 It is now time for a question period, the member of the Majesty's Royal Opposition. Thank you, my question is a premier. I'll call your attention to your Treasury Board, Managing Board of Cabinet document called 2013-14 Non-Tax Revenue Proposals. Initially when I raised concerns about the $270 million in proposed win liberal tax grabs, your finance minister said I was making it up. And then he proceeded to say when I presented him a copy of the document that okay, weren't making it up, but the bureaucrats made this up, I guess the bureaucrats made him do it. Premier, frankly I don't think that's probably true. I guess my question for you is, who ordered the government-wide increase in user fees? Was it you or was it your finance minister? Please tell us whose bright idea was this from the beginning. Thank you. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has sat in cabinet and I know he understands that what responsible government does is look at a range of options in discussing policy development, in discussing a budget, Mr. Speaker. So I know that the Leader of the Opposition understands that the document that was circulated was an early draft, Mr. Speaker. It contains ideas that were actually rejected in the planning process. But what it demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, is that this government looks at a range of options. Civil servants bring forward information, they bring forward possibilities, and then that discussion happens and the politicians make decisions about how they're going to go forward, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. There seems to be falling this line of reasoning that the bureaucrats suddenly came up with this. I think what it clearly demonstrates is an insatiable liberal appetite to increase taxes across the board. If there is a pocketbook out there that has not yet been fleeced, you've got a big target on it. Let me give you some examples of your more than 50-fee increases across the province. If you use a phone or a cell phone, you want to make it more expensive. If you drive a car or a truck, you want to make it more expensive. If you're a family who likes to take the kids fishing or camping, the win against you liberals want to make it more expensive. Premier, why is it that you're always lecturing on terriers who need to tighten their belt when you've done not one single thing to tighten your own? When is enough enough? Really, what the leader of the opposition is talking about is what I believe is a prudent planning process. It is only prudent that government would look at a range of options. The issues and the initiatives that the leader of the opposition is raising are things that were not included in our budget, that were not included in our planning process. But to suggest that somehow it would be prudent of government not to look at a full range of options, Mr. Speaker, is just not reasonable. And I was not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the civil service brought forward these suggestions without them being requested. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our government says, let's look at all the possibilities. Let's look at what we should... That's about the level it should be. Now I'm hearing it from both sides, those giving the answer and those asking the question. So please refrain. Premier, wrap up, please. Officials across government need to plan for numerous scenarios. Mr. Speaker, you cannot do that unless you have all the information. Thank you. We have worked with all the information. Final supplementary. Thank you. You know, Speaker, respectfully back to the Premier. She says, looking at numerous scenarios, it's not true. The only scenario you look at is how to take more money out of the pockets and hard working on terra minimum. And quite frankly, Premier, when we have 600,000 women and men who wake up every morning with no job, they look themselves in the mirror and try to convince themselves that today they'll get that job, and at the end of the day, at the end of the week, they still have no job. Not a single job will be created by this increase in taxes across the board from telephones to driver registrations to the cost of taking your kids camping. I guess the basic question to the Premier is, if you're trying to... Where is your options in terms of reducing spending, cancelling outdated programs, getting spending under control? Why do you always take taxes while you actually try to cut spending for a change? Thank you. Thank you, Premier. The initiatives that the leader of the opposition is talking about are things that were not adopted by this government. If the civil service talked about them, they were options that were brought forward. We did not go forward with them, Mr. Speaker. What's in our budget, Mr. Speaker, are initiatives that are going to create jobs in this province. A youth employment process, Mr. Speaker, youth employment funds that are going to create jobs for young people across the province. Investment in healthcare, Mr. Speaker, in home care that is going to allow people in their homes to get the care that they need. Infrastructure investment, Mr. Speaker, that is going to create the conditions for the job creation that industry can do, Mr. Speaker. That's what's in our budget. The member opposite is talking about our initiatives that are not in our plan, Mr. Speaker. Question. Leader of the opposition. Well, thank you, Speaker. I'll try to finance minister on this document because clearly the Premier hasn't read it yet. Your own document talks about on page three that you've actually approved a number of fee hikes already. It says proposals approved in principle. The others are things that you say may or may not be on the table because they're not adopted. I think what the Premier forgot to say is yet. So I'll ask the finance minister. Yesterday you said you ruled out photo radar, but that basically means you're ruling the other 49 in. So let's try this again. The Premier says these things are not happening. Will you today say that you're not going to put a new tax on phones and cell phones in the province? Tell us that. Minister of Finance. So, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had bothered to read the budget, he'd very clearly understand that none of those issues were adopted. And it was very clear in our budget in 2012 that we would review certain items. Let them read through and come to order. The PCs are obviously playing games with documents that we released under good faith to them, to the Justice Committee. We would expect them to have the responsibility. They asked us not to redact anything, so we released everything. And now they're using various documents. I'll start moving. Regrettably, I couldn't pinpoint the exact place where that word came from, but if that member knows that they said that, I'll allow them to stand and withdraw. Now, that goes for all members while I'm standing that I'm making an attempt to try to bring decorum to the house. Wrap up, please, finance minister. So, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the prudent measures that we've taken, we've beaten our targets consistently year over year. Over the last three, four years, $21 billion has been reduced from our targets last year alone, $5 billion. We're controlling our spending. We're taking the measures necessary to renew our economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Well, again, Speaker, I'm going to the minister address my question. And in fact, minister, your document says you have approved $22 million in new fee increases against on page three of your document. To give you yesterday, I'm happy to give you another copy if needed. The others are on the table. Now, the premier says that they weren't in the budget, and if I understand that conclusion, therefore they're not going to be adopted. So if it's that simple, just tell us straight up today. I think you owe it to Ontarians not to have another sneaky tax increase like you did with the eco tax. But tell us, I mean, is there a tax coming on the phone bill or the cell phone bill? It's in your document. The premier says it's off the table. Yesterday you said voter radar was off the table. So the next big thing, please tell us, are you taking the phone tax off the table? Is it on the table? Mr. Speaker, the member opposite. Look, that is enough. I will be coming to individual members. Minister. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is taking documents. And these are documents of early provisions and early ideas that were not adopted. And the officials that have provided these documents have done so and they've assessed a variety of risks and they've done so in the public interest in an appropriate manner. We, however, will not be playing games with these documents as the member opposite is trying to do. We've been transparent and we haven't wavered. More importantly, our budget in 2013 has very clearly outlined some of the challenges ahead. And we recognize that there are difficult choices to make. Choices that the opposition is not prepared to make in the end. So we will continue to do what's right in the public interest. We will consult with Ontarians and we will take the actions necessary for their benefit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm finding the financial answers, respectively, a little slippery here. So yesterday you said I was making this up and then you said, okay, then the document, but we're not doing them. And then you say, well, photo-rater is off the list, but the other ones are still on the table. You said they're not in the budget, therefore they're not going to have them, but then you're saying, okay, we're maybe going to have them. Just cut aside all this gray area. Just stand up in your place and tell us yes or no. What's on the table? What's off the table? Minister, are you bringing in a brand new tax on phones and cell phones? Question. Yes or no? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if a member opposite wants clarity, read the budget. That is what we're doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question, the leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. Three years ago, the Liberal government promised to conduct thorough proactive inspections of all 600 long-term care homes in Ontario by December 31, 2011. Can the minister tell us how many of these inspections the ministry actually completed? Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the member opposite is that every long-term care home in the province of Ontario is visited by an inspector at least once a year. On average, there are 3.7 inspections per year per home. Speaker, we have changed how we conduct inspections. I think it is absolutely important, vitally important, that when someone we love goes into a long-term care home, that we have the confidence that they are going to receive nothing but the finest possible care there, Speaker. So if there are things we can do to strengthen inspections, then I am absolutely prepared to look at those options. But I can guarantee you, Speaker, that all of our long-term care homes receive inspections every year at least. Out of the 600 homes in this province, the government only proactively inspected 123 homes. Now, is this minister finally going to admit that she broke her promise to seniors? What I can tell you is that we have changed how we inspect long-term care homes now. They are much more resident-focused. They begin with interviewing residents, staff members, family members, Speaker. So we have a more thorough understanding of the quality of care from the perspective of the resident. That is a philosophy that we have embraced, Speaker, and it influences all of the... Member from Hamilton, East Stony Creek, come to order. So, Speaker, it's important that everyone, and I'm talking now to the public, Speaker, the public who need to have confidence in the long-term care homes that the homes are inspected. The standards are high. There are many initiatives underway to improve the quality of care in long-term care homes. We have more inspectors inspecting the inspections of our girls. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Last week, in her local paper, the Minister of Health insisted that the government had never made such a commitment, saying, I quote, the intent was never to do all full inspections in all homes. Now, is the Minister now prepared to admit that that statement that she made to her paper last week was incorrect, that the Liberal government did promise these thorough inspections would take place and that they have utterly failed to undertake them? Absolutely. So, Speaker, I did not have the correct information when I spoke to that particular reporter. I had incorrect information. I now have the correct information, Speaker, and that is why I've gone back to my officials and said, we've been conducting inspections this way for about three years. Let's take a good, hard look. How is it working, Speaker? Are there things we can do to improve inspections? I think that's the responsible thing to do. As Minister, I take that responsibility seriously, so we are taking another look at the whole inspection protocol for long-term terms. New question? The Minister is quoted in her local paper saying, quote, now that I look at the documents and talk to ministry officials, I understand that initially full inspections were expected. Yesterday, the Minister claimed in this House that homes were being inspected, but that is not true, Speaker, at least according to the guidelines that her ministry set out. Now, how is it that the Minister of Health and Long-term Care doesn't know the proper guidelines for the inspections that she herself promised? The Minister of Health, Long-term Care. Speaker, here we go again. Let's be really clear. Every home is inspected at least once every year. So to suggest that homes are not being inspected is absolutely false. I think it's important to understand that there are three different kinds of inspections. There are inspections that are the result of complaints or critical incidents, Speaker, and we're working very hard to increase the number of complaints that are reported, Speaker, so we can get into those homes and fix what's going on. So there are other inspections that are performed when, in fact, there have been no complaints about a particular home. There is a proactive annual inspection there, Speaker. And in addition, there are the RQI inspections that take approximately a team of three people about 10 days. They're very intensive, Speaker. Those are the inspections that we have to look and see is there a way to do more of them, Speaker? Thank you. Speaker, is it a disgrace that this Minister refuses to acknowledge publicly that they only inspected 123 of the 600 homes that they were supposed to have inspected? And she needs to come clean on the facts in this regard. The inspection process promised by the government would mean inspectors would show up unannounced each and every year and could conduct thorough proactive inspections so that crises could be actually prevented before they actually happen. Seniors and their families have seen serious issues emerge in the long-term care sector of their homes in this province. And the government had promised action on this file, Speaker. Does the government have any intention whatsoever of keeping that promise to inspect every single home each and every year so that seniors can be kept safe in their facilities? Well, Speaker, with respect, I think it is a disgrace that the leader of the third party is creating the impression that homes are not inspected because they are inspected. So let me just repeat, Speaker, some of the numbers from yesterday. In 2003 there were 59... Remember from Hamilton East Stony Creek second time inspectors inspecting long-term care homes. New inspectors that were hired last year. Since July 2010 there have been more than 6,700 inspections of long-term care homes. Last year there were 2,347 inspections. That is an average of 3.7 times per year, Speaker. And every home receives at least one inspection a year. Once complete the inspection reports are published to the ministry's website so we have increasing transparency for the people of Ontario. We are also looking for final supplementary. Through this has nothing to do with impressions that has everything to do with the fact that this ministry broke its promise to inspect these homes in a proactive way. It's got nothing to do with impressions. Just the fact, Speaker. Just the fact. Inspections, thorough proactive inspections of 600 long-term care homes each and every year. Speaker, three years later 477 homes in this province still haven't had an inspection. And when the minister was confronted with this fact she denied ever making that promise at all. For seniors and their family speaker I have to say it is a stinging indictment of a government that seems more concerned with protecting itself and again than with protecting the needs and the highs of the people in these long-term care homes. Stop the clock. I'm finding that some of the heckling that's coming from somewhere else other than the party itself is interfering with my ability to hear the question. Wrap up please for quickly. Speaker, this minister needs to stand in her place and admit that she broke her promise and admit that it's a problem and that she has to fix it and protect the interests of seniors and long-term care homes. Minister. Let me repeat, Speaker. I have asked our ministry officials to come back with ways to strengthen long-term care home inspection. Because I do think it's important that people have confidence in the quality of care they receive in long-term care homes. The member opposite is mixing up, Speaker, the facts. The facts are very, very clear. There were 2,347 inspections last year alone. Every home receives at least one inspection on average 3.7. There are a number of other initiatives that are really focusing on improving the quality of care in long-term care homes. Whether it's the resident's first program that is measuring and increasing the quality in various parts of care, Speaker, whether it's the 10,000 more people working in long-term care homes, whether it's the 500 new behavioral support workers there. Thank you, Speaker. The member from WikiOschwa. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health. Minister, as you know, hundreds of physiotherapists have come here today to represent seniors and to protest your government's changes to physiotherapy services in Ontario. After consulting with organizations that currently provide frontline services, we've learned that your ministry developed these changes without consulting the designated physiotherapy clinics, the Ontario Retirement Communities Association, the Ontario Long-Term Care Association. There is serious concern among these organizations and even among your LINs and CCACs that the proposed changes will result in significant cuts to services provided to seniors. Minister, will you delay these changes until you've actually consulted with a physical therapist and talked to them? Thank you. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. You know, Speaker, I find it passing the range that the Conservative Party is standing in the way protesting change, Speaker. They seem to call for change to get better value for money but then when we actually come forward with a way to do that they resist it, Speaker. So whether it was our determination to reduce the price of generic drugs or whether it was our determination to control the costs of physician compensation they talk a good talk but, Speaker, they do not walk the walk. So let's say that we are making to improve physiotherapy services we'll be able to double the number of seniors in this province who will have access to physiotherapy. I think it's also important to acknowledge, Speaker, that the Ontario Physiotherapists Association are fully supportive of this change as are more than 40 designated physiotherapy clinics who are not part of this particular organization but have their own organization that it... Thank you. Supplementary. The member from Bruce Greenland South. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Minister of Health again a little rich minister after the eHealth and orange boondoggles. Like most liberal policies, this physiotherapy direction has disaster written all over it. This is just another short sighted policy but seniors are afraid your plan to provide physiotherapists through LINZ and CCACs will result in drastic cuts to their treatments. While you're giving us verbal assurances that seniors will not be limited to 12 treatments the budget for physiotherapy has been set on that basis. We know you spent $200 million last year on physiotherapy for seniors this year you plan to spend just $156 million. That's a $44 million cut, minister projected in spending. Are you planning on cutting service to our valued seniors or blowing yet another budget promise? Minister of Health, I'll take care. Well, Speaker, I don't know about you but I find it passing strange that we could double access to physiotherapy, exercise programs, falls protection, falls prevention programs. Speaker, the fact that we could double access increase our budget by only $10 million I think even conservatives would think that's the right thing to do for the people of... As I said there are many physiotherapy clinics, designated physiotherapy clinics over 40 of them that are actually working with us to make the appropriate changes the physiotherapists association of Ontario behind these changes Speaker, these changes the old system was broken it was not getting the outcomes that our seniors deserve to get many parts of this province do not have a physiotherapy clinic many, in fact I believe the member from Bruce Grey own sound does not have a physiotherapy clinic seniors will be able to access physiotherapy, yes they will Thank you very much, Mr Speaker my question is to the premier Nicol and Diming hardworking Ontarians by imposing a province-wide HST increase and increasing user fees is not our idea of a fair and balanced approach why is this government so intent on hitting hard working Ontarians with sales tax increase and new user fees while at the same time opening up a new $1.3 billion corporate tax loophole thank you very much Mr. Speaker and I do have to say that I am astonished by the question from the member for beaches east York it really seems to me Mr. Speaker that he would understand having been a mayor as part of the former former east York that he would understand that there are people across the GTHA people who live in his constituency who have transit connections around the GTHA they need to be able to travel from the 416 area into the 905 area they need to be able to travel back and forth to work to be able to get their kids from daycare to get their kids to school that he would understand Mr. Speaker that investing in transit and creating a dedicated revenue stream for transit in the GTHA is an investment in the future and it is absolutely critical to the economy and to the quality of life of people who live in this region Mr. Speaker thank you this new democrat understands only too well that this transit has to be built and new democrats at all levels are prepared to do it and the speaker hitting Ontarians with a sales tax increase raising driver registration fees adding another tax increase while Ontario families are having a tough time balancing the family budget coming to order fair and balanced why is this government coming to order hard pressed Ontarians while it continues at the same time to open up new billion dollar plus tax loopholes for our wealthiest corporations Mr. Speaker and as the member opposite knows the minister of finance has written to the federal minister of finance this is not a loophole Mr. Speaker this is an arrangement that was put in place when the tax regime changed Mr. Speaker we have written to the minister of finance federally to say that we would like to continue to receive that revenue Mr. Speaker but the fact is that without a dedicated revenue stream we will not be able to make those investments that quite frankly Mr. Speaker should have been made over the last 40 years we are playing catch up Mr. Speaker because government after government has not made the investments necessary and investing in transit and infrastructure has to be done in an ongoing way Mr. Speaker that's why we need the dedicated revenue stream we would love to have the federal government take part in that and put in place a dedicated revenue stream of federal funding for transit Mr. Speaker but I say to the member opposite we need the support of the people in this region we need the support of the parties across the floor to make the investments that will improve the quality of life and improve the economy in the GTHA because that's critical for the economy of the province Thank you for your question Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the minister of Aboriginal affairs in this modern economic climate many people including those in Aboriginal communities are concerned about finding a good paying job it's widely known that the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is higher than the rate for non-Aboriginal Ontarians with that said our government has put in place a number of initiatives and supports to help Ontarians all across the province during these challenging economic times can the minister please tell everyone in this house what our government is doing to ensure that sufficient supports and resources are available specifically for Métis individuals and businesses Thank you Mr. Speaker of Aboriginal Affairs Thank you for the question I do understand the importance of sustainable economic development opportunities for the Métis nation the Métis Voyager development fund that's providing up to 30 million dollars over 10 years to support Métis businesses Speaker this fund will assist Métis entrepreneurs and Métis businesses and companies in the resource sector to start and expand their business the goal of the fund is to make strategic investments that will really contribute to the prosperity of the Métis community and Ontario Speaker by supporting Métis economic development we are supporting economic growth across this province creating jobs for Métis and creating jobs for all Ontarians our government values and we appreciate the strong working relationship we have with the Métis nation of Ontario and we will continue to work to improve the economy of the Métis community because that helps us to protect everybody's job and everybody's economic future in Ontario Thank you again Speaker and thank you Minister it's good to hear that we're moving forward to help create jobs in the Métis community having a positive relationship with Aboriginal communities allows us to work together to maximize many of the economic opportunities I understand Minister we will receive provincial support in the form of 3 million a year for 10 years Speaker can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs please update us on the status of the Métis Voyageur Development Fund that he mentioned and details on how this program is helping Métis people in Ontario Thank you Minister In August our government met with Gary Lipinski the president of the Métis nation of Ontario and the Honourable Paul de Villiers and CEO of the Fund as well as his CEO Steven Morris of the Fund to launch the Métis Voyageur Development Fund It was impressive to see Métis entrepreneurs and business owners work first hand with us on this project In March at the Toronto Aboriginal Business Association we met Michelle Germain a Métis shop owner who grew up in Sudbury Michelle was honoured as the Aboriginal business woman of the year and transformed her love for fashion into a growing business at a boutique called Shop Girls on Queen Street West When Shop Girls opened in 2007 Michelle had to scout for designers to feature in her store Now her inbox is full of designers who are coming to her because they want to be a part of her of her operation This is the kind of thing that the Métis Development Fund is going to work on It's a bright future for Métis Remember from New Market Aurora Thank you Speaker My question is to the Minister of Finance Before I ask my question speaker I want to on behalf of Ontario families and businesses thank our Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty for standing with us for standing with us and rejecting this government's $2 billion tax increase so that won't stop the government either because they're looking to turn every government service into another revenue tool In their non-tax revenue document appendix after appendix is filled with creative ideas about how this government can go deeper into Ontario's pockets. Schedule A photo radar, red light cameras and just to show Speaker that nothing is off the limits This Minister's document proposes a 466% hike in the commercial driver's renewal fee for seniors over the age of 65 This question will anyone in the province be spared from this government's Thank you Minister of Finance Well Mr. Speaker I have to say I would have expected I would have expected the member opposite to take a little bit more care in the way he asked the question I recognize the politics I recognize the combative nature and the theater that is being played in this house but we have a much greater responsibility to the people of Ontario and the member made reference to the our federal minister I appreciate the work the federal minister does I did not however appreciate the fact that he came out with a letter when we've asked for nothing we haven't put forward any such increases we have not requested any support and we've made clear that we would do it together with the opposition and in consultation with the public I want to order supplementary Speaker if anyone is confused here it's the minister the fact of the matter is that we know full well that it's your agency everyone knows that you've asked for a 1% increase in the HST the minister of finance is simply saying it's not on he's joining us by saying it's not on what we are willing to do is to help the government find $2 billion of dedicated revenue to build our transit and we've offered to form an all party select committee to help him do that so we don't have to go into the pockets of ordinary working families and businesses who cannot afford it we have a $127 billion budget 10 years ago that budget was $71 billion that is an increase of $56 billion in 10 years can we find $2 billion of waste and efficiency yes and we're willing to help the government because obviously at the risk of sounding too powerful you might want to yell as loud as you can but I have the last word and I'll use it minister of finance thank you Mr. Speaker I think what is confusing here is that the member opposite has just said that we're increasing HST you're wrong because that is not what we're doing we have yet new proposals and recommendations are being made by metro links by a number of agencies by the Toronto Board of Trade by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce all recognizing that we have to look at revenues and we are looking at our spending that's why we reduce spending by below 1% year over year that's why we exceeded our... test laid down, test passed the member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke is warned and I'll respond to the opposite side as well finish your answer please the results, member opposite also reference our degree of spending our degree of our budget more years before it was only 27 billion the fact is our economy is growing that also sparks through the growth in our GDP and the strength of our economy Mr. Speaker what we need is a federal government if they're writing to us saying they don't want to support them thank you new question thank you Mr. Speaker my question today is to the minister responsible for seniors minister why is your government cutting seniors access to physiotherapy minister responsible for seniors Speaker I appreciate the question from the member and I'm sure that the minister responsible for health wants to perhaps deal with the supplementary question but let me say that as far as we are concerned seniors 218,000 more seniors are receiving the benefit of physiotherapy this is the kind of service that we want to provide to our seniors in Ontario and I'm very thankful that the premier and the minister of health are doing everything possible to increase the services we provide to our seniors and I hope that we'll get the supplementary and avalanche minister of health because it's a cut it's a cut we have been told that they will no longer have services after August 1 when I asked the seniors who needs physiotherapy in this room360 your father was a resident at Luther Village assisted living in Waterloo Elsa described the gains that her father has made in balance, strength, mobility and emotional well being from using physiotherapy. these gains are threatened because Luther village referred. The member from Anglington-Lords kept talking while I was trying to ask him to stop, and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities will stop. Please finish. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are needed services that improve the lives of seniors across the province. Minister, can you explain to these seniors who have been told that they will be losing their physiotherapy services after office first how your government will continue to ensure they receive the physio care that they deserve? Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Well, thank you, Speaker, and let's be really clear. Some seniors are being told they will lose services, but it is not true. They are being told that by the companies represented here today. The Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment is warned. Finish your answer, please. So let's be clear, Speaker. The Ontario Physiotherapists Association strongly support the changes. There are over 40 designated physiotherapy clinics that are working with us to ensure people get care, but the numbers, Speaker, are important. Because of these changes, because we believe in physiotherapy, we believe in exercise and falls promotion, 68,000 more seniors will have access to exercise and falls for mentions programs. Speaker, all long-term care residents will receive the one-on-one physiotherapy they need plus group exercise. In-home physiotherapy will be expanded by 60,000 people. Thank you. Clinic-based physiotherapy will be expanded by 90,000 people. New question, the member from Vaughan. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, over the last few weeks I've heard many news reports about weather mishaps happening all over the province. Ontarians have experienced everything from numerous thunderstorms over a short period of time to large-level flooding to even reports of a tornado touching down in the province. In communities across Ontario, there have also been incidents when powerful thunderstorms have brought down power lines, leaving live wires on neighbourhood roads. This is a concern with regards to electrical safety. And so I'd like to ask the Minister to please share with the House how the government ensures electrical safety is maintained in Ontario. Thank you, Minister of Consumer Services. Thank you, Speaker. I am very happy that the member from Vaughan has brought up this very important safety concern and I'm very happy to inform the House that in fact there isn't an independent regulatory authority to protect and educate Ontario about electrical safety. And that's called the ESA, the Electrical Safety Authority. The main focus, Speaker, of the ESA is to enforce Ontario's electrical safety code, raise awareness and educate people on how to keep safe when handling electric products of all types. In fact, in 2012, Speaker, the ESA received over 5,000 customer service calls, conducted over 450,000 inspections, that's 450,000, and carried out over 2,000 investigations and they recalled over 65 unsafe product speakers. This is a very important agency that is focused on inspections, supporting investigations and monitoring the marketplace to promote product safety. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her answer and I'm happy to hear more about the Electrical Safety Authority to understand that they are there to protect and educate the public with regards to electrical safety. But in situations involving stormy and unpredictable weather, like we've seen over the past number of weeks, I am concerned about further emergencies arising from mishaps involving electricity. While electricity plays an important part in our everyday lives, it can also be dangerous and is made even more dangerous when mixed with water and topped off with other incidents arising from stormy weather. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please share with us how people can best protect themselves from dangerous situations involving electricity? Thank you, Minister. Thank you. I'm always happy to share with this House Speaker information to increase public safety and the issues associated with that. The ESA has a motto in fact, Speaker, and it's called Look Up, Look Out. If there are downed power lines in neighborhoods, people should take caution of course and stay at least 10 metres away. Downed power lines may still be energized and pose danger. Residents should wait for their local electrical utility company to either disconnect or complete repairs before going anywhere near them. In flooding situations, people should not assume any part of a flooded installation is safe and that includes the main breaker. With regard to appliances that have been wet, you should never attempt to use them until they've been checked or serviced by electrician or service agency. I encourage everyone to visit the ESA's website for more safety tips involving all types of electrical situations. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. My questions to the Environment Minister. Minister, recently uncovered Treasury Board documents reveal that the Liberal government has been plotting to charge an additional $18.3 million in drive clean fees. Minister, as I'm sure you know from talking with former Environment Minister Norm Sterling, this program was supposed to be phased out 10 years after its inception as technology and fuel starts to improve. Well, that time has come and gone, yet you're not planning a phasing. Instead, you're planning to make the program permanent and you've even... Complete, please. You've even been caught devising the scheme to impose nearly $20 million in new fees. So, Minister, will you for once be honest with Ontarians and admit you're only continuing this program for the money, not for the environment? Once again, I say, here we are in Clean Air Week, Tomorrow Clean Air Day, and the Conservative Party is launching its war on clean air. Exactly. The people of this... The largest source of smog in the province of Ontario at this time comes from vehicles. Exactly. This program, which has been endorsed by the Environmental Commissioner, who is appointed by all members of this House, Gordon Miller, by the doctors for the environment who have said that this is absolutely essential to having a profound effect on improving air quality in this province, and here the Conservative Party is, an environment launching yet another attack on a program which is having a profound effect positively on air quality. Thank you. I believe somebody on this side has been warned. I'm not sure. Just a reminder. Supplementary? Thanks, Speaker. Minister, your responses on this issue prove you'll stop at nothing to continue this temporary program indefinitely. Keep the money coming. Last December, the Auditor General reported that the government collects $30 million a year in fees for drive clean but only spends $19 million to operate the program. That means there's already an $11 million surplus. Now, recently uncovered Treasury Board documents reveal you want to secretly hike drive clean fees again to increase the surplus to $30 million. When asked about this scheme yesterday, the Finance Minister would not rule out these fee hikes. So, Minister, will you do the right thing today and show some leadership to your tax and spend caucus for a change by renouncing this blatant attempt to fleece taxpayers? Keep the money coming. Mr. Speaker, as the Treasury of the province said in his response, all of these options are put forward to every government that exists out there. The government rejected those options available. Now, I have the advantage of having been here when a previous Mike Harris was the Premier of this province. And there wasn't a day that went by that not that they look at implementing these increases in fees, but they actually implemented them. The last figure I saw was 978 fee increases under the Conservative government. There's probably far more. I could not calculate them. I'm sure I'm going to try to get some help from my friend, the government house leader. You people increase fees every day. Our government rejected those fee increases. New question, the member from Nicolville. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health. Today, Boss Loads of Ontarians have joined us at Queen's Park. They come from small rural and northern communities. They are here to bring attention to the deep cuts their hospitals are facing in communities like Picton, Prince Edward County, Chatham, Wallisburg, Perth, Smith's Fall, Airacore Fall, Quinty West, St. Joseph, Manitoulin Island, and the list goes on. Basic hospital services are being threatened. My question is simple. Does the minister think it is her responsibility to provide hospital services to all Ontarians or only those living in urban area? Mr. Speaker, our commitment to small rural hospitals is strong because we know how important those hospitals are to those communities, and we want people to get the same access to care no matter where they live in the province. And that's why we've increased our investment in small rural hospitals by $90 million since 2003. We've built four new rural hospitals, Speaker, and in addition, and I think this is important, Speaker, our budget that I hope will be passed includes a special 1% base increase only for those small rural hospitals, and it builds on something that we did last year, Speaker, that was a special $20 million transformation fund for those small rural hospitals. We saw fantastic results from that fund this past year, and so we are going to continue to do that, not just this year, but into the future as well. So small rural hospitals are vitally important for part of our healthcare system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ontarians living in small rural or northern community need access to hospital services. After years of cuts to their emergency department, to their acute care services, and to dozens of hospital programs, there is only so much a small hospital can take before it frankly ceased to function. This government has been cutting away at small hospital services for so long that most of them are at a breaking point. Is the minister going to listen to the people who are here, who make the trip from rural, northern, and small communities to finally work to protect these unique and vital small rural and northern hospitals? Thank you, minister. Well, Speaker, if you call $90 million more and neglect, well, then I just simply disagree with that. We do see those small rural hospitals as vital parts of their community, Speaker, and patients rely on them. You know, we're really working hard to bring services closer to home, so that many patients can leave if they need to go to a large urban hospital. They can come home to that small hospital more quickly with the right supports. So we really do see those small rural hospitals as vitally important. That's why they are getting a 1% base increase, Speaker. Our larger hospitals are not. That's why they are getting that special transition fund so they can take advantage of things like telemedicine. They can take advantage of innovation to provide even more care, Speaker, in the smaller communities. Thank you. New question? Member from Oakville. Thank you, Speaker. I've got a question this morning for the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Speaker, the House recently sent Local Food Bill 36 on to committee for further study. There are many constituents within my writing of Oakville. They're truly pleased with the bill, and they're very pleased with the support it received from all three parties in this House. The proposed Local Food Bill stood to be a part of a broader local food strategy, one that's going to encourage and support agricultural communities, producers and processes right throughout this province. There's one question I have, however, Speaker, as to how we gauge the success of this proposed bill and how we are to measure the growth and improvement without creating that standard. So, Speaker, could the Minister and Premier speak to the reasons why specific targets were not included in this bill? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Oakville for his question, and the Local Food Bill is indeed a part of a conference of local food strategy, Mr. Speaker, and will involve a contribution of $30 million, which was included in our budget, the budget passed, Mr. Speaker, to provide for the kind of profiling of local food, the kind of public education, Mr. Speaker, and particularly the creation of a positive framework for collaboration among communities, within communities, and all of the producers and processes, Mr. Speaker, across the province who are involved in this $34 billion industry, Mr. Speaker. This is a huge industry, and it contributes more than 700,000 jobs to the economy of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. So, we are committed to working with municipalities, working with the sector to make sure that we put in place those targets, those aspirational goals to make sure that we do everything we can to advance the cause of local food across the province, Mr. Speaker. New supplementary. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Premier, for that answer. I understand that encouraging and supporting the local food sector is a province-wide responsibility that's really popular in my writing of Oakville, because it's one that incorporates the strategy of our local food bill, and something that MPP, such as myself and others in this House, can go out and promote in our own communities, even if they're not agricultural communities. However, Speaker, there's always more that we can do in supporting local processes and producers. So, with the Minister and Premier, please update the House on what more we can do to integrate and boost the presence of Ontario-grown food, as well as raise awareness about the importance of local food in all constituencies in Ontario. Thank you, Minister. I just want to speak to the point that the member from Oakville raises about his constituents, and from my perspective, this issue of local food and the supporting of the agri-food business across the province is really it's not an urban issue, it's not a rural issue, it's not a small town or a large town issue. It is an issue for all of us across the province, Mr. Speaker. We all have an interest in making sure that the agri-food business in Ontario as long as it can be, and that we all have access to the great local food that is grown in Ontario. So, following question period last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I joined a lot of my colleagues from the House on the lawn of Queens Park for the annual Farmers' Market, and I issued an MPP challenge, Mr. Speaker, to spread the word and increase the awareness of local food and buying local, Mr. Speaker. So, I hope that everyone will visit local farms, food processors, get into the communities and find local, buy local, pick local. Thank you. Thank you. New question? Remember from Celebration 4, the next slide. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in the Treasury Board document referenced by my leader in his question to the Finance Minister, it clearly lists a number of user fees which M&R is considering, such as fish and wildlife license processing fees, fees for hunter education, exams and manuals and significant increases in commercial fishing license fees. All of these, of course, designed to help this government pay for its out-of-control spending programs. So, would the Minister assure the hundreds and thousands of angers and hunters of Ontario that he will not permit these fees to be implemented? Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member opposite for the question. I'm pleased to respond. Obviously, we've had some discussion about this this morning. These were proposals. They're not in the budget. The Finance Minister has indicated that very, very clearly the ministry is not proposing to increase these fees. You're aware that we've had consultation over the last number of years on this issue, and there have been slight increases going forward each and every year. We've done that in discussions with the Ministry of Tourism. As of January, there was an increase in January. That amount was 50 cents on the license fees, and there was and has been over the past number of years small increases, but proposals going forward will be done only with broad consultation from stakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I take that as a no, so that's good. I have another question. The Treasury Board document also proposed provincial parks and a crowned land rental fee for private recreation camps of 5%. Considering the challenges which Ontario Tourist Industry has faced in recent years, can you please assure this House that you will not support any additional fees which could further hurt Ontario Tourism at a time when we need to do everything we can to support that industry? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As part of our ministry's modernization efforts, we are making significant transformation with respect to various approvals and processes as well as fees and permits. But in each instance, there has been broad consultation around this. With respect to our parks, we certainly value the opportunity to review the parks model. We have 334 parks in the province of Ontario, 107 operating parks. We have had some small increases in park fees, but again, that speaks to the quality of parks that we enjoy in the province of Ontario for the millions of visitors that visit our particular parks. Say to the member opposite that we will continue the dialogue and only with public discussion will those fees be changed. Thank you. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Rents are unaffordable for many Ontario families. They pay more than one-third of their pre-tax income on rent. And we have rent regulations that limit annual rent increases to the rate of inflation. But, due to a loophole in the current law, tens of thousands of Ontario renters living in apartments or condos built after 1991 are not protected by rent regulations. When will the Minister close this loophole and ensure that all tenants are protected by double-digit rent heights? Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member for the question. I think we have a good record as a government of consistently showing a commitment to protecting tenants across Ontario because we know that stability in rent prices is so important, it's vital for tenants. And that's why we brought through the Residential Tenancies Act back in 2006 because we wanted to provide tenants and landlords with a strong piece of protection while fostering a robust rental market. Through the rental buildings built are first occupied after 1991 in November are exempt from most rent caps. These tenants are not without protection such as allowing only one increase per year which requires a 90-day written notice. We also established the Landlord and Tenant Board. This is an independent body with the authority to deal with disputes fairly between landlords and tenants. Mr. Speaker, we also eliminated automatic evictions allowing all tenants facing eviction and an opportunity to get a fair hearing because we believe strongly in balancing protection of tenants with the encouragement of creating new rental opportunities across Ontario. Thank you, supplementary. Last year the government passed legislation capping annual rent increases at 2.5%. The NDP supported this legislation but this law does nothing to help the growing number of people renting condominiums, particularly here in Toronto and other urban areas built after 1991 and some of those people are experiencing rent heights of 10 to 15% or more. Why won't the minister commit to remove this outdated loophole and ensure that all renters are protected from arbitrary rent heights? Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question again as I stated earlier the rent cap exemption was introduced and it was maintained as an incentive for private landlords to build new rental accommodation in communities across Ontario. Changing this incentive would have an adverse effect on the rental housing sector, the economy and job creation as it helps to create new rental housing stock and encourage the creation of jobs in the construction sector. Any changes to the residential tenancy act would require consultation with all affected parties because it would have a significant impact across the province. We work really hard to protect renters and anyone interested in rental accommodation across Ontario. Obviously we'll work with all of our stakeholders because we want the most robust sector going forward. Thank you. Member from Oshawa on a point of order. Thank you, Speaker. Earlier during question period I wrote Aboriginal Affairs a question and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker that the minister's answer would amount to a ministerial announcement or statement. The practice of this legislature is that such announcements are better to be made during ministerial statements and I would ask for your ruling and direct as required. Member from Oshawa does have a valid point in this point of order. The appropriate place for ministerial statements is in ministerial statements and not question period. That being said the speaker is usually not in a position at all times to know what is new policy or what is a statement on the policy. Therefore I would remind all ministers that the appropriate place to make a statement that is new on policy is in ministerial statements for response to be provided by the opposition. So I would ask the ministers to fulfill that. Having said that I would also like to remind the member from Willowdale if it's not a nervous tick that I would ask him to refrain from whistling. Premier, on a point of order. Sure, I beg the indulgence of the House. They are not present Mr. Speaker but I know that they are watching. It is my parents' 61st wedding anniversary today. Speaker in today's clippings there's an article in the Globe that refers to the fact that the Attorney General will announce legislation today at an event at the University of Toronto's law school and then it goes on to say that the bill will be formally introduced in the legislature this afternoon. Once again my point here is simply this that it would have been much more appropriate for legislation to be introduced here and then the minister makes his announcement wherever he chooses to do so. I think this is really quite frankly a disregard and disrespect for this legislature and I would ask you to rule on that. Hopefully to confirm what I already knew I am going to remind the ministers that it indeed it is the tradition in the convention of this place that anything new be introduced to the House first. That being said, there have been many occasions over the decades where that has not happened and I would also use it as a reminder for providing that reminder I would also use it as a reminder to all ministers that this is the place in which we introduce our first policies. Thank you. There are no deferred votes. This House stands adjourned until 3pm this afternoon.