONSTRUCTION

D’ACCOTEMENTS STABILISÉS

ET LA CIRCULATION DES BICYCLETTES

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(SPRING BEAR HUNT), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POISSON ET DE LA FAUNE

(CHASSE À L’OURS PRINTANIÈRE)

METROLINX AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR METROLINX

PAVED SHOULDER CONSTRUCTION

AND BICYCLING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA CONSTRUCTION

D’ACCOTEMENTS STABILISÉS

ET LA CIRCULATION DES BICYCLETTES

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(SPRING BEAR HUNT), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POISSON ET DE LA FAUNE

(CHASSE À L’OURS PRINTANIÈRE)

METROLINX AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR METROLINX

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

VISITORS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good morning, Speaker. I believe that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I move that the orders for second and third readings of the following private bills shall be called consecutively, and that the questions on the motions for second and third readings of the bills be put immediately without debate. They are bills Pr15, Pr18, Pr19, Pr20, Pr21 and Pr24.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General has put forward his motion on the private bills. Do we agree? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF PROFESSIONAL AGROLOGISTS

ACT, 2013

Mr. Hardeman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the Ontario Institute of Professional Agrologists.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF PROFESSIONAL AGROLOGISTS

ACT, 2013

Mr. Hardeman moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the Ontario Institute of Professional Agrologists.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Agreed? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE II LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act to revive Kingsgate II Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Agreed? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE II LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act to revive Kingsgate II Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE III LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Kingsgate III Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE III LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Kingsgate III Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE IV LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act to revive Kingsgate IV Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

KINGSGATE IV LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act to revive Kingsgate IV Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

WESTMOUNT RIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive Westmount Ridge Associates Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

WESTMOUNT RIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED ACT, 2013

Ms. Armstrong moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive Westmount Ridge Associates Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

SENCHURA HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

Mr. Prue moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24,

An Act to revive Senchura Holdings Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Second reading agreed to.

SENCHURA HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

Mr. Prue moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24,

An Act to revive Senchura Holdings Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to recognize Terry Kingsmill, registrar of the Ontario Institute of Agrologists. He came to Queen’s Park this morning to join us here for the passing of second and third readings of the Ontario Institute of Professional Agrologists Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome our guest here. All legislation is done this way.

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s amazing what we can do when we all work together in this House. We passed six bills there just on a moment’s notice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 11, 2013, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’impôt-santé des employeurs.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I am very pleased to have this opportunity this morning to speak on behalf of my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills and speak to third reading of Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act. Of course, as we know, this bill was introduced at first reading in this Legislature on September 24, this fall, and has been making its way through the legislative process.

I want to begin, first of all, Mr. Speaker, by wishing you and your family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. This may very well be the last day that the Ontario Legislature sits in the fall sitting and may even be the last day of this Parliament. We will see. Certainly, the government has many challenges that it is facing, and when we resume sitting, perhaps in the spring, we will continue this discussion.

It is also possible, I suppose, that the government might prorogue the House after the House rises, and then we’ll be into an election campaign—perhaps. I’m not making any predictions. But certainly we’re all looking forward to what may come in the new year and the opportunity to go back to the people and seek their advice as to what provincial initiatives should be supported and endorsed.

But, of course, we’re debating Bill 105, and I certainly want to focus my remarks on small business issues, because that is such an important part of our economy. This bill, as you know, Mr. Speaker, amends the Employer Health Tax Act by increasing the exemption amount from $400,000 of payroll to $450,000 of payroll, effective in 2014 if the bill passes, and imposes a $5-million payroll threshold and provides special rules for registered charities.

Our caucus has been participating in this debate. We’ve been saying that this legislation exemplifies exactly what is wrong with this government and their approach to governing. They are unwilling to go far enough to take the decisive action that is needed to provide real tax relief to Ontario’s businesses. This is more tinkering around the edges by the government and will not do enough to solve the jobs crisis facing the province.

We’re saying that this legislation comes at a time when we’re struggling with skyrocketing hydro rates; increases to WSIB premiums; the College of Trades tax, as we call it; outdated apprenticeship ratios; and the forest of red tape and regulations that strangle the ability of Ontario businesses to prosper. Only the PC caucus has a real plan to free businesses from the tax and regulatory burden that this government has placed upon them, so they can invest and create the jobs that Ontarians need and deserve.

In my riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, small business is the backbone of our local economy, along with agriculture. I’ve always sought the advice of small business people in terms of my responsibilities as their member of provincial Parliament—I’m privileged to serve them. In fact, I come from a small business background. My family was in the heavy construction business—still is, actually. Arnott Construction, based in Arthur for many, many years, moved to Collingwood in 1974 and is now based in Midhurst, Ontario. They do a lot of work in the Simcoe county area and Grey county, as well as Dufferin county.

The fact is, my grandfather started the business in 1929, when he was just 21 years of age, and through three generations of our family, the Arnotts have been in the construction business. I worked for many summers as a labourer when I was teenager, when I was in university, in the construction business as a hard-working labourer. I worked 10 hours a day and it was tough work. But I certainly wanted to earn the respect of the men I worked with, and as well, I wanted the reports going back to my dad to be good ones, so I worked very, very hard. But it was obviously an interesting experience.

My dad wanted me to go into the construction business, in fact, and encouraged me to do that, and I ended up here. So I don’t know what that means.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Building a better province.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Yes, I hope I’m working to build a better province, and I appreciate that very much.

When I was first elected in the early 1990s, when Bob Rae was Premier and the NDP was in power, I went to Mike Harris, who at the time was leader of the third party, and suggested to him that our party needed a small business advocate. With all the heavy taxes, new regulations and red tape the NDP government was bringing forward, and the fact that the NDP government didn’t seem to understand that small business was such an important part of our economy and an engine of job creation—that was the case in those days—our party needed a small business advocate. He, in fact, appointed me to that position, and I was pleased to do it.

In 1994, we released a report within our caucus, called Supporting Small Business, Creating New Jobs. It was actually released a few months before the Common Sense Revolution document itself was released in 1994. In fact, many of the recommendations we brought forward as part of our small business task force found their way into the Common Sense Revolution, and of course, when we formed the government in 1995, we began to implement those items. Over the course of our time in office, there were about a million new jobs created in the province of Ontario, and we’re very proud of that aspect of our record.

During our time in government, I was privileged to serve as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, with specific responsibilities for small business, and I came to know Judith Andrew very well, who at the time was the provincial director for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I was really impressed with their organization and the way they represent their members. They do a super job of polling their members and getting their feedback, and then bringing those concerns forward. I believe they’re highly respected by governments of all stripes—should be highly respected and should be listened to.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have now been in government for about 10 years, and we see the Liberal legacy as being one of increasing the debt. The provincial debt has doubled in the 10 years they’ve been in office. It now stands, I believe, at $273 billion, twice what it was just 10 years ago.

We know that hydro rates have skyrocketed. Of course, we’ve seen just this week the Auditor General’s report, which looked into the compensation practices of the Ontario Power Generation company and found a culture of excess. In fact, the Auditor General tied that back to the increase, the upward pressure on hydro rates. We also know that the government’s Green Energy Act has added billions of dollars to the overall hydro bills in the province of Ontario, as well as the cynical decisions to cancel the gas plants, which cost the hydro ratepayers, as well as the taxpayers, $1.1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, $1.1 billion would go a long way to satisfying the infrastructure needs of my riding in Wellington–Halton Hills. It would easily pay for the new Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener that we need. It would pay for the Highway 6 Morriston bypass that we need south of Guelph, south of the 401, going down to Hamilton. It would pay for a new Groves Memorial Community Hospital in Fergus that we’ve been approved for but have yet to see the full funding from the provincial government. And it would pay for a new Holy Cross Catholic school in Georgetown—just a few examples.

I see the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation coming into the House, and I’m pleased to see him. I had a brief opportunity to discuss some of the transportation and infrastructure needs in my riding yesterday morning when we ran into each other walking over here on College Street.

I had the chance also this week to write a number of emails to the Minister of Rural Affairs in support of the municipalities in my riding that have put forward applications under the rural, northern and small town infrastructure program, and we have made our case and we have needs that need to be addressed.

When the new Premier took office, I heard her on CBC radio being interviewed. She said her three priorities were: social justice, mending fences with the teachers’ federations and transit. We see that continuing to be amongst the highest priorities of the provincial government.

Of course, from our perspective as a PC caucus, we would suggest that the priorities need to be: reducing the deficit as quickly as possible so we can start paying down the debt; an encouragement and focus on job creation; and a prioritization of government spending so that we’re spending on the most important needs, such as health care, education, protection of our environment, community safety—but determining what those most important and urgent priorities need to be and eliminating the wasteful spending.

The Auditor General’s report gives us a guideline in that respect; as well, the Drummond report gives us lots of recommendations as to how we can reduce government spending and still focus on the urgent priorities of Ontarians.

Youth unemployment is a huge issue in my riding, and I would suggest and maintain that I don’t see how Bill 105 will do very much to address that problem. We have seen in the province of Ontario 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost just in recent years. Most recently, the Heinz plant in Leamington that, for years, has been a mainstay of that community announced it would be closing, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Kellogg’s in London, just this week: again, hundreds of jobs lost. In my own riding of Wellington–Halton Hills and in the community of Fergus where I now live and call my home, in the A.O.

Smith plant—formerly GSW, formerly Beattie Brothers—350 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost as a result of a number of factors, but really, the overall competitiveness of the Ontario economy was the main factor that they articulated. I would suggest that the provincial government has negatively impacted, with many of its decisions, on our overall competitiveness.

Yesterday, Tim Hudak spoke at the Economic Club. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to go to that speech because I was doing another event for him in the Queen’s Park precinct, speaking to public servants. But I read his speech this morning, and he said that Ontario is at a tipping point and we must take a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I certainly agree with that statement. I appreciate the opportunity to respond further to members’ questions and comments when I get the opportunity.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to be able to stand in this House, especially so close to Christmas, and comment on the remarks of the member from Wellington–Halton Hills. I listened closely to his remarks, and he brought up a lot of issues, a lot of very important issues. He didn’t dwell a lot on the bill we’re actually talking about, but he did bring up some very important issues.

The one about bringing down the deficit, that’s an issue that we agree with. I think we all have to work on bringing down the deficit.

It’s interesting: When we first brought forward the proposal that is the basis for Bill 105, that was one of our goals, to show there are ways that the government could actually change the tax system to bring down the deficit, albeit in a very small way. We understand that. It was very small, but it showed direction, how a government could take measures that were accountable and sustainable and change the tax structure so that, yes, you would still give small businesses a break on the EHT, which they need, but a large business—I think our example was the Royal Bank—didn’t really need that first $400,000.

By doing that, you would switch the needs and you would actually use that money to start paying down the deficit in the right direction.

It’s interesting that the party to the right brought amendments forward, which weren’t approved in Bill 105, that actually would increase the deficit. So it’s interesting that they talk about decreasing the deficit, but they bring amendments forward that increase the deficit. That’s a problem, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I too want to take an opportunity to respond to the member from Wellington, whom I respect greatly in this House. I’ve worked with him over the last 18 years here. I too am from a background of four generations of independent business individuals. I was an independent business person as a lawyer; my father was, my grandfather and his father before that, although they were in the old country mainly—my grandparents. I just want to take this opportunity to wish him, his colleagues, everyone in the House, everyone in Ontario, season’s greetings, merry Christmas and a happy and, most of all, a healthy new year for each and every one.

Now, getting back to this bill, what I do not understand is that everybody, particularly the Tory party, is all about tax cuts. That’s all I’ve ever heard here in the last 18 years. This bill speaks to cutting the taxes of smaller companies, and the member from Oxford knows that. He and I have known each other a long, long time, well before we came here. This bill is a tax-cutting bill for small business, and they need that. Everybody in the House agrees on that.

We’ve spent 20 hours debating this bill, and I’m all in favour of a democratic process to allow everybody to speak as long as they possibly can. But the reality is this, Speaker: If this bill does not get third reading today, then the small businesses in Ontario will not be able to benefit from it, because this bill is intended to go into effect—the tax cuts that are contained herein—on January 1. That’s the reality of the situation.

Now, I know we like to play all sorts of little games in here, and all parties are part of that from time to time, but in this particular case, this bill has had 20 hours of debate. It needs to be passed today in order for the small businesses, and particularly the people who run those small businesses, and the people of Ontario to benefit from it. So let’s get on with it. Let’s give this bill third reading so it can go into effect on January 1.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Again, like other members, I’d like to first of all recognize the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, speaking on Bill 105, but take the time to extend season’s greetings and a merry Christmas to all, including you, Speaker, and all members and all my constituents and the people of Ontario.

That being said, I don’t like to switch so quickly to a very sour note, but on Bill 105, this bill has—I participated in the debate on three different occasions. This is third reading, and the government is holding this up for various reasons, trying to find agreement among the House leaders. It went to committee, it spent time in committee, time in this House—not one amendment. I went down to the table. I was so surprised that after going to committee and all the debate that suggested—we moved eight amendments; they never adopted a single one. In fact, I don’t think they even listened.

If I look at the real report of what’s going on—this is an

article that’s in the paper, so I’m not making this up. This is from one of the local papers here in Toronto. It says, “The Stolen Decade.” It’s sort of like the wish list for Christmas. It says, “We will balance the budget”—not. “We will fund medically necessary health care services”—not. “We will cap hydro rates at 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour….” I’m not making this up. These are promises made. It’s like Santa promising and then not delivering. “We will cap tolls on Highway 407”—how absurd. “We will stop school closings.” I’ve got the Cartwright school. The list goes on.

This is like the wish list for Santa. “We will make sure health dollars are spent wisely.” You can’t get access to drugs even if you’re dying. “We will reduce private consultants.” They’ve just gone scandalous in the report of the auditor yesterday. “We will govern with honesty and integrity.” My goodness on the eve of a Christmas season and the goodwill that should be extended, don’t let them fool you. This government can’t be trusted.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I listened to everyone’s comments here. I think the bill finds some consensus in terms of its support, although folks have different opinions in terms of how effective it may be. Of course, my friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane pointed out that the intent of the bill was really a New Democratic idea. We proposed it. We sent it over to the government. They made some changes that really reduced the effectiveness of it in terms of what it could have done to reduce our deficit, so it negates the double net benefit that the bill could have had.

Nevertheless, we do believe that it certainly will help our small businesses in the province of Ontario, one of which, I’m proud to say, my wife runs in our wonderful community of LaSalle, a small business that has been in operation for 83 years. That’s enormous. It’s a wonderful history of supporting her community. They have employees there. They certainly will benefit from this.

But what they do need, in fact, is some consumer confidence infused into our economy, one that shows that the government understands that there’s a growing disparity between wages and the wage and income gap where people actually feel confident enough in their employment to make those purchases, whether they be small or large. That’s something that I don’t think has been addressed in any large

part in this House.

But one thing I would add to the debate is that we’re heading into the holiday season. I too want to extend season’s greetings. Merry Christmas to all Ontarians. But let’s remember to do the thing that can support small business the most: When you’re out buying gifts, don’t buy them at Walmart. Don’t buy them at the big box stores. Buy local; shop local. Go into your small towns on the main street and buy some knick-knacks that are made in Canada even. Try to find one of those these days. I certainly will be doing that, and I encourage all the other members to do the same thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Wellington–Halton Hills, you have two minutes.

Mr. Ted Arnott: We were just talking about the small business issues here amongst my colleagues, and I think each of us in our caucus probably could go on for 90 minutes to two hours easily to talk about the small business issues in our ridings. I only have now a minute and 46 seconds, but I certainly want to acknowledge the comments of the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Attorney General, the member for Durham and the member for Essex, all of whom have participated in debates in this Legislature of course very actively over the last few months and, in some cases, years. I thank them for their comments.

To the Attorney General, I want to say I really do appreciate his comments and also the fact that he’s going to be retiring from this place. He has been an outstanding member, I can now say that with a smile, for the last 18 years. I’ve enjoyed working with him. In fact, when our party went into opposition, he was moving out of room 420, and I was moving in. I’ve been there for the last 10 years, looking after your office and trying to keep it nice and tidy.

But the fact is that this is an important issue—getting back to Bill 105. I wanted to talk a bit about the history of it, too, of course. I can remember, going back to the 1980s, when the David Peterson government promised to eliminate the OHIP premiums with great fanfare during the elections, I think, in 1985 and 1987. What they didn’t tell us was they were going to replace it with the employer health tax. That’s of course what they did to replace the revenue. The employer health tax in and of itself is a payroll tax.

As we know, payroll taxes are the ones that inhibit job creation because they’re a disincentive for employers to hire people. In our time in government, we created the threshold for the first $400,000 of payroll to try and eliminate that disincentive for small business. During the course of the committee deliberations and discussions on Bill 105, we actually brought forward an amendment to increase the threshold to $800,000. Unfortunately, the government voted that down. I believe the New Democrats did not support it either, or it would have passed.

So we continue to monitor this issue. We’re trying to do our

part in the public interest to support job creation, and we look forward to that in the future.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: It’s a pleasure to be able to stand today and speak on Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act. As we know, this amends the Employer Health Tax Act by increasing the exemption amount from $400,000 to $450,000, effective in 2014. It imposes a $5-million payroll threshold, which could be a problem. It provides special rules for registered charities.

This is something I know a little bit about. My family has been in small business for over four generations, starting, in the early days, selling tractors in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in the 1920s and eventually, after the dust bowl, moving to Ontario and moving into the car business, selling Studebakers, right up to Toyotas today.

It is interesting, though, to see how a business grows. I’ve had the opportunity to start and grow my own small business before I had the privilege of taking this seat in this House, and I’ve got an idea of what it takes to grow a business and to employ people, and the challenges that are attached with that. In fact, I remember distinctly, as a child, coming home one day and my house was for sale, because my dad had to sell it to be able to make payroll.

If you talk to a lot of business people—and I do. Every summer, whenever I’m home, I make sure I go and talk to all the business people in Barrie and find out the challenges they see that prevent them—the question I was asking was, “What prevents you from hiring more people? What prevents you from growing to the size you want to be and employing the number of people and creating the amount of profits you want to have, so that you can afford to hire more people?”

The number one thing they tell me about is the regulatory burdens that they have, the payroll taxes that they have, and just the plethora of red tape that they encounter on a day-to-day basis. A lot of them simply don’t have the resources to be able to deal with these in an efficient manner. The owners of these businesses end up doing it themselves in many cases, especially small businesses. Frankly, they should be focused on doing what they do best, which is employing people and creating jobs in our communities.

It is important, I think, in the context of this bill, to remember exactly what the engine that drives our economy is. The engine that drives our economy is small business. It’s a shame, when we talk about the major employers like Heinz and Caterpillar, and any number of them in Barrie—I could say Molson’s, Faurecia, Black and Decker, and General Tire—that have all left and gutted our manufacturing economy in my own town.

The fact of the matter is, the majority of people in Ontario are employed by businesses with four or less employees. That’s an incredible statement to make. We focus a lot here in this place, and as politicians in general at every level, and certainly even media talk about—these big business losses get a lot of attention, and so they should. It’s very sad that our manufacturing sector is getting gutted the way it is because of the high hydro costs, because of the high payroll taxes and because of some of the bad practices of this government over the past 10 years. But the fact remains that we need to be able to support those that employ the most people in Ontario, which is small business.

Even though this bill talks about a $5-million threshold for payroll tax—it sounds like a lot. It is a lot: $5 million. Let’s not kid anyone: $5 million is a lot. The fact is, though, a lot of these small businesses, family-owned businesses, meet that threshold very quickly. When you have between 30 and 60 well-paid employees working for you, you’re going to meet that threshold very, very fast. This bill doesn’t help them. This bill puts them in a difficult position.

What we’ve been saying about this bill from the very beginning is that it just doesn’t go far enough. In fact, I would say it’s well-intentioned, and there are some good things in there. The problem is, it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t do enough to be able to help those businesses, like I said, do what they do best, which is employ people and grow.

I don’t think anyone gets into small business to remain the same size. I don’t think anyone gets into small business to employ one or two people or just themselves. They get into it because they want to be active in their communities. They get into it because they want to provide jobs for people in their communities. They get into it because they want to be profitable. If we nickel-and-dime them at every turn and make it more difficult for them to do business, like this bill does—in this case, it actually—employers told us what they needed.

They were flat out ignored by the Liberals and the NDP when it came to the amendments—and they voted against our $800,000 amendment. Our amendment was to increase the employer health tax exemption to $800,000, which was called for by the CFIB, and it would have saved small businesses thousands of dollars annually. This could be the difference between them hiring another person or not.

This new legislation means that businesses with $5 million or more in payroll will no longer be able to claim a tax exemption on the first $400,000 of their payroll, increasing taxes on family-owned businesses like Canadian Tire—which, in many cases, is a small, family-owned business, by the definition—the independent grocer, for example, or the local car dealer, by thousands of dollars. Why the two other parties voted against our amendments to eliminate this $5-million cap is really quite confusing.

I think what we’re doing here with this cap isn’t trying to stymie the bill as much as we are trying to create jobs. We’re trying to open the door to let these small businesses, which employ the majority of people in Ontario, grow and employ more people. When we employ more people, we put more money into our economy, have more people paying taxes; we grow.

So I’m not quite sure what the resistance is to this amendment. I think it probably should have been a fairly innocuous one, really. I don’t know if it’s stubbornness or some other games that are being played along the way, but it certainly is frustrating to see at a time when these small businesses, like I said before, that employ the majority of the people in our economy, need the help. They’re already getting nickel-and-dimed to death on their hydro rates; they’re getting nickel-and-dimed to death on development charges from municipalities. They’re getting nickel-and-dimed on—you name it.

You turn every single corner, whether it’s WSIB or employer taxation, we already have the most payroll taxes in Canada: $9,970. That source, by the way, if anyone wants to know, is the Toronto Star.

We know that we’re not being competitive. We have to remember that in Ontario we’re not just competing with the other provinces—and by the way, we’re at the bottom of the pile. We’re competing with the United States. We’re competing with all those—let’s just start with the border states. Let’s start with New York, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, and let’s talk about all those states that have made some pretty dramatic changes to their taxation structure, to their labour laws, to any number—you pick it—because they realize they need to be competitive and mobile. They need to change.

We need to change the way we do business in Ontario or we’re not going to be able to catch up with them. They’re running away with this, not to mention our foreign competitors.

We’re in a global economy now. We need to be able to compete—small businesses, even. I’ve talked to a number of small businesses, and I’ll give you one example: Moore Packaging in Barrie, who gave me an opportunity to cut my teeth working for them as a young man—not that I’m still not young. But they gave me my first opportunity to work with them as a human resources manager early on—a company that employs 300 to 400 people.

All of a sudden, it went from being a local business that was importing packaging products across Ontario, and in fact Canada, to now competing with companies from China, because they can import and develop these products faster, with less red tape, and get them to the Toronto market as fast or even faster than Moore can, because Moore hasn’t been able to make the capital investments that would allow them to get their products to Toronto—90 kilometres down the road—as fast as it takes their competitors from China to get it from overseas.

This is the kind of competition that we need to be able to get our feet into. We need to be able to provide our businesses in Ontario with the ability to be able to fight back, be competitive, provide a quality product, employ more people, and get more people to work in high-paying jobs in Ontario. This bill limits their ability to be able to do that, and frankly it’s very, very disappointing.

This bill, in fact, is another window-dressing bill. Like I said, I think it’s well-intended and it has potential to actually be a very productive bill, but it has a minuscule benefit for Ontario businesses in the overall framework, which is a shame. We need to do more than window dressing at this point. We need to do more than just make the point that, “Yes, we care, and to show you we care, we’re going to create this bill.” We need to actually do something of substance in here and help these businesses get off the ground, get off their knees, in many cases.

Liberal policies have tripled hydro rates in the past decade, increased taxes through WSIB, the College of Trades fees, among others, and dramatically increased the red tape regulatory burden on businesses. I know that local businesses I’ve talked to want to make some expansions, and they won’t do it because they know the regulatory burdens that will get put on them, the development charges that will get put on them—that’s a municipal thing—but still the amount of charges that will get placed on them will prevent them, in this case, from hiring 60 more people.

They’re going to go down the road, probably to the States, to do that. This bill doesn’t help those people. It doesn’t help jobs in Ontario, and we need to make some amendments to make it work.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: ‘Tis the season to be jolly. I also want to wish everybody here a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Everybody, I hope you’re going to be safe and enjoy your holidays, and all of the people in Algoma–Manitoulin, I’m looking forward to coming to the various suppers. As you can see, I love the food that you cook for me back in Algoma–Manitoulin, and I certainly enjoy being invited to your tables.

M. Michael Mantha: Pardon?

M. Michael Mantha: Je veux dire un mot de l’apport de mon ami et mon collègue le ministre des Transports, qui est ici. On a résolu un petit peu des problèmes qu’on a dans Algoma–Manitoulin. Ça fait que j’apporte des bonnes nouvelles avec moi quand on retourne à la circonscription d’Algoma–Manitoulin.

Je veux souhaiter une bonne, heureuse année et puis un joyeux Noël à toutes les familles et puis à mes collègues ici à Queen’s Park.

Là, il faut vraiment que je parle au sujet du projet de loi.

I agree with the member where he says, “You know, this bill doesn’t exactly go far enough.” There are other measures that we can certainly be helping not only small business, but Ontarians as a whole by looking—it’s great to see that the exemption on the $400,000 is going to be increased to $450,000 and is going to mean something for small businesses. But for the larger ones, who actually don’t need this cut, we should be looking at keeping that revenue so that we can service Ontarians and provide those much-needed revenue dollars for this province.

We should also look at closing the corporate tax loopholes that are going to be implemented through the HST input tax. That is something new that is going to be created that we can actually save dollars and keep those dollars in the pockets. But if we want to really help small business, why don’t we look at the cuts that have happened through the kiosks through ServiceOntario? That is having a huge economic impact on small businesses across northern Ontario and across this province because people are continuously dealing with licensing issues and not having service or access to their ServiceOntario counters.

If we’re going to be really sincere about helping Ontarians and small business, let’s look at the root cause of what’s causing those problems.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. First of all, to you and through you to all the members, merry Christmas and happy new year. It’s a great privilege to serve in this Legislature on behalf of the great community of Ottawa Centre, and I’m very much looking forward to continue the service in the new year. I wish everyone and their families a very merry Christmas and a very prosperous new year to come.

It’s a great opportunity to speak about Bill 105, Supporting Small Businesses Act. By the way, this bill has now gone through about 22 hours of debate. I think we’ve heard all the points of view a few times over, and it’s time that we pass this bill so that our businesses can benefit from it in the new year.

Yesterday, when I spoke on this bill, I posed—because this is questions and comments, so I posed questions—a few questions to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga. I’ll repeat those questions now to the member from Barrie, because I didn’t even get an acknowledgement of my questions in the response—forget any answers.

So here are my questions: I just want to know, how did the PC Party vote when our government reduced the corporate income tax rate from 14% to 11.5%? How did the PC Party vote when we reduced the corporate income tax for the manufacturing and resource sector from 12% to 10%? How did the PC Party vote when we reduced the corporate income tax rate for small businesses from 5.5% to 4.5%? How did the PC Party vote when we reduced the small business deduction surtax from 4.25% to zero? And how did the PC Party vote when we completely eliminated the capital tax that businesses paid whether they made money or not?

We brought it down to absolutely zero. How did the PC Party vote? Speaker, the answer is that they voted against every single one of these measures. Despite the fact that they talk about that they support businesses, they voted against it. So my question is, why did you vote against it?

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It is my duty as the whip here today to listen to the remarks being made, and I want to commend the member from Barrie for his insightful comments, because he comes from a family of business; he comes from an HR background. He understands many of the concerns that Bill 105 simply does not address. In purest terms, it is actually an increase in tax on fairly middle-to-larger-sized businesses. They’re giving a reduction in the employer health tax for under $450,000 in payroll, and once you get to $5 million, you don’t get any. In fact, you don’t get any exemption either.

So the member from Barrie—and also, the Minister of Labour said something that was actually inaccurate. What he said was, the Liberals promised, prior to the last election, to reduce corporate tax rates, and then they reversed themselves on that. That’s the true story, and that’s why we voted against it, primarily.

In fact, I’m going to go through the clippings this morning. This is not political. These are the comments this morning. The first 10 pages are summarized in a scandalous sort of way: “Wynne Vows Law to Control Execs’ Pay” at OPG; “OPG’s Corporate Culture Needs Lesson in Thrift.” The first 10 pages are all about the Auditor General’s comments on Ontario Power Generation’s inordinate and extremely exaggerated pays.

It goes on to say, “Ontario Drops Local Content Rules for” the Green Energy Act. That’s when they said the Green Energy Act was going to create jobs. Now they’ve reversed themselves on that as well, because they were not in compliance with the World Trade Organization—another backdown.

“Face It, the Ontario Liberals are Worse Than Rob Ford.” I’m not making these—“Matthews Confirms Mazza’s Salary” was $9.3 million—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to tell me how it relates to the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: That’s $9,300,000.

Bill 105 is one example. It’s a payroll issue, to some extent. I understand that, but here’s the issue. The real issue is, “Ontario Drops Local Content ... for Green Energy.” “How Long Does Ontario Need to Turn Around a Bloated Utility? “Face It, the Ontario Liberals are Worse Than Rob Ford.” Health minister makes $9.3 million—

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

Mr. John O’Toole: The list goes on. Can I have more time to read into the record—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to speak to G105.

I want to tell you about some people in my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh. Tom and Susie LiCausi used to run Forest Glade hardware in my subdivision, and then Walmart moved in. So they got out of the hardware business because it was tough to compete. They went around the corner to a better location—more visible—and they opened up a fireplace store. That was seasonal, so they got into the patio business. They’re doing very well, but they’re working very hard. These are small business people who are working six days a week and doing some inventory on Sunday.

They’re selling equipment that’s made in Canada, and made in Canada matters as opposed to the lesser-quality furniture you may buy at a Walmart. One of their children, John, is going to take over the business and run that for them down the road. That will give nonna more time to spend with her grandchildren.

To the Minister of Labour who thought we’d spoken enough on this, if I could quote Walter Lippmann from 1939. He said, “The opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any ... sensible human being, always learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters.” One other quote: Harry S. Truman, in 1950, said, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” I don’t think here in Ontario that’s what we want, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Barrie, you have two minutes.

Mr. Rod Jackson: I’d like to thank the members from Windsor–Tecumseh, Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Minister of Labour and certainly the member from Durham for their comments.

Actually, I really enjoyed the member from Windsor–Tecumseh’s comments. I fully concur that nothing grates on me more in this House when we’re told we’ve had enough debate. There’s nothing to see here; move along.

You know what? I haven’t had an opportunity to speak to this bill yet, and I was really happy to have the opportunity to be able to speak to it and share the thoughts and concerns of my constituents and myself on this bill. The ability to do so is a right and privilege that I have after I was elected. So I think everybody in this House, if they want to, should have the opportunity to speak to any bill, and any accusation that we’ve spoken enough to it really is kind of shameful.

We need to be able to express our rights and privileges in this place, especially when it comes to one of the biggest issues of the day, which is creating jobs in Ontario, and this is a place where this government has come up woefully short. We’ve seen some half measures, a tipping of the hat at the problem, a recognition of the problem of creating more jobs in Ontario, but really, when it comes down to it, nothing of substance to really help people out.

It’s not even a matter of not spending any more money, as was mentioned maybe earlier in this debate—you know, increasing the deficit and all this. You know what? There’s a difference between nickel-and-diming and paying attention to the pennies and losing track of the dollars, which is exactly what this government has done. They’ve lost track of the dollars here. It’s a matter of investing your dollars wisely so that you get more out of it than you put into it. This government has failed on that attempt woefully.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I rise today to speak to government Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act. As many of my colleagues have pointed out during earlier debate, Bill 105 is a small bill, and as some of my colleagues have also suggested, it is also, sadly, typical of this government’s larger approach.

The party opposite has held power for 10 years, yet it is unwilling to take the strong and decisive action that is needed to address the problem this province faces and provide real tax relief for Ontario businesses. Ontario’s unemployment rate has been above the national average for almost seven straight years—over half a million of our neighbours here in Ontario are out of work—yet the government still won’t produce a credible jobs plan, and it refuses to adopt ideas put forward by Ontario PCs.

The measures contained within Bill 105 will not make any real impact on the jobs crisis that grips this province. This bill will not offer hope to the more than half a million men and women who woke up this morning without a job or get them back to work and to being happy, productive citizens of this province. In fact, even after the thoughtful second reading debate, the government actually shied away from taking a more ambitious position at committee.

We should be used to this government’s long history of letdowns by now, but it is still disappointing to see the input of small businesses cherry-picked or ignored by the party opposite. It is also one more sign that this government is happy to make do with the appearance of caring about businesses.

Bill 105 amends the Employer Health Tax Act by increasing the exemption amount from $400,000 to $450,000 for the 2014-to-2018 period, adjusted for inflation thereafter. It also imposes a $5-million payroll exemption threshold and establishes some special rules for registered charities and possibly special rules for employers associated with a registered charity.

That’s the government’s thumbnail version. The reality is that Ontario’s smallest businesses will experience a small benefit while those with the largest payrolls will pay more, as long as they will no longer be entitled to the exemption—a tax break for the little guy, but a very modest one, and the most lightweight of tax-relief measures for a sector facing crushing payroll taxes, the highest payroll taxes in the country. On average, Ontario residents pay $9,970 in payroll taxes. Estimates are that Bill 105 will offer some—not all—small businesses a payroll tax savings of around $900 annually.

In fact, many family-owned businesses will actually be paying higher taxes after the Liberals and NDP teamed up to defeat Progressive Conservative amendments to Bill 105 when it was at committee. During clause-by-clause consideration, the Ontario PCs introduced an amendment to increase the employer health tax exemption to $800,000. This echoed a call from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, on behalf of 42,000 small- and medium-sized businesses across Ontario. That move would have saved those businesses thousands of dollars annually.

Ontario employers told us what they needed in terms of relief and support. In their submissions to the committee, the CFIB wrote that, “Our members consistently identify payroll taxes as the most difficult form of taxation to cope with because of their profit-insensitive nature, which limits their ability to grow their businesses and to create jobs.” Again, Speaker, payroll taxes limit small and medium-sized businesses’ ability to grow their operations and create jobs.

The CFIB’s concerns were ignored by the government and their partners in the third party, who both voted against our $800,000 amendment to Bill 105. Here’s why that number is important. The lower exemption threshold favoured by the Liberals and the NDP has the potential to actually constrict business growth. If your business has a payroll of up to a $450,000 level, you enjoy Bill 105’s promised OHIP exemption. If your business grows beyond that point, however, you’re no longer eligible. In that respect, it is a disincentive to grow once you close in on that mark, or it might be an incentive to shrink.

If you’re close to the line, you might scale back your payroll. Setting the bar low with Bill 105 seems to reflect the government’s aspirations for this economy. But if government is really trying to help small businesses succeed, it should be doing more to help them grow.

The new legislation proposed in Bill 105 also means that Ontario businesses with $5 million or more in payroll will no longer be able to claim a tax exemption on the first $400,000 on their payroll. This will effectively increase taxes on family-owned businesses by thousands of dollars. I would note, Speaker, that during clause-by-clause consideration, the Liberals and the NDP also voted against the PC amendment to eliminate this $5-million cap. This will discourage businesses from hiring or expanding.

What’s more, Bill 105 will offer marginal benefit for Ontario businesses in the bigger scheme of things. Consider it in the context of this government’s track record: hydro rates that have tripled in the past decade, and which continue to skyrocket—the energy minister unveiled a 42% increase; increased taxes through new WSIB and College of Trade fees, among others; and the red tape burden on businesses has increased dramatically since 2003.

Improvised and ill-considered policies such as these are not helping Ontario small businesses put down roots or grow their operations. In fact, they are driving new jobs away and driving up costs for all businesses in Ontario. This province’s debt has doubled since the party opposite took office. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that this province’s net direct and indirect debt stood at roughly 226% of provincial revenues at the end of March 2013. Reckless spending is by no means a new thing for the party opposite. But what is notable is that all of this spending has not significantly improved the day-to-day reality of Ontario’s small businesses and medium businesses.

This government’s lax business fundamentals represent a barrier to economic growth in Ontario. Bill 105 skirts around that uncomfortable fact, side-stepping the substantial issues and problems, such as the structural cost facing our job creators. Fees and premiums pile up fast in Ontario. The CFIB regularly identifies the thicket of red tape and regulations, as it drives down productivity as businesses are lost in the forest of paperwork. Interprovincial trade barriers shave billions off of our productivity and hurt Ontario businesses’ ability to compete at home and abroad.

It is shameful that this government is ready to embrace comprehensive free trade with the EU, but not in Canada’s neighbourhood.

Ontario’s trade deficit has been called the single largest drag on our province’s economic growth, and it shows no sign of going anywhere under this government. According to the Liberals’ own trade facts sheet, Ontario exports from 2012 were actually below where they stood in 2003. Imports levels have increased up by 15% in that time. The result is that Ontario’s annual trade deficit has more than doubled since the Liberals came to office. This is just one cost of this government’s willingness to settle for the status quo.

Over the last decade, Ontario has seen over 300,000 manufacturing jobs vanish. Every week brings news of another business closing, and those layoffs and job losses ripple through the economy. For the life of me, I will never understand why this government doesn’t take the situation more seriously, why the Premier has repeatedly referred to the manufacturing crisis as a myth. Maybe it’s intended to convey confidence, but in the face of a flurry of plant closures this year, it comes across as a little out of touch with reality.

Having the right environment for growth is everything. It starts with leadership, and it demands ambition. Frankly, I’m discouraged to see the Minister of Finance showing so little of either in Bill 105.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to rise again today on Bill 105. I listened to the member from Burlington’s comments on the bill. She spoke about the province’s trade deficit in the context of our multilateral trade agreements that are either currently enacted or proposed. I’m not sure if she actually understands the relationship between those trade agreements and the deficit that exists. Free trade agreements are purported to balance the scales of exports and imports and to allow our large manufacturing primarily to reach different markets, but invariably that isn’t happening.

When we talk about the large corporations that are actually the hallmarks of manufacturing, or even our raw materials, those large corporations have benefited tremendously from corporate tax reductions at the federal and provincial levels to the extent that the federal finance minister, Jim Flaherty, has said that they’re holding multi-billions of dollars in reserves. They are not reinvesting that money into this country, and that certainly would have a detrimental effect on productivity;

whereas small businesses, we know, do pour most of their profits back into their operations, either enhancing their product, enhancing their services or hiring employees.

I think the member from Burlington is quite far off in terms of her understanding of how free trade actually affects our country. I’ve lived in Windsor and Essex county, which has seen the detriment of our manufacturing sector because of free trade: jobs gone to Mexico, gone to China. That’s free trade in its effects, and it certainly has to stop. We need fair trade in this country, not free trade.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, I think we are now past 23 hours of debate on a bill to give some 60,000 small businesses in Ontario better tax treatment and lower taxes beginning next year. What we need to do in this House is pass this bill. I wish the opposition would stop filibustering a bill that they’re going to vote for, that businesses all across Ontario need. Get it to committee, get it done.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I very attentively listened to the member from Burlington and her rather thoughtful remarks, and I thought that they were very much on message.

I can always relate to what’s actually going on. If you look in Ontario today—just the other day, the Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, issued the 2013 report. This is what some of the media reports on it; this does relate to the state of business in Ontario. Here’s one here: The headline is “Shocking Liberal Incompetence.” Well, actually, it’s not shocking because the evidence is, in 10 years, double the debt, double the deficit, and you can’t get access to drugs.

Now there’s a new tax going to come in somewhere during the Christmas break, when everybody is on holidays, to increase taxes on transit.

One of the things in here is, “Lysyk uncovered obscenely generous pensions, salaries, bonuses”—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can I ask the member one more time, how does this relate to the bill?

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, because the state of the economy is very much related to the deficit. Now, they’re going to try to help small businesses in Bill 105. They’re providing—here’s the issue though, it’s very important to frame this—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): How does it relate to the bill and the person who spoke before?

Mr. John O’Toole: Bill 105’s intent is to take the employer health tax exemption threshold from $400,000 of payroll to $450,000. We wanted it to go to $800,000. Once you hit $5 million in payroll, you aren’t entitled to the $450,000 exemption, which means their tax is going up, so they’re killing larger and medium-sized business—car dealerships, Home Depots, those kind of businesses—many of them owned by members of the community who pay taxes and employ people.

This is not helpful. In fact, the tax relief would be about $63 a month. With the $63 a month, you still can’t meet the payroll tax—on the electricity at that store. It has gone up by 43%. I can’t trust this government.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s an honour to be able to rise in this House. I’d like to wish everybody at home a merry Christmas, but I’d really like to comment on the member from Burlington.

She had some very, very thoughtful comments. I didn’t agree with a lot of them, but there were a couple that I really did agree with. She focused on what seemed to be some lack of leadership on the jobs issue from the Premier. I would agree with that. I would like to bring that a little bit forward, because recently the Premier challenged the agri-food processing sector that they were going to create 100,000 to 200,000 jobs. She challenged them to that, but she didn’t announce any tools for that. She just did the press release, and since, we’ve had Heinz announce a closure; we’ve had Kellogg’s announcing a closure.

I think the province would be better served by not so much challenges and press releases and more actual working towards reaching those goals.

In northern Ontario, we’ve had similar experience. We’ve had for years—my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin knows very well because he’s the critic on this issue. We’ve had years of announcements of the Ring of Fire. We had an announcement by this government that they were going to build a smelter in Capreol. Actually, it was an announcement of a pre-feasibility study, but they didn’t bother putting that in the press release.

Once again, a great press release: “These are the things that we are going to accomplish,” but when you look deep and you look long, there’s actually nothing there, and that is a problem. If you’re going to challenge the agri-food industry to create jobs—and they can create jobs—give them the tools. Do the work. Just don’t talk. You need to have more than running towards goals. You need to actually have goals.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Burlington, you have two minutes.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Thank you so much, Speaker. Going back to my earlier comment, Bill 105 is a small bill. It does a little bit of good, but that pales in relationship to the bigger picture. The government seems unwilling to take the strong action to address the problems this province faces and the challenges that confront business in Ontario. The measures contained within Bill 105 may offset some of the tax burden that the government has loaded on to businesses in Ontario, but it won’t make up for crushing hydro rates and it won’t make any real impact on the job crisis that grips this province.

The Auditor General’s findings on things like Ornge, the gas plant cancellations and now the OPG scandal drive home the point that this government desperately needs to get its House in order. We don’t need consultations without timelines or conversations without end or electronic suggestion boxes. We don’t need a jogging partner. We need this government to show some leadership. The party opposite must do more than just name the challenges we face as a province in this 21st century. It must show the character and confidence to take the steps needed to overcome those challenges.

But challenges aren’t barriers. They’re opportunities to do things differently and to do things better. Urgent action and bold ideas are needed to grow our economy and balance the budget. Sadly, Bill 105 is not that. This is more tinkering around the edges by this government, and it will not do enough to solve the job crisis that we face in this province every day. We can no longer trust this government.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to rise in this Legislature to speak to Bill 105. I think it’s a very important piece of legislation, one that merits all the debates that we are witnessing today. I know members on the governing side have been complaining about the fact that we actually want to debate legislation in this chamber, and I noticed, in one of the two-minute hits, that the member from Windsor-Tecumseh offered some quotes about the true nature of our parliamentary democracy meaning that we have to respect and honour Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, and of course that happens in both the PC and NDP caucuses in this Legislative chamber.

This act is called the Supporting Small Businesses Act, and in doing so, I think it’s worth understanding and analyzing the plight of small businesses in the province of Ontario.

There’s a recent survey that was conducted that asked small business owners who were within four years of opening their business whether they would actually do so again, whether these small business operators who recently opened businesses, having hindsight, would do it again, and 75% of those businesses said no.

That speaks to the climate of businesses and small businesses in the province of Ontario. There’s lots of red tape. There are lots of barriers to success. There are lots of hurdles that small business owners right across the province of Ontario have to surmount in order to succeed, in order to be the job creators we all want them to be.

I think it’s very important to have an honest discussion about the plight of small businesses in the province of Ontario. We’re talking about a piece of legislation here in Bill 105 that purports to actually be helping these small businesses. How does it do that? It raises the threshold by which some small businesses can have an extra tax exemption. That tax exemption amounts to less than $1,000 in a year. I’m not sure how many jobs are going to be created by the very mention that $1,000 is going to be saved by these small businesses. While it is always important to look at the taxation component that we see in the way we manage our economy, we have to look at the net effect of these ideas.

I listened intently to the debate this morning, even though I am in the midst, like all members of this Legislature sending out their Christmas cards—I noticed that there were some comments about whether businesses over $5 million—I believe the member from Essex was talking about this—actually need the extra money. I think that businesses that have a payroll of over $5 million do in fact need the extra money. These are the very businesses that are employing dozens, if not hundreds, of people in communities right across the province of Ontario.

What we’re saying to those businesses that are employing dozens, if not hundreds, of people across the province of Ontario is, “You have too much money, and we need to take more from you.” I think the very notion of having that attitude about businesses that are employing families right in this province is simply the wrong attitude.

We on this side of the House believe in tax relief. We believe that tax relief does stimulate the economy. But you can’t mix a tax relief measure with a tax increase, because it nets out. There’s nothing that’s going to be positively gained in the process of doing that, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the small businesses that I’m touring in my riding have serious concerns about whether they’re going to be able to sustain what is happening right here in Ontario. I want to mention this, Mr. Speaker. I visited, very recently, Integrated Packaging Films, which is a small business in my riding that employs about 20 to 30 individuals and is in the recycling business—a recycling plastics business.

Mr. Speaker, they gave me their hydro bill. This is an authenticated, real hydro bill from Integrated Packaging Films that was for October 30, 2013—very, very recent. The idea here is that their global adjustment for one month is almost $38,000, which is the salary of an individual in the province of Ontario, simply going to global adjustment.

If we want to help small businesses, we have to—

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees: We’re pleased to have three grade 5 classes with us today from St. Jerome Catholic school in Newmarket, along with teachers Ms. Lostracco and Ms. Alexander.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Today, page Matteya Wendling’s family is with us: her parents, Rosanne and Kevin Wendling; sisters Justine, Kyara, Ariel and Mia; and grandmother Denise LaFontaine. They’re in the members’ gallery.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce Anjum and Abid Raza, who are visiting with us today. They’re the aunt and uncle of my chief of staff, Omar Raza.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome the mother and grandparents of the page from Ottawa Centre, Amy Falkner: mother, Julia Martin, and grandparents Elizabeth and Michael Martin. Welcome to your Queen’s Park. Good to see you again.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to introduce my legislative learner—it’s a co-op program from the University of Waterloo—Rachel Henderson, who has been with us for three months. She’s getting towards the end of her term, and she’s done a fantastic job. Thank you very much, Rachel.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to ask members to join in welcoming to the House Mr. Peter Shurman, the former MPP for Thornhill, who is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. That’s not an introduction; he’s still a member.

The member from Oxford on introductions.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I rise to recognize legislative intern Mitch Davidson, who is in the gallery today. I want to thank him for his extraordinary work in my office in this past busy term. Thank you very much, Mitch, for a job well done.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to introduce Pam Abeysekara. She’s a co-op student from the University of Waterloo who has been working in the Liberal service bureau. She lives in the great riding of Brampton–Springdale. Her last day is on the 20th, but I want to thank her for her service.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my Queen’s Park staff, Stephen Dasko and Ryan Nutter; and my constituency staff, Jacqueline Flowers, Suzanne Bolton and Neave Greig. They’ve been a tremendous help to me over the course of this year. They make me look good and they help me get things done. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to introduce to the assembly today Jamie Robertson, who is here from Maxville, as well as his wife, Roxane Villeneuve Robertson, an Ontario Progressive Conservative candidate, former page and daughter of the great Noble Villeneuve, who was once an agriculture minister here.

SEASON’S GREETINGS

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just before we get into that moment which is question period, I want to wish the people of Ontario, on the part of the government, a very happy and safe holiday season. I want to thank the first responders, the retailers and the ER personnel, who will all continue to work, no matter what the holiday. To all of the members and all of the personnel in the Legislature, I hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all of our guests for being here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Tim Hudak: In the spirit of the season, let me wish everybody as well here in the chamber and across the province a very merry Christmas, with good health and happiness in the new year.

I take it that means we won’t get a jobs plan as a Christmas gift. It sounds like the House isn’t sitting next week; I was hoping for that. I was hoping for that jobs plan. We still had a few days left.

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the member from St. Catharines is trying to distract me here, so let me get to my question.

Premier, you’re receiving today the Golden panel, which we understand is going to increase the gas tax in the province by five cents a litre. If you’re a commuter filling up your tank a couple of times a week, or if you’re a family with two cars trying to get the kids to soccer and hockey, that’s a punishing new tax increase.

I want to know, Premier: For the average commuter coming from Mississauga, from York region or from Durham, how much is that going to impact their pocketbook on an annual basis?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, Dr. Anne Golden will release her report later today. I certainly welcome this report because we on this side of the House are convinced that investing in infrastructure, including transit infrastructure, is absolutely necessary to the future economic health of this province.

The reality is that I understand that the opposition does not have a plan for funding transit and does not have a commitment to building the kind of infrastructure that we know is needed in the GTHA and, quite frankly, beyond. But we believe that those investments, along with investments in people and investments in a strong business climate, are what are needed in order for the economy to grow.

I look forward to receiving Dr. Golden’s report and continuing to make those investments in infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I take it that means that you don’t know or you’re not telling us exactly how much a massive increase in the gas tax is going to cost average families and commuters in the province of Ontario. Premier, I come to this from a very different place than you or the leader of the NDP. I believe that taxpayers are already doing more than their fair share, that taxes are actually too high. You believe the taxes are not high enough.

Premier, I also believe that the top issue in our province is jobs—actually good jobs that you can count on, not the part-time or minimum-wage jobs that you seem to be focused on in our province. If you’re making everything more expensive by putting gas taxes up, if you’re taking money out of the pockets of Ontario families, isn’t that actually going to make a very desperate job situation even worse in the province of Ontario? Shouldn’t we be focusing on creating jobs and sparing our economy, not taking even more jobs and money out of the pockets of hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very interesting: The Leader of the Opposition never talks about the costs of not having transit. He never talks about the hours and hours wasted. He never talks about the cost of sitting in gridlock. He never talks about the cost to businesses of not being able to move their goods and services around. He never talks about the quality of life that is diminished by having to sit in that gridlock.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I look forward to receiving Anne Golden’s report. The Minister of Transportation is going to review the recommendations carefully. But we are determined to continue to build transit in the GTHA and to invest in infrastructure across this province. He does not have that determination, and he does not have a plan to do so.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: No, I think the Premier’s kidding around here a little bit. If you want to know what I’m determined to do: I’m determined to get our economy moving, create jobs and get taxes down in our province.

Premier, you and I have talked about this, right? We’ve sat in your office. We’ve talked across your desk. I’ve laid out my plan for transit, and I stand behind a proud history in the Ontario PC Party that has built 64 subway stations in the province of Ontario. And the Liberal count? Zero.

In fact, this morning Doug Holyday and I laid out even more detail: creating an Ontario transportation trust; to put revenue there from prioritizing government spending as the economy grows; to sell off surplus land and buildings; to work in public-private partnerships; to put that money, locked in for taxpayers, so they know where it goes. I’ve talked about this for over a year, Premier, including with you personally.

I’ll build subways. I won’t increase taxes. You’ll increase taxes, and you never get anything done. I think our choices will get Ontario moving.

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s terrific that the Leader of the Opposition has taken our idea of a Trillium Trust and has now entrenched it in his plan. I think that’s great, fantastic. And it is terrific that, of late, the Leader of the Opposition is talking about transit, but he talks about it as an unfunded plan. He has no plan to fund transit, Mr. Speaker. He simply talks about it like a nice ethereal idea.

The reality is we have a plan to fund it. We understand that those investments in infrastructure and in transit are critical to the economic growth of the province. There is no such plan coming forward from the Leader of the Opposition.

The other reality is he talks about jobs, and yet we are trying to get Bill 105 passed, which would help 60,000 small businesses in this province. It takes an idea from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to help those payroll taxes. They are not supporting us, Mr. Speaker. We need their help to get Bill 105 passed.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I’m going to be a bit facetious here. You and I have talked about this over a year ago. We laid out our plan over a year ago for an Ontario transportation trust. You stole that idea and you called it the Ontario Trillium Trust. Fair enough. I guess imitation is the best form of flattery. But here’s the difference: We fund that by setting priorities, by doing public-private partnerships, by selling off excess land and buildings and setting aside priorities in the capital budget, $13 billion in the year. That’s how we fund it.

How do you fund it? A punishing new gas tax on hard-working families in our province. I don’t think we need to treat driving as some kind of sin. I don’t think we need a new sin tax on driving. In fact, that will cost us jobs in the province of Ontario.

Let me ask you a very clear question: If you think hydro rates can go up 60%, if you think it’s okay to have that kind of waste at OPG, if you think it’s okay to blow $1 billion on gas plants in the province—and now you’ve got the gall to come back to increase gas by 5 cents a litre? I’ve just got to ask you, what planet are you living on that that is somehow okay?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please.

Before I go to the Premier, I’ve tried to allow members to discipline themselves, even while I’m speaking, and to ask members now—even if this is, possibly, the last day, I’ll go back into the routine of the warnings. Discipline yourselves, please, without the comments and the interjections, because now that’s only raising my temperature.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition has not got the full story from the report. I ask him to read the report when it’s released today. We will review the recommendations. We are determined to continue to invest in transit and in infrastructure.

You know, the Leader of the Opposition talks about what he would do. What he is on record as saying he would do is cancel the Hamilton LRT, cancel the Mississauga LRT, cancel the York rapid transit and cancel Waterloo region’s LRT. That’s the plan, Mr. Speaker, and that is absolutely unacceptable to us.

We believe that investing in the region, investing in the province, making sure that communities across this region and across the province have the infrastructure, including transit, that they need in order for economic growth—we believe that those investments are critical.

I am not going to suggest that it is easy for a government to make these long-term investments, but if we don’t, then we’re abdicating our responsibility to future generations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess we’re going to have to have another meeting. I know I chide you sometimes for a lot of meetings and conversations, but I laid out this plan over a year ago. You and I have talked about it on several occasions. You’ve taken some parts of our plan, but I think you’re making a big mistake in increasing taxes on families, particularly commuters here in the greater Toronto area. Your plan, according to the Golden commission, is to increase gas taxes across the province as a whole.

Our plan is to build subways—I think that is what world-class cities do—and expand highway capacity. I’ll keep talking about it. I’ve been talking about it for some time now as leader.

But here’s a question I have for you. You’ve done studies, and then you had a study of studies and now the Golden panel is effectively a study of a study of a study. So this is your final decision, right? You’re not calling a friend here; this is the final call. Your plan is to increase gas taxes by five cents a litre, or are you just kicking this down the road for another study?

Here’s the difference: Leaders make decisions. I’ve got my plan. I’m ready to go. It will build subways, expand highways. It will create jobs in the province of Ontario. Is this your plan? Yes or no? I’ve got mine. I’m ready to go.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s almost laughable. I’m trying not to, but, Mr. Speaker, it’s almost laughable that the notion that an unfunded plan that would cancel the projects that I listed in Hamilton, Mississauga, York region, Waterloo region—that that is somehow a plan that would help transit and would help the people in this region and beyond who are sitting in traffic, businesses that are trying to move their goods around.

The reality is that we have to make those investments. We are determined to do that. We’ve said all along that we would put the plan into the 2014 budget. That is the target that we are on.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will read the Anne Golden report. I hope even more, though, that the Leader of the Opposition understands that if we abdicate this responsibility now and we do not make investments in transit, then future generations will look back and say, “What were you thinking? Why were you not making the investments that we needed in order for this”—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I think people will listen to you here today, and they’ll say that you said you were going to increase hydro rates by 60%. Your energy minister famously said, “Don’t worry about the gas plant waste. That’s only a cup of coffee.” Now you’re going to increase taxes by five cents a litre on gas. They’re going to say, “What are you thinking?” and “Who are you talking to?” This makes no sense.

We’ve laid out a plan that will actually invest in subways to go underground to build world-class cities, expand highway capacity and set up an Ontario Trillium Trust to fund that plan.

Your plan is to increase taxes, to waste more money; and let me ask you this, too, because I’m not sure if this is your plan, or another study of a study that will be followed by another study, but I see the member from St. Catharines gave the gas tax a standing ovation. I see the member from Peterborough gave the gas tax a standing ovation. Let me understand this, to be clear: Are you going to increase gas taxes in Peterborough, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls to fund subway expansion in Toronto? Is that actually your plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to read the report when it’s released today.

The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition can diminish the process of actually talking to people who understand how transit works and where it needs to be built. The Leader of the Opposition can grab on to a populist notion that building subways everywhere is the answer. That’s not the case. The Leader of the Opposition can say that he has a plan to build transit when there is no funding apparent. He has made no funding announcements, except to say that he will slash services, that he will cut thousands and thousands of jobs in order to slash services across government, as he did as part of a previous cabinet. So there is no credibility to the notion that he is putting forward.

We are determined to invest in the infrastructure, including transit, that is needed in order to grow this economy, and we—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order.

New question.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would like to begin, on behalf of New Democrats, by wishing the people of this province, the members, all of the staff of the precinct and yourself, Speaker, a very merry Christmas and happy holidays. It’s going to be a wonderful season. I hope that everyone enjoys it.

Speaker, I also want, on behalf of New Democrats, to acknowledge a member who won’t be joining us in the future here, for whom it is his last day, and that’s the member for Thornhill. The member for Thornhill has served this Legislature well for his constituents. He has been passionate. We haven’t always agreed, that’s for sure, but he did some heavy lifting for the Conservative caucus as their finance critic. He has worked very, very hard for a number of years here, and he deserves our thanks and our respect as he leaves this place. He was passionate, he was committed to the work he was doing, and his radio voice will be well missed in this chamber.

Speaker, I would like to put my first question to the Premier. Ten years ago, the Premier was elected as part of a Liberal team that insisted that the scandalous perks, bonuses and high salaries that drove up hydro bills were a failure of leadership and that they would “never be repeated.” Why has nothing changed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to reinforce what the leader of the third party said about the member for Thornhill and thank him for his service. Thank you very much.

As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the culture at OPG clearly has been resistant to change, and that has been through subsequent governments. Government after government has made changes. Those changes have not created the kind of culture that we think is appropriate. We are going to put in place controls that would give government some direct authority over the compensation at OPG. That is something that has not been done by governments before, but clearly it is what is needed, and that is what we are going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier insists that she’s taking the latest scandals at the OPG seriously, but where have the Liberals been for the last decade? They’ve paid lip service to reining in sky-high salaries yet done nothing at all about it. Meanwhile, everyday Ontarians are paying the price through their hydro bills for Liberal inaction. Will the Premier admit today that the failure of leadership is in the Premier’s office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, no, because the fact is that this is a situation that has persisted over a number of governments. We did make changes as a government previously. We made those changes, but the culture persisted, as it did under the Conservatives and as it did under the NDP.

So what I’m saying is, we need to put in place government controls that are direct controls on compensation, because the culture seems to be resistant to the other changes that have been made. The culture has been resistant, whether it has been a Conservative government, an NDP government or a Liberal government. We’re going to make the changes that are necessary in order for government to have those controls over those compensation packages.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With all due respect, the fact is people feeling squeezed harder and harder than ever by lost jobs and shrinking paycheques have heard this government promise over and over that things will change, and they see the same old story being played over and over and over again. They pay the bills. Well-connected insiders get the millions.

The Premier is blaming people and pointing fingers everywhere she can, but she’s refusing to admit one simple fact: The buck stops with her. At what point does the Premier stop looking around for people to blame, show some leadership and admit that the Liberals have simply failed to respect the people of Ontario’s money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The leader of the third party refers to the 10-year period; the audit was over a 10-year period. However, there has been a business transformation plan under way at OPG, and it’s important to note that, over the last three years, OPG has undergone a significant transformation: 1,500 full-time employees have already been eliminated. The goal is to reduce the number of staff by another 800 employees, going from 11,640 in 2011 to 9,308 by 2016, making a total reduction of 2,300 full-time employees.

In addition, under the 2007 Agency Review Panel, OPG’s executive salaries were reduced by 25% to 30% in new contracts. Also, the member should be aware of the fact that over the last eight years, OPG has generated $7 billion, bottom line—

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

GASOLINE TAX

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Imagine how much they would have generated had they not been pulling down those exorbitant salaries.

My next question is for the Premier. People are feeling squeezed more than ever by job losses and higher bills. They’ve been asked to make sacrifice after sacrifice in tough times. They’re paying more in HST, more in hydro bills, even while jobs are being lost, and paycheques simply aren’t keeping up.

Does the Premier think it’s fair to ask them to pay more in a gasoline tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I have to say I would expect these questions from the Conservative caucus; I would expect these questions from the Leader of Opposition. But from a party that apparently is progressive, that puts itself out as a party that believes in protecting the environment, believes in public transit—I really find it strange that the leader of the third party does not seem to grasp that if we do not invest in transit, if we do not make those difficult decisions to invest in infrastructure and create a transit network that will work for the region and beyond—if we don’t do that, then we are abdicating our responsibility.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So I have to say to the leader of the third party, I am very, very surprised, given the number of members that you have who I know are environmentalists, who I know believe in transit, that you would pose that question to me.

Interjections.

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

I’m going to ask the Attorney General that when the Premier is answering, he not interject.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m also going to ask the member from Hamilton Mountain to come to order.

Supplementary, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families feel like they’re being stretched to the breaking point. That’s what New Democrats believe because that’s what we hear every day when we go back to our ridings. But while they pay more and more, they don’t see others sharing the same sacrifice. They’ve been told to pay higher hydro bills, pay an HST on gasoline and home heating, and sacrifice services that they rely on, but they’ve watched as the Premier has let hydro CEOs collect million-dollar bonuses and plow ahead with tax loopholes for Ontario’s richest corporations.

It’s a simple question: Does the Premier think it’s fair to ask these same families to pay more yet again?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Families are stretched; they are stretched. Part of the reason they’re stretched is that they don’t have the public transit services that they need.

I would ask the leader of the third party to talk to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, to talk to the member for Beaches–East York, to talk to the member for Toronto–Danforth, to talk to the members for Trinity–Spadina, Parkdale–High Park and Stoney Creek. Ask your whole caucus whether they have constituents who want to see investments in infrastructure, who want to see investments in transit, because the quality of life that people have to deal with when they’re sitting in gridlock, when they don’t have access to the transit that they need, is not what we think is acceptable.

If we do not make those investments, if we do not have a coherent transit plan going forward, as the third party does not have, then we are abdicating our responsibility. We’re not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to invest in transit.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier needs to talk to the single mom in Scarborough who can’t pay her bills today. That’s who the Premier needs to talk to.

The people who make Ontario work have heard promises of change for a decade, but they’ve seen the same old Liberals offering the same old priorities. People are paying the highest hydro bills in Canada while hydro CEOs collect million-dollar bonuses. People are paying new, unfair sales taxes and fees while the government plows ahead with new tax loopholes for corporations.

Can the Premier make it clear today, right now: Will she be asking families to pay more yet again with a new gasoline tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The single mom in Scarborough doesn’t want to spend two hours to get downtown. The single mom in Scarborough wants to be able to pick up her child at daycare and get them to school. The single mom in Scarborough wants to be able to take the subway.

We are going to invest in transit exactly because the families in this region need that support. As I say, I understand these questions coming from the Conservatives—they’ve never believed in transit—but I think it is shocking that the third party does not—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Premier. I’m a little confused about the revenue tools. Sometimes you use them, and sometimes you don’t use them. Sometimes you need them, and sometimes you don’t need them. I can’t figure out when those times are.

When you implemented all-day kindergarten for $1.5 billion a year, you did not need revenue tools. When you paid off Liberal fiascos like the gas plants, eHealth, Ornge and the overspending at OPG, you did not need revenue tools. But now all of a sudden, people want transit, and you need revenue tools. I don’t understand why, in this situation, you need the revenue tools.

What I want to know, Premier, is, is this for financial reasons or environmental reasons, and why now?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is hysterically funny. The member opposite, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, voted for a tax increase every year. I got a 2% property increase. When I was a mayor, I cut taxes. He voted for tax increases.

The place which he comes from and the leader he used to follow—an interesting personality. Even Mayor Ford has increased taxes and is proposing a compounding tax. When the member did not vote for taxes, what did he do? He cancelled the subway in Etobicoke.

He tells his own truth. When he voted for tax increases, he got subways; when he didn’t vote for tax increases, he cancelled subways. The Tories are doing it again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Premier, the motorists in Toronto and Hamilton are already contributing more than their share to the transportation costs of the province of Ontario. I’ve had that information given to me by the CAA and others. Now you’re wanting to add more costs to those people. I don’t think that’s fair, but maybe you do.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: So how would you fund it?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community and Social Services, come to order.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Well, we will fund it through rewriting the priorities. We would take the small portion that’s needed out of the overall cost of the budget. We’ll fund it in the same way that you funded all-day kindergarten.

But what I want to know, Premier, is, before you implement this new tax, this new plan, will you go to the public and let the electorate have a say first?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have owned a business and run a business, and I think it’s important on this side of the House we do try to take a broader perspective. When the member opposite looks at a household budget, he should talk to the member from Caledon. You have four or five cars. If you actually, because you have no transit in your neighbourhood, have to have a beater for your 16-year-old or a beater for your 17-year-old, that’s $7,000 to $11,000 per child to get them to school. There are too many families in the 905 who have three or four or five cars; some of them are 10 or 15 years old. That’s pretty expensive on the household budget.

I will give you one hint about what’s in the Golden report. One of the things that she will tell you is that the average commuter right now spends $700 more burning gas with their car not moving. Nothing in her proposal costs a person more—

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

CHRIS MAZZA

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In 2010, New Democrats asked a very simple question: What was Dr. Mazza’s salary? That was our simple question. Three years later, we are still asking the very same question. The minister can provide us with every excuse in the book about why she didn’t know, but the fact of the matter is, tracking his salary and the financial structure of Ornge is the responsibility of this minister; it’s her job.

Now we can see that for the brief time Ornge was reporting their salaries to the sunshine list, those numbers were inaccurate. Will the minister simply admit that she failed to provide the oversight necessary?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have to say, this is a very bizarre question, and let me tell you why it’s a bizarre question. The MPP from Guelph, when she was on committee—because we all wanted clarity—requested all compensation paid to Dr. Mazza over a period of six years, I believe. That information was tabled with the Clerk of the Committee over a year ago. Members have had access to that information for many, many months, and they simply haven’t read it. So the bizarre question is going to get a straight answer: You’ve got all the information you’ve asked for, and today committee members received a

summary of that because that was asked for as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: What’s bizarre is that the Minister of Health would receive a report, a forensic audit, and not read it. That to me is bizarre.

The forensic audit lays out a litany of disturbing facts: details of personal loans that Mazza was given, the web of companies whose primary purpose was to shield executive salaries, and the sheer excess of money that was given to a select few.

The fact that two years into the investigation at Ornge new details and disturbing facts are still surfacing means that Ontarians are asking the question: Has anything changed?

It seems that this minister has done nothing to ensure that the root cause of this problem, which is salary disclosure, the sunshine list, is accurate. She has done nothing to prove that the oversight has improved. She continues to leave out important details in the hope that this scandal will simply go away.

How can the minister assure Ontarians that another Ornge won’t happen again, given her inability to learn from her mistakes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, this is very strange coming from a man who has had documents and apparently has not read them.

It took only one year of Chris Mazza’s salary to give me all the information I needed to take swift action. I called in a forensic audit team. That forensic audit team reported a few weeks later, and the findings of that forensic audit team were so shocking that it was immediately referred to the Ontario Provincial Police. That’s where it should have gone. If I had to make the same decision over again, it’s exactly the decision that would have been made.

I have been nothing but upfront. All of the information that the committee has requested has been there for months and months.

EDUCATION

In uncertain times, I believe it is to every citizen’s advantage if they have a government build a strong future for Ontarians. As examples, graduation rates are up 15 points from 2003 to 83% this year, and overall, 71% of students are achieving the provincial standard in grades 3 and 6 combined, up 17 points from 54% a decade ago.

Speaker, can the minister please inform this chamber: How do the results we are seeing here in Ontario compare to other jurisdictions around the world?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for raising this issue. I must say that our educators, our teachers and the parents deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the success that we’ve had in our schools.

I’m pleased to share the latest results from the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, which is conducted by the OECD. The results were released last week, and they’ve again ranked Ontario students as some of the best in the world.

The results prove that the investments we’re making in our students and in our schools are making a difference. In fact, both Canada and Ontario performed significantly higher than 48 other jurisdictions on the paper-based math assessment. Ontario performed above the OECD average in math, science and reading.

Like most other jurisdictions across Canada, however, we know we have more work to do on math, and that’s why math—

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

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister Sandals, for your stewardship of this essential file, which ultimately will determine our children’s, and Ontario’s, future.

When I tour my own riding and the schools of Etobicoke North, I can see the results and the on-the-ground analogues of the acknowledgements, success and virtuous cycles that Ontario has cultivated. But following the mantra of our government, while we’ve seen great progress over the last 10 years, there is, as the minister has just said, more work to be done.

Minister, I know you have been engaged with our partners in education, businesses, students and parents on the next phase of our education system. Can you please inform this House: What are some of the elements for success that you envision for the education system in the years ahead?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We’ve had great success with programs that involve experiential learning with our secondary students. For example, the specialist high skills major, dual credits and expanded opportunities for co-op education have all helped with the increase in secondary school graduation rates, and we will carry on with those.

We’re also embracing 21st-century learning, with a focus on creative and critical thinking as we move forward by making better use of technology and digital resources to engage students and enhance their skills. In fact, on the PISA results, we’ve begun to see that showing up already. When you look at it, PISA had a subset where they had a computer-based test as opposed to paper-based. On the computer-based test, Ontario students did extraordinarily well. So we can see that move into more technology-based learning beginning to pay off with the students who are writing the tests now.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Premier, on Tuesday we learned that there was massive mismanagement at the OPG, but we learned in 2011 that there were real problems at the OPG through a report by the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board. They told this government that massive increases to salaries, pensions and benefits were showing up on people’s—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sudbury, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —and that’s why they denied them a full rate increase.

You knew then. You knew in 2013, just last week, when the auditor came out, that this was a systemic problem with that board of directors, with that management team and with your minister.

You have one option left: You have to fire the three of them—the minister, the chair and the CEO. Will you do it, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. The member from Oxford, those are expensive desks.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I do want to take the opportunity to wish the compliments of the season to my official critic. Our ridings are neighbouring ridings. She is my constituent, and I’m her constituent.

Hon. Jeff Leal: What a relationship.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have a wonderful working relationship.

I do want to answer the question, though, Mr. Speaker. And that is, I mentioned earlier in response to the leader of the third party that there was a business transformation that started exactly in 2011, which has already resulted in 1,500 full-time employees eliminated, 800 more on the way over the next year or two. That’s significant progress. In addition, in 2007, under the agency review panel, OPG’s executive salaries were reduced by 25% to 30% for new executive contracts, and the OPG executive compensation envelope has decreased by 9% since 2010.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier, because I didn’t receive an answer on whether or not she would fire the head of the OPG, the chair of the OPG and the minister. While the minister may have me as a constituent and I have him, I can say that there’s one MPP of the two ridings who is actually providing reasonable leadership to the people of this province, and it is Tim Hudak’s MPP, not Kathleen Wynne’s.

So, Speaker, I will stand here in my place and I will ask the Premier of Ontario one final thing. Will she direct the OEB to pull the rate increase that is being asked at the OPG this year, and will she ensure that ratepayers are not on the hook anymore for handsome salaries, big bonuses and lavish pensions that her government has authorized? Yes or no? Will she fire them, and will she make sure that that stops now?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Sometimes the outrage is really outrageous, but I have to say that she keeps referring to the price of electricity, and her leader has agreed that he has no answer on that, because when the Leader of the Opposition was asked if he could promise lower electricity rates, he said the answer is no to that. He has no policy whatsoever.

The only policy he has is a white paper to privatize OPG, and in privatizing OPG, we know what the Toronto Sun has said about that. They tried that once before, and “Instead, it led to the exact opposite—rates skyrocketed amid rampant Tory patronage and the Conservatives, faced with rising public fury, abandoned the scheme, leaving a financial disaster in their wake.”

They still have a financial disaster. They have no plan whatsoever. How are they going to govern without having a plan before the people of Ontario?

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The question is to the Premier. Yesterday, this government made it official. The dream of creating 50,000 green energy jobs was officially buried in the fine print of its new energy legislation. Quebec is protecting its green jobs. Can you explain why Quebec figured out how to protect its green jobs and you can’t?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Coincidentally, about three days ago, Quebec announced its new electricity rate, and it’s going up by 5.8%.

Our long-term energy plan will have 50% renewables by 2025. We are continuing to invest in clean energy. We are continuing to take significant steps to push price pressure down. One of that is by taking $15 billion out of the cost base by indefinitely deferring new nuclear. They still haven’t said “yes,” that they agree with eliminating new nuclear. I’d like to hear the word “yes” from the NDP—yes, yes, yes, you agree with taking $15 billion of cost pressures out of the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Evasion by the government is not a compliment. It is not a strategy that the people of Ontario want.

This government could have created those promised jobs and delivered green energy at lower prices. It didn’t. Quebec has gotten it right. Not only are the prices paid to Quebec’s green energy generators lower than Ontario’s, but they have stayed on the right side of international law. Will this government follow the lead of Quebec and protect Ontario’s green jobs?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They did not support the Green Energy Act. They have no policy on renewables. They have no policy on clean energy. Where is it? Show it to the people of Ontario. Just like your leader, Mr. Critic, you have no policy in any way, shape or form.

You are a disgrace to your NDP base. They like renewable energy, they like our decision on nuclear, and they are telling us by emails and phone calls that they like what we’re doing with clean energy.

Interjections.

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

New question.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

I’m pleased to stand in the House today representing my riding of Ottawa–Orléans. My riding, like so many others in Ontario, has a diverse population with diverse needs, but one thing that everyone in this province needs at some point in their life is high-quality health care.

One of the chief goals of this government’s action plan for health care is for the right care to be delivered in the right place. For families in Orléans, that means a facility providing excellent care in our community of over 100,000 people. Can the minister please provide this House with an update on the proposed Orléans health hub?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for this question, and also for his continued and passionate advocacy on this and other issues. I know the member has been fighting for a health hub in Orléans for quite some time now. The people of Ottawa–Orléans know that they have a strong champion in this House for their health care needs, and I know that the Orléans Family Health Hub will be an important part of this member’s legacy.

I’m pleased to tell the House and the people of Ottawa–Orléans today that we continue to make progress on the Orléans health hub. We made this an important commitment as part of our Building Together plan in 2011, and since then, the Champlain LHIN has submitted a stage 1 submission for the first phase of the health hub. Now local health care and community leaders are working together with the LHIN to move this project forward.

When complete, the Orléans Family Health Hub will provide comprehensive primary care to thousands of east-enders.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. Speaker, through you, I’m sure that families in my riding will be happy to hear that the Orléans Family Health Hub remains a priority for this government.

In the meantime, families across my riding still need access to timely, high-quality care. Expectant moms, families with young children and folks entering their sunset years—people can experience health challenges at any stage of their life, and they need to know that the care they need will be there when they need it.

Through you, Speaker: Could the minister please speak about what other investments she is making in Ottawa’s health care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There is no question we’ve made strong investments in Ottawa for people of all ages, starting with newborns and right through to end-of-life.

I was recently delighted to announce that the new midwife-led Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre will soon begin welcoming patients. When fully up and running, the birth centre will assist with about 450 births a year.

Increasing access to primary care has been a priority for our government since day one. Our recruitment and training efforts have attracted more than 550 additional doctors to the Ottawa area. That’s a 25% increase since 2003, and 10 family health teams are providing care to almost 140,000 people in the region.

Also, more than 900 long-term-care beds have been or are being built or redeveloped, including 160 redeveloped beds—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —at the Madonna nursing home in Orléans. We’ll continue to—

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

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, this week, the ruling that allowed the appeal of convicted killer Michael Rafferty revealed that either Legal Aid Ontario or your ministry will assume the cost of Rafferty’s upcoming appeal.

People in my riding and in Ontario are outraged about this, and rightfully so. It is offensive that their tax dollars will pay for the appeal of a convicted child killer. What’s more is that he began his appeal shortly after his conviction, and continued to appeal until he found a sympathetic judge.

While his ability to appeal is an endless, costly process for taxpayers, the real cost is the emotional burden for his victims. I ask: Do you believe that this is justice?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I do appreciate this question, and I realize full well that there’s a tremendous amount of emotion involved, particularly on behalf of the victim. But the member should be aware that

section 684 of the Criminal Code, which was passed by the federal Parliament—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Federal.

Hon. John Gerretsen: That’s a federal code, the Criminal Code.

Section 684 of the Criminal Code permits a judge at the Court of Appeal to appoint counsel if the judge thinks it’s in the interest of justice for a person to have a lawyer and that person cannot afford one. So it was an order of the judge, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Now, in this particular case, if Legal Aid Ontario further refuses to fund counsel for the appellant—and that’s up to Legal Aid Ontario—then the Court of Appeal has ordered that those fees and disbursements must be paid by the Ministry of the Attorney General. That is the status. If the member has an issue with respect to that, maybe she should talk to her federal counterpart to change the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Minister, it’s so hard for victims of crime to deal with the horrors that they’ve experienced, and we make it a great deal more difficult when a man who is clearly guilty of this crime can utilize tax dollars to fight the case. How do I explain to my constituents?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, Speaker, I have some great sympathy with respect to how to explain this to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I quite well understand that it may be very difficult to explain this to the general public, and obviously it’s a very emotional issue for all the parties involved, particularly those who have been victimized as a result of the offence. But the reality is that it’s up to a judge—

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: —who’s part of an independent judiciary to determine whether or not he or she wants to apply

section 684 of the Criminal Code. If there are issues with respect to that, then I think that representation should be made to the federal government to change the Criminal Code in that regard.

In the meantime, we respect the independence of the judiciary. This has been ordered in this particular case. The matter has been referred to Legal Aid Ontario. Depending upon what they do, the Ministry of the Attorney General may o