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

April 9, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 9 April 2009 Jeudi 9 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WEARING OF PINS

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

REFERRAL OF BILL 147

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL

DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF

DE L'HOLODOMOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TAXATION

UNEMPLOYMENT

CULTURAL FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

GREEN POWER GENERATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RURAL ONTARIO

VIOLENT CRIME

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PASSOVER

BARBARA LAFLESHE

MOHAWK COLLEGE

EARTHQUAKE IN ITALY

ROUGE PARK

LAKE SIMCOE

VAISAKHI

PASSOVER

EASTER

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PETITIONS

PENSION PLANS

AIR QUALITY

PENSION PLANS

LUPUS

CEMETERIES

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PENSION PLANS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CORPORATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

CAREGIVER AND FOREIGN WORKER RECRUITMENT AND PROTECTION

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECRUTEMENT

ET LA PROTECTION

DES FOURNISSEURS DE SOINS

ET DES TRAVAILLEURS ÉTRANGERS

HEALTHY DECISIONS

FOR HEALTHY EATING ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

FAVORISANT DES CHOIX SAINS

POUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

CORPORATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

CAREGIVER AND FOREIGN WORKER RECRUITMENT AND PROTECTION

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECRUTEMENT

ET LA PROTECTION

DES FOURNISSEURS DE SOINS

ET DES TRAVAILLEURS ÉTRANGERS

HEALTHY DECISIONS

FOR HEALTHY EATING ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

FAVORISANT DES CHOIX SAINS

POUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WEARING OF PINS

Hon. Michael Chan: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members of this Legislature be permitted to wear pins in remembrance of the brave soldiers who made the greatest sacrifice in the successful battle for Vimy Ridge 92 years ago today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 7, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 162, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise today on a day when it seems that the contents of this bill are splashed all over the front pages of Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail. This is a difficult topic, and perhaps a little arcane to some, but it is a topic that I think is timely, and we need to discuss what is contained within the body of the Budget Measures Act. Just for clarity, for those watching on television, the Budget Measures Act is a companion piece to the budget; every year we are asked to comment on a number of measures, usually following the budget, and occasionally in the fall as well, when additional or companion documents are forthcoming.

In this budget there are really two key elements that I want to address in the time allotted to me. The first one I want to talk about is the pension benefits guarantee fund and the second one is the extraordinary measures that have been given to the Ontario Securities Commission and the ministry to deal with market volatility.

As I started out, I think what was said on the front page of today's Globe and Mail is instrumental to all of us to understand the magnitude of what is being suggested in this Budget Measures Act, and for people to understand the extraordinary powers that the government is trying to give itself for whatever rationale the Minister of Finance thinks important.

I'll just quote a few of the lines from today's Globe and Mail about what is happening. I think the very first line ought to cause some problems to members of government; it's under the byline of Karen Howlett and Greg Keenan, and the very first line says it all: "The Ontario government is moving to cut the support net for pensioners just as General Motors Corp. GM-N and Chrysler LLC teeter on the edge."

So what this government is attempting to do, by way of this act, is to secure itself and secure its own finances, possibly to the detriment of those pensioners who work for two of the largest corporations in this country: General Motors and Chrysler. That's what is contained within the body of this bill, and I'm sure that there are many people out there watching who are nervous, upset and unsure about what is going to happen to their pensions, their pension funds–whether or not they're ever going to realize them—who are watching very carefully what this government is attempting to do by reason of Bill 162.

The

article goes on in the next sentence to state: "Amid fears of a bankruptcy protection filing by one of the major auto makers, the province is moving to limit the amount of money it would have to pay in a pension bailout."

I think any cursory reading of this bill will show that the government is giving itself the authority to pay, but also the authority not to pay, and also the authority to limit the amount of pay, leaving the whole field wide open. It is going to be completely within the purview of the Minister of Finance. It's even being taken out of the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Not even the cabinet is going to have a say, should this bill pass. It's being left up to the Minister of Finance to make whatever decision he may choose to make in these times of economic turmoil, and that's what's in the body of the bill.

I think if I were a pensioner out there, I would be wondering whether or not my pension was safe, and I would be wondering a lot whether the bill is right in limiting the authority to simply one member of this Legislature. It's an extraordinary bill, as I said.

It goes on in the body of the Globe and Mail today. Skip down a couple of lines, and it quotes the Premier:

"Premier Dalton McGuinty yesterday described the money available as 'very, very modest.'

"'That comes nowhere near meeting any liabilities—for example, for the auto sector alone, to say nothing of all the other sectors,' Mr. McGuinty said."

So the government, in setting out its budget and in setting out Bill 162, has not put sufficient monies, but is asking this Legislature to put all the safeguards to save, blame harmless, the government of Ontario.

I go on to what else was said in the Globe and Mail:

"But the pension benefits guarantee fund is now in deficit, leaving it ill-equipped to address any pension shortfall in the province.

"'We would never have all the money that would be needed to top it up to meet all the demands for all Ontarians who are experiencing troubles with their pension plans,' Mr. McGuinty said."

I think the government is trying, in effect, to state that, in these extraordinary circumstances, the government of Ontario is not the group that is going to assist those whose pension benefits are at risk. I think that is very—I don't know. If I were a pensioner, if I was relying on my pension, if I was relying on the government of Ontario to ensure that my pension would continue to be paid after I had worked so hard for 20 or 30 or 40 years, I'd think that there is cold comfort here, contained within the body of this bill that the government is asking members of the Legislature to pass.

The Globe and Mail

article goes on to state, "The omnibus ... bill contains a provision to amend existing legislation, giving the finance minister new powers to deal unilaterally with such a crisis. Under existing legislation, the minister needs authorization from the Lieutenant Governor to make loans to the fund. But under the proposed changes, the minister could make grants to the fund on his own."

Now, I really don't understand why the minister requires this additional authority. Surely, the Lieutenant Governor in Council—that is, the cabinet—who has had the authority to make loans to the funds for the last 20 or 30 or 40 years, seems to be unilaterally giving up that right in favour of one member, and one member alone, of the cabinet. I would have some considerable difficulty with this.

I do know that the finance minister is a man who has considerable political acumen, and I do understand that he would understand, on the advice of his officials, what might need to be done, but it would seem to me that the cabinet has a responsibility—not just one individual, but the entire cabinet—to do what is necessary in order to make sure that these funds remain solvent, that the monies are forthcoming, that they're done in an appropriate way and that the cabinet is answerable to this Legislature, that all of the members of the Lieutenant Governor in Council are answerable to the members of this Legislature on their actions.

Instead, it seems that the cabinet is absolving itself of the responsibility and leaving it in the hands of simply the finance minister. I find this rather strange. I don't know—perhaps one of the members opposite can explain when they stand up to speak—why this action is being taken and why the cabinet, in particular, wants to change the duties incumbent upon it at this point and give it up, alone, to the finance minister.

The Globe and Mail article, skipping down a little bit, quotes Mr. Mitch Frazer, a pension lawyer at Torys: "'I really think it's the GM issue,' said Mitch Frazer, a pension lawyer at Torys LLP. 'This is the last remaining too-big-to-fail plan.'" Later in the article, "'The government is basically saying "If we have a whole series of bankruptcies, we're not going to be there to backstop the fund, let's make that very clear,"' Mr. Frazer said. 'All you need is one large bankruptcy and you wipe out all of the money in the fund.'"

So it appears that the government is attempting, through this omnibus bill that's got very little play so far, to go out there and make the changes so that it can protect itself, can protect the cabinet, can protect the Legislature and perhaps the government of Ontario. But at what cost to the people who have paid into, their entire lives, the pensions; at what cost to the pension guarantee funds and everything else upon which ordinary Ontarians rely?

Currently, if a loan guarantee is made to one of the pension funds—and we have seen some of those pension funds debated here during my time in office over the last seven years. I remember in particular one co-op that was having difficulty matching its pension funds and the debate that took place in this Legislature. The government was able, if it saw fit, to float a loan, to give money to the pension fund to allow it to continue to operate, to make it possible to restructure, to make it possible to make new investments that might prove more lucrative.

That's what has been done in the past, but the money needed to be repaid. Under the provisions of this particular act, the new law will not require that it be repaid. So on the one hand you have the government trying to protect itself, and on the other hand you have the government saying that not necessarily will the monies have to be paid back. This is all over the map and it's all being left to one individual, the Minister of Finance.

There is a new

section as well, talking about the new maximum liability as limited to the assets in the fund. Heretofore, someone who lost their pension would have been able to, I suppose, go out and attempt court action, would have been able to go to the courts and sue the pension fund for not properly managing the monies, and could have attempted, I guess, to obtain monies over and beyond what was in the pension fund. What this is going to do is limit the liability of any of the funds to the assets that are in the fund.

That is going to severely limit the legal rights of pensioners, of people who have paid into the fund over the long term, to protect their assets. There is a provision as well that allows the government to step in and then a provision that allows the government not to step in—again, leaving it all in the hands of one member of this Legislature.

There is one shining hope, though. I don't want to be always negative, because when you are a critic you have to look at all aspects of the bill. When you sit on this side of the House, you have to look at both the good and the bad. I have suggested some of the problems I find with this bill, but there is one shining, good thing—because I always try to find something good in everything. I am pleased to see that there is an ongoing actuarial analysis to increase the $1,000 maximum payment that has been in effect literally now for more than 20 years. In that period of time, inflation has eaten the money.

That $1,000 monthly, which may have been enough upon which to retire 20 years ago, certainly won't cut it today. I know there have been reports and commissions that are suggesting that $2,500 a month is more in keeping with today's costs of living. There is a provision within the bill and there is some allowability for an actuarial analysis to be taken to see whether or not the fund can be increased and the payments can be increased from the current maximum of $1,000 a month to $2,500. That is a good thing, and I commend whoever put this into the bill for looking ahead long-term, at least in this aspect.

Again, to go back, I do find it troubling, and I think today's Globe and Mail found it troubling as well, that at a time of economic downturn, at a time when General Motors, Chrysler, the parts manufacturers and many industries across this province are having problems paying into and supporting the funds necessary for pensions, the government is taking upon itself extraordinary authority both to do good and not do good, to allow ministers to intervene and give them the authority to choose not to intervene.

It's all contained here within the body of what one can only describe as a very amorphous bill, an ethereal bill, one that really would shift with the winds and could produce good results and, again, could produce very bad results for the pensioners of Ontario.

On this particular aspect—and I'll get into some of the others in the bill—I believe that we need to have very strong public hearings. I believe that the people from the pension funds and the pensioners who may be affected should have an opportunity to come before a committee of this Legislature, likely the finance committee, upon which I sit, and talk about the merits or non-merits of what is being contained here. When people pay into a pension their entire lives, when they rely upon that pension at the time they are 65, they want to know that it's there.

Anyone and any action that will take it away or reduce it in any way would have deleterious consequences to the pensions and people who rely on them. So I'm hoping that the government is going to allow for some considerable discussion in committee and would be open to changes that may be suggested by pension fund managers and ordinary pension recipients to make sure that what has been paid in and what is being relied upon remains secure.

The second aspect of the bill that I want to talk about is the Commodity Futures Act and the Securities Act. This is a part of the bill which I suppose we could expect, given the turmoil that is happening in the stock markets not only in Ontario, but elsewhere in Canada and around the world. What is being proposed here within the body of this bill is that very substantial amendments will be made to the Commodity Futures Act and the Securities Act, giving the province and the Ontario Securities Commission the powers to take immediate action in extraordinary circumstances—essentially extreme market volatility—to protect the public interest.

Ordinarily, I would say this is a pretty good thing, because the market has been fluctuating almost daily, going up and down 200 and 300 points on an almost daily basis. The volatility out there is enormous. People who have invested their life's savings in the market, people who play the commodities or the futures markets and people who have ordinary investments in blue-chip stocks have been taken on a roller-coaster ride over the last year or two.

It's trite—one need not belabour the point too much—to say that the Toronto Stock Exchange has gone from a high well over 14,000 points to where it is today, which is slightly below 9,000 points, in the last year, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fared even worse. People's entire life savings have been all but wiped out.

I think we need to give some kind of support to the Ontario Securities Commission and the government in order to make sure this volatility can be tamed somewhat. I take some comfort in the fact that this has happened in the United States. The SEC has been given this authority and seems to be acting in a similar way in the United States. We seem to follow, not lead, on this issue. But all the same, it is perhaps an idea whose time has come.

The criteria are set out for determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist, and the commission is authorized to make specific orders that expire in 10 days or less. Here we have an authority granted, but not really granted. It's granted for a limited period of time, and then that authority will expire. I'm not sure what kind of comfort that is going to give to those who have invested large sums of money in the stock exchange. But all the same, it is there. I'm not sure why the government, if they believe this is a good measure, has chosen such a limited time frame.

Perhaps one of the members opposite can stand up and explain why, if you think it's such a good idea, you are limiting that authority for a 10-day period only.

I know the members opposite, most of whom believe in the system and what happens down at the stock exchange, would be supportive of a very open and free market. But at the same time, they are taking actions here that would close it off in the short term for up to 10 days. I need to understand from the members opposite why, at this juncture, they believe the market cannot be trusted.

Because over the years that I've been sitting in here and over the years I have been watching the Legislature, I have heard most often, save and except perhaps during the years 1990 to 1995, that we ought to put our faith and trust in the market and the conditions. It seems to me that that faith is somewhat waning, and the authority granted to the Ontario Securities Commission to make extraordinary specific orders for 10 days is testament to that.

It goes on: "With the approval of the Minister of Finance, the commission is authorized to make regulations that are revoked in 30 days or less, but that can be extended." Again, here is a bill that is not really doing what it's supposed to do. If the government honestly believes you're supposed to rein in the market and give the Ontario Securities Commission or the ministry the authority to do so, it is only allowing it for very short periods of time but, on the other hand, saying it's okay if they make extensions. I'm not really sure where the government is coming from on the bill.

I know they want to grant these extraordinary powers to the Minister of Finance, and again, I'm not necessarily convinced that leaving it in the hands of one person is ideal.

As I said, what has been lifted here is from the securities commission in the United States. And although we follow them in many aspects, their market seems to be in even worse turmoil than our own. We, in general, would support broadening the powers of the OSC, and I should state that for the record. However, we continue to focus on the key conflicts of interest in the Ontario Securities Commission and the self-regulating parts of the securities industry.

I was in committee the other day—it was not the finance committee; I believe it was the government agencies committee—where the Ontario Securities Commission was called, I think, for the second or third or fourth time in as many months, to come and explain what is happening within that body and the efforts they are making.

Quite frankly, I am not satisfied that those efforts are taking place quickly enough. I do acknowledge and state for the record that after years of inaction on the part of the Ontario Securities Commission, there seems to be some movement to change their mandate and their body and their appointment process. But in many of the key aspects, including the adjudicative function, there has been no movement at all.

In terms of their constantly stating that they are waiting for the day that we can have one securities regulator in Canada, the question was put to them, "What about Quebec?" and there is no contingency plan if we never get down that road.

I would suggest that there are a lot of things that are still required of that commission. But what is contained in the body of this bill, at least in terms of regulating and smoothing out the huge fluctuations that are taking place, is supportable.

We also strongly believe that shareholders should have more say over executive compensation. I did, in the last Parliament, introduce a private member's bill, which of course didn't go anywhere. It was euphemistically called the Conrad Black bill. At that point, Mr. Black was still before the courts. That case has now been dealt with. But what we were seeking to do was to look at compensation that is paid to executives.

I remember some of the hoots and hollers that took place in this very chamber when the suggestion was made that maybe executive compensation was a little bit high and that maybe we should have some kind of a bill or a law in Ontario that looked at the compensation to determine whether or not it was excessive.

I know that many of the private enterprise and private marketers thought that whatever was paid was okay.

But I have to say that I think that bill would have gone a long way in Ontario, and if it was a template for anywhere else in the world, to change some of the excesses that we have seen in the market: in seeing General Motors and Chrysler and Ford hopping into their private jets and leaving Detroit and going to Washington; in seeing the compensation packages that have been paid out to AIG executives after the government bailed out that company in the United States, and then to see them walk away with millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds that were supposed to be used for restructuring the company and instead went into the pockets of executives because they had signed such lucrative deals.

It seems to me that this government should be looking at that, should be looking and including—perhaps, if not in this bill, then in the ones we can expect in the fall—whether there should be something akin to the Conrad Black bill to address and to look at how much executive compensation can take place.

We also believe that it is time for those parts of the capital market that are currently unregulated or insufficiently regulated, such as hedge funds, private equity, to come under appropriate regulation as discussed in the recent G20 meetings. This bill, unfortunately, is silent on all of these matters. We are in a time of economic turmoil. We know what other countries are doing, we know what other regulators are doing, and we need to be a part of that. This government has chosen, through this bill, not to be part of it yet.

But it is ongoing, and I would hope that the government, when it comes back in the fall or later on, before the end—not likely before the summer recess, but in the fall when it comes back with additional omnibus bills—tries to mirror what is happening around the world and particularly in the G20.

Canada, of course, is unique. We are the only country of the G20, the only country in the industrialized world that has separate markets in each one of the provinces. We're the only ones who don't have a national regulator. Until we get that, Ontario is, in my view, going to have to play the role of a national regulator. We are the largest stock exchange in Canada. We are the one in Toronto, through which most of the money flows. The others are very much smaller: Montreal, Vancouver—they are all very much smaller.

We are going to have to play the role here in Ontario until such time as there is a national regulator. We are therefore, in order to protect not only Ontario but the investors of Canada, most of whom invest through the Toronto Stock Exchange, going to have to do the same things that the G20 is currently looking at—that is, hedge funds, private equity and others—in order to do what is right. I ask the government, if not in this bill then in the next one, please start looking at that. In the absence of a national regulator, the onus falls upon us.

There are several other small items contained within the body of this bill, as there always are in omnibus bills, that are worthy of a couple of minutes' comment. The first is the Government Advertising Act, which will "extend the application of the act to advertisements screened at a cinema and to public transit advertisements" in addition to the present print and electronic media outlets. I found it a little strange that the government wants to seek to extend its authority on what can be advertised and screened at a cinema. The trailers of films? Somebody's advertising for candy or to go down to get popcorn? That will now fall under the authority of the government of Ontario.

Public transit advertisements: I do see them, particularly here in the city of Toronto, although I have seen them in other jurisdictions, most notably in Ottawa and Hamilton; the advertisements in bus shelters, in subways, at places where people await transportation. I'm wondering why the government needs that kind of authority. Quite simply, there was a question asked only a couple of weeks ago by the member from Kitchener—Waterloo—it was Ms. Witmer; I hope I have the right riding—about the advertisements in the bus shelters in the riding of Toronto Centre which featured, quite prominently, the Deputy Premier talking about

an act which had not yet been proclaimed. I don't know whether the government has taken this action in view of the question that was asked, because the bill came after that, or what the government intends to do to regulate what can be put in a bus shelter, the property of the TTC. I take it the authority was always vested in the city of Toronto, at least here, and in the authorities in other municipalities. It seems to me—and I have said for a long time now, and I think it bears repeating, that we need to give more authority to the municipalities in order to do what is right, not take that authority away.

I don't know why this government wants to get into the censorship angle of what can be displayed or how it is displayed, when that responsibility should rest with the municipalities. I think, certainly in the cases of the larger ones, Toronto and Mississauga and Hamilton and Ottawa, that they have done so admirably.

The other thing the Government Advertising Act does: "Section 6 of the act sets out the standards that reviewable advertisements, reviewable printed matter and reviewable messages are required to meet." Again, I don't know the reason for that. Perhaps there is a good one, but it's just something I want to flag for the public's attention, for anyone who might be watching this speech.

There are a couple of other smaller, related items: the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act and the Police Services Act. It's strange the way it's written. Again, I ask the government members to explain, or perhaps one of them can stand up and explain later in the debate what is intended here, because it says, "Changes to this act integrate islands"—and that's the word that is used, islands—"of non-OPP union employees into the main OPP union." I don't know whether this is consolidation that's been asked for by the Ontario Provincial Police union, by the Ontario Provincial Police, by Mr. Fantino.

I don't know why this is necessary, and I'm even not sure who's involved, but I think that those islands, those people, those unionized or non-unionized employees, need to have an opportunity to come forward. So I'm asking again, just so that we can better understand it in the absence of anything that has been said in this Legislature to date, that hearings ought to be held to allow this issue to be canvassed, to make sure that we are doing right by the employees and those who belong to islands.

The last is the teachers' pension fund. This "permits the Minister of Education and the executive of the Ontario Teachers' Federation to enter into an agreement granting the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan board the power to incorporate one or more corporations and invest assets of the pension fund in such a corporation." I don't know that they've asked for it. If they've asked for it and the government is in agreement, I certainly wouldn't have any difficulty with it, but I think we need to find out, and again, that is why I'm asking that this matter go to committee.

I will close in a minute or two, Mr. Speaker; I don't require the entire hour on this bill. But this is a bill with some contention. This is a bill that grants extraordinary powers to one member of the executive council; namely, the finance minister. It is a bill that may or may not assist those people who are losing their pensions and their life's pension plans. It may or may not assist the pension boards in properly meeting their obligations. It may or may not hold blameless or harmless the government of Ontario, depending on which provisions are being used.

At the same time, there are the provisions set out on the Ontario Securities Commission that allow for greater authority but not necessarily greater authority: a 10-day window or not necessarily a 10-day window; a 30-day window that may be extended or not necessarily that window.

Again, we need to hear exactly what the government intends and we need to hear from the experts who will be affected about how this is going to work to the health and the benefit of the Ontario Securities Commission and to the largest regulator in Canada. I haven't heard that, and I'm hoping that in public hearings people will come forward to talk about the benefits or non-benefits of what is being put forward so that the people of Ontario can understand.

In terms of the other bills, they're relatively minor. The Government Advertising Act: I don't understand why the government feels it needs this authority or wants to take it away, in particular, from the municipalities, or why they feel they have to go in to look at movie trailers or what is being advertised in the cinema.

I'm not sure how the changes to the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act and the Police Services Act are going to play out. I don't understand the use of the word "islands," and I think that needs to be clarified. I also want to make sure that what is being proposed for the teachers' pension fund, the largest pension fund in the province, is in fact what the teachers' pension fund wants to do, and how that will affect the people of Ontario. After all, this bill, as its main thrust, is looking at pension plans, and I want to make sure we are doing what is right by those plans.

In the end, what I'm asking for is an opportunity for all of this to come before the appropriate committee—I would assume the finance committee—and that there be some considerable dialogue between the people of Ontario, who will be most affected, and the members of this Legislature to make sure that what we are doing is correct. I know that in times of crisis, governments oftentimes react, and react badly. They react too strongly. I remember the War Measures Act—not to equate this with the War Measures Act—and how strongly the government acted to take away civil liberties.

I remember that the same thing happened with the Securities Act in Canada after 9/11, and how strongly government acted against the rights of the people of this country.

I am mindful that in these economic terms, and in terms of what is happening here in the Legislature, we may be reaching too far or not far enough. But I want a full and open debate; I want an opportunity for all those affected to come forward to make sure that what we are doing is correct, is best and in the best economic interests of the people of this province.

I'm suggesting that the government ought to set aside three, four or five days of hearings in Ontario, and that perhaps we should take this outside of Toronto, at least to places like Ottawa or out to Windsor and Oshawa to have a discussion on the pension plans, particularly as they are going to affect the Detroit Three, because it is a matter of some considerable importance. We are looking at $6 billion or more in bailouts, in terms of pension funds, and how this act is going to impact upon that.

I think it behooves us as legislators to listen to what is going to be said, to listen to the experts in the pension plans and how they're going to be affected, and how we are going to, ourselves, end up possibly being responsible for payment of billions of dollars to companies that may go into bankruptcy.

Those would be my comments, and I thank the members for their patience in listening.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand today in support of Bill 162. This budget reflects our government's fiscally responsible, prudent and balanced approach. Our government's highest priority is to help families and businesses that are caught up in the global recession and financial storm so that when prosperity comes back and the economy rebounds, we can have a more competitive and sustainable economy in the long run.

On the day when budget details were announced, I happened to meet with a small business owner, a photographer. Do you know what his first words to me were? "I like the budget, especially the single sales tax, which will save me time and money, all of which I can reinvest in my business in various ways, including hiring more people."

Our government has been building on the progress we have made. We have the best health care system in the world. I would like to share a story with you from a lady who suffered from breast cancer. Meera says, "Many individuals criticize our health system due to its long waits. Let me tell you that after all necessary lab tests, when doctors confirmed I had cancer, I got operated on within two weeks—just two weeks.... Is that a long wait? No way. This is the best system in the world, and where patients don't need to pay a single penny."

This budget will, I'm sure, provide a true stimulus in the creation of wealth now and in the future, and it will provide job creation. I'm very happy to support this budget.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The member talked eloquently about the budget and the direction it goes in. I believe this budget is totally wrong-headed and wrong-directed, as I think the member may agree with me, at least in part. To raise taxes at this point in time when we're entering a world global recession is putting the economy of Canada, as strong as the Canadian economy is—mainly because of the western provinces—in severe jeopardy.

There are so many things at play in the world economy. We saw some of them this week at the G20 meetings in Europe and some of the things that are coming out of that, with the US begging the rest of the world to spend at unprecedented rates, when the US has a budget that they have brought in that is based on a 50% deficit—50% of the expenditures of the United States will be on borrowed money. How sustainable is that, and what effect will that have on the world economy over the next couple of years? And Ontario is placing itself as a high-tax jurisdiction, which in that world that we might enter is totally unsustainable.

This budget should have focused itself on sustainable services, on a sustainable tax flow, on something that we could afford. This budget does not do that, and the future will show that this government has placed Ontario in an untenable position, and we will all be poorer for it.

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to comment on the comments made by my colleague from Beaches—East York. I thank him for his thoughtful comments.

I want to focus very briefly on the green economy aspect of this budget. As you know, the government has put forward Bill 150, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, to revolutionize the future in this province vis-à-vis green energy and creating and harnessing job opportunities in terms of the development of Ontario. This budget of course puts further teeth into that intention which is behind Bill 150 by putting a substantive amount of investment that is necessary to enhance green energy and the green economy in Ontario.

For example: $250 million over five years for a new emerging technologies fund that will include investments in green technology companies; approximately $390 million to match Ontario's share of the federal green infrastructure fund; $50 million over five years to enable the research capital and demonstration projects necessary for the development of a smart grid in Ontario—and there are many more initiatives along those lines.

One aspect I do want to cover, which I think is also important, is changes to the Assessment Act so that in the future, if the budget is passed, if people make their homes more energy-efficient, those enhancements to their home will not count towards an increase in their assessed value. I think that is a good step in the right direction by making that change, because we are aligning, essentially, our public policy in terms of encouraging people to make their homes more energy-efficient, but then on the other hand not penalizing them by increasing their assessed value. This change through this amendment ensures that those two features are totally aligned.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you for giving me a chance to stand up, speak and comment on the speech from the member for Beaches—East York. I know he's passionate about many different subjects, especially about social issues in our society, but I want to assure the member—I know when he spoke about many different things he outlined his positions, and I understand that he outlined the position of the NDP, which is fair. Many times, the opposition stand up in their places and speak about whatever the government does, and they take a certain position. In this regard, I know he doesn't support the budget, he doesn't support many elements of the budget, and supported part of it.

But this budget, I would assure him, came as a result of the circumstances we face in Ontario—the economy collapsing around the globe. I think that's why we took a lot of measurements, in order to support our pillars in our society, from job creation, innovation and research, social issues and infrastructure. In our belief, in our understanding, this element which we introduced in the budget, if this budget passes, would strengthen our economy and give us the way to go to the next phase of our lives, with the strength and ability to maintain our existence in this world.

I know it doesn't matter what you do these days—you cannot cover all the things; you cannot be perfect. But I think this budget brought a lot of good elements, and it speaks to the reality which we are facing in the province of Ontario. I'm very confident in our Premier and our finance minister. When this budget passes, they're going to create some kind of stimulus to our economy, create jobs and maintain our advantage in North America and also in the global market.

I'm looking forward to getting more chances to speak on this budget, hopefully, in the future. I will be able to outline my positions and explain to the people of Ontario where we stand in this regard.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Beaches—East York now has two minutes to reply to those questions and comments.

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the members from Mississauga—Brampton South, Halton, Ottawa Centre and London—Fanshawe for their comments, but I have to ask myself—I spoke for almost 40 minutes. I talked particularly about the pension benefits plan and how this particular bill is going to operate, and the extraordinary powers given to the minister. I talked about the Ontario Securities Commission and the extraordinary powers that were going to be given there under this particular bill.

And then the responses from my colleagues—I'm not sure whether I perhaps was not the most eloquent speaker today, but the comments from my colleagues were nothing about those at all. They were about their particular views on the budget. I never once mentioned the budget. I never once talked about the budget or whether I was opposed or for the new HST. I never once talked about all the contentious or non-contentious things contained within the body of the budget, because that was a different act. The members here seem to want to talk about that and not about the bill before them.

I am asking for some legitimate debate about what is contained within the bill, and I did not hear any back, with all respect to my colleagues. I heard about the budget, I heard about the green economy, I heard about health care, I heard about all kinds of things that were not even said once. I would ask them to pay attention to the debate. The people of Ontario have a right to know what is going to happen to the Pension Benefits Act; they have a right to know, if they are investors, what is going to happen at the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Ontario Securities Commission and through the ministry. That is what is contained within Bill 162 and that's what should have been responded to.

I take no umbrage because I know that oftentimes members, particularly backbenchers, only get a two-minute hit and that's the only opportunity they get to actually talk about something that they may want to talk about, but it's supposed to be a response to what I had to say, and I'm disappointed it was not.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Before I call for further debate, the member for Beaches—East York is quite right, and I'm glad he raised that point. As a former assistant Speaker, he is quite right that questions and comments are supposed to relate back to the original speech that the member makes. I know that during budget debates and budget bill debates there's greater latitude allowed in terms of what is debated, but the member is quite correct and I would encourage all members to keep that in mind when they are making their questions and comments.

Further debate?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'm more than pleased to join the debate this morning, but I will take advantage of my opportunity to comment on the highlights of the budget. I rarely receive that opportunity; I'm delighted to have it this morning.

In reference to a comment made earlier by the honourable member of the opposition that this budget fails to address the need to make our economy more competitive, I would say "au contraire." I think that what this budget does is recognize exactly the position that we are in in very turbulent times.

Indeed, I would go so far—and I don't think that I in any way am getting into hyperbole when I say that when historians look back at the turbulence of this time and the fact that we had a Liberal government led by the Premier we have, they will note that we had the courage, the wisdom and the wherewithal to look at and address the situation we are in and not resort to old policies and old ways of doing business that simply will no longer work. As the Premier has said, we can't do business as usual because it isn't business as usual.

We have to indeed embark on restructuring the economy of Ontario, and that's exactly what this budget has set out to do. I believe, as I've commented, we will be noted for that, that in turbulent times we had the wisdom and the wherewithal to address the economy and not to nibble around the edges.

The reason I'm very proud of this economy is two-fold, if I can just speak on two streams. That is to say that I think we are looking at the need to enhance a private sector, enable them to become more competitive, to continue to compete globally, by taking initiatives in tax reductions, by adding the tax relief that they need, by creating a situation where they are less encumbered by regulations, freer to compete, freer to show the world the kind of talent and resources that exist here in Ontario.

While we are busy doing just that within the ambit of this budget, we are likewise remembering always that this is a Liberal budget. And because it is a Liberal budget, our obligation is to those who perhaps are frequently marginalized; our obligation is to make sure that they have the safety net in social programming such as the Ontario child benefit, which is a hugely important tool within the social network.

We have combined our obligations, first and foremost, to behave as a Liberal government, to be there and reinforce all of the public policies of the past, and at the same time to enable a private sector to act and grow and be innovative at a time when it is extremely difficult in the current recession.

So I am disappointed when I hear the comments, particularly from the Conservatives, whom I've always understood to be the great champion of the private sector, when they fail to see just exactly what we've done and fail to recognize those initiatives and to put them into perspective, which certainly the economists, the media and generally the citizens and voters in my riding have done.

There is a great acknowledgment that this government has moved in all of the right directions—in our fiscal stimulus, in our initiatives in infrastructure and, if I can just move into my portfolio, in the enhancing of the tax support for Ontario's interactive digital media products. I will kind of wax a bit on that sector.

If we look at the new economy and if we look at where Ontario has to go and to be competitive, it is indeed in exactly that kind of an area—interactive digital. We are, with no problems at all, I think I can say, competing globally in that regard. We have the talent here at home. We have the businesses ready to continue to compete. This government recognizes that. This government moves forward to do exactly what that industry needs very much, and that is for the creation of, earlier, the tax, for making taxes in the creative sector permanent, for decreasing the ability of other jurisdictions to compete with us.

We have, in the creative industry in Ontario, the talent, the wherewithal, the companies and the knowledge to compete with New York, to compete with Los Angeles and to compete with anywhere else in the world where a company might be considering locating.

What are we doing? Through the initiatives in this budget, we are enabling our sector here in Ontario to compete globally, to compete all over North America, but we're also sending a message to businesses around the world: "Do your business here in Ontario." We're creating a tax structure with this budget like no other.

There is no other jurisdiction you can consider that can in any way compete with this one as a place of doing business, whether it's in the cultural sector, where I have the privilege to work, or whether it is in a variety of other sectors where you see Ontario moving forward like no other jurisdiction. I think that it's disappointing not to see any approbation from the opposition for the government's initiatives in that regard.

At the same time that we are doing all of what we're doing to compete in that regard, I think it's important to note, as I said earlier, what we're doing for that part of our society where help is most required from a government—by accelerating the Ontario child benefit, bringing it up two years ahead of schedule. The day after the budget I was home in Barrie, and I think that we received more kudos for that than for almost any other initiative. I was joined by members from the business community but also from many of the social agencies.

I'll tell you quite honestly that when the media chose not to ask me my views, thinking maybe I'm not as objective as I might be, but instead spoke to members from the social agencies there at city hall that morning after the budget, the comments from the social agencies were hugely positive and supportive of what the government's budget had recognized—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Wise people in Barrie; very wise people in Barrie.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Very wise people in Barrie.

If I can move from my particular responsibilities and interests in the cultural industries to the fact that I am also the minister responsible for the Seniors' Secretariat, I think much of what the budget contains there is very important. Our strategy to combat elder abuse is vital, and $1.65 million is being invested to help protect seniors by extending our strategy to combat elder abuse.

We make difficult decisions; we have tough days. We need to sometimes explain a particular piece of the budget, such as the single sales tax, a very important part of our strategy, an initiative we very much needed to undertake and had the courage to undertake. It's not an easy change, it's one that many people will need to shift to accept, but in doing that, we've joined other jurisdictions. Almost every member of the OECD—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is an organization of 130 countries—has a consolidated or single tax.

And when the Maritime provinces went forward with that in the late 1990s—well in advance of us, which is a little bit disconcerting, that at the time Ontario wasn't out ahead there, but we are out ahead in every other way now—there was a 12% increase in their GDP. So this works.

It's not easy, but Ontarians join this government in our courage, and Ontarians understand that these are not normal times, this situation we're in, where our media is churning out daily what's happening in our auto sector, where Washington is moving, where Ottawa is going. Ontarians understand that this government had to respond with courage as well.

They know, just like they knew during the time of the Depression, that we need to do things in a different manner; we need to pull in within ourselves and have the self-discipline and courage to face the adversity and come out on the other side, and we will come out on the other side, not only because of this government, but partly, very much, because this government has joined with the citizens in Ontario in rolling up our sleeves and doing everything we can to help us get through this together.

But if I just might come, then, to the fact that within the budget is a recognition of the role and pressures that are on seniors. The demographics show that seniors in Ontario is a sector that's increasing rapidly and disproportionately to other age groups. As such, there are pressures there. We have responded, for instance, on the property tax front. We had, prior to this budget, given relief of $250 to seniors who required it. When I go door to door in Barrie during an election or I'm out in the grocery store or other places and I meet seniors, they say: "It's not too bad. I'm able to stay in my home.

That's where I want to be, but I'm on a fixed income, and the property tax is a real issue." So prior to the budget, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, we responded to that, but in this budget, we doubled that tax relief for seniors from $250 to $500.

Further, coming back to elder abuse, this is an increasing phenomena, and one that gives me great pause, and my colleagues here with me. As I was saying, these are the difficult issues that we need to explain well to our constituents at home, to family, to friends, that this is why we did this, this is where we're going, and this is why we're convinced it's right.

At the same time, we have the opportunity to call people, as I did in ONPEA and other wonderful seniors' organizations, to tell them that the government has responded, as we did on the elder abuse. I can tell you that, without naming the person—she said to me, "I can't even talk—what this money enables us to do in our organization, which we didn't think there was any chance of being able to do—I'm breathless." So there are those very wonderful parts of the post-budget period.

Speaking about particular protection for seniors, we've introduced tough consumer protection legislation that helps seniors and other groups who are often the target of fraud. We've included increasing fines for real estate fraud, to $50,000 from $1,000.

There are many, many particular pieces that impact on seniors, whether it's the property tax, whether it's elder abuse, whether it's assisting seniors who receive phone calls that are very clever, very confusing, and assisting them in that regard on the fraud response.

I realize that building a budget is a very complex process. There are many competing interests. I think we've done as good a job as any government could have done to take all of those interests into account, recognize we are on the threshold of having to reconfigure and restructure an economy, and having the courage to go there.

If I can, I'll speak just a little bit more about the creative and entertainment cluster and how we contribute. With the word "culture," people think of lovely things. They think of the way we as a diverse society express ourselves, whether it's how we dance or what we paint in a picture. It's the song that we sing; it's all of what we see our museums and galleries promoting; it's the national ballet, the film festival in Sudbury, what we're doing in all of that regard. Indeed, culture is exactly that: the composite of our creative energies.

But what people don't always realize is that the cultural sector is a cultural industry. We are the fourth-largest contributor to the GDP in Ontario. We contribute in excess of $20 billion a year to our economy. The numbers of employed in the cultural sector grow at a rate far in excess of the average growth rate in any other sector.

This government recognizes, in the announcement that I had the privilege of making yesterday, just how important the infusion of monies into that sector is, and the impact and multiplier effect that result. In that regard, too, it's a global competition. You can see what they are doing in New York, London and Los Angeles to draw creative people. As Dr. Richard Florida says, where the creative people go, the economy flourishes. We know that, we get that and that's why we do considerable investing in that cultural sector here in Ontario.

A big piece of the cultural sector is film and TV production. The tax credits our finance minister has assigned to that sector—increased and enhanced considerably in the budget—allow us to out-compete other jurisdictions. The response you've had from the film and TV sector indicates their tremendous gratitude to the government for having the wisdom, foresight and the understanding of their competitive edge to go there and reinforce that sector by our response in the budget.

I think that it's important to understand, perhaps, the philosophy of a Liberal government. We are addressing—

Mr. Michael Prue: If you can explain it.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: My pleasure to do so.

Mr. Michael Prue: We'd all like to know.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The philosophy of a Liberal budget, if I may enlighten the member from the third party, is to have the courage to reinforce the competitive edge that this province has, to enable business—as I said earlier, and I don't want to be redundant—to out-compete, produce jobs, become the best place in which any company would want to do business; to encourage the people who will come to a place—the knowledge-trained people who accompany that kind of growth, who want to work in those businesses to do all of that. And we're doing that.

We're doing that with an understanding that it has to be done differently than ever before. We're understanding as well that the people of Ontario join us in their knowledge that this is not business as usual. But it's important to know that maybe we differ somewhat from former Conservative governments here in this hallowed place; that we do that so that we can produce the resources to reinforce the social safety net I talked about earlier, so that we create and maintain a balance.

When this government took over in 2003—and I was not a member at that time but I certainly have great pride in what they did—they had to put a health system back in place. They had to put a public education system back in place, and they did so in an incredible manner. By moving forward in a balanced manner at this time, it enables us to continue to invest.

Because we're growing and being competitive in producing tremendous revenue from the private sector, we will have the wherewithal to continue to reinforce all of what's important to a Liberal government, all of what's important to the people of Ontario, by keeping and making sure our health care system is there for us and our public education system is contributing to the knowledge-based economy. It's a virtuous circle, I would assure the member of the other party.

I'm quite comfortable to speak this morning. It's my first, if I may say, maiden speech in these hallowed halls, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so. Sometimes you just need to speak from the heart, and you can see that I used my heart more than my notes today, and I'm very comfortable to do that. I'm out in my community, home in Barrie, like my colleague from Peterborough and all of our colleagues, telling people what we did in this budget, why we did that. I assure you that although there are difficulties, there's a sense that together we can overcome the situation we're in.

Yes, everybody seems to know it's tough, but we're Ontario. This is a part of the country that has succeeded since Confederation and this is a part of the country that's always going to be on top. We will be the engine of this country, as we always have been.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It being Holodomor Day today at Queen's Park, I was going to try to be as kind and as nice as I could with the minister's comments. However, she provoked me when she said that we had failed to see what they had done as a party. Today's unemployment figures are out: Another 11,000 Ontario families are without jobs in Ontario. That brings the total since October of last year to 171,000. Think of a town in Ontario that has 171,000 people in it. That's the size of the loss in jobs since October of last year. That's what this government has done for the province of Ontario.

In this past report on unemployment numbers, there are 24,000 manufacturing jobs gone in Canada. Most of those have disappeared in Ontario. The unemployment numbers that have occurred throughout the reign of this government have been increase on top of increase on top of increase.

The government's projections are to praise themselves for the increases they have done in social programs and protecting people who are without jobs, and they have done precious little to help companies survive through these unprecedentedly difficult economic times—the worst time that you could ever imagine that someone would actually raise taxes on businesses, forcing another round of problems onto the small businesses here in Ontario. Those kinds of things are going to be remembered as through the Peterson years, when income taxes actually doubled.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the Minister of Culture because I had not heard her speak before in the House, and at the end I understood why: Because after a year and a half she has finally told us what she thinks. I'm so proud of her: I'm so proud of what she had to say, because I often wonder what Liberals stand for. I tell jokes about it on occasion in political speeches. But she wanted to tell us today what differentiated—what Liberal philosophy was. She told us that it's Conservative philosophy in order to accomplish social goals.

I think that's what she said in a nutshell, the same kind of economic argument—and to reenforce that, she even chided the members of the Conservative Party for not moving in the correct direction of business that the Liberals are. I think that was refreshing to me, to understand, finally, that she sees her role as a Liberal as being a Conservative who can then do social good with the monies that are made.

Part of the reason I'm saying that is because she waxed eloquent about how some of that money is being spent. She talked about the Ontario child benefit as if that is somehow going to alleviate poverty for the majority of people who live in poverty in this province. Quite frankly, although we on this side of the House and we in the NDP acknowledge that $42 a month is going to help a child, and some children in this province, what has been done for the overwhelming majority of people who live in poverty is nothing but a shame and nothing of which this government should be proud.

You are giving 2% to people who are disabled but you're not giving it until November, so it means for another six months there is no increase whatsoever to them. And in November when they get 2%, they are still abysmally going to live in poverty. Even someone on ODSP, even someone who is disabled, will go from the huge sum of $999 a month to $1,019 a month—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Questions and comments?

The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I will respond. My apologies; how long do I have to respond?

Interjection: Two minutes.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Two minutes. I just can't get over the opportunity of speaking in the Legislature, so I'm just going to keep—

Interjection: You've got 15 seconds.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: All right, 15 seconds? All I need to tell you is that what I told you and what you chose to pick from my speech are very much what I believe. I am very proud of this budget and it is exactly for the reasons I gave. It understands business in Ontario. We understand business in Ontario.

You know, the Conservative Party would have you believe that they have a monopoly on understanding business, yet federally, from a former life I once was in, they have done nothing but tax and spend to the point that we didn't have any buffer to handle this recession when it landed on the lap federally. But this government inherited a $5.2-billion deficit from these wonderful Conservatives that I watch every day. What we did, unlike your federal cousins who walked in and blew their surplus, is we walked into your deficit, we fixed it and we paid it off.

I watched from afar while this government had the courage to do that. Because they did that, they got to reinvest. They got this government to reinvest in everything that matters to the people of this province, so that when we age we have a health care system. I have children, and now grandchildren, and I know there's one of the best public education systems in the world in this province.

You know, we're the Liberals, and somehow we seem to do things that Conservatives talk about. So, yes, that's what we are; yes, we understand business; yes, we understand social policy, and this budget—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

It being 10:17, the debate on Bill 162 is deemed adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. Dave Levac: I seek unanimous consent from all the members in the Legislature, with the pins provided in the lobby, to wear the "five ears of grain" pin to remind us that the Ukraine remembers and the world acknowledges remembrance of Holodomor Memorial Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac: Today I hope we will be setting history in Ontario, let alone Canada—for the first time a tri-sponsored bill from the members for Parkdale—High Park, Newmarket—Aurora and myself, the member from Brant.

In the gallery to witness history are—and please bear with me—Olexander Danyleiko, the Consul General of Ukraine; Volodymyr Paslavskyi, the executive director of the League of Ukrainian Canadians; Borys Mykhaylets, the executive of the League of Ukrainian Canadians; Orest Steciw, the Holdomor projects coordinator; Chrystyna Bidiak, president of the League of Ukrainian Canadian Women; Halyna Vynnyk, executive of the League of Ukrainian Canadian Women; Andrew Gregorovich, from the Ukrainian National Federation; Oksana Prociuk Ciz, Council of Ukrainian Credit Unions of Canada; Paul Grod, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress; Marc Shwec, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress of Toronto; Valentyna Kuryliw, member of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress of Toronto, famine-genocide committee; Eugene Yakovitch, member of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress of Toronto, famine-genocide committee; Irene Mycak, chair of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress Holodomor commemoration committee; Andrij Wodoslawsky, member of the Ukrainian Canadian Students' Union; Mary Szkambara, president of the World Federation of Ukrainian Women's Organizations; Bishop Stefan Chmilar; Archbishop Yurij Kalistchuk; Walter Okipniuk, former president of the Ukrainian Echo newspaper; Harry Nesmasznyj, executive director of the Ukrainian Youth Association; Luba Kaipainen, member of the League of Ukrainian Canadians of London; Mykola Latyshko, Holodomor survivor; Irene Wrzesnewskyj, mother of MP Boris Wrzesnewskyj, the first person to introduce legislation of this kind in the country; Myhajlo Hucman, member of the League of Ukrainian Canadians; Grant Hopcroft, member of the League of Ukrainian Canadians of London; Peter Kryworuk, member of the League of Ukrainian Canadians and chair of the London Holodomor committee; Michael Szepetyk, president of the Ukrainian Echo newspaper; Wsevolod Isajiw, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre; and of course our friend Allan Rewak of Pathway Group.

These are our visitors for today's historic moment.

Mr. Frank Klees: As a co-sponsor of the Holodomor bill, I want to extend greetings to our Ukrainian friends this morning as well. Welcome to this place, and I want to say to them, dyakuju.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'd like to also add my voice to the other voices. Today, we really right an historic wrong. Today, we commemorate those whose spirit fills this place. I know that a cloud of silent witnesses watch as we enact this historic moment and also commemorate those who were lost. Again, I add my voice to the others. Thank you for being here.

REFERRAL OF BILL 147

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that the order of the House dated March 5, 2009, referring Bill 147,

An Act to proclaim Holodomor Memorial Day, to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be discharged and the bill ordered for third reading.

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

Motion agreed to.

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL

DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF

DE L'HOLODOMOR

Mr. Levac moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 147,

An Act to proclaim Holodomor Memorial Day / Projet de loi 147, Loi proclamant le Jour commémoratif de l'Holodomor.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

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

This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1025 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm not sure if they're here yet or not, but I'm pleased to welcome to the Legislature, on behalf of the member from Whitby—Oshawa, the family of page Noel Smith: Dena Smith, mother of Noel Smith; Laylah Smith, sister of Noel Smith; and Patrice Ralph, godmother of Noel Smith. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to introduce three great volunteers from the city of North Bay here with us today. Helena and Marty Brown are visiting me today, and we're going to go on a lovely tour of the park. Keith Pacey is here today as well from North Bay. All three of them are great volunteers and community supporters and I want to welcome them to the Leg today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I don't know whether she's here or not, but I want to welcome Tammy Tam, the mother of page Carmen Chen from the lovely riding of Markham—Unionville.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce visitors in the west members' gallery. The first one is Bill Jeffery, who's from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, Mrs. Kathleen White-Williams from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, and Mrs. Connie Harrison, who's a low-income Ontarian. They are here today to support my private member's bill.

Hon. Jim Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, Ottawa city council bestowed an honour on our colleague the Honourable Madeleine Meilleur by naming a street after our colleague from Ottawa—Vanier. We wanted to congratulate her. It is rue Madeleine Meilleur Way. Congratulations.

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais présenter et remercier le page Daphnée Dubouchet-Olsheski, qui est de la circonscription d'Ottawa—Vanier, pour le beau travail qu'elle a fait. Ses parents étaient ici il y a quelques jours. Je sais que c'est sa dernière journée, alors je voudrais la remercier pour son travail.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I'd like to introduce to the Ontario Legislative Assembly my colleague Charlie Angus, the federal member of Timmins—James Bay, who's here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome.

On behalf of the member from Sault Ste. Marie and page Sarah Nadon, I'd like to welcome her mother, Barbara, her father, Maurice, her sister Jayme, her sister Kayla and her grandmother Ida LeClaire, sitting in the members' gallery today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the Minister of International Trade and page Michele D'Agnillo, I'd like to welcome his mother, Tina, his father, John and his brother Christian, sitting in the members' gallery today. Welcome.

We have with us in the Speaker's gallery today two parliamentarians from the Legislative Assembly of Goias, Brazil: Mr. Jose Nelto Lagares das Mercez and Ms. Vanuza Valadares. They are accompanied by their spouses, Ms. Monica Costa Lagares and Mr. Eronildo Lopes Valadares. The group is also accompanied by the Deputy Consul General of Brazil at Toronto, Mr. Aldemo Garcia, and Ms. Maria Julia Adshead, consular staff. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, you should do an exchange program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member just asked about an exchange program. I received a very warm invitation for members to visit Brazil—

Interjection: Peter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): —and I know the member from Welland would love to participate.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to ask all members to take an opportunity to say thank you to this group of pages.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think we need to acknowledge that they set a new record in the delivery of the budget at 20.35 seconds. On behalf of the members of the Ontario Legislature and all staff here at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, we want to say thank you very much to all of you. We wish each of you all the best in your future endeavours and we trust that one day we will see you here as members. Thank you to each and every one of you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Minister, I'd like to read a quote from something that Premier McGuinty said while in opposition: "I think the government ought to be putting before us a clear plan which shows that we are proceeding surely, inexorably towards the elimination of the deficit." Minister, in the past two weeks, in opposition day debates our caucus has provided you with ample opportunity to do just exactly as your leader suggested: provide Ontarians with a plan of what you're doing toward the elimination of your long-term deficit, and ongoing detailed monitoring of the budget's implementation.

There are no accountability measures in your budget, so why has your caucus voted against measures you previously supported? Do they not feel their constituents deserve to know what you're doing, or are they simply bankrupt of courage and conviction?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I thank the member for his question. I'd refer him to page 89 of the budget, which details a number of the measures we are taking with respect to that. I'd also remind the member of the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, which this party passed subsequent to taking office in early 2004 and which provided, for the first time, meaningful accountability. We were the first government to submit our budget figures to the auditor for approval, prior to the last election, so that there would be no hidden deficit that was unreported. We've taken a number of other steps over the years which I will detail in greater depth.

I would remind the member that governments at all levels around the world are experiencing enormous challenges as a result of falling revenues. But we have laid out a very clear plan and we've provided a number of accountability measures that are among the leading in the world in terms of deficit and debt.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We know about the fine words of this government and their representatives. They will say one thing to get elected and then arrogantly do the opposite in government and treat taxpayers like yokels: "Let them eat cake." We have proposed reasonable accountability measures similar to those supported by your federal Liberal colleagues in Ottawa and to what Mr. McGuinty demanded from the former government when he was sitting in this chair.

Minister, less than two years ago, the Auditor General described your government spending controls as among the worst he'd ever seen. We all remember Slushgate, don't we? Minister, once again, why are you and your do-as-they're-told backbenchers rejecting clear and transparent measures that will ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is a

section in the budget entitled "The Plan to Eliminate the Deficit." I would further remind the member opposite that this is the second time we have had to eliminate a deficit. When we came to office we found a $5.6-billion hidden deficit that the former Provincial Auditor indicated was there. We then brought in the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act to give the public greater assurance that in fact the budget that the government lays out is entirely transparent and clear. We took our budget, before the election, to the auditor and had that sign-off.

I would remind the member that we balanced the last three budgets in Ontario and have paid down more than $6 billion in debt. The plan we've laid out is the appropriate plan, over the right amount of time, to ensure we get Ontario back to a balanced situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: When they formed government, they inherited a potential deficit and then spent like Duncan sailors to make sure it happened.

Ontario taxpayers have every right to be cynical about this government's promises and their spending practices. They plan to spend billions of tax dollars and keep the details behind the curtains. We've just heard recently how they threw scarce tax dollars to the wind with their failed eHealth strategy, inflated salaries, opulent office renovations, entertainment and travel expenses and other slaps in the face to taxpayers.

Minister, prove that you and your colleagues are not bankrupt of integrity and conviction, that your Premier's words were truthful and sincere. Bring in accountability measures proposed by us and supported by your federal Liberal colleagues.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think that the people of Ontario recognize the enormous challenge before every jurisdiction in the world in terms of deficit and debt. I think they understand why Alberta has a $4-billion deficit for the coming year. I think they understand why the federal government has a $62-billion deficit over the next two years, and it's still rising. And I think they understand why Ontario has taken the steps they have.

What they don't understand is an opposition party that added $48 billion to the provincial debt during times of strong economic growth. That's what they don't understand. They don't understand how a government that presents a budget at the Magna plant in north Toronto could have a hidden deficit, as identified by the previous auditor, of $5.6 billion. They don't understand why it took until our government came to power that we had true fiscal transparency and accountability and enshrined it in legislation.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health Promotion, also known as the minister who refers or doesn't answer questions. Yesterday, my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk pointed out the increased costs your government has added to gym memberships and related products through the latest McGuinty tax grab. Minister, do you not agree that Ontarians should be able to afford the cost of being active, staying in shape and being healthy? Do you not agree?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for the question. Certainly this government has a priority of investment in the health and the activities related to the health of the people of Ontario. In this regard, we have continued to move forward with our $20-million annual investment in the healthy eating and active living strategy for the after-school program.

We continue to invest in a number of different initiatives to support Ontarians to live and to continue to live healthy—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Minister, on your ministry website, it states, "The ministry encourages involvement in sport, recreation and physical activity for the health, social, and economic benefit of Ontarians and the communities in which they live." I want to illustrate what painful effects Dalton's new sales tax is having on Ontarians who want their kids to be active: Windsor co-ed hockey registration, an extra $31; a yearly public swimming pass for a family in Oakville, $76 in Dalton tax added; Dalton's tax will cost recreational rowers in Guelph an added $52 for every boy and girl; North Bay girls' hockey association—the fees will jump a whopping $55 a player.

Minister, can you confirm these increased costs for families who want their kids to be active, or will you tell us today that you will make sure Dalton's newest tax doesn't cost them an extra penny? Will do you that?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government has come up with a very comprehensive tax plan to address the many issues that face the province of Ontario. These issues are not unique to Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our issues are not unique to the province of Ontario, nor are they unique to Canada. We are facing a global economic crisis, and as a result our government has implemented a comprehensive tax plan. Our government continues to be committed to the issues relating to sports and recreation and to keeping people physically active. That's why we continue to invest in our physical activities strategy. It's important, as part of our commitment to keep Ontarians physically active—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Some of my colleagues said that this minister's response to the economic crisis is "Make the kids pay." That should be embarrassing to her and her colleagues.

The role of the Minister of Health Promotion is to provide the tools for people to get healthy and stay active. Dalton's new sales tax is a massive attack on her main ministry directive. Today, in one of the major papers, there is an

article that indicates that Dalton's new sales tax will cost the Greater Toronto Hockey League an extra $500,000—a half-million-dollar Dalton tax grab to just one sports association, that they have to absorb.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member—we've had the issue of dealing with names. I certainly have allowed you to use the Premier's name when you've described the government, because previous government did that. But we haven't got to using first names.

Stop the clock, please.

I would just ask that you not use the first name of an individual member, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I respect that, Speaker.

It's a half-million-dollar McGuinty tax grab to just one sports association.

Minister, where have you been on this issue? Why have you remained silent? Do you not understand that this newest sales tax is discouraging families from being able to afford to sign their kids up for baseball, ringette, hockey and soccer? Do you not understand—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would advise member opposite that families in the Amherstburg area will soon be able to skate, run and cheer at a new multi-use sports complex. The construction of this complex will create up to 240 jobs.

This government continues to invest in new sport complexes. This complex will feature two hockey rinks, two recreational fields and two baseball diamonds.

We continue our additional investments in other sports and physical activities. We continue to invest in different initiatives aimed at keeping people active and healthy in the province of Ontario.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The McGuinty government has no idea how to respond to the economic crisis facing communities across Ontario. At precisely the time that the Ontario auto workers are most in need of protection, this government is turning its back on them by making it illegal for Ontario's pension backup fund to run a deficit. Why is this government moving to cut the support net for pensioners when they need it the most?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government is not cutting the pension benefits guarantee fund. I think we need to be honest—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think that all of us in this Legislature need to be honest with the people of Ontario that for 30 years, the pension benefits guarantee fund has not been funded.

I think we need to remind those people whose pensions are threatened—and they are threatened—that General Motors was given an exemption from even contributing to the pension benefits guarantee fund.

Mr. Peter Kormos: By whom? By Bob Rae.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I don't think we should be hurling partisan insults. We should look at the facts. Our government is committed to working with the CAW, General Motors and the federal government to ensure that pensions are protected. There has to be an adequate commitment from all sides to this. The issue is serious. The issue is how we fund it—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For five years now, myself and other New Democrats have been on their feet urging this government to make fundamental reforms to the pension benefits guarantee fund and the pension system in this province. What we are talking about now are the retirement monies owed to loyal workers in this province, workers who have given a lifetime to their employer. Just when they need a helping hand from their government the most, this government pulls the rug out from underneath them by tightening the rules designed to protect Ontario's pensions. Why is this government turning its back on Ontario families just at the time when they need it the most?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Premier reiterated the government's commitment to funding pension shortfalls. What we need, however, is an honest look at how we're going to fund it. The pension deficit associated with GM alone is in the billions of dollars. Then you have to look at other defined benefit plans, and then you have to consider those people who don't have a pension, those seniors and others who have seen their retirement income diminished, in some cases by 30% or 40%.

We want to work with the CAW. Mr. Lewenza said today—and he's absolutely right—and we've been saying this for a number of weeks: The best way to protect those plans is to keep the companies working. Our money is at the table. We continue to be at the table with the union, with the company and with the federal government. We will work through this, but we need to have a completely candid discussion about how much it costs and where the money is—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What Mr. Lewenza said, and perhaps the minister should know this—this is a quote from a letter he sent to the government today: "It is quite disturbing to see a budget announcement which appears to signal a retreat from the purpose and spirit in which the PBGF has operated for almost 30 years in this province."

This government has had five years—more than five years—to fix a pension backup fund that has been broken for a very, very long time. We would agree on that part. I was personally on my feet in this Legislature many, many times, urging the government to take action. Almost five years ago, the first time I got up in this House to talk about pension plans—some few weeks after I was first elected—I was talking about these issues, and now we see the first significant change that this government is prepared to make is to cut the support net, just as GM and Chrysler are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

I repeat: Why is this government turning its back on hundreds of thousands of workers when they need them the most?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: If the leader of the third party would take enough time to stop patting herself on the back, we might be able to have a serious discussion about this matter.

I would remind the member opposite that further in that letter and further into the press release, Mr. Lewenza has signalled that the CAW wants to work with governments, and we are committed to working with them. My officials will be meeting with CAW officials early next week.

This is a challenging time. This government remains there with money; we remain there with commitment to keeping these industries viable; and we remain there, committed to helping ensure that these pensions continue to be in place for the workers at General Motors and, indeed, workers all over the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Deputy Premier: The Premier himself seems all too content to talk as if the bankruptcy of GM is imminent. Today, of course, we all heard Ken Lewenza and CAW workers speaking very loudly and very clearly, and they told this government the best way to protect pensions is to keep the auto jobs alive in this province. Instead of accepting the bankruptcy option as if it is a done deal, why isn't the government ensuring that its multi-billion-dollar restructuring package addresses the company's pension solvency problems?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Premier reiterated yesterday this government's commitment to keeping those companies viable. I would remind the member opposite that we are the only sub-national jurisdiction at the table with money for the auto sector. The government of Ontario has committed more money to this than the government of Germany, for instance. I'll remind the member opposite that a number of national governments around the world—that many Ontarians aren't even aware of—are at the table with money as well.

What we have to do is look at who pays and how much, and we have to try to assure the right balance between the federal and provincial governments, the companies and the unions; everybody working together.

The Premier said yesterday and I reiterate: We want to continue to work. We will continue to be there with substantial investments to keep these companies viable, and we will continue to be there to keep the pension plans viable as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In today's National Post, Robin Somerville of the Centre for Spatial Economics said: "There is no reason to expect a happy ending from a bankruptcy procedure. It could well degenerate into the complete collapse of all three companies."

Deputy Premier, we're talking about tens of thousands of jobs that sustain dozens of communities across the province, yet this government seems to be embracing the likelihood of GM's bankruptcy. Auto workers across the province are justifiably outraged. Instead of focusing on bankruptcies, why doesn't the McGuinty government use its auto assistance package to address GM's pension solvency problem?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'd just remind the member that the auto assistance package wouldn't even cover a fraction of it. That's the reality, and there's no easy way out of this. In fact, one of the challenges we have is that this is largely being driven in Washington. We don't know where the top is going to be. We know now that we have committed—the governments of Canada—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Blame Flaherty, blame Washington—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They want to make a joke about it, but I tell you this is as serious a matter as we are going to deal with in this House.

We are at the table. We are the only sub-national government at the table with money. We are prepared to invest still more, but we need to make clear and continue to work with the CAW, with our federal counterparts and with the government of Barack Obama and the United States to ensure that we protect the footprint of the industry. These are difficult times, but this government will keep the interests of our retirees—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today, GM cut 50 more engineering jobs at its research and development centre in Oshawa—another blow to Oshawa families. Letting GM go into bankruptcy could spell even more pain for auto communities and would prevent Ontario from securing the auto jobs of the future, and everybody is aware of that.

But what we need from our government, what we need from the government of Ontario is a proactive solution, not a wait-and-see approach. Why won't the McGuinty government work with the federal government, with GM and with the CAW to design an auto assistance package that addresses the pension solvency problem?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have been very proactive with the industry. If the member thinks for one moment that the decision around bankruptcy is going to be up to her or me, she really doesn't understand the depth or the gravity of the situation.

I cannot overemphasize the challenge before us, and if we attempt to trivialize it, if we attempt to suggest—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Welland.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: If we attempt to trivialize the challenge, we're not helping anyone. We have been proactive. We're the only sub-national government with money on the table.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Toyota.

Interjection: He's out of control.

Mr. Peter Kormos: The minister drives a Toyota.

Interjection: Well, I've got a Ford with less—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member, if we are going to get into this little game of who is driving what, then I would encourage everybody to do the survey around the room of who is driving what.

Mr. Peter Kormos: My Chevy S10 is parked outside.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Fine. And my Equinox that's built in Ingersoll is parked outside too.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: It is a serious matter; it is a complex matter that involves governments around the world. This government will continue to work with the CAW, and this government will continue to put the interests of our auto workers and our retirees at the front of the line. There's no easy answer, but we will be there with money and with patience to see our industry through this—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for Minister of Tourism, and perhaps I could give her a moment to get to her place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is simple. I would ask the minister, in the lead-up to the budget, when she learned of the plans to bring in a harmonized 13% sales tax—what people are calling McGuinty's new sales tax—what did she do to stand up for the tourism and hospitality industry in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I want to thank the member for the question. We are, in the tourism industry, very delighted with the budget and the benefits that we see for tourism across the province. We are seeing substantial investments in many of our attractions across the province through the budget.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to be in Morrisburg, where we announced $13 million to revitalize Upper Canada Village and Crysler's Farm, leading up to the 1812 commemoration; then, $10 million going into Fort Henry in Kingston.

We're also seeing substantial investments in some of our other attractions, and I'm sure that in the supplementary I will have more of an opportunity to talk about what we're doing to promote marketing of all of our attractions and resorts across the province as a result of the changes in the budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm told that 33 employees of Upper Canada Village have been laid off; I'm sure they'll be encouraged by that answer.

This year's budget sent a clear signal to the industry that this government isn't listening and doesn't care about tourism. The Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association says the provincial budget has "ignored economic reality." Bruce Gravel, president of the Ontario Accommodation Association says, "We deplore the fact that the harmonized sales tax was a deal struck between governments behind closed doors, without the benefit of extensive public consultations first." Yakov Stevens of Tripsetter Inc. asks, "How is a harmonized sales tax that raises the price of travel in Ontario going to boost an industry that is already economically challenged?" Of course, it won't.

My question to the minister is this: Does she really believe that hiking sales taxes in the middle of the extreme economic challenge that we are in now will encourage travel and tourism—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I actually had a chance to meet with Mr. Gravel last weekend. That wasn't what he told me. I have met with a number of representatives from the hotel and motel association. We are working through what the impacts of the harmonized sales tax will be for that sector, but as a benefit of the harmonized sales tax, we are seeing a $40-million influx in marketing for our regions across the province. This is new money. This is a huge influx of cash and it's going to see marketing increase across the province. It's a huge benefit to the sector.

We're also seeing corporate tax cuts across the province for small businesses. As you know, my opposition critic, small businesses are the backbone of tourism across this province, and they are going to benefit substantially from the corporate tax cuts that we have implemented or we are implementing through this budget.

I'm very proud of this budget and I know that tourism will continue to thrive and grow—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today, Statistics Canada reports that 40,000 more Ontarians, women and men, lost their full-time jobs in March; 170,000 men and women in Ontario have lost their jobs since October. It's not good enough for the McGuinty government to say this is a global crisis. Ontarians need help now.

Why is the McGuinty government raising taxes on families and handing out $2 billion in corporate income tax cuts, instead of protecting good jobs in our province?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There's no doubt that the challenge we heard about today with additional job loss is of great concern, and that is precisely why we are investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure over the next two years. That's why we invested $9 billion last year. That's why we gave a retroactive tax rebate to our manufacturers last summer. That's why we gave $1 billion last November to every municipality in this province to get infrastructure going.

These are difficult and challenging times, and that is why we have made working families, the people who are worried about their jobs, the people who lost their jobs our top priority, and we will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Men and women in Ontario are losing their jobs at an alarming rate. The manufacturing sector has been gutted. Almost 24,000 jobs were lost in March alone. Unemployment rates are up across the province. Ontario workers want leadership and a jobs plan from this government, not tax cuts to the companies that are already holding their own.

When will this government finally develop an effective plan to protect the jobs and pensions of struggling Ontarians?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The fact remains that we are in the midst of a world recession. We saw unemployment go up more in Ontario than in British Columbia and Alberta. We even saw unemployment go up in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

There are no easy answers, as the member would like us to say. We have laid out $34 billion in stimulus, $32.5 billion in infrastructure. We have laid out more money for skills training and retraining and literacy. We will continue to make those investments.

I hope the member opposite won't continue to vote against those important initiatives which will in fact benefit working families—men, women and children right across Ontario.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Mike Colle: A question to the Minister of Culture: Minister, Ontario's cultural attraction agencies like the Royal Ontario Museum attract more than three million tourists and generate $4.5 billion annually to Ontario's economy, making cultural tourism an important economic driver. However, funding for Ontario's world-renowned cultural agencies like the ROM has been frozen for years. Recently, the Ontario tourism competitiveness study recommended that the government invest in cultural attraction agencies so they can compete on the international stage and create jobs.

Would the minister tell us what steps the government is taking to ensure that Ontario cultural agencies receive sustainable funding so they can attract even more tourists to Ontario and create more jobs?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Yesterday at the Royal Ontario Museum, I was delighted to announce that our government is boosting Ontario's economy by investing $43 million in new funding to six of Ontario's world-class cultural agencies. These agencies include the Art Gallery of Ontario, the ROM, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, the Ontario Heritage Trust, the Ontario Science Centre and the Royal Botanical Gardens.

This milestone investment provides new and permanent increases to their annual operating grants, the first in over a decade. These world-class facilities, collections and programs of Ontario's cultural agencies raise the global profile of the province by showcasing the best of our cultural diversity and creativity. These are important investments in our cultural industry and they help deliver—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary? The member from Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Ontarians will be pleased to hear that this government is making smart investments to boost Ontario's economy by investing in its cultural attractions and agencies.

Constituents in my riding of Oakville will be especially pleased to learn that the Royal Botanical Gardens is going to receive new and permanent increases to its annual operating budget. As one of the world's largest botanical gardens, it's a major cultural tourist attraction in the region.

As a former board member myself and as all of my fellow south-central colleagues on all sides of this House will attest, the RBG's beauty attracts visitors from all over the world, and that contributes to the local economy and to jobs.

Would the minister tell the constituents of my riding and all the people of south-central Ontario just how much funding the Royal Botanical Gardens will receive this year?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: As I mentioned, our government recognizes that Ontario cultural agencies play a key role in stimulating our economy and local economies like south-central Ontario's. Our government invested $4 million this year to help enhance the Royal Botanical Gardens and to continue to develop world-class programs that attract visitors from Canada and abroad.

We know that cultural attractions like the RBG are vital to the growth of our knowledge economy. We know that cultural attractions make our province a magnet for knowledge workers and businesses that are looking for dynamic, vibrant communities, so we moved as a government to reinforce the RBG and the cultural industry within the framework of a budget that gets it right.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, yesterday you spent half your allotted time at the hearings for Bill 150 trying to discredit the report recently released from London Economics International concerning the astronomical increases in electricity prices we can expect under your legislation. Given your verbose protest but lack of any real evidence to contradict the report, we can surmise that they must have it right.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association was also there yesterday, concerned for the future of Ontario jobs and, in fact, its entire economy under your act. When you were drafting this bill, you didn't even consult with a $24-billion industry, employing 80,000 people in this province, for their views on how you and your act could decimate business in Ontario. Minister, why would you proceed without even talking to the people in this integral industry?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, I believe there was also acknowledgment from that very same group that the honourable member quotes that they were pleased that one of the strong signals we sent was our government's intention to invest alongside industry and commercial operations to lower their overall energy use with direct investment. The honourable member leaves that out.

To the point about the contracted study by executive

summary that's been released so far by that group of consultants, the concerns that I raised remain exactly the same. They apportion costs in a way that costs are not apportioned in the energy sector: they didn't amortize them over the life of the asset, as is the normal case; they counted the costs for conservation programs but gave no benefit for reduced consumption on the bills of individuals; they assumed that increases in green energy will not replace other costs; and their very own study fluctuated wildly. I think for all of those reasons, it raises serious—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, they did talk about energy efficiency and how you have not been doing enough to promote that in their industry. They also use 10% of the electricity produced in this province—10%. They believe that this province could benefit a whole lot more if as much money was invested in making their businesses and other energy-intensive businesses more efficient as what you plan to spend on building new generation—unreliable, undispatchable generation at twice the cost.

Why wouldn't you, under your green disguise, do more to promote helping an industry be more efficient and more competitive and in fact create jobs in this province? Why wouldn't you consult with them? Why would you proceed? It's a $24-billion industry with 80,000 jobs and 10% of the electricity in the province, and you couldn't even talk to them. Is this more about politics against policy in McGuinty's Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's always good when the honourable member is so excited that he gets tongue-tied.

I think that at the heart of it—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. There have been a few comments that have been indirectly made to members.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, we do need to ensure that we treat one another with respect. Sly little comments like that don't help. There are others that have been made. I just ask everyone to be conscious of it.

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that what we have is a comment from the honourable member on two points that I would like to focus on. First off, he talks about new generation, but yesterday in the House he was proposing that we just sign a contract for new generation on the nuclear front without regard for cost, without regard for reliability. But I think what's very—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member just asked the question. I trust you want to listen to the response—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please have some respect for the Chair.

Hon. George Smitherman: Part of the cost associated with the $5-billion incremental investment in the first three years of the Green Energy Act is $900 million of investment in conservation programs, with large companies exactly like those that were represented yesterday.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. In the last month, St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton has faced three superbug outbreaks, causing dozens of people to fall ill and some, tragically, to pass away.

St. Joseph's hospital faced a deficit of $12 million, and because of inadequate resources, St. Joseph's has outsourced and cut back on its cleaning staff. Without mandatory provincial cleaning standards and resources to meet those standards, hospital patients are at risk in the very places where they go to get better. Will the minister commit to introducing mandatory cleaning standards in this province?

Hon. George Smitherman: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I think there are a few messages that would be very, very important to convey. First and foremost is the recognition that we are, in institutional settings, increasingly battling pervasive bugs. Associated with that is the solemn obligation on the part of all of us who are in those environments to be very, very vigilant on the issue of handwashing. It seems trite, but it's the strongest effort that is available to help to counteract these challenges.

On the issue of hospital budgets, St. Joe's has this year, as they have every other year that we have been in office, received more resources for their budget. That was a pattern that the Ontario Hospital Association accepted.

On matters of superbugs and the like, we're depending upon the leadership of Dr. Michael Baker from the University Health Network, who's guiding efforts to enhance the security and circumstances in Ontario's hospitals, where we recognize vulnerable patients need all the help that can be offered to protect them against these bugs—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government's plan for infection control in hospitals simply doesn't make any sense. While the government is pouring money, on the one hand, into a mandatory infectious disease reporting system, they're failing to protect patients from infections in the first place. I'm not talking about handwashing here, I'm talking about cleaning staff. I'm talking about in-house cleaning staff and services. The research is very, very clear and this particular minister, I'm sure, knows it. In-house, adequate cleaning staff and mandatory standards are the building blocks of a healthy hospital. Will this government take action today before another death needlessly occurs?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, I think it's important to note that in the time period of 1990-95, the government of the day did allow outsourcing, similarly, of a wide variety of services in the hospital environment. I think that it's very important to note that several of the individuals who are over there must have been quite quiet on that point if they were concerned about it.

There is a new public reporting of infections that does enhance the transparency associated with these circumstances in hospitals. While I acknowledge that the quality of the cleaning that's going on in those environments is of course important, we have increased the operating budgets for all those places.

Although the honourable member chooses to say that it's not an important focus, we do think that, for anyone who is in a hospital environment, being very vigilant on the issue of handwashing is known to be the single biggest thing that can be done to protect against the spread of superbugs and other infections.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Many of my constituents run businesses, both big and small, and like any good business they're constantly looking for new customers and contracts. The government of Ontario is a buyer of literally thousands of goods and services, ranging from construction materials to dinnerware and anything in between. I understand that a buy-Ontario policy for all of our goods would not be feasible; the last thing our businesses need right now are walls around our province, potentially preventing many of them from exporting to other places.

However, we can't lose sight of the fact that Ontario businesses are some of the best in the world, so we should be encouraging them to do business with Ontario. My question to the minister is this: What support is this government now providing to our businesses that are interested—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thank you for the question. I just want to say that our government certainly recognizes the importance of doing business with strong Ontario companies. We support businesses. In fact, just on Monday, we held a Supply Ontario reverse trade show, where we had over 900 vendors come and speak to government representatives from ministries, agencies and the broader public sector to learn just how they go about doing business with the Ontario government.

It gave these businesses an excellent opportunity to pick up some tips, to learn of some of the emerging needs and get some tips on how to market their solutions. I spoke to a number of the vendors, who expressed absolute delight that the government was taking this proactive action. Our vendors were pleased and it was so successful that we had a waiting list of 400. We intend to do it again in the fall.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Sounds like the event would have been very beneficial for the both the potential vendors and the government representatives.

I agree with the minister: It's key for both our businesses and government that they're on the same page when it comes to the purchasing needs of the government of Ontario. But some businesses would not have been able to come to Toronto for this event to meet with your government representatives. To the minister: Can he tell this House if the government is taking any other steps to reach out to Ontario businesses that are interested in doing business with Ontario, perhaps for those who couldn't make it to Monday's event?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm delighted to answer that question. In fact, Monday's event wasn't the first outreach initiative on the part of this government. In the last year alone, we've held over 40 vendor events with various chambers and boards of trade, working closely with the Ministry of Small Business as well and our enterprise centres—some 1,400 vendors from all across the province. I've done sessions myself in Ottawa and Thunder Bay. They're very well-attended sessions. So clearly we're reaching out to businesses.

It's nothing new for us to do that. We've been doing it for some time, and frankly, the proof's in the pudding. Of the 45,000 vendors who do business with the province of Ontario, over 95% of them are strong Ontario companies.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Of course, right now we have committee hearings and there's a lot of concern about Bill 150. People are particularly shocked to hear that Bill 150 does not address health concerns, because the health of Ontarians should surely be considered in important government policy decisions where the potential impact is widely reported by independent professionals with expertise.

Dr. Nina Pierpoint's research, which has worldwide support, states, "Wind turbines of the size you are contemplating do ... cause harm to human health when placed within two kilometres of people's homes."

I ask you, Minister, why are you and your Premier not addressing the health concerns of the bill?

Hon. George Smitherman: First of all, I think that the party which is demonstrating through this debate that they are back in favour of coal and that coal is back in favour with them, and is really asking a serious question to a former health minister when the Ontario Medical Association has said that 2,000 to 3,000 people in the province of Ontario die prematurely because of coal—why has the honourable member's party reversed course and is now back in favour of coal as part of our generation mix in the province of Ontario?

In the supplementary, I'll look forward to the opportunity to explain to the honourable member how the process will involve the Ministry of the Environment in helping to establish the most appropriate and standardized setbacks associated with wind turbines in the province of Ontario.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm pleased to let the minister know that it was our party—in fact, I was Minister of the Environment at the time when we made the decision to close Lakeview, which we did ahead of time, and also had a plan to eliminate the coal plants.

But I would say to you, your refusal to acknowledge the health concerns and risks in this bill flies in the face of worldwide evidence to the contrary. As you know, the health and safety of people is impacted by wind turbines. They can induce sleep disturbance, depression, migraines, nausea and memory loss. Dr. Robert McMurtry, the former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, has asked, why will the government not proceed with an epidemiological study of the health risks and impacts before moving forward? Why won't you do the right thing?

Hon. George Smitherman: I take it that the honourable member's silence on the matter of the debate which has occurred—which has seen at least six or seven members of that caucus stand up and say, "We support coal on an ongoing basis in the province of Ontario." Why did she refuse to speak to that in her question?

On the matter with respect to the health concerns on wind turbines, firstly, I say that I had the chance to meet with Dr. McMurtry, someone whom I know well, and I've indicated that I'll look forward to continuing to work with him. The Ministry of the Environment, as part of this process, will establish, based on worldwide science, the very best recommendations, on a standardized basis, around setbacks from wind turbines to replace the patchwork quilt which has emerged in the province of Ontario, where some municipalities have established setbacks at 300 metres and others at higher amounts.

We think that we should use the best available science to establish standardized setbacks, and that's what the Ministry of the Environment will have the responsibility to do if the Legislature passes Bill 150.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Housing. On Sunday, a Toronto Star editorial called on the housing minister to implement a comprehensive provincial housing strategy now. It called for immediate action to help the 600,000 renters in Ontario who pay too much of their income on rent to make ends meet. This morning, I introduced a motion calling for the government to freeze rents for one year to help those struggling men and women and children to put food on their tables and keep their homes. Will the minister support this motion and freeze rents for one year in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member for the question. I'm very proud of the track record of this government. I mentioned, the last time I had a question from the honourable member, what the rent increase regime looked like under their government, under the Conservative government and under the McGuinty government.

The fact of the matter is that of all three political parties, the McGuinty government, on average, has made the lowest rent increase under the guideline, and we're very proud of that.

I'm also very pleased that we're working co-operatively with the federal government, our municipal partners and the not-for-profit sector to develop a comprehensive long-term affordable housing strategy. Part of that strategy is the fact that the federal government is now back in the housing business. Minister Duncan, in his last budget, announced that we will match by $622 million a plan to create affordable housing in this province. We're proud of that plan. We look forward to working and getting the shovels—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I would remind the Minister of Housing that we in the New Democratic Party are no fans of the Liberal Bob Rae, either.

This is an extraordinary time of need in Ontario. There is an urgency on this issue that the minister doesn't seem to appreciate. Men and women in Ontario are losing their jobs now. Ontarians can't keep waiting for the government to d