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

April 23, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Apr-23 (PDF)

L029 - Tue 23 Apr 2013 / Mar 23 avr 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 April 2013 Mardi 23 avril 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HOME CARE

HOME CARE

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

POWER PLANTS

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

POWER PLANTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FLOODING

BATTLE OF STONEY CREEK

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

FLOODING

SUSTAINABLE WATERLOO REGION

FIREARMS CONTROL

ROSANNAGH MACLENNAN

PETER ORPHANOS

LONDON LIGHTNING

WEARING OF PINS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CANCER CARE

NATIONAL VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARENESS WEEK

CANCER CARE

NATIONAL VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARENESS WEEK

CANCER CARE

NATIONAL VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARENESS WEEK

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

WIND TURBINES

MINING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

DOG OWNERSHIP

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

POWER PLANTS

The House met at 0900.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Please bow your heads.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

Ms. MacCharles moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 55, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les agences de recouvrement, la Loi de 2002 sur la protection du consommateur et la Loi de 2002 sur le courtage commercial et immobilier et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Debate?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I should mention off the top that I’ll be sharing time with the member from Brampton West, who is the parliamentary assistant to my Ministry of Consumer Services.

Last week, Speaker, our government, as you know, introduced the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2013. I rose in the House to talk about how we are addressing some key areas of Ontario’s marketplace to make it fair, to provide more choice and to boost consumer confidence. I rise again today to stress how we are delivering our commitment to consumers in Ontario.

I spoke in this House last week about how our bill proposes to do four very different things in the area of consumer protection. The first is to curb aggressive, high-pressure, door-to-door sales tactics, especially for the sale of water heaters;

The second is to protect vulnerable, indebted consumers against the misleading and abusive practices of some companies that offer debt settlement services;

Third, to provide stronger safeguards to strengthen the integrity of real estate bidding practices; and

Fourth, to give home sellers more power to negotiate flexible, lower-cost arrangements when using a real estate professional.

Today I’d like to share with the House a few additional details of the reforms. In doing so, I want to emphasize how important it is that we pass these proposed reforms to protect and strengthen the consumer rights of all people in Ontario.

In terms of door-to-door sales—and as I’ve outlined previously in this House, our bill aims to curb aggressive door-to-door sales tactics and to help homeowners make informed choices. Our proposed new rules, if passed, would:

First, double the existing 10-day cooling-off period to 20 days for water heater sales, providing consumers with more time to consider their decision;

Second, it would ban delivery and installation of water heaters during the new 20-day cooling-off period;

Third, allow rules requiring companies to confirm sales by making scripted and recorded telephone calls to the customer, and that key contract terms are disclosed in clear, easy-to-understand language; and

Finally, provide new customer protections when the rules are not followed, such as requiring the supplier to pay all cancellation fees when the 20-day cooling-off period is not observed.

I’d like to share with you some examples of why we need to move ahead on these reforms now, examples that, unfortunately, we know are not uncommon in this province. Let me tell you about the case of a single mother in the GTA who works hard to provide a home, food and clothes for her four children. She had just had her water heater replaced a few months earlier when she was visited by a door-to-door salesperson. She was led to believe he was from a company that had just done the replacement and was at her home to check up on the new water heater. This inspector told her that her house was in serious danger of burning down because the new water heater was faulty.

Of course, the single mother became frightened for her family’s safety and believed the salesperson when he told her that the solution to her problem was to get rid of the old water heater and have it replaced by a new one—immediately, of course.

Well, you can imagine what happened, Speaker. The inspector was, in fact, from a different company than the one that had done the original installation, and the need for urgent replacement was indeed a hoax. But sure enough, the old heater was taken out and a new one was put in its place—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the members, if they must continue their conversations, that they take them outside. I can barely hear the speaker.

Please continue.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker.

So now this single mother with four children must deal with two companies demanding payment for two different water heater contracts, and this is not an isolated incident. We have all, sadly, read media reports about this kind of thing happening on a regular basis.

The hot water heater salespeople who are looking to take advantage of vulnerable or unsuspecting customers use many tactics to try to secure signatures on contracts. We know that a common trick is to show up at the front door and claim to be from the local municipality or the homeowner’s current water heater provider. I’ve also heard of claims that people are representing the government, which is indeed not the case.

Sometimes salespeople say that new regulations have been passed that mean a homeowner needs to replace a heater’s venting system to comply or that testing has shown the heater to be using energy inefficiently. Another common tactic is to inspect the heater and claim that it’s full of silt, even producing a jar of murky water as so-called proof.

When we talk about questionable practices on the part of water heater companies, these are the kinds of things we’re referring to. They are the kind of shady practices that have led our ministry to receive more than 3,200 written complaints and inquiries about door-to-door water heaters in 2012, making this the second-largest source of consumer complaints in the province.

Last week, two of my colleagues in opposition, the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and the member for Beaches–East York, provided comments in this House about the bill, specifically in the area of door-to-door sales. I would like to address their comments here today.

One of the main concerns expressed was that—and I’ll paraphrase here—the 20-day cooling-off period does not protect consumers sufficiently. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry in particular stated, “Once a new heater is installed following the 20 days, if the consumer hasn’t sorted out matters with the original supplier, they will face some severe penalties.

Cancellation charges can run into the hundreds of dollars, and moreover, suppliers are free to charge outrageous amounts for damages, such as scratches on a 10-year-old tank that is only going to be recycled anyway.” While I appreciate the member’s comment, I want to respond to this and how it, in fact, misses the point of our proposed legislation.

This bill does not only double the current 10-day cooling-off period when a consumer can cancel a contract with no questions asked, but it also prohibits the installation or the delivery of the water heater. Currently, replacement water heaters are often installed within the 10-day cooling-off period, really going against the spirit of the current rules and making it almost impossible for a homeowner to cancel a contract. Our proposed legislation, if passed, will make it possible simply to cancel the contract if there are any problems with it before the heater is ever installed.

If there are any concerns with a contract, anything that does not seem right or simply a feeling on the part of the consumer that the contract is something they have been coerced or pressured into and do not want to continue with, it will simply be a matter of cancelling it during the 20-day cooling-off period. And if, contrary to our proposed rules, a water heater is installed during that 20-day period, the water heater company, and not the customer, will be responsible for the cost of removing it and all of its associated costs.

Anyone can feel pressured at the door by aggressive salespeople, and anyone can make purchases under pressure that later they realize were ill advised. In fact, many of us read the media reports in May of last year of seven charges of attempted fraud being laid against two men who approached homeowners in Toronto, telling people at the door that they worked for a well-known gas company. These salespersons told homeowners that their water heater needed replacing and, according to reports from the police, they coerced them into replacing them via a signed contract.

At least once, unfortunately, Speaker, two victims were assaulted as part of this coercion. So we’re looking at a situation where not only do consumers have to be worried about being taken advantage of through dubious contracts; in some instances, their safety is at risk as well.

As I pointed out in the House last week when I introduced this bill, and as I emphasize here for you today, our proposed reforms in this area will, if passed, bring a solution to a very real and pressing problem. And I’m pleased to note that this bill has support. The Homeowner Protection Centre has launched a website at waterheaterdoortodoor.com, where people can send their MPP a note asking that we pass this bill quickly. I want to thank this organization for their support, and I urge all members of the Legislature to pay attention to the many emails that I expect you’ll be getting.

In terms of debt settlement, Speaker, I brought to the House’s attention last week the fact that some companies that provide debt settlement services in Ontario offer to dramatically reduce a person’s debt by negotiating with their creditors, provided that the consumer pays a hefty upfront fee. I stress that for some consumers in financial difficulty, this upfront fee can force them into even more debt. The reason for this is that some companies offering debt settlement services charge high administrative fees and may not deliver on their promised services.

These companies can hide behind the hidden contract clauses that reduce or even eliminate the value of the original service offered. Simply put, you think you’re getting something by signing one of these contracts, but you are not getting what you expected or what you were promised.

Again, these stories we’ve been hearing about and reading about are very disturbing, and all the more for being so common. Just last week in the newspaper, a story was carried about a woman in her late 20s, working two jobs in Toronto and simply trying to keep up with the cost of living. She had compiled $18,000 in credit card debt and, looking for some relief, she had turned to a debt settlement company that had been advertised on Facebook. These ads are very common, and they all promise in one way or another to help reduce debt and to deal directly with a person’s creditors.

This young woman paid the company offering to settle her debt almost $3,800 to help her, and what happened? She found herself facing a lawsuit from the bank she owed money to, and most of the nearly $4,000 she had paid to the company had been swallowed up by fees. Now this young woman has unfortunately filed for bankruptcy.

Here’s another case to consider, Speaker, reported in the Canadian Business magazine: In this instance, a woman nearing retirement age who lives just outside Ottawa had amassed a sizable unsecured debt that had grown to more than $65,000 in 2011. She enrolled in a 36-month program with a very well-known debt settlement company in late 2012, just last fall. Under the terms of this program, she agreed to pay over $1,000 a month into a settlement account. For the first three months, all of that money went to service and maintenance fees.

For the next 13 months, the plan was for more than half of the monthly payments to go to the company, and more than a year into the plan this woman would have been contributing money mostly into her own savings account. Things never made it to that point, because she was hit with collection calls and court actions before the money she was paying to the debt settlement company ever got to her creditors. By the spring, a large bank to whom she owed more than $30,000 on a line of credit had garnisheed her wages. Other creditors were telling her they wouldn’t deal with the debt settlement company.

This woman left the program, saying she paid $4,500 in fees in exchange for a few phone calls to creditors and not much else. She ended up paying money she did not have for relief she did not get. Again, this woman has declared bankruptcy.

Our proposed bill aims to help indebted people like this who are some of our most vulnerable consumers in the province. To protect consumers against misleading practices related to some of these services, the bill proposes to prohibit payment of upfront fees before services are provided and to limit the amount of fees charged overall. Both of these limits would be set by regulation. It would also allow debtors to cancel their agreement without a reason within 10 days after receiving a copy of the agreement, and it would prohibit misleading sales practices and advertising. This is a critical point.

We have all seen the ads on TV saying that your debt can be reduced by 50%, 60%, maybe 70%. “Pay only pennies on the dollar,” they say. Well, we are going to stop them from saying things that are simply not true. If debt settlement companies fail to follow these rules, our new legislation would enable the revocation of their mandatory licences, further protecting consumers from false and misleading claims.

I should say, Speaker, with all of these reforms, our intent is not to target reputable practices. There are many reputable companies out there. Whether we’re talking about door-to-door sales or debt settlement companies, there are unfortunately companies that are not reputable, and this is what I’m talking about today.

The third dimension of the bill is on real estate reform. Ontario’s real estate professionals are among the best, and our government has confidence in the effective role of the Real Estate Council of Ontario and the very good role they play in regulating this sector. However, there are some sales professionals who do not conduct their transactions in a way that is particularly honest or respectful of both people looking to buy or to sell a home. As the member for Beaches–East York rightly pointed out last week upon the introduction of our bill, the process of buying or selling a home can be extremely stressful.

He describes very well the sinking feeling you get in the pit of your stomach that you’ve been had when it’s all over. Hopefully some people’s experiences are a little more positive, but it is a stressful period, when one is making such a large investment. The problem lies in the fact that there are both home sellers and buyers who rely on information about bids that come from the agents themselves and are never really 100% sure about the true nature of the offers that are coming in or, indeed, if the offer has really ever been made.

This makes the competitive nature of bidding all the more stressful, as anyone who’s ever been a part of it can attest to.

Many of us will have read newspaper reports last summer of some prospective homeowners who were amazed to discover they had paid $90,000 over the asking price on a Toronto home, even though they were the only bidder. That’s correct: These people were effectively bidding against themselves, Speaker, because they’d been told there were two other offers, so ultimately they offered more money than necessary—a lot more money.

We propose to do something about this, and it’s a pretty straightforward solution to the problem. The solution is transparency. To maintain public confidence in real estate transactions when multiple bids on the same property are involved, our bill will require real estate salespeople and brokers acting on behalf of a buyer to only present an offer that is in writing. Salespeople and brokers would also be prohibited from suggesting or claiming that a written offer exists when one does not. The legislation would, if passed, also require brokerages acting on behalf of the seller to retain copies of all written offers related to the sale and purchase of a property.

I’ve had some feedback and some questions about this proposal from people saying, “Well, aren’t all of these offers in writing already?” I believe they are, but the difference is what this legislation would allow, and that is that a person who has made a written offer to purchase a particular home could, under this legislation, ask the registrar at the Real Estate Council of Ontario to work with the seller’s brokerage to determine the number of offers that were received and to report that number. That’s what is different from the current provisions right now.

As well, a separate amendment would give homebuyers and sellers more power to negotiate lower-cost services by removing the ban on charging both fees and commissions. Allowing agents and brokers to decide how they will be paid makes sense. Why should the government be telling real estate agents and brokers how they can get paid for their services? This reduction in regulation and red tape will better serve consumers and have the potential to unleash innovation and creativity in the sector. This change will make Ontario’s real estate marketplace consistent with all other provinces in the country, while responding to a recommendation of the Competition Bureau.

Earlier this year, our government announced its plan to look at qualifications for home inspectors, to ensure that when people make a final key decision about buying a house, they can do so with full confidence that the information about the state of the house is reliable. Again, we’re helping people in this province with major decisions about their lives, ensuring that the purchases they make are safe, fair and informed. The Ministry of Consumer Services is working to help consumers better understand their rights and to help businesses understand their responsibilities.

As I mentioned in the House last week, these are the first of a series of strong consumer actions we are taking to make our marketplace safe, fair and one where all people in this province can shop with confidence and make investments in homes with confidence as well. I am confident that these reforms will give the people of Ontario stronger consumer protection, while building consumer confidence in the marketplace. They would ultimately help strengthen the economy of our great province.

I call on all parties today in the House to pass this important bill quickly, so that consumers of Ontario can benefit from the necessary protections this bill would provide.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Madam Speaker—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): You’re sharing your time?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I intended to, but my parliamentary assistant has unfortunately not arrived yet. Perhaps I could continue until he arrives, if that’s okay?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you. I know my parliamentary assistant—

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: He’s out talking to real estate agents right now, right?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: He could be.

Interjection.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We could talk about gridlock, because I know my parliamentary assistant—he’s a commuter like I am. I know the challenge of getting here. It can take up to an hour and a half each way every day.

So let me just recap, if I may, and talk about the extent of the challenge for us in Ontario when it comes to water heaters, if I could perhaps give another illustration about how our legislation can address that problem, Speaker. You heard from me earlier the case where the government laid charges this past February against a company that was selling door-to-door heaters. In fact, it laid 63 charges. These charges were laid after the Ministry of Consumer Services received complaints from people in the Ottawa area.

The company’s salespersons led them to believe they were from the homeowners’ current service provider of their water heater. They would come to the home to do their services upgrades or inspections mandated by the government; neither things, in this case, were true, Speaker.

After signing contracts, the customers allege that the company removed and replaced their water heaters only to find themselves being double-billed by the existing provider and a new company. This creates confusion in the marketplace. It does not help consumer confidence. And of course, paying two bills can get very expensive when the customer tries to ultimately sort out what happened. Many of us, I think, if we’re honest, do sign contracts and don’t read all the fine print. But can you imagine when you now have two contracts with fine print to sort out when it comes to water heaters?

What we’re trying to do is help on a number of fronts by doubling the cooling-off period, as I mentioned before. We’ll give consumers more time to consider the contract they have signed. If something doesn’t seem right, they have twice the time to get in touch with a friend or a neighbour or the Ministry of Consumer Services for advice and see if they have been taken advantage of in similar ways.

The proposed legislation will also prevent a company from hurrying in to deliver and install a new water heater in the first few days after a contract is signed. I want to emphasize that in the past, companies were able to do this, because they knew once the appliance was installed, it would be very, very expensive for the customer to replace it. Now, by putting the expense of the removal on the shoulders of the water heater company, the company looking for this kind of quick installation will no longer be able to burden the customer with such an expense. It’s good news.

Interjection.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Pardon? I think I’m hearing some yays of support, Speaker, from the opposition.

I think, Speaker, my parliamentary assistant would like to say a few words. I’ll just give him a moment to get settled and to pick up where I’m leaving off and where I’m about to start, which is to speak a bit more about our proposals on debt settlement.

I will just conclude my remarks by again emphasizing that we are not targeting reputable companies, Speaker. Companies of all sizes in Ontario help drive our economy, but unfortunately some of the bad practices I’ve identified hurt our economy and hurt jobs in Ontario. Our intent is to strengthen consumer protection, which will strengthen the marketplace and provide more confidence for everyone in Ontario. With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Brampton West.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I rise in support of the announcement made by the Minister of Consumer Services last week in the House on the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2013. This bill proposes to do four very important things in the area of consumer protection. I would like to offer support through some specific examples of how we’re going to strengthen the rights of consumers through the provisions of this bill.

Again, we’re dealing with water heaters in this act because we have heard from many Ontarians about the problems and the financial hardship they would go through, the pressure tactics that people use to make people sign documents that they don’t have to sign. The minister has already detailed the extent to which door-to-door sales of water heaters has been a serious problem in Ontario, and I would like to make some specific illustrations about our proposed legislation that will address this problem.

Many of us in the House today have heard the case in which our government laid 63 charges this past February against a company that was selling water heaters door to door. These charges were laid after the Ministry of Consumer Services received complaints from people in the Ottawa area that the company’s salespeople led them to believe that they were from the homeowner’s current service provider and had come to their home to do service upgrades or inspections mandated by the government. Neither of these things were true.

After signing contracts, the customers alleged that the company removed and replaced their water heaters, only to find themselves being double-billed by their existing provider and a new company. The result is confusion on the part of the customer, and of course paying two bills can get very expensive while the customer tries to sort out what happened.

How will our proposed new bill help in this regard? What it will do is fourfold. By doubling the cooling-off period from 10 to 20 days, we will give consumers more time to consider the contract that they have signed. If something does not seem right, they now have twice the time to get in touch with a friend, a neighbour or the Ministry of Consumer Services for advice and perhaps to see if they have been taken advantage of in a similar way by the company.

One of the things that’s not mentioned in what I said is that they can always contact their MPP, because all three parties have constituency offices. I believe our constituency assistants do a wonderful job, and they’re very well trained to make certain inquiries, because often people have difficulties contacting their local government or the ministry, because of a number of reasons. In my area, one of the obstacles is the language barrier, and I’m sure that all of us here—our community staff reflect the face of our community.

Once again, I cannot reiterate enough how important it is, not only on this matter but on any other issue that people have questions about: They should feel free to contact the local constituency office of their MPP.

The proposed new legislation will also prevent a company from hurrying in to deliver and install the new water heater in the first few days after a contract is signed. In the past, companies were able to do this because they knew that once the appliance was installed, it would be very expensive for the customer to replace it. Now, by putting the expense of the removal on the shoulders of the water heater company, any company looking for this kind of quick installation will not be able to burden the customer with expense.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposed new legislation will compel companies to follow up on signed contracts with phone calls to the customer. These calls will have to follow a pre-set script, and it will have to be recorded. So there will be a record of the follow-up, and any attempts to further misrepresent the terms of the contract will be on record.

As well, we propose to require that all key terms of the contract are actually spelled out clearly to the customer in plain and simple language, so that the chance of there being a misunderstanding about what the customer is signing is reduced. The end result would be that Ontario’s consumers would have a lot more confidence in considering a replacement to their water heater. If that replacement is actually justified, as the minister has stated several times, having the confidence that they’re spending their hard-earned money wisely is something which all Ontarians believe in.

The second key component of our reform package is our proposal to protect vulnerable indebted customers against misleading and abusive practices of some companies that offer debt settlement services. Again, this is a huge issue in my riding and, I’m sure, in many other ridings, especially in communities where new immigrants have come to settle. I speak and understand more than one language, and I listen to the various ethnic radio and TV programming. On almost every radio show or ethnic TV show, I hear advertisements of promises of “up to 75% off your debt, and the remainder of your payments will be very small payments so you can live a happy life and you don’t have to worry about anything.”

That’s very misleading, especially for new immigrants who come to this country in hopes of a good life—in hopes of the Canadian dream. They come and they hear this television ad or they hear this radio ad that 75% of their debt—up to 75%; the misleading fact is “up to” 75% of their debt—can be cancelled, and the remainder they’ll be allowed to pay in small payments.

It’s very, very misleading, and I would urge all people watching this program to be very, very vigilant when they think about entering into these types of contracts, because I can tell you that no finance company or creditor is going to just say, “Yes, we’ll give you 75% off if you agree to pay the rest of the 25% in small payments.” It’s just too good to be true.

The minister has related some instances of these practices and how they have seriously affected consumers in this province, and I would like to share some of the illustrations of how our proposed new bill will help the people of Ontario stay protected against dubious settlement companies.

One of the things I wanted to mention today was that these debt settlement practices often have an impact on a person’s credit rating. I’m a believer that once you get bad credit, it sticks with you wherever you go to get financing. Somewhere down the line, if someone is going to give you money, they’re going to want to know how honest you are and about your track record of repayment in the past. So that’s another very important thing to think about before someone gets into a debt payment plan with some of these fly-by-night people who have set up shop here in southern Ontario.

One of the other things that I have learned as we’ve worked through this bill is that companies from the UK and the US have come and set up shop, and it’s just incredible the type of schemes that they offer to people who are very vulnerable. They’re under a lot of stress to meet these payments, and sometimes it’s out of their control, because they may lose a job due to a family illness, and they want to get out of this situation. Sometimes you get into a situation where you only want to hear the positive. As human beings, sometimes we block out the negative aspect of what’s being told to us. That’s also something to keep in mind.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Consumer Services released the story of one Ontario consumer who attempted to work with a company offering debt settlement services to help negotiate an affordable monthly payment program to settle debts of about $11,000 with his creditors. The debt settlement company said it negotiated a settlement of about $4,700 and charged the customer a fee of about $2,500. The company assured the consumer that all his creditors had accepted the settlement offer. One company, however, had not accepted the settlement offer, and the consumer was served with court papers.

The consumer contacted the debt settlement company for instructions on what to do next and was provided with a number of forms to defend against the court action. The debt settlement company then sent the consumer an email informing him they had received his cancellation notice. The consumer had never sent the debt settlement company a cancellation notice. Further calls and messages to the company were not returned. The consumer’s credit score was significantly damaged, and the consumer approached a not-for-profit company for help.

This is a classic case of one of these companies failing to provide the exact services it promised—by dealing with some but not all of the customer’s creditors—but still charging a hefty upfront fee.

Our new bill would prevent people like this from having to pay upfront fees to a company on the promise of debt settlement. Furthermore, it would limit the overall amount of fees that the consumer could be charged. It would prevent them from being misled by deceiving advertising, as I said before, Madam Speaker. The ministry is currently in the process of consulting to determine the amount of fees that will be charged, but it will be far less than what is being charged now, and there would have to be a solid rationale for the amount of fees that would be charged.

Furthermore, this consumer would have had up to 10 days after receiving and signing a contract from the company offering debt-settling solutions to cancel the agreement without a reason, and it would prohibit misleading sales practices and advertising. Again, just as with the water heaters, there is a cooling-off period. The consumer does have the choice of cancelling within the 10-day cooling-off period. If debt settlement companies fail to follow these rules, the new legislation would enable the revocation of their mandatory licences, further protecting the consumer from false or misleading claims.

The third aspect of this bill deals with real estate reforms. As the minister stated, our government is confident that the vast majority of real estate professionals in Ontario act ethically and professionally and that the Real Estate Council of Ontario, or RECO, is doing a good job of monitoring professional conduct among the nearly 60,000 realtors in this province.

Our proposed new bill, however, seeks to address the problem of those who work in ways that are not completely above board. One of the ways we would seek to ensure transparency and build consumer confidence is through the introduction of legislation to eliminate the so-called practice of phantom bidding.

Sometimes when we are looking for a home, which I believe, for most of us, is our most valued asset—it’s the biggest thing we buy, and sometimes we fall in love with a home because of the neighbourhood it’s in or because of the attributes of the house; it’s been renovated well, and maybe the community or the schools around. So we really want the home. Sometimes you get really passionate about the home that you have looked at and you are willing to do anything. So real estate agents sort of take advantage of, again, the vulnerability.

They can pretty much tell that this couple or this family really likes this home and they’re willing to pay any price, so they hike up the bid by saying, “Well, there’s all these other bids. You better bid above this price, or else this home is going to be sold.”

One of the ways we would seek to ensure transparency and build consumer confidence is through the introduction of legislation to eliminate the so-called practice of phantom bidding. We know that about 5,000 of the 15,000 inquiries that RECO received last year came from people who were simply overwhelmed by the multiple bids process when it comes to buying and selling a home.

This process can get all the more confusing when there is a heightened sense of competition around a property. We have heard many stories from hot real estate markets in which people looking to buy a home drive up their offer because they think they need to top a bid coming in on the same property, although these buyers never actually see the offer. This can lead to confusion and the sense that accurate information may not have been shared.

What we are proposing in our new bill is that in real estate transactions where multiple bids on the same property are involved, real estate salespeople or brokers acting on behalf of a buyer would have to present only offers that are in writing. There would be no more situations where homebuyers have to bid against bids they cannot see. It also means that salespeople and brokers would be prohibited from suggesting or claiming that a written offer exists when one does not.

The fourth aspect of this bill deals with real estate fees and commissions. Our bill, if passed, would allow real estate agents to charge homebuyers and sellers working with them in a combination of a percentage and a fixed amount when pricing their services. Like many purchases we make every day, consumers will be better able to select the service they want while not paying for the ones they don’t want. Currently, the province does not allow real estate professionals to charge a fee and a commission for service. Typically, consumers pay for all-inclusive services from real estate professionals through a commission based on the sale price.

Under the proposed legislation, a real estate professional would be able to charge a fee plus a commission or a combination of both for the services they offer. These services can include staging a home; taking out an ad in a newspaper, magazine or online; or arranging an open house. Traditionally, this has all been part of the real estate professional’s commission, but we are proposing to change that to allow the consumer more flexibility in what he or she wants an agent or broker to do.

We believe that this move has the potential to unleash a great deal of innovation and creativity in the real estate sector, and it will make Ontario’s real estate marketplace consistent with all other provinces. As well, this proposed change responds to a recommendation of the federal Competition Bureau.

The proposed reforms the minister and I have spoken about today build on steps our government has already taken to strengthen consumer protection for the people of Ontario. I just want to reiterate and go over what I’ve discussed this morning with respect to this bill. It’s a very important bill. Sometimes we try and do these big things in this House, but these things are the actual things that people really see and touch every day; for example, the water heater bill.

I can just imagine someone new to the country: They buy a house with whatever money they have spent, they have their first job—not earning very much money—and they come into this very caring and compassionate society that we have. Then, they are duped by somebody, a thug coming to their door and pressuring them to come into their house to do something they don’t have to do. Often people are stuck with two or three bills.

I’ve heard so many horror stories where a significant portion of income for some of these newcomers, and for other people as well—I’m speaking about my riding because there is a huge influx of settlement by new immigrants—a huge part of their family income goes to these shady deals: the phone companies, and the water heaters, of course. The second part of this bill deals with debt settlement agencies. Again, it’s another bunch of, I would say, scammers that are popping up with these misleading ads. I have never seen these ads before, and it’s a real danger.

These are the things that push people down, because their credit rating—they give all these promises, and often people don’t know what their rights are. Once they are told this happy, good-news story—“It’s going to be a happily-ever-after life after you sign these papers”—it’s human nature; I know people don’t tend to look at the negatives, especially if they don’t know the negatives and the impact that a bad credit rating is going to have on them and their families.

These are, I would say, life-lasting effects that these types of agreements have. Of course, I realize that some people do go into hardship because of loss of employment and unexpected expense—illness in the family—and that’s why we have laws like this. We’re not against people who play by the rules, and that’s why we have protection for consumers who do fall into these situations. They can access debt settlement services, but we need these reforms so people don’t get ripped off, frankly.

The third aspect deals with real estate agents, where traditionally it’s been commissions only, as per the Real Estate Council of Ontario—RECO—but in this legislation we plan to change that to have a service and commission mix.

For example, if your real estate agent wants to charge you for the amount of ads that he places in the local paper or magazine or online, or for the number of open houses that he hosts, because if it’s a high-end home, sometimes he or she may be required to put a very expensive ad in a national newspaper or an international newspaper, that’s something that, maybe, would not be so reasonable when charging a commission. That takes into effect the changes that are occurring because many years ago there wasn’t online advertising. Things have changed; newspapers are online.

A lot of people don’t get their newspaper at their door. Most people read their paper online. So, it’s those changes that this bill is taking into account.

Madam Speaker, these are the first of a series of strong consumer actions we’re taking to make our marketplace safe, fair, and one where all people in this province can shop in confidence. So, with that, Madam Speaker, those are my comments. This is a win-win for all Ontarians.

Again, I can’t express enough in simple words: There are scammers out there; there are shysters. Our office can be your first place of contact because we are there to help you. From all three parties—all MPPs have constituency offices and we have people who work in our offices that I would hope know the community that all of us represent. We can, sometimes, have access to government resources, different ministries, and we can access them much quicker. There is that added effect of a call coming from an MPP’s office to a certain ministry where there may be a problem.

So I do encourage consumers to use our offices, use our services. We’re there to help you, especially with what has been dealt with in this bill, because oftentimes people think they can take advantage of you because they think you don’t know any better. That can be true in certain instances, but we’re there to help, and the ministry is there to help. There are all kinds of other avenues that people can take.

It’s my sincere hope—like I said, it’s win-win legislation—that all three parties will support this bill.

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

The member from—I’ve forgotten—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No big deal.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. Sometimes that’s the impression we get from the members in Toronto; they think of the rural areas as “no big deal.”

I’m happy to rise to comment on the bill, and we’re glad to see this bill come forth. We understand water heater rental was the number two complaint received by consumer services, so this bill is well overdue. I guess that has been a complaint for some time.

We like to see the cooling off period; I think that’s a good idea to double it. But we wonder why they haven’t gone back and addressed the issue with the cancellation of existing services because we’ve also heard that that’s a major complaint as well, where any company that has existing contracts, sometimes, it’s very hard to get out of the deal. They can already be of a long term. One would wonder if the assets have not already been paid off.

Certainly, the debt settlement, you don’t have to go very far. You can pick up any paper and see the ads. No question that there are a lot of good companies out there, but unfortunately there are always the ones that we need protection from. I think this bill goes a good way to providing some of that protection, but we also have to go further, and it will be interesting when we give our comments throughout; we’ll give some advice to this government, where they might go through committee.

We would like to see some of those revisions made to strengthen this bill and protect the consumers out there who sometimes, through no fault of their own, are running into very professional scammers. It can be difficult. We would like to proceed through that.

I guess my time is up, so we’ll be looking forward to that time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Does anybody remember Consumers’ Gas? Those were the days, eh? That was a time when we, the government, controlled it, ran it, and it was called Consumers’ Gas; and as far as I can remember, there was not one complaint.

Then we got Mike Harris. Does anybody remember him?

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: People remember that too.

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know; I realize. That’s why I mention it, because everybody remembers him with such fondness. He decided to deregulate the system, you will recall, which is why we have so many problemos, because “We can rely on the private sector to do it better.” He created, God bless him, 14 different distributors, each with their own unique way of scamming the consumer. God bless. Mike Harris, he had it right when he was here, and now we’re dealing with the fallout of that.

Remember that in January, the Ontario Energy Board started enforcing a new law to curb abuses in the sale of fixed-price energy deals. What did they do after that? Many door-to-door marketers switched to water heaters instead; they moved from one scam to the other. Years later, the government says, “Oh, we’ve got to close this loophole as well,” which is what they’re doing today, and we’re supportive of that because the Ontario government announced that it will regulate misleading sales of water heater rental contracts, and we think this is a good thing.

There’s more to be done; there is so much more to be done. I only have nine seconds and I can’t talk about it, but hopefully when we send it to committee, we’ll do more—with the willingness of the minister, I’m assuming.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise to show my support of Bill 55.

As my colleague from Brampton West said earlier about this particular bill in terms of the high-pressure tactics being used by some of the door-to-door salespeople, in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, we have a very frail seniors’ population and also a very diverse community that often calls my office, complaining about these door-to-door salespeople. The challenge here is that the contract—many of these seniors and the newcomers coming to our community don’t understand what they’re signing.

I remember recently we had a call that the wife of this newcomer signed a contract without knowing what she was signing because she believed the salesperson was selling something good for her home. Little did she know she was going to be stuck and locked into a contract for 10 years with a higher rate than normal. We, through this bill, could help consumers with this particular issue.

The proposed legislation—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Consumers’ Gas. Those were the days.

Ms. Soo Wong: That’s showing your years, my colleague opposite.

The concern with regard to consumer protection is the fact that the proposed legislation, if passed, will prohibit delivery—after signing the contract, first of all—and extend it 20 days. That’s a really, really important piece, because we need to have a second thought after we sign a contract.

The other piece of concern is that the contract must be in clear language. How many times do you see your cellphone bill or another contract you’ve signed—“What is that?” And some of us are pretty well educated. I have a master’s degree in nursing. I can’t even understand what they’re writing. They must have really good lawyers out there.

At the end of the day, this bill is to protect the consumer.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I commend the minister, who’s here today, as well as the member from Brampton West. The bill itself, Bill 55, does, I think, address some important issues with respect to the collection agencies that we’ve heard so much about, as well as the Consumer Protection Act, as well as the real estate brokers act.

That being said, I want to correct the record because the member from Trinity–Spadina spoke—really, he didn’t address the issue, but what he did is he tried to impugn motives or impugn something. I think it’s important for the viewers of Ontario to recognize that here’s the same member who was in the cabinet for Bob Rae that opened up every single contract in Ontario. Now, here’s the real issue: He tries to blame everything in Ontario—the real Liberal here was the Premier with the NDP, Bob Rae.

Really, I’m talking about the bill here, but I want to correct the record. It is so false, what he said. I think the member from Trinity–Spadina should get up and apologize because we’re talking about Bill 55, consumer protection. The government that almost destroyed Ontario was under Bob Rae, and it was NDP. I want you to stick to the topic and try to tell the truth to the people of Ontario. I wouldn’t trust either one of them. They’re now a coalition government. That’s the issue.

What we should have is a cooling-off period.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Trinity started it. I’m cleansing the record; that’s what I’m doing.

Interjection: Cleanse away.

Mr. John O’Toole: Cleansing the record.

Now, I do support many of the initiatives in the bill. I would say the cooling-off period is very important, whether it is against the water heater people who are troubling people across Ontario, or changes to the Condominium Act for that matter or the real estate brokers act on clear disclosure.

But it’s unfair for the member from Trinity–Spadina to spoil this debate this morning.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Order.

The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Come to order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Member for Trinity–Spadina, come to order.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. I’m happy to do the wrap-up on the discussion about this very important and very exciting bill.

I want to thank the MPP from Brampton West. I really like how he spoke about how this bill, if passed, will support consumers in a real and practical way to deal with the daily irritants that many consumers face, whether it’s about the door-to-door sales of water heaters, whether it’s about the debt settlement provisions or whether it’s about the changes on the real estate side, which includes, quite frankly, reducing red tape and regulatory burden for real estate agents in Ontario. I’m very, very excited about that.

I also want to thank the MPP for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for his constructive comments. I hear what he’s saying about the need for consumers to be able to cancel water heater agreements. I think it’s the 20-day provision, the doubling of that time, that’s going to provide more-than-sufficient time for consumers to confer with their families or friends or whoever they need to talk to about these contracts. There’s a safety net in there for changing consumers’ minds and prohibiting installation of the water heaters.

Also, the member for Trinity–Spadina spoke. Thank you for your comments.

My colleague from Scarborough–Agincourt made some very excellent points as well about why Bill 55 is so important.

This is part of a big package. This is part of a package of consumer protection initiatives that we’re introducing. These measures were committed to in the throne speech, so we are moving on that commitment, Speaker. It’s about consumers understanding their rights and helping businesses understand their responsibilities. Together, we’re trying to create a stronger marketplace, and a stronger marketplace is good for everyone. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with that. I’m confident that these reforms will give consumers stronger protection in Ontario.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Miss Monique Taylor: It is my great pleasure to welcome my dear friend Jimmy Moffat to the House today, from the sheet metal workers. Welcome, Jimmy.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce two constituents from the great village of Thorndal: Linda Ross and Rachel Ross. Thanks for coming down today, and have a great day.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure to introduce Matthew Ahrens, who’s the brother of Jason Ahrens, a page—Matthew is a former page, as well—and his grandmother, Ann De Roia. Please help me welcome them to the House today.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I, too, am more than delighted to welcome my constituent Ann De Roia, who is the grandmother of both Jason and, of course, of Nicholas Raponi De Roia, from Ottawa South. We have quite a family gathering here today in the Legislature. We’re thrilled that they’re all here with us so that they could listen to this wonderful question period we’re going to have.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome some constituents to the House today: Lynn Saunders, Margaret Casey, Leanna Foster, Maralynn Beach and Janet MacDougall. Maralynn Beach is a resident of Leaside; it’s the 100th anniversary of Leaside this year. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Melissa Kargiannakis to the gallery today. She is a constituent of mine and a passionate advocate of health and improving health care. Please welcome Melissa.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I am delighted to introduce Ali Riza Güney, consul general of Turkey for Toronto; Hüseyin Nurgel, president of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations; Umit Eruysal, president of the Turkish Culture and Folklore Society; Yaman Üzümeri, external vice-president of the Turkish federation; Mehmet Bor, past president of the Turkish federation; Yıldız Ünsal, treasurer of the Turkish Federation Community Foundation; and Feruzberk Khueaykulov, executive director of the Turkish federation.

I also invite all my colleagues to join us this afternoon for the Multicultural Children’s Day reception in committee room 230 between 12 and 1 o’clock this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Before I begin, Speaker, I want to say on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus: We want to give our thanks to the RCMP, Toronto police, York, Peel, the OPP, CSIS and leaders of Toronto’s Islamic community for thwarting the terrorists’ plot and to keep Ontarians safe.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance, based on his remarks yesterday to the Economic Club—just a quick, direct question to the Minister of Finance.

Minister, in your speech, you said you were going to hold the line on taxes, and then you talked about increasing new revenue tools. Can you please distinguish for us the difference between a revenue tool and a tax?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What I said yesterday was the following: We have been able to beat our targets by $5 billion. Our deficit projection is now $9.8 billion. We’re exceeding targets, for the past four years running, and we’re doing so because of the extensive measures of restraint that we’ve implemented and because of the co-operation we’ve had with our stakeholders to ensure that our public services are not only protected but that they’re also sustainable and affordable.

More importantly, we are generating a degree of revenues through some of the incentives that we’re providing to increase—more production, more business investment, more job creation, and that is what’s helping our economy recover in a very pragmatic and a very stable environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think I got an answer to my question. I asked the minister, very simply, to distinguish between—on the one hand he says he’s not going to increase taxes, and on the other hand he says he’s going to bring in what he called new revenue tools, which to me sounds like the same thing. It sounds like a tax increase.

Let me make this point, Minister: For some time now, the Liberals, under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, have focused on increasing taxes, revenue tools—whatever you want to call them. You increased business taxes; you cancelled personal income tax reductions; you brought in the health tax that you said was going to save health care; you brought in the HST to say that you would use that to balance the budget, and now we have among the worst deficits in the history of the province and the largest one in Canada; you brought in the eco taxes—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —exactly with the number of taxes they brought in.

A quick question, Minister: Why should we trust you with one penny more when you blew all that money and dug us into a deep hole?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ontario is now the lowest-cost, lowest-tax jurisdiction in North America. We are the most competitive in North America to attract business investments. We have reduced taxes; we have inspired companies to invest.

It shocks me that the members opposite—their solutions to the problems and the difficulties and the sensitivities of our recovery—what are they saying? “Cut even more.” We are the lowest-cost jurisdiction per capita for public service anywhere in Canada. We’ve done a good—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do. Thank you.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So we’ll stay the course. We’re going to continue investing in infrastructure, we’re going to continue investing in those incentives and those initiatives to attract more business, and we are going to protect public service. We are going to protect health care and education. We are going to protect those things that make us competitive. We’re not going to fall prey to a slash-and-burn policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before I go to final supplementary, the member from Northumberland will come to order.

Carry on.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

I listened to the minister very closely, and he said that Ontario is the lowest-cost and lowest-tax jurisdiction—in North America, I believe you said. Minister, you know that doesn’t meet with the facts, and I hope that you’ll put more thought into preparing this important budget than you do to the speaking notes that you seem to have before you. The budget is absolutely crucial.

Let me make this point again: You’ve tried the route of increased taxes to fulfill runaway spending—in fact, reckless spending; it’s up by 70% under the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals. You also said that you’re going to stay the course, but I ask you, if increasing taxes and runaway spending have given us the biggest deficit in Canada—they have put 600,000 people out of work in Ontario today, and our growth rate is actually slowing down—doesn’t it tell you it’s time to take a bold new course, go off in a new and different direction and get Ontario growing again?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are in fact one of the most competitive jurisdictions in North America. Around the world, people are competing for those investments, and Ontario is the third-largest jurisdiction in North America to attract foreign direct investments, and we’re succeeding. We’re succeeding in creating 400,000 net new jobs since the recession. We’re succeeding in providing the stimulus and the growth necessary.

It is critical that we remain competitive. That is why our corporate tax rate and our personal tax rate will remain at the low levels that they are now, and we will not at any time find ourselves in a situation where we’re going to put the people of Ontario at risk by taking on some of the issues that they’ve proposed—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But there is something that the Leader of the Opposition did say that is critical here. He says this budget is crucial. This budget is critical. This budget should be read and it should be looked at, and that is when he should make a decision.

We have a good plan, Mr. Speaker.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: Of course, the role of the finance minister is a critical role that calls for the highest levels of competence and command of the facts.

I say to the finance minister, you’ve not been able to distinguish between revenue tools and new taxes. You keep changing your view on where we rank on—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: —focus on those basics, it shakes my confidence in your ability to move us towards balance or to get our economy growing again.

Let me give you a very simple proposition. Under the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals, government spending has gone up by 70%. It’s actually a remarkable and reckless increase in spending. We still have a massive deficit. If you actually freeze spending today, if you don’t increase spending overall, you can balance the budget within two years.

Minister, why not just take a very simple, direct approach: Freeze spending today, and we can balance the budget in two years and get our economy growing again.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have been extraordinary in keeping our spending growth below 1%. We have maintained a co-operation and a collaboration with our stakeholders to achieve zero-zeros throughout our deals. We’ve enabled ourselves, together with all parties, to ensure that everyone is doing their part.

I agree: The most important and critical thing that we can do is eliminate and tackle the deficit by 2017-18, and that’s the path that we’re on. We’re taking all the steps necessary to invest in our youth and to invest in infrastructure and to invest in our health care and to invest in our education.

These are the things that are going to give us long-term competitiveness. These are things that work, and these are things that we’ll continue to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me see if I follow the minister’s arguments. He said—and it is a line in your speech from yesterday—“The most important and fundamental thing that we can do, together, to secure our future prosperity is eliminate the deficit.” You just basically used that line word for word. But then, Minister, you announced three new spending initiatives—I think you said in infrastructure, you said in training, you said in something else.

If you say you’re going to balance the budget and then you announce three new spending initiatives, how in the world are you actually going to accomplish that unless you truly plan to increase taxes yet again on the backs of hard-working Ontario families and businesses?

Let me give you another approach. Why don’t you just stop the scandals like the gas plants, stop the scandals like Ornge and eHealth, and hold somebody accountable? And then, Minister, again, if you hold spending as it is today, built on a 70% spending increase, you can actually balance the budget in two years. If it’s your top priority, why don’t you take that path and balance by 2015?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It seems that the member opposite isn’t prepared to invest in the people of Ontario and in roads and bridges, in infrastructure, in those very issues that provide for business growth and economic renewal.

That is what we’re doing; that is what we will do. We have the courage; we have the plan. We have what’s necessary to provide the hope and opportunity for the people of Ontario. It’s not about more government; it’s about more opportunity. It’s not—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Chatham, come to order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s not about cutting for the sake of cutting. It’s about transforming and ensuring that those public services are maintained at a lower cost. That is what we’re doing, and we will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Because of decisions that this minister, Premier Wynne and Premier McGuinty and the Liberals have made, we now have over 500,000 of our friends, our neighbours, our family members who are out of work and losing hope. We’re doubling our debt. We’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. The minister’s only solution seems to be to spend more, to delay balancing the books, and then increase taxes.

Let me illustrate the threat of debt here. We celebrated the other day—my colleague from Conestoga mentioned Benjamin Leone, Rob’s son, born into this world. He was born with a $20,000 provincial debt on his back. Before the Liberals came to power, that was $11,000, so you basically almost doubled the debt. What do you say to young people today when you’re putting $20,000 of debt on their backs and then some, when you don’t balance until 2017? Why are you putting your inability to make decisions today onto the backs of the next generation? Don’t we need to go in the opposite direction and build a stronger—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been very clear. We know that the Conservative government federally has not been able to meet their targets. They continue to have increased debt and increased deficits when they had huge surpluses. Other jurisdictions and other provinces have also had difficulty, given the slow growth, meeting their targets.

Ontario has been very pragmatic—

Interjection.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And I’ll have a seat, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think you will.

The member from Chatham will come to order—second time.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you.

Ontario has been very clear that we are going to balance our books by 2017-18. We have been strategic and very pragmatic, doing it in a gradual way and in a way that will continue to inspire growth and greater prosperity.

We also want to be fair. We want all Ontarians to benefit. No one should be left behind. We want to ensure that everyone’s at their best. This budget will do just that.

I hope the member opposite will read it, I hope the member opposite will give it consideration, because it’s the right thing to do.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. New Democrats have been clear since the throne speech that if we’re going to support a budget, it has to create jobs, it has to strengthen health care and it has to make life more affordable.

There are families with loved ones waiting as long as 262 days for home care in this province, and that’s unacceptable. We’ve put forward a simple proposal to ensure a five-day guarantee for home care, and if the government finally keeps its promise to cap CEO salaries in the health sector, it won’t add a nickel to the deficit.

Will the Premier commit to that today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I have been quite clear both in our private meetings and in this House that we had identified some areas that we wanted to work on, and many of those areas are areas that the leader of the third party has expressed interest in.

One of those is investment in home care. I’ve been very clear that we’re willing to work with them and make sure that we make the investments that are necessary so that people get home care in a timely way. It’s extremely important to families that they know their loved ones are going to get the care they need and they can stay in their homes as long as they want.

I have been very clear that that’s an area we want to work on with the third party. I hope we’ll be able to do that between now and the budget, but we will be making investments in home care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s a simple step that would improve our health care system and add certainty to people’s lives in a very difficult time.

The government talks about targets and goals that they already have in place, but families know that far too often, people fall through the cracks and are left waiting hundreds of days on waiting lists that have stretched these days now into the thousands. Is the Premier ready to commit to a guarantee? Is she ready to commit to a guarantee that people waiting for home care won’t be waiting more than five days?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I am committing to is consistent and ongoing improvement in our health care system. I think it’s extremely important that political leaders make commitments that are doable, that are achievable, that we not throw out numbers in a way that’s irresponsible and then are not able to meet those goals.

I think it’s extremely important that we understand what’s doable, that we make investments that will improve health care, that will in fact, as the Minister of Finance said, transform the way we deliver service, because we know that as people age, we are dealing with a whole new demographic and a whole new reality about how service needs to be delivered.

We’re going to continue to make investments, but at the same time, we’re changing the way those services are delivered to make them better.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People waiting for home care want to see that guarantee and they want to know that that guarantee is funded fairly. Will the Premier finally enact the hard cap on public sector CEO salaries so that we know that the dollars will be invested in front-line care for patients, not executive compensation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the spirit of what the leader of the third party is talking about, but the numbers don’t match. In fact, the money that needs to be invested in home care goes far beyond any savings that would be acquired by capping CEO salaries. I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

But the bigger issue is that people need to know—you’re right—that they’re going to get the home care that they need, that they’re going to be able to stay in their homes. They also need to know that if they need care in their home from a physician, for example, that’s going to happen, that they will have a house call, that they’ll have a home visit that will allow them to get the care that they need. Those are the kinds of transformations that we’re going to make, Mr. Speaker, because that is what will make health care better. That’s what will transform the system and will make it capable of dealing with the aging population that is coming down the track at us.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d just like to remind the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek that I’ll offer some help today if he needs it.

New question.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, although I’m quite disconcerted that I didn’t hear a yes to hard caps on salaries, nor did I hear a guarantee of five days for home care. It’s quite disconcerting.

What people want to see in the upcoming budget though, Speaker, is something that’s concrete. They want to see real results. They don’t want to see a government that they’ve seen time and time again fail to deliver on the promises that they make. That’s the reality, unfortunately.

Elba wrote to us. She lives in Toronto, and she wrote this: “I think that the waiting for home care services is [so long] on the hope that people will drop dead while waiting….

“[It’s] very terrifying becoming older, weaker and sick in this country. I won’t have someone like myself to fight” for me, “as I did for my husband.”

Women like Elba need to see a real guarantee that they won’t be waiting longer than five days when they need their home care. Will the Premier commit to Elba and others to a five-day guarantee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to make a general comment. I’ve talked about the need to improve home care, and I’m very committed to that, but I want to make a comment about the budget process. It is extremely important to the people of Ontario that the people in this Legislature take this very seriously. This is not a political game. This is not a Ping-Pong game where you’ll put out a policy, and I’ll put out a policy, and we’ll see which one we can fight about and where we land. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about looking at our current situation. It’s about looking at the global economic situation.

It’s about staying on track and being fiscally responsible. It’s about making the critical investments that the people of Ontario need so that their province and their services can improve over time and so that we create the conditions for growth. That’s what this budget is about, Mr. Speaker. It’s not that it’s a Liberal budget; it’s not that it’s an NDP budget or that it’s a Conservative budget. It’s the right budget for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think it’s about the fact that these are tough times for the families of this province. That’s what it’s about. They’re being asked to pay more, and they see cuts being made to their hospitals and to their health care system. That’s what they see.

Irma in Toronto had a loved one receiving home care and writes, “Based on my experience I would say that the government was wasting far too much money on management and not spending wisely on ensuring that their clients were getting good care.”

Will the Premier guarantee that money goes to the needs of patients and take the simple step of capping CEO salaries in the coming budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Of course I will guarantee that money is going to go to the service of people in the province and particularly in the area of home care. In fact, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, the Minister of Finance and I are going to be at a community service organization in north Toronto, in Minister Hoskins’s riding, this afternoon. It’s called SPRINT. It has been delivering services to people in their homes for decades.

In fact, some of the ideas for transforming the way we deliver service—i.e., making sure that people get their services at home, making sure that doctors are available to people in their homes—come from the organization that we’re going to be visiting this afternoon.

I am committed to implementing those changes. The Minister of Health is working on those. That’s the transformation of the system that I’m talking about that will make it sustainable over time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People have told us that they’re looking for change—simple, affordable change—that makes their lives better. They’ve been promised it over and over again but constantly find that they’re being asked to pay more and expect less from their government.

New Democrats have been clear since the throne speech: If we are going to support a budget, it has to create jobs, strengthen health care and make life more affordable for Ontarians. Will we hear a commitment from the Premier today that she will cap executive salaries and ensure that people waiting for home care will have it in five days, guaranteed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party will hear, in the budget when it is read, a commitment to improving the lives of people in Ontario. She will hear a commitment in those areas that she has identified because those are areas, Mr. Speaker, that we had identified as needing work: youth unemployment, improvement of home care and making sure that people have the services that they need in a timely way.

But we will not be held hostage to an arbitrary list. I have said many times that I am happy to work with the leader of the third party, and we are going to do what’s in the best interests of the people of Ontario, in the areas that she has identified and beyond.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Premier. The amnesia continued this morning at the justice committee. We did get a little insight into the Oakville negotiations from your predecessor’s policy director, Sean Mullin. Read into the record was testimony that the government was committed to “make TransCanada whole.” There are at least 10 references to that. That could cost $1 billion. That’s a far cry from the $40-million number the Auditor General told us is unrealistic and yet you cling to. Former cabinet secretary Shelly Jamieson told us last week that there are “buckets of costs” for Oakville.

Premier, tell us today about the buckets of costs for Oakville.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The member mentions the witness this morning. Again, Mr. Speaker, I can’t help it that the Conservative Party keeps calling witnesses that don’t answer questions the way they wanted to. It reminds me of their first witness. My favourite was their first witness. They called the former Speaker of the House of Commons. I read from the Toronto Star: “Tory Witness Bolsters Liberals’ Case to Clear Chris Bentley of Wrongdoing.”

In terms of the Oakville situation, I think the honourable member is aware of two things. The first is that the Auditor General, an officer of the Legislature, is looking into the Oakville gas plant as directed, as asked, by the Premier, in an effort to provide transparency. The second thing he knows is that his party was front and centre in opposing that gas plant.

We look forward to testimony from candidates in that riding, candidates that we’ve asked to come forward who have not yet made themselves available. We look for his help in asking for those witnesses to come to the forefront.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My gosh, Bob Fosse could not have coordinated a better dance routine than that. Premier, all the public wants to know is: How much did the Liberal scandal cost, and who ordered the documents to be withheld? Weeks later, we still don’t know the real cost.

It’s clear that every Liberal staffer brought before the committee is putting their party’s needs ahead of the interests of the taxpayer. Not one Liberal is telling us the whole story, Speaker. What we do know is that the Premier’s office, along with cabinet, have directed this scandal from the very beginning. We do know that there was absolutely no regard for the taxpayer. The objective was to do a deal at any cost, Speaker.

I ask you, Premier: Will you end this charade and come clean on the Oakville costs?

Hon. John Milloy: These are oldies but goldies. The member from Halton, Hansard, June 1: “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant ... and I agree with them.” The member from Halton, press release: “Minister, will you move the Oakville power plant? I’m asking the minister to consider moving this plant.” The member from Halton told the Toronto Sun on October 7, 2010: “It was sad that it took so long for the government to listen to the people of Oakville ... it was nice to see that decision overturned.”

Mr. Speaker, again, where is the Conservative costing? We asked for Conservative candidates, from both the Oakville and Mississauga areas, to come forward, along with the New Democratic Party candidates. None have made themselves available. I asked the honourable member to use his influence to have them come forward and talk about the work that they did, the analysis to cost out what it would cost to cancel the Oakville plant. We are looking forward to that testimony as we are the Auditor General’s report.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the more we learn about the private power deals that your government signed, the more we see that these deals were great for private power companies and lousy for the people who pay the bills. This morning, the former Premier’s senior energy adviser wouldn’t or couldn’t tell Ontarians why private power companies were getting to shape the province’s electricity plan.

Can the Premier explain why TransCanada got a heads-up on the province’s energy plan before this House was informed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I actually appreciate the question that was being asked about the whole issue of siting power plants in this province. It is something that the government, in co-operation with the opposition, have expanded the mandate of the committee to look at. I think it’s about time that we stop going on these fishing trips and that the committee actually starts to look at how we could move forward, because the simple fact of the matter is that that honourable member represents a party that was equally opposed to the Oakville plant, as was the Progressive Conservative Party. All parties in this Legislature were opposed.

We recognize that there were mistakes made. I think it would benefit all of us if the committee focused on how to move forward and how to come up with the right decision-making process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Boy, you can’t even deny this stuff anymore. Premier, people expect the electricity system to provide affordable energy for this province so families can pay their bills and so businesses can afford to grow. But instead, the government is promising private power companies that they can see the energy plan and make sure it helps them out before the province sees it.

Can the Premier explain why private power companies are coming ahead of hard-working families and the creation of jobs?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, the honourable member fails to acknowledge his party’s record on the Oakville situation. It was identical to all the rest of the parties. The member himself said, “I don’t agree.” He told Inside Halton, “I don’t agree with the Oakville power plant, I don’t think it’s necessary.”

The member from Beaches–East York, on December 2, 2010, said, “I’m glad the people of Oakville came to their senses. I’m glad the people of Oakville hired Erin Brockovich and did all the things that they did in order to have this killed.”

There is unanimity of all parties in terms of what happened at Oakville and Mississauga. I think we all welcome the honourable member, his colleagues and all colleagues of the Legislature if they want to use this committee as it should be to come forward with recommendations on how we move forward in future decisions. That is the mandate that has been given to the committee. Unfortunately, they spend a lot of time on fishing expeditions when they should be looking at the broader policy questions.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment. On April 12, a final political hurdle was cleared towards building a second bridge span across the Detroit River. President Obama gave his presidential permit, widely considered the last approval required before we go forward. This is indeed very good news, to have the White House’s support. Can the minister now tell us what this bridge is going to mean for Ontario’s economy and jobs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I certainly thank my colleague for this important question. As Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, I’m very pleased to see that President Obama has endorsed the new Detroit River international crossing.

You may not know this but more than $110 billion in goods cross the Windsor border each year, making this North America’s premier trade crossing. Ontario exports 77% of the goods that we produce here to the United States, and almost a third of that travels across the border into Michigan. More efficient crossings mean better access to US markets for Ontario manufacturers, helping them to grow and to thrive.

North America’s auto industry sees millions of vehicle components crossing the border every day to ensure their just-in-time delivery to assembly plants in both Michigan and southern Ontario. While the bridge itself is a federal initiative, the province is doing its part by building the $1.4-billion Windsor-Essex Parkway to link the new crossing to the 401.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I’m glad to see that Ontario businesses and families, particularly in Windsor and southwestern Ontario, will benefit from the new Detroit River international crossings and the increased access to the United States market.

The truth is that the United States will continue to be a very important trading ally for Ontario, but we’ve got to look at new markets because that’s where the world is growing. Can the minister tell us what the ministry is doing to help Ontario businesses access new, fast-growing markets outside of North America?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member is right in indicating that we need to look at new markets, not simply existing ones. Last year, the efforts of my ministry and our government helped over 1,000 Ontario exporters access or expand their export markets through participating in our programs. For example, over 540 Ontario companies participated in 69 different international trade missions to places in Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

Since 2007, just in that period of time, we’ve led 37 international minister-led missions and eight Premier-led missions to destinations around the world to promote Ontario business. The most recent mission, of course, was to China in January. It resulted in the signing of nearly $800 million in contracts for Ontario businesses.

Here in Ontario, we provide consultations, seminars and many other supports to businesses looking to expand globally. When Ontario companies are looking to expand globally, our government will be there to offer whatever assistance we can to help them grow their businesses.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Last week, your parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy compared the Liberal gas plant scandal to the USA putting a man on the moon. He said the US never knew the cost of putting a man on the moon and that your government never knew the cost of cancelling the gas plants.

In the wake of those ridiculous comments, we’ve uncovered a few factoids. Did you know that the average cost of launching a space shuttle, according to NASA, is around $400 million? If we use NASA’s math, which is far more trustworthy than the Premier’s math, for the same price of three shuttle launches to outer space, you can save three Liberal MPP seats.

Premier, do you share Bob Delaney’s view that Charles Sousa’s, Laurel Broten’s and Kevin Flynn’s seats are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to wait for quiet and definitely remind members that this is becoming too frequent. I’m going to remind members that they are to use their titles or their ridings. It’s the spiral down, so I’m going to stop it. From here on in, if I hear that, I’ll pass the question.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the specifics in the supplementary, but I just want to say that the decisions that we made to relocate and cancel the gas plant projects in Oakville and Mississauga were decisions that were supported by every member of this House, by all parties. We listened to the communities. We made the decisions to relocate those gas plants, and there were costs associated with that. The reality is that when projects have begun, there is a cost associated to making a change.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that it’s very important that I have been the Premier who has asked the Auditor General to look at those costs, to make sure that the calculations that are made are open and transparent. That’s why we asked the Auditor General to look at it. I look forward to his report. In the meantime, I think it’s great that the committee is able to broaden its mandate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Premier, you have repeatedly stood in this House and promised on the record that you will appear before the justice committee to answer for your role in this massive scandal—it’s galactic, the level of the scandal. Next Tuesday you’ve been invited to appear before the justice committee. Will you confirm to the House today that you will order and instruct your staff to not play calendar or scheduling games? Will you keep your promise and confirm your appearance at the justice committee investigating the gas plant scandal on Tuesday, April 30, 2013? Yes or no? Are you coming to the committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite unequivocally that the Premier will be in attendance at the committee.

I want to address the main issue that he asked in the main question. He referred to the cost of relocating the Oakville plant. I want to read from a letter that I delivered to the Clerk of the Committee yesterday afternoon:

“At the meeting of the justice committee on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Liberal members intend to bring forward a motion requiring the Ontario Power Authority to appear at a meeting of the committee.

“Our commitment is to be open and transparent. To support the work of the committee, the OPA will be in a position to share their current estimate of longer-term costs and savings associated with the relocation of the Oakville plant.

“As you know, the government also has asked the Auditor General to report on the Oakville relocation. The auditor’s work with the OPA is currently under way, and we look forward to receiving the auditor’s final report.”

Mr. Speaker, we are being open—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Merci monsieur le Président. Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Yesterday we heard from one of the hospitals affected by the diluted chemotherapy drugs. Windsor Regional Hospital, like all of the affected hospitals, used an approved procurement process to source these drugs. Yet at committee, a hospital official said they were “under the impression that some safeguards had been put in place.” Speaker, there is ample evidence that the minister knew about this grey area of oversight for years. Can the Premier explain why the ministry failed to do their primary job of oversight?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question, although I must say I’m a bit surprised to hear that question. I think it is abundantly clear that when I became aware of the issue of underdosing of chemotherapy drugs, we acted within days.

We have heard that Health Canada has been aware of this issue for many years. I think that as we work together to take the steps necessary to assure patients that they do have access to the right drugs, we will be working with Health Canada. I am delighted that last week they announced that they are actually acknowledging that there is an area that needs attention. Regulations that we’ve announced will take us in the direction we need go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier. Ontarians want to know what happened, but they want also to be assured that this kind of lapse in oversight will never happen again.

I’m really concerned that the ministry seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that they failed to provide oversight. They’re unwilling to acknowledge that they even had a role to play. Will the Premier admit that a mistake was made by her minister and explain what is being done now to address other unrelated areas in our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I, once again, am happy to say that when we became aware of this issue we took immediate action. We pulled together all of the partners. There is no question that the health care system is focused on addressing this issue. You heard from the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital; you heard from the chief of staff at Windsor Regional Hospital. Yesterday they appeared. They are focused on ensuring that this does not happen again. We also have Dr. Jake Thiessen, who is working on the whole cancer drug supply.

I would hope that the member opposite would be listening to what her critic in Ottawa is saying, the questions that are being asked in Ottawa of Health Canada. We have shared responsibility here and we are acting together to resolve the issue.

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, it can be tough at times to balance and to care full-time for your children, your aging parents, or both. Recently, I happened to read an

article in the Globe and Mail that focused on this very issue. It profiled a young family, the career and personal sacrifices that they needed to make to ensure that their loved ones were properly cared for.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Can the minister tell us, what can the government do? How can the government make the life of Ontarians who are caring for their loved ones a little easier?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for a very important question. This is a very important issue and something that I think all of us hear about from our constituents on a frequent basis. We have heard from sole caregivers; we have heard from those who are in the sandwich generation, who are looking after their elderly parents and their young ones at home, as to what we need to do in order to help our elderly parents or other family members who may need help.

That’s why we have put forward a piece of legislation that, if passed, would build on the existing family medical leave to provide up to eight weeks of unpaid job leave for employees to provide care and support to a family member with a serious medical condition.

In addition, that legislation, if passed, would complement recent federal initiatives that provide leaves and benefits for parents who need to care for a critically ill child, or in cases where a child is missing or dies as the probable result of a crime. This is an important issue, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The introduction of the Leaves to Help Families Act is good news for Ontarians.

This version of the bill builds upon the previous version by adding in extra leaves that complement the new grants and the unpaid leaves offered by the federal government.

I think that every member of this House and everyone who is watching us today shares a common experience. We’re all sons or daughters; we have parents and grandparents; we may have spouses and children. In short, we’re all part of a family. When those family members have a major health problem, we want to be there for them.

So through you, Speaker, to the minister: Can the minister update us on the status of this bill?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This is important, Speaker. This bill is important because it will give working Ontarians the one thing they need most, and that is time to be with their loved ones. I really hope that all MPPs will support this bill. This bill is first and foremost about compassion and making sure we know that our families are doing well.

The debate has commenced on this important bill, and what I have heard so far from the opposition members is heartening to me. I quote the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who said that the government has come back “with a better bill, and of course they do deserve recognition for it.” I thank him for those positive comments.

It’s similar for the honourable member from Essex. He said, “I think it’s well intentioned. I think it’s something that is almost what we would call a no-brainer....”

I hope we will continue with the sentiment, get the debate done in this House and send this bill to committee so that we can move on providing these important care leaves for families.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, while your government has been lost in space, 600,000 men and women are looking for work in Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario.

On the Mississauga power plant, you blew your own number by 45%, and now Ontario businesses and families are stuck paying your bill.

Premier, do you think it’s right to force Ontario businesses, families, and the 600,000 men and women you have put out of work to pay for your political dirty work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, you can start with paper—I’ve got a press release here, or a comment in the Mississauga news, and it quotes—listen to this: “Only Conservative leader Tim Hudak will cancel the Eastern Power gas plant slated to be built on Loreland Ave.”

Then you can go to the Twitterverse: “An Ontario PC govt will stop the plant for good.” Then you can go to YouTube and watch the Leader of the Opposition, surrounded by his adoring candidates, in front of a crowd of five or six people, saying if he’s elected, this plant will be “done, done, done.”

The Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party—all of us had the same position in the last election. Again, we’re looking forward to hearing their—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General doesn’t get the last word; I do.

Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: That was a heck of a lot better than Michael Jackson’s moonwalk, actually.

The Auditor General told us one thing and the Liberal Party is telling us something totally different. What is clear is that political decisions were made, decisions that served to benefit only the Liberal Party of Ontario and are ultimately going to cost Ontario businesses and Ontario families upwards of $1 billion.

Yesterday your government announced that you will table your budget on May 2, and we can only assume that the NDP, your farm team, will be dutifully supporting it. Premier, what is the final number you’re going to write beside the words “Oakville power plant cancellation cost”?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Auditor General in terms of the Mississauga plant, and the Premier asked the Auditor General to look into the Oakville plant.

We are still waiting to hear about the Progressive Conservative numbers. In fact, just in reference to an earlier question, we have asked that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hudak, come before the committee next Tuesday, where he can discuss his figures. I hope that the honourable member will ensure that he doesn’t play calendar and say that he’s too busy to come before the committee, because we’re looking forward to his testimony to explain his opposition to the gas plant and how it would be “done, done, done.”

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. Last week, Neskantaga First Nation declared a state of emergency, looking for provincial assistance with a suicide crisis that has rocked the community. The community attributed these suicides to the social conditions in the community, including prescription drug abuse, poor water quality, inadequate policing and lack of access to mental health and addiction workers—issues that the province has been aware of for years.

My question is simple: Does the Premier believe that First Nations need to declare states of emergency to access the basic health services that they need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Of course I do not believe that First Nations communities need to declare states of emergency in order to get services. I had the opportunity to speak with Chief Moonias at the time that the emergency was declared to make sure that Emergency Management Ontario was aware, to make sure that everything we could do we would do to deal with the particular circumstances.

I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has also had a chance to speak with the chief. We will need to work with our partners, as is always the case in these situations, because the federal government, the provincial government and First Nations communities always have to work in partnership because these are shared responsibilities.

We are very much a part of that, and we are doing everything we can.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Neskantaga is not the first community to declare a state of emergency; it is only the latest. In 2009, it took the pressure of the NDP to get the Ontario government to commit funding for a Payukotayno First Nation suicide prevention program. Yet last year, the same government cancelled $1.7 million of that funding, leaving the community without supports.

Each and every community across the Far North is dealing with similar challenges, and as the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Premier knows this well. Will the Premier commit today to address the social conditions existing on all First Nation communities, or does every community need to declare a state of emergency to get basic help from your government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am so committed to improving the lot of the people who live in First Nations communities.

These are complex issues that are rooted in a history of which all of us have to share some shame and blame. We have not, as a society—it doesn’t matter what party, it doesn’t matter what level of government—always worked in the best interests of the people whom we share this province with. Whether it’s First Nations education or whether it’s First Nations health care or whether it’s the infrastructure on reserves, I am committed to working with my colleagues, to working with the federal government, to working with the First Nations communities to make sure that we address these complex issues.

We have done more to build those relationships and make sure that services flow to First Nations in the last 15 years, and we will continue to do that work.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation.

This government recognizes the importance of collaboration and partnership. It is often through collaboration and partnership that great ideas and technologies are born. Ontario’s life sciences sector acts as a case in point, where researchers, public institutions and the private sector work together in finding solutions. Our life sciences community acts as a key driver of our province’s economy, creating high-level jobs and producing important breakthroughs.

The statistics on Ontario’s life sciences sector are impressive. There are approximately 38,000 high-value jobs, 1,000 companies, $9.1 billion in revenue, and the export value is $5.7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Research and Innovation: What is this government doing to ensure that our life sciences sector is supported?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for that question.

Mr. Speaker, by bringing together our world-class scientists, our leading research institutions and a strong private sector, we can make important discoveries that generate economic growth and also create jobs.

Recently, we invested $36 million in 17 research projects in seven research institutions and universities in the greater Toronto area. We also announced a $100-million investment in the Ontario Brain Institute. We have committed $357 million to the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. We’re also encouraging and helping small and medium-sized businesses to conduct research and make innovations in biotechnology, biomedical and also pharmaceuticals.

As the Minister of Research and Innovation, I am proud of the record of this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m glad to hear that our government is taking steps to support new ideas and technologies that will drive Ontario’s future economy and create jobs. In this global economy, it is critical to promote collaboration and build on the strength of our life sciences community.

Yesterday, the Minister of Research and Innovation participated in the BIO 2013 International Convention in Chicago.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Research and Innovation: Can he please tell the House what this government is doing to promote and attract global investments in Ontario?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the member for that question.

On Sunday and Monday, I had the opportunity to participate in the BIO 2013 International Convention in Chicago. The BIO 2013 convention is one of the largest and most important global events in the biotechnology industry. The event featured conferences and exhibitions well attended by policy-makers, scientists and business leaders from around the world.

Organized by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the event gave Ontario’s delegation of more than 300 people—scientists, engineers and business leaders—the opportunity to attend this conference and have the opportunity to learn about major trends affecting the industry and to also network with scientists and business leaders from around the world. Most importantly, the convention gave Ontario the opportunity to showcase its strengths on the world stage. This event also helped promote global investments in Ontario that will generate economic growth and create jobs in this province.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier.

Premier, let us recall what the leader of the NDP stated in the Legislature on April 16:

“What’s really shocking for people is, the Premier doesn’t seem to be showing any remorse or regret. Instead, it’s just full steam ahead with politics as usual. Yesterday, Ontarians learned that the people of this province are going to be paying $275 million to cancel that Mississauga plant....

“Why can’t the Premier admit that this was cynical politics at its worst and actually show some remorse for this waste of public money?”

Premier, it’s statements like this that indicate to the people of Ontario that the NDP will support calling the PC motion for debate when it is tabled. Will you commit to getting results for the people of Ontario and to calling our motion for debate when it is tabled? Or will you hide from this confidence motion and push it aside, like all your other Liberal scandals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts of that question that I want to address, and the first is on the regret. I think we could go through Hansard and you could count the number of times I have said “regret”—in fact, maybe we’ll have somebody do that. I have said consistently that I regret that we are in this situation. I regret that we were not able to make the decision earlier, because there is always a cost associated with backtracking when a project has begun. So I’ve been very clear that I regret that. I’ve said it was a political decision; it was a political decision that all parties agreed with.

In terms of confidence in this government, there is a huge opportunity looming—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There’s a huge opportunity looming for the members in this House to express confidence, or not, in the government, and that is called the budget. On May 2, there is an opportunity for people in this Legislature to express their confidence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Premier, you talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk. We still haven’t got answers.

The NDP may think it’s okay to prop up your Liberal government in the midst of a scandal or when it means the destruction of thousands of good jobs in the horse racing industry, but even they must recognize that this gas plant scandal is the straw that broke the horse’s back.

Premier, you’ve dismissed this motion of confidence as a PR stunt. Your assistant to the Minister of Energy has even compared the massive waste of money to a moon mission, all proof that your government just doesn’t take this issue seriously.

Well, the people of my constituency take this issue very seriously. If you think you have the confidence of this House and the people of Ontario, call the motion of confidence when we table it and prove you retain the confidence of this House.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There is no one in this House that’s looking forward more to the expression of confidence in the government on the budget than I am. We share that anticipation, and I look forward to it.

I do hope that members of the official opposition will read the budget, that they will actually look at what’s in it. It disturbs me that the critic has said that no matter what is in the budget, they’re going to vote against it. It doesn’t seem to me that that is a very responsible position.

The other thing I want to say is that we take the issue around the gas plants extremely seriously. That is why when I came into this position, I called for an open process, I asked for an expansion of the mandate of the committee so that a full range of questions could be asked, I said I would appear before the committee—I’m going to, on Tuesday—and I said that I was going to ask the Auditor General to look at the Oakville situation. I’ve done all those things.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last year, the government eliminated the Program Enhancement Grant that supports arts in schools. Now we are seeing the impact on children. According to People for Education, only 44% of Ontario elementary schools now have a full-time or part-time specialist music teacher. That’s a drop of 5% from last year and the lowest since 2005.

Why is the government reducing student access to music in Ontario schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to talk about music education in our schools, because in fact I believe that music education in our schools is extremely important, just as are education in the performance arts and education in the visual arts. In fact, all those things are part of the curriculum.

We fund the curriculum through the Foundation Grant. The per-pupil Foundation Grant provides the core funding. But we have also provided additional money for 4,900 elementary specialist teachers so that there is an opportunity for school boards to make a choice. Some have chosen to spend that money on music teachers, some on arts teachers, some on phys. ed. teachers and some on tech teachers. There are specialist teachers—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, yesterday, Graham Henderson, president of Music Canada, spoke of “the declining commitment toward music education in Ontario.” Indeed, access to music teachers has fallen drastically since 1998. Only one in four schools in northern Ontario has a specialist music teacher, and low-income students are least likely to have the opportunity to sing in a choir or play in a band.

When will the minister take action to ensure that all students in Ontario have access to music in their education?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Well, as I just said, all students do have access to music because it’s part of the curriculum. You should not assume that an elementary teacher who is not a specialist teacher does not actually have the ability to teach music because many do have qualifications in music as well.

But I think we need to go back and look at the current People for Education report a little bit more closely, because if you look at their own report, they said that the number of schools with a music teacher exclusive to that school was 49%, plus 30% had itinerant music teachers in 2010-11, in other words, 79% of schools. If you look at the next year, yes, there was a trend to itinerant music teachers because declining enrolment was happening. But you’ll actually find—

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —when you add up the numbers, that 82% of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I would remind the Minister of Education: I stand, you sit.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. There were four more constituents of mine that I apparently had missed: Anne-Marie Branch, Martha McNeil, Barbara Abrams and Joan Tadman. I apologize. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay, on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, somebody all the way from Holtyre who now lives around somewhere down south: Mr. James Moffat is here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we recess, I’ve been hearing a couple of things that I want to bring to the attention of the House—and I ask all of the members to help me with this—and that is, when we mention somebody’s absence, it is a very long-standing tradition that we remove ourselves from making comment on anyone’s absence, as most people may not know the reason why. I would suspect that we would all be very gentle on that particular issue.

The second one is, when people are answering questions or putting questions, I’m beginning to hear an inordinate amount of heckling from with the same side. So I would ask you to stop trying to provoke by making comments while someone is questioning or making comments while someone is answering—to lower, instead of raise, the provocation. Please help me with that, and I think we will be able to move forward quite well.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1500.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FLOODING

Ms. Laurie Scott: Over the past few days, my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has been one of the areas in Ontario that has been hit hard by flooding. This has resulted in a state of emergency being declared in parts of the city of Kawartha Lakes and Minden Hills. In particular, the Burnt River, Black River and Gull River areas in the community of Minden have been most affected.

Over the weekend I toured many of the areas which have experienced the worst flooding, and it was heartbreaking to see the number of residents who have lost their homes and contents. I also saw many local businesses that have been dealt a crippling blow.

Local EMS and emergency personnel are to be commended for their quick action in dealing with the emergency, setting up crisis centres, providing materials for sand-bagging and keeping the public informed through regular website and Facebook updates and radio. Similarly, the personnel of the Trent-Severn Waterway have done a great job in monitoring the water levels and working closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

When I toured the hardest-hit areas over the weekend, I was both proud and heartened to see the outpouring of kindness and support from countless volunteers who gave up their weekends to help with the filling and placement of sandbags, or the use of their own watercraft to retrieve stranded residents.

Although some water levels are receding, other rivers have not yet peaked. Many of my constituents are suffering and will need help to get through this. I invite the ministers responsible to tour the affected areas of my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, and I am confident that the federal and provincial governments would not turn their backs on them in their time of need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members’ statements? The member from Stoney—from Hamilton East–Stoney–Creek.

BATTLE OF STONEY CREEK

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Speaker. The 200th commemoration of the Battle of Stoney Creek will take place in just over five weeks. The Battle of Stoney Creek, June 5, 1813, was the turning point of the War of 1812—the victory that ensured our nationhood.

In James Elliott’s book Strange Fatality, he notes that a handful of native warriors led by John Norton, Mohawk war chief, played a significant role in fighting the American invaders during a night raid. Whooping and yelling ensued by native warriors and British troops, which convinced the Americans there were large numbers of native warriors, and they retreated.

At Battlefield Park, starting on Friday, May 31, activities will begin at 1 p.m. with the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Battlefield Monument. That evening, there will be a parade, a memorial service and a Battlefield Cemetery rededication. Saturday and Sunday, June 1 and 2, will be filled with re-enactments, including a Saturday evening battle and a Sunday afternoon battle. Fireworks will punctuate the activities on both Friday and Saturday evenings.

It will be my distinct honour to participate in the re-enactment as a British captain in the 8th Regiment. I have been a re-enactor in the past, but nothing will compare with this privilege of participating in the bicentennial.

I encourage everyone to come to Stoney Creek’s Battlefield Park to participate in the festivities and feel a part of these beginnings of our great nation. Speaker, we’re expecting close to 1,000 re-enactors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I expect the member was okay with me saying “Stoney Creek” first, because that’s what it was about.

Mr. Paul Miller: Good move, Speaker. Good move.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I appreciate that.

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This past Sunday morning, people in Toronto and all around the country woke up to an unfamiliar sight when they opened the newspaper: There was an X visible beside Toronto in the NHL standings, confirming that the Leafs had made the playoffs f