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

September 4, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-04 (PDF)

L073 - Tue 4 Sep 2012 / Mar 4 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 September 2012 Mardi 4 septembre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT (BOARD OF

INTERNAL ECONOMY), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMMISSION DE RÉGIE INTERNE)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT (BOARD OF

INTERNAL ECONOMY), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMMISSION DE RÉGIE INTERNE)

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SEXUAL ASSAULT

HEALTH CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PAN AM GAMES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EMPLOYEES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BACK-TO-SCHOOL BARBECUE

SIKH CHANNEL

PREMIER’S AWARD FOR AGRI-FOOD INNOVATION EXCELLENCE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

SECOND BASE YOUTH SHELTER

UNITED WAY OF LEEDS AND GRENVILLE

PAN AM GAMES

LABORATORY SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNIVERSAL HEALTH

CONSULTING INC. ACT, 2012

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

RADIATION SAFETY

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WATER QUALITY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

RADIATION SAFETY

WIND TURBINES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

RADIATION SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT (BOARD OF

INTERNAL ECONOMY), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMMISSION DE RÉGIE INTERNE)

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Mr. Gerretsen, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act with respect to the Board of Internal Economy / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative relativement à la Commission de régie interne.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT (BOARD OF

INTERNAL ECONOMY), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMMISSION DE RÉGIE INTERNE)

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Mr. Gerretsen, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act with respect to the Board of Internal Economy / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative relativement à la Commission de régie interne.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Third reading agreed to.

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 28, 2012, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts en vue de mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back, by the way; it’s a pleasure to see you there.

It’s also a pleasure and a privilege, always, to stand in this House and to speak about the business before us. Unfortunately, with this bill, there’s not much before us. What is before us is a fairly modest, to put it succinctly—very modest—gift to seniors—if and only if they put money up front. They can spend up to $10,000, of which they get 15% back. Now we in opposition have been talking about the difficulty most seniors in our jurisdictions have spending $10,000 on improvements that will allow them to stay in their homes.

The government side will come back at us and say, “But you don’t have to spend all $10,000; you can spend only a few hundred dollars,” but I mean, really, getting $15 back in a tax receipt at the end of the year is hardly an incentive to widen one’s hallways, put in a lift, do what’s necessary for most seniors’ homes.

Besides that, this is not the problem seniors face. I can tell you that if you were to poll seniors across this province, of whom one in 10 of the women live in poverty and one in 20 men live in poverty, making home improvements is not the first issue that they face. The first issue they face is paying their rent, paying their mortgage, paying their heating, paying their property taxes and, actually, human health. The two issues that see seniors go into long-term care the most are: (1) the cost of living at home; and (2) human health—their health. They need help, and often it’s help with minor duties.

It’s help shopping. It’s help mowing the lawn. It’s help cleaning their eavestroughs. This bill does not address either of those issues.

This bill, I would suggest, will not keep one senior in their home that otherwise would move into long-term care. Perhaps some wealthy seniors—the snowbirds, those who go down to Florida—can take advantage of the $10,000, make home improvements, see that value in their houses, if they ever decide to sell. But for most seniors who have modest incomes or most seniors who live in poverty, this bill will not help them at all.

Now if the government had wanted to do this right, they could have looked to our sister province in Quebec, where they actually get a gift. They get some money up front where they can actually make improvements. They don’t have to come up with the money themselves, money that is in very short supply for the vast majority of seniors in our province.

The second point that I want to make is this one, though, and that’s the very question of the bill itself. We presumably were brought back from summer break to this chamber to debate and pass—although, of course, we in the New Democratic Party have some problems with passing it—a bill to basically send teachers back to the classrooms—not that they were ever not going to go back to the classrooms—the so-called Putting Students First bill, which in fact puts Liberal government first. We were brought back to debate that bill.

So the question has to be: Why are we debating this bill, a bill that has been on the order paper for at least a year? Why are we looking at home renovation in these precious weeks before school started instead of the bill that we were brought back to debate?

Not only that, but then they brought in a new motion, a motion, really, just designed to stick a needle in the eye of the loyal opposition over here to our right, saying how wonderful all-day kindergarten is. Again, that was a bill that was passed years ago. So why would the government bring in a motion that gets debated, that chews up precious time in this chamber—time, by the way, that’s paid for by the taxpayer, I must say—debating a motion that simply says how wonderful it is that we already passed a bill a few years ago? Why would you do that?

Why would you do that when presumably the only reason we’re all sitting here today is to pass Bill 115? So why would you do that? And why would you do this home renovation act? Why would you bring this forward? Again, an extremely modest bill, a bill that really pays lip service to seniors rather than doing actually anything for them—a lip service bill and a lip service motion chewing up precious debate time when, presumably, there’s such an urgent task at hand, such an urgent task that we have to be brought back in August to debate Bill 115?

So the question is this: What’s the real purpose behind bringing forward this bill at this time? I would warn that the real purpose of bringing forward this bill at this time are two by-elections, one that’s happening in Vaughan and one that’s happening in Kitchener–Waterloo, and it is to position the government so that they look like they’re getting tough. Who are they getting tough with? They’re getting tough with teachers. Well, you know, this is amusing for a so-called education government—but so that they can get tough and so they can play to their right side, so they can appeal to Conservative voters.

We in the New Democratic Party have always said that there are some great similarities between Liberals and Conservatives. This of course highlights those incredible similarities that really they’re on the same page when it comes to education. That page is cutbacks to the classrooms, cutbacks to what our students have enjoyed in previous generations and, of course, trying to win by-elections, because there’s nothing that one can say about this government if you don’t say that it’s self-serving. It’s certainly self-serving.

So this serves the Liberals’ purpose. Bringing forward this bill, Bill 2, doesn’t serve seniors; it does serve Liberals—they think. Again, I would warrant that on Thursday we’ll find out if the ploy has worked. But until that day, here we are chewing up debate time talking about a bill that is not the bill we were presumably brought back to discuss, a bill that really is a no-brainer, a bill that does very little but pay lip service to the needs—huge needs—of seniors, many of whom live in poverty.

To get back to seniors and this home renovation tax credit, Madam Speaker, again, you have to put the money up front. You don’t have the money if you’re a senior; the average senior in my riding, anyway. They don’t have the money to put up front. But if you do, you get a very, very modest little break on your taxes at the end of the year. This would not keep one of my seniors—in fact, I have not had one inquiry in our constituency office about how to access this. I should say that I think I had one, and when they found out what the bill actually includes, that went out the window.

They said, “We don’t have money to put up front to do anything. We’re too busy paying our hydro costs and our property taxes. That’s where our money is going.” And by the way, they’re struggling just to do that.

I said, when I was speaking about this bill before, that there’s a whole new breed of seniors, a group of seniors who find it cheaper to get on a cruise ship and keep moving around the world than go into long-term care at the rate of thousands of dollars a month. That’s how expensive long-term care is, and most seniors only get there by selling their house and spending the principal. We, the sandwich generation, know this full well, because we are in fact the ones who are stepping into the breach left by this government and looking after our seniors.

If this bill is this Liberal government’s answer to the plight of seniors, I would say, “Sorry, seniors. Wait. Wait another year or two until maybe something better comes along.”

But what this bill and the tabling of this bill really is, is again a ploy to appeal to people in a by-election, in fact to filibuster their own bill, Bill 115, which is what we were supposed to be brought back here to debate. We’re not debating that; we’re debating this. We’re not debating Bill 115. No, no, no. We’re debating a motion about how wonderful all-day kindergarten is, which was already passed years ago.

The question before the House really should be, what is the true motive of this government? I think it doesn’t take a long stretch; in fact, the media has certainly cottoned on to the true ploy here, and that true ploy is two by-elections, Vaughan and Kitchener–Waterloo. That’s why this government has brought us back. That’s why we’re sitting. It’s not to pass any bill; it’s not to deal with educational matters. No, no, no, no. It’s just so the government can posture in front of voters.

What I’d say just to conclude, Madam Speaker, is that the voters in Kitchener–Waterloo and the voters in Vaughan know better than that. They know better than that. They see through it. Nobody buys it. Nobody buys this; certainly not the seniors who call our constituency offices looking for help. Nobody gets anything about this Liberal government except the one true thing, and that is they want a majority government, and they want a majority government at any cost. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill. I appreciate the comments from the member from Parkdale–High Park. However—no surprise to anyone—I’m going to disagree about the intention of this bill and the fact of how important it is that we are debating this bill in this Legislature. I’m glad that the Legislature is back, because I like coming back to work and making sure that we continue to represent our communities, not only back in our ridings but also in the Legislature, and get to the important work that people have sent us to do. This is one of them.

In the last election, this issue was spoken of again and again, where seniors want to ensure that they continue to live in their homes, that they live with the independence and dignity that they so much deserve. They need tools. They need mechanisms and opportunities by which they can continue to live in their homes. The healthy homes renovation tax credit is one such tool among many to ensure that our seniors have the mechanisms to live in accessible homes—so that they can make changes to their homes.

I was just in my riding two weekends ago visiting neighbours door to door, and one senior, contrary to the member of Parkdale–High Park, spoke to me about this particular issue. That senior loves her home. She wants to continue to live in her home. She said, “Well, you talked about, during the last election, that there may be an opportunity for me to make changes to my home and get a tax credit for it. Where is it?” Well, I’m really happy to stand here today saying, we are debating this.

We need to pass this legislation as quickly as possible so those seniors are able to make those changes to their homes, be it putting in ramps or elevators to their staircases or changing their bathrooms, making them more accessible so they can continue to live in their home. To the senior back in my riding of Ottawa Centre: We’re working on it.

I am very excited and glad that this legislation is being debated, and I want to make sure that all members vote in support of this legislation so that we can pass this law and help our seniors at home.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to comment on the remarks by the member from Parkdale–High Park. I think it’s important to put in some sort of context. This bill has been dragged and delayed for almost a year now, and if they can really manage this properly—it was first introduced in November 2011—obviously they still haven’t got the job done.

But if you look at it, the bill is quite measured in terms of what seniors are able to apply for and how they can apply. If you look in the explanatory note, you’ll see “reference to qualifying expenditures paid by or on behalf of an individual in a taxation year for listed improvements to a qualifying principal residence of the individual.” So it’s another example of a really crafty red tape bill. Seniors that want to get up to a maximum of $10,000, they’ll have to qualify for certain expenditures that aren’t eligible.

Now, what I’ve heard from my constituents is that they’re trying to replace their furnace with a more energy-efficient furnace because energy bills are the highest they’ve ever been in the history of Ontario, and that’s what they face every month, opening up that energy or the electricity bill and finding a shock that they can’t get away from—they have to heat their home or air condition their home. This is what seniors, I think, really want: a practical approach to avoid the high costs as a result of the HST.

All the expenditures that they make should be eligible, and I think that this bill and the red tape attached to it doesn’t really give them the tools to make their home more comfortable. I think that’s a problem.

We’ll have to see. The bill has been to the economic affairs committee and it’s been reported back to the House—an amended version of it. The amended version really still doesn’t address the amount of red tape that seniors are facing to stay in their own homes. So I put that on the record.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for James Bay—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Timmins–James Bay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Timmins–James Bay; sorry.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: People just call me Gilles; don’t worry about it.

I just want to say that I agree with the synopsis that was put forward by my colleague from Parkdale–High Park who says that this in itself is not a bad thing. Is it something that we should be voting against? Absolutely not. It’s a step forward. Is it a big step? No. It’s a small step. And seniors are looking, quite frankly, for relief in a whole bunch of other areas such as high electricity prices, rents etc.—and drug costs, that’s the other big one. My God, the amount of phone calls we get in our constituency offices where seniors have to decide between: “Should I take a prescription and fill it or should I pay my rent, my phone or my hydro?” There’s unfortunately far too many of those.

The other point that I think needs to be made, and she touched on it, is that this government seems to be filibustering its own bill. We’re now on, what, day five of third reading on a bill that has the support of the House? I know the Conservatives are going to vote against it because that’s just the way they are; they don’t believe in—they do what they do. But certainly, New Democrats are supporting it. I would imagine the Liberals must be supporting it because they’re the ones who authored the bill. Here they are. They’ve been filibustering this bill.

The member set out on Thursday, I guess, when this debate first came back after third reading—I had gone to the government House leader to say, “We’re done. We don’t need to speak to this anymore.” But immediately, the Liberals got up. Well, jeez, if the Liberals are going to get up to speak, we’re not going to sit down and just watch the show. We’re going to intervene.

I’d be interested to see to what degree the government is really serious about trying to make this minority Parliament work. I think they want a narrative, and that narrative that they’re trying to create is: If we can show that nothing works in this place, well, then we can make another argument for the by-election. Again, it’s about Liberals taking care of themselves and not taking care of seniors in this case. But we’ll see. Maybe we’ll scare the government by not putting somebody up, and we’ll see how this continues.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to speak on the healthy homes renovation tax credit. You know, Speaker, this is a bill that we tabled back in November 2011, one of the first bills that we tabled after the election, because we’d made a very clear commitment to provide this tax credit for seniors so that they could stay in their homes. It’s something that absolutely I hear about in my constituency office. You know, we talked about this for hours and hours and hours at second reading, and we couldn’t get agreement to have a vote on it.

This is something that should have been done by about March break in a reasonable world. But hey, we came back and it hadn’t been passed yet; it was still sitting on the order paper for third reading. We’re doing third reading. It’s on the order paper for third reading.

I want to comment about what the bill actually says. It says that effective October 1, 2011—and I do have seniors saying, “I’ve got my tax receipts. When can I submit them?” It would allow people to get a $1,500 maximum tax credit, a 15% tax credit. So you don’t have to spend $10,000; it’s whatever the reno cost. So if the reno to help a senior stay in their home is grab bars around the tub and around the bathroom, that’s not going to cost $10,000. But for that smaller change—it can make a huge difference to get the grab bars—that senior can keep their receipts and they can still get a tax credit.

So I think we do need to get this rolled out so seniors can take advantage of it. I’m looking forward to being able to tell my constituents it’s ready to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to all who weighed in on this.

I have to say that I’ve never, ever met a senior—and this is going back into my ministry days, when I visited long-term-care facilities and retirement homes a lot—who said that they were forced out of their homes because they couldn’t afford grab bars around their tub. I’ve never met that. Those who can afford to spend $10,000 don’t need our help up front.

So this is a very, very modest little bill. Do we support it? Sure, why not? Why is it taking up House time? One would have to ask the government side that. As I said, I weighed in on that. I suggested, as did the member for Timmins–James Bay, that it’s taking up House time so that they can filibuster their own bill, Bill 115, so they can take a stand, get some news in K-W and Vaughan and perhaps win a majority. It’s all about winning a majority; that’s why we’re here. It’s not about seniors and it’s not about students.

The member from Ottawa Centre I have deep regard for, and I listened intently to his comments. I don’t know why he’s sitting with his back against the wall. I think he should be in cabinet. I think he should be down in one of the front rows, and we all agree on that in this House. President of the Liberal Party, a lot of talent—put him in the cabinet. It’s sad that he sits where he sits.

Just to wrap up, does this bill accomplish much? No. Does it accomplish a tiny little bit? Yes. Do we support it? Sure, why not? Should we be doing something far, far greater and far more in depth to help seniors, many of whom live in poverty? Absolutely. Those are the seniors we’re hearing from, and those seniors have deep needs that this government is certainly not addressing.

So, again, let’s get on with it. We were brought back, I assume, for Bill 115, not for this bill or the motion on the bill that already passed. Let’s get to it, government. Let’s actually give the taxpayers their money’s worth. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Go get ’em, Bob.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Rosario. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 2.

Given the estimated cost, the government would have done far better to help all families and stimulate the economy by providing a pan-Ontario benefit such as, for example, the removal of the HST from electricity and/or heating fuel.

The government also has not provided any detail on how this program is funded, so we are only guessing as to whether this is increased or alternative spending. If we are facing a $16-billion deficit and funds are so-called unspent allocations, this will add to the deficit. If the government really wanted to help seniors and has $60 million in short-term money available, there are other ways to assist: for example, long-term-care beds and more home care for seniors.

This is only a window dressing bill for the Liberals which, along with the tuition reduction for post-secondary students, betrays a continued initiative to pick and choose small segments of society for political reasons.

Madam Speaker, this bill is one that is very important to all of us in all of our constituencies, where we have an ongoing aging population and many baby boomers approaching the age of senior status, myself included. The time it took for this government to finally table something that would try to help seniors is ridiculous. Even so, in committee, the government showed little to no co-operation with suggestions that were put forward by the Ontario PC Party. NDP amendments that we now see in this bill are uncosted but will surely balloon the total cost of this program to unaffordable levels.

When we PC members had asked for the cost of this program, the government was only able to answer in global terms and rhetoric. Never was the actual or projected total cost outlined in committee or outlined before this chamber.

Seniors will do renovations regardless of if this program is in place or not. Poorer seniors, those who really need help, will no sooner be able to pay the $8,500 portion of the $10,000 amount under this bill than they would have been before.

This government has not outlined where the money for this program will come from. I have asked before and I will ask again on behalf of my colleagues, is the McGuinty government doing what it should to help Ontarians get those good, well-paying jobs they need so that they can help their families? Is the McGuinty government acting fiscally responsible and helping to stimulate the economy? Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the answer to both those questions is no.

This bill says it aims to help seniors. It fails. This bill aims to help persons with disabilities. Again, it fails. This bill aims to stimulate the economy. Again, on the third count, it fails miserably. The only thing that makes this bill something positive is the spin that the government has placed on its title, the healthy homes renovation tax credit.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: They’re good at that.

Mr. Robert Bailey: They’re very good at spin, as my colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex says—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: —the member for Trinity–Spadina says as well.

If anything, this bill puts seniors at greater risk of losing their homes and their independence. In order to qualify for this credit, $10,000 minimum must be spent on renovations. The average Ontario senior’s income is somewhere between $25,000 for an individual, Madam Speaker, or $45,000 a couple. Most seniors living off their savings or dependent on their families for some financial support cannot afford to take

part in this program because, as you know, we are facing at this time some of the highest unemployment in recent history. Our numbers are over 7.5%, with no hope of that number dipping below 7% until at least 2015, if we’re lucky.

Again, let me remind this House that we are staring directly in the face of a $30-billion deficit and a $411-billion debt, according to Don Drummond, if we don’t take action. We have over 600,000 men and women out of work, a serious jobs and spending crisis right here in this province of Ontario. There are billion-dollar scandals, which have been in the media lately, like Ornge, eHealth and many others.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Power plants.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Power plants, as the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex says.

This government is so desperate to change the channel to make Ontario voters forget about the poor leadership and mismanagement coming from this Liberal government here in Ontario, Toronto, that they are trying to do that with Bill 2—back to the bill, before I get pulled up by someone.

There is no need for this province, once the shining light of Confederation, to be faced with this $30-billion deficit. There’s no reason that Ontario should be condemned to a continuing, stagnant economic growth regime.

On our side of the House, the path we’re on simply isn’t good enough. So I’ll continue, along with my colleagues beside me and in the rest of the chamber, to promote our plan, the Ontario PC plan, to finally reduce the cost and size of government, to build and grow our economy with new jobs that will ensure that Ontario will lead again. This is our number one priority, and it is the primary issue that we must address. Until the debt and spending are under control and jobs are returned once again to Ontario, the PC caucus cannot support any additional spending without offsets.

We owe this, at the very least, to the people of Ontario. We owe this to Ontario businesses, both small and medium, and large employers across this province. We owe this to all of those who chose to make Ontario home, as well as those born and raised here. They’ve invested their lives in this great province and they know, like we do in the PC caucus, what Ontario is capable of being, capable of actually becoming great again.

In order to have the kind of social policy that we want and that the people of Ontario want, we have to make sure that we have the financial resources that are required to support our social services and provide the kind of government that Ontario families, including seniors, are asking for. This Liberal government is once again placing the cart before the horse, just as they always do—speaking of horses, it’s not a good year to be a horse in Ontario.

Speaking about great governments of the past, I do proudly stand up with the PC government—the former government. Let’s not forget that former governments by the PCs created over a million jobs in the province of Ontario; they created the environment for those million jobs to be created. Today, under this government, we’re faced with over 600,000 people unemployed. I’ll tell you, the members on the opposite side of the House should sit up and take notice of what is actually going on in this province.

The people of Sarnia–Lambton have told me that they’re not very interested in this bill. I’ve had no people call my office—as one of our colleagues here from the NDP bench said as well—no constituents of mine call and ask that this bill be expedited; they’re not even calling to ask how to implement it. I get calls on the cost of energy, the cost of keeping seniors in their home, home care, health care, access to health care, issues with emergency room visits—there are lots of issues in this province.

How many Ontario men and women, let alone seniors, do you know who could put up half their annual income for a home renovation, as they live on less than $25,000 for a single and up to $40,000 for a couple? Not very many, I would think. The number of people this program would apply to drops significantly based on marital status. As if that weren’t enough, seniors receiving ODSP benefits are excluded from qualifying for the tax credit. That would restrict people even further who would benefit.

Then, your renovations have to meet specific criteria—we haven’t even gone there yet—which means that those who could afford to renovate their homes are an even smaller fraction of those who would get the actual refund. You see what is happening here: Slowly, more and more people are being excluded from each requirement—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s all spin.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s like a Maytag washing machine—it’s all spin.

Do you see what is happening? Slowly, more and more people are being excluded with each requirement. People who could afford the $10,000 to renovate their home don’t have to wait for a government cheque or a tax credit or some inspector to tell them that they qualify; they would do the renovation in any event. That’s what you do when you’ve got the extra money. Meanwhile, those who need the help, who cannot afford the renovations and who don’t have that cash to do what they need, are still left sitting in the dust.

This bill, at the end of the day, like most pieces of Liberal fluff legislation since I came to the House in 2007, is just nothing but a mean joke because it offers little hope and then proceeds to deny the majority of people the help that it promises to provide.

I believe that it is essential to manage your finances in a responsible way so that, in return, you can help others. This is no different than a government structure. If the government cannot manage their own finances and ensure that all their bank accounts are in order, then they can certainly not pursue additional spending such as this tax credit.

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate again: I know that time and time again as we talk about this, it’s critical that all members, especially members on the government side of the House, who may be blinded by their own talking points, remind themselves when they look in the mirror that their government is essentially bankrupting the province of Ontario. We have a jobs and debt crisis that need to be taken very seriously. We’re talking about future generations of Ontarians who are going to be paying for the last nine years of total fiscal mismanagement.

Bill 2 is purely political. The bill is aimed at tugging at the hearts of the people of Ontario in the hopes of distracting Ontarians from the fiscal reality that this province is facing. This bill is meant to keep the government benches busy, keep the members from falling asleep in some cases—which is easy to do in this place. It really won’t do anything to change the course we’re on and the road that Premier McGuinty has led us on.

If you’re a senior on ODSP, the benefits of Bill 2 are negated in part because of these other programs. Bill 2 states that you must obtain the age of 65 by the end of 2012. I’m a few years away from qualifying for that, but if I were and I wanted to do—thank God, I’m a few years away from that yet.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: You’re 23 years away.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, a good 20 years yet.

But if I did want to qualify for that $10,000 in renovations, I would be able to put $1,500 in my pocket because I can afford the $10,000. This bill does not help those who actually need assistance.

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: No; that’s all right. There are solutions to mitigate any abuse of this program or system—broad-based tax relief. The finance minister, since becoming finance minister, has increased spending by almost $21 billion and has never balanced a single budget. This year’s budget illustrated an additional $2 billion in spending. Where is this money to pay for this program coming from? Where does the government think that they will get the money to pay for these proposed amendments by the NDP?

The Ontario PC Party simply cannot support a bill—and I can’t—that has not been fully costed year over year, nor can we support a bill that mitigates an entire segment of the population. This is the same inaction that I have come to expect from this government.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You’re all about tax cuts, aren’t you?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Certain tax cuts.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, only certain tax cuts.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes. They’ve got to be targeted.

This band-aid solution is only covering up the larger wound to Ontario that Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government have inflicted. Ontario is sitting with a looming $16-billion deficit and over $400 billion in debt if something is not done. That’s according to the government’s own hand-picked study by Don Drummond.

To add insult to injury, this government introduces Bill 2, and today we’re at third reading. It is hanging a carrot in front of Ontario seniors, hoping to lead them to the trough.

Seniors are one of the most vulnerable segments in our population. We cannot allow for a government to knowingly take advantage of them under the auspices of fiscal relief. This entire House knows that a tax credit as is presented with the healthy homes tax credit is nothing more than lip service. If you want to invest in Ontario seniors, then provide an incentive that will actually stimulate the economy, bring financial security to the seniors, and not do it on the backs of hard-working Ontarians.

This Liberal government has argued that this legislation is all about protecting the economy and helping the trades as well. I would disagree with that. The bill is not really about seniors and it’s not really about helping the trades; what it’s really about is Liberal politics. We find it strange on this side, given the economic state of Ontario, that we are debating legislation that is in favour, at the end of the day, of more spending. It does not make any logical sense, but for some reason this government seems to think increasing spending is something that they should continue to do.

Of course, we’ve been on the record—and I have, many times, as have many of my colleagues—that overspending by this government is taking Ontario down the path of an eventually $411-billion debt.

We should be debating a plan that would put those 600,000 men and women who are unemployed in this province back to work. This government should be introducing a plan to address that $16-billion deficit and a plan to deal with this massive debt that we currently have in Ontario, and a plan to get our economy growing and back on its feet again. Yet here we are debating this bill that is completely ignoring the economic crisis that Ontario is facing.

There’s a good magazine that comes out every month called the Fraser Forum. They had a good

article a couple of months ago called “Ontario’s Budget 2012: A Missed Opportunity,” in which they highlighted the opportunities that this government, led by Finance Minister Duncan, could have taken to alleviate some of the heartache and overspending in this province. “In March, Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan had one of those rare opportunities of which politicians can only dream.

With his province heading towards a fiscal crisis caused by out-of-control spending and mounting debt, an opposition sympathetic to the need to deal with the problem, a public that expects his government to tackle the deficit ... and a media that” finally “understands the need for significant fiscal restraint, the stars were perfectly aligned” for Dwight Duncan.

“Call it his ‘Paul Martin’ opportunity. Unfortunately, unlike Martin ... Duncan didn’t seize the opportunity.”

It’s proof of what we’ve been saying all along, since the days back in March when that budget was delivered: that the will of this government just isn’t strong enough to deal with the fiscal crisis and the jobs crisis that we find ourselves in.

At this time, I will wind up my remarks this morning. I thank the House and you, Madam Speaker, for your indulgence and look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to congratulate my friend from Sarnia–Lambton. It was a very fiery speech and it got under the skin of many Liberals, I could tell. I agree with some of the comments that he made; I disagree with a lot within it as well.

But there’s no point in talking about what he said, about things I might disagree with. I just want to talk, for the two minutes I’ve got, against this bill, because it’s a picayune bill that will support some seniors, the one-percenters who have got a whole lot of money. But a whole lot of Liberals know that a lot of seniors in this society don’t have a lot of money. In fact, we are in an unprecedented history where many of our seniors are poor and are being impoverished every year, each and every year.

And rather than coming up with a program that actually supports seniors, we come up with this little program, the healthy homes renovation tax credit, and they say, “Oh, seniors I talk to are looking forward to getting 15% back of the $1,000 they spend on renovations in their home.” Please. Who’s calling you? Tell me who is actually calling you, because I don’t believe anybody’s calling you—

Interjection: N-o-o-body.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The “n-o-o-body” fits very well—other than the one-percenters who call you saying, “Bring it on, because I need the 15% tax break.” I don’t think the people who earn $15,000 a year from their Canada pension plan, assuming they have their full pension, and those who have the old age security, which is up to $5,500—those people don’t have money to spend in their homes. Most of those people don’t own homes, in fact. They’re tenants who are looking for affordable rental housing. That’s what you’re not getting.

Maybe I’ll have 20 minutes to speak. We’ll see.

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

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning, Speaker. I’m just thrilled to be speaking to this bill again this week. It’s a new week, a new school year. I am thrilled; I’m absolutely thrilled.

This bill has been in the works for a long time—far too long. It’s time to move this bill forward. It was last fall when the Premier announced that this bill, if passed, would be retroactive—retroactive, Speaker—to October 2011. Seniors have been saving up their receipts for some time now. There’s momentum on this bill. We need to continue on it, and it absolutely will benefit many seniors, contrary to the negative criticism and cynicism from members opposite in both parties. It’s a good-news bill that will benefit approximately 380,000 seniors. That’s fantastic.

Our population’s getting older; we’re all getting older. We want to help seniors who want to stay in their home for as long as possible. For those seniors who can’t stay in their home, we’ll continue to support long-term care, of course. But many seniors I know in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East and elsewhere want to stay at home, and this bill will help them do that.

The other beauty of this bill is that for those who have a senior living in their home, they can claim this credit.

Seniors don’t have to spend $10,000 to receive a credit; that’s a maximum. Many modifications to a home are much cheaper than that, and the seniors will be able to receive a tax credit. It’s a wonderful bill that allows people to stay at home, and, more and more, people are looking at homes that are accessible for the future.

Is this our whole strategy about seniors? No. I spoke for 20 minutes, at length, last week about all of our strategies about aging and looking after seniors. It’s part of a bigger puzzle. I think it would be a shame if the other parties didn’t support us on this, and I look forward to voting—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Good morning, Speaker. Welcome, everyone. A special greeting to all of the MPPs who couldn’t see their young children off to school today because we’re working. I want to give a special mention to all those parents.

I want to commend the member for Sarnia–Lambton for his speech. You know, when you’re here in the morning, you do a bit of Eastwooding, because there are a number of empty chairs; you don’t get the full depth of audience when you speak here at the 9 o’clock rotation. But I’m glad to be here. I’m glad to provide a couple of minutes of comments on the record for my good friend the member for Sarnia–Lambton, Bob Bailey. I had the pleasure of sitting beside Mr. Bailey—we sat up in the penthouse just behind me when I first got here a couple of years ago. I know he’s a very honourable member.

He really cares about his community. He’s an active member, and one thing that you can say about Bob Bailey is that he makes sure he talks to his constituents.

I know when he spoke this morning about the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, Bill 2, that he spoke from his heart, knowing that his constituents aren’t well served with this. We’ve talked about this before. I spoke at second reading, spoke about a number of people in my riding. I know that over the third reading debate there has been some mention about grab bars and other things that people can spend—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Grappa?

Mr. Steve Clark: Grab bars, you know, on your shower.

We did a little research. To put in one of them, I think it costs $50. So this actual bill would only give a tax credit back on a $50 renovation of $7.50. That’s ridiculous. Right now in this province we’re having seniors in their homes that can’t even get a home visit for a bath, so this is ridiculous, what we’re—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments and questions?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I agree with part of what the member says. There are other issues that would be far more useful for seniors, such as affording to be able to buy one’s prescription drugs, for example, being able to pay one’s hydro bill, other things like that. This is not a bad measure, and for that reason we’re going to support it. It’s a tax credit for those who can afford and who want to do renovations.

What I do take exception to, though, is the Conservative line, and it sounds good, like when they say, “We don’t want to do anything unless it’s costed out,” right? But they’re the guys proposing all kinds of tax cuts that, quite frankly, have created most of this problem.

There was an

article that showed up in the paper last week sometime that said the amount of tax cuts that were provided by the Conservatives and the Liberals over the last number of years equals $15 billion. Look at that. It just happens to be the size of our deficit.

The opposition in the Conservative caucus says, “The only way to prosperity is through austerity. The only way you can build a strong economy is through austerity.”

Applause.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: And listen to them: They’re applauding. They’re so excited they are falling off their chairs.

But there is another way, and that’s what Andrea Horwath and New Democrats have been saying and will continue to say; that is, you grow your economy. You don’t do it by austerity only. Yes, you have to be making sure that you balance the budget and that you’re frugal in the way that you spend the money that you get from taxes, but you need to be able to grow an economy.

You do that by doing things that assist the economy; for example, saying, “What are we going to do in order to assist employers to have the people that they need trained, skilled up, in order to take advantage of whatever opportunities exist there?” Only give tax cuts to those that are prepared to reinvest back in Ontario, such as the proposal that has been put forward.

I think that when I listen to Conservatives, I hear the Tea Party; I hear Mitt Romney all over again. It’s the same old tired solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, will be rejected—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’d like to add some comments on this particular bill in response to the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Even if I have one senior—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’m very sorry; I must apologize. It’s back to Mr. Bailey to respond.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t realize it was back to me already.

I’d like to thank the members from Trinity–Spadina, Pickering–Scarborough East, Leeds–Grenville—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Are you going to thank me?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes—Timmins–James Bay and York West; the member got a shortened, truncated, thanks there, but thank you anyway. I wanted to say the elephant bill was truncated but I better not get into that—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You and I should never talk about elephants.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, they never forget. There’s an elephant in the room.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Mike likes this. He’s in favour.

Mr. Robert Bailey: He likes this? I’ll have to talk to him when I get a chance.

Anyway, like I say, we’re concerned about this, and the PC caucus, at the end of the day, won’t be supporting this. We’re looking for real action for seniors and for all people in Ontario.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker; nice to see you this morning.

I look forward to the opportunity to talk about why we’re really here. Certainly in my riding of Nipissing, I have, like the member from Sarnia–Lambton has suggested, not heard from one constituent about this so-called tax credit. What I’m really hearing about at home is the concern from seniors about their hydro bill.

Under this government, as of May 3 this year, we’ve officially seen our hydro bills double. Back when this government was first elected, hydro was 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour; today, that rate has gone to 8.8 cents—on May 3, in Toronto, Ontario, when they opened their hydro bills, they saw 8.8 cents a kilowatt hour from 4.3 cents. That’s what seniors are concerned about today: How are they going to be able to pay that hydro bill?

It used to be your Visa bill—or your credit card bill—when it came in was the one you were afraid to open. But can you imagine that today it’s your hydro bill that sits on the table unopened, because seniors are afraid to open it? Let me tell you that businesses are afraid to open their hydro bills as well. There’s something I’m going to talk about this morning. I’m going to try to use some of the time to explain “global adjustment.” These are two words put together that are new to businesses’ hydro bills, so we’re going to get into that a little bit later—why businesses today are afraid to open their hydro bills as well.

Now I visited a business in North Bay on Friday, toured the plant and then sat down with the owner and his son. I said, “Bring me your hydro bills. I want to have a look.” And they said, “You know, Vic, we’re very concerned.” The reason I was there was to talk about high hydro rates. We opened their bills. They had a spreadsheet done of the last year, and it was astounding to see “global adjustment,” these two words that meant nothing to anybody two years ago. It wasn’t even on your hydro bill a couple of years ago.

It used to be called “provincial benefit.” What that meant was, it was a rebate every month on your hydro bill; it was money back to you. This government has gone through that and converted that provincial benefit—because it’s no longer a benefit. They’ve now called it “global adjustment.” It’s an adjustment, all right, but I can tell you it’s an adjustment upwards.

So this one company—Central Welding is the name of the company in North Bay. We looked at their hydro bills, and I was able to point out why their bills have doubled in the last eight years. I showed them the line of “global adjustment.” The global adjustment—which is to pay for the Green Energy Act, conservation and a few other things—now is higher than their electricity consumption, but there’s no rhyme or reason to global adjustment.

I have been an elected member for 11 months, and I’m lucky to be in the position as Ontario’s energy critic, so I have spent a tremendous amount of time looking into this energy sector. There aren’t five people who will agree on how global adjustment is developed. Nonetheless, there would be universally no one who can agree that it’s something that we’re happy with. It is about to bankrupt the business community of Ontario. There’s just no question. I’m going to give you some examples as we talk.

But here I am at Central Welding, and I’m looking at what their hydro bill was. Their hydro bill is at one level; their global adjustment is considerably higher, sometimes two times higher. In other months, their hydro may have been lower, but their global adjustment is even higher. It makes no rhyme and no reason whatsoever.

Speaker, let’s look at how all this began: with the introduction in 2009 of the Green Energy Act. It may have a noble name—“Green Energy Act”—but let me tell you, there is absolutely nothing further from being accurate and nothing green about the Green Energy Act. In fact, I will tell you, as in my examples, that what has happened is wind power has merely replaced water power in Ontario—one green for another green. Wind power today accounts for 3% of the energy we use in Ontario or that we create in Ontario. Water power has dropped from 25% of our power source to 22%. We’ve added 3%; we’ve taken 3%.

We’ve swapped one green for another, which happened to have been the green energy water power that Ontario was built on. Over 100 years, those water turbines have been spinning out clean, green, affordable, renewable energy to Ontario. We’ve taken some of that away and added unbelievably expensive wind turbine power, and are bankrupting Ontario to boot. One green up, one green down; tell me, Speaker, what can be green about that?

So again, we look back to 2009. I know I sat in the mayor’s chair in the city of North Bay at the time, opened the package from the clerk, and it was this Green Energy Act. I started to read about it. It had an admirable name, I must admit. It had a very admirable name. There were some very appealing rates that no mayor could resist, obviously. Here we are with this plan to force so-called green energy in Ontario, and it’s done in a couple of ways—three or four things that they did.

Number one, they began by paying one of the highest subsidies for wind and solar in the world—not just in the country, not just North America, but in the world—which was designed to help attract many people here for this rich subsidy. Number two, they guaranteed that they would buy power from you whenever it could be made.

Sadly, had they done any research in advance—as the Auditor General told us last November, there was no business plan put together for this, no knowledge of it, no plan to tell you what the ill effects will be: the ill effects on health, the ill effects on the economy, the ill effects to the business community, the ill effects to families who are budgeting, the ill effects to the seniors who can no longer afford to pay their hydro bill. None of that was gamed out. The Auditor General told us that.

In fact, sadly, the Liberals’ own cabinet was not aware of the Green Energy Act until it was designed and developed and implemented. The Auditor General has told us that, and I have every faith in the Auditor General’s announcement.

In fact, I’m really quite looking forward to the Auditor General’s report this coming November, because he has been incredibly critical of the Green Energy Act, and rightly so. Nothing has improved in the last year; only more damning evidence has come. So we look forward to that Auditor General’s—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Point of order, Madam Speaker: I’m just trying to understand about the renovation tax credit, and—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. I would just ask the member to make sure that his comments are indeed in keeping with Bill 2.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. As I mentioned only a few seconds ago, had they been listening, I talked about the fact that this is the number one issue with seniors. This is the issue, not this red herring that the Liberal Party has proffered to us over this election period in Kitchener, meant to distract us from talking about the number one issue with seniors. It truly is the number one issue with seniors.

The tax credit, which would be only for a few and only if they provide the $10,000 up front to get a few dollars as a tax credit—this is not what is important to seniors. What is important in all of the town halls I’ve been to—and I’ve been to a tremendous number of them this summer, as you know. The

schedule in this energy critic role has been very gruelling, meeting with seniors over and over and over. All they want to talk about is high energy prices. They can’t focus on anything else. They can’t afford—they’re afraid to open their hydro bills, Speaker.

Let me just continue talking about why we got into that and how it affects the seniors, which, sadly, has left them no options to utilize this program, or any other program, for that matter, when they don’t have any other money in their pockets.

Here we’ve got, as I mentioned, a program that is the richest in the world, a program that guarantees to buy so-called green energy whenever and wherever it is made, regardless, obviously, of whether there’s transmission capacity. We’re now learning the tales of that in the microFIT program that’s being allowed to be repurchased back by OPA. We now understand as well the math behind the trouble with the Green Energy Act. By overpaying on these rich programs—we have found that wind generally is made at night. The problem with wind when it’s made at night is we don’t need the wind when it’s made at night.

Predominantly, our use of wind is during the day. So we allow this wind power that’s made at night to be captured. We pay for it—we richly pay for it. We find ourselves with a huge surplus of energy almost every night. During the day, we have a capacity to make 1,700 megawatts of wind power, but if you look at the IESO’s report last week, the week before, there were days when we made nine megawatts of power at noon from wind. We pay for 1,700 megawatts of wind. We have that capacity, yet we’re generating nine megawatts of wind.

We’ve paid billions of dollars—billions of dollars—in this so-called Green Energy Act to make nine megawatts of wind. It’s no wonder seniors can’t afford to pay for their bills. We’re paying all that money out for such little end-of-use capacity. At night, when the wind blows, we make more power. We don’t need it. We end up paying the States, paying Quebec, to take that power from us.

Now, here’s where the problem for our seniors comes from—let me get to the root of why the seniors are afraid to open their hydro bills: We are paying the States and we are paying Quebec to take our surplus power, power we didn’t need to have made. We have it made by wind. We pay Quebec. We pay the States. The Auditor General, again, in his report last November, told us in the first 10 months of last year, we paid $420 million to the States and to Quebec to take that power. That money has to come from somewhere, so that ends up in your global adjustment.

Put that “one” in the column, which has now ended up on seniors’ bills, families’ bills and businesses’ bills. It’s not identified on the senior’s bill, but it is on the business bill; it’s broken out. There’s a line there that says “global adjustment;” on your family bill and your senior’s bill that they’re afraid to open, it’s all built in together. They don’t differentiate it.

We continue to make this power that we don’t need, and as a result, we allow water power to flow over Niagara Falls, and we don’t capture it. We allow the generators to stay idle, those generators we paid for 100 years ago. In fact, there were many of us that toured DeCew number 1—and it’s called number 1—

Mr. Todd Smith: I was there.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The member from Prince Edward–Hastings was with us that day. We toured DeCew number 1: the first water power plant made in Ontario. In fact, we both saw the generator that is there, still operating—

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Point of order, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Point of order.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I don’t know what hydro generators have to do with the healthy homes tax credit. Perhaps we could hear some debate on the bill that’s on the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to return to the healthy homes tax credit.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll continue talking about how seniors cannot afford this red herring, so-called healthy homes tax credit, Speaker. They are broke. They’re struggling to pay their hydro bills month after month. They’re afraid to open their hydro bill this month, because under this government we’ve seen hydro rates rise from 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour to 8.8 cents.

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: And I realize the truth hurts, but I would look forward to the opportunity to continue to talk about what really is affecting seniors and why they are having no take-up on this opportunity that they’re presenting, because they cannot afford to get into that.

When the member from Prince Edward–Hastings and I toured DeCew number 1—it was built in 1898; it’s still operating. My point is that it’s paid for. It has long been paid for. In fact, the generator was hand-wound by Nikola Tesla himself and it still is operating today. That is how we used to have clean, green, affordable, reliable, renewable energy—

Mr. Todd Smith: Now we’re wasting it.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —and now we’re wasting billions of dollars on wind turbines that are costing us billions, when the federal government has said there are health issues. We’re asking for a moratorium on that.

We’ve learned that water that we spill over Niagara Falls cost us $300 million in lost resources last year alone. Add that to the global adjustment ticket. Somebody has got to pay for that waste. And then when we really make more power than we need, we abruptly shut down our nuclear plants. Now, Speaker, we did that four times last July. They are not designed to be shut down like that. This is how money adds up that costs our seniors and our families. It comes on their bills, because for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

It was not thought out when that bill was passed, and so you have abruptly shut down nuclear plants. When those are shut down—they’re like a rocket launch sequence—they take days to ramp back up again. In the meantime, to replace that, we have to fire up gas plants to replace that power while the nuclear group is reorganizing to relaunch that. So, Speaker, we’re spilling water, venting steam and draining jobs. That’s what this has come to in the province of Ontario.

Up in Timmins, Speaker, Xstrata Copper—this will be the final wrap-up of why this makes no sense and how it has hurt our seniors and people who used to work in Ontario. We pay Quebec to take that surplus power. Quebec then knocks at the door of Xstrata Copper in Timmins and says, “Look, we’ve got all this cheap power that we were paid for to take from you guys. We have all this cheap power. Why don’t you leave Ontario, move over, just over the border into Quebec and reopen,” and Xstrata Copper, tempted by half-price energy, said yes.

Speaker, they dropped 670 employees in Timmins, a community of 45,000 men and women—670 are gone. They’ve now moved into the province of Quebec and reopened work at the smelter there for cheap energy. This is what’s causing the draining of jobs in Ontario. This is why your seniors cannot afford to pay their hydro bill.

This government has mismanaged the economy. Today we have 600,000 unemployed in Ontario, 300,000 fewer people working in the manufacturing sector, just what the Auditor General told us. For every job created in the so-called green energy sector, we lose two to four jobs in other manufacturing sectors.

If Xstrata Copper in Timmins isn’t the poster child for that expression from the Auditor General, I don’t know what better example there is: 670 are lost for cheap power just across the border, we have seniors who can’t open their bill, and here we are, called back to talk about something to distract us from the election in Kitchener, when we should be talking about energy and why seniors cannot afford to pay their energy bills today, never mind having any money to look at this home tax credit. They don’t have the $10,000 to put into it. They don’t have the money to pay their hydro bill every month.

So, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to open up the discussion on what seniors really want to talk about.

Third 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 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from Pickering–Scarborough East.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning, Speaker. Welcome back. Great to see you in the chair.

It is my privilege to introduce some students from the University of Waterloo co-op program, here in the members’ gallery to my right: Renée Sambrook and Matt Botelho. If you guys could stand up. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your first assignment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, with a lot of sound and fury, you announced that we’d have an emergency session of the Legislature. It came in like some kind of legislative lion but quickly transformed into a lame duck session. You had a partial wage freeze, one of 4,000. It was like a wage freeze on training wheels, but no true action.

Premier, if we really want to get at the root of the problem, to actually reduce the size and cost of government, why don’t we use this additional session, instead of spinning our wheels, to do the right thing and bring in an across-the-board wage freeze for all of us—doctors, teachers, MPPs, OPSEU workers? It’s fair; it’s reasonable; it will save us $2 billion a year. Let’s just get on with it. Take some action, Premier, and bring in a wage freeze for all of us.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question by my honourable colleague, and I understand the position he’s putting forward. I say again I can’t agree with him.

I appreciate the support they’re providing with respect to our Putting Students First legislation. I think it’s doing exactly what we need to do. It’s going to address the automatic pay hike that otherwise would have occurred, it’s going to hit the pause button on teacher pay, and it’s going to ensure that we have stability in our schools, which is exactly what families want.

But with respect to the other request being made by my honourable colleague on an ongoing basis, we can’t do that, because it would be subject to attacks in the courts, which I think would be justifiable. There is an element of process here that we have to respect. We’re doing that with this particular legislation that is before the House at present, and we’ll find a way to do it with respect to other public sector employees going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The unfortunate reality is that there has been a transparent phoniness to this legislative session. It was supposed to be a time to actually get serious about the debt crisis, and we saw maybe baby steps. With due apologies to Winston Churchill, never have so many come running from so far, so fast, for so little.

Let me try one more, Premier, and that’s the end of these bankable sick days in the province, a benefit that has no grounding in the reality of families who are struggling to pay the bills. Isn’t it time to end this practice where, for example, firefighters can cash in sick days they’ve not used, to the tune of $50,000, like poker chips at a casino? Premier, if you want to be serious about the fiscal situation, why don’t you end this practice across the board for all of us in the broader public sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are addressing it through our Putting Students First legislation. We think, as an employer, it is a practice that we can no longer afford. It is something that was already stopped with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police. Insofar as municipal employees are concerned, I’ll leave that to municipal employers to use their own judgment and make their own call in that regard. My honourable colleague may want to reach into municipalities and introduce some of his thinking there, but I think that would be unfortunate.

I have faith in the abiding wisdom of our duly elected municipal representatives. We will deal with our employees, and I’ll let others deal with their employees.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, I don’t know if the Premier’s arguments are simply superficial or just slippery. On one hand, the Premier says that it’s constitutional to do a wage freeze for teachers, but he says it’s not constitutional to do it for anybody else. The Premier now is arguing that he would end bankable sick days for teachers, but he won’t end bankable sick days for others, like firefighters.

Premier, you know this full well. You actually reached into school boards; through legislation and subsequent regulation, you’re going to end that in school boards. So you did move into the school board arena. Municipalities have the exact same relationship with the province as do school boards, so I don’t understand your reasoning, Premier. Why is it good for teachers but not good for firefighters? Ours is fair and reasonable: Eliminate bankable sick days across the board and save taxpayers money.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, that’s characteristic of the approach that was brought by my honourable colleague when he sat in cabinet during the PC government years. They downloaded new responsibilities on to municipalities, responsibilities that our municipalities could not afford. We’ve been working for the last nine years to take back those responsibilities, where they properly belong, and to accord a modicum of respect to our municipal partners.

I understand that’s their particular approach. They have all the answers to all the world’s greatest problems, Speaker. We don’t pretend to do that, but we understand something: that we are at our best when we work together and particularly when we respect our municipal partners.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, Speaker: I do regret the transparent phoniness of the Premier’s message. A man who for nine years opened the floodgates to spending is now saying he’s going to turn off the spigot. Nobody believes it, Speaker. With a wink and a nod, he’s going to increase spending if it’s a majority government. We all know that. People see through it, and increased taxes would pay for it.

Let me try a different tack, since the Premier shoots down any of the ideas we bring forward to rein in spending on a reasonable basis. Premier, you brought forward, in your budget bill in 2010, a massive loophole to allow bureaucrats to get bonus pay increases. We saw as a result that 98% of senior bureaucrats got merit pay increases, some up to 14%—

Interjections.

Mr. Tim Hudak: What the Premier has not answered, despite the fact I’ve asked this question multiple times—Premier, please tell me again, why did you specifically put that loophole in your budget bill in 2010?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated, we are going to change the policy that was established by the Harris government, the government that he was part of. The total amount available to employees in the public sector with respect to this pay-for-performance is actually where it was in 2003. But we do concur that it’s important that all people in the public and broader public sector share in this. We’ll be bringing forward appropriate changes to deal with that. I’m glad that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues found out about this after it was reported in the papers. We’re working hard at it. We’ll get it right, and we will have a complete freeze.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I still have not heard the rationale from the Premier as to why they created that loophole. We did point it out back in 2010. We said there was no justification for it. They maintained that loophole, and we saw the result, cause and effect—a 98% increase to senior bureaucrats. It’s like they got their hand caught in the cookie jar and now they’re trying to blame the cookie. We know who was behind that from the beginning, Speaker.

If you can’t justify why you created it, maybe you can justify why you’re not going to close it. I can’t figure out your logic. It was the wrong thing to do. We objected at the time; we object now. We’re clear; we’re consistent. Will you do the right thing? End these merit pay increases as part of an across-the-board wage freeze for all of us. It will save us $2 billion a year.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, during the budget process, we asked for their views on these matters. Did they respond? No. They rang the bells, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection: They walked away.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They walked away, absent without leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we are implementing a full wage freeze across the public and broader public sectors that will, in effect, cover pay-for-performance as well for non-bargained employees. We want to make sure we get this right. I’ll be bringing forward the appropriate changes over the course of the next number of weeks, and that will result in a freeze on pay-for-performance.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, Speaker, the Premier’s finance minister reminds me of that character in Casablanca who found himself suddenly caught in the casino and wondered where all the gambling was taking place. It’s like they walked into their office right after election day and said, “Holy smokes. Who spent all this money?” Nine years of runaway spending, and they want to go back on that path. We can’t afford it.

If you’re actually serious about this session, if you actually want to roll up your sleeves and get down to work, we’ve laid out idea after idea: an across-the-board wage freeze, ending the bankable sick days, closing the McGuinty loophole for senior bureaucrats, and an economic statement this fall that actually reduces spending, will reduce the size and cost of government. If you don’t like all four, pick one, pick two, but, please, do something and use the session to get serious about our budget deficit.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the Leader of the Opposition quoted Winston Churchill. It reminded me of something Mr. Churchill said in the British House of Commons to the Leader of the Opposition. He said, “The member opposite is a modest man, and he has much to be modest about, Mr. Speaker”—no plan. They want to cut taxes. They want to cut education. This government’s about protecting full-day learning. It’s about smaller class sizes. It’s a real plan that’s working.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to take a course of action that will result in the ultimate failure of the policy. We won’t do that. We are going to do it in a fair, responsible, balanced manner. We will achieve two years of pay freeze. We will manage performance pay. That’s the right plan. It’s about schools. It’s about health care. It’s about a better future for all Ontarians.

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member for—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Toronto–Danforth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —Davenport.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Welcome back, Speaker. Welcome back.

My question is to the Premier. Today’s the first day of school across Ontario; proud parents are taking their children to class, yet for months the Premier’s been insisting that the sky was falling on Ontario schools. Can the Premier tell us: Where’s the crisis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think if my honourable colleague checks the record, he’ll notice that I’ve never used that word.

Let me just speak to the importance of all of us as Ontarians celebrating the progress that we keep making inside our schools. Ontario schools have never been stronger. Ontario parents have never been able to have more confidence in the education we’re delivering to them inside our schools. Class sizes are down. Test scores are up by a dramatic 16 points. Graduation rates are up by a dramatic 14 points. The increase in university enrolment in Ontario has gone up by 26%. That is double the national average.

Ontario families are on to the notion of education in a big way. They wanted us to do everything that we can to continue to support good-quality, publicly funded education for our kids. We’ve heard those marching orders loud and clear, Speaker. That’s exactly what we’re going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the member from Toronto–Danforth.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker.

In a desperate attempt to win back majority power, the Premier insisted labour, peace and stability was at risk unless a simplistic and unconstitutional bill was passed immediately. He recalled the Legislature weeks early and, as late as last week, Liberals were planning to sit through the long weekend. Instead this morning, we’ve come back from a long weekend; kids are in class; and teachers are teaching them. Will the Premier admit that the sky was never falling?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m proud of the progress and the stability that we have in our schools. I want to commend Ontario teachers, Speaker. We have engaged them in a difficult conversation. It had to do with our financial circumstances—a need for us, together, to make an intelligent, responsible choice that puts students first. I know it’s been somewhat difficult, but they’re there today. They bring their usual professional approach, their devotion, their enthusiasm, their commitment to Ontario’s children and young people, and I thank them for taking on that responsibility. I thank them for carrying on a conversation with our government that has not, in fact, encroached upon the classrooms.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Unfortunately, the Premier’s desperate attempt to win back a majority will have a real impact. Constitutional experts tell us it’s likely to be thrown out by the Supreme Court and cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. In the meantime, we will have conflict in our classrooms.

Later today, the Premier will shut down discussion of his short-sighted plan. Why won’t he stop playing politics with our classrooms and push the pause button on this legislation before we wind up with a $1-billion bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s a good opportunity yet again for Ontarians to understand the markedly conflicting advice we get from the opposition parties. The NDP tell us that we’re being far too aggressive and we should not apply any restraint measures of any kind whatsoever at any time. They want to give teachers a pay hike. The PCs, on the other hand, are telling us we’re being far too timid, that we should completely ignore process and jurisprudence, decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada, and instead apply a solution holus-bolus across the board. That would not stand the test of the courts.

So we are in the middle. We’re balanced, we’re thoughtful and responsible. We’re respecting process, as required, Speaker. But at the end of the day, we’ve got to draw a line in the sand. We’ve got to make a choice on behalf of families. What we’re saying is we’re going to hit the pause button on teacher pay, and the money that we have available for education will go into keeping class sizes down, which supports teaching jobs, roll out full-day kindergarten, which supports teaching jobs, and continue to put in place the supports we need to get those test scores even higher and those graduation rates up even further.

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Earlier today, the Premier insisted that he wanted this legislation behind him sooner rather than later. But the Premier knows we’re headed for a lengthy and divisive court battle. Given that this is one that is likely to see the bill overturned, does the Premier really believe a lengthy court battle that could cost families hundreds of millions of dollars is in the best interests of students?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you very much, Speaker. As I’ve had the chance to say in this House before, we didn’t take the decision to introduce legislation lightly. But after six months of working with our partners in education, we felt that we needed to act in the best interests of students in taking these steps. As we have said on many occasions, if this bill is passed and then challenged in court, our position will be that it is constitutional, that we’ve respected the constitutionally protected right to a process of collective bargaining, and that, in any event, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this bill is both reasonable and justified in all the circumstances.

In the supplementary, I look forward to having an opportunity to detail the very significant differences that exist between Ontario’s circumstance and that in British Columbia.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the Premier. After months of warning that Conservative proposals were simplistic and unconstitutional, the Premier is now plowing ahead with a bill that is just as simplistic, just as unconstitutional. Does the Premier have any evidence to back his claim that this legislation won’t cost families millions more in the long run? Or is he once again attempting to buy short-term political gain by making risky commitments, knowing families will pay the price after the by-election?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I think it’s important to take a moment to acknowledge what this legislation, if it does pass, saves our province.

It puts in place the agreement that we’ve reached with OECTA. More than 55,000 teachers have signed on to that agreement. Just last week, about 3,000 educational assistants also signed on to that agreement. So we’ve continued to work with our partners in education.

If we put this agreement in place right across the province, Speaker, it saves the province $1.4 billion in this fiscal, $250 million and $540 million in the next—so about $2 billion. And it averts $473 million in additional costs. So there is a lot at risk, and it is a risk that we prevent the province from having to cross if we put in place this legislation. That is why we’re asking for all members in this House to support it.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, legal experts say this bill won’t stand up in court. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it violates the charter. The government says they don’t care, just like they didn’t care when they cancelled gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville, where the full costs are still unknown but already climbing into the hundreds of millions. Why is the Premier rolling the dice with Ontario’s classrooms?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me take a moment just to talk about the differences between the circumstances here in Ontario and in British Columbia.

In the BC case, the government gave 20 minutes’ notice to the unions that they were changing the collective agreement. As a consequence, they were subject to the Supreme Court ruling, which found that they did not respect the constitutionally protected right to a process of consultation and consideration in good faith.

In Ontario, as we’ve said, we’ve been at the table in discussions since February and we’ve been clear about the challenges that we need to meet together. Even now, we’re not closing the door on negotiated settlements.

Let me read from the Supreme Court ruling in the BC case:

“There was no meaningful consultation with unions before it became law. Union representatives expressed their desire to be further consulted. The Minister of Health ... telephoned a union representative 20 minutes before Bill 29 was introduced in the Legislative Assembly to inform the union that the government would be introducing” this.

That was the only consultation with unions before the act was passed, Speaker—very different circumstances here in Ontario.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, sources have confirmed that airport shuttle buses have been outside the campaign headquarters of your Liberal candidate in the Kitchener–Waterloo by-election. We also know that Liberal ministers have been coming and going to Waterloo to bribe voters yet again with their own money. But Premier, how did they get to Kitchener—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Michael Harris: Withdraw.

Did they wait in gridlock on the 401? Did they take the non-existent full-day GO service you promised and failed to deliver? Or did the ministers and Liberal staffers take the government’s private plane? Premier, can you confirm today, yes or no, that the government’s King Air private plane has not been used to shuttle yourself, ministers or political staff at any time during the last month to Kitchener–Waterloo?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think there’s a really important opportunity for voters in Kitchener–Waterloo to vote in the upcoming by-election. I think it’s a healthy exercise in democracy. There’s an important collision of ideas and political philosophies that will take—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are driven in our determination to score a victory there, but we’re also driving there back and forth in cars, Speaker, just so my colleagues understand. We look forward to the outcome of the by-election and we’re grateful to have had the opportunity to present our particular program moving forward and the progress that we’ve secured by working together with people in that community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: I’ll give you a second chance on this one.

The Premier must believe he can get frequent flyer miles for the evasive answers that he’s giving us this morning.

The government’s King Air private plane is for official government purposes only. It’s used as a campaign expense, and you know it.

Premier, don’t you think that voters in Kitchener–Waterloo would find it unsettling that they have to sit in gridlock on the 401 while you and your Liberal ministers use a private plane to take a 15-minute flight to Kitchener–Waterloo? So I ask you again: Will you commit to reimburse Ontario taxpayers for the inappropriate use of the government’s private plane, yes or no?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to reassure my honourable colleague that nobody has in fact used any government plane.

I also want to say: This is a rather desperate bid at this point in time. What about talking about our schools and the future of education in Ontario? What about talking about health care and some of the concerns people in Kitchener–Waterloo might have? What about talking about how we can better work hand in hand with organizations like Communitech, for example, or the universities and the college in that community? What about talking about the public transit system that we are continuing to invest in there? What about talking about the investment we’re going to make in a highway there?

What about the new family health teams that we have put in place? What about the investment we made in their hospitals? What about the new schools we have built? What about the new medical schools? What about the new school of pharmacy we put in that riding? You’d think they might want to touch on some of those issues here today.

Interjections.

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

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Next week, all the legislative committees are set to disband, regardless of any unfinished business. I know that the Premier will say that he’s anxious to hear a report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but the reality is that the public accounts committee continues to uncover new information and details about what occurred at Ornge, calling back witnesses and getting to the bottom of how this could have all gone so wrong.

My question is simple: Despite the fact that I’m sure the government side is anxious to hear from a report, will the Premier guarantee that the public accounts committee will continue to meet to do their important work on getting to the bottom of what happened at Ornge, and that next week we will continue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us have been very cognizant of the work that’s been done by the public accounts committee. I have the most recent statistics. It has now sat for 81 hours and heard from 56 witnesses who have appeared. It will be holding work this week.

The challenge that we have given to the public accounts committee is now that they have entertained witnesses, now that they’ve looked into it, that they come back with the types of recommendations that this government can use, that the Legislature can use, to make sure that the situation at Ornge will never take place again. We’ve seen the good action of the Minister of Health, but it now comes down to Bill 50, which we call on all members of the House to support when it comes forward.

As to the member’s specific question about the public accounts committee, I think the member should check with his House leader, and what he’ll find is the question over membership at committees expires next week, but the committees themselves will continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The scandal continues to astound not only the committee members but also the public. I thank the member for his answer.

The question is again back to the Premier. Ontarians want to be assured that this will never happen again. They want some guarantees that this type of lack of oversight won’t occur again in the future, but the only way we can do that is if the committee is able to continue its job and continue to sit past next week. So will the Premier make a commitment today and promise to Ontarians that we will be able to continue to do our work to get to the bottom of what happened at Ornge?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it’s passing strange that when we sat down, the three parties, to discuss the composition of committees, in fact it was the opposition that asked that that composition be time-limited, which means that on Sunday, technically, at midnight, the composition motion expires. We are holding discussions with House leaders as to looking at a motion being brought to the Legislature to talk about it.

But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t stand up here and criticize the government for something that they’ve brought forward. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee has had weeks and weeks to look into the Ornge situation. We are calling on them to bring forward a report which will help us, which will help this government and future governments, in making sure that the proper oversight is given to agencies like Ornge in the future. We’re also calling on them to pass Bill 50.

TEACHERS’ CONTRACTS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as you know, this Legislature has been recalled early to deal with the very important issue of Ontario students and families, ensuring that school starts on time and continues uninterrupted.

The Putting Students First Act is based on an agreement that the government reached with the Catholic teachers. Part of that memorandum of understanding with OECTA includes provisions around fair and transparent hiring processes. The party opposite says that this means that teachers will be hired based on seniority alone. Speaker, through you to the minister, is this true?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to speak to this issue yet again in the House, because it is absolutely untrue. Currently, there is no consistency or transparency on how new teachers are hired within and between boards. These new rules will ensure that boards and schools make hiring decisions based on a variety of criteria, including qualifications, suitability for the position, and the circumstance of the school, certainly not seniority alone. But jobs will be posted so young teachers know when they’re available, because this isn’t always the case right now, and hiring decisions won’t be based on who you know.

Accountability is absolutely critical in a system funded by public dollars. I want to be clear: Management will still make the ultimate decision about who to hire, but that role comes with the responsibility to create a process that can be accessed equally by everyone and understood by all. That’s what we are driving for.

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister, for setting the record straight. As an MPP, this is something that I hear about from my constituents. In fact, just this Friday I had a young teacher at my constituency office complaining about hiring practices. I have constituents who are young teachers who are smart, keen and so eager to gain experience in their profession. Many of them don’t know anyone at the school board, and they don’t know what the process is to apply for permanent jobs.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what will you do to bring transparency and accountability to the teacher hiring processes in Ontario?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Just as has been mentioned, I’m sure everyone in this Legislature knows a young teacher who is trying to get a job in Ontario and who wants nothing more than to use the skills that they have and stand up in front of a classroom. That’s why we’re so committed to bringing transparency to hiring teachers in the province. That’s what we want to see implemented across the sector.

Our strong preference was to see these provisions, by way of our Putting Students First Act, in every local agreement. But as I’ve said before, minority calls for reasonable compromise, and we’ll instead move forward with these important changes in regulation under the Education Act. The establishment of consistent and fair hiring practices will strengthen our education system, and it’s another way we’re supporting young teachers, just like the change that was advanced for this September where retired teachers will be limited to a maximum of 50 teaching days per year, down from 95, so that young teachers can gain the experience in our classrooms across the province.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. One hour of the Premier’s time: That’s all the committee that’s investigating the scandal at Ornge asked of the Premier. He refused the committee’s request to attend last Wednesday. He told everybody there was a cabinet meeting, and yet it turned out to be a photo op. So the committee offered the Premier an alternative date.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Frank Klees: That’s tomorrow. And he yet again refused to appear.

The Toronto Star editorial headline said this: “Let the Premier clear the air.” It went on to say, “The buck stops at the Premier’s office, and he should be prepared to testify to clear the air.”

Why won’t the Premier agree to do that? What is he hiding?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I was hoping that there might be a real question there, but there wasn’t.

I have spoken to this matter on several occasions in the past, but I do want to introduce a slightly different perspective on this. I think it’s time to put patients ahead of partisan politics. Ornge provides air transportation to over 19,000 Ontarians every single year. You would think that this was a matter of some urgency, this issue. The committee has sat for many, many hours, and Ontarians still continue to await the outcome of their deliberations.

They say it’s a matter of public safety, they say it’s a matter of tremendous urgency, and yet they keep delaying coming forward with advice and recommendations that we might adopt on behalf of those 19,000 patients who are being transported every single year. I think it’s time for us to receive those recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, what is it that the Premier does not understand about the committee’s request that he appear? It seems everyone but the Premier understands the importance of his testimony. Here’s what the Toronto Star had to say: “McGuinty has yet to explain, for example, why he said he’d only met Mazza once, when Mazza testified they’d met three times.

He has yet to tell Ontarians why he and his ministers brushed off questions in the Legislature 16 months ago about the ballooning cost of the air ambulance service and why it took a string of front-page stories by the Star’s Kevin Donovan and a damning report by the province’s Auditor General, Jim McCarter, to get the government to take this issue seriously.”

It goes on to say that Dalton McGuinty is the only one who can answer one more secret, and that is, according to the Toronto Star, “How did this fiasco happen on his watch?”

Interjections.

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

A gentle reminder to all members that when I say “thank you,” that’s the end of your question.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I acknowledge that the committee has been doing some important work, Speaker. I acknowledge as well that the criticism offered by an independent, objective third party, that is the Auditor General, said that we failed to bring the necessary oversight to bear over the activities at Ornge. He’s right, Speaker, and we accept that. That’s why we have made numerous changes, from the change in the leadership there to a new performance agreement.

We also have a specific legislative initiative. It’s a bill before this House. It’s Bill 50. We’d like to move forward with that. Just last week—just last week—when we sought unanimous consent so that it would receive quick passage; they denied us that. So they say this is not a matter of political gamesmanship, it’s a matter of the public interest, but I think that speaks otherwise.

I encourage my honourable colleagues opposite to conclude the work of the committee, give us the recommendations, so we can ensure we are doing our utmost to protect the safety of those 19,000 Ontarians who are transported by Ornge every single year.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Last night in Toronto, women and men took to the streets following the recent sexual assaults in the west end of our city, demanding safer homes, streets, and better supports for victims of sexual violence. Ending sexual violence requires dedicated and coordinated work from both the community and all levels of government, but funding from the McGuinty government for organizations like Victim Services Toronto has been frozen since 2007. Why is the government balancing its books on the backs of victims of violence?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to take a moment in this Legislature to acknowledge, once again, that sexual violence is prevalent in the lives of far too many women. It is brought to stark light when we see circumstances in our city that one in three women will experience some form of sexual violence in her lifetime, and that, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable.

Sexual violence has a devastating impact on the lives of victims and their families, and it will not be tolerated. That’s why our government has taken strong action in the past, working very aggressively on a complete sexual violence action plan that we released last year that included $15 million in investments over four years in public education, training and community services. We look to continue to support women who are survivors and to prevent this from happening in our city and across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: Torontonians have been shocked by the recent rash of sexual assaults in our community. Organizations like Victim Services Toronto—the largest and only of its kind—is one of the very few places that victims of sexual assault can turn for support, financial help and protection from repeated assault. But funding for this program has fallen in real terms by more than 25% over the past 20 years, in spite of greatly increased demand. If the government recognizes the importance of programs like this and their role in ending sexual violence, when will your cuts end?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me just reiterate that it is certainly our hope that the Toronto police will bring whoever is responsible to justice. We urge everyone with information to come forward, because we want individuals like this off our streets in our city and around our province.

Let me highlight the sexual violence action plan, which included $15 million in investments over four years in public education, training and community services. It was an example of the development of an action plan where we worked with the grassroots community, where we worked with rape crisis centres and our sexual assault centres across the province, and provided $3 million to Ontario’s 42 sexual assault centres to help them better respond to women in their communities, like those women who may be seeking assistance in these circumstances.

In those investments, we look to better support women, and we look to support all of the women, in the city and across the province.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, I was pleased to have the opportunity to ask the minister about health care services for the residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre and to hear her report on the important successes we have seen in our city’s emergency care. We have reduced wait times by ensuring access to care at the right time in the right place.

However, access to health care isn’t just important for my constituents; it is important to every Ontarian. Our government has proudly worked hard for our families, our seniors and our residents to improve access to quality health care no matter where they live in our province. However, there’s always more to do.

I would like to ask the minister how this government has increased access to health care services in other areas of Ontario besides my community of Ottawa.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That’s a very good question. Throughout Ontario, we have made significant investments to improve access to care, and patients are seeing the difference.

Perhaps today I’ll focus on part of our province: the Waterloo Wellington LHIN, for example. I’m very happy to report that 96% of people in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN now have a family doctor.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: That’s great.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That is terrific—96%. And 194 more doctors are working in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN; 102 of those are family physicians; 92 are specialists. That’s a 22% increase in the number of doctors. The population of that area is growing. It has grown by about 10% since 2003, but the number of doctors has gone up by 22%.

Waterloo-Wellington is not the only area that has seen improved access to care. In fact, across this great province, patients are getting better care, and they’re getting it more quickly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Improving access to physicians in any community is vital to reducing wait times for Ontarians. As we discussed last week, this is an important component of how wait times are down in my community of Ottawa. I’m proud of these accomplishments, most of all because the residents I represent are able to get the care they need faster and get back to living their lives. We all remember how long wait times for hip and knee surgeries used to be, and we all remember how wait times kept increasing due to chronic underfunding of our hospitals under past governments.

As proud as I am that we have experienced significant improvements in Ottawa, I think it is important for Ontarians in other regions to know how this government has been working on their behalf. To the minister: How has this government increased investments to reduce wait times in other areas of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member is quite right. We have increased investments in our hospitals: in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN, for example. At Cambridge Memorial Hospital, funding has gone up by 25%; at St. Mary’s General Hospital, an increase of 42%; at Grand River hospital, an increase of 61%.

What’s important is not the increase in funding but the impact that that’s having on patients. Those investments are paying off. Wait times have come down dramatically. Cancer surgery: We are now meeting our target; we’ve reduced wait times for cancer surgery by 43%. Cataract surgery: We’re meeting our target; we’re down 47%. Hip surgery: We’re meeting our target; we’ve reduced the wait time by 58%. We’ve taken almost a year off the wait time for hip surgery. Knee surgery has been cut in half. Wait time for an MRI has been down 28%.

We’ve come a long way, Speaker, working with our doctors, our hospitals—more to do, but we’ve come a long way.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Speaker, and welcome back.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, you claim that your government wants to get to the bottom of the Ornge scandal, but, based on your actions, all you want to do is run from the truth. In order to provide the House with an accurate recommendation, the committee needs all members, all witnesses, to come forward so we can get the whole truth.

Premier, you’ve now refused twice to appear before the committee and answer for your involvement in the mess at Ornge—just one hour of your time. Ontarians want and deserve to know: Will you stop cowering behind the privilege that protects you in this House, do the honourable thing and testify about your involvement in Ornge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m certain, if there were good questions that my honourable colleague wanted to put to me, he would have put one to me just now, Speaker, but he hasn’t.

Let me tell you a little bit about what we’ve been able to do, working together on the Ornge issue as a committee and in this Legislature, to demonstrate just how thorough it’s been.

There have been, until today, 470 questions related to Ornge asked in this Legislature. There have been countless questions as well that I’ve received from the media. They have received 56 witnesses. They’ve taken up 81 hours of committee time over the course of 16 days. They’ve examined thousands of pages of documents, and they’ve led to the production of over 800 pages of Hansard. It seems to me, Speaker, that the committee has been nothing if not thorough.

What we need now is to move ahead with Bill 50—setting aside the recommendations for a moment, move ahead with Bill 50, which enhances oversight and accountability at Ornge.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question again goes back to the Premier. It’s clear that the Premier is hiding from something or protecting someone. I would ask you a question today, but you would avoid it. That’s why we want you at the committee. Too many of your key players and Liberal insiders in this scandal are connected to you, the Premier, including former Liberal Party president Alf Apps, campaign manager Don Guy, Lisa Kirbie, Jennifer Tracey, and the Premier’s office’s current senior adviser, health, Sophia Ikura.

Out of all the witnesses that have testified before the committee, only two have refused: the infamous Dr. Chris Mazza was the first, and you are the second. We all know why Dr. Mazza was hiding his involvement from the committee. The question becomes, what are you hiding, Premier, and will you testify before the committee tomorrow?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: And none of that was rehearsed whatsoever, Mr. Speaker—none of that whatsoever.

Since my honourable colleague doesn’t have any questions of substance here today, I wonder if we might return to a matter of real substance. That’s Bill 50. It’s

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services. We’d like to move ahead with that.

We have in place new leadership at Ornge. We have in place a new performance agreement. We have the recommendations from the auditor. There’s an ongoing OPP investigation. But there’s something that we can do together while we wait for them to come up with their recommendations, Speaker, and that’s to move ahead with Bill 50. So I’d ask my honourable colleague and his colleagues in his caucus, as well as the NDP, why is it that they continue to oppose Bill 50, which enhances this government’s power of oversight over Ornge?

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. On Friday, this government announced the creation of the Northern Policy Institute, confirming what northerners have known for years: The Liberals don’t get the north. The last thing the north needs is another initiative or another report to tell us what we need. We know what we need. The problem is that this government isn’t listening. What the north needs now is real action and real investment.

My question is simple. Since the government has now admitted it has no plan for the north, will it commit today to creating a committee of northern MPPs who can provide real consultation and action to move our economy forward?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: On Friday, the members for Thunder Bay–Superior North and Thunder Bay–Atikokan, the member from Sault Ste. Marie and I were very, very proud to announce that we have and are going to move forward with the Northern Policy Institute.

With all due respect to the member who asked the question, it’s just another example of how out of touch the third party is with the wishes of northerners. They’re not reflective of the northern reality. Northerners, over the many years we consulted on the northern growth plan, asked for one thing: that we establish a Northern Policy Institute that would be an independent body; that it be made up of experts, people who are not appointed by order-in-council; that they ensure that they reflect the uniqueness of northern Ontario. We did that on Friday. We’re very proud of it, and so are northerners.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Back to the Premier: You’re not fooling anyone with this latest announcement. The problem isn’t that the north isn’t providing the input; it’s that you’re not listening to us. We have said no to the Far North Act, no to the closure of the travel information centres and no to this government’s backroom deals on the Ring of Fire. MPPs in this Legislature voted in favour of creating a committee that would bring northern voices to the table and would not have diverted $5 million from the northern Ontario heritage fund, but you said no to the north.

I ask again: Will you commit today to respecting the democratic will of this House and create a northern committee, or are you once again going to say no to the north?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The reality that we’re faced with here is that northerners asked this government to establish a Northern Policy Institute. The Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association and the Northern Ontario Service Deliverers Association all asked for the same thing: that we establish an independent body, a body that will focus on policy for northern Ontario, a body that is independent of government and that will rely on expert advice from around northern Ontario in order to shape the policy that’s going to affect northern Ontario.

The reality is that this is very, very popular across northern Ontario. The biggest reality is that this third party is clearly out of sync and does not understand the priorities of northern Ontario.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the minister responsible for the 2015 Pan Am and Parapan Am Games. Minister, over the summer we heard some very strange claims coming from the opposition about the games. It’s very clear from your previous public comments and from information that’s posted on the Toronto 2015 website that the overall budget for the games remains unchanged at $1.4 billion. I also saw that TO2015 has committed to ongoing regular public reports, including budget updates beginning in the fall.

Despite this, some opposition members seem to be claiming that the budget for the games is unknown. The strangest request is that they’ve called for the government to release details of projects that are currently under tender. Minister, could you please clear this up?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Oakville for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to clear up any confusion that may exist across the aisle. As the member mentioned, an updated budget for the games, as well as audited financial statements, are available online at the 2015 website, as well as the Ontario.ca Pan Am website.

Regarding procurement: Unfortunately, members opposite do appear to be confused about how the process works. The member from Barrie has recklessly requested that Ontario reveal specific project costs before we even receive the bids. Doing so would be irresponsible and would result in inflated bids. We’re not going to do that. Instead, we’re going to get the best value for Ontario taxpayers. That means we’re going to continue to use a procurement process that’s open, fair, competitive and transparent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Minister. I certainly appreciate that clarification. I only wish the confusion ended across the aisle, though, as well. Over the summer, the PC caucus appeared to be divided as to which financial model should be used for large infrastructure projects. I know that Infrastructure Ontario has built a reputation for very successful partnerships with the private sector. I was always under the impression that the PCs were in favour of private sector investment, but the member from Barrie seemed to side with the NDP over the summer in calling for Infrastructure Ontario to reject partnerships with the private sector.

Minister, can you confirm that alternative finance procurement is being used to deliver Pan Am projects and that this is also the proven method for delivering large projects of this type?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I, too, was also surprised by the member from Barrie’s position. In a July 15

article on Simcoe.com, the member is quoted as saying this: “This kind of public-private partnership typically ends up costing taxpayers substantially more.” But as far as I can tell, his leader disagrees. In a 2011 interview about public transit in Toronto, Tim Hudak said this: “I think we need to look at public-private partnerships for the infrastructure in our province.”

It’s very difficult to know where the PC Party stands from one day to the next. In fact, we are using a tried-and-true procurement method that has brought more than 50 alternative financing projects to market since 2005, worth more than $23 billion and saving taxpayers more than $500 million.

I’m very happy to confirm that the procurement for the major Pan Am venues is proceeding on schedule, and that the details of the budget and venue status are already publicly available on our website.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, a continuous flood of members from your cabinet have been linked to the Ornge scandal, from health minister after health minister, right to your current Minister of Natural Resources and now yourself. It doesn’t end there. You’ve been linked to the scandal through former Liberal president Alf Apps, though your campaign manager Don Guy, and countless other Liberal insiders.

Premier, third time is the charm. Ontarians want you to stop dodging requests to testify. Will you finally agree to come clean before the committee and millions of Ontarians about your involvement in Ornge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that with every passing question it becomes more and more apparent how consumed my honourable colleagues opposite are by partisanship and gamesmanship when it comes to the Ornge matter.

We accept our responsibility for not bringing the necessary oversight to bear. If I’ve said that once, Speaker, I’ve said it at least a dozen times. We’ve made some very dramatic changes. We have new leadership in place. We have a new performance agreement there. We’ve adopted wholeheartedly the recommendations put forward by the auditor. We have a lot of those contained within Bill 50, and we’d like to move forward with that, but my honourable colleagues oppose that positive step forward.

Again, I think the responsibility we bear in government is to uphold the greater public interest. That demands at this point in time that we receive recommendations from the committee so we can get on with the work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: The people of Ontario are wondering when their Premier plans to be open and honest about his involvement in Ornge. How many more connections to the Premier will it take for him to finally testify to the public accounts committee? Despite your answers in the House, or lack thereof, the committee knows that you’ve met with Chris Mazza more than once. In fact Alf Apps, in a memo, tells Dr. Mazza to downplay your meeting at lunch with George Smitherman. Premier, your fingerprints are all over Ornge. They’re all over this scandal. Why won’t you testify before the public accounts committee tomorrow and clear the air before the by-elections?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my honourable colleague, I know he’s still relatively new here but he should not allow them to do that to him. He should not allow them to do that to him.

I think the question that I would have on behalf of the good people of Barrie is, why is it that the opposition parties are standing in the way of Bill 50? Why are they standing in the way of us taking a positive approach that is solutions-based when it comes to addressing some of the issues at Ornge?

We’d like to bring the necessary legislative oversight to bear on Ornge. We can’t do that until we have Bill 50 become law. Again, I ask my honourable colleague and his caucus colleagues as well if they’ll lend us their support in that regard.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety. For over three weeks, Minister, the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre has been in a lockdown mode. The guards initially went out because management refused to allow them to take necessary safety measures related to weapons search. Despite some progress in working out search protocol, the jail refuses to allow the guards to go back to work. Your ministry and the labour ministry decided the situation was resolved to their satisfaction—not to the people who perform this dangerous work day in and day out.

Instead of disciplining guards who simply don’t want to work in unsafe conditions, why won’t this minister finally resolve this dangerous situation without any management retaliation?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the question very much; I had a question like this last week. I’ve met with the official of the union