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

March 11, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 March 2009 Mercredi 11 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

MEMBER'S ADVERTISING

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

POVERTY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DENTAL CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

SMALL BUSINESS

DENTAL CARE

MEDICAL RESEARCH

MEMBER'S ADVERTISING

DEFERRED VOTES

APOLOGY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PRÉSENTATION D'EXCUSES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ERNIE CROSSLAND

SCHOOL POOLS

LONDON ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT CORP.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

EPILEPSY PEEL REGION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

RENDEMENT SCOLAIRE

IRISH HERITAGE DAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL POLICY /

COMITÉ DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE

PETITIONS

SALES TAX

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LUPUS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SALES TAX

CHILD CARE

INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE

HEALTH CARE

DIABETES TREATMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

Mr. Bentley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 155,

An Act to permit the Province to recover damages and health care costs incurred because of tobacco related diseases and to make a complementary amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 155, Loi autorisant la province à recouvrer le montant des dommages et du coût des soins de santé engagés en raison des maladies liées au tabac et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la Loi de 2002 sur la prescription des actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the MPP from Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this particular piece of legislation, to speak to an issue that affects all Ontarians. The human cost of tobacco-related disease is staggering: 13,000 people every year die from tobacco-related disease; 36 people every single day die from tobacco-related disease. And even those statistics do not begin to speak to the enormous human tragedy of those affected by disease and the families and friends of those affected. The cost in terms of health care alone is $1.6 billion every year that Ontarians pay to support the health care of those affected by disease.

Today we can't speak to the terrible human tragedy, but this piece of legislation does speak to the recovery of the health care costs that Ontarians are paying out for tobacco-related disease. This legislation provides the foundation so that Ontarians can recover those health care costs from who we allege have done wrong, those who we allege have contributed to the cost that we are paying; from those who we allege committed acts that encouraged more people to smoke, encouraged the diminution of public health care warnings, encouraged the hiding of research relating to health care warnings and encouraged the consumption of cigarettes that were said to be less dangerous but in fact were not.

Today we provide the foundation that, in fact, was used in the United States more than a decade and a half ago. We'll all remember that in the United States, action was taken by governments at every level against tobacco companies to recover health-care-related costs. We'll all remember that it was the beginning of the Clinton administration when there was a settlement of almost $245 billion paid for tobacco-related health care costs.

British Columbia and New Brunswick have instituted actions in Canada. Other provinces have passed the type of legislation that we are proposing today, the legislation which provides the foundation for this type of action. So we're not the first. The legislation that we're introducing, that we are debating, is legislation that has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and upheld. So we're not blazing new territory here. We are simply asking the Legislature: "Let us do what is right. Let us hold those who we allege have done wrong accountable.

Let us hold them accountable for the wrongs they have done and for the costs they have incurred, and let us return those costs to the people of Ontario, who should not be paying them."

This piece of legislation, as I say, follows the pattern that has been followed elsewhere. It allows the government to sue directly for the harm done to individuals–the government to sue.

Although the legislation does not speak to exactly what the cause of action would be against defendants in other provinces, the civil actions that have been launched against tobacco companies include: allegations that those tobacco companies marketed light cigarettes as safer when they were not; allegations that tobacco companies marketed directly to young people and directly to those who don't have the opportunity or the knowledge to make a decision; allegations that tobacco companies knew of research about the harmful effects of tobacco and kept it from the public; and allegations that tobacco companies systematically conspired to undermine the health care warnings about the dangers of tobacco use.

We require this legislation to provide the foundation for any lawsuit that we might launch. This legislation does not speak about or of the companies which might be the subject of any litigation, but in other provinces they include the largest tobacco companies in the country.

Ontario has been a leader in smoking cessation activities. Ontario has been a leader in the legislation it has brought forward to make sure that people are not subject to second-hand smoke, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. We have been a leader in making sure that people are not targeted with advertising to induce them to smoke more; we have been a leader in making sure that we have legislation to protect young people driving in cars; we have been a leader in initiatives to ensure that people have the tools they need to stop smoking and the information they need about the dangers.

We will continue moving in that regard. We will continue to make sure that people know about the dangers, are supported and encouraged, and stop smoking. It is virtually the only product that, when used as directed, can kill—when used as directed.

This is about holding those whom we allege have done harm accountable for the cost they've incurred, and making sure that those who have helped incur the costs actually pay for the costs that they have helped to incur. It is legislation against the backdrop, against the ever-present knowledge, that today, we estimate 36 people will die from health tobacco-related disease, and that in the year, 13,000 will die from tobacco-related disease and countless more will have their lives forever affected by tobacco. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Willowdale. I think he's over there; I can't see, for people standing up in front of you.

Mr. David Zimmer: It's a pleasure for me to speak to Bill 155, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, today. This bill would give our government the ability to directly sue tobacco companies so that we can work to recover the health care costs spent on behalf of Ontario taxpayers.

Tobacco use results in many other costs besides those millions and millions of dollars that go to provide health care for the 13,000 Ontarians who die and the thousands more who are afflicted by tobacco-related diseases each year. More than 17% of all deaths in this country result from tobacco-related illnesses. That's almost one in five. Beyond the dollar figure and the statistics is the terrible, terrible toll of losses to families, friends and communities.

Just as the statistics tell only one part of the story about the devastation caused by tobacco-related diseases, Bill 155 is only one part of our government's response to the issue of tobacco use. The McGuinty government has become a national leader in tobacco control initiatives. Through our smoke-free Ontario strategy, which is a vital part of our government's commitment to a healthier Ontario, our government has worked hard to develop effective programs that help curb smoking.

The most recent initiative in this ongoing series is, as you know, the banning of smoking in cars when children under 16 are present. I'm sure not everyone here is aware, but studies say that a person at only 50 centimetres distance from a burning cigarette inhales 10 times more carboxylic compounds than do smokers themselves—that's the chemical compound in the tobacco smoke—and that smoke in a restricted car can be up to 27 times more concentrated than it would be outside the closed space of that car. We all recognize the importance of keeping our children away from second-hand smoke, and smoke-free Ontario is demonstrating some very, very encouraging results.

Our ban on the public display of tobacco products and on smoking in local coffee shops and restaurants where children congregate after school and where they often work on their essays and on their computers are having a positive impact. Reducing the number of public places where it is permissible to smoke and making information about quitting more readily available are both helping more Ontarians to stop smoking and convincing fewer to start in the first place. There's a lot more to do, and we will continue, as a province and a government, to lead the way in smoking prevention and smoking cessation.

Bill 155 is directed at tobacco companies because it is alleged their misconduct has led members of the public to start using their products and to continue using their products. The taxpayers of Ontario and our health care system have directly borne those costs as a result. As the Attorney General has said, at this time, in this economic climate, we can't go into a lot of detail about what our actions might be if the legislation is passed. But let me speak to events in other jurisdictions that give us some indication of what we might expect, which will help to explain more about our thinking in introducing this proposed legislation.

I'd like to say a bit about the American Master Settlement Agreement that was signed just over a decade ago. This is an initiative that got started because the Attorney General of Mississippi knew of a woman who was dying of heart disease caused by smoking. She had used up all her savings and was being supported by Medicaid. Someone suggested that since Medicaid was paid by the state government, maybe the governor should try to recoup these losses, these expenditures incurred by the state, from the tobacco companies.

Fast forward ahead a decade: By the mid-1980s, four US states had sued tobacco companies for smoke-related health care costs, with Mississippi leading the way. Within four years of the American Master Settlement, the settlement agreement was signed by 50 states and the tobacco industry. The industry agreed to pay more than $200 billion over a 25-year period for health care costs that resulted from the use of its tobacco products.

Here in Canada, six provinces have now passed health care cost-recovery legislation. The legislation, when tested in the Supreme Court of Canada, was found to be constitutional. Two provinces, British Columbia and New Brunswick, have already initiated their health care cost-recovery litigation. The government of British Columbia is moving forward and has recently won the right to pursue the parent companies of Canadian tobacco companies in the United States. Right now, British Columbia is seeking the permission of the court to allow it to proceed with its litigation and also allow other provinces to bring health care cost claims against JTI-Macdonald.

We need our proposed Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act to be in place in order for Ontario to be involved in these claims. The proposed legislation is about seeking accountability for tobacco-related health care costs. Costs to our health care system are now being borne by Ontario taxpayers because of the alleged misdoing of tobacco companies and their tobacco products. The $1.6 billion we spend each year on health care here in Ontario for tobacco-related illnesses could fund eight large community hospitals the size of Toronto East General, for example, and that funding would last for a full year.

Our government wants to work towards recovering the costs incurred by taxpayers and our health care system by the use of these tobacco products. That's why we're asking all members, we urge all members of this House, to move forward quickly towards the passage of Bill 155.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I don't think you'll find anyone in the House with a dissenting position for the motive of saving lives and improving our quality of life nor the arguments. Ontario being the largest province, 13 million people, they're late to the table. As we understand, six other provinces have joined the issue of holding accountable the industry, I suppose, in the first sense and, more recently, the individual and their individual responsibilities.

I think what's missing here is clarity. I don't want to be cynical here, but I'm saying that to me this sounds symptomatic of sort of reaching further into your pockets because they have a deficit—it's reported it will be in the billions; maybe $18 billion, maybe more—and this is a good place for them to get some more money.

But they have a legitimate claim. If this is proven scientifically to be a health risk, they should make it an illegal product. Furthermore, if you look at the record, I think no one has spoken longer or louder than the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, Toby Barrett, who has in his riding a lot of tobacco growers who have, really without any prior notice, been disfranchised—their businesses sort of taken away from them—and as a non-smoker, I would agree. The real point here is that there has to be a transitional fund to bring them into other businesses, and I think we need to address that at the same time.

If there was some direction here on what they're going to do with these health costs that are being avoided, that's a whole other debate. The Minister of Health himself smokes; each individual is born with choices to make. This debate is not going to be swept under the carpet. It's a tax grab by the McGuinty government, in the most cynical sense. If it's the right reason, they should ban it completely.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'll have an opportunity to speak to this bill tomorrow morning, I suspect, but I wanted to say a couple of things for the record. There is no doubt in my mind that smoking kills. I think we all know it. I don't think we need any more evidence of it. I will be supporting this legislation, but I want to simply add that it is a 10-year campaign and, boy, would I love to be a lawyer on this particular case, because a whole lot of lawyers are going to make a whole lot of money. So it will be good for lawyers as well, and maybe they need employment.

In this kind of economic crisis, maybe they need work; I don't know. But it is a good bill—there's no doubt about it—and it will take 10 years.

But I want to ask a question of both the minister and the parliamentary assistant. There are things that nag me a little bit in terms of what we're doing with the illegally produced cigarettes that come across the border and the illegal production of cigarettes in our own province. There are a whole lot of young kids still smoking cigarettes, and they are illegal cigarettes; they're found littered in schoolyards across Ontario.

I understand the initiatives that both of you are talking about, in terms of what you've done, but I am curious and interested to know what the government has done and/or is doing by way of talking about the illegal production and importation of cigarettes and the illegal production of cigarettes within our own province. I'm interested to know your answer to that particular question.

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

Mr. Pat Hoy: I'm pleased to add some comments to the leadoff by Minister Bentley and our parliamentary assistant from Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer. They provided a very thorough oversight of this particular piece of legislation which, if passed, would allow the government to sue tobacco companies for alleged wrongdoing and to recover past and ongoing health costs borne by Ontario taxpayers due to tobacco-related illnesses.

The minister pointed out the human cost of smoking: the 13,000 persons per year who die from smoking-related illnesses. He also brought that down to a figure of 36 persons per day. The numbers are staggering. My wife and I are so pleased that our adult children do not smoke—they never have—and we're very thankful for that. It is a habit that is quite difficult for folks to break. The real message is that if you do not start smoking, you don't have to worry about that.

I had a relative who passed away not too long ago. I was told something by a nurse in the hospital that I was not aware of. She said that many smokers actually get stomach cancer. That was something I wasn't aware of. We can see the effects of smoking on the lungs and other parts of one's body, but I was unaware that smoking could cause stomach cancer.

I want to say to the member for Durham, who made a comment about transitional monies, that our government provided transitional funding of some $50 million to the tobacco industry and the growers in 2004. That was brought in by Minister Steve Peters, so it really was some time ago that we provided $50 million in transitional funding.

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

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I'm pleased to comment on the replacement of Bill 155. I believe that this bill misses the mark. I think the concern in Ontario at the present time is the sale of illegal contraband cigarettes.

What is happening—when I walk down streets in my jurisdiction and in Toronto, I see so many young women smoking. When I say "young women," I'm talking about teenagers. I recall, a very long time ago, when I was a teenager, it would seem that the males and females smoked in almost equal amounts. Today, I don't see that many young men smoking, but I do see legions of young girls on their way to school, smoking.

One of the problems is that, of course, the sale of illegal cigarettes has expanded to such an extent—some put it as high as 50% of tobacco sales in the province of Ontario, and that's unconscionable.

Sure, we're losing enormous amounts of tax dollars that could be used for our hospitals, 80% of which are now underfunded by this government. The matter of money is important, but more important than that is that young people are being subjected to illegal cigarettes in greater and greater numbers. There is absolutely no restriction. The people selling this illegal contraband will sell to two, three—they don't care how old they are. There is absolutely no restriction.

So this bill surely misses. It deals with money; it does not deal with our young children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Attorney General, you have two minutes to respond.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'd like to thank the MPPs from Cambridge, Chatham—Kent—Essex, Trinity—Spadina and Durham for their comments.

We're acting on many fronts. We are working on the illegal contraband cigarette issue. We have taken a very strong stand on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and the voting record will show who supported and who did not.

But this is about recovering the health care costs, and why wouldn't you want to recover them? If tobacco companies have committed a wrong, why wouldn't you want to recover the costs that are derived from that wrong? Why wouldn't you want to recover those health care costs? Why would you want to leave them in the hands of those who have done wrong? What possible point could there be in leaving health care costs in the hands of those who helped to incur them, if they've done wrong? That is a question people will want to know the answer to: Why would you leave that money with those who have done wrong?

We will continue to work to reduce smoking in the province of Ontario, and I look forward to the support of members of the party opposite who spoke about that. We will continue to push forward with smoke-free initiatives, and I look forward to the support of those in the party opposite on that issue. We will continue to try to reduce smoking in the province of Ontario, and I look forward to the support of those in the party opposite. I thank the member from Trinity—Spadina for his support.

We will make sure that those who have done wrong to the people of Ontario are accountable for their wrong—$1.6 billion every year; that's a wrong.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I am very pleased to speak today to Bill 155, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

This bill would allow the government to sue tobacco companies to recover damages for the costs sustained by our health care system for illness and injury to Ontario citizens by virtue of the use of tobacco products.

It has been suggested, and I understand from some of the comments that have been previously been made, that some people are of the understanding that this can already be done; in fact, it can't. Individuals can attempt to sue tobacco companies for damages as a result of illness or injury. But until this time, the government has not been able to seek damages for the cost to our health care system, so it is important that this bill be passed. We do, of course, support it. We certainly do recognize the health care costs associated with our system, with the ills of smoking, and we want to do whatever can be done in order to both prevent smoking and to recover some of the costs related to it.

In fact, I should point out that this was raised by the Progressive Conservative government back in 1999, when my colleague the member from Kitchener—Waterloo introduced similar legislation, in those days called Bill 23, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act, which amended the Health Insurance Act to allow the government to bring such an action independently of any subrogated right of action against a person to recover costs incurred to pay for insured services rendered as a result of the person's negligent or wrongful act or omission; it certainly would have applied to tobacco companies.

The Long-Term Care Act, 1994, was amended in a similar manner to allow the minister to bring an action independently of any subrogated right of action against a person to recover costs incurred to pay for services provided under that act as a result of that person's negligence, wrongful act or omission. Indeed, the trend towards the enactment of this type of legislation has continued for some years since it was first introduced by the PC government in 1999.

Similar legislation, of course, was enacted in British Columbia in 1998, which was the first jurisdiction in both Canada and the Commonwealth to introduce this type of legislation. They were the first to launch a lawsuit against the tobacco industry for the recovery of tobacco-attributable health care costs related to allegations that the industry did not disclose in a timely way what it knew about the effects of these products. The tobacco industry challenged the constitutionality of this legislation; however, as everyone knows, it was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2005.

Since 1998 and the passage of the legislation in British Columbia, similar types of legislation have been passed in five other Canadian provinces, including New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

I should also note that the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is the first treaty that was negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization. It was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2003, and was entered into force in February 2005. This convention is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health, and Canada signed the treaty in July 2003, which was ratified in November 2004. The convention states, pursuant to

article 19, "That for the purposes of tobacco control, the parties shall consider taking legislative action or promoting their existing laws, where necessary, to deal with criminal and civil liability, including compensation where appropriate."

As other speakers have noted, the statistics with respect to the ill effects of tobacco use are startling in Ontario. It is the number one cause of preventable disease and death and accounts for over 13,000 Ontarian deaths per year. It is something that I do commend the government for attempting to do something about by bringing forward this legislation, but the only question that I would raise is, why now? Why, when these other provinces have done this some years ago? Why is the government bringing this legislation forward now?

I would suggest that the reason can be found in the 2008 Auditor General's report, because the purpose of part of the audit there was to assess whether the ministry had adequate and cost-effective policies and procedures in place to ensure that the correct amount of tobacco, gasoline and diesel fuel tax is collected and paid to the province in accordance with the law.

The conclusion, of course, that the auditor came to was that, "It remains our view that the ministry's current policies, procedures and information technology systems are still inadequate." I would suggest that that is precisely why this matter is being brought forward now; that it is a distraction; it's a diversion; it's an attempt to change the channel away from the fact that the government is failing to collect these tobacco taxes, which account for something like $500 million of lost revenue to the province of Ontario each and every year; that they're allowing the operation of illegal smoke shacks and sale of illegal cigarettes in the province of Ontario, not just in the illegal smoke shacks but in our communities, from the trunks of cars to young people, as my colleague the member from Cambridge has indicated, onto schoolyards to young girls, to young boys, which is getting them hooked on cigarettes at an early age; and that nothing is being done in order to address that particular issue.

So that's where we have it. This government is simply trying to change the channel to make it look like they are being very proactive with respect to collecting costs related to our health care system and is failing to collect something which, by all accounts, could be easily collectable if they set their minds to it. But instead, what they've decided to do is to go by way of lawsuits.

I would suggest that this is certainly not a timely or cost-effective way of recovering these lost revenues if that is what the government is really serious about doing, because to commence a lawsuit of this nature requires a lot of work. The Attorney General has indicated that if a lawsuit were going to be commenced—and we're not even really sure whether or not that would happen. We heard something about how in this economy, they're not really sure how they'll proceed with it; they want to have the legislation in place just in case they decided to go ahead with it.

So we have the uncertainty about whether a lawsuit would even be commenced in the first place. But if it were to be commenced, the Attorney General has indicated that it would be commenced in-house with lawyers who are presently working for the Ministry of the Attorney General. That may well be the case, but I would suggest that that would certainly not be the way that the lawsuit would be continued or would be ultimately argued once it got to court.

Who would be employed would be lawyers out in the private sector, working at very high hourly rates—and there wouldn't be just one of them; there would be many lawyers involved in a lawsuit such as this.

Secondly, it's a complicated type of action; it's not simple litigation. It would require many expert witnesses who need to be paid—and they're paid thousands and thousands of dollars in order to come to testify at trials of this nature—and this would go on for a long period of time. I would suggest there would be hundreds of witnesses, both for the prosecution or for the Attorney General in pursuing this action as well as for the defence. The big tobacco companies of course have deep pockets and would be able to sustain this kind of litigation over a long period of time.

So that's the final part of it: This type of lawsuit would take years and years in order to realize a judgment,

whereas if the government were to crack down and try to collect some of these lost tax revenues—which are not insignificant; $500 million would go a long way to helping our already burdened health care system—I would suggest that a lawsuit is certainly not the way to do it, because I would think, at minimum, you would be looking at at least five years before there would be any kind of judgment.

All of this is assuming that there would be a judgment in favour of the government, and that is by no means a sure thing. We could be pursuing litigation that may or may not have the possibility of a successful outcome. Even if it did have a successful outcome at the end of the day, there's also the issue of recovery. Many people are able to get judgments in various levels of court for whatever amounts of money, but if the defendant doesn't have the funds to satisfy that judgment, if they're judgment-proof, then all is for naught.

There's no point in having a judgment if you don't have the ability to collect on it. So five years from now, whether those big tobacco companies—even if the government could be successful in launching a lawsuit and obtaining a judgment, we have no indication as to whether or not they'd be able to satisfy the judgment.

In conclusion, I would say that it's difficult not to support this legislation; we certainly do support it. But I would say that there are many, many other things that this government could be doing, if they're really serious about getting money back into our health care system and recovering some of the costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses, which would be much more timely and much more cost-effective than the means by which they have chosen to pursue it with this legislation.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I was listening to my colleague's comments, and I just want to make two points. One, I'm glad that she touched briefly on the issue of illegal cigarettes, because I believe that that has become the major problem in Ontario today, and I want to say a few words about that later.

I think that something almost akin to fraud is happening in Ontario today. People are being told that smoking is on the decrease and that cigarette consumption is on the decrease when in fact all you have to do is make a tour to any city, any town in Ontario and you'll see that smoking continues, but that increasingly, the smoking is the smoking of illegal cigarettes. So I actually think there's a bit of a fraud being committed on the people of Ontario. People are being told smoking is down. Yes, smoking of legally produced cigarettes may be down, but the smoking of illegally produced cigarettes is in fact increasing, and at an incredible rate.

If anyone looked at the two—the smoking of legally produced cigarettes and illegally produced cigarettes—and combined them, I don't think the combination supports the conclusion the government wants to put across that cigarette smoking in the overall is in decline. I think it is wrong to continue to allow that misconception to be promoted to the public in Ontario.

The second point that I think is important is that we need to recognize that lawsuits such as would happen under this bill will take many, many, many years. If anyone is trying to suggest that this bill will have an impact in the next three or five years, it's not going to happen.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm happy to make a few comments on Bill 155, legislation that, if passed, will allow our government to sue tobacco companies for alleged wrongdoing to recover past and ongoing health care costs borne by Ontario taxpayers due to tobacco-related illnesses. I think it's important, once again, to state for the record that British Columbia and New Brunswick have already initiated lawsuits against tobacco companies to recover health care costs, and Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also passed legislation allowing them to sue.

I'm sure everybody in the Legislative Assembly knows someone who has been touched in one way or another by a loss of life associated with tobacco use. I remember very clearly the loss of my maternal grandfather, just a tremendous, fantastic man whom we all watched suffer and lose his life to lung cancer at a very, very young age as a result of the use of tobacco—a tragic, unfortunate and unnecessary step in the progression of a man's life.

I'm very happy that what we're bringing forward today is once again going to bring a higher profile to the use of tobacco, for all the very wrong reasons. We continue as a next logical step, and that's how I see this legislation, in terms of trying to curb tobacco use.

I can remember not that long ago when you could still smoke a cigarette on an airplane. Can you imagine that? It's about 20 years now since you could run a TV ad. This is all part of what we're trying to do when it comes to a variety of things. Changing cultures is not an easy thing to do. One of the best organizations out there that I love to talk about is MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have done a tremendous job over the last 20 or 30 years in terms of changing attitudes around drinking and driving. This legislation today is one more step—what I see as a very logical step—in terms of trying to change the culture around using tobacco in Ontario.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm always happy to listen to and learn from the member from Whitby—Oshawa. As a practising litigator, she is probably the most qualified person in this House to comment on the appropriateness and enforceability of the law and the response to it. I think that's something that should be paid close attention to.

I want to bring up a couple of sidebar issues here. In the general public, we're hearing the pressure on the federal government to decriminalize marijuana, or pot, use. Now some people treat this as a humorous thing, but I look at it as—just as an observer, of course. The inherent conflict of legitimizing pot is not as bad when we're trying to get rid of cigarettes, which are both smoking. It's a contradiction. But what it looks like is that they want to start to regulate it and tax it.

If you look back in history, it's recorded that George Washington, many years ago in the United States, as the first President, pondered the issue of whether he should plant tobacco or hemp. It was a toss-up between which one was going to become the popular bi-product. That's an historic fact. It's in some of the records of history.

The other thing is the importance of not diminishing or dismissing that alcohol—the previous member from Atikokan mentioned how important the work of MADD is, and it is. Alcohol is a very destructive product as well, which affords the government a lot of revenue. Alcohol causes more havoc than cigarettes. It destroys entire families when inappropriately used.

This is an important debate, but unfortunately, when I heard the Attorney General speak, what I heard him saying was, "We can't wait to get our hands on the money."

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to compliment and thank the member for Whitby—Oshawa for starting her presentation off by indicating that the official opposition will be supporting the legislation, indicating that it makes sense to have this enabling legislation to provide the government with the opportunity that other provinces have chosen to take. We know there have been some successes around the world in these types of lawsuits that have made those companies responsible for the health care costs in their areas; they've sued them.

One of the things that I want us to stay focused on is the legislation. When we talk about what the legislation is asking—it's an enabling piece of legislation—what we're saying is, "Would you provide the government with the opportunity to launch a lawsuit against those companies for some of the things they've done in the past?"

I want to remind the members here in the House today that a lot of the companies we're talking about were first professing that there were absolutely no harmful effects whatsoever from smoking. There are people today who are still saying, "You know, there's no science that actually says that second-hand smoke is bad for you. So why don't we just leave that alone?"

I'm saying to you very clearly that that's why I'm glad the member has indicated that her party is going to be supporting the legislation. I'm glad the member has not stood up in her place and said, "You know what, there's really no science about this." I know her enough to know that she would never say that, because there are too many people in this province who are dying from smoke-related illnesses. And the fact is, that's an extreme burden on our system.

The member for Durham likes to get up and throw curves at everybody and throw mystifying statements that there's been no assistance for the farmers who have been running through difficult times. A $50-million program to assist the exit from tobacco, I think—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Whitby—Oshawa, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank the members for Kenora—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Durham and Brant for their comments.

Just to respond to the comments made by the member for Brant, I certainly do support this type of legislation. I am very much in favour of this type of legislation having been brought forward. In fact, I had a very close family member—my mother, actually—who passed away from lung cancer related to smoking. So I am very much in favour of this legislation.

But I do feel that I need to point out that there are other things I urge the government to do with respect to this scourge: to crack down on the sale of illegal cigarettes, because this is something that is not being addressed by this government. There are millions of dollars in lost tax revenues that are just going down the drain. If we really want to recover costs to our health care system, we need to do that, not just because of the loss of tax revenue but because some of these illegal cigarettes contain more and more toxic chemicals.

Over and above the tobacco, they contain poisonous chemicals—rat poison, rat feces—things that are going to be far more damaging, and will kill far more people who are smoking them, and our young people particularly, than anything in the cigarettes themselves. So I would urge the government to take a serious look at this, to start cracking down on this, for the health and safety of people who are continuing to smoke.

We need to continue with smoking cessation products, we need to continue to urge people to stop smoking, but we certainly need to make sure that we deal with what's on the market out there and make sure that those products get off the market, for the consideration of our young people in particular, who are very susceptible to the allure of cigarette smoking. It's still considered by some young people to be cool. We need to continue with our efforts in that regard to make sure that young people realize they're starting down a very wrong path when they start smoking.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have a number of things I want to say with reference to Bill 155, the tobacco health care costs recovery bill. Let me say at this time that it's the intention of New Democrats to support this bill. This bill catches Ontario up with a number of other provinces in Canada. It is time that Ontario caught up with a number of other provinces in Canada.

I think we know some of the history of tobacco in Ontario. I was part of a government that introduced the first comprehensive cancer strategy in Ontario and first started to take on the tobacco industry. My colleague, who is our health critic, the member for Nickel Belt, recently launched a private member's bill to ban the sale of single-packaged and flavoured cigarillos, a cigarette of choice for many youth now. It's something that has most recently been quite strongly promoted by the tobacco industry.

I think all of us know the tragic history. It's tragic because five million people lose their lives each year from the use of tobacco. It's tragic because this number will increase to 10 million a year very shortly. Most of us in this room have lost a parent, a friend, a brother, a sister or someone we know from cancer or from tobacco use. We know the physical pain, the emotional suffering and, most of all, the tragic waste of human life.

We all owe it to ourselves, and I think Ontarians, to look seriously not only at this bill but at what is happening today in Ontario in terms of the use of tobacco.

Again, the history of this is tragic because scientists have known for 50 or 60 years that smoking kills, and tobacco companies have known it for 50 or 60 years. Yet, as a society, we have allowed tobacco companies to find various ways of continuing to promote and sell cigarettes as so-called desirable products. We've simply done too little to stop the kinds of activities engaged in by tobacco companies, and that is part of the reason we have the number of deaths and diseases in their wake. So part of what I want to talk about is the continuing activities of tobacco companies and, hopefully, what this bill might do to address that.

As I said, the scientific literature is everywhere pointing out that for 50 or 60 years we've known the relationship not only between tobacco and cancer, but tobacco and a number of other respiratory diseases that kill or leave people very ill, yet we have continued to allow, in one way or another, the proliferation of tobacco and tobacco products.

With respect to this particular bill, I think it's important to know that British Columbia passed this legislation in two pieces in 1998 and 2000. It was the first province to put in place legislation that would allow governments to sue tobacco companies for health care costs and health care losses. The British Columbia legislation is really based on a decision that was reached in the United States, which essentially holds that you can use the health statistical evidence, and you can make tobacco companies accountable legally on that basis.

This bill is modelled after the BC Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. As I say, these acts are important because they give government direct and distinct action against a tobacco manufacturer to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a tobacco-related wrong. It allows government to use population-based epidemiological data to prove that harm has been inflicted by tobacco instead of having to show this for each person separately, which would be effectively impossible.

Tobacco damages acts are important because they reduce the likelihood of behind-closed-doors settlements that the tobacco industry often seeks out. As an example of such a backroom deal, we can point to our own federal government, which reached a settlement in July with tobacco companies for their smuggling operations in the early 1990s. What we know about the early 1990s is that big tobacco companies were in fact running the smuggling operations.

It wasn't a few folks who were out there freelancing; big tobacco, the multi-billion dollar tobacco companies, had an organized system of producing cigarettes in Ontario, shipping them to the United States, then smuggling them back into Canada and selling them without paying taxes or any of the other fees and costs associated with it. What we know is that in the deal that was arranged by the federal government in July of this past year, the tobacco companies are only required to pay $1.2 billion over a number of years.

An industry insider said that this amounts to only 25% of the money that one company, Imperial Tobacco, made by smuggling. So it's a backroom deal that essentially lets the tobacco companies off the hook. We don't want to see a similar backroom deal here in Ontario. We shouldn't be letting a tobacco industry that engaged, frankly, in organized crime, an organized system of smuggling cigarettes back into the country and selling them, off lightly.

Similar legislation in the United States has allowed significant claims to be made against tobacco companies. In the United States, under a 50-state settlement, tobacco companies must pay a total of $250 billion in damages over 25 years. If I may, I think that's what we should be looking at in terms of the kinds of tobacco settlements that are real, because of the damage that has been done.

As I pointed out earlier, Ontario is by no means the first province off the mark with this bill. In fact, all the other provinces except Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Alberta have passed similar legislation. Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia are already there. Ontario is in effect catching up.

I wouldn't want to leave the impression that this bill should be just about money. It shouldn't be just about money. In the United States, the settlements that were achieved under this kind of legislation also resulted in significant non-monetary public health benefits, such as getting rid of Joe Camel, shutting down phoney tobacco company research bodies and putting further restrictions on tobacco advertising.

At the end of the day, I think all of us should recognize that tobacco companies are still reaping billions of dollars in profits from tobacco sales and that they have, for years, intentionally concealed the ill-health effects of tobacco products and actively sought to promote the uptake of smoking among Ontarians, particularly young Ontarians. That's the reality of what we're dealing with.

I want to return to something I talked about briefly earlier. The government of the day is constantly patting itself on the back and telling Ontarians that smoking rates are declining and constantly telling people across Ontario that there's a very effective strategy and fewer people in Ontario are smoking. If you look at the evidence—and outside independent bodies have looked at the evidence—the evidence tells you that that's horse feathers.

If you combine the smoking of legally produced cigarettes with the smoking of illegally produced cigarettes, in fact the smoking rate has actually started to increase once again in Ontario. That is something that I think we need to dwell on here as well.

This legislation will essentially allow governments to go after tobacco corporations that are known out there as tobacco corporations, but what we have as a problem is: What's the government prepared to do to take on the issue of illegally produced cigarettes, where there is no known corporation that attaches its brand name or its corporate logo to the cigarettes produced?

We're seeing today in Ontario an epidemic growth in the sales of illegally produced cigarettes. We're seeing those cigarettes being distributed far and wide in Ontario. It seems to me that if we're really going to take this on and we're really going to address the issue of the damage caused by cigarette smoking, by tobacco consumption—the health care costs—we have to deal not just with those cigarettes that are legally produced by corporations which have a logo and have an address; we have to deal with the illegally produced.

If I could use a comparison, it was well known during the time of Prohibition in the United States that there were some alcohol-producing companies that were distributing their alcohol in the United States during Prohibition. But there were also people who did not have an alcohol corporation so identified who were also distributing alcohol in the United States during Prohibition. It would have been quite phoney if Eliot Ness had only gone after the companies that had a legal address in England or a legal address in Canada in terms of the distribution of alcohol and had ignored Al Capone. Americans would have said, "What a phoney war. What a phoney campaign."

If we look at Ontario today and we look at this bill, the government doesn't seem to have a strategy to take on the producers, the distributors, the sellers of illegal cigarettes. This legislation, as far as we can tell, will only apply effectively to the tobacco companies that self-identify as tobacco companies. The Ontario government seems to be content, if I were to put this in the Prohibition context, to ignore the Al Capones of the world who are producing and distributing illegally. I think there's a huge hole here. So before the McGuinty Liberals pat themselves on the back too much, I hope they will think about that.

I just want to cite again some of why we should be concerned about this glaring hole in the McGuinty Liberals' tobacco strategy, because it's clear that there are limits to what this bill will achieve. As my colleague from the Conservative Party pointed out, lawsuits under this bill against companies which are legally producing cigarettes will not take two years or three years or five years; it will probably take 10 years or more for these kinds of lawsuits. So this bill will not achieve, at any time soon, a lowering of tobacco use, and we need to be aware of that.

Lawsuits and cost recovery alone will do little to stop young people from taking up smoking or people from dying from smoking, particularly when we now know that the greatest increase in terms of cigarette consumption in this province is of illegally produced, illegally distributed and illegally sold cigarettes. This legislation isn't going to do anything about this, and the result will be that tobacco products, both legal and illegal, will continue to kill 13,000 Ontarians a year. Smoking will continue to account for 30% of all cancers and 85% of lung cancers.

Tobacco use, both legal and illegal, will continue to cost Ontario taxpayers $6.1 billion in premature death, disability and other factors, and above all, smoking will continue to cause untold human suffering and the loss of our dearest loved ones.

I said earlier that, in fact, smoking rates have not declined in Ontario. At first blush, they look like they have flatlined since 2003. But when you consider the consumption of illegal cigarettes and the epidemic of sales of illegal cigarettes, when you include those in the numbers—and we must, as I say, include those in the numbers—then what you realize is that the rate of smoking amongst Ontarians aged 15 and over has actually increased from 16% of people in 2005 to—groups like the Canadian Cancer Society are very clear: They're saying government needs to take further action to reverse this increase in tobacco use.

What do we need to do? Well, I think there are a number of steps that could be taken. The government needs to quickly implement Bill 124 to control the sale of cigarillos, which, as I'm sure people are aware, are being promoted, especially amongst young people, trying to get young people hooked on smoking. The government should at least double funding of the smoke-free Ontario strategy to an adequate level. I would argue the government should increase tobacco taxes, which are $15 a carton less in Ontario than they are in Manitoba, and take swift action to curb the availability of low-priced, illegal tobacco, illegal cigarettes to youth and others.

Now, how do you do that? Well, we should look at what some other provinces have done. For example, Manitoba, New Brunswick and British Columbia have worked out settlements with First Nations and given First Nations the right to collect provincial sales tax on cigarettes through innovative tax treaties. Let's be clear: Some of the problem in terms of illegal cigarettes in Ontario is the production of illegal cigarettes on First Nations. First Nations which either have no other economic base or a very limited economic base find that there's an opportunity here.

Ontario should be doing what Manitoba, New Brunswick and British Columbia have done, which is to sit down and negotiate agreements with First Nations whereby First Nations get to collect the provincial sales tax and keep that provincial sales tax for needed initiatives on the First Nation.

British Columbia and Alberta have also developed effective electronic monitoring of sales, which requires store owners to pay tax up front to suppliers. That's something we could be doing in Ontario. There are other measures that are currently under way in some of the other provinces that Ontario ought to be looking at.

So, again, this legislation is good in that it copies what has already been done in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and what has already been done in the United States. But we must recognize that, insofar as it will allow us to take some action against big tobacco corporations, we will not likely see anything effective from that for at least 10 years. That's how long it will take in terms of court actions.

But this legislation, so far as we can see, will do nothing in respect of the epidemic increase in sales of illegal cigarettes, where there is no identifiable corporation which stands behind the brand, no identifiable corporation which distributes and sells. In that sense, there's a very large hole here.

Cheap cigarettes, illegal cigarettes, are often advertised and easily available in most Ontario communities. There's a sense now that about 30% of cigarettes currently being sold in Ontario are produced illegally, so there's 30% of the problem that this government is ignoring right off the bat.

As I indicated, New Democrats, at this juncture at least, are prepared to support this legislation, but we would like the government to stop telling Ontarians that smoking is on the decrease. In fact, I think government members know that when 30% of the cigarettes sold in Ontario are illegally produced, there is lots of evidence to show that smoking rates are actually on the increase in Ontario. Something has to be done to take action with respect to that aspect of tobacco sales, and something has to be done to address that, as other provinces are already starting to do.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8(a), this House is recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'm pretty excited today. My mom is up from Nova Scotia with a great family friend of ours. My mother is Virginia MacLeod, from New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and her friend is Brenda Smith. Brenda is here because she also has a daughter who lives in Ottawa. They thought they'd kill two birds with one stone and come here to the Ontario Legislature, hold Mr. McGuinty to account, and then visit all of their friends and family.

Hon. John Milloy: On behalf of page Jacob Macpherson, I'd like to welcome his entire family here to the Legislature. We are joined by his parents, Andy Macpherson and Susan Fowler; his brother Devlin and sister Quinn; and his grandparents, Ken and Arlene Macpherson and Bill and Betty Fowler. We welcome them all to Queen's Park today.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I don't intend to kill any birds, but I would like to introduce Dessy and Edith Hammill, who are visiting us from PEI. It must be parents' day, because they are the parents of my excellent LA.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to recognize visitors seated in the Speaker's gallery joining us from the riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. It's unfortunate that their newly elected MPP, Rick Johnson, could not be here today to welcome them himself, but he is not sworn in yet.

Joining us is the family of today's page captain, Maddie van Warmerdam. I'm pleased to welcome Ann van Warmerdam, Mike van Warmerdam, Jackie van Warmerdam and Elva Adair Murphy. Also joining them are Maddie's grandfather, Jack Murphy, and his wife, June, from my riding of St. Catharines. They are in the Speaker's gallery today.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'd like to introduce two students from York University who are working as interns in the office of Jack Layton, leader of Canada's New Democrats: Alison Hart and Melissa Bruno, who are with us today.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Adrianna Tetley, executive director of the Association of Ontario Health Centres; Lee McKenna duCharme and François L'Ecuyer, also from this organization; Hazel Stewart, from the public health association; and Stephanie Gordon, who is from the Toronto association for dental care.

I also want to introduce Chrissy Johnson, who is a person who needs treatment; and people from community health centres and the association of dental care of Toronto.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would also like to welcome David Klooz, the associate commissioner of the Niagara Region Public Health, and Stephanie Gordon, manager of the Niagara Region Public Health dental program, visiting with us today from the Niagara region.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'd like to introduce Yvonne Boers—she's here, I believe—and Ron Boers, the mother and father of page Danielle Boers, from the great riding of Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to welcome some guests of mine today from the West Elgin Community Health Centre: Angela Geddes, Cynthia Roodzant, and Chrissy Johnson. Welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, I asked your minister responsible for the OLG why a government agency is giving away 22 foreign-made Mercedes-Benzes when GM is on the brink of bankruptcy and thousands of Ontarians are facing the loss of their jobs in the auto industry. His response? He scolded the head of the OLG in a meeting. That's it.

Premier, this is a scandal-plagued agency which is once again clearly lacking in direction and oversight from your minister. Is your minister's response to this latest fiasco good enough for you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I thought it was the appropriate response to the circumstances. I think it is an opportunity for all of us, both in government and through our extensive government agencies, to be conscious both of the times and of our responsibility to take advantage of Ontario products and Ontario services where that's reasonable for us to do. I think that's the lesson we might draw from this. Unfortunately, the folks at OLG learned this too late, but I'm absolutely convinced that it's not the kind of thing they are going to do again.

But, as I say, it's an opportunity for all of us to be conscious of the times and of responsibilities and to seek out Ontario products and Ontario services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Premier, we've been in this disaster for four years now leading up to it. That answer is not good enough for hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have lost their jobs; 300,000 people in Ontario have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector. It's not good enough for Ontario taxpayers who are being asked by you to support a $4-billion bailout of GM and Chrysler.

In 2007, there were 138 people at the OLG earning $100,000, collectively making over $18 million a year in salaries. Despite all the high-priced help, no one, including the minister responsible for the OLG, thought it was a bad idea to give away 22 foreign-built luxury Mercedes-Benzes when the Ontario auto industry is in crisis and has been for the last three years. Premier, how can you continue to allow this incompetence and shocking lack of oversight by your minister to continue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure there are many people, if any, in Ontario who would agree with the decision taken by OLG executives on this matter of purchasing cars. I think the minister was clear in that regard yesterday and I know we have the full support of the honourable member opposite.

I also think, in fairness, things have improved at the OLG. I'm not saying they are perfect, but there was a report prepared by the Ombudsman and we have addressed the recommendations found within that report. There have been a number of positive steps taken to provide more assurance and more confidence to Ontarians who buy products from the OLG, but obviously there is still more work to be done. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have made some progress when it comes to the OLG.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: That response is an insult to the people of Ontario, to the auto workers who have lost their jobs, to the businesses who have ceased to do business and to the taxpayers of this province.

Seventy-one thousand Ontarians lost their jobs in January alone and thousands more are expected to follow. Ontarians can have no confidence in this Premier's ability to manage the economy when he and his minister are spending $750,000 on foreign-made cars when that money should be spent here in Ontario. Premier, will you hold your minister responsible for this fiasco, or will you simply let it go like you always do? Will you finally show some leadership on this issue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can understand why my honourable colleague is trying to say that we made this decision somehow. We did not; execs at OLG did that. Of the 10 executives at OLG, eight are new.

My colleague says he's concerned about the auto sector particularly. He knows we've been working for a long time with the auto sector. In fact, during the course of the past five years, we still remain the number one auto producer in North America. The auto sector is in crisis and we're working with the sector, the CAW, the parts suppliers, the federal government and Washington as well to see what we can do to strengthen this sector. I think what lesson that we can and must draw is: Where we can, let's today, as Ontarians, be conscious of our options. Where it's reasonable for us to do so, let's buy from Ontario.

MEMBER'S ADVERTISING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Premier. It has come to our attention that plastered across bus shelters in Toronto are ads featuring a full-sized photo of the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure promoting the new energy bill. Premier, I ask you today: Are taxpayers paying for these ads?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: The member, perhaps in her riding, spends that portion of her constituency budget on distributing householders. I do not distribute householders, but instead choose from time to time to use transit shelter ads. These are paid for by my budget from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which is exactly within all of the rules and regulations and entirely consistent with the way other members spend their resources.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I actually don't do householders, but I think that the Premier knows full well that whether it comes out of the government budget or whether it comes out of an MPP budget, the taxpayers are still paying.

If you take a look at this full-sized ad inside the bus shelters, it features the emblem of the government of Ontario. It is promoting the green energy bill. It leaves the impression that this is a government ad paid for by the government. We know that bus shelters are very expensive to advertise in, costing thousands and thousands of dollars. Premier, is it appropriate during these tough economic times that you would allow a minister to do this type of self-promotion?

Hon. George Smitherman: I believe that the honourable member just asked that all members of the Legislature roll back the budgets that are available to them in their constituency offices.

I'm operating within the rules of the Legislature from the standpoint of those established by the Board of Internal Economy. It's clearly identified in the context of my role as a member of the Ontario Legislature, and it's designed to promote opportunities for individuals to learn more about a fairly substantive matter that is a piece of legislation before this Legislature.

It's not presented in a fashion which is partisan; it is presented in an informative fashion. I hope that it will help to drive people to websites so that they can gain greater insights into the Green Energy Act, and I hope that the honourable member will also choose to spend those resources available to her, consistent with the rules, wisely and with a view toward informing her constituents, as I have done.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again I would say to the Premier: You were the one who introduced a law where you indicated that there should not be advertising that is of a partisan nature. You introduced this shortly after you became the Premier. You said that we shouldn't be breaching the spirit of this partisanship political advertising, and yet it appears that that has been done.

I say to you again: This ad appears to violate your own government advertising laws that you introduced. What are you going to do about this shameless self-promotion of this minister who seems to have neglected his duties at the OLG?

Hon. George Smitherman: All I say to the honourable member is that in an urban area, we choose to campaign with information to provide information in a fashion which is different than the honourable member's. In a place where people walk to work and use transit, we determined from time to time that placing information in the context of a bus shelter is a very effective way to get information in the hands of people.

There are no words associated with this advertisement that are partisan words. Information is offered in a tone which is designed to offer people the encouragement to gain more information about an important legislative initiative. People walk to work in urban areas and they take transit in urban areas, and we use this mechanism to put information in their hands and encourage them to learn more about important legislative initiatives.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is to the Premier. Imagine coming in to work on a Monday, getting in a full day's work and then going home, and out of the blue you get a call. It's your company telling you not to come in to work tomorrow because your job's not there anymore. That's what happened to 50 workers at Windsor's Aradco and Aramco, award-winning auto parts suppliers. They don't know how the bills are going to get paid next month because more than 50 more auto parts jobs are gone.

It's a story that's playing out in far too many communities across Ontario. Yet, as this government prepares to offer more financial assistance to the auto sector, we have no indication that this assistance is going to come with strings attached; namely, job guarantees.

Will the Premier commit today to the families that rely on those auto sector jobs that financial assistance to the auto sector will definitely be tied to ironclad job guarantees?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to receive the question. I know the member is very concerned about the future of the auto sector, as I think every single member in this Legislature is.

My colleague knows that we've been working for some time now, together with the federal government, with representatives of the auto sector in Ontario, the workers. We've also reached out to parts suppliers, who have a better understanding of the nature of their challenges. In the end, what we're all focused on is keeping as many jobs as we possibly can.

There are discussions that are ongoing, but I think those are focused largely on retaining certain levels of production here in Ontario. Ultimately, it will be up to the manufacturers and their workers to negotiate the number of jobs, but what we've very much focused on is maintaining our share of production here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: 10,000 men and women who work at GM are voting today on concessions they've already negotiated with the company. Those concessions include wage freezes, fewer holidays and benefit reductions. These workers are making incredible sacrifices. They're doing everything they can to protect their livelihoods and the hard-earned pensions of the pensioners. They and their families want assurances that their sacrifices are not for naught, that the $2 billion in auto assistance that is going to come from this government will have long-term job guarantees so that the company doesn't have to come back to them for more.

Why won't this Premier stand in his place today, relieve their worry and provide the assurance that the job guarantees will be there?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I wish I could provide the assurance that the leader of the NDP is seeking on behalf of those families. What assurance I can provide is that we will work as hard as we can, together with all of our partners, to maintain our share of production here in Ontario. We'll do everything we can to move through this as quickly as possible, to have money flow as quickly as possible to help out not just our manufacturers, but our parts suppliers and everybody involved in the complex sector that is auto in Ontario today at the beginning of the 21st century.

Again, what we're focused on, though, is maintaining our share of production. I think that's the most significant achievement that we can reach for. It's not so much a specific number of jobs but, rather, our share of production. Job numbers are to be negotiated, then, between management and labour.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Steve Chinn, a laid-off truck plant worker, said this: "We are frustrated, but as long as we can keep GM running and help the retirees, we have to do this."

Workers like Steve understand what's at stake. Now it's time for the government to stand with them by obtaining long-term job guarantees in exchange for long-term assistance—not like the last time, when $235 million went to GM and thousands of workers went out the door.

Will the Premier rise today and tell auto families very clearly that any assistance will be tied to long-term job guarantees?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we will work as hard as we can to negotiate the best possible deal for Ontario families. We talk about the auto sector, we talk about the Big Three. I've always said it's not about the Big Three; it's about the big four—400,000 Ontarians and their families that have their futures and their optimism tied up in the vitality of the sector. We'll do everything we can to nail down as strong an agreement as we possibly can, but I do want to say again that our focus will be on retaining our share of production. Ultimately, the decision as to how many Ontarians will be employed in this sector will be the outcome of negotiations between management and labour.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: With Ontario now losing 70,000 jobs a month, more and more Ontario families are finding it very difficult to afford skyrocketing energy bills. The province needs an approach that combines best practices in energy efficiency and conservation with a real commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in the province. It's time for something that I've labelled "affordable environmentalism." For years now, social activists and energy experts have been advocating for a separate hydro rate for Ontarians who are living in poverty. When will this government finally start protecting these Ontarians and their families from soaring energy costs?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: At the heart of the Green Energy Act is the desire on the one hand to create more renewable energy and also to create a culture of conservation, so we do agree with some elements of the honourable member's question, certainly, and hope that we can encourage her party's support for that bill. We also agree that there is a necessity to have greater protection in our province from energy prices for low-income Ontarians. Today's column in the Toronto Star by Tyler Hamilton is based off some work that the Ontario Energy Board has been doing. They have a report that came out yesterday; I would encourage people to take a look at it.

I think we need to go quite a bit further. We're going to enlist the assistance of the Canadian Council on Social Development to assist us, working with other energy-related stakeholders focused on issues of poverty and energy poverty, to try to develop programs in the province which are an enhancement to those that exist now, and we'll be very much looking forward to working with the third party in developing such proposals.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The 80 advocacy and energy groups that make up the Low-Income Energy Network have proposed a permanent electricity and natural gas rate for those living in poverty. New Democrats strongly believe that such a rate needs to be complemented with an aggressive home retrofit program that is within the financial reach of all Ontarians. That's what affordable environmentalism is all about. Why is the government rejecting the idea of affordable environmentalism?

Hon. George Smitherman: With respect, the honourable member came to the House with her questions written, didn't look at the answer and didn't revise her question. We are indeed very, very keen to work with all of you on this issue. In the Green Energy Act, there are provisions related to low-income Ontarians. I said just yesterday that the Ontario Energy Board has released a report, which is some reflection of the fact that they are working on it. The LIEN group is one of those, certainly, that we will be working with going forward, and as I mentioned, we're asking the Canadian Council on Social Development to be of some assistance.

It's one thing to say that these things are a good idea; it's quite another sometimes to know exactly where those who are suffering from energy poverty live, and accordingly, we've got to have great sophistication in being able to tailor these programs and make sure that they get exactly where the need is.

On the issue of retrofits targeted at our lowest-income individuals, I can tell the honourable member as well that programs in this area should be anticipated and we're very happy to work with you on the development of such programs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Launching small pilot programs that aren't even going to start till November just doesn't cut it. Ontario is in the midst right now of a serious economic downturn. Families are scrambling to pay the rent, put food on the table and provide for their kids. We desperately need an affordable energy program that takes in best practices from the environmental movement and combines them with a firm commitment to social justice.

That's why we need a special permanent energy rate for those who are having trouble paying their energy bills right now and it's why we need a home retrofit program that is going to be affordable and accessible to all Ontarians. These are initiatives that should be implemented immediately. In fact, they should already have been implemented by this government in the past. What is the government waiting for?

Hon. George Smitherman: The challenge, as I tried to suggest to the honourable member, is that it's not like, as we stand here, there's a list of who those individuals are. It's very, very easy to say that there should be programs, but it's a separate matter to make sure that the programs are actually effective at targeting the right individuals. Many people living in poverty are doing so in circumstances, however, where their energy bill is embedded in their rent. We have more than a million residences in the province of Ontario that are on bulk metering not related to the individual unit.

So it is a somewhat more challenging matter to ensure that we are targeting these resources at exactly the right people. Therefore, we want to make sure that we have good-quality program design, but we're very keen to move forward in the very direction spoken to today by the honourable member and very keen to have any input that she might offer to make sure we develop programs that get to where the need is and are effective. You have constituents, as do I, who are in these kinds of circumstances. I'll be very happy to work with the honourable member.

TAXATION

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. One of the measures that the Minister of Finance is considering for his upcoming budget is harmonization of the federal GST and the provincial PST. In a report released today by Canada's largest independent real estate consulting and advisory firm, Altus Group, they estimate that the cost to homebuyers will be up to $17,000 of new increased taxes in Ottawa, $25,000 of new increased taxes on homes in Mississauga and up to $46,000 of new taxes for new homes in Toronto.

Surely the Premier and the Minister of Finance will agree that Ontario's home buyers and our economy cannot withstand that kind of tax increase. Will the Premier undertake today, will he give us assurances, that any changes to tax policy in this province will exclude this harmful effect on home buyers and—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're all awaiting eagerly the presentation of the budget inside this chamber shortly. We've had a number of representations made from a number of different business communities, and there are a number who advocate harmonization. But in particular I want to make reference to my colleague's federal cousins, who, in their recent federal budget, said the following: "A single sales tax is the single most important step that provinces with retail sales taxes could take to stimulate new business investment, create jobs and improve Canada's overall tax competitiveness."

I would be pleased to hear from the honourable member opposite as to his party's position. Are they in favour of or against harmonization? I think it would be helpful to us and to Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to respond to the Premier. We are advocating for consumers and we are advocating for an industry. What we're saying is, if in fact the government chooses to proceed with harmonization, there should be the appropriate exclusions for home buyers, for the building industry of homes in this province, to ensure that $2.4 billion of new taxes are not imposed on Ontario consumers. That is our advice to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance. Now we look forward as to whether the Premier will take our advice.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not really sure what that advice is. I thought they were a little bit more precise in their dissenting opinion for the 2009 pre-budget consultations filed on behalf of the official opposition. They said, "The official opposition calls on this government to heed the call of the federal government and take immediate action to fix Ontario's uncompetitive tax structure." We've got a federal government that's advocating harmonization. They're telling us that they endorse the federal government's position, so I take it that they're in favour of harmonization.

I'll pass that along to the Minister of Finance so he takes that advice into account in the preparation of his budget.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. As thousands of Ontarians lose their jobs in the auto sector, we are constantly reminded of how important that industry is to many individuals and their families throughout our province. With so many jobs at stake, it is the government's job to support the auto industry. In 2009, the ministers' vehicle list outlines the make and model of the vehicles available for use by your ministers. The list includes cars built in Japan and cars built in the United States. Why does this government allow so many of the cars on the ministers' vehicle list to be built other than in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Our acquisition policy, I think the member would know, is pretty clear. Except for alternate fuel and hybrid models, the government of Ontario vehicles governed by this policy shall be restricted and limited to new vehicles that are assembled in North America. Our government buys made-in-Ontario vehicles whenever that is possible. Nearly 80% of the vehicles purchased in the 2008 model year were made in Ontario; that's approximately 1,900 vehicles. This was up from 66% in the 2007 model year. Over 500 new made-in-Ontario vehicles were purchased in May and June of 2008.

New 2008 vehicles include 100 new Dodge Caravan vans from the Windsor Chrysler plant; they'll be used to help seniors get to medical appointments. The only exceptions are the hybrid or green vehicles, with only a total of 461 in our fleet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: We want to know what the government is doing about the vehicle policy list, considering that 15 out of 23 are made outside of Ontario. The issue deals directly with the auto industry, which is so central to our economy. It is up to the government to set an example, particularly at a time when so many Ontarians have lost their jobs in the auto industry.

You are a strong advocate for Buy Ontario. It is time for the government to take the lead and show its support for the Ontario auto industry. When will this government ensure that all cars on the 2009 ministers' vehicle list are built right here in Ontario and in Canada?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I must first of all point out to the member, when he gets into this field, that about 85% of the vehicles produced in Ontario are in fact exported outside of Ontario to the United States, which of course is very positive.

In terms of the procurement policies of the government, as I've mentioned, outside of the hybrid vehicles, we really find that overwhelmingly the majority of vehicles that are purchased are Ontario-made.

Now, I think the member will find that as more of the hybrids are built in the province of Ontario, for instance, he will find even more—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, if he wants to hear the answer, he will find even more of them will be built here in Ontario. But overwhelmingly that is the case, that even though we have a pretty coordinated North American—

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

POVERTY

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. At a time when many Ontarians are facing challenges due to economic uncertainty, it's even more important for us to continue the fight against poverty to ensure that everyone in Ontario is at their best.

Two weeks ago, the minister introduced legislation in this House as part of the government's poverty reduction strategy. I was interested to hear the debate on the bill and proud to support it. However, there have been some concerns expressed about a lack of initiatives contained in the legislation and that it does not go as far as Quebec's legislation on poverty reduction does.

Could the minister please address these concerns for the benefit of this House and my constituents of Ottawa—Orléans?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member for the question and I'm happy to have the opportunity to respond to these concerns.

When we are comparing Ontario's approach to reducing poverty to Quebec's, it's important to note that in Ontario, we released our strategy first. In Quebec, they released their legislation first. Our strategy came first; it is a strategy worth $1.4 billion a year at full implementation. We also included a specific income target, the first in North America, that will raise the standard of living of all kids living in poverty and see 90,000 lifted out of poverty over five years. Quebec doesn't have that specific income target.

Our legislation, if passed, is about a long-term, ongoing commitment to poverty reduction and goes further than Quebec's in a number of ways. It mandates that future governments maintain a strategy; it mandates that future governments renew the strategy with a new target every five years; it mandates—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I know my constituents will be pleased to hear that Ontario has a plan of action with concrete initiatives and bold ideas. I'm glad to hear that we took a unique made-in-Ontario approach that is supported by our community partners.

The government's poverty reduction strategy is the first in Ontario's history. Not only did other governments not have a plan; some took deliberate steps that reduced opportunities for people to get ahead.

My constituents want to know how this legislation will help to ensure that poverty receives the attention it deserves. Could the minister please explain this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We think this is the most aggressive legislation of its kind in North America, and possibly the world, because it ensures that future governments continue to put poverty reduction on the political agenda.

This legislation, if passed, enshrines a long-term commitment. We're taking the important first steps, but we know it's going to take far more than five years to get to where we all want to be. We released our strategy, Breaking the Cycle, but we also heard that people living in poverty need to have a continued voice, to participate in the conversation. Our legislation requires that people living in poverty have that ongoing involvement in issues that affect them.

This is important legislation. I do hope that all members from all parties will support this historic—

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Rapid growth is one of the greatest challenges in health care today, certainly in Durham region, in my riding of Durham. It stands to reason that an increase in population puts more pressure on hospitals and in fact on all health resources, including ER and doctor shortages. I was shocked to read in an

article in Clarington This Week that the CEO of the Central East Local Health Integrated Network said she won't be fighting for more funding for growth areas. The CEO, Deborah Hammons, said, "We're not asking for [more] money from the Ministry [of Health] to deal with growth." Meanwhile, Minister, the services in my hospitals are threatened: at Bowmanville, the ER; in Port Perry, obstetrics; and indeed in Uxbridge as well.

Minister, is the provincial policy that LHINs will ignore the needs of growth funding, or has our local health integration network misunderstood the responsibilities of citizens in Durham—

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

Hon. David Caplan: I can tell you very clearly that it's the policy of this government to recognize the growth pressures for the very first time. I would say to the member that when he had the privilege to serve on this side of the House, growth pressures were not recognized within the province of Ontario when they related to health care funding. It took this Premier and this government, in our last budget, to unveil $120 million provided to high-growth communities, of which Durham is of course one.

I do recognize the growth pressures there and across many other communities in the province of Ontario. In the budget year 2008-09, $30 million flowed to the local health integration networks for distribution to meet those growth pressures. That is the first step, and there will be future steps in future budgets to fully allocate the $120 million that was outlined by Minister Duncan in last year's budget.

I look forward to the supplementary, and I want the member to know that it is our very clear policy to recognize those growth pressures.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: Minister, the

article I quote from This Week mentions recent grants to the very hospitals we're discussing. A representative from the Growing Communities Healthcare Alliance is saying that Lakeridge Health, of which I speak, should have received $3 million of the growth funding allocated in central-east. Tariq Asmi, of the Growing Communities Healthcare Alliance, says that Lakeridge's share of that should have been $3 million; instead, it was about $900,000. The CEO of Central East LHIN says her agency won't ask for more money from the ministry. In fact, staff in your ministry office say that there is no more money.

My question then to you, Minister, is, if the Central East LHIN won't stand up for high-growth communities such as mine, will your government step in to ensure that growth funding within the LHIN is distributed in a fair manner? That is all I'm asking for: our fair share of the growth funding.

Hon. David Caplan: When the member had an opportunity to advocate on behalf of hospital corporations within his riding when he was on this side of the House, in fact, he supported a 5.5% cut to hospital budgets. I would say for the member that those cuts were applied fairly across the province; all health care organizations experienced that lack of support and undermining pressures that they were under.

In 2003, that changed significantly. In our most recent budget last year, in fact, growth funding for the very first time was recognized by this government. Now, I acknowledge that there is more to do. We have a long history in this province of not recognizing these pressures. It takes leadership which has the courage to first of all recognize the problem, and to begin to put in place the elements of a plan to do so. We will work with our local health integration networks—

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

DENTAL CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Today, the Association of Ontario Health Centres explained why the McGuinty government must keep its promise on oral health. The 2008 budget reads, "The government will be developing a plan to provide dental services to low-income persons." I know that the eligibility for CINOT has been extended from age 14 to 18, but we have yet to see the promised early years screening program or the oral health prevention and treatment program for low-income Ontarians.

When does the Premier intend to provide dental services to low-income persons and flow the promised $35 million a year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for the question. First of all, I'd like to take the opportunity today to welcome the Association of Ontario Health Centres to Queen's Park, and all the health professionals who are in the House today.

Investment in dental care for Ontarians is critical. Our government is committed to improving the oral health of Ontarians and we are moving forward with our commitment. Ontario's children are our priority. That is why our government continues to work to improve the oral health of Ontario's children. That is why we expanded the children in need of treatment program to include children 17 and under.

This is just the first phase. Along with the—

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

M me France Gélinas: As I mentioned in my first question, we know that CINOT has been expanded, but today MPPs receive postcards from citizens across the province. You can read the facts: Forty-two per cent of people in Ontario have no dental insurance. People who have lost their jobs, families on EI and families on social assistance cannot afford the high cost of dental treatment. People who are in constant pain do not have an affordable place to go.

After the budget announcement, over 30 community health centres and aboriginal health access centres have been in discussion with public health units across the province to plan for this funding. Minister, will the community health centres and the aboriginal access centres have a leading role in the program when the funding finally flows?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Along with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, we are moving forward with a plan that, when fully implemented, will provide $45 million annually to ensure that low-income Ontarians have access to quality dental care.

As I said before, our youth are our priority. Our government continues to fund public health units to provide critical programs and services to the community. With the expansion of this program—this is just the first step—we expect to double the number of children who will access this service. In 2008, the CINOT program paid for urgent care for over 26,900 children with serious oral health problems who may have otherwise gone untreated. We stand committed to promoting and protecting the oral health of all Ontarians.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, we're clearly seeing challenging economic times around the world. These challenges are hitting home and touching the lives of northern families and families right across the province of Ontario.

Until recently, the mining industry has seen unprecedented growth, which has been driven by high commodity prices. However, it too is not immune to the current economic climate. Just last week, Vale Inco laid off employees in Sudbury, and in February, Xstrata also laid off employees in Sudbury. Indeed, these are challenging times for the mining industry and for families impacted by job losses.

Minister, I understand that last week the Prospectors and Developers Association international conference was held in Toronto. Could you please tell the House what the mood was like at the conference as we are seeing falling commodity prices around the world?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much to the member. Indeed, we are going through challenging times, but last week people from around the mining world came to Toronto and joined together at the Prospectors and Developers Association conference. Despite the economic downturn, I think there's no question that the mood of the conference was very optimistic. In fact, they drew the third-highest attendance in their history: over 18,000 delegates. At our Ontario pavilion alone, our staff spoke to well over 400 delegates and exhibitors looking for mineral investment opportunities in the province of Ontario.

Garry Clark, the executive director of the Ontario Prospectors Association, I think summed it up best. In very positive comments, he said, "We're a pretty optimistic group." Even though commodity "prices aren't good and the economy is not good ... there seems to be a lot of people looking for projects." Ontario clearly remains a leading jurisdiction in Canada and a major player in the mining world. We're very happy about that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Thank you, Minister. It is certainly refreshing to hear that, at the conference, there was positive feedback and that there remains a sense of optimism in Ontario's mining sector.

I understand that at last year's conference there was the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the PDAC and the Assembly of First Nations, which was a historic undertaking that will help industry and First Nations work together on mineral development. Mining and mineral sector activity, especially in northern First Nations and aboriginal communities, is often the only economic development opportunity.

Minister, as mining is playing a major role in the economic development of many First Nations and aboriginal communities and also in light of the fact that we're in the process of modernizing the Mining Act, I'd like to know how the First Nations and aboriginal communities were involved in this year's prospectors' and developers' conference.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Indeed, at this year's conference, First Nation and aboriginal communities were extremely well represented. I was pleased to be able to host a breakfast meeting at PDAC with representatives from a number of First Nation communities. I also had an opportunity to stop by the Matawa First Nation booth on the trade show floor, which was located very close to our Ontario pavilion

I want to remind the House too that we have a very positive working relationship with many First Nations, including Matawa, which just signed a memorandum of understanding that will see us develop a consultation protocol for mineral exploration and development on their traditional lands. It will ultimately provide greater certainty and direction for mineral exploration and development there.

This is one example of the type of relationship that our government is working hard to foster between ourselves, aboriginal communities and industry, and a conference like PDAC certainly helps further those relationships.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. I've gone through the General Motors restructuring plan, as I'm sure you have, that we received in late February. When you look at page 256 and quite a few others, just to mention a few, it specifically states in "restructuring plan highlights": "maintains General Motors Canada Ltd.'s share of Canada-US production, which is expected to range between 17% and 20%."

The Premier, in his response early on, went on to specifically state that, "We will continue to maintain our production share here in Ontario."

Minister, there are a lot of other significant components found within General Motors and the auto sector, whether it's the engineering department, the mechanics there or the other salaried individuals who aren't even mentioned in this proposal. What discussions have you had to ensure that the thousands of salaried workers in Ontario will continue to stay here?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I appreciate the member's question. I know that the member has been a long-time advocate for his community, in particular the matters that he has raised here.

The Premier made reference to production because he was asked about production. Certainly, you've seen General Motors, in their restructuring plan, not only make reference to commitments around production, but they have already made investments around R&D and its engineering centre and the focus and development of green vehicle technology.

I say to the member that we are very focused on keeping the level of production and economic activity out of General Motors in a way that is in the best interests—we're not just fighting on the production front but we're fighting on behalf of all those workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, just in case you're unaware, the head office lease for General Motors Canada expires next year. The belief is that the individuals who are working at the head office will be relocated to General Motors United States and that there will be a large movement of thousands of employees. Not only that, but for those who are unaware, there have been 160 of the new hydrogen vehicles produced in Oshawa at the engineering department, at a cost of around $1 million. They are currently operating around the world being tested.

The concern there is that these individuals are going to lose their jobs, and the engineering component as well may be relocated outside of Ontario. This will have a substantial impact on those jobs, whether it's the mechanics working in the engineering department, the engineers or all the other ones.

Minister, can you ensure that the salaried workers, the mechanics, the engineers and every other component will continue on a proportional basis to remain in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member raises a very interesting point with respect to not only head office and its location but a number of matters involving engineers and other workers who are not necessarily involved in production. It is positive. I know the member would agree that GM did say in its restructuring plan that it will be launching five new vehicles in Oshawa and Ingersoll.

I appreciate what the member is saying with respect to what GM in Oshawa is going to look like at the end of all this. I can say to the member that I think we all know that it's going to be smaller, that the footprint will be smaller. We continue to fight for proportionality with respect to production. As I said before, we continue to fight for all those workers. But I say to the member that I want to work with him very closely to address this and all those issues so that we can ensure that all of those workers in fact are getting the—

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

SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A question to the Minister of Education: The Falconer report, the government's own roots of youth violence report, experts in the field of education, and educators and community workers on the ground all have called for the maintenance and increase of qualified support staff in schools to ensure student success. With the possible firing of teachers, librarians and educational assistants announced at the Toronto District School Board today, it is clear that you are going in a different direction.

Education is your responsibility, and Kathleen Wynne the trustee would be screaming bloody murder at these cuts. What will Kathleen Wynne the minister do to stop the possible cuts of 186 educational assistants and teacher-librarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just on the overall issue of support workers in schools, we've increased the number of support staff by approximately 8,600—that's across the province; 8,600 more support workers—despite the fact that there are 90,000 fewer students in our schools. So while enrolment has gone down, not only have we increased the number of teachers, we've increased the number of support workers because we know how important those people are to supporting teachers in the classroom and supporting kids.

I'm very aware of the particular issue that the member raises about education assistants in the Toronto District School Board. When we were came into office, class sizes in those kindergarten classrooms, which is where most of those EAs are, were 25, 30, 35 kids. Those class sizes are now under 20, and so the whole policy rationale for those EAs has disappeared.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I say to the minister that reducing classroom support is not a smart economic strategy. Education finance is your responsibility. Teacher-librarians help students to read and education assistants help children to learn. Before you decided on this cost-cutting strategy, did you consider the cost to our children and their future?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have not settled on a cost-cutting strategy. In fact, since we've been in office we've been increasing funding every year to a school system that is in declining enrolment. There are fewer kids in the system and yet we know that we need to keep putting those resources in: almost 5,000 more education assistants; 780 more custodians; 920 more secretaries; 1,200 more support services staff, which includes lunch-room and yard supervision, library workers and so on; other paraprofessionals, 829—those are teaching assistants and other classroom assistants.

On top of that we have included more funding for safe schools, so that includes more psychologists, more social workers and more child and youth workers. Overall, there are more adults in our schools now than there were in 2003, even though there are fewer students.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You have spoken a number of times in this House about what our government is doing to support affordable housing in Ontario with programs such as the $100-million investment for social housing repair, the joint affordable housing program with our federal and municipal partners, as well as rental support programs such as the rent bank, which has helped nearly 1,400 people in my community of Ottawa.

Amongst vulnerable groups who need our help for housing, there are those who suffer from a mental illness or are, tragically, victims of domestic violence. Could the minister please tell the House what his ministry is doing to assist these specific vulnerable members of our society to receive the housing they need?

Hon. Jim Watson: Our government, through the affordable housing program, is assisting those individuals who are suffering from mental illness or are victims of domestic violence throughout the province of Ontario, and specifically, the honourable member knows the work we've done in the city of Ottawa. Across Ontario, there are 577 units dedicated to people with mental illness and 443 dedicated to victims of domestic violence.

In Ottawa, there are 18 such units that will be built, and in addition to those units, the provincial government is providing rent bank funding to prevent individuals from being evicted from their homes. The city of Ottawa has received $7 million under our DOOR program, which, again, helps individuals from all walks of life. Finally, we have provided to the city of Ottawa $2.7 million for rent supplements to help subsidize rent for individuals in our community.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure these programs will make a difference in our community of Ottawa and in my riding of Ottawa Centre. But as you know, Ottawa, like many cities and towns across Ontario, is feeling the strain of the economic downturn. Social assistance costs have risen and Ottawa is finally starting to recover from the recent transit strike.

Members of my community want to know how the provincial government is helping them and helping Ottawa to weather this current economic storm, and what concrete steps the province is taking to not only deal with this issue in the short term but make investments that will make a significant difference in the long term.

Hon. Jim Watson: As a result of the signing of an historic agreement last October between the municipal sector and the province of Ontario, after years of dealing with the burden of downloading we are taking that burden away from property taxpayers in communities like the city of Ottawa and we're uploading various costs, such as public health, ambulance costs, the Ontario drug plan, the Ontario disability support program, Ontario Works—also known as welfare—as well as court security and prisoner transportation. Those costs are being removed from the Ottawa property taxpayers' bill and brought back to where they should be: at the province of Ontario.

Just recently, the Minister of Transportation announced that OC Transpo will be receiving over $36 million in gas tax to help operate the public transit system. In addition, under the Investing in Ontario Act, the city of Ottawa has received over $77 million for infrastructure in my hometown of Ottawa.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Last week, I raised the small-business concerns of a grocer, Ken Ross, in my constituency. On top of the minimum wage increase, Ken has already seen a 35% increase in his hydro bill despite taking all the necessary energy efficiency precautions. Now he has to plan for at least another 30% increase on his $30,000-a-month electricity bill because of Bill 150 and the tax and power grab.

Minister, Ken Ross and other business owners need to know if you will defend their interests and make sure there are no other hidden costs in the upcoming provincial budget that will prevent small businesses from creating more jobs when we need them most.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: This question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm pleased, one more time, to try and be of assistance to the honourable member in relation to this individual business person that she brings forward. I can confirm that there is nothing in plans that would have the effect that the honourable member is proposing related to increases in electricity costs for this gentleman or for any other.

In fact, as the Green Energy Act moves forward, it will empower local distribution companies, like the excellent one that we have in Ottawa, to work very proactively with businesses like the one that's mentioned to further enhance the energy efficiency opportunities that lie there. The Green Energy Act will not be leading to rates of increase such as those proposed by the honourable member, but it will be leading to more jobs in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question wasn't about the Green Energy Act, or the tax and power grab, as we like to call it on this side. Clearly, the fact that he deferred this question only reflects the control the current Minister of Energy and Infrastructure has put in place on that side.

Small business is the economic engine of Ontario's growth, where the vast majority of new jobs are created. Instead of fostering growth, this government creates obstacles to job creation at every turn. Again I'm going to ask the minister responsible for small business: Has he spoken to the Minister of Finance to ensure that next week's budget will not include any additional costs to doing business in this province, and will he meet with them right away and prove it to this Legislature?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I'm very pleased to answer this question. The member on that side doesn't need to tell me that the small businesses are the engines of this province. We have about 360,000 small businesses who are actually doing quite well in this province, even in spite of the challenges they are facing in this global context. They generate about $250 billion worth of activity, and 50% of all employment is generated by this.

That is why our government has a very balanced approach to all the legislation that we bring in here. We have the programs that assist small businesses in the challenges they are facing in this global context. We have 57 enterprise centres which are willing to help them at any point in time and we have 12 advisory groups which are willing to help them, but over and above, we have programs that actually greatly assist our small-business communities. I would be more than pleased—

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

DENTAL CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. One and a half years ago, the McGuinty Liberals promised emergency dental care for low-income children up to the age of 18. Ken Schabler was laid off from his job at Kenora Forest Products a year ago and no longer has health care benefits for himself or his three teenaged children.

Will the minister explain why the McGuinty government denied emergency dental coverage to the 17-year-old daughter of Mr. Schabler, who applied for emergency coverage to have her wisdom teeth removed, something that is very necessary?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I'll refer that question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. David Caplan: I appreciate the member raising the matter here in the Legislature. Obviously, I couldn't know the individual circumstance. If the member would be good enough to forward them to me, I would certainly ask officials to take a look and see what the circumstances are and if there are opportunities to be able to help the constituent that he raises here in the House today. Any member, of course, can raise these matters in this House or with me directly, or with my staff, as they do through the MPP liaison function that I know all ministers' offices have.

We do have a program which is in place to help in times of emergency. It is difficult to be able to comment on an individual case without the context and without any of the information other than what the member has presented in about a 60-second response, but I would undertake to the member to, as quickly as that information is forwarded, get a response to him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'd be pleased to provide the facts now. When Mr. Schabler's daughter applied, she was a grade 12 student, 17 years of age. After some delay from the Ministry of Health, they responded and said, "Since you have now turned 18, you are denied coverage." This looks very cynical.

My question is this: Will the minister intervene and ensure that this grade 12 teenaged student, who applied for emergency dental coverage when she was 17 years old to do a procedure which is very necessary, receives the coverage, or does the cynical impression in fact represent reality?

Hon. David Caplan: I think it's disappointing that the member opposite would take a cynical approach. I think I indicated in response to the first question which he asked a willingness to take a look at the case if he would bring it forward. Unfortunately, the member has chosen so far not to do so, but I hope that he will, in fact, forward the information either to me or to my office so that we can follow up with his constituent and see what service we could provide. I cannot presuppose what action will ensue, not having had an opportunity to be able to take a look at the specifics of the case.

I certainly am willing to take a very open-minded approach and do whatever we can. I do mention to the member that he does know that this kind of protocol has existed, having been a very experienced member in this House. Of course, my office is open to working with him and all members in helping to resolve matters related to constituents.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. I understand that in the Kingston Whig-Standard yesterday, Dr. David Lillicrap, a Queen's researcher, said that President Obama's announcement that he is lifting the ban on funding for stem cell research "may seriously hurt this country's ability to attract good scientists in the future." Dr. Lillicrap said that "'the heart and soul' of stem cell research is operating grants to scientists. He said Canadian scientists won't be able to compete with the US unless the research community receives" support.

In today's Globe and Mail, another

article states that many Canadian researchers are concerned about "funding for the basic, curiosity-driven research that history has shown leads to important discoveries." Operating grants are a fundamental part of a great deal of scientific research. What is our government doing to ensure that we don't lose our researchers to the United States?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. I want to assure all members of the House that our commitment to research, both basic and applied, is as firm as it ever was. There's a commitment of some $650 million of the taxpayers' money that is spent and is allocated towards our researchers and the type of cutting-edge work that we're doing.

I would give the example of Dr. Anthony Pawson at Lunenfeld Research, who just received the Kyoto prize—the first Canadian scientist to receive that prize. We're particularly proud that that half-million dollars, which came from the Inamori Foundation, has been matched by our government so that Dr. Pawson can attract and retain some of the top young scientists in the world to come to Mount Sinai and be part of his team, which continues each and every day to make biomedical research history. We're so proud of him and all of his 10,000 colleagues here in the province of Ontario. We will continue to support them because truly they are the future.

We acknowledge President Obama, but we will continue to be ahead of the curve when it comes to our American friends and compete for the best talent in the world—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Kitchener—Waterloo on a point of order.

MEMBER'S ADVERTISING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. Today in question period, I asked the Premier about the appropriateness of the bus shelter ads in Toronto featuring a full-sized ad and photo of the Minister of Energy which promotes his energy bill. I also asked if this advertising breaches the spirit of the partisan political advertising law that he introduced.

The ad refers to a bill that has not yet passed second reading. In fact, we are debating the bill today. It has not yet gone to committee. The minister himself has acknowledged that he is open to amendments to the bill, and after committee we still have third reading.

This is not just any bill; it is a bill that is attached to his own ministerial responsibilities, and the government has referred to it as a very important bill to them.

There is a ruling on this in federal Parliament. In response to a complaint about the ads by the former Minister of Immigration featuring a bill to amend the Immigration Act that had not yet passed, the federal Speaker ruled that such ads should not be repeated.

This ad gives the impression that it is funded by the government and by taxpayers, and unfortunately, in today's society, perception is reality. As well, the Minister of Energy has used the word "campaign" in one of his responses.

Mr. S