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

March 3, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 March 2009 Mardi 3 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

POVERTY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

DON JAIL

MEDICAL RESEARCH

SMALL BUSINESS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

POLICE OFFICERS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO FEDERATION

OF AGRICULTURE

EMILY TIEU

AVRO ARROW

PESTICIDES

CHILD CARE

BY-ELECTION IN HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES—BROCK

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

FREEDOM OF INQUIRY

AND EXPRESSION

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ANIMAL PROTECTION

ANIMAL PROTECTION

ANIMAL PROTECTION

PETITIONS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SALES TAX

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DIABETES TREATMENT

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

SALES TAX

INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE

LUPUS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 2, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes / Projet de loi 150, Loi édictant la Loi de 2009 sur l'énergie verte et visant à développer une économie verte, abrogeant la Loi de 2006 sur le leadership en matière de conservation de l'énergie et la

Loi sur le rendement énergétique et modifiant d'autres lois.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: This is the remnant of the time allowed me that I began using yesterday evening.

I suppose, just to wrap up, I want folks to recall the very interesting comments made by the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, Toby Barrett, when he talked about conservation and green lifestyle as being a very significant commitment. That was echoed by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, Mike Colle, when he responded and commented on Barrett's 20-minute presentation. We really do have to have a major cultural shift.

I repeat that I was very disappointed that somehow we've lost the focus here. Howard Hampton has been leading this province in explaining that if you really want to have a direct, significant impact—not some PR-spin type of impact, but a direct, significant impact—you address, from a residential homeowner's point of view, the two largest electricity users in your home, and those are your furnace motor and your refrigerator. That's something that this province could take a very direct and active role in doing: helping homeowners upgrade those two appliances, if you want to call a furnace an appliance.

The other one is the observation that audits alone aren't going to save a single kilowatt. Mere audits are not going to save any energy at all. Most folks know full well if they've got obsolete fenestration in their homes. Most folks know full well if it's an older home that isn't properly insulated. Most folks know full well if there are drafts coming in through the baseboards. Most folks know full well if they're using a mid-efficiency furnace rather than a high-efficiency furnace. So audits aren't going to solve anything when it comes to greening this province.

I reject the suggestion that somehow people, homeowners, need this audit—and Toby Barrett spoke to that very cleverly. He talked about all the hidden energy conservation things that he built into his home. He asked if he's going to get credit for that; I suspect not, because they're buried in the ground. It's the insulation under the concrete pad that constitutes the ground floor, amongst other things. All audits are going to do is make jobs for auditors.

What folks like the folks where I come from need is help, because these folks who live in homes that they know aren't as efficient as they should be are the same folks who just lost their jobs. They need help upgrading those homes so that they can live a little more economically and so that they can save a little bit of energy.

I want to go back on this 50,000 new jobs—50,000 new jobs. What horse feathers—absolute bull spit. It's made up; it's fabricated. This is Alice in Wonderland. Some spin-doctor type figured that 50,000 would be a good number so they just wrote down 50,000. The government can't explain where those 50,000 new jobs are going to happen, and all the more so when there isn't a clearly articulated Buy Ontario component in any new technology or any new hardware that's being built.

My colleague Paul Miller from Hamilton talked about the 75% of the staff at National Steel Car out of work in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario: no jobs, none whatsoever, and no prospect.

Oh, and what do Professors Martin and Florida say? "Oh, these unemployed workers in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario"—they literally said this; I was there—Professor Martin, when they were presenting this boondoggle of a $2.2-million Martin and Florida report, said, "Oh, well, workers who lose their jobs can open beauty salons or maybe art galleries." Good God. You might as well dress up those John Deere workers in Welland—800 of them just lost their jobs—dress them up in tutus and send them down the road to the opera-ballet house and have them dance to the Nutcracker Suite. What a stupid, stupid comment to make.

These are the same workers who are being called upon by this government to green their homes. They'd love to, but they can't afford to, because they just lost their jobs and their property taxes are going up, because this government hasn't uploaded the download from the Conservatives. Their hopes for the future are diminishing.

I'm encouraged by the fact that there's going to be some consideration of amendments to the building code. Far too many developers have built far too many high-rise buildings with electric baseboard heating. Why? Because it's cheap to install and because it's easy to put a meter in each apartment and make the consumer pay for it, so the front-end costs are very low. But the back-end costs are very, very high.

I, for one, can't understand why we wouldn't ban electric heating, especially in rental units in any new construction, unless it's in an area that doesn't have access to natural gas, which is the clear alternative. I appreciate that there are some parts of the province where electricity is the only source of energy, especially in a multi-residential building.

This government has generated some spin and tried to do some PR. It quickly proved unsuccessful. It makes up numbers like 50,000 jobs that it can't justify at all, at all, at all. Are there going to be 50,000 new auditors? Is that where the jobs are, Mr. Ramal?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Not really. Real jobs.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Of course not, and you know it.

The Liberals are just lining up and bowing. You know that RCA Victor ad? You're too young, but there used to be a RCA Victor ad where the dog is sitting beside the gramophone—folks here remember that—and the tag line under it was "His Master's Voice." These Liberal backbenchers are like that dog sitting in front of the gramophone just listening to his master's voice. I know what they're thinking. I can see their body language. They know that there's no substance to this legislation, that it's more fluff than body, it's more hot air than reality, and it does nothing to green Ontario.

This government's vision of a green Ontario still includes at least 50% of our electrical power coming from nuclear power plants, and not the existing nuclear power plants—new nuclear power plants. And we know this much about nukes, don't we? They're unpredictable in terms of the cost—exorbitant prices, billions and billions of dollars, and of course, when you spend billions and billions of dollars building these plants, you pass those costs on to the electricity consumer. Then, of course, there's the prospect of what you do with the waste once it's exhausted. It's dangerous and expensive.

This government appears to have abandoned any sense of highly concentrated conservation programs, and I find that truly a shame.

I finally want to comment on this government's failure to acknowledge that wind farms—and we support wind as a source of electrical energy; of course we do, in the New Democratic Party—in and of their own right can constitute a nuisance for people whose homes are adjacent to them. We need clear guidelines and standards from this government about the proximity of wind farms to residential homes.

This government is prepared to inflict the persistent vibration and noise, along with the prospect of some other environmental impacts, on people willy-nilly in their mad rush to try to demonstrate themselves as somehow being greener than anybody else, because that's all it is. It's all about imagery; it's all about spin. It's not about substance. They're not green. They're addicted to nukes and they have no interest, there's nothing in this legislation whatsoever that will facilitate, accommodate, encourage or assist in real, radical conservation, which is the first step that has to be taken.

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: Good morning. It's a pleasure to have a chance to share with this House, in response to the member from Welland's comments, some more detailed information about the analysis that we have done with respect to the creation of jobs arising from the Green Energy Act. It is of critical importance to the government that the Green Energy Act be one that helps our province transform our energy system but also protects our climate and, very importantly in the economic climate that exists, creates jobs. By 2012, investments of $5 billion are expected to support over 50,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Let me just share with the Legislature how we calculated the job figures. We calculated those job figures using information from the Ontario Power Authority with respect to the projections of future renewable wind and solar capacity, enhanced conservation initiatives and the expected incremental dollar investments associated with enabling transmission and distribution, as well as the implementation of a smart grid. We used that data to examine what construction, manufacturing and engineering positions would be created.

We're cognizant of the fact that, at the beginning of the investment period, limited amounts of solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing would be conducted in the province, but over the longer term, it would be projected that our investments would support the creation and expansion of renewable energy manufacturing facilities. So we do have some detailed analysis undertaken with respect to that job creation.

I'm very proud of the work that we're doing and I'm very confident that, with a $5-billion investment coming into this sector, we will see these jobs created. That's what our province needs, wants and desires. We look forward to that future.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: We have just, this morning and also late yesterday, received a presentation from the member for Welland expressing his disappointment with this legislation, in particular with the proposal for the imposition of mandatory home energy audits. I agree, and we look forward to this government rethinking that mandatory aspect, at minimum.

As the member for Welland has indicated, the information has been out there. It has been out there for decades. The federal government, regardless of the party in power, has done an excellent job over the decades of informing consumers about the importance of doing the kind of things that this government feels they can ram through in a mandatory way.

As Peter Kormos indicated, people know about insulation. They know about air leaks in their windows. Why not build on that strength and that information, build on the education programs and the informative brochures that are out there?

Further to that, don't call a mandatory audit an incentive. This is not a carrot; this is a stick. I myself am disappointed in this legislation. I do ask: Where is the vision? Where is the vision that we saw in the 1960s and in the 1970s, when people—architects—were encouraged to rethink and redesign the layout of their homes?

I'm very let down by this legislation. A number of issues were raised this morning and yesterday, and the question is out there: Is nuclear green? Is natural gas green? How many windmills will it take to run a steel mill?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): . Questions and comments? The member for Timmins-James Bay.

M. Gilles Bisson: Merci beaucoup. Ça me donne l'occasion de commenter le discours de notre bon collègue M. Kormos de Welland. Écoute. It's clear that what the government is trying to do in this legislation as far as direction is not bad. I think there's hardly a member in this assembly who would say this is not a direction in which we have to go. I guess it really is that the devils are in the detail, and it will be interesting to see, as we go into committee, if the government's going to be prepared to amend this legislation so that we can achieve some of the goals that are set out.

I'm going to get a chance a little bit later to get into some of the details of things that I think we need to do. But the member for Welland, as other members have in the debate previously, has raised the issue that what we have in this bill, although a step in the right direction, lacks the kind of policy that is needed in behind the legislation, and the programs that are needed from government in order to be able to make sure that we actually end up where this bill is trying to bring us.

For example, one of the areas that is of great interest to the Ontario economy, and I think of great interest to those of us who would like to have an opportunity to retrofit our houses with better insulation, better windows, or utilize new technologies as far as solar, wind or geothermal—there really aren't the types of incentives in place to make that affordable for the consumer.

If a consumer looks at trying to get into these technologies as a way to be able to find a way to green the economy, and at the same time lessen our environmental footprint, you need to have something to make it interesting for the consumer, because at current cost it is very expensive to put some of these technologies in, and the payback can be as much as 10 or 15 years.

So, from a straight economic point of view, they may not be affordable to the consumer, and I think one of the failures of this legislation is that it doesn't look at what kinds of policies and programs we can put in place to make sure that consumers are able to do what they need to do within their own homes to green this economy and green the environment.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: One point that a lot of members are missing, and maybe it's because they haven't done the energy audit at home, is that there's a federal government rule that says that if you don't have an energy audit, you're not eligible for the $10,000 worth of rebates. So the federal government now tells us that you have to have an energy audit to be eligible for $10,000 worth of rebates. So just remember that.

The other thing is—and I think the member from Welland made a good point—there are some serious concerns about the cost of nuclear. But the mindset we now have in this province—the old NIMBYist mindset—is that people are protesting against transmission lines. They don't want them. Wind power? They hate wind power. Solar farms? Not in my backyard. And no wonder you're stuck with nuclear. Let's get rid of the opposition that is just about the visual effect of a windmill that you'll never see and is only a couple of percentage points of the whole energy total. We need a major mindset change.

The jobs: There are the incredible numbers of jobs. I've been saying for four or five years, like Mr. Lisi, who lives in my riding. He's got this 50-gallon water tank in his basement; 50 gallons cooking away like we all do back home; 50 gallons cooking away in Mr. O'Toole's basement—yet if you want to get rid of that 50-gallon tank and replace it with an on-demand water heater, you can't get one made in Ontario or Canada. You have to pay $3,000 to get a little water heater that they have in every country in the world but Canada—and Ontario.

Could you imagine all the jobs we could create in Timmins and James Bay and Oshawa by manufacturing the on-demand water heaters that they've been using for 50 years in South America? Why not get some factory in Sarnia to make the darned things? Save energy, save money, and create jobs in Sarnia, for Pete's sake.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? In rotation, the member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to stand on this time allocated. Just 10 minutes; it's hardly enough time to talk about the importance of today being square root day. That's the third day of the third month in the ninth year. Three is the square root of nine, so that's an important starting point; we got something right. What we haven't got right is Bill 150.

I think this bill here—I want to start, at the outset, on my own behalf. I can't necessarily speak on behalf of the party, because this is a wedged bill. This bill is the Green Energy Act, and personally, I'm in support of green energy.

It comes down to a very minute description of how you would define green energy. I would say that hydroelectric—that's water dams—would be green energy, with the exception that often, to create a dam, you have to flood property. In many cases, it's property that has been affecting First Nations for hundreds of years. It's a huge issue in Quebec. They have hydroelectric power, and for most of it they flooded land that was in dispute in the courts.

This bill is light on the description of green energy. I'd say that green energy is a popular term. After all, Barack Obama is using it. It alludes to the terms "innovation" and "creativity." The word "green" is an optimistic colour.

Then they get into the natural gas. Natural gas, of course, is a carbon-based fuel. It emits carbon, which is against Kyoto. Coal, of course, is opposed to the Kyoto accord, and it would not conform with the green energy thing. The United States, our largest trading partner, is convinced, and their scientists are convinced that they can come up with carbon-capturing coal sequestration. The largest resource for energy in the world is coal. There's more coal than natural gas and petroleum, or crude.

This topic of Bill 150—there was a report done when Dwight Duncan, the Minister of Finance, was the Ministry of Energy. They commissioned a special ministry under Bill 100. Bill 100 was when they kind of restructured the energy file. It's important to look at the history if you want to know much about the future. This bill, Bill 150, is an admission that Bill 100 was wrong. They had a report, and it was called the supply mix report. "Supply mix" means how much of the energy, the power, on the transmission system is going to come from what source of power. In Ontario, the mix of energy inputs has traditionally not changed since the time of our government, really, and prior to that.

If you go right back to the genesis of electricity of Ontario, Sir Adam Beck, in 1906, I think it was, had a theory for Ontario, and a vision. It would be nice if we had a vision today, because the economy is in the tank. His vision for Ontario was power at cost. What he meant was power at any cost. That's really what he meant. That's why Ontario became the industrial heartland of Canada, the wealthiest province and the furnace of energy for Canada. In fact, I would say, up until recently, it still is.

If you look at the supply mix—Niagara Falls is the best example—it was hydroelectric-based. Then, as our economy grew, we could not have enough hydroelectric power—which is the cheapest form of power, by the way—to energize our economy. They mapped out most of the hydro opportunities, and the farther away you got from the large centres, like Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and London, these hydroelectric power projects weren't as efficient, because when you start transmitting power all the way down to Toronto, you lose about 20% of the power that's been dispatched from the plant. That lost energy is called line loss, and now we're seeing that in our hydro bill at home.

This whole thing is about our hydro bill at home. Talk about green energy; I'm going to bring the supply mix into it full circle here, but here's the real issue: They're going to add power onto the system. Wind is 12 to 15 cents a kilowatt hour. What do we pay at home today? About five cents a kilowatt hour. So that means, if you're buying wind power, either you or the taxpayer—which is really you, anyway—it's a 300% increase in price. What's that going to do to seniors and people on fixed incomes? I'm for green energy, remember that; I'm also for being honest with the people of Ontario.

They're talking about wind turbines. They're also talking about solar power. Let's talk a bit about solar power. I have one in my riding. It's about 40 kilowatts. It's invested in by a young, new Canadian. He's from the Netherlands, I believe. Very technically competent—he designed most of it himself. He's an engineer. He wasn't employed because he couldn't get his engineering credentials legitimized here, but anyway. He went on a standard-offer contract being offered by the minister for wind. Do you know what he's being paid for a kilowatt hour? Forty-two cents a kilowatt. That's eight times the cost of energy on the system.

All of the renewables, digesters, biomass, all of the alternatives they're offering are about four times more expensive, on average, than the energy we're using today. My solution is, there's not enough information here about consumer protection or about conservation strategies, not just the squiggly light bulbs.

There are technologies today called smart systems, which would allow me—now, this is a very good example. I could be driving home tonight, or in the GO train, which I take most of the time to save energy, and I could phone home and turn on the microwave oven. Do you know that? That's a smart system.

They said that they're going to give us the smart meter. It's not a smart meter. No, no; the meter you're putting in our house is not a smart meter. Here's the information, for the people of Ontario: First of all, it's a time-of-use meter. It will calculate the load dispatched to your home at a certain time. That's what it does. And if you look at the fine print and the way Dalton is doing this, it's so treacherous it frightens me.

There are going to be bands of energy cost. If you get the energy cost at 3 o'clock in the morning, it's going to be about five cents a kilowatt hour. If you have your breakfast at 8 in the morning, you're going to be paying about 14 cents a kilowatt hour. You're paying five today; it's going to be 15. It's a 300% increase. So to make it smart, you're going to have to have timers on all these little gadgets, on your dishwasher, dryer. You'll have a whole pile of them on your table, attaching them to things. This is nothing but a misleading—potentially that's not an appropriate word—but it's a difficult way to tell the people of Ontario—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I would caution the member on the word that he's used.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes, well, I apologize. That's too strong, but it turns out it's true.

Here's the issue, what you really need to know: You're going to use less—that's called conservation—and you're going to pay more. That's what Bill 150 is all about. It's a tragedy in action, and it's being communicated in such a spurious way that it troubles me. Why don't they just say, "Look, Ontario, we've got to be a leader. We're going to charge you more for something that you have no discretion in using"? Because energy—this is the final line—is a non-discretionary consumption. It's not like cable TV; if it's too much, you can cut her off. A non-discretionary consumption is price-inelastic.

In other words, your consumption does not change with price. In fact, you use about 1,000 kilowatt hours per month in your home. You cook your food, you wash your clothes, you wash your body, you heat your home, and that's the climate we live in. Tell me how much the consumer can actually save—maybe 10%.

By the way, 62% of all energy produced in this province is used by industry. What's the strategy to retool energy use in Ontario's manufacturing, pulp and paper, forestry, mining, auto and steel sectors? They use the energy, and you're going to put them out of business in the economy that's already in the tank. This is a failed plan, and if you vote for it you don't understand what you're doing.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, that was an interesting comment made by my friend from Durham. I always enjoy listening to what he has to say, because he does feel passionately about these issues and sometimes raises them from a bit of a different perspective from other members—I mean that as a compliment—in the sense of trying to look at things from the perspective of what it means to the average individual.

I think he's right on the issue of the smart meters. I've long felt that these things are not smart meters; they're really smart in the way they bill you. That is about all they really are. They're not smart as far as anything else. What you're going to end up with, and the member is quite right, is that people will be forced, by way of having to pay higher rates of electricity during peak times, to move their usage to other times.

There's an environmental issue here in the sense of how you're able to better balance your load. In fairness to the government, you do want to have some way so that not everybody is using all the utilities at the same time, making it difficult for OPG to provide the amount of electricity we need. One of the difficulties you have is that at particular times when you have heavy usage, they have to ramp up generators—for example, coal-fired and others—in order to provide that extra electricity that's needed within those peak times.

Then, later on during the day and in the evening, obviously those particular generators come off-line as they're not needed. So the issue becomes: Does the hydro grid have the capacity to deal with the peaks? The answer is yes. If the answer is yes, that you can deal with the peaks, then you've got to see this for what it is. It's not really about conservation; it's about finding ways to whack the consumer with yet another hydroelectric charge that we can ill afford to pay.

At the end, people are still going to have to cook their bacon and eggs in the morning, you still have to run your washing machine, you still have to do many of the things you've got to do, and a lot of those things physically can't be moved to other periods of time because that would be pretty impractical. So I thought the member raised an interesting point that people should pay some attention to.

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

Mr. David Orazietti: It is a pleasure this morning to comment on the remarks that were made this morning by the member from Durham. Bill 150, the Green Energy Act: What a positive bill, and I'm very excited about this piece of legislation.

I can tell you that in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, we have seen such a tremendous transformation already when it comes to energy production that it's really remarkable. The 189-megawatt wind farm, the Brookfield wind farm, with an investment of $400 million in Sault Ste. Marie, has created new jobs, construction jobs, a new wind energy training program at the college and all kinds of spinoffs. It's been absolutely fantastic. Essar Steel right now is building a cogeneration project with 200 jobs. It will reduce their electricity need by about 70 megawatts.

The steel mill uses 140 megs of power, so that's about half of all the energy they're going to need right from cogeneration. St. Marys Paper, a very important employer in our community, is applying for a biomass cogeneration project which will help to reduce their costs. The Pod solar generation company has received a contract of about $360 million from OPA to develop a 60-megawatt solar farm.

This act continues to build on the renewable initiatives we've already made in the province of Ontario and will continue to demonstrate our commitment to protect the environment, while at the same time creating a stable and sustainable electricity grid, as well as creating jobs. There's been a lot of discussion about the economy these days; rightfully so. This act helps to enhance our economic base and improve our manufacturing capabilities.

I hear from the opposition benches some negativity around the bill. I want to ask the members: Are you prepared to support the Green Energy Act? I want to know where you stand on this, because this is what Ontarians want and this is the future in Ontario.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have a chance to comment on the speech of the member from Durham on Bill 150, the green energy bill. The member from Sault Ste. Marie was just commenting about the cost of energy, which was brought up by the member from Durham, when he pointed out that the majority of energy used is used by industry—I think he said 62%. As the member from Sault Ste. Marie would know, most industry in the north, certainly the forestry sector, is shut down and part of their problem is the cost of energy. So what is this bill going to do to the cost of energy?

That's a question we in the opposition are asking, and I think the general public would appreciate the fact that we're asking that question. The minister has said that it's going to mean a 1% increase for the consumer's energy bill. Well, I find that one a little hard to believe, frankly. They're also talking about spending $5 billion, and if you do the math, I think it's more than 1% just on that $5 billion that's being spent. So a point that we certainly question and that I think consumers worry about is what is going to happen to the cost of energy.

Equally important for business, there's not going to be any industry left in the north. Up in Iroquois Falls, we have AbitibiBowater shutting down their paper mill and looking at selling their hydro assets. Certainly, the cost of energy is something that has to be considered.

We're all in favour of green energy and having more green energy in the mix, but we also need industry in this province. Under this government, we lost something like 70,000 jobs last month. Are you just going to make it worse by forcing up the cost of energy, making more and more businesses uncompetitive in this province? It's like death by a thousand cuts from this government. They keep introducing another piece of legislation that makes it harder to stay in business in this province. Every month we have something else coming down the stream making it more and more difficult for business to survive in this province.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I guess the key thing to keep in mind is that there are serious international, global transformations taking place.

Prime Minister Harper was saying yesterday, "You know, you guys have got all the criticisms, but you don't have any solutions and aren't even offering any solutions." We see the opposition constantly talking down any legislation that comes forward. They're talking down this energy act which is transformative, but I'm saying, what do you suggest?

We're saying that conservation is critical and there are all kinds of conservation incentives here. There is a total shift into renewables, like solar, wind. There's also a recognition that everyone has a role to play in this transformation. It can't be done by government alone, so that's why it's engaging the public in this process. We hope that the public will understand that this is about all of us changing the way we live, because it not only reduces our carbon footprint—and that costs not only the air quality we live in and the quality of life in our environment, it costs us huge amounts of money.

Anybody who stands up here in the opposition will always say they're basically going to freeze the cost of fuel and energy. You can't do that. It's always going to be expensive. What we're trying to do by getting people to conserve, getting people to look at more efficiency in energy production, is we're going to maintain it at a level where industry and homeowners can have reasonably priced energy. That's what this is about. It's not about a panacea; it's about being reasonable.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Durham has two minutes to reply.

Mr. John O'Toole: I seek unanimous consent to have another hour, please, to speak on this topic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Durham is seeking unanimous consent of the House to continue his remarks for another hour. Agreed? I heard a couple of noes.

Mr. John O'Toole: This one here is actually an

article by—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Member for Durham, when the Speaker is standing, your mike is turned off, the camera is turned off you. Take your seat.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Yes. You can't use that as a prop, and I'd ask you to keep it on your desk. If you're going to refer to it, that's okay, but don't use it as a prop. Thank you.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker. I hope you have restored my time.

I would only say that this is a bill that has been deliberately designed in a treacherous sort of way to wedge us.

Here's our position, from my point of view: First of all, we support green energy. We support green energy and conservation. We also support truth in legislation. Here is the issue: The numbers don't work out. Five billion invested—there are no details on it. Fifty thousand jobs—most of them will be government inspectors going around to your house. Here's why I'm having difficulty with supporting it overtly: I want, first of all, thorough public hearings around the province.

I want to make it clear to you that I don't like certain provisions: the warrantless entry, the overriding of municipal law and the overriding of the conservation act. There are parts of this bill that the people of Ontario need to know about.

Can you imagine the Oak Ridges moraine, which is a pristine area in my riding, allowing, as a right, a whole series of wind turbines? How tragic is that? I am just so disappointed in this treacherous bill.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I get an opportunity to participate in this debate on the heels of what was an interesting two-minute wrap-up, I must say.

I want to come at this from a couple of different perspectives, because we need to set the record straight. I was listening to government members as they were doing the responses to the member for Durham's comments. They're trying to portray it as if the opposition is opposed to what the government is trying to do here.

Now, let's be real clear. There's nobody here, at least in our NDP caucus, who is opposed to the intent of what this government wants to do. In fact, it's part of our party platform. If you'll notice, pretty well all four leadership candidates have been ascribing to doing exactly that, moving Ontario toward being able to move by—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You should stop heckling me like that. That's not nice, is it?

So the point I would make is that there's hardly anybody who disagrees with the intent of what the government's trying to do as far as direction. I think we all understand that we need to, as a jurisdiction, find a way—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'm having difficulty hearing the member for Timmins—James Bay because of some of the extraneous noise in the House. I would ask all members to quiet down a bit so we can hear the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Speaker.

As I was saying, just to start over again, there's hardly a member in this House who is opposed to the direction that the government is trying to take in regard to trying to find ways of increasing conservation within the province of Ontario and trying to develop a greener economy, a greener industry. There's nobody who argues with that.

The problem is, when we look at the legislation, it goes in that direction—there are some measures in this bill, yes, that are positive in the sense of bringing us in the direction that we all want to go—but in the details, it doesn't get us there in some cases.

I think the real test is going to be—with all candour, this bill has to get into committee so that we can have people come before the Legislature and say, "How can we strengthen this bill, by way of both the legislative changes that have to be made in it and the policy changes that have to be made by the government, in order to deal with getting us to that point?"

I'm just going to go through a couple of things that I think are important to talk about. For example, the minister says that the act will lead to a rapid expansion of renewable energies, but you refuse to set any targets or timelines to get us there. If the government is saying that they want to move us in the direction of more renewable energy, it seems to me that you have to set some targets.

We know the experience of Germany. Germany, some years ago, decided that one of the things that it wanted to do is exactly that, move itself from what is primarily their—coal-fired and nuclear are a big part of what they do and they were trying to move themselves on to renewables. They decided one good way to do that was with solar. What the German government did is set some targets. It said, "We want to install X amount of solar panels on roofs per year for the next five years in Germany, in order to move us toward getting more renewable energy put into our grid." They decided to do that by way of solar.

You looked at Norway and you looked at Denmark, which went the way of wind. They set targets. They said, "We want to be able to produce X amount of the total capacity needed for electricity in our country. We want to move to a certain percentage by a certain date." So they set targets and timelines. What that did is it forced industry, it forced government and it forced everyone to move toward those targets and those timelines.

When you have a bill that doesn't have targets or timelines, it's a little bit like saying "motherhood and apple pie." Well, who's going to disagree with the government on motherhood and apple pie?

The issue is that there are no timelines and no targets, so I say to you that I agree with what you're trying to do in the bill—I have no problem supporting the concept of the bill. The problem is that there need to be targets and timelines so that we're clearly trying to get to a certain objective within a certain timeline. I don't think that's an unreasonable request on the part of the opposition and the public. It seems to me that if you want to get somewhere, you have to say, "Here's where we would like to be in a certain amount of time."

The other thing is that you say the act is supposed to provide loans and perhaps grants to retrofit and for conservation. Let me explain that: If you look at the bill, it's supposed to provide some sort of grant-to-retrofit program to allow consumers to reinsulate their houses, to change the windows, maybe to put in solar panels or geothermal or other things when it comes to renewable energies in their homes.

But, again, if you look at the policies the government has in place within the various ministries that it's responsible for and if you look at what's in this bill, it is very silent on what the actual programs will be that will assist consumers in making those transitions from having everything coming off the grid to both conservation and possibly themselves generating electricity by solar, wind or other means.

Again, if you don't have targets and you don't have the programs to assist in getting you there, it's a bit of an empty shell. I guess that's part of the problem with the bill. Yes, we're supportive of the direction that the government wants to go. We all agree that we want to build a greener economy, and we all agree that we want to do more in the way of conservation. There's nobody who is going to disagree with you on that, but when you look at the bill, it doesn't give us any of the details on how we're going to get there.

I'll just give you my situation as I see it as a consumer. My brother and I own a cottage out at Kamiskotia Lake, and unfortunately, often enough, there are electricity failures out at that lake because of the transmission system, I guess. So we're having a bit of a problem. We need to keep the power going because we heat the water in the winter, and we need to have a heat system going in the event that the power goes down so that we don't freeze the pump water and pipes etc. within the cottage. We need to have a constant supply of electricity, so we looked at putting in a backup generating system.

We decided against that because environmentally, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Number one, running a gas or diesel generator is not very economical, and number two, it's not the greenest option.

So we said, "Maybe what we can do is look at solar panels charging a battery system so that we can convert electricity to AC as a way of putting enough electricity into the home so that we can at least keep the heat trace on the water line, we can keep the heat on the pump," and that kind of stuff. But the problem is that the technology to get us there, just a simple system of backup for two or three hours, is fairly expensive and when you look at the payback, there is no payback.

So we said, "Okay, there's another way. We could look at possibly putting a solar panel on the roof along with a small wind turbine, generating electricity. When we don't need it, we can sell it back into the grid through a reverse meter set-up, and when we're consuming electricity, we'll be able to pull it off that and at the same time have a battery backup unit that would achieve the goals that we want." The payback on something like that is 12 to 14 years. So for the average consumer, who has that kind of money to invest in order to get us to where we want to go?

I'm saying that we need to have specific programs that allow consumers to make those types of investments, with some assistance. I would argue that one of the things you're able to do is to say, "All right.

If you're going to be saving as a result of all of the energy retrofit stuff that you do in your home"—you put in better windows, better insulation, you're going to put on a solar panel with a wind turbine etc., and you saved X cost; let's say the number is $15,000—"you're going to be able to finance that $15,000 upfront cost by the savings on your utility bill, be it gas or electricity." You say, "All right, it will save, on average, 20% or 25% of my energy bills." That is worth a certain amount of money. Work that out over a 10-year period; it's a certain amount of cash.

So the government says, "Okay, we'll upfront you the money in order to offset your capital outlay at the front," and then it will be paid back to the government from the savings that you would have on your energy bill. It's one way of being able to reduce the capital cost upfront so that the consumer can actually go out and do it.

The good part about doing something like that is, it really then starts to build the market that you need in order to make these things happen. This is where we agree. If you're able to develop a market where consumers in large numbers, industry in large numbers and the government, which own buildings such as hospitals, schools etc. in large numbers, are now having some form of incentive in order to invest in energy retrofitting, you're going to spin a local industry in Ontario that cannot be exported or outsourced. You can't move the house, you can't move the building to Mexico to have it done.

It's got to be done wherever it is physically located, and then you have to have Ontario content rules that say 60%, or whatever number we come up with, of the equipment that is being used has to be sourced by suppliers in Ontario. You've now created a market that is for Ontario. It is sustainable over a period of time. We position our economy in such a way that we then can become the exporters of some of these technologies and services and goods to other places around the world, incubating it here in Ontario itself.

So it seems to me there are things that are missing in this bill to get us to where we want to go, and that's really what the opposition is to the bill. It's not the intent of the bill. Nobody refuses the intent of the bill or says anything—well, I'm saying within my party, within the New Democratic Party of Ontario, and I'm sure there would be very few otherwise in other parties that would do the same. But my point is that we need to have the details in this bill.

I just end on this point: We all know that every kilowatt of electricity that is saved by way of energy efficiency is a kilowatt that we don't have to generate. Therefore, it is estimated that 20% to 40% of electricity could be saved if we went this way, and it would lessen our need to expand the nuclear fleet, something that at the end I think will be very costly and dangerous.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: One of the areas I'd like to speak to this morning would have a lot to do with the member who's just spoken.

I was with the finance and economic affairs committee on a tour of the north and of the First Nations area some three or four years ago. One of the things the minister has made sure that he has put in his bill and something that he's going to do, and there's a directive sent to OPA on this: There just have to be more discussions with the First Nations. They have to be part of this. Aboriginal partnerships and capacity-building will be important to the development of new, renewable energy projects. A lot of the small hydro projects are on—First Nations could develop them.

When you're depending on diesel, certainly wind is an option that should be investigated. So this will be one of the areas that is important to the minister. He specifically mentioned it in his directive, the amount of renewables that come back in the energy mix that we'll get into that report in the next two months. This is one of the areas that we're going to go to.

Also, the community power: If a group of people in a community—and this comes, I guess, from the European experience—can come up with a good project, then there is going to be assistance for them. Enable community ownership of renewable energy projects by citizen-led energy co-operatives and clarify that the local distribution companies and municipalities are able to invest in the community in renewable energy projects under 10 megawatts: That's going to be very important. That's where the grassroots conservation, the grassroots support for climate change initiatives, is going to come from.

So that whole thing of expanding and supporting the green economy at the community level, First Nations, is where we have to go. It's where we have to understand what we're facing in 2014, 2020 and 2050 with our climate change targets, our greenhouse gas reduction targets. So this is the right bill. This will involve the communities that we have to involve.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I think the member from Timmins—James Bay said it as best as I've heard it described, and I wish him success in his attempt to be leader of the party, because he approaches things in a sort of reasonable way. I think what he said is a good lesson for those viewers listening today. Certainly the government members aren't listening, probably because they've been told how they're going to vote. So we understand that.

Here's what the real story is. He was saying that the conservation part should have a much broader focus and a much more compelling argument. We would be supportive in the fullest sense. When he said that the kilowatt that you don't use is the kilowatt that isn't generated, that's the true psychological outcome that we want here. But all the toys and triggers you're using are just load-shifting; it's not conservation. When I use a kilowatt at a different time of the day, I still have to generate it. So it's not conservation; it's called load-shifting.

This is a very technical subject, and I'm so disappointed that the members of the government side haven't been properly briefed on this. In fact, the tragedy is I think if they really listen to some of the things that Mr. Bisson was saying, they would question their Minister of Energy to have a fuller briefing for all of the members here. This is a technical, substantive shift.

Adam Beck had it right: We've got to make this product affordable for the people of Ontario. There has to be an assurance for seniors; for people on ventilators, who need it for breathing in their home; and for children. This is going to be a rigorous imposition into people's lives. This is something we shouldn't be taking lightly. Yes, I support green energy, but conservation is where we need to be focused more specifically.

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I want to speak to the issue with respect to the feed-in tariffs once again. A comprehensive understanding of what feed-in tariffs will do, in terms of the incentivization of more renewable energy products, gives the comfort that the member opposite is seeking with respect to that aspirational aspect.

The member opposite is saying let's set some targets and let's try to attain those targets. In our view, that could establish an artificial cap for the amount of investment that would be undertaken in the province with respect to the construction of those renewables. If you are aspiring, as we are, to be and establish the North American lead as a jurisdiction for renewable energy, then what you want to do is set the stage for anyone who wants to participate in that process to have the certainty that they need to go after each opportunity to build those renewables.

That's what this legislation does, and I believe that's the key reason why we have received the significant amount of support that we have.

You put in place a feed-in tariff that sets your price for the varieties of electricity being generated, whether it's wind onshore or offshore, solar, hydro or biomass. You say it's a certainty that we will purchase that electricity, a certainty that we will connect it to the grid and a certainty that we will issue permits in a timely way to allow you to move forward with that project. That allows the highest level of participation and it is part and parcel of the transformative nature of feed-in tariffs.

If the members opposite take a look at the aspirational nature of the feed-in tariff and the system that we're establishing, they too will have the confidence that we have in this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on Bill 150, after the member for Timmins—James Bay added his comments.

One of the points I wanted to talk about was the whole audit procedure and whether it really makes sense. In the past year I went through the procedure of having a voluntary audit done on my own home. Just to tell you how it came to be, I had decided I was going to replace a broken air conditioner with a heat pump, which would then heat and cool. The installer of the heat pump said to me, "Well, if you get an energy audit done, then you get $800 back from the government," I think it was.

So even though I'd decided ahead of time I was going to do this heat pump, I had an energy audit done, which told me that, yes, I could put a heat pump in. But you have to spend $400 to get the audit done to get $400 back.

I would say to the government, why not just give the $800 back on the purchase of the energy-efficient product? Make it simple for people, instead of coming up with a complicated process where you have to spend money to get money back. I think it would make a lot more sense.

I had an interesting meeting last weekend with a constituent who's in the—not a constituent; a business located in Ontario that is in the business of solar hot water. He had installed a system in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. He was making me aware of that. It was John Verway of Copperhill Solar. Certainly, it looks like a very interesting business and one that might make a lot of sense, with solar hot water versus the photovoltaic, where you're spending 42 cents a kilowatt hour on the photovoltaic. So I hope the government is looking at systems like the solar hot water, which would probably make more sense for hot water and heating than the photovoltaic systems.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins—James Bay has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I forget the member's riding—I don't have my glasses with me—but one of the government members was making the point that this bill is going to deal with trying to spur hydroelectric and other development on First Nations communities. I just want to remind the member that if we're waiting for this bill to do that, I think we'll be waiting for some time.

The reality is that the communities of James Bay, along with the communities of northwestern Ontario, as you well know, are mostly landlocked communities. Most of them are off the hydro grid. There are many issues that we need to deal with in order to electrify those communities. I know we've done some up on the western part of James Bay with the power line going up. De Beers has helped tremendously in regard to electricity for Attawapiskat, Fort Albany and Kashechewan, but those were projects that were done by the First Nations themselves.

In every case, it's the same story: It is very hard to engage provincial and federal governments to help and assist by way of helping to finance these projects or developing policies within the government and OPG in order to be able to move forward with electrification projects for those communities. It has been a really frustrating process.

I know that Martin Falls Ogoki has been trying now for the better part of five or six years to get the provincial government to accept them into the OPG system, and to have OPG run the electrical plant there. Currently it's run by the band. It's very expensive. Fuel costs are extremely high, and people are having to pay exorbitant amounts for electricity and have no other choice, because where else are you going to go? You're in the community. There isn't even a road to get in there, so you're going to have difficulty.

I just say to the member: I appreciate your concern for the people of the First Nations of northern Ontario, but let's not try to make pretend that this bill is going to deal with what is a very difficult issue, and the lack of policy that we presently have, both at the federal and provincial levels, to deal with those issues.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: It's my pleasure to add a few comments this morning on Bill 150, the Green Energy Act. I want to begin by thanking the member from Timmins—James Bay for his comments. As a fellow northerner, I wish him well this weekend. I'm sure that he's happy, in one form or another, that the end is near. They can be long and difficult processes, and we wish them all well across the floor in that regard.

I listened with some interest to the comments made by the opposition parties on this particular piece of legislation, and I want to begin by referencing, just briefly at the beginning of my comments, those made by the members of the Conservative Party when it comes to the price point that this may have, or the effect that this bill may have on energy costs in Ontario.

The two members of the Conservative Party who spoke in this regard, from Parry Sound—Muskoka and from Durham, would have left or attempted to leave the impression with those watching on television and people living in the province that somehow, the comments made or the legislation brought forward—if it does, in fact, increase costs on hydro in the province of Ontario—will be the first time that this has ever happened. Well, the Conservative Party had nine years on this file, and what they did was bring in a price cap.

While they would like to let people in the province believe that while they were in government their actions did not have any effect on the price of your hydro bill when it showed up at your door, of course that's not the case. The price cap led, in effect, to about $1 billion of costs being transferred off-book. Of course, people are still seeing the effect of that on their hydro bill.

It's important for people to understand that, while it wasn't a direct rate increase, it was about a billion dollars as a result of the rate cap, off-book but still reflected in the price that you're paying when your hydro bill arrives at your door. So I think it's important that we remind people about that.

I was in the House yesterday as well when a member of the third party had about 20 minutes to speak on this particular piece of legislation. That member—I think it was the member from Trinity—Spadina—spent most of his 20 minutes speaking about nuclear waste. I'm not sure what the point of that particular 18 or 20 minutes was, speaking about nuclear waste as if the people in the province aren't aware of the dangers associated with nuclear fuel material, but clearly that's something that's out there and part of the public discourse.

I think what we need to do, and what the people in the province are expecting from government, is a choice. We can't be paralyzed by indecision. We know that under previous governments, going back from 1990 to about 2003, when we came into power, very little was done in terms of bringing on new supply in the province of Ontario. At this point, I don't think people are interested in discussions about those sorts of issues. They want to know what we're going to do to bring on enough supply in the province of Ontario so that we can meet the energy demands of the province of Ontario.

The Conservative members who talked about the price point, what they didn't talk about was when they did nothing on this file. When they transferred the cost off-book, we saw the blackout in 2003 which clearly illustrated for people how close the demand and supply were in the province. What happened under the Conservative Party was that we had become a net importer of electricity into the province of Ontario. How much do you think that we were paying for the cost of that imported power?

I think people are looking for a little bit of leadership on this issue. We know that from 1990 to 1995, the cost of hydro in the province of Ontario went up by some 40% to 45%. While I was listening to the member of the third party speak yesterday, I was interested to hear him talk about the commitment that they had, or lack of commitment, to renewables in the province of Ontario, which was clearly illustrated by the cancellation of a project in about 1990 or 1991, the Conawapa project, which was signed under the David Peterson government.

That was a project that would have brought 1,000 megawatts of renewable power into the province of Ontario at about 4 cents a kilowatt hour. It was cheap power. It was clean power. It was affordable power. That would have brought about 1,000 megawatts into the province of Ontario, and it would have led to an incredible boom in construction across northwestern Ontario. I'm not sure what that speaks to from the third party's perspective, if in fact they support green energy or not. I guess we are going to find out when this bill comes for voting.

To govern is to choose. When you do choose, invariably there are groups and individuals who are going to be less than happy with your choices, but as I said, you can't let that paralyze you into indecision. You need to move forward, and that's what we're doing. It's important that the people in the province understand that what is before us today, Bill 150, the Green Energy Act, is not the beginning of what our government has done on renewable energy. In fact, this is the next phase of it.

Since we've been in government in 2003, somewhere I think in the order of magnitude of about 1,000 or more megawatts of renewable energy are already online in the province of Ontario. I don't want people thinking that what we're doing today is just the beginning of this. In fact, we have been working in this regard for most of the four or five years that we've been in government, since 2003.

Our standard offer program, offered through the Ontario Power Authority, has been the vehicle through which we have brought those renewables online. There are many projects. Even in my own riding I can reference a few: a 10-megawatt cogen approved in Atikokan, a solar farm in my riding, another wind farm in my riding. I know that just maybe two weeks ago in the small town of Dorion, just northeast of Thunder Bay, in the riding of my colleague Michael Gravelle, an announcement was made of a 99-megawatt wind farm. My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, David Orazietti, spoke earlier.

He talked about 190-megawatt wind farm that's been established in Sault Ste. Marie, about a $400-million commitment. In fact, to this point already, we have about 1,000 megawatts of wind energy online. This isn't the beginning of this process. We have been moving forward in this regard for quite some time.

I think it's also important to remind people in the province—and they know this, but I think it needs to be a bit part of the debate—that there are no perfect energy sources. If somebody's got one, let me know what it is. We know the problems associated with nuclear, but we also know that nuclear has been around for 30 or 40 years, and neither of the opposition parties, when they had their opportunity, took any of it offline or did anything to bring new energy online. They just kind of ignored the file. We know there are problems with nuclear.

We know even with hydraulic, there are people that aren't happy with that. If you have to build a dam and flood out lands, we know people don't like that. We know that gas is a diminishing resource and that it's expensive, so people don't like energy to be produced by using natural gas. We know about coal and the greenhouse gas emissions, and we know there are people who don't like that. We know that wind and solar are far from perfect, because if the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, you've got a problem there as well. That's why it's important for us as a province to get the energy mix correct.

That's what we're trying to do. There's going to be a mix of nuclear; there's going to be a mix of gas; there will be some other renewables brought online. It's important that we do that.

We all know that for industry to establish in the province, they want baseload power. They want to know that when they need it, with the flick of a switch it's going to be there. That's why we're always going to have some peaking plants, like gas, around, even though it's a little bit more expensive. That's why we're going to have nuclear as baseload. We know that. That's not going to change, and I think the parties across the way know that as well.

I've only got a few minutes left. I want to close by talking about how our open mind around bringing renewables on stream has led to some success stories in northwestern Ontario. For example, in the community of Fort Frances, the pulp and paper mill, AbitibiBowater, has completely converted their energy requirements to renewables. They have a biomass boiler there now, I think, that produces 85—I forget the total megawatts that it produces, but an $85-million construction project in the community of Fort Frances in the AbitibiBowater mill there, funded in part by a $22-million grant from our government.

That's a commitment that began three or four years ago. That pulp and paper mill now is completely energy self-sufficient, off the grid. I say this to my friends from the Conservative Party concerned about cost: There are programs in place that will help them get off the grid if they're concerned about cost. There's one example of a $22-million grant, an $85-million construction project. If you're looking for some quantification of the jobs created through green energy projects, I would suggest that there's a very good one right there.

That $85-million project employed dozens, if not hundreds, of people from my community in the building trades of Thunder Bay.

Finally, I want to talk about a community in my riding, Atikokan. The Atikokan coal plant was in jeopardy of being closed. We fought like heck to see what we could do to keep that open, and we've now seen, as well, what's going on in terms of our government having an open mind on the renewables file. Back in 2006, we announced in our budget $4 million for the Atikokan bio-research initiative. Two million dollars of that research has been expended at Lakehead University, in my home community of Thunder Bay.

Through the work of Lakehead University and other universities across the province, the research that has gone on has now led us to the point where they have been testing pellets in wood biomass, in coal-fired generating plants in the province of Ontario, for the better part of a year. The results are very good and encouraging. The thermal output from the plants is equal to or better than coal, depending on the pellet that's being burned. The handling systems are accommodating the biomass very well. The boilers are accommodating the biomass very well.

I was pleased when, shortly after his appointment as Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, George Smitherman toured Atikokan with me and that particular plant. While it is no slam dunk yet, things look very positive in terms of our ability to convert that plant to biomass, at the same time remaining cognizant of our requirement to ensure that private industry has as much biomass as they require.

I wish I had more time, but I thank you for my 10 minutes this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being close to 10:15, this House stands in recess until 10:30 later on this morning.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to introduce Shirley Csonto from Woodstock and her daughter and granddaughter, Teresa and Sarah Cameron, from Ingersoll. They are here today to visit Jordan Plummer, Sarah's cousin and one of our legislative pages. Although Jordan isn't from Oxford, her extended family has the fortune of living in one of the best ridings in Ontario. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Joe Dickson: In the east members' gallery, I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of Ajax's page Jordan Plummer from Westney Heights Public School in our Ajax—Pickering riding, to welcome her parents, Brenda and Jeff Plummer; her brother Andrew, with a slightly colourful hairdo; grandparents Ann and Gordon Plummer; as well as Jennifer and Suzanne Tewnion and Brad, Lianne and Ryan Page, who are joining us in the Legislature today.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This is Agriculture Day at the Legislative Assembly. We're delighted to have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture host this very important event.

In the gallery today, we have Bette Jean Crews, who is the president of the OFA; Don McCabe, who is the vice-president; Wendy Omvlee, an executive member; and Neil Currie, the general manager.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today I would like to introduce William Birch. He's from the riding of Scarborough—Guildwood and he's a student at Seneca College.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take a few minutes to caution the House once again about the use of intemperate language and general tenor of speech in this chamber. I have observed over the short period that this House has been convened an increased tendency towards disrespectful, insulting comments and insinuations directed from one member to another.

Recent question periods provide some troubling examples. Words like "stupid," "jerk," "bamboozle," "hoodwink" and "fabrications," along with references to booze cruises, pickpockets and bathroom breaks, do nothing to enhance decorum in this place or garner the respect of the citizens we serve.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I could name names, Mr. Minister.

Neither, frankly, does constant and repetitive heckling to the point where it is difficult or impossible to hear a colleague speak.

This is a place to put forward like and opposing viewpoints. That often brings with it an element of passion and sometimes antagonism. However, I think it is incumbent on all of us to treat each other with the kind of respect we ourselves expect to be treated with. Hurling insults and engaging in personal attacks debases this institution and casts a shadow on each of us.

We are all members of Ontario's provincial Parliament. We have been sent here to represent to the best of our ability a constituent of citizens who have the right to expect that, as their representatives in this place, we will conduct ourselves with dignity and honour. This does not, in my view, include the kind of schoolyard name-calling and derision that has become the trend of late.

I genuinely seek the co-operation of the House in maintaining a higher level of decorum in this place, each of us having due regard and courtesy for all honourable members and respect for the authority of the Chair. I know that each of you is capable of a higher standard.

As a footnote, given some recent incidents of disregard for the Chair, I also want to remind members that at any point in the proceedings, if the Speaker and a member are both standing, one of those two is out of order, and it's not the Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier. Ontario families received the equivalent of a shot to the gut yesterday when they saw that the TSX had fallen to levels not seen in more than five years, the single lowest close since October 2003. These people have savings and pensions that many of them depend on, and what do they get on top of that from Dalton McGuinty? Nothing but higher taxes, higher user fees and higher energy prices. Now, this morning, they hear the Premier musing that you're going to further mortgage their future with potentially the highest deficit in the history of Ontario. Premier, tell us that's not true.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We intend to run a deficit. I think we were the first province to announce that. We've been followed by the federal government through its actions. I expect that we'll see deficits in many of the Canadian provinces, and I'll tell you why we're going to run a deficit, for a few reasons.

First of all, we've been asked by international organizations like the G20 and the International Monetary Fund, and the Prime Minister himself, to do what we can to stimulate our economy. We will have to borrow money to stimulate the economy in that particular way, more so than we've been doing already. At the same time, we are going to protect the gains we have made in our schools, in our hospitals and in our protections for the environment.

Finally, in addition to helping people today who need help, through our immediate stimulus package we want to begin to build a solid foundation for a future economy at the same time. All of those cost money. We have no choice but to do those things at this point in our history.

Mr. Tim Hudak: While working families and seniors are seeing their life savings plunge, seeing their pensions at risk and seeing their home values decrease, they have forked record tax dollars over to the McGuinty government, only to see them frittered away. At this time last year we were heading for a $6-billion surplus; now we find we may even be further than that into the red. Instead of setting aside any cushion whatsoever for tough times, you spent every single penny in one massive end-of-year spending spree. It's nothing short of shocking.

From $6 billion potentially in the black to $6 billion in the red in less than one year: Premier, does that not represent extraordinary failure in leadership?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my colleague has a different perspective on this than do I, but just by way of interest, I noticed that Alberta had an $8-billion surplus last year. This year they are projecting, so far, a deficit of over $1 billion. What my honourable colleague fails to recognize is that the world around us has changed, and it's had a profound impact on our economics here in Ontario.

We are going to use this budget to do what we believe Ontarians want us to do. They want us to stimulate the economy. They want us to create jobs in the short term. They want us to build a stronger economy, on a go-forward basis, that is there for us when we emerge from this global economic recession. They want us to protect our gains that we've made in our public services. They want us to help people who are up against it through no fault of their own whatsoever. Our budget will strive to do all of those things.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, these are your own numbers over five years. You've benefited from a $27-billion increase in revenues, largely from higher taxes and transfers from the federal government, and you blew it all, saving nothing for when times got tough. For five years, Premier, you had this province on cruise control. The results: Ontario is now a have-not province, with a have-not Premier. We're in a deep deficit, with the worst jobs record in Canada, and the Royal Bank says that our economy will shrink by 1.4% this year, the worst performance in over a decade. Dalton McGuinty's emerging bio: Honey, I Shrunk the Economy.

While other Premiers, Presidents and Prime Ministers have acted, all we're getting from Dalton McGuinty in the time of crisis is vacuous, vacillating and weak-kneed leadership.

Premier, will you finally—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It may be that my honourable colleague is the only person in Ontario who thinks that somehow the global economic recession can be sourced here, at Queen's Park. I just don't think anybody else believes that.

He certainly is not in agreement with the priorities that we've brought to bear during our first five years. We have invested significantly, that is true, in nurses, MRI and CT technologists, personal support workers for our long-term-care homes, home care workers, public health unit inspectors, water inspectors, meat inspectors and the like.

I want to quote from the federal Minister of Finance, who said the following: "Our government will be making a deliberate choice in this budget to run a substantial deficit. The deficit will be a temporary tool—one that allows our government to invest in a stimulus plan that injects money into our economy and delivers real benefits to Canadian families and businesses." I agree with the federal Minister of Finance.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let's review the Premier's legacy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Who's the question to?

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the Premier.

The Premier has become the first Premier in Ontario's history to make us a have-not province, receiving welfare payments from Ottawa. He has taken us to last in growth in Canada and in job creation. Now we hear today, potentially, that this Premier has succeeded in digging the biggest deficit in Ontario's history, to make Bob Rae look like a piker. Premier, is this not an extraordinary failure in leadership?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let's review the facts, first of all. First of all, this is not the first time Ontario has qualified for equalization payments. Second of all, this government has invested in vital public services, and I'll remind the member we had—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'll remind the member that we have paid down $3.2 billion in Ontario's debt. We have paid off $2 billion in stranded hydro debt, and I'll remind him, unlike the government before us, every year, our expenditures did not grow as fast as revenue, yet we managed to restore health and education. Sir, let me re-emphasize: In this budget, we will continue to preserve those services in the context of a broad, global financial crisis.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think the minister knows full well that, for the first time in history, Ontario is receiving equalization payments from the federal government. We're on the welfare rolls of Confederation because of Dalton McGuinty's failed economic policies.

What are the results since the last election? Ninety thousand private sector jobs gone. Dalton McGuinty has stood by while almost 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs have fled our province in five years, that he characterized as just a little bit of a contraction.

Premier, you raised taxes through the roof on the backs of working families, seniors and small businesses. You went on end-of-year spending sprees. These decisions are yours, and yours alone. Isn't it time to take a new course to start creating jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we have balanced budgets. We've paid off a $5.5-billion deficit that we were left with from the previous government. We restored transparency and accountability in budgeting. But most important, we invested in those things that are the foundation, sir, of a growing and prosperous long-term economy.

Education is crucial to long-term growth. Infrastructure is crucial. A strong and sustainable public health care system is one of our key competitive advantages. As we've balanced budgets, as we've addressed these problems, we now confront a world financial crisis. I can assure you the plan we lay out on March 26 will deal with these immediate challenges, build growth into the future, and maintain and preserve those vital services which are the foundation of future economic growth.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: In the face of economic crisis, Dalton McGuinty is utterly paralyzed. The only time he ever moves is to point the finger of blame at someone else.

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here," because all real leaders understand that they ultimately must take responsibility for their decisions and make change where necessary.

The Premier had this province on cruise control for five years, failed to set aside any rainy day fund for when things got tough and refused to address a tax rate that has chased almost 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs from our province.

Premier, when it comes to the economy, when it comes to controlling your spending, you have one extraordinary failure in leadership. Isn't it time to bring forward a new course?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Real leaders like Premier McGuinty understand the importance of investing in health care and education for a strong future economy. Real leaders like Premier McGuinty understand that you have to strike a balance in all public policy. That's why we've cut business taxes—$3 billion. That's why we've invested in skills training. That's why we started a fairness campaign for Ontario, to see that this province is treated fairly in the broader context of Confederation. And that is why this Premier and his government invested $9 billion last year—the first province in Canada to have a stimulus plan.

Seven billion dollars of that is now in the ground and has created 100,000 jobs, representing 1% of the gross domestic product.

We have more to do. We're going to build on that, we're going to preserve our public services, and we're going to see this economy back to growth, back to a future for our children that all of us can—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier.

Today, Vale Inco announced the layoff of 261 workers in Sudbury, with many more job reductions to come. Employment insurance claims are up 30% year over year, with some municipalities in Ontario having employment insurance claims up by more than 50%. More than 300,000 good manufacturing jobs have been destroyed in Ontario over the last four years.

New Democrats have outlined a five-point jobs plan. As thousands of Ontario workers lose their jobs every week, can the Premier tell us what the McGuinty Liberals' jobs plan is?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'd be only too delighted to speak to this once again.

The leader of the NDP knows a great deal about our five-point plan. He knows that it's in existence, but he just doesn't support it. That's unfortunate, because we've been doing a number of things that have been very helpful to Ontarians. For example, at this point in time, by investing billions of dollars in infrastructure like new schools and hospitals and roads and bridges and transit projects, we're creating thousands and thousands of jobs. But the NDP don't support that.

We're cutting business taxes by $3 billion, and in particular, we're doing that in a way that's of special benefit to our manufacturers, by eliminating capital taxes. We're doing that right now, but the leader of the NDP does not support that initiative. I can tell you that those businesses and those manufacturers in particular support that.

Those are just two points of our five-point plan. It really would be helpful if at some point in time—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: As hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs leave the province every year, the Premier says he's helping.

Let me give you an example of something you could do. The McGuinty Liberals fail to require Ontario manufacturing content for new green energy projects. In Quebec, 60% of the manufacturing has to happen in that province for new green energy projects. The McGuinty Liberals are satisfied with a 25% domestic manufacturing content requirement for new transit vehicles. In Quebec, it is 60%, and the manufacturing of new transit vehicles is happening in that province.

New Democrats want a strong Buy Ontario program that will create and sustain jobs in Ontario. Why don't the McGuinty Liberals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We do, and that's why, in fact, when it comes to our transit spending, 82% of our transit investment is being spent in the province of Ontario. We expect that this will create 190,000 direct and indirect jobs. We're investing billions and billions of dollars in transit projects, particularly here in the GTA and beyond. There's another project we want to proceed with as soon as we can in Kitchener-Waterloo, and another one in Ottawa.

There are all kinds of investments being made, and it would be helpful if at some point in time we had the support of the NDP in making these kinds of investments so we can create the jobs that flow from those very kinds of infrastructure projects.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: It's interesting that the Premier wants to confuse construction work with manufacturing work. It's not going to work, because here's the example: The Toronto Transit Commission is considering two bids for a streetcar contract that could ultimately be worth $3 billion and tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. One bidder, Bombardier, will make the streetcars in Thunder Bay, sustaining hundreds of good jobs in that community. The other bidder, Siemens, would do the majority of the manufacturing work in Europe.

If Ontario had a 50% domestic manufacturing requirement for transit vehicles, as New Democrats advocate and as Quebec already has, we would see Ontario taxpayer money being used to sustain Ontario manufacturing jobs. Why is the McGuinty government satisfied with a modest 25% when the United States says 60%, Quebec says—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Sixty per cent sounds good, but I repeat, 82% of transit investment in the province of Ontario is being spent here. It's creating jobs right here where we need them.

It's interesting that the leader of the NDP stands in favour now of doing what we can to create jobs through investment in transit, but there was a time when he voted against our investments in subway and transit expansions. They were very unhappy with him at a particular plant in the city of Thunder Bay.

We will continue to do everything that we can to create new jobs in the province of Ontario and we will continue to ensure that 82% of our transit investment is in fact being spent here in Ontario, where it's creating jobs.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty government's new poverty reduction bill states that the implementation and success of the government's poverty plan depends on a growing economy.

Now that the Ontario economy has officially stopped growing and, according to most reputable economists, is likely to remain stagnant for some time, is the McGuinty government no longer committed to implementing its poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are absolutely committed to doing what we can to help address poverty in the province of Ontario. We're proud of the strong start that we've made. We have a first-of-its-kind strategy in place; there's a specific target; we have legislation being passed in this Legislature. But we've made it clear from the outset that grappling with poverty, reducing poverty and ideally eliminating poverty is not something that the provincial government can do on its own. We need partners at the municipal level, in the voluntary sector, but I think most importantly, we need a partner at the federal government level. We also need the support of a growing economy.

We will continue to do more when it comes to moving forward on our poverty strategy, but again we're going to look to help from the federal government as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The Premier has now stated that he and his government will do what they can. The Premier says that he is committed to implementing the strategy and achieving a 25-in-five target, yet the government's poverty plan states "meeting this target depends on having a willing partner in the federal government and a growing economy"—your words, not mine. Now Bill 152 says that even implementing this strategy depends on "the sustained commitment of all levels of government, all sectors of Ontario society and a growing economy." Again: your words, not mine.

If the McGuinty government is so strongly committed to action on poverty, why does it keep linking action on poverty dependent on factors beyond your own government's control?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That's part of leadership. I think it's part of helping Ontarians understand that while poverty has historically been seen as intractable, something that is part and parcel of the landscape, so to speak, we see it differently. We believe that something can be done that's real and meaningful to families who are affected by this. While we bring that perspective to it, we also understand that we can't do this on our own. We have made that clear from the outset.

The NDP in government didn't have any kind of formal strategy in place when it comes to addressing poverty. We have the first of its kind. We're proud of that, and we look forward to making more progress on a go-forward basis.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: People of many faiths are gathered in prayer today on the front lawn of this Legislature. Their message is that governments have to have a heightened responsibility to the most vulnerable citizens during difficult economic times. In Quebec, the Liberal government passed a poverty law with teeth and reduced poverty in that province by over 60%—not just children but everyone. When will the McGuinty government take the escape clauses out of Bill 152 and put into it a serious, long-term poverty reduction target dependent upon your own actions and not everyone else's?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just talk a little bit about what we've done so far. I can understand why my colleague remains doubtful, but I think Ontarians are entitled to know what we've done so far as evidence of our commitment to this.

We have been increasing the social assistance rate. It's up 9.3% since 2003. The NDP voted against raising those rates, by the way. We put in place a new Ontario child benefit that will cost us $1.3 billion on an annual basis. It will be $1,310 annually for 1.3 million children in the province of Ontario. We've increased the minimum wage five times so far. We've doubled the amount of money in our student nutrition program, helping out kids who are coming to school hungry.

Again I repeat: We have in place a strategy—the first of its kind. I would hope that at some point in time we have the support of the NDP as we move forward on this front.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. My constituents are concerned about the state of the province's finances. They were shocked to read that Don Drummond of the TD Bank is predicting that Ontario's deficit could explode to $17 billion in the foreseeable future.

The Premier and his Minister of Finance have often said that the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. That's exactly why I introduced a motion back in the fall of 2003, right after the election, calling on the government to commit itself to a long-term plan to pay down the provincial debt based on the common-sense philosophy that in good years you pay down your debt so that you're in a stronger position when times get tough.

Could the Premier explain why every single Liberal MPP present voted against my resolution for even modest fiscal prudence?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The first thing we did was pay off the $5.6-billion hidden deficit that that member and his party left. The next thing we did was, we paid down an additional $3.2 billion in the provincial debt over the balance of our last three balanced budgets. Finally, we were the first government to pay down stranded debt from Ontario Hydro, more than $2 billion over the course of our first and second mandates.

While we did that, we undid the damage that his party did to our vital public services. We rehired inspectors. We rehired nurses. We rehired teachers. We restored confidence in the broader public sector, and we made investments that will serve this province and its economy well, well into the future. We have more to do, and we will undertake that on March 26.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: No one is buying that. If the Premier has no explanation for his government's refusal to support a motion calling for modest fiscal prudence, I'll offer one.

His government couldn't wait to open the vault and spend: spend with abandon, spend with impunity, spend like there was no tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is now here, and the Premier's facing a deficit that has paralyzed the government, delaying the budget by a full month.

Their program spending is up 50% since taking office. What do we have to show for it? Ontario taxpayers are paying more than $1 million an hour to service this massive provincial debt that they've all but ignored. It's obvious that instead of fixing the roof, the Premier has put the province into a fix. How can he possibly claim to have any regard for future generations with this sorry record of fiscal recklessness?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have more teachers, more doctors, better hospitals, better schools, among other things, and that's only a start.

Let me remind my friend and colleague that when the McGuinty government took office in 2003-04, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 25.2%. Today it's 18.1%. Let me tell him something else. During the last four years of his government, revenues rose far less than expenditure. They were spending money without the revenues. That's why they left a $5.6-billion deficit.

Yes, we have proudly invested in restoring our vital public services that that member and his party cut, but we did it responsibly as we paid down debt and reduced our debt-to-GDP deficit.

There's more to do. March 26 is the beginning—

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

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. According to a study by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, wealthy Ontarians have benefited far more—38% more, in fact—than their poorer counterparts from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's wait times strategy on MRI. But we all know that poverty is the strongest determinant of sickness and poor health. Low-income Ontarians have more health problems and need the health system more. What is the minister going to do to ensure that low-income Ontarians have access to MRI?

Hon. David Caplan: I certainly welcome the findings of the report. I would like to thank ICES for the work that they do, because it highlights that we have, as a government, made the right investments to double the capacity for magnetic resonance imaging in the province of Ontario.

This government went to work right away, and we are working hard to increase access to MRI services for all Ontarians. The report makes it very clear that we are on the right track. Since elected, as I've mentioned, our government has doubled the number of MRIs offered in the province of Ontario. Thousands more Ontarians are undergoing these important diagnostic tests no matter what their income level.

As the ICES report outlines, MRI usage in Ontario's poorest neighbourhoods has actually increased by 80% between 2003 and the present date, and I am proud of that accomplishment.

We are increasing access right across the board. We're funding approximately 160,000 additional MRI—

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

M me France Gélinas: I remind the minister that the wait times have not gone down, but we'll agree that a whole lot of money has been invested. What I'm talking about is a gap between rich Ontarians and poor Ontarians. The government's ill-advised wait times strategy has not helped low-income Ontarians. Actually, factors other than medical needs are driving the decision to order MRIs. These facts are troubling.

Will the minister ensure that those who need MRI scans receive them regardless of their income?

Hon. David Caplan: The member presents factually incorrect information to this House. Wait times, in fact, are down 22% in this province, right across the board. I hope that the member will have the gumption to stand in her place and correct the record, because the wait times strategy that this government implemented is working.

We are seeing expansion of MRI right across the province of Ontario. In a previous government, Ontario's only French-language-speaking hospital was under a guillotine order. Under this government, not only has that hospital survived; it is now offering MRI services in the province of Ontario.

There have been 16 MRIs opened since 2003—three in the city of Ottawa; in Owen Sound, Richmond Hill, Markham, Halton, Windsor, Niagara Falls, Orillia, Guelph, Belleville, Cobourg, Brantford, Chatham and Hamilton—and there are more on the way.

It is because of the determined effort of this—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. On behalf of the farmers of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I would first like to welcome and thank the representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are here with us today for their inaugural Agriculture Day at Queen's Park.

The OFA is the largest general farm organization in Ontario, representing nearly 39,000 farm families. Members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are here to meet with MPPs to help us understand the issues and opportunities faced by the agricultural community during these challenging times.

I know, Minister, that you've been working closely with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other partners in our agricultural sector over the past number of years. Could you highlight for this House and for our visitors today some of the accomplishments that we have achieved—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We are certainly grateful for all of the good work of all of the farm agencies, not the least of which is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. My job, of course, is to listen very closely to what they would bring to us. We have worked, I believe, very well in partnership over the years. They have made it very clear that their members expect this government to do all we can to support and promote the fine-quality food products that we have here in the province of Ontario. That is why we have established the Ontario Market Investment Fund, a $12-million initiative. We are also investing $56 million over the next four years on our Buy Ontario, Buy Local strategy.

I just want to say to the members of this Legislature that Bette Jean Crews, the president, indicated that, "Incentives provided to expand Ontario's buy-local initiatives have proven their value many times as society shows"—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Mr. Speaker, agriculture, as you know, is the second-largest economic driver in Ontario, and it employs over 700,000 people in this province. Our government knows that Ontario farmers make significant contributions to our strong economy through innovation, new market opportunities and value-added products, but it cannot be forgotten that agriculture, like other sectors of the economy, is facing challenges during these difficult economic times. For a number of years, many farmers have experienced the challenges of low market prices and high input costs.

I know our government has been there for the farmers during these challenging times and will continue to work with our farmers to ensure the industry remains a sustainable one for generations to come, including the next generation on our own farm in Middlesex county. Could the minister talk about other incentives our government has undertaken to support the agricultural industry since 2003?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm delighted that the member has identified that agriculture is the second-largest economic driver. Our government has made sure we've invested since we've come to government: $1.2 million over the past five years on farm income support; another $50 million for the risk management program for grains and oil seeds producers; and $150 million for the cattle, hog and horticulture payment to address the long-time hurt that there was in that industry. Our investments, along with the hard work of farmers, are paying off.

Just last week in the National Post, an article, "An Engine for Economic Health"—it is the agriculture sector: "Equally important, Ontario farms are preserving the viability and even driving growth in smaller rural communities"—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, I would hope that you were listening to my statement earlier about long, prolonged heckling.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, Mr. Hoskin has indicated that there has been growth in his region. In Norfolk county, as a matter of fact, "He points out that gross farm receipts in his county grew by 6.8%.... While current figures are not available," it is estimated that "Ontario farmers pump about $8.8 billion" into our provincial economy—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: Glad to be here. To the Premier about the going-in-the-red energy bill: Yesterday, when I asked a question about how this bill was going to give government inspectors the power to go into businesses and private residences to look for audit documents, the energy minister said, "There is no opportunity for warrantless search."

Section 15 of the bill allows inspectors to go into businesses without notice and without warrant.

Premier, has your energy minister even read his own bill? When the minister doesn't know—and he had to admit on Focus Ontario on the weekend that he has no idea where these promised jobs are going to come from—it doesn't give us a whole lot of confidence. Would you confirm that the minister was in fact wrong in his answer yesterday, and that your bill, his bill, will unleash energy audit inspectors on unsuspecting businesses here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't know if we're talking about the same bill here. I think Ontarians are going to grow ever more enthusiastic about this bill. I think they want those 50,000 new jobs, I think they want clean and green electricity, and I think they want all of us to do more in the fight against climate change.

There have been some wonderful experiences in other parts of the world where they have moved forward with this kind of legislation. This is certainly the most aggressive of its kind in North America, and we're proud to be leading in that regard, but there are all kinds of job opportunities that will flow from this.

For example, when it comes to building transmission and distribution upgrades, there will be direct jobs in construction and indirect jobs in equipment supply, equipment manufacturing, engineering/design, transportation and conservation. There are all kinds of jobs in the construction trades, specialized professions, energy auditors, building and renovation, installation contractors, technicians and the like—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Remarkably, I don't believe he answered the question.

Again, you have to wonder whether this government even knows if it's coming or going. Yesterday, both the Premier and the minister said that when it comes to the invasiveness of this bill, they are open to positive and constructive amendments. We're glad to hear that, because the news of a mandatory audit costing $300 or more at a time when so many people cannot afford it is strongly opposed by seniors and struggling families. Premier, will you agree to amend the bill to defer mandatory audits, or is your promise to be open to amendments another one that is not to be believed by the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to remind Ontarians that this very commitment that we have made was one that was found in the Conservative Party platform, but as they like to say over there, that was then and this is now.

We think this is a good idea. We've always said we're looking forward to constructive and positive debate. We're looking forward to positive recommendations with respect to how we might improve this bill. We're very open to ideas, for example, as to when this might take effect. I know my friend understands as well that the government, at present, is providing a $150 rebate, so the net cost is $150. But as I say, we're open to constructive recommendations.

I think what Ontarians want to see from us are solutions, and they'd love to hear positive, constructive suggestions coming from the opposition. We're certainly very open to those too.

DON JAIL

Mr. Peter Kormos: The question is to the Premier. Why won't the Premier and his Minister of Correctional Services accept the invitation to visit and tour the Don jail, the Toronto Jail, like Howard Hampton and I did last Friday?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Thank you, Premier, and I thank the member for the question.

We understand the challenges that are in our correctional institutions. That's why we've decided to build a new facility to replace the Don jail, unlike the previous NDP government, which took money out of correctional services, refused to build one new jail, and in fact chastised the correctional officers when they suggested that they should increase capacity. The fact of the matter is that we are doing something to improve the working conditions for correctional officers, unlike the NDP government that was in place from 1990 to 1995 that withdrew millions and millions and millions of dollars from the correctional services

section of the Ministry of Community—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Chronic understaffing—and it doesn't take a new jail to address that; mentally ill inmates locked up in segregation cells because that's the only place to put them, screaming through the day and into the night, their urine leaking out of the cell from underneath the locked solid door: Is that the sort of thing that this minister is afraid to witness first-hand?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The fact of the matter is, I've been and toured the Toronto Jail. I saw the working conditions. But I have to tell you, Speaker, and the people of Ontario that, over on the other side, with the NDP, we have people who profess to support correctional services officers, profess to want to increase the amount of money that they put into the correctional services section, but in fact, when they formed government, in 1993-94 withdrew $20 million out of the budget, in 1994-95 withdrew $13 million from their budget, in 1995-96 withdrew $25 million from the correctional services budget, and did not increase capacity by one bed.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Mr. Mike Colle: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Yesterday, the front page of the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and papers across the world announced that Ontario researchers had scored a major breakthrough in stem-cell research. Dr. Andras Nagy and his team of scientists at Mount Sinai Hospital have discovered a safer way to make human skin cells act like stem cells, which could be used to help people with spinal cord injuries and diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's.

Minister, given the great breakthrough that Dr. Nagy has made in helping people with diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, could you tell us how your ministry is helping to support such incredible researchers like Dr. Nagy making these world-renowned breakthroughs?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. For those of us who are suffering from disease and for those of us who know those who are suffering from disease, the future is brighter this week than it was last week. All of us in Ontario, and I think all of us in this House, are extremely proud of Dr. Andras Nagy and his team at Mount Sinai Hospital, who have just in months announced a fundamental breakthrough in stem-cell research, what experts are calling an elegant discovery.

Their discovery, which was just published on Sunday in the journal Nature, unlocks the possibility of new medical therapies and provides hope for Ontario families that suffer from spinal cord injuries and diseases such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's, unlocking the power of our own bodies to repair and regenerate ourselves. Dr. Nagy's team is part of some 10,000 scientists, clinical investigators and researchers in Ontario conducting some $850 million worth of research, making Ontario the number one biomedical cluster in Canada.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: These researchers are some of our great Ontario heroes.

Another

article on the front page of yesterday's Globe and Mail speaks of the fear researchers across Canada are feeling as they look at Canada's ability to attract and retain research stars of the future. In these challenging economic times, it is more important than ever that jurisdictions like Ontario draw world-class researchers. Researchers are attracted to the development of new infrastructure, but are not attracted by infrastructure alone.

In the United States, President Obama is investing $10 billion to finance research. Ontario hopefully will not be pushed aside by this massive investment in the States but rather boost its own programs. Minister, what is the Ministry of Research and Innovation doing to ensure that Ontario will continue to attract the best and the brightest of these researchers right down the street at Mount Sinai?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I can assure the members of this House that one of the fundamental principles that we follow in our government in the Ministry of Research and Innovation is that we believe that it is science that drives our science decisions—not political science but science; scientific excellence. We're attracting researchers from around the world because of our commitment to scientific peer-reviewed excellence.

We welcome the move by new President Obama to commit to scientific excellence in his country and not allow political science to interfere with that work. We have been ahead of the curve. It's a great opportunity for Ontario, I think, because of our commitments that we've been making since 2005, for us to ride the wave of this new investment in the States to strengthen our collaborations with our friends to the south.

Because of work like Dr. Nagy's, we know that we are truly globally competitive. We reach out to all other—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Minister, small businesses are struggling in this province. They are suffocating under the burden of your new rules and regulations in these challenging economic times. It's like death by a thousand cuts. Your government seems to be picking off one sector at a time. Construction businesses will hurt with an $11,000 WSIB tax. Lawn care companies will suffer with your politically motivated, not science-based, ban list. Also, Minister, I'm hearing from many small businesses unable to cope with your rapid minimum wage increase.

What is more troubling to me is this is all being done at a time when our small businesses simply cannot afford it. Will the minister agree with the people on the ground and finally admit that small business is suffering in this province?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member for asking this question.

There's no doubt that the small businesses are having challenges, not just in Ontario or Canada but throughout the world. It is a global phenomenon because of our reliance on the US economy, and the US economy is having challenges in their construction sector, they are having challenges in their banking sector, and they're also having challenges in their manufacturing sector. So the small businesses that provide services to the US, and also to a broader sector, are having some challenges.

I will be more than pleased to elaborate in the supplementary about what our government has actually done to support those small businesses. We are actually on the job, and we're doing a great job to support the small businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Well, I think the minister is really out of touch. The US economy has nothing to do with all the new rules that you're bringing in.

Minister, small business is vital to Ontario's economy. Small business comprises 96% of all the businesses in the province of Ontario—96%. Small business is the job creator in this province.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that two out of three businesses surveyed find the overall burden of provincial regulations has increased in the past three years under your government. What's next on your hit list? I know you have the temp help agencies—Bill 139. Where's the minister on this issue? Why won't he defend and protect the interests of small business?

When will you, as the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services, start to stand up for small business in this province?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: It's one thing to ask questions in the House; the other thing is to actually do something about it.

Let me tell you, our government actually has worked very closely with the small business community. We have, in the manufacturing sector, a Smart program, which is being run by the CME, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association. It's a program to increase the productivity of the manufacturers.

We also have a program with the Yves Landry Foundation. Again, this is to look at their processes and provide the money for the training funds. We also assist them with their export access program, through the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, so that they can actually not look at the market just in the US but actually look at the markets across the globe so that they can be more successful in penetrating new markets.

In addition to that, we have the AMIS program, under which they can apply for money so that we can assist them with regards to their capital needs.

We have a lot of these programs, and we are working very closely with the small business community to address some of their needs.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is to the Premier. How does shutting down the emergency department at the Port Colborne hospital improve the quality of health care for the folks of Port Colborne and Wainfleet?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I understand that there's always anxiety whenever communities consider making changes to the way health care is delivered, but I want to stress that our government is committed to strengthening and improving health care in Niagara region.

I want to say to the member opposite that I am confident the local health integration board continues to act in the best interests of the people of Niagara, making decisions to ensure the sustainability of the Niagara health care system.

In Port Colborne, the LHIN has taken great care to ensure that the plan will result in safer and higher quality for the residents in the Niagara health system. The plan will ensure that patients get the care they need.

I want to quote the independent reviewer of that plan, Dr. Jack Kitts, in his final report to the LHIN. He said: "In critical cases it is vital that patients receive definitive treatment as quickly as possible. The ED at the Douglas Memorial site is unable to provide this service as it lacks the necessary diagnostic equipment and specialist"—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: The people of Port Colborne didn't make the decision to shut down that emergency room. That decision was made by this government's hand-picked, unelected LHIN.

The people of Port Colborne and Wainfleet built that hospital brick by brick and they've paid for its operation with their taxes, even more so now with this government's special health tax surcharge.

Why won't this government, the McGuinty government, listen to the people of Port Colborne and Wainfleet?

Hon. David Caplan: The facts are that I, as the member well knows, recently met with Mayor Badaway from Port Colborne, Regional Councillor Bob Saracino, and Wainfleet mayor Barb Henderson. I would quote Mayor Badaway where he said, "He thanked Port Colborne for coming forward"—referring to myself—"with positive, constructive suggestions on a way to address these very important health issues for rural communities such as the city of Port Colborne.... The minister acknowledged that what works in an urban environment was not always the best fit for rural application."

In fact, we've seen New Democrat governments close hospitals, as they did in Saskatchewan: 50 rural hospitals in that province. That's not the track record of this government. In fact, I thought that Regional Councillor Saracino put it very well: "He said"—referring to myself—"he recognized our concerns and the needs of the people and they are prepared to work with us here; he did give us that commitment." And I did.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Pat Hoy: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, public safety officers in our province face a monumental task: They keep us out of harm's way and keep our families safe. I think all members in this House would agree that they do so with courage and integrity, but every day they face uncertain situations and certain danger, and they do so continually, without hesitation.

When a public safety officer dies in the line of duty, a community never fully heals from that wound. It lingers, and we are forever touched by it. My community has not been immune to tragedy. In June 2000, we lost Sergeant Marg Eve. Mourners turned out in the hundreds to pay tribute. Fellow officers came from across the province to pay their respects.

I know that everyone in this House would offer whatever support possible during this time. Would the minister tell us what the government does to support the families of fallen public safety officers?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. He's right: The community never, ever truly recovers from the loss of a police officer. I know that in 1993, Constable Joe MacDonald was shot and killed, and in 1999, Rick McDonald from Sudbury was shot and killed. Our community has never, ever recovered from those two tragic deaths.

Because of the sacrifices made by those police officers, the Constable Joe MacDonald scholarship committee provides spouses and children of officers who die in the line of duty money for post-secondary education. It's no replacement for a husband, a son, a father, but what it does do is show the amount of caring that the people of Ontario, all sides, without partisan political stripe, have for our police officers, especially those wh