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

May 7, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 May 2008 Mercredi 7 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WEARING OF PINS

INVESTING IN ONTARIO ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 PERMETTANT

D'INVESTIR DANS L'ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

PLANT CLOSURES

POVERTY

TOBACCO CONTROL

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL BOARDS

ANIMAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

MOOSE TAGS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DAVID DUNLAP OBSERVATORY

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GASOLINE PRICES

FIREARMS CONTROL

ALMA COLLEGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CITY OF OTTAWA

TOWNSHIP OF WELLESLEY

CORONER'S OFFICE

ALMA COLLEGE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

LORD'S PRAYER

400-SERIES HIGHWAYS

INTERNATIONAL SINGING CONTEST

LONG-TERM CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

SPRINKLER ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES RÉSIDENTIELS

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

JAY LAWRENCE AND BART MACKEY

MEMORIAL ACT (HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 COMMÉMORANT

JAY LAWRENCE ET BART MACKEY

(MODIFICATION DU CODE

DE LA ROUTE)

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION MONTH

DONALD MACDONALD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND

INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was wondering if I could have the consent of the House to pass these buttons out and let members wear them. They're from the Ontario Electrical League, in support of Ontario's youth.

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

INVESTING IN ONTARIO ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 PERMETTANT

D'INVESTIR DANS L'ONTARIO

Mr. Caplan, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make payments to eligible recipients out of money appropriated by the Legislature and to amend the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act and the Treasury Board Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 35, Loi autorisant le ministre des Finances à faire des versements aux bénéficiaires admissibles sur les crédits affectés par la Législature et modifiant la Loi de 2004 sur la transparence et la responsabilité financières, la

Loi sur le ministère du Trésor et de l'Économie et la Loi de 1991 sur le Conseil du Trésor.

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

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to be sharing my time with the very capable and able parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, the member for Pickering–Scarborough East, and with the member for Oakville.

This is a very important act, and it's another way this government will be investing, and helping our municipal partners to invest, in infrastructure in the province of Ontario. One of the hallmarks of our government has been the commitment to making these key investments that support the foundation and platform of our economy, and indeed of our society and our communities. This is on the heels of our unprecedented $30-billion-plus ReNew Ontario plan, the first-ever long-term infrastructure investment plan in this province's history.

I can tell you that it has produced incredible results: over 100 hospital projects; literally thousands of kilometres of highway; bridges have been repaired; and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 elementary and secondary school projects. This particular legislation, Bill 35, is going to assist our municipalities. In the event that we have surpluses, we now will be sharing those funds with municipalities so that they too can invest in critical public infrastructure.

I hope all members of this House will be supporting this bill. It is of vital importance. It has the support of municipal leadership from one end of this province to the other. I look forward to seeing this become law, if passed by this Legislature, and indeed to seeing these investments where they are critically needed.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I'm pleased to rise today in respect to Bill 35. I must say that I just had the opportunity a few minutes ago to have a bit of a meeting with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. They treated us here in the building to, in effect, a breakfast caucus meeting, so I won't need my double-double today. But I'd appreciate it if one of the pages would bring water at some point; that would be helpful, thank you very much. I find water to be quite adequate for my purposes here, certainly at this time of the morning, anyway, having already had lots of time to get my coffee into me.

I'm so pleased to be here in the Legislature on the third day of our revised schedule, on this bright spring morning in Ontario. I enjoyed my drive in this morning, as I have each morning, for early meetings and starting our debate a little earlier than we're familiar with. It really hasn't changed our days much; just the time we arrive here. Particularly, this seems to be a finance week. We've had the budget measures bill for third reading debate, and this morning we're having the leadoff on the Investing in Ontario Act, 2008. The week just gets better and better, I think, because there will probably be some more debate in respect to finance as we proceed toward the end of this week.

Let me move, if I could, to some of my comments with respect to Bill 35, the Investing in Ontario Act, 2008. This is extremely good news for municipalities and for the people of Ontario generally. It would allow for the reduction of provincial debt as a structured format in the event that we have surplus situations, and certainly with projections of a balanced budget, one would anticipate that some dollars would go toward our debt. It's going to help municipalities address the very critical capital needs they all find themselves with.

You know, they didn't get into the situation of having this built-up, pent-up demand for municipal infrastructure renewal in the last three or four years; as a matter of fact, over the last three or four years we've done a tremendous amount to support municipalities with respect to their infrastructure needs. It took them a long time to get there. It really happened during the eight or 10 years prior to that, when municipalities fell into a situation where their capital infrastructure was declining as they desperately tried to maintain a reasonable amount of operating capacity within their municipalities.

There are many of us in this Legislature who come from the municipal sector, either as municipal councillors or from counties, as mayors, as trustees and as chairs of boards, who have worked in the public sector with municipalities during their time outside this place. We certainly know—all of us in this room know—the critical situation municipalities have found themselves in during the past number of years. They are very, very thankful for the work this government has been doing over the past five years in supporting municipalities, particularly as we move forward in continuing to support their infrastructure needs.

With Bill 35, the Investing in Ontario Act, we are proposing that we will invest a portion of any unanticipated surplus for 2007-08 in municipal capital priorities. This is something that's unique around here. This is not, at this point, just setting out a specific dollar value; it's saying, "If we happen to have a particularly good year in the provincial sector, if our revenues, as they come in, exceed our expectations." We never know until much later what the final revenue numbers are going to look like.

Thus we're prudent, in our fiscal management, to ensure that we at the very least maintain a balanced budget situation. But anticipating a surplus when things go better than we might anticipate, where we would have a slightly larger surplus, we're going to share that in a very significant way with municipalities to work on their municipal priorities.

We, in this government, have a strong history of prudent fiscal management. It's our intention to continue in that way during the years to come during this mandate and, should the people of Ontario see fit, in a subsequent mandate or mandates, as the case may be. We continue to make the strategic investments in people and communities that will build a better Ontario for all of Ontario's citizens; not for any particular group, but for citizens throughout this province, each and every one of whom depends on the municipalities and on municipal infrastructure for the quality of life opportunities they want to share.

We recognize the pressing need of Ontario's municipal infrastructure. I have already said we didn't get into this situation in the short term. It took a long time for municipalities to find themselves in the place they are, with deteriorating infrastructure along the way. With no disrespect to my friends in various places, I can say to my friend from Peterborough, who came from municipal council there, that I used to tell my own council that if they wanted to see what the road systems in the urban core of our municipality might look like within 20 or 30 years, they would need to go to Peterborough.

Peterborough has a longer history than Pickering, the municipality I came from, and they had longer time and a change in economy, in which they were having trouble, struggling to keep up with the road infrastructure in their downtown core. As a result, it always gave me a local point of comparison to tell my councillors what they might see in the future if there wasn't provincial government support for municipal infrastructure, in particular road infrastructure.

Now they're doing so much better. During the past four or five years, the member for Peterborough has been such a strong advocate for his municipality and for his riding. If you drive there now, you begin to see the significant changes that are occurring in their infrastructure. I know that those of us who aren't quite that far advanced in the context of the length of time the infrastructure has been in place want to ensure that we retain the infrastructure we have, as well as repair, enhance and renew infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

The greater Toronto area alone, just within this small geographic but large population area, has transportation delays within it caused by gridlock that cost an estimated $2.2 billion per year. That's just the cost to the economy because of delays caused by gridlock in the morning and the afternoon. Every time you take a few minutes off someone's commute or manage to put someone on a transit system, the ultimate impact of that is an enhancement to the economy. It reduces the cost to the economy as a result of that gridlock; it reduces that $2.2-billion-a-year cost resulting from gridlock.

But there are also environmental costs, and social and health costs associated with gridlock. We only need to see the cars that are parked on the Don Valley Parkway—I think it's called that for a particular reason on some days. As I drive in from the eastern part of the city, when I'm not using the GO system, and travel across the 401, I'm not travelling at 90, 100 or 105 kilometres an hour; I'm traveling at 30, 40 and 50. Many, many cars are effectively parked, and when they're parked, they're just adding to pollution in the air and in the environment.

If I saw the weather report accurately this morning, it's going to be 21 degrees Celsius today. Within a matter of days, we'll probably be at 26 or 27 degrees Celsius. As you drive, particularly now from the extended fringes—it used to be from the suburbs, but now you probably have to drive from Barry's Bay, member from Renfrew, before you can get out of what you might see as a smog day. You may even see it there. I'm not sure; I haven't driven in that community of late, not having gotten much further than Bon Echo Provincial Park. By the time you get there, the air is fairly clear.

But you only drive in from the fringes of the greater Toronto area now and you can see the smog days as they build. So the more opportunity we have to invest in municipal infrastructure, to support public transit and to get the road networks working effectively, it can only help with issues such as smog and the health-related costs that go with that.

Our intention, with our municipal partners, is to transform and upgrade the province's 20th-century infrastructure—and clearly it's still 20th-century; in some cases I might even suggest that it's probably 19th-century. I think we can probably find some of the water systems in our old municipalities and some of the sewer systems that better reflect a 19th-century system than a 20th-century system.

But we want to ensure that municipalities can meet the challenges of the 21st century, not merely catch up with the laggard situation they found themselves in, in the dying days of 20th century, the late 1990s, with a provincial government that saw little need to support municipalities but found ways to simply download costs upon them.

Speaker, as you are aware, we have already committed to the largest investment in provincial infrastructure in the past 50 years. ReNew Ontario is an opportunity to see the municipal infrastructure of this province come up to speed, come up to standard, come up to today's current needs within the province of Ontario. We are making, with our municipal partners in all sectors, a very, very significant investment.

It's creating jobs, it's creating opportunity in this province and it's creating an infrastructure that we desperately need as we move into—we're moving close to the end of the first decade of the 21st century already. It doesn't take long for a decade to go by, but it takes time to put the necessary infrastructure in place.

A major factor in attracting private investment is the state and quality of available infrastructure. It's not just about the constituents within the province of Ontario; it's not just about their own desires and needs from the standpoint of using the infrastructure. It's about the capacity to create, to encourage, to support and to make Ontario a good place to invest for private investment within this province. I was mentioning this morning that I had the opportunity, with some other members, to have a meeting with the automobile manufacturers' association.

Among the issues that they face—we're all familiar with the challenges the automotive sector faces—is the capacity to move their product to its market. It's not just driving it down the road; it's transporting it down the road. When so much of our auto industry is dependent upon export, we need to move those vehicles outside of the province and across the province. To achieve that, we need the road infrastructure network that will help make that occur.

The leaders of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association spoke very highly this morning of the support they've had from government generally in their business environment, but more particularly the announcement just the other day—that was derided by some members of this Legislature; not on our side, Speaker, but some members of this Legislature on the other side derided our decisions, the final decision we've come to, along with other partners both nationally and internationally, for the border crossing and the road network in and through Windsor, that you will be very, very familiar with.

The auto industry sees that as a critical element in their continued success in enhancing their opportunity to move their product effectively down the 401 and into the market that they serve. We're very anxious to see that municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure capacity enhanced and move forward quickly. This is exactly the kind of thing that will make that happen.

To be competitive in the global economy, we have to have the right skills and we have to have state-of-the-art facilities. We're putting our plan into action to help Ontario become a more modern and attractive place to live and do business. That's why this bill is entitled Investing in Ontario, because it allows us to have a more balanced approach to paying down debt while making these critical investments in Ontario.

Let me speak, if I can, a little more specifically about the content of the bill in addition to what it's going to provide to municipalities, to constituents in Ontario, how it supports private sector investment, and ultimately how it assists, whether it's our health or in an environmental context. I want to talk a little bit about some of the detail on a high-order level for the purposes of our discussion this morning.

If the province achieves a surplus position in excess of $800 million, the first $600 million of that will go to reduce the provincial debt. We think that's the right thing to do. We want to ensure that we are not only sending a signal but doing the right thing in the context of our accumulated deficit in this province and that we're making commitments on surplus situations first—first—to the accumulated deficit. That has to be a priority. It's what our constituents expect, it's what business expects, and it's what we expect of ourselves. In our own families we expect to pay down our debt.

We expect to pay down our mortgages as a priority in our lives. We expect if we bought a vehicle that we will pay that down. We expect that we will put some money away for a critical investment of some sort, whether it's our children's education—we treat that as a debt, in effect. It's a need that's going to be there.

But once we've done that, we want to ensure that there is a capacity as well for municipalities to be able to share in any surplus situation that might occur. This means that if in effect the province were to achieve a surplus situation of $800 million, a minimum of $200 million would be spent for municipal spending in additional capital opportunities for municipalities.

If the surplus, though, is less than $800 million, it goes straight to the debt.

There's a point where we need to say, "Does it make sense to distribute a small amount of money to municipalities on a per capita basis, or does it make sense to enhance the payment into the provincial accumulated deficit?" Once we reach that threshold, municipalities could find themselves in a position to share up to $2 billion of provincial surplus throughout the province both with what we refer to as single-tier or upper-tier municipalities—for example, the city of Toronto, which would be thought of as a single-tier municipality, is the largest and easiest example.

For those of us who know regional structures, the Niagara region government would be considered an upper-tier municipality. They would share on a per capita basis in the surplus situation, as would what we refer to as lower-tier municipalities. In an area like where I'm in, with part of my riding being in Toronto, single-tier, and part being in Durham, Pickering being a two-tier structure, the region of Durham would share in some of the surplus, as would the lower-tier municipalities, of which there are eight.

So Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and others would all share on a per capita basis any surplus that may arise, anywhere up to $2 billion shared across the province.

With the 2007-08 surplus, they have the wonderful opportunity in this particular calendar year as they move through their budgetary processes to continue to invest in infrastructure in the province of Ontario. That's not the only investment opportunity they've had because municipalities across this province have already shared in the MIII program, as an example, with some $450 million that was shared broadly across the province. There were some exclusions—the city of Toronto was one of those—but there are other mechanisms whereby the city of Toronto has had considerable support for public transit.

Bill 35, Investing in Ontario Act, is on top of what we've already been doing with our municipal partners both in the past year and during the time that we've had in office.

The municipalities are going to have flexibility to use their funds for their own capital purposes. It's for roads and bridges, it's to expand public transit, it could be to upgrade their social housing stock and it could be for other municipal infrastructure. But it's not going to be a blank cheque to them. There will be checks and balances in place. They will know the funding envelope, based on the formula, once we know the actual fiscal position the province has as a result of public accounts being finalized. There will be checks and balances to ensure that the dollars are being spent for capital infrastructure needs within municipalities.

They are best positioned to be able to identify and choose the priorities that best suit their needs; they know best. As I said before, many of us in this room have come from the municipal sector and we know from that experience that it's at the very local level, on the ground, where the constituents speak to their councillors and to their mayor, that they have their debates in a public forum as we do. The media reports regularly. They're best positioned to establish the priorities that will best meet their needs, not only in the short term, but capital investments are about the longer term, to ensure that they have the stability in their operations that they so desperately want and need.

We will have accountability provisions in place. It will be consistent with the province's new transfer payment directives. There will be report-backs from those municipalities on how the funds were used. We will retain the right to independent verification or audit, and that's an interesting little piece of what we're doing with this. We don't expect to have to use it. We don't anticipate that municipalities will be doing anything save and except investing in that critically necessary infrastructure within their municipalities.

But the province is going to keep the right to do a verification, to do an audit if necessary, to ensure that those dollars that are being expended in municipalities are being expended in the way that we had envisioned within the legislation, the way we envisioned that the surplus dollars could be used to enhance the capital opportunity, the capital position, the capital infrastructure needs of municipalities.

The McGuinty government is ensuring within the legislation that the funding will be distributed equitably. This is not about winners and losers in municipalities; this is about ensuring that all Ontarians and all municipalities have the opportunity to share. To ensure that available funds are distributed in a fair and transparent manner to all municipalities, we're proposing to use a per capita allocation for both upper-tier and single-tier municipalities in the province.

That's probably among the easiest ways for the public to be able to identify whether or not they feel their community is getting a fair share of the resources that are there. We all understand, on a per capita basis, if you have 100,000 people in your community, then you have X number of dollars related to that 100,000, against the 12.5 million to 13 million people in the province of Ontario. It's a fairly easy manner for people to identify and do a comparator within a reasonable sense.

Large municipalities, then, would have larger dollars coming to them; smaller municipalities would have a smaller number of dollars. One would expect that the capital infrastructure needs would vary based on the size of the municipality, based on its population.

Not only will the upper-tier and the single-tier governments share on a per capita basis, but the lower-tier portion would be distributed on a per capita basis. It obviously needs a formula when you have two tiers of government, but the principles remain the same in the allocation of those dollars. We know in two-tier structures that the upper tier has particular infrastructure needs. They manage the water and sewer systems, as an example. The lower-tier systems have different needs. They have the local road network that is there among their principle responsibilities that need constant upgrading and always, always need investment.

As I said early on, the legislation, as it's presented here for third reading debate today—hopefully, at the end of the day, all members of the Legislature will see the wisdom in ensuring that we support our local, regional and single-tier municipalities, but they'll also see the wisdom in ensuring that we provide a portion of any surplus that may be achieved to pay down the accumulated deficit of the province of Ontario.

It makes sense to pay down our debt, so we want to do both: We want to ensure that we have debt reduction and to ensure that we have an opportunity to see investment in what might be considered broadly government priorities. They may not be things we control directly, but municipal infrastructure remains a provincial priority because those infrastructure investments also help to drive business opportunities within the province of Ontario.

You know, sometimes we need to talk a little bit, I think, to frame the debate a bit, in the context of some of the broader budget measures that we put in place. Because the capacity to be able to even address Bill 35 in any fashion very much depends upon some of the other initiatives that have been undertaken to establish what the value structure might be for municipalities. We have to balance that along with other investments that we made as a province, particularly investments that we made in municipal infrastructure.

In the 2008 budget document—frankly, on a different day, yesterday, we were having third reading debate on the budget measures bill, which over the next while will also come to some conclusion along the way, this being a subset of that, in effect.

Included in that document, in addition to these dollars, which could amount to up to $2 billion for municipalities if in effect the surplus were that large, we're investing some $1 billion in new municipal infrastructure in 2007-08. Just in the fall, we announced some $450 million for the MIII program. That was based on an initial announcement that was made in the fall economic statement but also was built upon financially to build this quantum of some $450 million for municipal infrastructure.

There are municipalities throughout the province of Ontario right now which are currently probably in the process of, if not physically doing some of the work, issuing the tenders that will allow them to do the work on infrastructure investments that will come from the MIII investment.

We're investing some $400 million in this budget document for municipal roads and bridges in communities outside of Toronto. We hear consistently here in the Legislature, and from our municipal colleagues, about the road structure necessity, about the importance of roads and bridges, about the importance of moving people and goods in small-town and rural Ontario, as I'll refer to it. Sometimes I think outside the city of Toronto, for me, is outside of the greater Toronto area, having a foot in Toronto and a foot in Durham region.

I think beyond that, we hear most consistently from folks about the needs of smaller-town Ontario, rural communities, and investments in their roads and bridges as so critical to them. Often those municipalities don't have the fiscal capacity, because of population, sometimes, and simply because they don't have the industry base to be able to maintain, enhance and upgrade those roads and bridges to the extent they want to.

That some $400 million for municipal roads and bridges in those communities outside of Toronto is so critically necessary to them, and this is a very good year for them to be able to undertake that kind of work.

There was $100 million to rehabilitate municipal social housing, including improving their energy efficiency. As I mentioned early on, among the types of infrastructure capacity needs that municipalities may want to address as a result of the investments from Bill 35 could be the social housing stock. One might even think of this as a down payment of sorts. Although we don't know the quantum of the surplus that might exist under Bill 35, we know the need is there, and $100 million to work on social housing stock is important. It's not going to solve all the problems by any means.

I think we'll hear from members opposite at some point of quantums of numbers that would be such that we couldn't take all of the money and still repair all of the social housing stock. This is a good investment in that, particularly, I would suggest, including improving their energy efficiency, because we know that existing social housing stock doesn't have the energy efficiency strategy structures in place at this point in time and thus needs to have investments in those areas.

It not only makes for a better living environment, it also reduces the cost of operation, ultimately reduces the cost for those who are occupying the units and builds into their life structure a commitment to and a participation in the energy efficiency needs of this province that we all want to participate in, in one fashion or another: reducing energy consumption and finding alternative means by which to use energy. Those who are renting in a social housing environment in that stock of homes across the province also want the opportunity to participate in that.

They can't do that unless there are some incentives in place to do that, and we think this $100 million in social housing, in part to improve energy efficiency, will go a long way to allow them to feel and know that they are actively participating in the priorities that we are seeing set out.

We're investing, in this budget document—as I said, we're going to talk a little bit about the context—some $970 million to be invested in capital investments to build and renew places where students learn. We're talking about universities and colleges. We're talking about that infrastructure that's going to provide the physical environs that will provide the next generation of young professionals, those who do the work on the next RIMs of the world, our doctors, our lawyers—maybe even some of our politicians. We have a couple of young people who are summer interns with the finance ministry at this point in time.

I know there are a number of summer interns here in the Legislature. I had a chance to chat with two young people yesterday. One is at York University and the other is a Dalhousie graduate, proceeding on to—I'm trying to think of where she's going in the fall. It'll probably come to me. Nonetheless, of both of those young people, one is going to finish their undergraduate work and one is working on a dual master's degree and wants to go into law.

These are very bright young adults, and I was saying that it's really encouraging to see bright young people getting an education and taking an active interest in the political system, in the policy structures of the provincial government. I think it augurs well for the future for us. It's why we need to make these kinds of investments; it's why making a nearly $1.97-billion investment in the capital infrastructures of colleges and universities is so critically important on a go-forward basis.

We can't measure these things over the basis of a year or two; we have to measure them on the basis of a generation or two. We have to take a look at those young people and say, "What are they contributing? What are the expectations that they have? What are their aspirations as young people coming into adulthood in this province of Ontario, where they want to be, where they want to learn about policy structures, where they want to be professionals? What are they going to be contributing over the next generation here in the province of Ontario?" We have to look at our investments in that way.

We have to look at our investments in roads and bridges in very much the same way. Those are hard infrastructure investments that we drive on and move product on, but we have to look at this other type of infrastructure as well, in the context of what it means to young people in the learning environment they find themselves in.

One of the hallmarks of our government has been public transit. We came to office four and a half years ago, and during that 2003 campaign, we made a commitment to dedicate two cents per litre of gas tax to public transit in the province of Ontario. We fulfilled that commitment early in the mandate. We didn't wait until the end of the mandate; we looked at the fiscal situation, once we moved through that first, messy year of a $5.6-billion deficit, and by the end of our second full year, we had a balanced budget. We were able to accelerate that commitment of support to municipalities for their transit systems.

Mr. Mike Colle: It's $310 million a year now.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: The member from Eglinton—Lawrence says that we're at $310 million per year. I just couldn't recall the numbers; thank you. But this year alone, we're investing almost $500 million, $497 million for public transit just in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton for Metrolinx projects and other transit priorities. That's not even taking into account the gas tax revenue itself. That's for Metrolinx. That's to—

Mr. Mike Colle: What is Metrolinx—

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Metrolinx was referred to as the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. It's a collaborative effort of municipalities, municipal transit systems and GO Transit within the Golden Horseshoe, Hamilton and the greater Toronto area, which are working to expedite transit systems in the province of Ontario—looking at bus rapid transit strategies, looking at means by which GO Transit can be more effective. It's an integration of our transit systems so that they're not stand-alone systems.

The member from Eglinton—Lawrence, being a former Metro Toronto councillor, will know this: One of the big challenges over the years has been the stand-alone operations that we've seen for municipal transit systems, where you couldn't cross boundaries. I can tell you a very quick story. In my time in the mayor's office in Pickering, we had the Pickering Transit system.

We didn't even have then the Ajax-Pickering system, whose board the member from Ajax—Pickering sat on with me when we established the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority, which has now become Durham Region Transit, involving not just Ajax and Pickering but Whitby and Oshawa—and the Handi-Trans support systems, specialized transit, is all rolled into that.

But one of the big challenges is always that cross-boundary activity. Nobody talked to each other. We wanted to run a bus into Scarborough and see whether there were enough users to really justify taking a bus from Pickering into Toronto. We determined at that time that the University of Toronto Scarborough campus—which is now in my riding; it's the first time I've had a post-secondary educational institution in my riding, and it's a wonderful institution. I met with some of their senior folks the other day, actually. Nonetheless, we wanted to bus in to see what the ridership capacity would be.

The challenge of the day wasn't getting our buses there; that was okay. We got an okay from the TTC to run our buses in there. What we weren't able to achieve in those early days was the capacity—what we would call the open-door run on the way back. We had to do what we called a closed-door run; i.e., we couldn't pick up a passenger and bring them back to Pickering. So if there was anybody there, we couldn't bring them home. We could take them there, but we couldn't get them home.

Metrolinx, as it's now called—there's been a new structure over the years. The co-operation over a period of time, bringing municipalities together, bringing co-operation among transit systems, means we can do those cross-boundary things where it makes sense, and we get a lot more co-operation in that regard.

Bill 35 and our investment in municipal infrastructure is a critically important part of this budget. We want to share with municipalities the opportunity that if we achieve a surplus situation that's good for the province, that's good to pay down the debt, we want to ensure the municipalities are able to share in that and build on their infrastructure program.

Let me just finish by saying that we're building on the plan we have to strengthen our economy. We're taking every opportunity available to us to invest in our municipalities, as well as invest in the province, in a prudent and responsible way, to ensure that the fiscal management of this province remains strong, and to build on the strength and expertise that exists within each and every municipality to the benefit of every Ontarian.

At this point, I'm going to share my time—I think the minister said I would—with the member for Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It certainly is a pleasure to join the debate on third reading of Bill 35. Like the previous speaker, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, I have a long background in local politics. For 18 years, I served on the town of Oakville council, the council for the region of Halton as well. During that period, I was chair of the health and social services committee, child care committee, president of the children's aid society and chair of the budget economy. So I've really seen provincial politics, from all three parties, at the local level over a fairly long period of time, and I've seen different approaches.

If I could sort of typify those approaches over the years, in the 1980s you had Bill Davis and Peterson making a fairly good effort to try to work with municipalities. We moved on to the Rae government, the NDP government. I think it was a good try, but it fell far short. But I think if you had to look at the darkest period of the relationship between a province and its member municipalities, you'd have to look to the Mike Harris years.

Even the member for Wellington—Halton Hills would share some of that sentiment, because I know he—and a very good friend of mine, the now regional chair of the region of Halton—had some things to say, both in public and private, that weren't too complimentary to the Premier of the day. I think they deserve an awful lot of credit for standing up for some of the things that were done during that period.

It was simply bad news for municipalities. When you're trying to provide some of the services, you need to do that. People, the taxpayers of Ontario, expect us to work in a partnership. That's a partnership between the federal government, the provincial government and the local levels of government. Since we've taken office in 2003, I think we've made some great strides in being able to establish that partnership with the local levels of government.

Unfortunately, currently, I can't say the same thing about the federal level of government. As a previous speaker alluded to, there was a meeting held this morning; the auto caucus met with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. They simply expressed their support for the approach we were taking towards industry in this province and expressed a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the approach being taken by the federal government.

Bill 35, in my estimation, is a plan to move forward. It gives some confidence to the municipalities that there's a plan in place that starts to repair some of the downloading that was done during the dark years of the previous government. I think it deserves the support of all members of this House. It certainly is a move forward. As I said, there's great support from civic leaders. Mayor McCallion and Mayor Miller have spoken in glowing terms about this initiative. It's something that I think is worthy of support of all members of the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: In the time I have available, I just want to comment about Bill 35, because I think a lot of people question the whole legitimacy of having such significant surpluses. Obviously, they're taxpayer dollars. Certainly, creating a budget, as every government is obligated to do, is always a work in progress. What you're suggesting in a budget is, "This is where we intend to spend money. This is where we intend to collect money." Obviously, at the end of the day you hope that it all balances out. What this particular bill proposes to do is provide an option for the government in terms of spending any of the monies that would flow at the end of the year.

I think when you look at the details—much has been made by the government about the fact that this would be a boon to municipalities, yet when you actually look at the bill as it is written, there is no reference made to municipalities. In fact, we are left to look, then—if that's the intent of the government, how would municipalities respond to this kind of uneven, unstable method of funding when, actually, that's what they need most? I think this bill carries forward from a previous bill that the former government put in place, which was to put any monies towards the debt. Since it's all taxpayers' money, that's where it belongs.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: There's no question about what this bill is. This is a slush fund bill. This is Dalton McGuinty as George Orwell. This is Nineteen Eighty-Four, when the Ministry of Truth said, "Ignorance is strength." Ignorance of what's in this bill is its strength. Because what's in this bill is the licence for the McGuinty government to give money to its friends under cover of law. That's what this bill is about. There is nothing about municipalities in this bill; there is nothing about infrastructure in this bill. In fact, this bill is so egregious that the Auditor General has spoken up loudly.

Of course, he has been shut down by McGuinty Orwell, but he spoke out against the bill, saying that this goes against all accounting practice that anyone would recognize as legitimate accounting practice.

So again, it wasn't enough that they were able to give over $32 million away to friends of the Liberal Party last year. That made the front page of the newspaper. This year they want to do it under cloak of law. So this year, instead of giving $1 million to a cricket club that asks for $150,000, and in response to getting $1 million said they should have asked for $2 million—instead of that, this year they're going to pass this egregious piece of legislation that's going to allow them to have a legitimate slush fund. Anything over $600 million, they get to do with what they want.

Again, there's nothing in the bill about infrastructure; there's nothing in the bill about municipalities. Despite the spin, despite the Ministry of Truth that is operative across the aisle, despite all of what this government pretends is in the bill and pretends they're trying to do with Bill 35, I would challenge anybody watching at home to actually get to Bill 35, look at what's in the bill, and I double-dare you to find "infrastructure" and "municipality" there. What you will find is Orwell. What you will find is a McGuinty government at their less than truthful best.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm so pleased to join in the debate on the third reading of Bill 35. It is so critical, the investments that we're making in communities right across the province. I only need to look at my own community of Etobicoke—Lakeshore to focus on the importance of the investments in public transit, as one example, a community like Etobicoke—Lakeshore, where many of my constituents commute into the downtown core or beyond for work, going either out to Mississauga or across the city, coming in to downtown to earn their living.

We are a community that has four subway stations and three GO train stations. So we really benefit from now the cross-efforts being made to see investment in transit infrastructure across the city and across the province with something like Metrolinx, which my colleague the PA to the Minister of Finance was discussing earlier.

We recently had a significant investment in the Kipling subway station, as an example. The province came to the table to assist the Kipling subway station to become an interregional hub so that we could have buses coming in from Mississauga, not affecting high-traffic areas in the streets of our community—critical to pull them away from Islington subway station into Kipling subway station, which will now be an interregional hub.

At the time, we also looked well into the future to determine, perhaps with an additional rail line which already exists at Kipling subway station, that we might be able to eventually have a link into the airport from Kipling subway, which is now a link by bus out to the airport. So a community like Etobicoke—Lakeshore, where head offices choose to relocate because their folks can get to work easily and quickly, is of critical importance and has benefited from the investments that are being made in communities.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have a moment to reply to the speeches brought forward from the government members in support of Bill 35. Of course, you would expect the government members are quite supportive of this bill and talk about its virtues, but certainly our role in opposition is to point out some of the flaws and some of the drawbacks.

This Bill 35,

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make payments to eligible recipients out of money appropriated by the Legislature and to amend the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act and the Treasury Board Act, 1991, isn't what it appears, I am afraid to say.

The municipal councillors in Wellington—Halton Hills initially were quite pleased to hear of the fact that the Minister of Finance was committing to share a significant portion of future surpluses with the municipal governments for infrastructure when he made his announcement on March 12, but it was only a couple of weeks later that the budget was read in this House. Of course, we found that the surplus the government was anticipating for the coming fiscal year did not approach even closely the $600-million threshold upon which the money would be triggered.

So there was a great deal of disappointment, in our riding certainly, and I would have to say that the government needs to take a fresh look at this issue to ensure that there is predictable, sustainable funding for municipalities in terms of their infrastructure needs.

This is an issue that I've raised for many years in this Legislature, going back to my first term in the Legislature, and I would continue to argue that smaller rural municipalities in particular that lack the tax base of some of our urban communities require a substantial degree of support from the provincial government to ensure that they have a basic infrastructure for their residents. This bill, unfortunately, does not do it. It doesn't do it. And we have to continue to raise it, evidently. I'm very concerned about this issue, and I'll continue to speak against this particular bill because it lacks the integrity that we need from this provincial government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I want to, obviously, thank the members for York—Simcoe, Parkdale—High Park, Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Wellington—Halton Hills for their comments. I was pleased to hear—I didn't catch whether he was speaking just for himself or for his caucus—that the Progressive Conservatives support the bill, although they're doing their job in opposition to point out what they feel are some of the shortcomings that might exist.

Let me just make two comments in the minute and a half that I have in respect to some of the comments. By the end of this mandate, by 2011, the McGuinty government will have increased the annual operating support to municipalities—that's the stable, predictable funding, the ongoing annual operating support—by over $1.7 billion. It's an increase of 160% compared to where we were in 2003. That's not if we happen to have a good year and a surplus situation; that's ongoing support to municipalities on an annual basis to exceed $1.7 billion. Time doesn't allow today to go into the long list.

I mentioned in the early part of the debate the gas tax, which is an annual operating support mechanism. There is a long list of those.

I want to take the last 30 seconds to talk briefly about—I mentioned context. Bills alone often have places they have to belong. This one belongs in the budget. Let me speak to page 111 in the budget, for those who haven't had the opportunity to find out where municipalities fit into this play. "The government has introduced the proposed Investing in Ontario Act," Bill 35, "that would permit the use of a portion of unanticipated year-end surpluses" for "needs ... such as municipal infrastructure deficits." It speaks to, "If enacted, the government will use the regulation making authority"—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair on this bright Wednesday morning, and it's a pleasure to take

part in the debate.

I just want to start by saying that our critic on this file, the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, Mr. Tim Hudak, isn't here, but he certainly would like to have an opportunity to say a few things on this as we wrap up, because this is just outrageous. It's outrageous because here's a government that's accumulating more and more debt every year, and they want to not pay it off. They want to leave that debt to your children. To the young pages here: Be cautious. Here's Dalton McGuinty.

With this bill, what he's actually doing is not paying off the mortgage, the debt, which means that in the great province that we share, the debt is growing. The debt is growing to almost—I can hardly say the words—$163 billion. What happens with that is the debt is owed to someone else. It could be China, it could be India, it could be Brazil or it could be the United States; somebody holds that debt. They've loaned it to us on good faith. We have to pay off, every year, the cost of carrying that debt, the interest. The interest on that debt is about $10 billion, and growing.

If the economy goes a little bit out of control, which it seems to be, the interest rate could go up and the cost of borrowing will go up. I'm so concerned now that they're spending more money on debt servicing, the interest alone, to, in many cases, foreign places, than they are in education. This is your future. That's why I'm so passionately concerned about how they've got this all wrong. It's like being a spoiled child. They want everything today.

Now, I'm going to change the tone a bit. Our member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, Tim Hudak, during the hearings on this bill moved several amendments, all of which were turned down. Unbelievably, they won't listen. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have these year-end slush-fund lottery-style giveaway campaigns to ridings that they're trying to win. That's what has been happening.

They have a riding—for instance, it could be Northumberland or Peterborough, and if the member, Jeff Leal or Lou Rinaldi, is in a bit of trouble, they'll dole out some dough, almost, so that they would have a better chance of winning. I'm completely opposed to that manipulative spending of public money, taxpayers' money. I'm completely opposed to it, and we all should be outraged at allowing this minister to intrude into how to distribute the surplus at the end of the year. That's what Bill 35 is about. It gives the minister a lot of powers to do things that—it's the process we have trouble with.

We're not opposed to giving money that's surplus to the needs of the people of Ontario, to municipalities to help with hospitals, to help with bridges, to help with recreation centres and things that are important to our health, our economy and the health of the people of Ontario. We're not opposed to that at all.

In fact, I'm going to get a little bit more specific here. I listened with some interest, as I'm the municipal affairs critic—and I have been the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health in the almost 15 years I've been here, and I know the pressures on the government. I know how difficult it is. The economy is collapsing underneath—the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is here this morning, which is good to see. Her riding of Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. It's tragic.

It's almost worse than—and here she is in China, and I think she's going to Paris next week, or something. We want our leaders to be here in the province and trying to defend, at least respect, the people.

When I listen to the member from Pickering—Scarborough East, Mr. Arthurs—he's a fine gentleman; I know him well. I served for a very brief time on the regional government, when he was the mayor of Pickering. He's a very capable person. I'm surprised he's on that side of the floor, and more surprised still that he's not in cabinet. But that's a whole debate for another day. He has been given a speech to read. I don't think he actually believes some of the stuff he's saying; he's just reading it. Because the truth is, he knows as well as the member from Oakville, Mr.

Flynn, who was, like myself—many people here on all sides served at some level of government, municipal or school board or other functions, before we got here, and that experience we bring to the place. I would say this: Always look to the history to teach you about where you are or where you're going. Learn from history.

Now, what Mr. Flynn said was absolutely incorrect, totally false; it has absolutely no basis in fact. If you want to look to what he said was downloading by Mike Harris—now there's a lot of press, mostly negative, on Mike Harris. But that was, I believe, the impression of the media. But look to what Mike Harris inherited.

What he inherited—and I'm not justifying all of the decisions, or any of them, or not justifying them; I'm saying the reality was this: The budget at the time, in 1994-95, when Floyd Laughren was the Treasurer—a nice fellow as well; quite a capable guy, too—was about $48 billion, the total budget of the province, and the deficit was a little less than $12 billion. That's 25 cents on every dollar they didn't have. I was chair of the budget locally, in my constituency, at the time, and they had a plan that they sent around to all the municipalities, a big letter from Bob Rae. Bob Rae is now a Liberal; he was NDP.

He hasn't made up his mind. He was a Liberal then, as well, which is fine. And I think he's a great guy; there's nothing wrong with that. I hope he gives Stéphane Dion a run for the money, because he will try for the leadership there. But that's a different debate for a different day. Here's the deal, though. He sent a letter out to AMO and ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association. Every mayor in the province of Ontario got a copy of the letter. The letter said—I remember it. It was called the expenditure reduction plan. I can see it right now back in 1994.

Ed Philip was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Floyd Laughren was Treasurer. The letter said, "Please try to save some money. We're in big trouble here." There was a recession. Ontario's heading down the exact same road.

I worked in the auto sector for 30 years. All the signs are there. I hate to predict it—and these things come, and we will recover; I'm confident of that. Ontario is a great province. Here's the deal, though. The municipalities said, "Are you kidding?" They looked at their budgets and our budget. In the public sector, 85% of all the dollars in the budget are payroll. So if you want to cut the budget, it's people's jobs, it's families that no longer have an income. It's very tough. You're better off to blame Bob Rae or Stephen Harper or Paul Martin—some higher level of government—for this problem that you're in.

It couldn't be your own fault, that you had spent more than your income would support. No, they always want to blame some other level of government.

My point is this: No one in 1994 would agree with cutting their budget. So Bob Rae and Ed Philip and Floyd Laughren and Frances Lankin called all the union leaders in to a big meeting here at Queen's Park, and the school leaders as well. Education is very important and it was part of the municipal tax bill—it came from the municipality but it was by the school boards. They called them all in, and what happened? They all walked out on him. So they implemented the social contract. I don't care which NDP person is here today or was there then or in the future; that's like a brand.

The social contract was downloading. They forced every employee of the province of Ontario in school boards, colleges, hospitals, municipalities, all of what they call the MUSH sector—municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals—to take a number of days off to save money. Now, the intent was good. The intent was quite realistic. In fact, the intent was that no one would lose their job. And in fairness to the NDP, that was the choice they made of how to implement this expenditure reduction plan.

The people were just outraged. My wife was a teacher. I had a daughter who was just starting teaching at the time. They were never engaged or emotionally attached to the political decision-making process, but I'll tell you, they sure were then.

It has transformed Ontario. All the public sector is completely vertically integrated now. If you mention cuts or efficiencies or downsizing, the unions just line up like that. They are militant, shoulder to shoulder: "We will not." You hear the drums outside now.

If Dalton wants to save the $96 billion in our budget, it's payroll. I'm telling you, it's payroll. If he wants to save any money, he's got to make tough decisions, and I don't think he has the fortitude to make tough decisions. Now, I will say this: He can fiddle around with the cosmetic pesticide act, he can fiddle around with the cruelty to animals act, he can fiddle around with the Lord's Prayer, all these tokenistic kinds of pieces. There's no substance to them at all. He's ducking the real issue. However, this bill will give him a bit more play money to dole out at the end of the year to shore up the popular vote. Unfortunately, it's very cynical of me to say that.

Hon. James J. Bradley: So cynical.

Mr. John O'Toole: It is, unfortunately.

Now, what is behind this? What is the second tier? It's the Jim Flaherty approach of being competitive, which is widely criticized in the media.

It isn't Jim Flaherty saying it. Last week in my riding of Durham, I attended a really interesting annual general meeting which Premier McGuinty spoke at. He's a very nice person, don't ever get me wrong, and everybody here wants to do the right thing, but the job is about making tough decisions. Bob Rae found that out when he called the social contract. He didn't want to do that; he had to. The real leadership job here is not about cutting ribbons; it's about putting out fires. That's the job here. Anybody can cut a ribbon. You could, I could, and I'm not in the leadership. McGuinty, his Dwight Duncan and others are.

But here's my point: At the annual general meeting for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce's 96th anniversary—and they did a survey prior to that. In fact, they usually appear before the finance committee. The member for Pickering—Scarborough East would have been part of those meetings, as would Tim Hudak, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

The six top issues given to the government, without any political bias—Greg Sorbara was a fairly decent finance minister, but he's not there any more and I'm concerned that Dwight—he screwed up the electrical file and now he's going to screw up the finance file. But he's got a lot of seniority over there and a lot of connections, so he's got the job.

Here's what their wish list was—this is not Jim Flaherty; this is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Their first request: "What are the six top things the Ontario government could do to assist you in the next 24 months?" They said—not some politician; I'm just reading this stuff, but it's important to read what other stakeholders say—to reduce corporate income taxes. It's the very first thing they said. The second thing was to recognize investment in innovation. In fairness, the government did a piece of that. That's the fund that's going to exempt innovative business from corporate tax.

Those are businesses that take R and D, academic knowledge and patent information and commercialize it, making rubber into a boat or a car or something like that. The next thing was to refund tax credits for small business; remove the PST for the purchase of equipment and modernization; reduce the red tape on business; and increase training tax credits. Well, I don't think they did very much on any of that. That's the top-six list they asked for.

If you go through and look at this Ontario Chamber of Commerce report—I should say that it was celebrated in Oshawa because that's the home of the auto industry. Sam McLaughlin, the Oshawa area and the whole Durham region is the area that motivates Canada. And these are suffering times. There are lots of families who would like to have some of this year-end surplus themselves. Year-end surplus is actually excess tax revenue. Let's keep it in perspective.

It was the 80th anniversary for the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. Bob Malcolmson and the current and past presidents and all the dignitaries were there. They had a great celebration, but they also had the same list. Surprisingly, they had a very similar list. I'm just going to say there were a number of important observations by the chamber of commerce. Here is just one. I just turned the page at random; it's nothing specific. One specific action that the small businesses of Ontario asked of Dalton McGuinty was this. Now, think of this; think closely about these actions by the leader of the province of Ontario. Just think of these things, how important they are.

During the election, Premier McGuinty was feeling rather chipper one day, cheerful, so he suddenly decided to declare a provincial holiday. Well, who wouldn't like that? Let's call it Family Day. How smarmy. I wonder that he didn't have one of the Smurfs on the stage with him. But anyway, he decided to have the holiday.

This is what one business said. This is from the chamber of commerce, business leaders, people who create jobs and investment and feed their families; their employees work, and they hopefully reward them. It says that one respondent noted that the family holiday will cost him $40,000—or her; or it could have been a family that owned a small business, too. There are estimates, and now if you look at the detail, the public sector, whether the police got it off or the union got it off or the fire or the ambulance or the various public sector employees got it off—whatever, it's a drag on the economy.

It's actually like putting a hole in a brick wall so the wind can come in. Is it appropriate? I think by giving more people more flexibility, but everybody having a holiday on a given day by decree by the Premier—completely inappropriate.

A lot of them will have holidays: Over 200,000 people are going to be on holidays called layoffs or dismissals. That's a non-solicited holiday, and that's the dilemma in Ontario. The economy is going south if you look at any measurement.

Now, what's Dalton doing that about that? Premier McGuinty; I want to be respectful. During the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of questions to the Premier and he—I'm going to repeat it, because it seems to me that somehow—

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have to interrupt on a point of order. Can you ascertain if there's a quorum in the house?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is a quorum present?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate.

Mr. John O'Toole: In terms of the advice given to the Premier by his own group—now I think this is important to put on the record. Premier McGuinty has commissioned a group, a task force of experts, to give him and his cabinet advice on how to deal with the hemorrhaging economy. I think that's a very wise thing for a leader to do, to seek expert advice.

Who's the expert advice? I think this is worth repeating. Roger Martin, an eminently qualified, respected academic, an economist, and I think he's the dean of the Rotman school of business. Who else is on there? Jim Balsillie, the president and founder of Research In Motion, one of the most successful stories in Canadian industry.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: And he's trying to buy a hockey team; I get that.

There's Tim Dattels, of Newbridge Capital; Lisa de Wilde, TVOntario; David Folk, who's from Jefferson Partners; Dr. Suzanne Fortier, who's with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Gordon Homer, of Gordon J. Homer Advisory Services; David Johnston, University of Waterloo president; Mark Mullins, a respected economist; Tim Penner, Procter and Gamble, president for Canada; and Daniel Trefler for University of Toronto. These are independent experts who gave advice.

What did they tell the Premier to do, in the climate we're in, with over 200,000 jobs lost? Campbell Soup closed a plant; Dell computers are laying off thousands; the agriculture sector's hemorrhaging; the auto sector is in perilous condition, and Ms. Pupatello's over in China trying to bring some Chinese car over here. What was some of their advice?

Rather than listening to me talk, I'm going to read from a report. The title here on this report is Path to the 2020 Prosperity Agenda. You can get it online. On page 45, it says "Motivations." Their advice is, "Pursue smarter taxation." What did they say here? "The incoming government"—meaning that this was in late 2007, prior to the election—"needs to pursue tax reform as a high priority to raise Ontario's competitiveness and prosperity."

That sounds a lot more gently expressed than the expressions by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. His was interpreted as an attack on Ontario. I think it was a wake-up call. It was a report card on the dismal conditions under Dalton McGuinty.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: The Minister of Transportation's here. But it's a moot point.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm going to page 47—Mr. Speaker, because there's a lot of heckling. This is from the report that cost over a million dollars. To the minister, as well as to the Premier: What does it say on page 47? I just turned the page and it's right here. It says, "Taxation of new business investment is higher in Ontario than nearly all OCED countries...."

Now, was Jim Flaherty wrong? Perhaps it's how he said it, not what he said. Ontario was once the engine of prosperity for Canada, and now it's the caboose. That's what he was saying. That's unfortunate. How do I know it's a caboose? Every economic report is saying it.

What's Premier McGuinty doing? He's got a bill on staying in school and the pesticide act and these little nibbly—these are nuggets. He's going to cancel the "Our Father." That's one of the big discussions: cancelling the "Our Father" in the Legislature. I think there's more important matters that he should be dealing with.

It says, "Structures: Place a premium on creativity and innovation." That is an important observation as well, because the economy is changing. I think I'm going to drive this down to everyday life. I'm a parent with five children. I believe an education is the actual harness, the fuel, for change and taking empowerment in your life. So I'm a huge believer in it. Go to school as long as you can and get skills. Education should train you for hopefully a prosperous future. But then, with prosperity, you get the responsibility. You have social responsibilities as well. So it's not all about how big a car you can get; it's about how much you can contribute back to your country and our community.

I quite honestly feel, in this whole debate—there are several important books out there. They're more or less textbooks as opposed to casual reading. One is called The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. You should have a look at that book. It's about globalization. It's about the transformation of the global economy through the Internet and Freenet. What it talks about—I thought there was one very clever and quite accurate line in that book; I'm trying to recall it here and generally précis it.

What will be done in the new global economy in Canada, what should we prepare for—the young people, the new group of pages here? What it said is that what will be done in Canada—think about this—is what's done here: Get your teeth fixed. There will be dentists, because you can't ship your teeth over to India to get fixed, unless, of course, they're removable. That's what he said: that what will be done here is what's done here, like get your car fixed—technology, technical jobs.

However, he went on to explain that even in Canada—Bell Canada and even some of the federal departments are call centres. If you call to get a computer fixed or serviced and you call one of the 800 numbers, you're actually speaking to Bangalore, India. Dell computers, Compaq computers, IBM computers, Bell Canada—almost every company is now moving their call centres and service centres to India. Those are jobs that were respectable opportunities for young people, certainly as an opening position.

He went on to say that almost all accounting now is being done in India, in Bangalore. They ship the data over by satellite, they do all the numbers at a lower rate of pay, I gather, and then ship all the data back. They just plug it into a form and file your tax returns. The Liberals love taxes, so probably everybody is thanking Dalton, as well as Paul Martin when he was the—my point being, though, that there is a transformation in the economy. Get ready.

What are we doing? We're out there trying to get Fiat to come over here. They're going to Italy next week, I think, the Minister of Economic Development—they're going to Fiat, but they'll only build about 5,000 cars. I think they're great little cars; I have no problem. But now they're going to bring the Zen car and the Nano car, the one that's about $2,500. Those are low-end jobs. We want to strengthen the economy of the province and the jobs and the prosperity. What's the plan? I don't see a plan here.

We've got the report from the competitiveness—"Your taxes are out of control," is what they said, and your red tape, taxes, permits, fees, inspections, where they come on your property and bingo, TSSA give you a fine for 250 bucks just for showing up. You might be an agricultural person with a diesel tank and there might be one drop of diesel fuel on a catching tray and, bingo, you get a fine. If you don't pay it, you have to get a lawyer. I think they're going about this the wrong way.

One thing that I think is very important to the individual and the family is a home, and a home that's affordable. Let's call it "shelter" in a general sense. It could be an apartment; it could be a condo; it could be whatever. I think that's fundamental.

I'm in the midst now, as the critic for municipal affairs, of looking at a report. There's a discussion going on in the background that nobody is really following, and they should. It's in the newspaper today. That discussion is about development charges. What are development charges? They used to be called levies. The member from Pickering—Scarborough East as well as Mr. Flynn from Oakville would know that development charges now on a house, a single-family dwelling, are $30,000. What are you getting for that?

That's for the parks and the gazebos and the skateboard parks and the various things that municipalities love to cut the ribbons at. Meanwhile, their bridges are falling down and the roads need to be paved. But these are the fancy things. There's no glamour in repaving a road. No politicians want to be there with the asphalt and the big steamroller. They would sooner be there with the arena and Wayne Gretzky or somebody dropping the puck, that kind of stuff. They've got to get down to business and start taking care of the infrastructure of the province. I get that.

This development charge thing: Let's look at it. If I'm buying a house, I don't realize that $30,000—the developer puts the pipes in the ground and the park with the nice swings and things, which are nice, and it's $30,000. But the person buying the house says, "How come these houses are so darned expensive?" They really don't look at it logically, I think. I have a son who's just in the midst of buying a home. He's a lawyer; has a good job. His wife and their little baby are lovely people, but here's the deal, and I try to tell them, but they're not interested. They get a $200,000 mortgage.

The house is $270,000, something like that. Buried in the mortgage is the $30,000. If you take the cost of money—currently about 5%—and if we have a hiccup in the economy, there will be a lot of houses with "for sale" signs.

Here's what happens. You stick the $30,000 on. Do the math. The $30,000, over 30 years, because it's tacked on at the end, is the last dollar you pay off. So you have all of the $30,000 for 30 years. That $30,000, rather an innocuous amount, probably costs you about $80,000. That's what they're adding on to your costs of shelter. And we talk about affordable housing.

Then you talk about electricity. Stay tuned. They put in your house—Dwight Duncan was the minister—a thing called a smart meter. It's anything but a smart meter.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: No, look. Mr. Speaker, through you, actually it is a dumb meter, because the smart meter isn't. A smart meter—there are such things, where you can actually phone your cottage or home and turn on your hot water tank or your hot tub or the heating in the house at the cottage. You can phone. That's a smart one, where it's interactive and you can remotely access it. The real issue here is that this is not a smart meter; this is a time-of-use meter. Now, stay tuned for the treachery. They have just, by regulation, changed the cost of electricity now. If you are doing your dishes at the wrong time, it's a 100% increase in energy. That's what they're doing.

Hon. David Caplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm reading the standing orders. I refer you to standing order 23. It says, "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she ...

"(

b) Directs his or her speech to matters other than,

"(

i) the question under discussion."

I've been listening to the member, Speaker, and I've heard nothing in relation to Bill 35.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I've been listening intently too.

Further debate.

Mr. John O'Toole: Really, what I'm trying to say is what Bill 35 does—it's kind of an innocuous bill. For the viewers, what Bill 35 is doing is giving Dalton McGuinty the privilege to, at the end of the year, take extra cash out and flush it into the economy where the ridings might be in trouble. That's basically what it is.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: It's per capita.

Mr. John O'Toole: Oh, it'll be done per capita, as the parliamentary assistant, the member from Pickering—Scarborough East, Mr. Arthurs, says—and I have great respect for him. My point is, though, the points I'm trying to make—

Hon. David Caplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm looking at the standing orders. Under

section 23, it says, "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she ...

"(

h) Makes allegations against another member."

Then I also look to

section (i), where it says, "Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member." I believe that the member just did that, and I would ask for your ruling.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): As a ruling on the point of order, I would ask the member to keep in mind the standing orders and not to violate them knowingly.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I want to switch topics here briefly, with your indulgence. They've just switched the standing orders. That's why there's nobody in the House. They changed the standing orders.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: I mean members; there are no members in here. What is the problem with this Legislature?

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to mention a member's absence, and he is mentioning that—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member, take your seat, please. The member did not refer to any individual's absence, so he did not violate the standing orders.

Further debate.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker. I know they are trying to get me off the base of talking about real content on Bill 35, but you know, the real truth is there's such apathy now. Because of these standing order changes, you can see there's no quorum of government members. There's no minister here. It's—well, there is. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Mr. Caplan, is here.

Anyway, I'll stick to Bill 35. In 35, it says that any surplus at the end of a fiscal year, which could be around August or September—they'll find out during the fiscal year if there's any extra money left. That's a whole different debate, and I could go there, because numbers is what I like to do. I spent two or three years as chair of finance in Durham and Clarington, as well as here; I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, the same as the member from Ajax-Pickering. So I have respect for that.

What I was going to say is, anything over $600 million, at the end of the fiscal year, they can give out to municipalities. If you look at the bill, it gives the minister a minute opportunity in the regulations, at the discretion of cabinet—ultimately the Premier—to give it out.

Remember in Quebec—I'm sensitive to these things—when Paul Martin got into trouble with the Lottogate scandal or whatever it was called there, about giving money away? This is inappropriate. There have to be very tight, strict rules, not some political manipulation. I don't go with that. I don't care if it's our party or the NDP; you've got to have very strict rules. This is public money. The integrity of all of us in this Legislature is based on doing the right thing for the right reasons at the right time. Failing to do that is failing the people of Ontario.

What is the most pressing issue in the province? I can tell you, having been elected for 25 years. Here's what I hear. There are two issues. First, the economy is going south and gaining speed. It isn't all Dalton's fault but he's got no plan to deal with it. The second issue, the top issue, is health care. And if I subdivide health care, it's seniors, chronic care, mental health and children, whether it's dyslexia or ADHD or autism. These are emotional, often diagnosable and often treatable problems, and the resources simply aren't there.

To me, all of these other discussions about building skateboard parks—when we give children the proper health care and the proper diagnosis assessment, then we'll do the right thing. We'll get right to it as soon as we get enough money to build that skateboard park or that walking trail or whatever.

The Minister of Education is here, which is great. I just want to comment for a minute on that. With all due respect, she's trying to implement in education—the surplus in Bill 35 could easily go to some of the programs—

Hon. David Caplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Again, I would like to remind you that standing order 23(

b) directs members to speak to the matter under debate, which is Bill 35. The member has veered quite significantly from the bill. I ask you to rule on that, please.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Well, it's always a matter of opinion, so I'll keep my ears and eyes open.

Further debate.

Mr. John O'Toole: The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal probably should be at cabinet or something like that. There must be some meeting he could go to. He's just interrupting. He doesn't want the people of Ontario to hear the real truth.

I'm just concerned about the people of Ontario getting the real goods. In Bill 35, if there are clear, straightforward rules—I'm waiting for our member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, the critic for municipal affairs. He's excellent and he's so spot-on in his understanding of the issues. In my case, I'm more of a practical person. I like things to be transparent. We use the words "accountable," "accountability." It's not like when Mr. Colle was the Minister of Tourism or whatever and was giving away the money. That lottery-style giveaway to the cricket club was all wrong. It affects all of us. He had to resign.

The auditor got into it. And the auditor is not happy with this. The auditor has commented on Bill 35. It's not part of the PSAB rules, the Public Sector Accounting Board rules.

We can't support the bill. We are interested in further discussion to find rules and ways of dealing with the real infrastructure deficit in Ontario.

If, as Mr. Flynn, the member from Oakville, said earlier, Mike Harris downloaded so much, how come Dalton McGuinty, who promised to fix it, hasn't uploaded one thing except ambulance? Now he's got what they call the fiscal service level review, under municipal affairs. That report was supposed to come out in January or February. Now it's delayed until June, and I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that report by a panel of experts—AMO and others; Doug Reycraft and those people—will be introduced during July, when people are at the cottage. And what will they do about it? It's about uploading.

You should know that that bill—I'm the critic, so I have a great deal of history in this sector. That started in 1985. I'm actually preparing a report with two academics, one from York University and one from the University of Toronto, in response to that report. I shouldn't be saying this out loud because I'm here to challenge the minister on doing the right thing. What this report says is that in 1985 the federal government at the time capped the HRDC transfer payments. That's a fact. If you don't know it, you should leave here or resign. The fact is, quite honestly, that precipitated down.

At that time, in Ontario, the gas thing was in. Bill 35 fits into this because if they were really interested in responding to the Mike Harris changes that were mandatory, really, they would have uploaded some of the stuff.

Social housing? Have you got any more doctors? Is there any problem in the emergency rooms? They've increased spending by 41%. Ask yourself: Is it any better? Schools are all in deficit; in fact, they're laying off teachers. They're laying off nurses at Brampton Hospital. You look around. We've increased spending. Yes, they've done it more kindly.

Now we're talking about pesticide and all the smarmy stuff about "don't be cruel to animals" and things—who would be? But the point that I'm really making here is frightening: this touchy-feely, smarmy stuff when the economy is heading south and they're propping it up. What they're doing with Bill 35 is allowing the minister, at the end of the year, to use any surplus—who's keeping track of the numbers here?—to give out, to prop up their popularity.

It's tragic. No wonder people are cynical. You young people, especially the pages here, the newest group of pages—I'm not saying that anyone here is perfect. That includes us and it includes them. Don't be fooled by the press headlines. They're in charge, they have the gold pen to sign the big cheques and the photo ops, but how's your future looking? How's your school? They're closing the pools in Toronto; probably some of you are from Toronto. They're laying teachers off. They're closing schools. There's absolute disarray. In the Ontario prison system, there's disarray there.

The Human Rights Commission, you look in the paper today and Barbara Hall is intruding on things that have no responsibility—I can't believe what's going on.

They are in their second term and when they got elected there was one issue in the election. It was something to do with faith-based schools or something. Now they're going to cancel the Lord's Prayer. That's what they're going to do. Now he's going to have hearings on it. The Premier's already said in the clippings he's cancelling it. So what are all the hearings about? It's a waste of money.

Let's get into some serious discussion about the serious challenges.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Exactly. Where is he today? I'm not supposed to say that and I understand that. But we sit here; the standing orders can't keep the people here. The ministers, I don't know where they are. They're getting their picture taken or something. There are a couple of them here. I can't believe it, and there are serious things that are going on.

This bill is going to slip through. Why? Because they're going to force it. In fact, they've time-allocated this bill. They've changed the standing orders so that nobody knows what committees are even meeting. Honest to God, I perhaps have gone on too long. I get so emotional about this, because it is our province. It is our province and I see a dim image on the horizon. When hope starts to fade, I don't know. There's more could be done.

I know our leader in the House, Bob Runciman, is always trying to find the right solution, the balance. Balance is what we need here, a little co-operation. It's a give and take. We can get there. We can get Ontario back on top, but you're going to have to listen to the suggestions from the successful advisers, the prosperity task force. You're going to have to listen to Roger Martin. You're going to have to listen to the chambers of commerce. You're going to have to listen to our opposition member, Tim Hudak, from Niagara West—Glanbrook. You're going to have to listen to the advice.

We want to be responsible for good things in Ontario. We're willing to help, but you don't seem to be prepared to listen and that's the most disheartening message of all. You're going to forge ahead with a flawed plan and take Ontario down the wrong road of tax-and-spend.

You're back again. I can't believe it.

With that, I'm going to take my chair because I'm exhausted from trying.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: See that? They're ignoring me. I've tried to make the points respectfully, but with that—

Mr. Peter Shurman: They didn't ignore you, John. You keep going.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, look, here is the bill. Here's Bill 35 and if you look at the

preamble of this bill, I'm going to actually give a real accounting for it. We're all screaming about it, and they say, "Why aren't you talking more about the bill?" The bill is actually one page long. There's the bill right there. What it does is allow the minister to do pretty well what they want. It won't be Dwight Duncan, in fairness, or Ms. Pupatello, or the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, who's spending $30 billion or $40 billion on I'm not sure what. But the fact is, it gives cabinet and Dalton McGuinty the power, the gold pen, to do whatever they want, and that is a frightening prognosis for Ontario.

Can you imagine? If there was a by-election or something, there'd probably be an announcement of some of this money, God forbid. I hope there is a by-election soon, because certainly we need more talent in the Legislature.

We moved four or five motions during hearings on this. Mr. Hudak and the members of the finance committee moved four or five amendments, all of which were turned down. These were our opportunity to improve the legislation.

I would only say to you that I have a copy of the budget. Spending is up, taxes are up, and the economy's down. That's the problem. That's what you get when you vote for the Liberals.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently for quite a period of time to the member from Durham. He did, I must admit, stray from time to time from the actual content of the bill, but he did come back towards the end and make a couple of comments that I think are worth repeating.

He was correct: Within the body of the finance committee, there were a number of motions that were made. Probably the chief motion that was made was to hear from the Auditor General, who had sent a very strong letter criticizing the bill and stating that the bill, if not amended, would cause serious implications to him, to his staff, and thus to the Legislature, because he is a servant of the Legislature. He asked to appear in person, and the members of the Liberal Party in committee unanimously voted to exclude him.

I did make that motion, and I think that the member from Durham is correct: This is a disservice not only to this bill but to this House, and as a result, it may be increasingly difficult for the auditor to do his duties under the rules, which are called PSAB.

The member talked about the sad state of the economy and other things. I really don't think I should comment because it's outside the purview of the bill, but the bill itself could have been improved. And the member is absolutely right: The Liberal members in committee unanimously voted down each and every resolution that was made either by the Progressive Conservatives or the New Democrats, thus ensuring its weakness in the end.

I commend the member for at least the part of his speech that was on topic. He did capture in those phrases the gist of what was wrong.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I listened intently, I must say, to not all but a lot of the speech that was just presented by the member from Durham. He's beginning to take on some of the characteristics of the other fine actors in this place who tend to take the stage from time to time. There were some enjoyable moments in his presentation, and I'm glad I was able to be here and listen to part of it, although not all of it.

I still remain surprised at why this particular member continues to minimize the effects of significant investment in infrastructure funding in all sorts of communities across the province of Ontario. I responded yesterday in this context to the communities that I represent, places like Neebing, Oliver Paipoonge, Conmee, the city of Thunder Bay—small communities in northwestern Ontario in the riding that I represent, many of which have incredibly large land masses.

Contained in that land mass, supported by very small population bases, are miles and miles of roads, bridges and community centres that these communities do not have the fiscal capacity to maintain. They seriously and very much appreciate these investments in infrastructure that we give them on an ongoing basis, not only in our last budget and through the MIII, but significant investments in infrastructure in previous years.

A community like Neebing, with a population of 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 people, with multiple miles of roads and bridges, $2 million; Oliver Paipoonge, 4,000 to 5,000 people, miles and miles—or kilometres—of roads, bridges and community centres, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million over the course of the last three or four years from the McGuinty government.

These investments in infrastructure are huge in my area. It's still a mystery to me why the member from Durham for some reason wants to continue to minimize the very positive effect of these investments by our government.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to compliment the member from Durham for really a virtuoso performance in this House this morning. He covered all the details that he wanted to with respect to Bill 35 and put them in a broader context with respect to some of the other issues that are facing this House today. But unfortunately, he ran out of time and was unable to read into the record some of the amendments that our caucus brought forward. They were moved by the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook during the committee review of this Bill 35.

I know that the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook brought forward motions which would have ensured that the bill would only be effective until the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2009. He also brought forward an amendment which would have had the effect of ensuring that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs would respect the recommendations and suggestions from the Auditor General.

Of course, the Auditor General, in a highly unusual intervention, wrote a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs commenting on the bill, expressing some serious concerns. Our caucus was interested in having the Auditor General come forward and make a presentation to the committee before the committee disposed of the bill and referred it back to the House.

As you know, the Auditor General is an officer of this Legislature who provides independent, neutral advice to the committees and to other aspects of the operations of the government, with an annual report every year identifying and highlighting areas where government spending needs to be drawn to the attention of the public and hopefully corrected so as to ensure that taxpayers are receiving good value for their money. We were quite disappointed when the government members of the committee voted down that request by our party to have the Auditor General come in to the committee and make representation.

Once again, I want to compliment the member from Durham for his fine presentation this morning in this Legislature. We look forward to his two-minute reply.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Members, could you come to order? We're completing some business before we transition to question period.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to add two minutes to the debate here. I listened intently, as other members did, to the member across the way who passed his opinions on the bill. I don't think I agreed with anything that was said.

I think you've got to put this bill in context and go back to the impact of some of the downloading during the years of the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government. When you think of what happened to our schools, hospitals and highways in this province, things like sports facilities and social services, the impact of the downloading was traumatic on the operations of our communities. Towns and cities simply didn't have the ability to operate in the fashion that we've become accustomed to and provide the services to people in their communities that the people were insisting upon.

Bill 35, in my opinion, provides that plan to move forward. It gives municipalities, it gives the towns and the cities, a plan they can put some faith and some trust in, knowing that funds will flow that will allow these services to be provided in a way I know all Ontarians would like to see. It's a partnership between the provincial level of government and the local level of government.

As I said in my previous comments, it's received great support from civic leaders throughout Ontario. Look at the remarks that were made by Mayor McCallion; look at the remarks from David Miller. I'll quote one: Mayor Hazel McCallion, Toronto Star, March 13, 2008. She says, "This is just great. The province has done exactly what we asked them to do." There are not many people in this chamber who would choose to argue with Mayor McCallion. I think she knows about the operation of municipalities in a way that we simply agree with on this side of the House.

The Conservatives seem to have a different attitude to this problem. It's a problem of their own creation, I think. We're coming up with a solution. They provided the downloading; we're providing a solution to that. This bill is worthy of the support of all members.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: I thank the members for Beaches—East York, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Wellington—Halton Hills and, more recently, Oakville. I think the key here is that this is creating, at the end of the year, a slush fund. The slush fund can be given out, according to the legislation at this time, at the will of the Premier. I'm happy that the Premier's here, and his finance minister, to know that that's what we think and that's why we can't support it.

The member from Oakville should know, having served on a regional tier of government, that there was outrage during the period after Floyd Laughren and the NDP social contract. When Mike Harris was elected to make significant changes, it was done rather hurriedly because we were hemorrhaging money at the time. The Liberals voted against a lot of that. The problem is, they talk about downloading, but they haven't uploaded anything. The fact is, it's all a plan; it's all words. They're increasing spending. Taxes are up; the economy's down. Get the message.

Read the prosperity report; look at what Roger Martin is telling you. You're on the wrong road. You're going in the wrong direction. All of the indicators—200,000 jobs—this is a slush fund by any other name. It's discouraging. No wonder the people are so discouraged in the province.

I know that the Premier is trying to switch the channel. He wants to talk about the Lord's Prayer. He wants to talk about barking dogs. You're on the wrong track. Just take a breath, slow down, try to get some more doctors to come to Ontario, try to fix emergency, and try to stop schools from laying off teachers. Slow down for a minute. The economy's in trouble; you know that. What are you doing? What's the plan? I don't see any plan.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Chatham—Kent—Essex, in the east members' gallery is the mother of page Adam Russolo, Kari Viglasky, and Adam's grandparents, John and Barb Viglasky. We welcome them.

On behalf of the member from Davenport, in the east members' gallery, Mr. John Santos, the chair of the international singing contest, as well as the 10 finalists: Andre Carneiro, Kayla De Brito, Emily Ferreira, Nancy Marques, Sandra Nogueiria, Clara Santos, Veronica Grewal, Rita Francis, Sandra da Silva and Nevia da Silva.

In the east members' gallery, on behalf of page Arjun Sawhney, Archna Kurichh, his aunt.

As well, on behalf of all members of the House, we'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Deb Matthews, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, on the occasion of becoming a grandmother. We welcome into the world Isaac Roger Molouba.

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier and it has to do with trade apprenticeship ratios. I'm going to quote from a fact sheet from the Ontario Electrical League, just put out recently:

"Many contractors report turning away young job-seeking Ontarians on a weekly or even daily basis, not because they don't have work but because the government, through its artificially high apprenticeship ratios, does not allow them to hire these young people. The government of Ontario continues to maintain artificial barriers, the highest apprentice-journeymen ratios in Canada, to stop young Ontarians from becoming construction and maintenance electricians."

Premier, I asked you about this issue a few weeks ago. You indicated that you would look into it and take action. What have you done in the interim?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has been working on this and he'll want to speak to this momentarily, but let me just say the following: The current electrician ratio of 3 to 1 has been in place since 1991. Electrical apprentice registrations, notwithstanding that, have increased by 32% since 2003, which speaks to the effectiveness of our plan. Ratios are set by the provincial advisory committees, made up of employers and employees.

I know that in the response to the supplementary question, the minister will have more to add to this.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a very disappointing response, given the Premier's earlier comments on this issue. He's repeatedly said that there's nothing he can do about manufacturing job losses; in fact, he said that there are more to come.

Changing the apprenticeship ratios won't cost this government a dime. It will help move almost 200,000 people who've lost their jobs under your watch in those sectors that have labour shortages.

Yesterday, the Waterloo Record quoted Diane Gabel of Gabel Electric as saying, "The apprenticeship ratios are totally tying our hands. We can't hire."

Think of what a change in the ratio would do for communities like Listowel, where this lady's business is. They've been devastated by plant closings.

Premier, it's a no-brainer. Here's something real and immediate that you can do to address the job crisis in this province. Why isn't this a top priority for you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I'm pleased to stand and talk about our record in terms of apprentices. The member referenced my home community of Waterloo region. I want to inform members that yesterday I had the privilege of going to the Skills Canada-Ontario competition in Waterloo region, which is a program for young people in both high school and college to expose them to apprenticeships. Over 30,000 young people went through this program yesterday to learn about apprenticeships.

Our government made a commitment last term to increase the number of apprenticeships by 25%. This year, new apprenticeship registrations will rise to 26,000. That's 7,000 more new apprenticeships than there were in 2003, and we're on track to increase them by another 25% in the course of this mandate.

The honourable member mentions ratios. He is aware that the—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This process was in place under the former Conservative government under a well-managed and booming economy.

I want to say that the ratio for electricians is 3 to 1; for drywall finishers, it's 3 to 1; for cement masons, it's 4 to 1; for carpenters, it's 4 to 1. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce recently passed a resolution calling on you to address this. No other province has such overall stringent restrictions, and this Premier and his colleagues are in no hurry to change them. Could it be because of the fundraisers the trade unions have held for the Liberal Party of Ontario? Is this all about payback to unions, at the expense of thousands of unemployed Ontarians who can't pay their mortgages and can't feed their families? Is that what this is all about?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the member to withdraw his comments casting aspersions for reward. I would just ask him to withdraw those comments.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And for imputing motives: I would appreciate withdrawal of those comments.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Out of respect to you, Chair, I will.

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

Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities?

Hon. John Milloy: The member is aware that ratios are regularly examined. I'd like to point out that changes were made to ratios affecting various trades in both 2005 and 2007. Some examples: brick and stonemasons; architectural glass and metal mechanics; ironworkers, structural and ornamental; and sprinkler and fire protection installers.

I'd also like to point out that I agree with him: This process existed when his government was in office, and not a single ratio was changed under the Conservative watch.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The economy wasn't going down the toilet like it is under this government.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier, about pronouncements to the press over the last two weeks. Last week, during the announcement on the pesticide ban, you told the media that municipalities would still be free to bring in their own bans. In fact, the bill says the exact opposite, as we now know. The environment minister stood next to you and didn't correct you. In fact, no correction came from either the Premier's office or the environment ministry until a week later, after the press had caught on to the error.

Premier, can you explain how you could be so ill-informed about your government's own legislation? You're good at blaming others. Was it the minister's fault?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're really proud of our new legislation. I want to congratulate the minister for his leadership in this regard. We look forward to having that in place to further protect the health of Ontarians.

To speak to the specific issue raised by the leader of the official opposition, it was my mistake. I take responsibility for that. I was not adequately informed at the time in order to be able to speak to this with the full clarity that I should have been able to when we first launched this initiative. I take responsibility for that.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: If the minister was aware of the contents of the legislation, I think he would've stepped up and corrected it on the spot.

After the pesticide ban debacle, and to try to save face in light of the General Motors job losses, the Premier blurted out that a new auto plant was definitely coming to Ontario, possibly from Fiat.

The reality is that there have been no concrete talks, no commitment from any foreign automaker to bring a new plant to Ontario. The CEO of Fiat was reported saying that the ball is in the Premier's court, meaning he wants to see how many zeroes are going to be on the cheque.

Premier, why would you speak with such certainty on a new auto plant when you have no firm commitment, haven't even started having serious talks and may have jeopardized an opportunity?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll tell you why—

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The first question was on pesticides. The second question was on auto strategy. One does not have anything to do with the other.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Leader of the Opposition, if you could just quickly direct how that related to the first question, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: There is a thread in terms of confidence in leadership.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I'm pleased to take the question.

I'll tell you why I'm able to speak with such—

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, you're not; you're not pleased.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think they might have a passing interest in what I have to say.

I tell you why I speak with such confidence on behalf of Ontarians and the future prospects for our economy. When it comes to the auto sector in particular, we are really, really good at making cars. The only place they make a Lexus outside of Japan is in Ontario. GM has chosen to make its first-ever hybrid truck in Ontario. We are really good, and it's the skills of our labour, it's the quality of our workmanship that distinguishes us from any other jurisdiction. So when I say we're about to work as hard as we can to land another plant, I can speak with confidence.

I know that, sooner or later, we will land another assembly plant in the province of Ontario. I'd ask my colleagues opposite to join me in expressing that kind of determination and confidence in our workers and in our province.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's called a rewriting of the facts.

Yesterday morning, when the media asked the Premier about the foot-and-mouth virus spreading across China killing young children, he professed ignorance—totally unaware. This is Emergency Preparedness Week, and this government isn't aware of a possible pandemic in a country hosting the Olympics in a matter of weeks, which will see thousands of Ontarians travelling to China.

Premier, you are clearly ill-informed regarding legislation you're trumpeting. You carelessly blurt out confidential information for short-term political gain and you're not up to speed on a potential health hazard for Ontarians—a very bad week.

Premier, given the difficult challenges this province is currently facing, how can Ontarians have confidence in your leadership?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable friend and colleague has every right to present the case as he has. I don't share that perspective and I don't believe Ontarians do either.

Again, let's revisit this. On the first issue, I take responsibility. I should have been better informed with respect to an initiative, and I wasn't. I accept that.

On the second issue, again, I share the confidence that Ontarians have. Sooner or later we will land more investment in the auto sector in the province of Ontario.

On the third issue, there was an international issue and the member opposite feels that I should somehow be aware of all these issues at the same time. I just don't think Ontarians feel that. I'll tell you one thing: I have every confidence in my ministers and in my caucus. They all have assigned, specific responsibilities. They're well-informed on these issues. The reason I feel so confident to represent the people of Ontario as leader of their government is because I have confidence in my cabinet, I have confidence in my caucus and I have confidence in the people of Ontario.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to ask the Premier about a London company that was purchased about a year ago by a US corporation. After the purchase, the US corporation gradually reduced the number of workers to less than 50. They moved orders to the US production facilities. Now that they've reduced the workforce to less than 50 workers and the payroll to less than $2.5 million a year, the US corporation has announced the imminent closure of the plant. The US corporation gets the patents, the technology and the order books of the London company.

The workers, some of whom have worked there for over 20 years, under the Employment Standards Act of Ontario, will get nothing, not even severance pay. Does this sound like a fair situation to the Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I understand that the leader of the third party indicated today that he plans to bring forward a private member's bill around this. I haven't seen that bill yet, so it's difficult for me to comment in terms of what's going to be in it. I guess the one thing I would say is that the leader of the third party may want to look at what this government is doing to try to deal with this tougher economy. Our five-point plan invests heavily in our people.

I think the best thing we can do for workers across this province is to ensure that they have opportunities, when the unfortunate circumstance comes upon them to be laid off, to be able to retrain and find a job that can assist them in continuing to keep a roof over their head, feed their families and enjoy a good quality of life.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I didn't hear an answer from the Premier. I didn't hear an answer from the minister either. The reality here is this: This American company, under Ontario law, is able to get the patents, the technology and the order books. Under Ontario law, once they reduce the number of workers to under 50, they're under no obligation to pay severance. People who've worked in this facility for 25 years are out on the street—no job and not even severance pay.

My question is to the Premier. I'm going to put forward a private member's bill today that would ensure that workers like these at least get severance pay. Are the Premier and the McGuinty government prepared to support such a bill, which would speak to the unfairness these workers are facing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I encourage the member to bring his bill forward. We haven't seen it yet. It hasn't been introduced. Certainly, as with all private members' bills, the members of this Legislature will be interested in having a look at it, and the Legislature will do with his bill what it does with all private members' bills: If it is brought forward for debate, I'm sure there'll be a thorough debate on his bill and his intention.

What I will say is that this government is working extremely hard with regard to putting forward our five-point plan to deal with these tougher economic consequences that we face. We're investing in our people. We're investing in partnerships. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in innovation. Our goal is to do all we can to assist workers as they're working through this tougher economic time. The Premier said over and over again—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: We've already seen the McGuinty government block the NDP's Bill 6, which would have guaranteed laid-off workers the severance and back pay owed to them by law.

This situation which happened in London is not unique. Genfast, which was the company of the year in Brantford not many years ago, was acquired by an American company. After they acquired it, they took the technology, the patents and the order books and shut down the company. At Ferranti-Packard in St. Catharines, workers were told there, "You're a productive plant, you're a cost-effective plant, but we're going to shut you down because it's cheaper, easier and quicker to lay off workers in Ontario under the Employment Standards Act than it is in Quebec or some other US jurisdictions."

This is all wrong. So I'm asking the Premier, will you support the private member's bill I'm about to introduce which will ensure that workers cannot be—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: What I'll ask of the leader of the third party is that he join us in the leadership that we are showing across this country when it comes to going after the federal government to ensure that they strengthen the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide greater priorities for workers who do lose their severance pay when a company goes bankrupt. We are leading that charge across this province.

I have letters from my colleagues, fellow Ministers of Labour across Canada, joining us in our effort to urge the federal government to bring forward their wage-earner protection plan, strengthen it by adding severance and termination pay to that bill, and change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide greater priority to those workers who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of losing their severance pay because—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, and I remind the member from Hamilton East that he should be in his seat. New question.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: This question is for the Premier. This government claims that it wants to consult Ontarians about poverty reduction. Meanwhile, it tightly controls participation, imposes its own agenda, keeps dates and times secret from members of this House and uses security guards to keep the poor out.

One organizer of a local consultation about to be held has been ordered not to invite anti-poverty activists by members of the minister's staff. Why does this government refuse to allow low-income citizens and community activists a place in ministerial consultations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to tell you that this is an exciting time in the history of Ontario because, for the first time ever, a government has looked at the issue of poverty and has decided that existing levels of poverty are unacceptable. We are preparing a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy with targets, with measures. It is a terrific committee that has been brought together across ministries.

I am out talking to people in communities. I have had wonderful conversations this week with a broad cross-section of people, including members from the Peterborough Coalition Against Poverty and the Northumberland Coalition Against Poverty. I visited a youth shelter in Peterborough.

The consultation is broad. There are many, many ways that a citizen in this province can contribute. I welcome the contribution and I ask all MPPs in the House—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I think the minister is afraid to answer the real nub of the question, and that is, why are people being excluded? The minister chooses to exclude people who have the most insight into the travails of poverty. For the past three days our office has tried to find out the starting times of future consultations, but her staff either will not return the call or refuse to tell us even when they will begin.

Why won't this minister admit that her closed-door approach is undermining public trust and alienating the very people she claims to want to help?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I find myself both troubled and confused about the position of the party opposite. They are—

Hon. Monique M. Smith: They're confusing.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They are confusing the facts on this particular issue. The member opposite knows full well, because he has been there, that we have invited members of the public to come in. We have had a broad cross-section of people at the consultations.

The party opposite asked for an increase in social assistance rates. Every time we've introduced an increase in social assistance rates, they've voted against it. The members opposite have asked for an increase in the minimum wage. Every time we have introduced an increase in the minimum wage, they voted against it. They have been asking for increased supports for children living in poverty. When we introduced the most important improvement in supports for children living in poverty, you voted against it. You continue to vote against it.

We are engaged in a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. There are—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Once again, this minister refuses to answer the question and talks. "Blah, blah, blah."

As a boy growing up in Regent Park, I saw first-hand how poverty ravages the soul and lays waste to the spirit. I saw how people like us were ignored by politicians and others, even the well-meani