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

March 24, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 March 2009 Mardi 24 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

LEGISLATIVE MACE /

MASSE PARLEMENTAIRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TAXATION

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

DISASTER RELIEF

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO BUDGET

FOREST INDUSTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HYDRO RATES

PROPERTY TAXATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

ONTARIO CONFEDERATION OF

UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATIONS

DOMINIC AGOSTINO

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

RICHIE MEHTA

DOROTHY JANE NEEDLES

PATHWAYS TO EDUCATION

KYLE MAYHEW

SCOTT VERNELLI

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

SALES TAX

INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE

SALES TAX

TOM LONGBOAT

POLICE RECORDS CHECK

LUPUS

TUITION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HEALTH CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 5, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 152,

An Act respecting a long-term strategy to reduce poverty in Ontario / Projet de loi 152, Loi concernant une stratégie à long terme de réduction de la pauvreté en Ontario.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: Good morning, and thank you very much. I'm pleased to have 10 minutes this morning to make a few remarks on Bill 152, our government's poverty reduction strategy.

I think it's important for us to mention that when we were first elected in 2003, we realized quite quickly, as a government, that there was a lot of work that needed to be done in respect to poverty reduction in the province of Ontario. I think it's fair to say that we had inherited a history of some regression or neglect in this regard.

The previous administration, beginning in 1995 to 2003, had made some significant reductions–I think that's acknowledged by most people in this Legislature—in 1995 or 1996, seeing an approximate 21% reduction in social assistance rates almost immediately, and then, going forward until approximately 2003, no inflationary increases attached to social assistance rates in the province of Ontario.

So what we saw when we came to government in 2003 was that there was a significant amount of work to be done. We feel that we have, as a government, taken positive steps in this regard. I'm sure there's no one on our side of the House who wouldn't suggest that there is more work yet to be done, but we do feel that we have made significant strides in terms of trying to address what had been some neglect over the last number of years upon our arrival to government.

One of the significant policy pieces, while there are many, and legislative pieces that we've brought forward since forming government in 2003—I think it's fair to say that most of our members, if not all of them, and I think perhaps even some members on the other side, would suggest that the main plank and the main policy piece that we brought forward to try and address poverty in the province of Ontario would be our Ontario child benefit, brought forward by the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

I know it's a piece that that minister has worked very hard on, obviously, with the leadership and direction of Premier McGuinty. We have managed to bring forward what we feel is the single most important piece in terms of addressing poverty in Ontario.

Like many members in the Legislature, just this past Friday, I had an opportunity to make a wonderful announcement. I think most members likely did the same. What we were able to announce—and, of course, this will be subject, should this be contained in the budget, to passage of the budget. What we will see, should it be contained in there or anywhere else going forward, with the support of the Legislative Assembly, will be significant increases on the OCB from where it currently sits, at $600, up to in the order of magnitude of $1,100.

This was originally intended to max out at about $1,300 per year per child in the province of Ontario for those who are eligible, but what we see going forward is that this $1,100 watershed mark will be ramped up and moved forward by approximately two years. Originally, moving from $600 up into the $1,100 range was not intended to be met until approximately 2010 or 2011, so on a go-forward basis, it is our hope that with the support of the Legislative Assembly, we are able to fast track that piece and move it forward.

As I said in my opening remarks, it's extremely important that we're able to do that. We have a long history here, going back to 1995—and some would say even earlier; 1992 or 1993—where several of these issues that are fundamental to addressing poverty in Ontario had not been addressed. In fact, not only had they not been addressed, but some would say that they had gone backwards. So the 21% reduction that I mentioned, in 1995 or 1996, is a significant piece that we have to address going forward.

I will tell you that what I really like about the Ontario child benefit is that it's not just about people on social assistance, but it also captures those whom we refer to often in this place as the working poor. I can tell you that shortly after the election in 2003, I, like many members in the assembly, would have people coming into my office discussing poverty reduction issues. Most of the time, the conversations would focus primarily on—and justifiably so to some degree—people on social assistance in the province. I would respond to them, "Well, what about the working poor?" That was 2003-04.

That's why I want to tell you that I'm extremely proud of what we've done with the work on the Ontario child benefit, because as most members have come to realize, the OCB does capture people who are the working poor. They will be eligible for it. It's clearly laid out in terms of who's eligible, what benchmarks are available for people to begin receiving the Ontario child benefit. So it's a very significant policy piece. I'm thrilled, as I think most are, that it's not just about people on social assistance, but it also captures the working poor.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are a significant number of other policy pieces that we have brought forward over the course of the last five, going on six years that we feel are significant and important in terms of addressing poverty reduction in Ontario. One of those that I'd like to touch on briefly here today is our affordable housing program. I can give you some wonderful numbers in terms of what it has achieved directly in my hometown of Thunder Bay and my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Under the affordable housing program, the Thunder Bay District Social Services Administration Board for the northern homeowner repair program received $5 million to address housing repairs for 250 northern housing units. These, of course, are for people who own their own homes; again not simply addressing people who are on social assistance, but the working poor.

In the riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, I can report to you the progress on that particular program. As of January 30, 2009, 152 units were approved, for a total of almost $2.9 million under the affordable housing program: 70 units are occupied and 82 units are under repair and construction. The link, of course, with this program to poverty reduction in the province of Ontario is that these are the working poor.

These are people who own their own homes, and these repairs, under our affordable housing program and the northern homeowner repair program, will allow the working poor to retrofit their homes, and we think they will see significant reductions in the costs associated with owning their own homes when it comes to gas, energy costs of all sorts, insulation and windows that will help reduce their costs to maintain and live in their own homes. It's a very significant piece, and we're obviously very proud of it.

That program has just had an extension, I can tell you, in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan to August 2009, to allow the Thunder Bay District Social Assistance Administration Board to get more of the units out the door and ensure that this money is not left on the table. So we're working very closely with them to ensure that as many people as possible have an opportunity to tap into this program.

Another one of the pieces that we feel is significant in terms of addressing poverty reduction is our rent bank program. Again, I can give you local examples from my Thunder Bay DSSAB. Our district social services administration board was allocated almost $300,000, which has, to this point, prevented just about 260 evictions. In 2004 the allocation was $132,000; in 2006, $56,000; in 2007, $27,000; and in 2008, $75,000. Almost $300,000, it is estimated, that the money under the rent bank has delivered, which has avoided 260 evictions in Thunder Bay—Atikokan. I'm sure the numbers across the entire province are obviously much larger than that.

One of the other things I'd like to highlight in my last minute and a half or so is our work as a government when it comes to employment insurance. It's obviously a federal program, but something that I think we've seen very recently, perhaps in the last four or five months, finally gain some broader-based provincial and national traction in Canada.

For, I would say, at least three years, under the leadership of Premier McGuinty, our government has been advocating strongly to the federal government that the disparities in the way the employment insurance program is rolled out in Canada, specifically in the province of Ontario, are unfair and discriminate against workers in this province. We have been leading this fight, I would say, for at least three years now here in the province. When we first began talking about this, we were portrayed as simply blaming some of our problems on the federal government.

It's nice to see, since the federal government has finally woken up to the challenges that exist in Canada, that they too, as a federal government, federal parties—and other parties, I should say now, in the province of Ontario—I think are finally on side in terms of this fight. I think it's fair to repeat that it was Premier McGuinty who began this fight fully three years ago. I've presented petitions in this Legislature in that regard going back a couple of years, and I know many other members have as well.

This is a significant part of our reduction strategy as well. We're happy to see that it's finally being recognized and acknowledged by other parties and by the national government, and we look forward to seeing more positive work on that as we move forward.

I see that my time is up. I'm pleased to have had an opportunity this morning to do my 10 minutes on Bill 152, and I'm thrilled that we are doing what we're doing. I thank the Minister of Children and Youth Services for all of her great work, especially on the Ontario child benefit. I know she's very proud of that particular piece and I was pleased to present that to my community of Thunder Bay—Atikokan on Friday.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have a moment to add some comments to the speech from the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan talking about Bill 152, the poverty reduction bill that doesn't seem to have a plan in it. Now, the member was talking about past governments and about "significant regression"—I think that was his exact terminology—back under the past PC government. I would say to him, we're talking about poverty. What about the lost 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs that we've seen under your watch? What about those jobs?

What about your attack on business in this province that you seem to be carrying on relentlessly, going after one sector after another? Most recently, I just learned about another sector that is under attack by this government, and that is the small bus companies that run the school buses in this province. You've now brought in an RFP process. I was talking to operators in my riding last week, and you're forcing these very small companies that have had bus routes for years and years and years to now engage in a request-for-proposal process. What do you think is going to happen with that?

Well, I'll tell you what I think is going to happen—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I think I know what it is, and I would ask the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka how this relates to the speech that was given by the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Mr. Norm Miller: It relates to the fact that this government is continuing to cause further poverty by causing other businesses to no longer be able to stay in business in this province. What this government is doing is forcing these small bus companies that have had small routes—and I see I have eight seconds left, so I won't be able to fully explain my point now, but I will, at another opportunity, expand on the point I was about to make.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: The member for Thunder Bay has presented us with, I think, a very well researched, well-rounded explanation of this particular bill. I'd like to add a couple of comments to it.

One of the intangibles that is one of the government's greatest accomplishments in its campaign against poverty is to restore something called hope. It's no longer an economic crime to need help. The list of the accomplishments that the member stated give people who need help at a crucial point in their time a really good overview of some of the ways in which the province of Ontario can look at them and say, "We are all part of the same family of Ontarians. If you need help, you're one of us. If you need help, we'll help you."

I want to touch on just a few of them. I want to talk about affordable housing. Last summer, I had an opportunity at one of the affordable housing complexes in Streetsville, Fletcher's Creek Co-op, at the corner of Bristol and Creditview, to look a development taking a set of older town homes and going through them and replacing the roofs, replacing the windows. The homeowners were telling us in detail about the difference it was going to make in not having frost on the inside of their windows and not having snow blow through some of the cracks in the walls. That project was completed on time and on budget.

For those people who really needed the help that Fletcher's Creek Co-op provides, this government's activity, this government's initiatives, made their lives easier. That's one of the reasons that I think this is a good measure. That's one of the reasons why I'll support it.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: In response to the comments made by the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan, I would like to remind the member that when the previous government about which he commented took office, there was a $12-billion deficit in this province. One in 10 people were on welfare. There was no industrial activity taking place. Ontario was in fact at the bottom of the list of provinces in terms of economic activity. When his government took office in 2003, there were in fact renewed activity and economic development activities taking place in the province.

There were the fewest number of people on welfare at any point in the history of this province. Today, the welfare rolls are on the climb again. We are facing an $18-billion deficit, which is the highest that this province has ever seen, there are more people living in poverty today in this province than ever before in the history of this province, and this member and this government have no plan whatsoever.

Today, we're debating a bill that is hollow rhetoric. There is nothing in this bill that will do anything about poverty. So I say to the member, before you stand in your place and wax eloquent about the failings of the previous government, please have a very careful analysis of your performance as a government and ask yourself carefully, what is it that people in poverty in this province will have as a result of this hollow piece of legislation that we're debating today?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question or comment.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I would like to just recognize the remarks of some of our opponents over there, who no doubt are practising some of their leadership speeches coming up in June.

I think probably it's best illustrative of the fundamental difference between the approach that this government has and other governments have taken in that we don't engage in wedge politics. We try not to divide and rule, but actually govern for all Ontarians. That's why, for example, initiatives such as the increase of the child benefit are going to be particularly beneficial to modest-income-area ridings such as my own, Etobicoke North.

I know, for example, that individuals, especially during this time of manufacturing job sector challenge and economic downturn, are going to be especially challenged in times going forward. But is our approach to hire Andersen Consulting on how to rid the welfare rolls—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I have to caution the member for Etobicoke North and ask how this relates back to the speech that was given by the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I'd be honoured to, Speaker. The way this relates, sir, is with regard to poverty reduction, which is of course on the agenda, and the approach that current governments take and previous governments took—which, by the way, is in direct reply to the two minutes preceding me. I hope that's suitable to you, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, as I say, the approach that this government takes is one of inclusivity, of attempting to increase opportunities, whether it's investments in education or with our social support network. I thank you for this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'll now return to the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan, who has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'd like to thank the members from Parry Sound—Muskoka, Mississauga—Streetsville, Newmarket—Aurora and Etobicoke North.

One of the members, in their response to my 10 minutes, mentioned that when they came to government, they inherited about a $12-billion deficit and that there were people on assistance and they needed to find a way to address that. I guess that was the justification for the 21% reduction in social assistance rates in the province of Ontario.

What the member forgot to mention was that when we came to government in 2003, we found ourselves in a very similar circumstance. In fact, we also inherited a deficit of $5.6 billion, but that deficit was not acknowledged until maybe three days before election day. Our circumstances were similar; the only difference is that, even under similar circumstances, when we came to government we still found a capacity under which to address social justice issues. Some governments find the capacity to do it; others ignore it. The circumstances were similar. We took a different path.

As I said in my remarks, this is not just about the Ontario child benefit. Since 2003, we've addressed significant policy pieces that will help people who are finding themselves in challenging circumstances in the province of Ontario. I mentioned briefly a rent bank; I didn't mention the energy bank. I didn't have an opportunity in my 10 minutes to talk about minimum wage. I didn't have an opportunity to talk about providing free immunization for people in the province of Ontario. I talked about the northern home repair program. I didn't have an opportunity to talk about baby screening.

We talked a bit about social housing. We didn't talk about the increases we brought in to Ontario Works and Ontario disability support payments. We didn't talk about the increases that we brought in to injured workers for the first time in about 10 or 15 years in the province of Ontario, or the infrastructure that we've invested in to help keep taxes low for people.

There's a lot that we've done, and I think that most people in this place acknowledge it. We took a different path.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to participate in this debate.

I find it quite odd that the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan stood in his place and advised the House that it's unfortunate he didn't have the time to talk about all of the wonderful things, and then he enumerated a half dozen areas that he should have or could have elaborated. Well, he had another 10 minutes on the clock. Why didn't he choose to take the 20 minutes allotted to him and let us know what his government has done or intends to do?

But the reason he chose to cut himself off from that time is because he knows that the things he would talk about are, in fact, hollow rhetoric, that there is no plan, and that when he begins to talk a little longer than 10 minutes, the substance starts to wane. So what we will do over the next 20 minutes—I'll take my full 20, and I will talk about this bill, Bill 152.

I want to talk about the five action words that are contained in this bill. Stakeholders from across the province who are listening to this debate, and who are listening to the spin of this government as to what they're going to do to fight poverty, will find only five action words in this entire piece of legislation. I want to share them with you, and then I'll deal with them one at a time. The action words contained in this legislation are as follows: (1) publish; (2) consult; (3) review; (4) inform; and (5) solicit. Those are the action words contained in this legislation. There is nothing more than that.

I would submit to you that if this government was serious about dealing with poverty in this province, they would have had a plan when they were first elected in 2003. It is today 2009, and every time issues are raised in this House about the dire straits of people, whether it's people in poverty, whether it's children who are not being served with regard to mental health services, children with autism—against whom the Premier broke his promise—every time that we raise an issue in this House, this government has nothing to say other than to blame the previous government of 15 years ago.

Given the opportunity, they would blame Sir John A. Macdonald. This government refuses to take responsibility for the actions that they have failed to take since their election in 2003.

I want to talk about the substance of the bill as this government suggests it is. The first thing that the minister is required to do under this act is to commence at the end of 2009—I don't know why that is. What is the date today? It's March 24, 2009, and the government brings in a bill today that we're debating, but the minister is required to do nothing until the end of 2009. What is the minister going to do between now and the end of the year? Oh, I know: probably have a few press conferences. Let's travel the province and let people know. Do some more dog-and-pony shows. Let's have a few consultations. Let's show and let's talk, but let's not do.

So the minister is required under this act, commencing at the end of 2009, to do what? "To prepare, and subsequently publish on a government website"—now there's action. Beginning at the end of 2009, the minister will then begin to publish something on the government website. We anticipate what that will look like, having had months to prepare for that website. We can't imagine what wealth of information might be contained on that government website at that time.

The second action word here—listen up: "The minister is required to regularly consult with ... key stakeholders." Well, what has she being doing since 2003? What has the government been doing since 2003, if not consulting? And by the way, why would you not consult before you bring in legislation? First, you bring in legislation, then you have to consult. But I know why: The reason that the minister has to consult after tabling the legislation is because there's nothing in the legislation. There is nothing here.

What the minister now has before her is a piece of legislation that will have been debated in this House, at second reading, committee and third reading—and then she'll go out and consult.

What will she be told? Well, she won't start until the end of 2009, and by that time, I suggest the $18-billion deficit will have ballooned into a $25-billion deficit, and there will be more people in poverty than ever before. What she'll be asked by people at that time, who will be rising up against her and her government, is: "Why didn't you act in 2003? Why didn't you act before now to do something about an issue that you knew full well was growing under your watch?"

The next action word in this bill is "review." Let's see what will be reviewed. "At least every five years," according to the legislation, "the government of Ontario must review the long-term ... strategy"—every five years. Let's see. That would be after every election. I don't want to in any way be presumptive here, but I have a feeling that this minister will never have an opportunity to review her long-term strategy.

I'm convinced that as a result of the non-action not only on the issue of poverty, but on the issues of economic development which would in fact resolve many of the poverty issues, this minister will no longer have an opportunity to review anything as a minister because the people of this province will have said, "Enough is enough." What they will want is to have some leadership, not only on the issue of poverty, but on the issue of economic development and stability, so that people in this province will once again have hope.

We know, on this side of the House, that the best answer to poverty is to ensure that those who have the ability to work are given the opportunity to work; that those who have the ability to learn are given the opportunity to learn; that it's not just about having press conferences and making announcements, but it's about putting in place a solid plan that is going to give young people some hope by giving them the right kind of information; that it's not just simply placating immigrants to this country with promises, but giving them specific programs so that they can take their talents and expertise and knowledge and become involved in a meaningful and positive way in their communities.

None of that has been provided by this government and over the last number of years they got away with it. Why? Because they were riding the wave of the previous government's work in this province to establish economic stability. They had the privilege of riding the wave of previous work that had been done to create jobs, to create economic activity. That momentum has come to a grinding halt, after a number of years of this government's inaction and lack of a plan.

The fourth action word in this bill is "inform." Now, there's a challenge. Here's what the bill requires the minister to do: "The minister is required to inform the public of the review...." That's a huge job. Get those communications consultants out. Roll out those—

Hon. Jim Watson: Is that Paul Rhodes?

Mr. Frank Klees: Yeah. Roll out those experts, the spin doctors.

I have to say, the one thing that this government does well is spin. There is no other government that I have ever observed, whether at the federal or provincial level, that has been better at spinning information than the McGuinty government. They do it so well that they have stakeholders believing them, they have the public believing them. Sometimes even they believe it.

But you see, here's the problem: Spin eventually spins out. The reason that this is all coming to a grinding halt is because the momentum is gone. There's no more energy left. They've consumed it all. Now, out of the depths of an $18-billion deficit, they will try to resurrect. It just won't happen. And do you know why? Because in order to generate recovery, you have to have a plan, and that plan has to be based on principles. This government not only does not have a plan; there is a dearth of principles. It doesn't matter whether it's health care, the economy, social issues; there is no relevance to what is going on in this province today.

I have yet to see a piece of legislation come forward from this government that is not 90% spin and public relations and 10% substance. That's why we face the crisis that we're facing in this province today.

The final action word in this legislation is "solicit." As a result of each review, the minister is required to solicit the views of the public and carry out—what?—further consultations. So you see, we're going around in circles here, and the spin is going to have the minister dizzy, because she starts out with a review, she goes through consultations, she then does her report, she then posts it all on the website, and then that leads to what? It leads to a further review. Honestly, I find it difficult to understand how members of this government can in good conscience stand in their place and defend what we have before us.

I want to take the next few minutes to do what the government has not done, and that is to share with this House and those who are observing this debate what we believe should be done and what we believe a real plan of action should contain to address the poverty issue.

In the explanatory note, this government talks about the fact that they should be addressing issues of poverty reduction to fulfill the objectives of social, economic and cultural development. You see how upside down this government has it? Because it is in fact economic development that will resolve the poverty issue, not a poverty strategy to contribute to economic development. It's the other way around.

The best plan for poverty reduction, I submit, is a good, strong economic development plan that will allow people who are wallowing in poverty today to take themselves out of that circumstance with the help of a plan that will allow them, either through retraining or through education, to become productive in our society. Although it's important, obviously, that people at the lower end of the pay scale have a respectful pay for the work that they do, the debate needs to be about creating good jobs and creating an environment in this province that is going to encourage employers to create those jobs.

What this government has done consistently since their election is create an environment that is making it more and more impossible for businesses to exist in this province. Look at the number of times that I've brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour in this House that he has an army of inspectors roaming this province who are making it virtually impossible for employers to keep their doors open because of red tape and unnecessary intimidation on the part of individuals who should be civil servants. They should be working with businesses, helping them comply, not threatening them.

But the minister refuses to understand. I'm asking him as minister to simply take the time to recognize what's going on on the front lines and to instruct his army of civil servants to have a change of attitude, to have a change of mind, to work with businesses and help create an environment that will actually encourage people to invest in this province and to create additional jobs. But that's not what they've been doing. Instead of doing that, they've been layering more red tape and more regulations onto the very people who are the solution for poverty in this province.

What else have they done? I can tell you what we would do: We would eliminate those barriers of red tape and regulatory burden, and we would form partnerships with businesses to say, "What is it that government can do to help you as a business create opportunities in our communities?" Entry-level jobs, jobs into which people can grow, advanced technology jobs, whatever they might be—that's the solution.

There is another aspect that I want to speak to and leave on the record for this government. We have been appealing to this government for the last number of years to ensure that funding for mental health is a priority.

The number of times I have submissions in my constituency office from social workers in our community, pleading with me to help lobby this government to ensure that mental health services are properly funded, because of the number of people who become disengaged from activity within our communities because of mental health challenges that are not being treated, and as a result they end up on disability as opposed to being able to earn their own way—we can't continue to ignore the mental health challenges in our communities. They are a challenge from the very young through to the adult ages.

We cannot continue to ignore that issue and pretend that we care about our communities and pretend that we care about poverty. Those are practical steps, amongst many others, that this government knows about, that we've called on them to address, and they continue to turn their backs on the most vulnerable. Their answer is hollow rhetoric such as we have in Bill 152. Surely this government can do better.

They will be held accountable, not by us, because they don't listen to the official opposition here, but by the people they serve. I know that many of the backbenchers in this government feel the same way that we do. I ask them to take some action as members of this government.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I find myself in the odd situation of having to try to discount some of what has been said by the Conservative member. I agree with the Conservatives that the Liberals are doing a lot of press announcements, that they're trying to look good on the poverty issue, that they're really not attacking the core issues. I agree. But to be lectured by a Conservative having to do with the avails of what should be done when it comes to poverty is pretty hard to take. I was in this Legislature when Mike Harris and Mr.

Eves were Premiers of this province, and there was more done to attack the poor in the time that they were in government than any other time since I've been here. So I take it a little bit as passing strange. I remember a reduction of 24% that people on welfare were given as a result of the 1995 election. So I find it a little bit hard to take that all of a sudden the Conservatives profess themselves to be the saviours of the poor, because clearly what's going on is that this party is taking another shift to the right. That is the decision they'll make, and we'll see where that gets us in the next election.

On the issue that he talks about, should the government be doing more, I think the answer is definitely yes.

Ce qui est bien clair pour moi, c'est que ce gouvernement a toujours voulu dire d'une belle manière au monde : « Ah oui, regardez ce qu'on fait. C'est donc excellent. On a cette initiative-là, on a une autre initiative là-bas, et on va faire de belles affaires. » Mais comment le monde va être affecté dans leur communauté, chez eux, ça, c'est une toute autre affaire. Donc, on va avoir une chance pendant ce débat de parler de la vision qu'on pense qu'on doit prendre comme gouvernement pour être capable d'avancer ce dossier pour vraiment avoir un impact.

Mais ce qui est clair, et je suis d'accord avec le député, c'est que ce gouvernement veut parler une belle parole quand ça vient à la pauvreté, mais quant à l'action, il n'y en a pas.

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

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm pleased to participate and support this particular piece of legislation for a couple of reasons. This legislation will keep the government's feet to the fire as a result of a requirement that we come back to this Legislative Assembly and report on progress that's being made in our fight against poverty.

I was very pleased to be part of the cabinet committee on poverty reduction, chaired so ably by my colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services. It was a first for the province of Ontario: to have a cabinet committee dedicated to coming forward with an action plan to reduce poverty, to bring in specific targets.

Some of the initiatives, obviously, that I'm pleased with include the Ontario child benefit, which is in place and in effect, and children are benefiting from that; and social housing, affordable housing, which is part of my portfolio. I'm pleased that we were able to sign an agreement with the previous federal government for an affordable housing program that is seeing literally tens of thousands of individuals in Ontario get a break in terms of the cost of housing, which is, in many instances, their single largest cost when it comes to their household budget.

I'm also pleased that the current federal government has agreed with us that they need to be back in the affordable housing business.

Last week, I was at 20 Rochester, in the riding of Ottawa Centre, with my colleague Yasir Naqvi and other members of the Legislature, including Phil McNeely, and I was asked a question about the minimum wage: "Are you going too fast?" And I said, "The Liberal approach is a balanced approach." There's one party that wants us to raise the minimum wage overnight and another party that doesn't want us to increase the minimum wage at all. We've taken a balanced, thoughtful approach where we're bringing in incremental increases to the minimum wage—again, in our fight against poverty, to help some of the most vulnerable in our community.

I look forward to this debate continuing, and I'd ask members to support this very progressive piece of legislation.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The very first thing that comes to mind is that the member from Newmarket—Aurora, in his time here, has always shown great compassion for people who have lost hope and opportunity. I guess what's happened is, he's trying to make sure that we address the first, primary issue, and that is creating opportunities for people to take advantage of.

I recall the first remark I heard, I believe from Premier McGuinty, during the first signs of the economy tipping. He said—I think it was in reference to some of my constituents, the auto sector—there's a slight contraction. Well, it was anything but; it was more like a coronary attack rather than a slight contraction.

We see the trouble now, and what has the reaction been? Well, it's been in typical Liberal fashion, quite honestly: tax and spend. They've raised the health tax, and now almost every hospital is in deficit. We know that the whole long-term-care system was promised more money: $6,000 more for the care of persons in long-term care. How much is there? There's less. In fact, they haven't built any new facilities for long-term care—to take care of the hospitals.

So I'm very concerned for those vulnerable people, as we march towards a deepening recession with a government that has no plan except to spend more money—which is future taxes—and now we're talking about a strategy to address poverty.

The member for Newmarket—Aurora concentrated on five key actions that the minister would take. I think he had it right when he said the timing of it is almost strategically mapped out to avoid the problem. Imagine not consulting extensively with all of the people who wanted to participate in the public process leading up to Bill 154.

This is nothing more than more chatter with no solutions. I am so disappointed in the minister's actions this morning.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you for giving me a chance to comment on the speaker from Newmarket—Aurora. I listened to him for 20 minutes, speaking about his record when he was in government, and he was taking pride in cutting the welfare rolls by 24% and making more poor. He was also taking pride in deregulating most industries in the province of Ontario, many different regulators in this province. And what happened? We had the Walkerton tragedy. He was taking pride in cutting taxes for the wealthy. What happened? It affected the most vulnerable people among us, affected our health care, our education—and all this just to make the wealthy wealthier.

Our approach to deal with poverty is a great approach. As you heard from many different speakers who spoke before us in this place, who talked about our plan, our strategy, to support the poor and support the vulnerable people among us, to create affordable homes across the province of Ontario, to house the people who cannot afford to have a regular home—all of these strategies are taking place in the province of Ontario.

I know the dilemmas are huge, the disaster—we are facing a challenging time—but you know, due to the leadership of the Minister of Children and Youth Services in this province and the chair of the cabinet committee to reduce poverty in this province, we are going to see the light at the end of the tunnel, because we are on the right track, going in the right direction.

I want to applaud our government, and I'll applaud the minister and all of our government for the job they do on a daily basis on behalf of all of us in this great province of Ontario to address this very issue, because it's important to all of us. We cannot prosper in this province when we walk alone. We have to bring all of us, all of the people from every economic level, to walk together. It's the only way we will have a prosperous future.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I will return now to the member for Newmarket—Aurora, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank my colleagues who commented on my remarks: the members from London—Fanshawe, Durham, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member from Timmins—James Bay.

In response to the member from Timmins—James Bay, who said that he found it hard to take that I would speak in support of supporting the most vulnerable in our community, I want to say with all due respect that he does not have a corner on compassion. In all of my life, it has been a core value of mine that we have a collective responsibility to support those in our communities who cannot support or help themselves because of circumstances in their life.

That core value informed me in my life prior to coming to this place, and it continues to inform my opinions and my view to social justice as a member of this Legislature. It's in the context of what I personally believe that I entered in this debate today. And it's with this that I appeal to this government to move beyond the empty rhetoric of the bill before us and to put in place a substantive plan that will, in fact, address the poverty issues, not simply by way of a pronouncement, but by way of real action.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Further debate?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being reasonably close to 10 a.m., this House stands in recess until 10 a.m.

The House recessed from 0953 to 1000.

LEGISLATIVE MACE /

MASSE PARLEMENTAIRE

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It being 10 a.m., I do now adjourn the House during pleasure.

Members, pray be seated.

Please open the doors so we can invite our special guests to enter the chamber and be seated.

Honourable members, it is my pleasure this morning to introduce to you representatives of those organizations which have contributed to the successful completion of the Mine to Mace project.

Before I do so, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Michael Gravelle, whose ministry acted, first, as a liaison between De Beers and the Legislative Assembly, then as the coordinator for all those who contributed goods or services to the project.

Please allow me in particular to recognize the efforts of Rob Merwin, executive director, diamond sector unit at the ministry, whose enthusiasm for and logistical organization of this project contributed mightily to its completion.

The story begins approximately 1,150 kilometres north of here, in the James Bay lowlands. The area is home to the Attawapiskat First Nation, and that community has been an integral part of the success of De Beers Canada's Victor mine. Today, the community is proudly represented here by Chief Theresa Hall of the Attawapiskat First Nation.

Chief Hall is accompanied by Nicole Edwards. Nicole is a graduate of the De Beers process plant trainee program. Members will be interested to know that Nicole is also the aunt of one of our former pages, Jordan Edwards. Welcome to both of you, and thank you for helping us mark this historic occasion.

The origin of the Mine to Mace project lies with De Beers Canada, which has generously gifted the people of Ontario with three diamonds from the first commercial production of the Victor mine. This gift will commemorate in a lasting way the historic discovery of Ontario's diamonds and the industry that produces them. Joining us today is Mr. Jim Gowans, president of De Beers Canada.

The stones chosen for this unusual project were expertly hand-picked by Ontario's chief gemologist, Ron Gashinski. Mr. Gashinski can attest to the purity of the diamonds extracted from the Victor mine, and he made certain that the quality of these particular stones would equal their intended setting.

Many of you took the opportunity to view the cutting and polishing of one of the diamonds right here at Queen's Park a couple of weeks ago. This was made possible by Crossworks Manufacturing, who were good enough to provide the cutting and polishing tools and the services of an expert diamond cutter, Jack Lu. We are pleased to have Uri Ariel, president of Crossworks Manufacturing, with us this morning.

Every diamond needs a setting, and every setting should be platinum. The Sudbury platinum used for the mace setting was graciously donated by Vale Inco. Jennifer Sloan, executive vice-president of corporate affairs, represents Vale Inco here this morning.

Casting the setting which would fix the diamonds to the mace proved to be possibly one of the greater challenges of this project. However, its success is a tribute to the skill and tenacity of the Corona Jewellery Company, represented here by its president, John Minister. Corona also arranged to have the mace cleaned and replated in preparation for the diamond setting.

Members will be interested to know that this project has been particularly special to Reena, since it converges with a remnant of her childhood. Reena's grandfather, T. H. Tembhre, was the Speaker of the House in the province of Madhya Pradesh in India. Reena told me she can recall her grandfather wearing his robes and regaling her with stories of Parliament, memories that have made her recent visits here to the assembly warmly familiar. Reena, thanks.

To all of you, and to those in the gallery who have also been involved in this project, I am pleased, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, to express sincere appreciation for your efforts towards making this once nebulous idea come to fruition. Thank you all very much.

Originally a medieval weapon, and once the symbol of the supremacy of the crown, the mace was first used for ceremonial purposes in 13th-century England and France. In modern times, it symbolizes the authority of the Speaker and signifies the independence of Parliament. It also serves as a potent reminder of our parliamentary heritage and tradition.

Ontario's current mace was crafted by Charles Zollikofer in 1867. It is made of gilded copper and is the third mace used in the province's history. The original mace, taken out of retirement and pressed into service this past January, dates back to 1792, and will once again be placed on display in the lobby.

Today, this assembly is presented with a mace transformed. The placement of the diamonds in Ontario's mace represents the uniqueness of our northern community and the wealth of our mineral resources, merged with one of the most powerful symbols of this province's parliamentary democracy. The parliamentary symbolism is in turn represented on the girdle of the polished diamond, which is inscribed with the motto of the Legislative Assembly, "Audi alteram partem"—hear the other side.

Now I would like to recognize the Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would like to thank everyone who was involved in this wonderful project, the restoration of Ontario's mace. Not only has it been repaired, it has also been renewed, with the addition, as you mentioned, of two diamonds.

Je dis souvent que nous sommes au mieux lorsque nous travaillons ensemble. Par conséquent, il convenait que pour ce projet, un tel nombre de personnes se réunissent pour ajouter un nouveau

chapitre à la riche histoire et aux traditions de l'Ontario.

I often say that we work best when we work together, so it is fitting that for this project so many people came together to add to the rich tapestry of Ontario's history and traditions.

As you mentioned, Speaker, the diamonds used in this project were generously provided by De Beers Canada from their Victor mine near Attawapiskat. I can mention in passing that I had the good fortune to visit the Victor mine and the community of Attawapiskat, and it is a great pleasure to welcome Chief Theresa Hall from the Attawapiskat First Nation to our Legislature today. Ontario's chief gemologist, Ron Gashinski, hand-picked the stones. The platinum used in the setting was mined in Ontario and provided by Vale Inco Ltd. The setting was crafted by Corona Jewellery Canada.

The diamond cutting tools and master cutter Jack Lu were supplied by Crossworks Manufacturing. They tell me that Jack and those tools have been hard at work for more than 30 hours here in the Legislature to shape one of the diamonds. Finally, I want to thank Reena Ahluwalia for designing such a symbolic setting.

I might add one further thanks. Speaker, I am convinced that if it were not for you and your usual good humour and enthusiasm, this is not a project that would have achieved the success that it has. So, on behalf of everyone here, I thank you as well.

Le diamant brut est un exemple de la richesse naturelle de l'Ontario et sa forme polie nous rappelle ce que notre magnifique province est capable d'accomplir.

The rough diamond signifies Ontario's natural riches and leads to the polished stone reminding us what our great province is capable of. The mace is a symbol of our heritage and parliamentary democracy. It represents the authority of the Speaker and the supremacy of our laws. Its history in the provincial assembly is both long and distinguished, and now with two of Ontario's first-ever mined diamonds added, it represents much more than that.

It shows the wealth of our resources, the strength of our manufacturers, the talent of our artisans and, above all, the spirit of our people: their commitment to democracy, the value they place in our shared heritage, and their unrelenting drive for progress.

Au nom du gouvernement, je remercie toutes les personnes qui ont permis à cet événement de se produire, et je suis heureux de m'associer à mes collègues pour souligner le retour de la masse à l'Assemblée législative.

Again, on behalf of the government, I thank everyone who made today possible. I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming the return of our mace and all that it represents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Premier. The Leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: There may be a little repetition in terms of my comments with respect to your contributions, Speaker, and the Premier's, but I think this is one of those memorable occasions when repetition is appropriate.

It's an honour to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to comment on the return of the mace, now fitted with two diamonds courtesy of De Beers. The diamonds, as we've heard, come from the first commercial production of the Victor diamond mine near Attawapiskat in northern Ontario.

For those watching and wondering why this is a significant event, I thought I'd take just a few moments to explain and perhaps elaborate beyond what the Speaker did, in terms of the special place that the mace occupies in parliamentary history, dating as far back as the first meetings of Parliament in England in the 13th century.

Our lineage of maces in this province has a colourful and interesting history. The first mace of Ontario was used in the chamber of Upper Canada's first Parliament in 1792 at Newark, which is now Niagara-on-the-Lake. It was crafted, we're told, from wood, either pine or fir. When the Parliament of Upper Canada moved to York, now Toronto, so did the mace, only to be stolen during the War of 1812 by the United States Navy. It was returned in 1934 under special goodwill orders of President Franklin Roosevelt and the United States Congress.

This mace was used as our backup while the mace being celebrated today was being transformed. I'm told it's going to be retired once again to public display in the main lobby of the building.

In 1845, a new mace was purchased for $500. This mace resembled the mace used in the British House of Commons. It was silver and gilded, and adorned with gems and pearls. Unfortunately, this mace met the fate of mace number one. It too was stolen, this time in 1849 by an unruly mob in Montreal. The mace was rescued and returned to the Speaker the very next day, but it was destined for worse. In 1854, the mace was twice rescued from fires at the Parliament buildings in Quebec. That mace was used by the Union Parliament in Toronto and Quebec until Confederation.

It eventually ended up in the House of Commons in Ottawa, but didn't survive the fire of February 3, 1916, and was reduced to a tiny ball of silver and gold.

Now the present: Our current gilded copper mace was created in 1867 by Charles Zollikofer of Ottawa. At the time it cost $200. I'm sure its value has gone up considerably since it left the table.

I can't help but mention here that I'm sure we can all agree in this chamber that we don't want history to repeat itself. We need to keep a watchful eye on our third and recently bejewelled mace. One of our staff members already tried, I'm told unsuccessfully, to get the diamond cutter to cut two pieces of glass from old Coke bottles for the mace instead of the diamonds.

As the Speaker mentioned, the mace has evolved from a weapon in medieval times to a symbol of the Speaker's authority in current times. Just as the hockey game can't start until the puck is dropped at centre ice, the House can't begin until the mace takes centre stage on the Clerk's table in front of the Speaker. With its distinct history and lineage, the mace has also come to represent our rich parliamentary heritage, of which we in this province are extremely proud.

To know where you're going is to understand where you've been. The mace also symbolizes our belief in parliamentary democracy, both literally and figuratively. The girdle of the stones on the mace bears the inscription of our motto at the Legislative Assembly, "Audi alteram partem"—my old the Latin teacher would be proud of me—which means, "Hear the other side."

Interjections.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I didn't say a word. We cannot debate freely yet civilly in this chamber unless the mace is in its rightful place on the table, a sign that the House is in session.

I'd be remiss in ending my remarks without thanking, on behalf of the entire Progressive Conservative caucus, all of those involved in the Mine to Mace project: the workers of the Victor diamond mine who extracted the diamonds from deep within the ground of northern Ontario; Ontario's chief gemologist, Ron Gashinsky; De Beers, of course, for their generous gift of the two diamonds, and a third diamond that is going to be on display at a later date in an exhibit about the mace; of course, Chief Hall and the people of the Attawapiskat First Nation for their successful partnership with De Beers in the Victor mine project; Crossworks Manufacturing for supplying an expert diamond cutter; Corona Jewellery for incorporating the setting on the mace; and Vale Inco Ltd. for supplying the Sudbury platinum.

I'd also like to thank the designer, Reena Ahluwalia. As the Speaker mentioned, Reena's grandfather was a Speaker in India, so this project undoubtedly holds a special place in her heart.

In closing, I hope that our improved mace will inspire us all in this chamber to offer valuable debate that is pure and true, just like the diamonds that it now holds.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On the historic occasion of the reintroduction of Ontario's mace, I'm honoured to rise in this House and to speak to one of the great symbols of our provincial Legislature and to the gift bestowed upon the people of Ontario today, for, as everyone in this House knows, there has been a great deal of work and a great amount of collaboration to bring our mace, in its renewed form, back here to its rightful place in this House.

The mace is an extraordinary symbol of democracy. It speaks to the value Ontarians place on the democratic processes that occur within the walls of this very building and to the highest hopes and standards that each one of us brings to our work in the Legislature each and every day. This mace tells the story of the hard-working women and men of Ontario, some of whom helped to reinvigorate our mace, and the many, many more who should be a constant reminder to us elected members of the people we are meant to serve here.

On this occasion, we do owe a debt of gratitude. The transformation of our mace is a generous gift from a number of individuals and organizations. De Beers Canada donated three diamonds, two of which are now set in the mace. These exceptionally valuable diamonds, selected by Ontario's chief gemologist, Ron Gashinski, are from the first commercial production of the Victor mine near Attawapiskat First Nation and the James Bay lowlands. They are some of the finest diamonds in the world and De Beers's $1-billion project is a reality because the company decided that it would not move forward without the buy-in of our First Nations.

The process was a unique one. In the absence of public policy, the De Beers organization took considerable time to engage First Nations in the process of developing this mine. It wasn't an easy process for First Nations and it wasn't an easy process for the company. First Nations leaders worked very hard over a number of years to determine how best to ensure that the interests of their people and communities would be served. Together with the company, all of the James Bay First Nations negotiated impact benefit agreements, which provide for jobs, economic opportunities and other benefits.

With us here today, of course, is First Nations leader Theresa Hall, Chief of the Attawapiskat First Nation. I've had the opportunity as well to see the mine first-hand before it was in full production—it was still under construction—and to visit Attawapiskat and other First Nations communities along the James Bay coast, communities like Peawanuck and Fort Albany.

But there are others that we should salute also for this magnificent mace: Reena Ahluwalia, an internationally renowned and locally based jewellery artist who designed the setting and worked with Toronto's Corona Jewellery Company; Vale Inco Ltd. of Sudbury, which donated the platinum used in its setting; expert diamond cutter Jack Lu from Crossworks Manufacturing, a Canadian diamond-cutting firm, who donated the more than 30 hours of work it took to cut these fine diamonds—and I have to say it was an excellent brainstorm, whoever thought of it, to have that happening right in our building.

It was an amazing opportunity for people who visited the Legislature to see the work that was being done by Mr. Lu as he cut those diamonds to be put into the mace.

On behalf of New Democrats, I want to thank you all, all of these individuals and companies, for your generous donations to the people of Ontario. But I want to talk very briefly about the mace as well. Its symbolism is great. We've already heard that in medieval times it was used as a weapon, but today the mace represents the Speaker of the House's authority and role in overseeing proceedings of this Legislature. The mace symbolizes the transfer of power from the crown to the people, as represented by their members of provincial Parliament.

The mace should stand as a reminder of the work that elected members have signed up for to serve the interests and the needs of all Ontarians. It should stand as a reminder of the democratic principles that lay at the very foundation of our Legislature.

Here, today, as we lay eyes for the first time on our renewed mace in its proper place, we should also be wise to take a moment to pause and think about its significance. It represents the hard work and collaboration of people from across our great province. It should also remind the members of this House of the hard work ahead of us and the demands placed on us to stand up for all Ontarians who look to us for leadership during these specifically and especially difficult economic times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1025 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I am pleased to recognize guests of page Michael Niven, who is the page captain today. He is from Providence Bay on Manitoulin Island, an area that you know very well, Mr Speaker, and are also familiar with his parents' restaurant.

In the members' gallery east, we have his mother and father, Greg and Heather Niven, and his sister Maddy. We have Craig Cress and Donnie Schramm, Dr. John Brebner and Ardith Brebner, Barry Snztzinger—did I get that right?—and Bev Ritz. Welcome.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's my pleasure to introduce the members of the Save Our Structures steering committee, who have worked long and hard for those in social housing—Susan Gapka, Wally Simpson, Karlene Steer, Kathrine Wallace and Lyn McCormick—with no small success.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to recognize the guests who were in the Speaker's gallery earlier for the Mine to Mace project presentation.

From De Beers were Derek Teevan, Ashley Brown, Peter Mah, Rachel Pineault, Tom Ormsby, Daphne Wace, Simon O'Brien, Ingrid Hann, Kathleen Gowans and Annie Stavridis.

From Vale Inco, Cory McPhee and Brad Ryder; from Corona Jewellery, Michael Minister; from Crossworks Manufacturing, Dylan Dix; Kamal Ahluwalia; the family of Ron Gashinski, his son Michael, daughter Laurie, his son-in-law John Pringle and his grandson Matthew Crosgrove; and from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Christine Kaszycki and Rob Merwin.

There being no further introductions, it's now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The question is for the Premier. Premier, this weekend's National Post reports that auto sales in Canada will fall 10% this year from 2008; that's representing 200,000 units lost. On March 12, my colleague the member from Halton asked your deputy to consider a provision in the upcoming budget for a three-month PST holiday on new car sales. That's a win-win measure, in our view, for everyone. It gives overtaxed consumers a break, and it will stimulate car sales, which is good news for car dealers and carmakers. Premier, can you confirm that a PST holiday on new car sales will be part of Thursday's budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I know that my honourable colleague knows I can't confirm what's going to be in the budget on Thursday, particularly insofar as tax measures are concerned. I know that my honourable colleague understands that.

We have received quite a bit of advice, including this particular measure, that would have some benefit to the auto sector. I can tell you that the Minister of Finance has the responsibility to take into consideration all the varied advice we have received. I certainly sense that there is a strong consensus in this House that we need to find more ways to lend further strength to our auto sector, and that's going to be in part what the budget is going to speak to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The Premier has a puzzling standard in terms of releasing budget information, as we saw his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs making an announcement last week.

Premier, a PST holiday on new car and truck sales has a proven track record. It was introduced in 1980 by a Progressive Conservative government. When that happened, car sales jumped 17%. The member from Haldimand—Norfolk proposed the PST holiday in a letter to your Minister of Finance last January. He never got a response. Premier, why won't you confirm that there will be a PST holiday in Thursday's budget? Or are you simply not prepared to give the PC Party any credit for a budget proposal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague mentioned that there was a lack of response. Just so we're clear in terms of the approach that we try to bring, we offered, and it was gracefully accepted by the Conservatives, a technical briefing by the Deputy Minister of Finance as to the state of the economy. That was accepted—I think it was Mr. Hudak who accepted that—and also a meeting with the Minister of Finance, so we could hear directly with respect to their views for the budget. So there was an openness on our part to hear them out in that regard.

I can only say once again to the leader of the official opposition that we've received a number of pieces of advice as to how we might improve the strength of the auto sector in the province of Ontario. We've got to find a way in our budget to reconcile some of the advice. Some is conflicting, I might say, but we certainly remain very much committed to strengthening the sector here in Ontario.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We hear this kind of rhetoric on regular occasions from the Premier and some of his colleagues, that they're prepared to consider opposition ideas on the economy, but then they simply dismiss them out of hand at the end of the day. If the Premier had done a little more listening over the last five years, Ontario's economy wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.

Our proposal will also have an immediate positive impact that's not dependent on the broader discussions on the auto industry's future in Ontario. Premier, why won't you commit to this hand up to the auto industry, an initiative that I believe has the support of taxpayers, car dealers and carmakers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure I can add much more of value to what I've already said. This is one idea among many that speak to the challenges faced by our auto sector. We are working with all parts of the sector, whether it's suppliers, labour, management, folks involved in financing the sector, to see what we can do to strengthen the sector.

We have a table in Ottawa, involving all of the players as well, to see where we can go working together with the federal government. But I do share fully the sentiment which is embodied in the proposal put forward by the Conservatives, which is that we need to find a way together to further strengthen the sector. We remain very much committed to doing that.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier, and again it's about fuelling Ontario's economic engine. Last Thursday, members of the PC caucus put forward another proposal to help the auto industry. In partnership with the federal budget's proposed Retire Your Ride program, we're proposing a $2,000 credit to Ontarians toward the purchase or lease of a new car after turning in their vehicles of 10 years or older. So again, Premier, you've selectively leaked a number of initiatives out of this year's budget. Will you confirm today that a Retire Your Ride credit will be included in Thursday's budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can't speak to a specific tax measure in the budget. I know that my honourable colleague understands that. What I can say, and I know that my colleague would not want to lose sight of this, is that there are costs associated with each and every one of these measures. If there were to be a full uptake of this particular proposal, it would cost the treasury $4 billion. I'm not saying that it would go that far, but if there were only a 10% uptake, I think the cost is $400 million. So there are costs associated with each of these.

There are competing demands, whether we need to do more for health care, for education, for environmental protection, for forestry, for mining, for the auto sector, and the Minister of Finance's privilege is to find a way to reconcile all of these competing interests and come up with a budget that speaks to the values of Ontarians.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I suspect the Premier is painting a worst-case scenario in terms of revenue loss. We're going to have revenue investments and revenue returns with respect to this kind of a program. There are partnerships with the federal government that could be worked out. There is job creation which is going to generate tax revenue as well. This is an initiative, a suggestion, a proposal, that I think merits serious attention. The idea has global appeal. Germany has been very successful with a scrappage fee.

Italy's proposal along these lines is, as we understand it, working well with respect to hybrid vehicles. France and Spain have also introduced similar programs, with great success. Premier, will you include our retire-your-ride proposal in the budget and provide that much-needed stimulus to the auto industry and Ontario's economy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't think a Minister of Finance has ever been more thorough than has this one of late in preparation for this budget. I think that's perfectly appropriate, in keeping with the extent of the challenge before us. He has received all kinds of suggestions and ideas and proposals and recommendations and pieces of advice on so many fronts. We cannot possibly do everything. But as I've said many times in the past, we will do everything that we can to both strengthen the economy and provide support for our families as they seek to weather this economic storm.

That is kind of the gist of where the budget is going to go: to help Ontarians weather the storm and strengthen the economy at the same time.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: One of my colleagues reminded me that the Premier, when he's talking about the auto sector, has frequently talked about the triggering of so many benefits in the economy when a car is sold. I want to suggest to him that this program has, I think, and our party believes, widespread support and can have an enormous benefit to the economy in Ontario. It has support, certainly, from the automobile dealers' association. They believe that this scrappage program that we've proposed will benefit the environment, make our roads safer and stimulate new sales of autos.

If you take one 1987-model-year automobile off the road, it will reduce smog emissions by an equivalent of 37 2007-model-year automobiles.

Premier, there are over two million pre-1997-model cars currently on the roads. Again I ask you, will you support our proposed scrappage fee program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think the honourable member is aware of my answer now on this score. Let me just take the opportunity to talk a little bit more about why it is that we need to strengthen the economy. This could be one measure that might be incorporated into that. We need to strengthen the economy because, while we don't know when this worldwide recession will come to an end, we know one thing for certain: It will end. And when it does end, we want Ontario to be ready to seize the new possibilities to be found in that post-recession world.

That's why, just as we are committed to finding ways to help Ontarians weather the storm, we are also equally committed to building a brighter future by investing in our economy today. This is one of many measures which we are considering as we seek to strengthen the economy.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: These are tough times for Ontario families. Since October, we've lost some 160,000 jobs in the province—an average of over 30,000 jobs a month. That's a lot of families feeling a lot of pain. While Ontarians are looking for a government that is going to protect their jobs, the Premier is talking about sales tax harmonization, a move that would drive up the cost of basic necessities for families. Why, in this time of crisis, is the Premier looking to nickel-and-dime Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I think my honourable colleague knows that we have received advice, and I think there seems to be a fairly broad consensus among businesses—not all are supportive of this measure, but there seems to be a fairly strong consensus among businesses—that we ought to adopt a single sales tax here in Ontario. That's the strong recommendation of many economists as well.

As I've said in the past, it's not the kind of thing that we can possibly entertain unless we have significant support from the federal government and unless we can put in place measures to protect families. Just so we're clear with respect to that particular approach, if there was a way for us to pull that all together, that might be something that we'd want to consider. But again, I just want to make it absolutely clear: While we're receiving strong requests from the business community in this regard, we can't do this without support from the federal government, and we would never do this unless there was a way that we could also protect our families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the Premier has been quite clear about his thoughts around this issue, but what we need to be clear is that the Premier is not going to be implementing this, and he needs to tell families that very clearly. Instead of focusing on jobs, however, he's talking about it. We're hearing comments constantly that this is something that is on his agenda and on his mind.

Instead of slapping an 8% tax on basic goods, which means things like $1.76 more for diapers, $1.04 more for girls' shoes, 72 cents for children's vitamins—these are all the kinds of things that people buy every single week, the kinds of things that go in the grocery cart every time people go grocery shopping. Especially in times of difficulty, families do not need this extra tax.

So I need the Premier to very clearly state right now, to tell Ontario families, that he is definitely not going to move ahead with the plan to raise sales taxes in this province.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure I could be any more clear with respect to our resolve on a couple of fronts. It's not the kind of thing that we could undertake without significant support from the federal government. It's not the kind of thing that we would undertake unless we can put in place measures that would protect Ontario families.

But I say to my honourable colleague, I'm just wondering if the party's position has now changed, because it had recommended—I have a letter from November 2007, under then-leader Mr. Hampton, recommending that we increase the PST to fill in the space that had formerly been occupied by the GST. Now, that would have resulted in an increase in sales taxes for Ontarians. I'm just wondering if that remains their position, because it seems to conflict with the position that this particular leader is taking today.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I know the Premier knows how to do math, and that would have been a zero-sum game, but nonetheless. We also know, and the Premier talked about it in the scrums this morning, that the very high-level talks that he claims need to happen with the federal government are, in fact, already under way. That's something that he admitted to just this very morning.

The family of the auto parts worker in Etobicoke is wondering how she's going to be able to replace her lost income; the Premier says, "8% more taxes." To the pulp and paper mill worker in Thunder Bay, the Premier says, "8% more." To families hit hard by layoffs at Xstrata, the Bay, Nortel and CTV, the Premier says, "8% more." Why won't the Premier assure Ontarians unequivocally, right now, in this Legislature, that Thursday won't mean 8% more for them and their families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I've spoken to the specifics of the question, but just to speak more directly to Ontarians, we have to find a way and we will find a way, through this budget, to both meet the urgent needs of our families today and, at the same time, build a stronger economy for the future. We need the Ontario economy to grow stronger; we need it to be more competitive. We need our businesses to hire more Ontarians so that they can enjoy better standards of living, so that we can create more wealth in Ontario, so that we can, in turn, support good schools, good health care, good environmental protections and supports for our vulnerable. That's what it's all about.

I wish I would hear just a few more ideas from the leader of the NDP when it comes to suggestions as to what we might do to strengthen our economy, to strengthen the competitiveness of Ontario businesses so they can hire more people and create more wealth to support our public services.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This question is to the Premier. Across Ontario, there is a growing feeling of outrage about how laid-off workers are being treated in this province. Plant after plant, from the auto belt of southwestern Ontario to the sawmills of the north, workers by the thousands are being denied monies legally owed to them by employers who just don't seem to care. Despite the real pain and suffering of so many workers and their families, we have a government here refusing to act as the scale of this tragedy continues to grow, with more layoffs, more plant closures every day.

Our Bill 6, which passed second reading in this Legislature back in 2007 and in fact went to committee, directly deals with this particular issue. I need to know why this government has refused to act on Bill 6.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the areas where I believe that we can make common cause—the government and the New Democratic Party and working people in Ontario—is to convince the federal government that it needs to make changes to its bankruptcy legislation to ensure that working men and women receive preferred creditor status. At this point in time, should a company fail, should it go bankrupt, it turns out that banks and insurance companies, for example, would rate ahead of those who had been employed at the plant.

We think that there should be a change to the federal laws to better protect our working men and women so that in the case of a business failure, their salaries, their compensation, would rank ahead of corporate interests.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is not just a federal issue. The primary responsibility for the sorry state of affairs lies right here with your government, the government of Ontario.

What we're talking about here are monies that are legally owed to workers, in the form of back pay, vacation pay and severance. What we're talking about are monies that are owed to loyal workers, workers who have given their lifetime to their employer.

So the question is this: Why has this government refused to make the necessary changes to the Ontario Employment Standards Act—and that's the legislation that Bill 6 would amend—to protect workers from employers who just don't care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member, we're all very saddened when anybody loses their job or when a company closes its doors.

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The Premier, my predecessors and I have written—I've heard some of the members over there say, "Have you written? Have you advocated on this?" Yes, we have. We want to change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to make an employee a super-first-status creditor. That's what we are asking for. I'm now asking the new leader of the third party, has she called her federal counterpart in Ottawa and asked that they do the same? Have your members contacted your MPs and asked them to change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act? That is what we have done.

We have also advocated on the wage earner protection program—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No, we're writing and advocating to our own government to do something to Ontario laws to make a difference for Ontario workers. That's what we're doing.

Since neither the minister nor the Premier seems to want to take responsibility for the issue, I'll tell him exactly what he needs to do. He should create a wage earner protection fund, as outlined in Bill 6, that would fully compensate workers for back pay, severance pay and holiday pay that is legally owed to them in this province. He should make changes to the Employment Standards Act that require justification for plant closures and support interventions to help keep plants open.

There are growing voices of outrage and concern in this province as we see workers walk out the doors of these plants. These laid-off workers are being treated terribly, and it's your responsibility, Minister.

Why does this government continue to ignore the voices and the plight of these workers, who deserve what is owed to them under Ontario law?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: This government has taken leadership. We have pushed the federal government on the wage earner protection program. That program has now brought forward funds. We've asked them to enrich those funds for employees who have lost their jobs.

Also, the member may or may not be aware that prior to our advocacy on the wage earner protection program, the federal government did not have termination and severance as part of that legislation. We have pushed for that. We are also asking that that be retroactive to when the wage earner protection program came into place, which was July 2008.

We continue to advocate for the hard-working men and women of this province. I would hope that that member would do the same and pick up the phone and call her federal counterpart in Ottawa.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier. Today we learned that in Ontario, employment insurance requests in January were up a staggering 43% from that time last year. Premier, that is 54,500 people who are out of work lined up at the EI office. These are part of the same families who have given you some $27 billion in increased revenue, largely through higher taxes. You've spent every penny, so that when times got tough, the cupboards are bare. You have no plans for jobs. You've spent every penny. You've plunged us deeper in debt.

Premier, isn't this a spectacular failure in your leadership?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: The government's industrial strategy is, has been and will continue to be to jump-start businesses, particularly at this time, to allow them to jump ahead of their competitors. That's why the government has invested, through grants programs, the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, loans programs, the advanced manufacturing strategy—both of which the member voted against—and made investments of millions of dollars. That has leveraged, in fact, billions of dollars of investment in this province.

This capacity of the government to make these direct investments in businesses gives Ontario a jurisdictional advantage, one that will allow some businesses that are in the midst of consolidation battles to survive, which will allow them to thrive coming out of the recession. We'll continue with that strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'd say back to the minister, the EI requests in Hamilton are up 69%; in London, 70.3%; in Windsor, an incredible 81.6% increase in EI requests. You tell those folks what you're doing to jump-start our economy.

The Ontario PC caucus has brought forward good ideas to bring jobs back to our province and help working families. We've talked about a PST holiday on new car purchases. We talked about trading in older polluting cars for $2,000 to put toward a new or leased car. That will jump-start jobs in our province. That will help our auto sector.

Surely to goodness, as the Minister of Economic Development, you're going to favour both of those proposals?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I say to the member, he was certainly supporting the investment in Stanpac Inc., a $2.85-million investment in his riding in Niagara West—Glanbrook. He mentioned Windsor. The government invested $7.1 million in Valiant; in PM Plastics in Windsor as well, significant investments to leverage millions of dollars of investments. The member, I believe, also made reference to Simcoe—Grey. The member Mr. Wilson will know about the $15-million investment that's been made in his region, in particular to Honda.

We have been making, in every pocket of this province from the west to the east to the north, investments directly into companies that in turn have leveraged greater investments that, in fact, have allowed us to be in a position in this province to thrive with those particular businesses, to grow those businesses—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Tomorrow, hearings begin for Bill 139, the minister's own bill looking to amend the Employment Standards Act. Will the minister make the viable and necessary amendments that are possible within the parameters of this bill to protect vulnerable foreign caregivers and workers who are so poorly protected?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Something has to be done when it comes to our live-in caregiver program. Now, through Bill 139, through temp help agencies—I have consulted with ministry officials and they have told me that it is outside the scope of that legislation.

But what I am continuing to do, when it comes to the live-in caregiver program, is advocate with the federal government. I know that they are bringing forward some proposed amendments to the temporary foreign worker program. I hope that they address the poor practices that we are seeing.

I also have a call scheduled today to speak with Minister Allan, the Minister of Labour for Manitoba, and see some of the steps they have taken to address some of the precarious practices that we have seen out there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's astounding that the minister would ask a federal Conservative government to make the reforms that the minister could make immediately.

The Manitoba government has not shirked responsibility on this matter. Manitoba has taken action on licensing and regulating nanny recruitment agencies. In fact, the Manitoba Minister of Labour, Nancy Allan, is asking Ontario to borrow from that legislation. To quote her, "I wish that Fonseca would look at Manitoba's legislation. We can't be finger-pointing here and off-loading responsibility for this.... It's modern-day slavery, and we're going to put an end to it." That's what she said.

Will the minister follow the lead of the Manitoba legislation and make the necessary amendments to Bill 139 to put an end to the exploitation of foreign caregivers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member that, first off, she should understand, and she should be calling her federal counterpart, that it is the federal government's responsibility to administer and monitor the live-in caregiver program. I don't know if the member heard me, but I will be speaking to the Minister of Labour for Manitoba, Nancy Allan, later today. I have a call scheduled in to her, and I will be speaking about some of the steps that they are taking. But this is the responsibility of the federal government, and we implore them to do their job.

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

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In late February, the communities of Dunnville and Cayuga in Haldimand county were severely impacted by the flooding of the Grand River. The severe flooding along the Grand River caused damages to the homes of many area residents and strained the resources of the community as they coped with this very unfortunate, dangerous and urgent situation.

At the time, because of a situation that you assisted with previously, I contacted your office to find out what steps could be taken by Dunnville and Cayuga to obtain support and assistance from the ministry. It's through the work of Councillor Lorne Boyko that this issue was brought to my attention, and I want to acknowledge his hard work and that of Mayor Marie Trainer and all of council who are dedicated to supporting their community.

I understand that the minister recently received an application for a disaster area to be declared for the impacted regions. Could the minister please inform the House of the status of this request today?

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me begin by thanking the honourable member for Brant, who has been front and centre in supporting the people of Dunnville and Cayuga in their time of need. This in fact is not even his riding, yet he's taking the time to get in touch with our ministry to help out. I'm not sure where the local MPP from the Conservative side is on this important issue, but thank goodness those folks in Haldimand county do have the support of the member from Brant.

Mr. Tim Hudak: On a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Niagara West—Glanbrook is of the understanding that we do not raise points of order in here. I'll just stop the clock.

But I would say to the minister that I believe that you were crossing a line in specifically making reference to another member of the House, a member who is not present today. I would just ask that he withdraw his comment, please.

Hon. Jim Watson: I withdraw, but I'm still very pleased that the member from Brant has taken a leadership role in this particular community.

I received council's March 2 resolution requesting the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. I thank the honourable member from Brant for working with the mayor of Haldimand county as well as other councillors. I have approved the request to declare a disaster for the purposes of the ODRAP program for private losses sustained during the flood event and—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: Minister, in fairness, I did contact the member from Haldimand—Norfolk and he contacted the mayor.

I know that members of the community in Dunnville and Cayuga are appreciative of the news of support from the government. It is a very important step to show support, that when these things happen, the government is there to help during damage by flooding.

I know that over the years, other communities across Ontario have faced similar issues as a result of severe flooding and have applied to your ministry for assistance. The cases that come to my mind are the ones in East Ferris and Bonfield last year, in northwestern Ontario last summer, and of course the ones that most of us recognize and remember, the Peterborough area in 2004 that resulted in massive flooding.

For the benefit of the members of the House, so that we can better understand the process to provide municipalities with the direction that's needed to help people during a time of disaster, could the minister please outline the process by which a community can apply for assistance through ODRAP? It's an important issue, and I know that all communities along the river need that assistance—

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

Hon. Jim Watson: The individual community has to develop a disaster relief committee, which I understand they are in the process of doing in Haldimand county. I understand the committees have already begun raising funds to help cover the cost of the damage, as part of my ministry's Ontario disaster relief assistance program. We will provide a ratio of up to $2 for every $1 that the community has raised.

The honourable member also mentioned other floods we have been involved with in providing assistance, including in Nipissing—and my colleague from Nipissing was very helpful working with the mayor of East Ferris—Peterborough and Thunder Bay.

I thank those colleagues for working closely with the local councils, standing up to make sure they understand how the program works, and ensuring that the province of Ontario is at the table providing assistance at a very traumatic time in the lives of the people of Haldimand county.

Again, I congratulate the member for Brant for the good work he's doing in another riding.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. It concerns the borrowed billions that the government announced yesterday, $27.5 billion, that will in large part be borrowed to make up the $18-billion deficit that we're told will be in the budget; that in part will consist of hard-earned dollars from the taxpayers.

Given the government's track record of fiscal mismanagement in this province, will the Premier commit today to ensuring that he will table a specific plan that sets out the application and approvals process for infrastructure projects and to which his ministers will be held accountable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: It's nice to have the honourable member from York region back on his feet again on the matter of capital. We remember from just a few weeks ago that the honourable member was on his feet on the matter of capital, and instead of using the language like he has today, he said that we're not putting enough money into local hospital projects. So we are pleased to see that the honourable member is seemingly now in favour of capital.

For a figure that is as substantial as the one that was spoken of yesterday, of course there will be a wide variety of government ministries involved in making capital expenditure. Certainly, there are some of those circumstances where it's done on an intake basis in partnership, as an example, with municipalities. Although it is a fairly complex matter, I'll certainly endeavour to keep the honourable member informed of the nature of those intakes. An example of those would be the one—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to stand on my feet again to speak about capital, and I speak about it in the same context as I did when I last raised it, and that is with regard to accountability to the taxpayers of this province.

My question is very simple. If in fact this government is going to incur an $18-billion deficit, and with those borrowed funds will fund infrastructure projects, the very least the taxpayers of this province are due is an explanation, a transparent process, of how the application is made, how it's approved and how those dollars will be rolled out over the next number of months.

Hon. George Smitherman: I could tell the honourable member that, of course, substantial investments that will be made over the course of the next two years are investments which are already slated to be made. But we will certainly be in a position to take advantage of the opportunity to show Ontarians, on a regional basis, on a localized basis, where actual investments are occurring.

So I think that the honourable member's question offers good advice. We've already got mechanisms in place, and I'll be very, very certain to work with the honourable member and all members of the House to make sure that they're aware of where these investments are going and where intakes are occurring to be able to achieve a list of additional projects. I'll certainly continue to do that in partnership with, as an example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs—where, through the communities component of the Building Canada fund, we've recently announced almost 300 projects totalling more than $1 billion of investment from three levels of government.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: A 1999 review and a 2004 employee survey revealed serious concerns about the Niagara Parks Commission's governance structure, yet this government has hired a high-priced consultant to review the very same matters. Instead of wasting more public money on a report that's going to tell us what we already know, why doesn't this government scrap the Niagara Parks Commission and bring its responsibilities under this government's direct authority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As the member opposite knows, the Ontario Integrity Commissioner recently undertook a review of some questions that were put to her with regards to the Niagara Parks Commission. As part of her report back, she recommended that we undertake a governance review, which we were only too happy to do. We are undertaking a governance review of all of our tourism agencies. We will be starting with the Niagara Parks Commission. We are happy to respond in this way to the Integrity Commissioner's recommendations, and we will be moving forward in due course.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: The 2004 employee survey concluded: "Respondents feel that strategic decisions have been impacted by political influences which may not represent the best interests of the NPC as an entity."

So instead of hiring yet another high-priced consultant to defend a pretty rotten state of affairs at an unelected and unaccountable Niagara Parks Commission, why won't the minister realize that the best and most cost-effective decision is to simply scrap the commission altogether?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you to the member for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the Integrity Commissioner's report and some of the recommendations that she made.

I do want to note that in the report she found no wrongdoing on the part of the Niagara Parks Commission board of directors, although she did feel that there needed to be some work to restore public confidence in the commission. To that end, she recommended a governance review, which we are undertaking.

As well, she recommended, and we are undertaking, to conduct a special audit of procurement and lease processes, an audit of recent procurement practices. We are providing guidance to facilitate accountability and sound business decisions, and we'll also be providing our board with additional governance training. These are all recommendations that were made by the Integrity Commissioner, which we are moving forward with forthwith.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development.

I recently formed an organization in my riding that's called the Oakville Provincial Economic Council. It's composed of local leaders in business, education, labour, construction and finance. At our first meeting earlier this month, we discussed new ideas and best practices, and we're going to continue to develop them in future meetings, hoping to see our community through these challenging economic times.

This group, like all of my constituents and like all Ontarians, is resilient and hard-working, and it knows that we have better times ahead. But, Minister, they've got concerns about what lies ahead. They've given me some great ideas about how we in Oakville can temper the effects of the recession, but I ask the minister today, what is our government doing to help Oakville and all of Ontario's communities to get through these difficult economic times?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I thank the member for his question.

The Premier, in fact, attended the Oakville Chamber of Commerce to announce the launch of the Open for Business initiative that will see the government provide assistance to businesses so as to relieve some of the pressure of the regulatory burden.

In addition to assisting businesses directly, the government invests. It invests through programs that funded major hospital projects, including the construction of a new hospital in Oakville and an expansion to the maternal child care unit at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital.

It has invested in Oakville's transportation system by providing $386 million toward improvements to key highways, invested in innovation—$1 million to Oakville-based Petro Sep for further research to help reduce industrial emissions across the globe—and has invested in the skills of our people—$86 million in the region for school expansion and renewal projects. These are some of the ways in which this government, through the leadership of this member, has—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: There are a variety of opinions out there, Minister. I've also heard from some people that now perhaps is not the time that we should be focusing on things like child poverty or expanding social housing or investing in our health care system. Instead, some argue that economic challenges demand across-the-board cost-cutting measures like the ones the Conservatives propose. We saw the effects of this in previous governments—it resulted in cuts in nursing, to social services and our teachers—and the devastating impact that that had on this province.

Minister, do you believe across-the-board cost cutting is a right strategy for Ontario's economy at this time?

Hon. Michael Bryant: No, I do not. In fact, the government is of the view that we ought to be making investments. We ought to be, in addition to making the investments that I listed directly in Oakville, making investments in social programs to preserve social programs. It's not only from an economic perspective part of the jurisdictional advantage of Ontario, but in fact, of course, it is the McGuinty government's mandate to provide these services to Ontario.

That's demonstrated through the commitment to support social services, including the increase to the Ontario child benefit this July from $600 to a maximum of $1,100 per child per year; creating jobs and simulating the economy through investment and social and affordable housing; and funding for renovation and repair to create 23,000 short-term jobs over the course of the program. This is this government's approach. It is an investment in people and skills and businesses. It is investment that will see jobs grow—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Two of us are standing. One of us is out of order, and it's not me.

New question.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is again for the Premier. Just moments ago, this House sat in special ceremony to receive our restored and transformed mace. The Premier spoke and acknowledged our parliamentary traditions and history. It's ironic that the Premier would take time to recognize one parliamentary tradition when at the same time he is wantonly breaching another, that being the convention of budget secrecy.

Yesterday, the Premier himself consciously and deliberately broke that convention when he announced the amount the government promises to spend on infrastructure over the next two years. How can the Premier on one hand pay lip service to one parliamentary tradition when, through his political strategy to leak the budget in advance, he's thrown another parliamentary convention out that front window?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to reassure all members of this House. There is a secret fear that motivates my good friend here, and that is whether or not he is going to have to bear witness to the presentation of this budget outside this hallowed chamber. That will not happen. I want to provide him with that reassurance.

I'm convinced that if there was a real concern on the part of my colleague with respect to whether or not we are in breach of anything, he would raise this matter directly with you, Speaker, and allow you to speak to this very issue. We will make announcements before the budget, through the budget, and then subsequent to the budget as well. These all represent government initiatives, matters of important public policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I say again, the issue here is not the merit of any program or promise; it is the historic convention of parliamentary secrecy. It's not that long ago that this place was in an unholy uproar because some budget documents were retrieved from a garbage can, which triggered a police investigation, and your party called for the Treasurer's resignation.

It's not that long ago that in the House of Commons in Ottawa, after budget information was broadcast on Global News, the House was called into an emergency session that same night to read the budget, such was the importance of the convention of budgetary secrecy. Now, they tell us it's okay to leak the budget to the media and select audiences over a period of weeks, in an effort to spin and manipulate the media and manage the news.

I ask the Premier the same question that he refused to answer yesterday: Will he commit to this House that there will be no further breaches of budgetary secrecy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I see the matter differently. These are important government initiatives that we announce before budgets. Some of them are announced through the budget, particularly insofar as tax measures are concerned; those are specifically reserved to budgets. And there are all kinds of announcements made subsequent to budgets. Some of those stem from the budget itself. But they're all important matters of government policy.

We think it's important for Ontarians to know what we are going to do when it comes to investing in further infrastructure. We want to stimulate this economy. We want to create some 300,000 jobs. We want to continue to build schools and hospitals, roads and bridges—those kinds of things—sometimes in partnership with the federal government, so that we can provide a little bit of hope for jobs that will come to Ontarians right now. That was the subject of the most recent announcement that we made.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you would know by now that Kapuskasing was hit with some terrible news on Monday. Tembec announced the temporary closure of six weeks of both its sawmill and its paper mill, putting over 500 people out of work.

My question is a very simple one on behalf of the community: What specific plans do you have to ensure that these temporary layoffs don't become permanent? What are you going to do in order to safeguard that mill?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, I'm as distressed as he is over the fact that we have a significant crisis in the forest industry. The global market has virtually plummeted. Not only have we dealt with two years of just phenomenal decrease in the demand for the products, but the last year, these last few months in particular, has been devastating.

I received the news. This is a closedown. It's the same closedown that has happened with another plant in Manitoba. I'm pleased to be able to report, though—and I think it's important for the member to hear and understand—that the efforts of our employees, combined with positive actions taken by the province of Ontario to reduce the effective price of electricity, have helped to improve the cost position of newsprint mills significantly. Such positive actions have been and will continue to be an integral part of the competitive position of this site. So we assume that this site will continue. What we have is an interim shutdown.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, you're missing the point. There are things you can do in order to avert this type of shutdown. We know that part of the problem that Tembec is facing is that many of the customers who buy the high-quality products that are made, as far as paper, in Kapuskasing are unable to get the credit and they're asking Tembec to secure the credit to the customers.

You've got this prosperity fund that you set up within your ministry. You have two particular funds: One is the forest sector prosperity fund, of which you have almost $90 million that's unused, and you've got the loan guarantee program, with almost $300 million that's unused. What I'm asking you to do is specifically this: Are you prepared to allow these particular programs to secure the credit for the customers so that they can buy the products, so that this mill can continue to operate, make money and give people jobs?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Most of the products are sold to the United States, and I believe this member is asking us to supply credit to companies in the United States. I don't believe that's part of our understanding.

There's no question that we have a significant challenge. In January of this year, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer went Web-only. That means they're not printing. In February of this year, Denver's Rocky Mountain News went under. This is just a constant reminder of the challenges facing this industry. We will continue to work with Tembec, as we have with every other mill in the sector, to provide the support that we can. They simply do not have the market. The market is not there. Where we can, we will continue to do everything we can to support this industry. We have in the past and we will continue to do so in the future.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Labour. February 28 was the 10th annual international Repetitive Strain Injury Awareness Day, and many people and advocates on behalf of workers across Ontario had a session to educate workers on how they can prevent this issue. Minister, I know that last week you did some health and safety blitzes to create awareness in many people across the province of Ontario. Can you tell us what you are doing in order to educate people across Ontario to prevent repetitive strain injury, or, as you prefer within your ministry, MSDs, musculoskeletal disorders?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for his advocacy and his work, both for his constituents and for all injured workers across this great province of Ontario. Yes, during the month of April the Ministry of Labour inspectors will enhance their field activity when it comes to musculoskeletal disorders. This is part of our program Safe At Work Ontario, and these blitzes take a proactive approach, a preventive approach to working with our partners, our employers, our employees, trade unions etc. We let them know that we're going to come in and check for certain things. In this case it's going to be around MSDs. That will be the focus.

We also will be targeting some specific industries: the construction industry, mining, health care sectors and other high-risk potential producers of MSDs. However, MSDs, we all know, are really—

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you, Minister. I know that repetitive strain injury takes a toll on our workforce and on financial institutions of the province of Ontario. According to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, from 2003 to 2007 they cost the board $640 million. Besides that, we lost almost six million days of work.

Minister, can you tell us what kinds of tools you are using in your ministry in order to prevent this repetitive injury from happening, to maintain the stability of the workplace and save the workers from being injured?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member for the question. The only way that we are going to achieve our targets of reducing lost-time injury rates, or all injuries, in Ontario is by working in partnership with our health and safety associations, with the WSIB, with our employers and with our joint health and safety committees.

In regard to MSD prevention, we've got a number of tools that will help our employers achieve the targets that we want, and those are some prevention guidelines accompanied by a resource manual, a toolbox and an MSD prevention resource website. So there are many different tools that can help our partners, help those employers bring forward those best practices into their workplaces.

I've had the opportunity to tour a number of companies that are doing this. They have seen a significant reduction and, at the end of this, less injury and a lot of cost savings—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, at your recent press conference regarding the Green Energy Act, you were asked by members of the media how much the proposed act would add to the average electricity bill, to which you responded that it would only amount to 1% per year.

Minister, now that you've released the per-kilowatt-hour rates you're willing to pay under your feed-in tariff program, rates as high as 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour, what will the true increase be for Ontario families on their electricity bill?

Hon. George Smitherman: I anticipated a question of that form from the honourable member. When we did release the proposal, or I should say the Ontario Power Authority did—their proposed rates for the feed-in tariff—the member has chosen to focus in on certainly the highest rate, which is for a very small-scale rooftop solar which is designed to get many people in the province of Ontario, hopefully as many as 100,000, involved in being generators of electricity.

This would amount to about 1%, which is very clearly stated—1% of the overall energy supply mix met by that very, very expensive form of electricity generation. It's in keeping with the answer that I gave on the day that we presented the Green Energy Act. We anticipate, over three years, from 2010 to 2012, the first approximately $5 billion of incremental investment, and over time, we expect that the Green Energy Act will contribute 1% per year to the growth of electricity costs for Ontarians, with opportunities for them to use less electricity as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I think that everybody in this province supports and believes that we need to do a better job of promoting renewable, emission-free energy. But it's also the responsibility of the government to be straightforward with the facts. When a minister talks about investing billions and billions of dollars—$5 billion in transmission, up to 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour for feed-in tariff rates—and there are other rates, at the 44-cent level, 19 cents per kilowatt hour for wind. At those rates, all of that is being put back to the base ratepayers of the hydro bill.

Will you not come clean to the people of Ontario and state clearly that your belief and position that it will mean 1% to the hydro bill is simply a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw his comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sorry; I withdraw it.

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

Hon. George Smitherman: There are a couple of things that I think are pretty important here. Firstly, it's wonderful to see the endorsement of the Green Energy Act and the principle of renewable energy. As the honourable member said, pretty much everybody—I think he said everybody in Ontario supports and believes that there should be more renewable energy. I think that's a good start. I appreciate the support from the honourable member.

I think one of the things that's important is that the Green Energy Act is about, on the one hand, creating the opportunity for more renewable energy, and on the other, providing people in their homes, businesses and institutions the opportunity to go about their lives and use less electricity and energy. This obviously balances off on the issue of cost.

I would say to the honourable member that he really could do just a little bit better research. I have spoken about a $5-billion investment, and I've been quite clear in saying that just about half of that will be focused on transmission and distribution. The honourable member, in his question, turned that into $5 billion for transmission. I think it would be very beneficial if he took the offer that I've given him. Let's sit down and talk about this more so that I can show this on a—

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

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Real estate values in today's economic climate are decreasing daily, but homes were unfairly and arbitrarily valued 15 months ago, some in the city of Toronto, as much as 45% higher, some in your own riding.

What is the government's plan for assisting people to cope with tax increases that could force some from their homes and are forcing many businesses into bankruptcy?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: As the honourable member is well aware—as a former mayor himself, he understands that an increase in property assessment does not necessarily equate to an increase in property tax, point number one. But secondly, the other point that we're quite proud of that the Minister of Finance brought in his budget is an increase to a property-tax grant program for senior citizens, to allow senior citizens to stay in their homes longer. Regrettably, the NDP voted against that budget and subsequently voted against the senior citizens throughout the province of Ontario.

One of the things that we've tried to do over the course of our term of government is to take pressure off the property taxpayer