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

May 12, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 12 May 2009 Mardi 12 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PENSION PLANS

CHILD CARE

TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES

WINE INDUSTRY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NURSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

TAXATION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

DEFERRED VOTES

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CEMETERIES

JUNIOR HOCKEY

RIDING OF WELLINGTON–HALTON HILLS

CANADIAN FORCES

FISHING DERBY

FIBROMYALGIA AND

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

CITY OF PETERBOROUGH

LOISIRS DANS LES RÉGIONS DU NORD

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CAPPING EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DES CADRES SUPÉRIEURS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(AFTERMARKET BRAKE PAD STANDARDS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(NORMES RELATIVES AUX PLAQUETTES

DE FREIN DE RECHANGE)

STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING

DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA JOURNÉE

POUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DE LA TRAITE DES PERSONNES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

GREEN POWER GENERATION

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

PENSION PLANS

CHILD PROTECTION

TOM LONGBOAT

TAXATION

CHILD PROTECTION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

TUITION

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 Baha'i prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 7, 2009, on the motion for third reading of Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006 and to make consequential amendments to another Act / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la Régie des transports du grand Toronto et apportant des modifications corrélatives à une autre loi.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a real pleasure this morning to get a few minutes to give our

summary comments on Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act.

This is sort of the next phase of the commitment to public transit. I suspect, in all sincerity, that the opposition party and our leader, Mr. Runciman, have made it clear that we're in support of transit. This bill has a very laudable goal, and we have a few comments that need to be made. It's sort of like speaking about home and country: Transit is a pretty high-order priority for the government and for the people of Ontario, and being seen to do the right thing often serves a purpose.

There have been a lot of announcements over the last while, and it's hard for me to say where to start, actually. There have been so many announcements. Some of them actually make sense. Some of the announcements, for instance the Metrolinx update that I had back in July 2008, were quite encouraging. This was prior to the announcement of the Big Move report by the then board of Metrolinx under Rob MacIsaac. Now we have Mr. Prichard, the former editor or publisher or whatever of the Toronto Star, as well as the president of the University of Toronto, heading up a new non-elected board.

This is the first of four or five comments I want to make: The board that was established under the name of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, then renamed to Metrolinx—I'm not sure why they did that; I guess to spend a few million dollars branding. At that time, it was representatives from—we'll go back and report to that; it included the GTA plus Hamilton, so the region of Durham was on it, York region was on it, the city of Toronto had a great number of members, Peel was on it, and Halton, as well as Hamilton.

Now, the way it was designed—and we said this initially, when this whole Greater Toronto Transportation Authority thing was announced a couple of years ago; we said that the two things that were designed conspicuously to be non-functional were the governance model—which was really run by the Ministry of Transportation. They had two key appointments: one was Rob MacIsaac, and the vice-chair as well. Those two key appointments basically brought the ammunition from the ministry, the McGuinty government, into the boardroom, and said, "This is what we're doing."

The second thing: There was no money committed to it. In fact, that was the dysfunctional part. There was no money, and the governance was screwed up. In fact, Toronto was boxed in. There were, I think, four Toronto members and five other members, and then you needed to have the chair and vice-chair, who were the minister's appointments, hand-picked people who were going to do his bidding.

In all positive comment, they did come up with a report called the Big Move. The Big Move is a big report, and it's a lot of money. It's actually $50 billion over 10 years, which requires the province, and I guess the partners, whoever they are—I guess they're assuming the federal government's on board. This all ties into the Move Ontario plan which was announced some years ago; it's about a $10-billion plan. All of these plans are really a signal to the second comment.

Now they've got the number out there in this report, $50 billion, which means the taxpayers and the riders of transit are going to pay through the nose in the future. Somebody is going to have to pay, and that's another concern we raise. I want to repeat our initial commitment here: that transit is the way of the future, when gridlock and the environment and all of those highly laudable objectives are a problem.

Now, after the Big Move report that was issued by Metrolinx, they came in with Bill 163, and what did they do? They blew up the board. They blew it up and threw them all overboard. It's tragic. I had comments and concern raised by some of the elected people who were trying to do their best, whether it's Roger Anderson in Durham, or Bill Fisch in York, and others, who were talking, and all of a sudden taxpayers' money is being spent by a non-elected board. Who gets that? Bob Prichard is a friend, I think, of Dalton McGuinty. Well, I'm pretty sure he is, but possibly he's not, too.

The point I'm making here is he's going to be doing Premier McGuinty's bidding on the spending, too. He's going to get this job done because I think he said that he would take this sort of temporary job for a couple of hundred thousand a year for two years, maybe, and have it done, or moving.

Now, I haven't really acquiesced that this is the right delivery model. All I know is that York region's Viva transit system is well respected, I think on all sides of the House here. It's my understanding that it isn't run by the same municipal employee group. I'm not against any particular group, but it's run in a competitive way by—should I say this? Is it OK to say this? It's a private sector provider: competitively; that's how it's run. Viva transit system is run by a private sector provider, and that's what I'd like to see: competitive bids.

Putting safety and public safety first is very important, offering a public service at an affordable rate is very important, but I don't want to have a TTC monopoly. Can I be any more blunt? I don't want to see Howard—I won't use names; it's better just to say "the TTC board"—

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Moscoe.

Mr. John O'Toole: No, "The TTC board" is plenty. I don't want to name people. Howard isn't on the board; it's Adam Giambrone now. I don't want them running the transit system for Ontario. I look at Durham transit. Durham transit is a young and developing transit system. I think it's running a deficit; no question of that. About $300 per household has been assessed on the levy. I see a lot of buses running past farms and up regional roads with nobody living on them, and there's nobody on the bus, generally. Generally there's just nobody on the bus; sorry. Now, is that good for the environment, having these $250,000 diesel buses going up and down streets?

My understanding as well is that besides running a deficit, which—in fairness, almost all transits run deficits; almost all. I think GO Transit is probably paying around 80% of its operating costs from the fare box, which is pretty good. It's one of the better ones in North America, certainly.

The Durham transit system—it's my understanding that Whitby transit still operates with a private sector provider on a competitive bid.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Yes, Coach Canada.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes. It's my understanding that it works in co-operation, co-operatively, and that's all I'm saying: The second most important thing is that we have to have partnerships in this. These partnerships are important, and keeping the highest standards of safety and driver training and all of those important requirements. As I said before, on our side we really did come down, in our discussions in caucus on many occasions, to—I want to make sure I cover all of these—five key concerns that we are going to raise today or throughout the discussion here.

The five things are the governance model—all the governance non-elected, non-accountable, Dalton McGuinty's the boss, and I believe the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Bradley, is probably disappointed, because this is right from the centre office, right from Premier McGuinty's office. He's going to spend $50 billion on public transit, and he's got his minions to do that.

The other

part I'm concerned about is that the meetings in Metrolinx—and most of them were quite complimented, in most of the readings that I followed up on, by the group Transport 2000, Natalie Litwin. I believe this volunteer group is working very hard to improve transit. They're concerned as well about certain aspects here, of throwing the Metrolinx board overboard, throwing them under the bus, kind of thing. So we're saying the second thing is these open meetings. Under Metrolinx they were open; under this new arrangement under Bill 163, these are closed-door communications between the Premier and his operatives in this new organization of Metrolinx.

The third and most important point here is the funding. Where's the beef? This funding is a really important issue. There's $50 billion to do the Move Ontario plan. You know we could spend some time arguing that. We need more openness and more accountability. We need annual reporting of the status of these projects in Move Ontario, and the funding and the partnering in that funding: Who's paying the freight? Ultimately, you know that the funding is going to be by the taxpayers of Ontario. One way or another, they're paying.

Now, in this tough economy, the argument in the public sector would be that this is a job creator. In the real world, everyone can't work for the government. You have to actually have labourers in the forest cutting trees down that are made into tables and things; you've got to add value—skills and knowledge to resources to create and add value. We're very concerned, on this side, about, where's the money? One example of a living comment in the media as we speak is about the new announcement for the 200 or 300—I should look this up, actually, and be accurate on this. This is on the new TTC.

Now, the TTC is always a little out of control. I'm reading—these are current comments. But anyway, it says here, "No Provincial Cash for TTC Cars." This was on May 3, and it says, "Mayor" Miller "made $1.2B Bombardier announcement knowing talks stalled with Liberal government." In fact, when asked a question in the House, the infrastructure minister, Mr. Smitherman, acted surprised. He said they knew nothing about this announcement. Now, we all know that Mr. Miller has no money, so where's he going to get the $1.2 billion? They're starting to throw money around like it has gone out of style.

It really is quite frightening: $1.2 billion announced and nobody has come to the table.

I'll read one announcement from this

article by Antonella Artuso. It says, "Discussions are also underway in the province regarding another priority of" Mr. "Miller's, the Sheppard LRT." They've got a lot on the table here, and I'm going to just digress for a minute here. There's another article. Maybe, for those people reading, it's quite a good article. Actually, this is from the Post in April, and it talked about the light rail system to Pearson. It's a $4.6-billion kick-start, and the mayor said he's overjoyed. I think that was announced the morning after they were thrown under the bus, off the board.

They say that Ontario grants a total of $9 billion to public transit; $9 billion? I hope it relieves the gridlock or there's some measurable benefit to society.

It gets very complicated. So they've got the $9 billion on the table. No one has actually said where the $9 billion is coming from yet. Now they've got the $1.2 billion, and we're not sure where it's coming from, but it says in the

article I referred to, "No Provincial Cash for TTC." "'There's only so much money to go around,'" a provincial source said, adding Ontario is sending out feelers to the Stephen Harper government behind the scenes to determine if the streetcars might be funded through provincial-federal economic stimulus infrastructure programs." That's an awfully funny way to say, "We're not sure where the money is."

I am very concerned. We're raising a valid concern. Here's David Miller making announcements now about things he hasn't even got any authority over and he's going to embarrass—in all fairness to Premier McGuinty, he's got his hands full. They've lost about 400,000 jobs, the economy is collapsing and they've got this new HST tax coming in. It's in absolute chaos over there. They've got a deficit—I think it's $12 billion and it's going to about $30 billion.

They're trying to find things to spend it on—$9 billion here—and David Miller is announcing every day to spend more money that he hasn't got, and he's going to try to embarrass the Premier: "It's your problem." Somebody has got to rein him in. In all fairness to the Premier, the Premier is doing his very best to look after the needs of the people of Ontario and taxing them as much as he can. He knows he can't tax them any more. If he does, he's going to put another drag on the economy.

Our third primary concern is the fiscal plan here. There is no plan, and this is the most repeated theme that I see in almost every announcement: Bill 150 is another example of a failed plan. Where's the money coming from? We've had a study done on that bill, and it's true that even this morning in the media there's a report of the faults of—the Denmark story on wind is simply false. Most of their energy comes from other countries, from nuclear and natural gas. It doesn't come from wind at all. Six per cent of their total is wind. But I'm going back to this one, the cost here. Governments like to make announcements, but there's no plan.

Then yesterday we had the NDP's opposition day on sort of bailing out the auto sector, or the pension benefits guarantee fund. We know that it's in problems too by billions of dollars—billions of dollars—and this is for people that have retired and are doing their service to their community. I remain concerned that the fiscal plan simply isn't here on Bill 163. We should guard it carefully. At the very least we're asking for annual, regular updates on projects and spending. I think they should be quarterly.

We're going to be spending an enormous amount of money that we don't have, which means the only way it can be recovered is either you grow the economy, which doesn't look too optimistic right at the moment, or you raise taxes.

We know that each person in Ontario who's watching today over the next number of years is going to be paying about $1,000 a year more for electricity—that's a tax—because electricity's a product that you have no discretion about using. You're going to need it to heat your home, cook your food, clean your clothes. Also, now we've got the HST next year that's going to kick in. It's going to cost every person about $600 or $800 more per year. We know their health tax they had is costing $600 to $1,000 per person, per year. So there's about $3,000 per person, and we've got a deficit, and they're spending money they don't have. It just doesn't make sense.

I want to repeat our commitment to public transit and to building better partnerships in infrastructure. Look at good examples. Somebody mentioned that one of the operators is Coach Canada. I'm looking to the member from Peterborough. Is it Coach Canada?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Coach Canada.

Mr. John O'Toole: Coach Canada?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Yes.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, Coach Canada is an operator that is in the private sector generally, I guess. I would say that they should all be entitled to bid on these projects and operate them under the same set of rules. We just want a level playing field. If there's a bit of competition, we can be sure that the public and the private sector working together can make sure that we get good value for taxpayers' money for a good project. Let's not try to speed this thing through so that it's done and we've got more debt and no service. Those are the kinds of controls I want.

I'm going to bring up the fourth point, those controls that I said. The four key issues of our concern here are the governance model—we have suggestions on that. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here, and that's extremely good. AMO's an organization that handles the transfer of gas tax. I think a good resolve to the issue on governance of the Metrolinx under Bill 163 is to put an appointee from AMO on the board, to build some sort of bridge. Don't cut off the municipal leadership, the elected, official people; work in partnership.

The second issue is the meetings. They should be open to the public. What have you got to hide? I know they don't know where the money's coming from. You shouldn't be hiding it. Talk to the people. If they want it, they'll finance it. They'll help you pay for it. They'll say, "Raise my taxes"—I don't think so, but ask them. Consult. Have open meetings.

The third one is the funding, which we've spent considerable time on. The funding simply isn't there. We've got David Miller making announcements he has no money for. He's got a blank cheque. He wants Stephen Harper to sign it, or he wants Premier McGuinty to sign it. He's out of control.

The fourth one, of course, is the whole control mechanism. Accountability and transparency: We've all been asking for that. This is public money which we don't have.

Now I'm going to raise a fifth. This could be somewhat controversial. I was always under the impression that when they formed the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, basically it was the GTA, and they added Hamilton—which was probably a good thing to do. I'm not sure Hamilton wants to be in the GTA, but Hamilton is an important destination. But you know what happened? The Sunday after Bill 163 was announced, I read—I got it sent to me by someone who knows I'm standing in as the transportation critic for Mr. Klees, who's running in the leadership.

That's a whole other discussion; maybe I'll get some time to talk about that. But here's the key. I would say this: There was an announcement I think on a Sunday morning when everybody was at church—it could have been Saturday. With the people there was Mr. Bradley, and they were announcing that they were going to extend GO Transit to Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. It just so happens that's the minister's riding; Minister Bradley makes the announcement. It's not in the Big Move report. It's not in the Metrolinx report. It's not in all the diagrams that I saw pictures of and things from the Big Move report.

All of a sudden, there's this new service being provided to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. I was a bit surprised at that because it's really not in the mandate. Then I thought, well, I don't think it would be the minister pulling strings here to get things to—I hope not. That would be inappropriate really. The minister shouldn't be in the operational side. He's setting the bigger picture, the policy, like the Mining Act—it is a very important act. Good luck with it; it's got to be changed. But this one here was a bit of a surprise, so I'm raising this as item 5.

I've been arguing for a long time that we need the completion of GO Transit service rail to Clarington. Why am I mentioning that? We're the eastern end of what was then the Metrolinx, the GTA. They did promise at some future date—nothing in writing and no money—to get a train out to Bowmanville, and they promised bus rapid transit into Durham region. I think the bus rapid transit is important. It could probably be operated by Durham or GO. But we don't need two transit providers on the same road.

My real point there, in making sure my community is represented, is I want GO rail to Bowmanville sooner rather than later; in fact, it should be going to Bowmanville before it goes to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. Why do I say this? Well, it's my understanding that Coach Canada already provides daily service to Niagara Falls and to St. Catharines. It's my understanding that Coach Canada gets no capital funding, no operating funding, and provides a service, free to the taxpayer, at a reasonably competitive rate.

In other words, the consumer pays, the person getting on the bus or the train, and that's the only revenue source they have. I kind of like that one. It helps me sleep more comfortably that somebody hasn't got their hand in my pocket.

So this is our fourth concern: Is it appropriate that the Minister of Transportation is going beyond the scope of the Metrolinx Big Move report, Bill 163, and adding GO Transit to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls when there is a service being provided today at no cost to the taxpayer? I question that, and I want that question answered. I think it's an important and perhaps even inappropriate action by the government. I can't believe it. I'm speechless—well, not speechless; that would be going way too far.

I really think that we've raised a few good points on Bill 163. I believe that the member from Brampton—Springdale is the parliamentary assistant. It's good that she's here, which is important.

A few other points of a more technical nature have come up: I agree that the governance to get the petty municipal politics out of it, to throw several overboard—under the bus, so to speak; not disrespectfully, though—but to advance this major project forward, is probably a good move to freshen up some of the leadership there. I'm sure the former president of the University of Toronto will be a great leader. I have no problem with that. I went to that school—he wasn't the president then; he probably wasn't even born when I went there—but I think that's a good move.

But here's the key, and let's pay attention to the facts: They need to move forward first and foremost with the smart card. They really do. This is important. It could be called the oyster card or Presto or whatever, but it would be something similar to a credit card. Let's just use that as an example, if you don't mind a prop, so that when you get on the bus, you would swipe the card—and it would be like a calling card, really—and it would be charged.

Now, the smart card would also know that you got on at Bowmanville and got off in York region somewhere, but the software system in the background would determine which transit system got the money, because if it's a ridership pay system—probably 50% of the revenue should come from ridership—that would be a way of transferring the money in the background. I think that has to happen first, to streamline the integration of transit. That's a laudable goal. We want to coordinate and integrate the transit system as well—that we agree with.

The smart card needs to be the first piece, and I don't say it as an operational person; I've heard that from people very concerned that this is important.

I would say—I often hear this—that the link to the airport is very important as well. I know, as I said earlier, that the light rail to Pearson is $4.6 billion. I'm sure this will be politically explosive when they start going through certain neighbourhoods and certain valleys, etc.—there will be all sorts of process there. But I know they have also streamlined the approval process for transit projects, and the environmental assessment process.

As long as the right thing is done, I think making that a quicker event—this stuff has been talked about for quite a while, certainly for eight or nine years that Premier McGuinty has been in office, and I would like to think that some of this goes forward.

Let's keep in mind, with all due respect, that David Miller—I go back to that; it overwhelms me—is out making an announcement that should be made by the Premier. He's spending his money and then he uses that to embarrass Mr. Smitherman, who will probably run against him for mayor. Maybe that is what's behind this—I don't know—but I really feel that could be part of it. He's making the announcement that maybe George is saying no to it. Now, Mr. Smitherman says no, and then he's on the campaign trail against Mr. Miller and uses it in the campaign: "Well, you refused this transit solution."

That's what is happening here. It's the lack of a plan that has been endorsed broadly. They had the Metrolinx group working together. They come out with a report, and there was no money—it was just a wish list—and now it's trying to be fleshed out at a time when there isn't five cents more in the taxpayer's pocket.

Here's a practical experience of my own. I take GO Transit as often as I can from where I live to Toronto. Now here's the real thing with transit. Generally, as long as it's convenient—you can't get off a bus on the 401 and expect to get to work unless you're getting a taxi. So you've got to bring it into town. Here's the point: For me to come to Queen's Park on a weekly basis—this might surprise you—it's $100 after tax. When you get paid, say, $50,000 a year, you end up with $30,000 in your jeans after taxes. It's $100. I have to make $200 to get $100 to spend. Do you get that? I'm talking more or less to the pages here, because very few other people are listening.

Now, here's the key: I was talking to constituents—it was a couple, and they actually work here at Queen's Park. They told me it was $100 each. They said, "It costs us $10,000 a year to come to work." That's $20,000. You have to earn $20 to spend $10; we all get that. It's costing them $20,000 to come to work. God, I hope they are making $30,000. My point is, it's very expensive to use transit. Don't ever think it's the easy way and all the blah, blah, blah. That's baloney.

Not only that; it isn't that easy. When I get off the GO train at Union Station I have a choice. Often, on a lovely day like today, I walk up to Queen's Park. Most people won't, do you understand? It's sort of like the bike lanes in Toronto. There was no one on them in the winter. They were full of snow, actually. Some of these new ideas they come up with sound good but they're so impractical that it's really absurd. But what they are doing is a good job of diminishing the role of the car.

I live in the country. Some would say that's good; some would say that's bad. But getting back to the point, if you were to extend transit service to somewhere like St. Catharines, I don't think that many people come to St. Catharines on a daily basis. Maybe a lot of people go to St. Catharines from Toronto because the casino is there—maybe. I have no idea what they'd be doing. Maybe they're going to the Royal Ontario Museum or a Blue Jays game or something like that.

But you need to have reliable, predictable service. In Europe there's a success with transit because they have the density of population, and the way their older communities are organized. It's density, and I don't see much density in some locations; for instance, in Durham there isn't enough density to support transit. I see empty buses going up Simcoe Street from Oshawa to Port Perry to pick up one person. You'd be further ahead to give them a taxi chit. Do you understand?

Just say, "Whenever you want to go to the university or the college or the hospital, here is a taxi chit." Give each family that requests them let's say 10 a year—10 free tickets to travel. They're paying $300 now. Actually, the household tax for the transit piece in the Durham budget is I think $300 per household.

I just think that some of the solutions we're coming up with are these mega-solutions that try to generally service the people. You can't get in and out of Toronto now because of the gridlock etc. They're going to have this big solution and everybody's going to move around. It almost reminds me of—there's not much concern for the individual or the human condition. In some countries in the world where there's a lot of density, they have what they call "pushers" in the transit system, where they actually put their foot on your back to make sure they can get the bus full. Now, that's sort of like how you treat cattle; it's not how you treat people.

I think that the transit solution is part of it. I think they've got a great vision here. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with giving four, five, six or seven non-elected people the authority to spend $50 billion on pet projects. It's sort of like the subway to the airport, or to York University—a lot of money; I don't know. I think we're in a hurry to make a big mistake, to some extent.

I want to conclude by repeating the five key concerns. The first principle is this: We support the transit plan and solution. Conceptually, you have to have a plan. That's good. You need public participation in that plan. That's good. You need to finance it and you need options to finance it. Some of that includes the non-public delivery model, like it is done in York region. The York region Viva system is provided by Coach Canada. It's not provided by some other Adam Giambrone, Howard Moscoe, blah-blah solution.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: There's nothing wrong with them. They're already in gridlock. My sense is that we need to have delivery options.

To the extent that some of the solutions in communities that don't have the population, like my riding—parts of it are smaller. The community of Uxbridge has less than 30,000 people, Port Perry has about 30,000 and Clarington has about 80,000. I think the footprint for transit should suit the population and the uses. I think they need smaller vehicles. Why would you have a $250,000 bus that's about 60 feet long, spewing out diesel smoke, going up some country road to pick up one person? It just makes no sense.

Not only that; many of the trips are for the purpose of work; that's busy in the morning—GO Transit is very busy in the morning—and very busy at night. What do the employees do during the day? In fact, the CN drivers of those trains—that has been the problem with GO Transit—work split shifts. They're off in the afternoon. I don't know where they go. If you live in Brampton and you're at work at Union Station, do you go home for a couple of hours? I don't get that.

But my point is this: When you're arranging the delivery of a service that has two peak demands, you need to have options. First of all, a four-hour workday might be a decent solution for people working from 4 in the morning till 10, or 8, something like that, and that's your day. It's really not a full 40-hour-a-week job; we understand that. It might suit some people—do you understand?—and then a four-hour shift at night, instead of having somebody's whole day ruined to get eight hours in. I don't see that kind of flexibility in the plan, I really don't. I just see that this thing here is a lot of money, with not a lot of rules, to provide service under a lot of political pressure.

There are parts of Ontario that don't have transit. I can tell you, I was listening the other day to the member from Timmins—James Bay, who has a role in this as well. I think he's the transit critic for the NDP; I think he has two or three communities with transit. He said—and the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, last Thursday during private members' public business, was talking about the gas tax and gas fees—transit in rural Ontario, in much of northern Ontario, is the roadways. That's the transit system.

We can't ignore that that's the way Ontario is. We need to have a plan for the future, and some of the communities that are high density need to have more sophisticated transit options. I fully understand that, but sometimes, when you have buses and trains going down country roads past sheep farms, it makes absolutely no sense. Those buses don't run for free. If you want to run a bus or any service seven days a week, 24 hours a day, it takes seven people to fill one job. Seven people at $50,000 a year as a reasonable salary, that's $350,000. Then the bus is worth about half a million—holy smokes.

Anyway, I think we've made our point that we would like to support the concept of transit as outlined in Bill 163, or something similar to it. The plan is weak. It's a lot of big numbers and big pictures, but there are no time lines, no deliverables and no funding partnerships in place—none. In fact, in the $1.2 billion announced by David Miller, there's no money for those streetcars announced. They're going to put pressure on other levels of government to pay for it.

Here's the key, though. I think we can have open, accountable meetings. I think that will fulfill a need. Have municipal representation of some sort, work out the funding and don't spend money you don't have. Financial partnerships are not a bad option, looking at Coach Canada as one of the service providers, or Greyhound or someone else. We'd cut out the monopoly business of the TTC and Hazel McCallion fighting about transit crossing the borders. It's a waste of time; it's all baloney.

Introduce controls in terms of accountability on an annual or perhaps on a quarterly basis for what projects are going ahead, where's the money coming from, where are we on the project—over budget or under budget—etc.

Transit has to have a vision and has to have a plan, and all I can say in this case is, they've got it partially right. We will likely be supporting this. Our leader and the members of our caucus have discussed this ad nauseam. Many of them recognize that—don't ignore rural Ontario. Their transit system is the car. Let's not go backward; let's move forward. We'll be supporting the bill. With that, thank you for the opportunity this morning.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Questions and comments? I don't think so.

Interjection: It's time-allocated.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Oh, sorry. I came into the chair a little late, and I was thinking it was the normal procedure.

Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Certainly it's a pleasure to rise and speak about this bill, and to bring the concerns of my constituents around both this bill and, of course, the fact that the government wants to invoke closure on it. Imagine what it's like to wake up one morning and hear piledriving outside your window that registers about three on the Richter scale.

Now imagine this: You're trying to run a business there, a production company, as one of my constituents was trying to run. It put her out of business very, very quickly: eight hours a day of piledriving, a two-stroke diesel engine.

Or imagine if you're a senior and you are having your afternoon nap, and this goes on non-stop. Imagine if you work shifts, which a number of my constituents do who live close to the railway, and are trying to get some sleep during the day with this going on outside your window. And then imagine that you contact the agency that your tax dollars pay for—in this case, GO—and ask them what is going on, and they say, "Well, didn't you know?

We passed around flyers all over your neighbourhood not that long ago and we said there was some construction that was going to be happening in your neighbourhood." Well, I'm sorry, but there's a very big difference between "some construction going on in your neighbourhood" and a two-stroke diesel piledriver outside your window. This is going to go on for months. GO cannot even say when it's going to end. This is what this bill speaks to.

This bill speaks to a bureaucracy that will not be transparent, will not be accountable, even less transparent and even less accountable than has been our experience at GO and Metrolinx already.

Then, of course, as a community, what do you do? You organize, you gather people in the community, you contact your political representatives, you ask for a meeting with those responsible at GO.

But what happens when GO refuses—public servants who refuse to meet with the public, refuse to have an open town hall, and will only meet with a few hand-picked representatives from that community and their political leaders, and even then stonewall as to why they didn't test out vibratory piledriving, why they didn't look at alternatives to the schedule, why they didn't alert the constituents as to what really was going on, and would they or would they not recompense those who had lost way more than perhaps the solidity of the foundations of their houses—most of them are shaking—but their businesses, some their livelihoods, some had health ramifications, and it's still going on?

This even when we put forward many alternatives: Engineers in our midst and piledriving that is quieter, that could be conducted in a non-obtrusive way. It certainly is being conducted, even in this project, where vested interests are concerned; it is being conducted at York University, being conducted in Europe, where it would be illegal in most jurisdictions to have this kind of piledriving in such a densely populated area.

Here is a taste of what's to come with Bill 163—just a taste of how little consultation, what little transparency and what the end result will be. Now imagine, after knowing and after putting forward their concerns and petitions here, in person in the Legislature, through their elected representatives, getting nothing in response except, "We're looking at it.

We're looking at it." Imagine then being told by the sister agency here, Metrolinx, that not only will the piledriving go on ad infinitum, as it's currently set out to do, but at the end of it, instead of electric trains running along the tracks behind your homes and your businesses, will be diesel trains—polluting diesel trains—at the rate of about 400 a day, where currently about 49 pass by. Imagine that.

We have, along those tracks, just in my riding—and remember, this is not my riding alone that's going to be affected; this is going to affect everybody who lives along this rail line. In my riding alone we have new condominium developments going up right by the rails; we have Options for Homes, a wonderful endeavour, right by the rails; we have the Gladstone Hotel, certainly a go-to place for all of the artists and cultural folk in my neighbourhood and others, right by the rails. All of these are going to be affected, disastrously so, if Metrolinx goes ahead with this plan, again without consultation, again without transparency—400 diesel trains a day.

When we asked Metrolinx, "Why don't you have a town hall? Why don't you meet with the residents? Why don't you meet with the Ontario Clean Train Coalition," a group specifically set up to advocate for electric trains, they said, "Well, this is enough," as we wandered around an open gym with information, and people answering questions about the information—but nobody to engage with the public, nobody to answer their real concerns and nobody responsive to them to say why diesel and then electric. This is their plan: diesel for about 10 years, and then electric. It doesn't make any sense.

It certainly wouldn't make any sense to a business person. You have one kind of train go in and then you replace the entire fleet in 10 years? It's about short-term gain. That's what the planning is here. When asked, the minister, Mr. Jim Bradley, said, "Electric trains are too expensive. Quiet piledriving is too expensive." This is the response from the minister. This is what all this public action and organization comes to: They're not worth it. That's what Jim Bradley, the transportation minister, is saying to my constituents and others: "You're not worth the extra money.

Your neighbourhoods, your businesses, your homes, your families and your health aren't worth the extra money it would take to put in quieter piledriving systems, to put in electric trains right away. You're not worth it."

Bill 163 basically carves in stone the intransigence, the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability that we're already seeing from GO-Metrolinx. It puts it directly under the control of the transportation manager and makes it completely unaccountable until 2013. It basically has kicked off every elected representative on the board.

I know the people sometimes have problems with politicians. I know that we can be the subject of much ridicule and dislike. But let me tell you, there's recourse: If you don't like what a politician or your representative does, don't vote for them; don't elect us next time. But what do we do about the bureaucrats? What do we do about the Tom Parkinsons who walk away after doing, notably, not what we would consider a wonderful job at Hydro One with $4.8 million in his pocket? He wasn't elected to that role; he was appointed to that role.

You can guess that he was appointed to that role because of his political connections, but we can't get rid of him as a public. We can't hold him to account except through the minister to whom he reports. Here we have Prichard now, going to report to who? Jim Bradley, the transportation minister. Again, he's not going to be having open and transparent meetings. He's not going to be here in question period to question. He and this new corporation are going to be meeting behind closed doors, are going to be unaccountable to those—and I have to repeat this—who are paying their salaries.

We're talking about public servants here—particularly well-paid public servants, but public servants who should be accountable and who aren't accountable except through their minister, which brings it back to him and, through him, right back to Dalton McGuinty.

But the problem is, these folk go on right until after the next election. So even if another government comes in, the people's choice, let's say, it's the same old bureaucrats, the same difficult-to-get-rid-of bureaucrats, because to get rid of them, you've got to pay them sums like $4.8 million. That's why they're so hard to get rid of: They have airtight contracts. We politicians, we spokespeople for our residents and our constituents, we can be disposed of; these folk can't.

I have to say, this is a very disturbing trend that is happening not only where Bill 163 is concerned, but right across the board in government. This is the neo-Liberal style of technocratic government, where what goes on in question period doesn't really count for much, nobody really cares, because what's really governing the province are bureaucrats, high-paid bureaucrats in bureaucracies where they are unassailable, unreachable and unaccountable.

The hope, of course, of our Liberal friends across the aisle is that they'll put Liberal sympathizers in those roles and they'll do their bidding. But let me tell you, that can even backfire on them because even they won't be able to get rid of these folk if they don't do their bidding. So you have this shadow government, and that's what this is going to create. It's going to be a shadow government that's going to rule over transportation right across Ontario.

Right across Ontario, all public transportation dollars are going to be ruled over by an unaccountable, non-transparent bureaucracy, a highly paid bureaucracy, friends of the government, but we can't get rid of them and we don't even get to hear from them until 2013. That's sad, and that's going to make situations like the piledriving in the West Diamond project even worse. That's going to get us electric trains even later because we have no way of knowing how much money they're going to direct to public transit itself, never mind electric versus diesel, vibratory versus diesel piledrivers.

We don't have an input into that. We have no input into that anymore, except through Bradley, except through Dalton, and even then, if we get rid of them, we're still stuck with the same bureaucrats.

We in the New Democratic Party have a number of concerns about this, and so should every single Ontarian, because we know this government has a track record of putting way more money into roads—cars, let's say—than they have of putting into public transit. We've been fighting for that on this side of the House constantly. I know that our transportation critic, the member from Toronto—Danforth, who did the lead on this, has been fighting for that since he was elected. But this is not going to get us any closer to that halcyon time when we have the option, many of us in Ontario, of taking public transit, which many Ontarians do not have the option of.

This agency could, in fact, in theory, put all its money into roads and none into public transit; in theory it could. In theory it can do what it wants. That's what's so frightening about this. And how are we going to challenge it? We're not going to be allowed into the board meetings; we're not going to be allowed to say whether Mr. Prichard gets a raise or whether he gets fired—not we, not the average Ontarian. We can't even get rid of them in the next election. We have got to live with it and live with whatever they decide right until 2013, when they report, and then we're going to have to swallow hard and listen. I mean, it's absolutely egregious.

So like my friend from Durham, although for different reasons, we have some real concerns. Number one, as I've just said, this bill is going to reduce transparency and accountability, pure and simple. It's going to replace elected officials with bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are unaccountable to anybody.

Secondly, this bill doesn't give priority, certainly not enough priority, to public transit, which is what most Ontarians want. I remember when my husband and I used to live in Richmond Hill. Quite frankly, the GO train in those days, unless you worked 9 to 5, didn't work very well for you, so we ended up having to drive. That is the kind of situation that we need addressed in the province. This bill won't do that. In fact, this bill could put more money into highways.

Thirdly, there is real concern, and this I haven't touched on yet, that this bill will open the door to downloading costs onto municipalities without proper consultation. Well, if our experience in Parkdale—High Park is any indication of without consultation, I can tell you for sure it will. But second of all, of course, it's a nice backdoor way of the government getting out of funding public transit because they're removed, one remove, from those who are allocating the funding. We've seen this in the LHINs, and now we're going to see it with transportation and Bill 163.

This is this government's way of doing business, and, in fact, it leads to a lack of sincerity and a lack of seriousness in this very Legislature. We can see that with the change in standing orders, we can see it with the press gallery emptying out, and we can see it because instead of elected representatives, we're going to have a province run by bureaucrats behind closed doors.

Fourthly, there is concern that discussions of how to finance regional transit are being delayed up to four more years, which I talked about, 2013; conveniently, of course, and these timings are always convenient, after the next election. That's when we'll hear what the plan really is.

And fifthly, and this is where I have to disagree with my friend from Durham, this opens the door to privatization in transportation. And don't think that agenda isn't there; certainly, it is there. We've seen the complete travesty of Highway 407 and what has resulted there with privatization. Imagine a province with lots of Highway 407s. Imagine a province where privatization takes hold. If anybody has been to some countries in South America, you will know what chaos ensues when you have private companies taking over public transit.

You have many different lines owned by many different companies, all going poorly in the same direction. That is the privatization model. We don't want it in Ontario. Ontarians don't want it in Ontario. But we don't know what this mystery board of the new GO-Metrolinx will want. Maybe they have friends in high places, too. Maybe they have friends who walk out of their former jobs, like Prichard did, with $9.8 million in their pockets.

Again, one might claim we're being suspicious, but usually people who have jobs like that are working in large corporations—private corporations for the most part, with the exception of people like Parkinson etc.

Private corporations, private corporate folk sitting on the board, doling out private and public money, is our great fear, again, with private money going to those who have a say. I can tell you from my business background that any corporation worth investing in does not invest in anything without expectation of a profit. If they did so, you would want to withdraw any investment you have from said corporation because they're not doing their job. The question is, where does the profit come from in public transportation—or anything else, for that matter? We've seen it as well in health care, where we have privately-publicly funded hospitals and the disaster, i.e. Brampton, that has wreaked.

They want profit. Where will it come from? We know it will come from us. It will come from the taxpayer, as it normally does, or it will come from the quality of transportation we see. That is probably our primary concern next to the lack of accountability and transparency, that this is in fact a backdoor method of privatizing some of what should be our public transportation strategy in Ontario.

Just to wrap up, I want to get back to the folk in my riding, my constituents, who've had to put up with the piledrivers and will put up with 400 diesel trains running past their children playing soccer, running past their hospitals, running past their businesses, running past their newly purchased condos, running past their homes, shaking their foundations to the core and polluting the air while they do so. Diesel trains pollute, end of story. They won't have a say about that. They won't be able to go to the meetings. They won't be able to kick out the people who made this happen because Mr.

Bradley will point at the board and the board will point at Mr. Bradley, and the question will be, where does the accountability stop? I'm here to say to all of those residents and constituents across Ontario who are listening, I can tell you where the buck stops: It stops with Bill 163, it stops with stopping Bill 163, it stops with Jim Bradley, the transportation minister.

Please, all of those folks out there who don't want piledrivers behind your house, don't want diesel trains running past your backyard, write in to Mr. Jim Bradley. Let him know how you feel. Let him know how you feel about Bill 163 and this new mega-agency stocked with bureaucrats you won't get to talk to, you won't get to know and you won't get to hold to account. Hold someone to account. Hold Mr. Bradley, the transportation minister, to account because that's who should be held to account—and Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of this province, from whom all decisions flow.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 7, 2009, I am now required to put the question: Mrs. Jeffrey has moved third reading of Bill 163. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day. The Minister of Northern Development.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We have no further government business this morning.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It's my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today members of the Insurance Community Action Network and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and just to remind the members that there's a reception in the legislative dining room this evening from 5 to 7.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to welcome today the family of our page Eric Bryce from Mississauga South. In the east gallery we have his mother, Susan Bryce, his father, Robert Bryce, and his youngest sister, Laura Bryce. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Mike Colle: Also with us today we have Peter Karageorgos, who's a leading member of our very strong Greek-Canadian community in Toronto and a great worker within our public schools. Peter Karageorgos, welcome.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I'm delighted to introduce to you the students from the French immersion school at Regal Road public school. They are in grade 5 and their teachers are Madame Straub and Moira Esteves. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, it's about the failure of two of your ministers to respond responsibly to abuse allegations involving a Liberal member of Parliament, Ruby Dhalla.

Premier, you indicated yesterday that the Minister of Labour will attend the federal committee hearings dealing with the issue, but after question period yesterday, the minister said in the scrum that he will confine his comments to talking about federal legislation; in other words, continued stonewalling on what transpired following his meeting with the nannies, and no explanation for his and the Minister of Education's moral and ethical failures. Premier, is that the direction your office gave to the Minister of Labour?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this again. I have a copy of the letter that was received by Minister Fonseca's office from a procedural clerk from the parliamentary committee, I gather, that invited Mr. Fonseca to attend. It says specifically that "lines of inquiry will ... touch on the live-in caregiver program as a means to facilitate the employment of migrant labour in Canada, and the minister's views of how it operates in Ontario."

I'm taking the federal government and the members on that committee at their word. I think we have a shared responsibility to find better ways to work together to provide better protections to our live-in caregivers. I think that's the purpose of the committee hearings, those are my expectations of the committee hearings, and that's why Minister Fonseca said that he would be pleased to attend.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a familiar refrain: Blame it on the federal government. It sounds like a negotiation occurred here.

Premier, it's more than passing strange that only one minister who opted to keep serious abuse allegations about a prominent Liberal under wraps is appearing before the federal committee. Minister Wynne, who likes to get on her high horse about the need for school staff and teachers to report serious incidents, apparently failed to do exactly what she preaches others to do. She claims that she contradicted her own stance on reporting when it involved Ms. Dhalla, and went home for a good night's sleep.

Premier, why are you not allowing the Minister of Education—she was invited as well—to appear before the federal committee to explain why she failed these vulnerable women? Are you again picking winners and losers? Are you hanging Minister Fonseca out to dry?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I choose to take the federal government committee members at their word when they tell us they want to speak specifically about the employment of migrant labour in Canada and the minister's views of how it operates in Ontario. There is someone charged with that special responsibility in our government, and that is the Minister of Labour, Minister Fonseca. He is clearly the appropriate representative to attend, on behalf of our government, this committee hearing, and that is why he has agreed to attend.

Again, I know that my honourable colleague has a different perspective on this, but I think what we owe Ontarians and Canadians is to find a way for both levels of government to work well together to provide better protections to our live-in caregivers. We have a responsibility with respect to employment standards; they have a responsibility with respect to an immigration program. I think that we're at our best when we do these kinds of things together.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The failure of your two ministers to respond appropriately to the alarming stories from these two vulnerable women is really your failure. In opposition, you talked about the high standards of conduct that you demanded from ministers and now, in government, it seems that almost anything goes. "I have a majority. We can do whatever we want. Let them eat cake": That is today's Dalton McGuinty.

Premier, the Members' Integrity Act states that members are forbidden from promoting, or "to further another person's private interest." That's what has happened here. Your ministers attempted to further Ms. Dhalla's interests by keeping the nannies' allegations quiet.

Premier, show us that you were truthful when you talked about high standards for cabinet ministers. Fire both these ministers for conflict of interest and for failure to protect vulnerable women.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If my honourable colleague is serious about the allegations he's making here, he knows that he can write to the Integrity Commissioner and seek her opinion on this issue.

I believe that both of my ministers acted responsibly. They attended a public event to which they had invited live-in caregivers. They listened to their stories. They heard allegations. They made it clear that there were certain means by which they could seek to follow up on those. They did not seek to assess and weigh one story against another. They did nothing more than invoke due process. I think that's a responsibility here that we have, certainly in government, to ensure that we follow due process, and both ministers respected that.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier. Contradicting what he told voters when he was in opposition were strongly held beliefs seems to be an almost daily occurrence with this Premier, regrettably. I'd like to ask the Premier to explain why he has proposed an amendment to his recent budget bill that reduces accountability and transparency. Specifically, the Premier's amendment would remove the requirement for government advertising to contain numerical data that are supportable.

Premier, why are you so anxious to give yourself the freedom to torque information in your advertising?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There were a number of amendments in the budget bill dealing with government advertising which the government has withdrawn, so that we have the opportunity to work with the Provincial Auditor to ensure that the process works efficiently, still protecting, still adhering to the letter of the intent of our original legislation, which is to get rid of the kinds of government advertising that went on here prior to 2004.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'd like some clarity from the minister with respect to this. I would suggest that ensuring the data are supportable is the very equivalent of accountability. Simply put, the amendment that we were told had been tabled for clause-by-clause discussion on Thursday would give you the opportunity to spin a positive angle on negative policies. So I would ask the Minister of Finance to clarify: Is that amendment still on the table? Is this the intent of the government: to give themselves the ability to put their data on the table without the Auditor General having the opportunity to ensure its accuracy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are withdrawing the amendments to the bill with respect to the government advertising legislation that we brought forward, in order to have more opportunity to discuss it with the Auditor General so that, as we improve the ability to oversee government advertising, we have better accountability, things move more quickly and we can have a consensus with the Auditor General on how to do that.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'm not sure if we're getting clarity with respect to the minister's and the government's intentions here related to government advertising. We're especially concerned with respect to the initiative related to the bringing in of the McGuinty sales tax on July 1, 2010. We're concerned because there's going to be an attempt to use taxpayers' dollars to put out information to the public that provides inappropriate and inaccurate details with respect to the real cost implications for all Ontarians.

I'm asking the minister once again to clarify that that is not the intention of the government, to use taxpayers' dollars to use their spin with respect to the implications of this massive new McGuinty sales tax.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can confirm for the member that we won't do what his government did. I will table with the House today an example of government advertising that had pictures of ministers on it, was clearly designed to influence public opinion, was clearly partisan in nature and cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

We have withdrawn the amendments in order to have the opportunity to work with the Auditor General to ensure that the kinds of abuse that occurred in government advertising prior to 2003 never happen again.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This government's Bill 162 removes any legal obligation it has to provide financial assistance to the Ontario pensions benefit guarantee fund.

To date, Ontario has provided a long-term repayable loan whenever the fund was insufficient to protect Ontario's pensions. Such a loan has always been repaid over time through employer premiums to the fund. How does this government justify changing the rules and backing away from the fund at a time when Ontario pensions are most at risk?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, what the amendments do is give the government more flexibility to respond to any number of situations. The member is right: In the case of Stelco, we provided a loan of $150 million to help keep that pension alive. That member and her party voted against that. We also need to deal with the reality that "too big to fail" was perhaps the biggest failure of all. Every one of those companies that was supposed to be too big to fail—other than GM, and we'll have clear information on GM shortly—wound up failing.

There is a real issue with the pension benefits guarantee fund that has been underfunded for many years. GM, Nortel, AbitibiBowater—the amounts to stabilize and provide that are not present. It's incumbent on all of us to work together to try and get through these challenging circumstances—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister is not fooling anyone. What he wants is the flexibility to walk away from the fund. Up until now, Ontario has always stood behind the fund so that it can honour its claims. Now, in the midst of the worst pension crisis that this province has seen, the McGuinty government introduced new provisions in Bill 162 that explicitly say it has no obligation, under any circumstances, to provide bridge financing to the fund, even if that means the fund could not honour its claims.

The Premier has made it clear that the government won't provide the same sort of assistance to the fund that it has in the past. With pensions of tens of thousands of workers at risk, why won't this government commit to standing behind the pension benefits guarantee fund?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The reality is that no government has stood behind that fund. The reality is that there's no money in that fund. The reality is that we have to be fair to not only those pensioners but to taxpayers, to those Ontarians who have seen their life savings diminished as a result of recent market conditions.

That being said, specifically in the case of General Motors, the best way to protect the pensions of General Motors workers is to keep the company viable. That's why we're at the table. That's why we have already flowed cash. That member and her party voted against those initiatives. We think that is the correct course of action. We think it's time for all parties in this Legislature to come together and acknowledge the fact that the pension benefits guarantee fund has not been properly funded since 1981.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here's a dose of reality for the minister. The pensions of tens of thousands of workers and retirees at GM, at Chrysler, Nortel, AbitibiBowater and many other companies are at risk. At the precise time that these workers need reassurance from the government that their pensions are secure, the McGuinty government is putting forward legislation that says, "You're on your own. Your provincial government has no legal responsibility to safeguard your pensions." That's the kind of response that workers get from their government.

New Democrats think that's wrong. We think that's absolutely wrong and we're going to be introducing amendments to Bill 162 requiring the province to provide the bridge financing to the guarantee fund. My question is this: Will the Premier do the right thing by thousands of worried workers in this province and instruct government members to support these amendments when they come to a final vote at the finance committee this Thursday?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I certainly hope any amendments they put forward show more foresight than the "too big to fail" plan that they put in place in 1992.

We are attempting as a government to strike a balance, to be fair to all people, to be fair to taxpayers, to be fair to pensioners and to be fair to those people who have seen their life savings diminished as a result of challenges in financial markets. There is no easy way out of this. There is no way to simply legislate a fix. We are going to have to work together.

I would remind the member opposite that in the situation of Chrysler, the pension has been protected through the resolution of that company's financial challenges. Our government continues to work with the federal government and the government of the United States to try and stabilize General Motors. That is in fact the best way to protect pensions at that company.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question is to the Premier. It's a difficult time for mothers in Ontario. Last week we heard from new mothers like Vera Trevisanello, who told us that her job was no longer there for her when she returned from maternity leave. Today, joining us in the Legislature, there are mothers who cannot find affordable child care for their children. They're not alone. Tens of thousands of Ontario families are stuck waiting for child care subsidies in this province.

When is this government going to take action to ensure that all new mothers have access to decent, affordable child care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue and I know it's very important to our young families in particular. I want to provide a couple of assurances: First of all, there's a recognition that there's more work to be done. We have made some progress. The second assurance I want to provide is that mothers and dads and municipalities might be aware that the federal government had committed to some funding to preserve some 8,000 spaces. That funding is due to lapse in March of the coming year.

We want to provide an assurance to parents that we will continue to provide funding right through to September so that parents know that, coming this September, they can put their kids in a program that will last for the full 12 months. We'll pick up the extra cost to provide that certainty and that breathing space for those parents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Not only are there thousands of Ontario families waiting for child care, but another 22,000 child care spaces are at risk of being cut in September. The government's one-time ad hoc $18 million simply does not cut it. It won't save the child care spaces that are at risk. It won't provide certainty to municipalities, to child care centres and their staff and to the parents who need that. It won't do anything at all to reduce the growing waiting lists in this province. When will the government admit that there is a critical lack of affordable child care and put in place an action plan to end Ontario's child care backlog?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that there is some good news today. Ontario taxpayers, together, through their government have agreed that we will continue to fund those spaces for the following year while we continue our conversations with the federal government.

I also want to remind my honourable colleague that there are 22,000 new spaces built, including over 4,000 in Toronto; over 3,000 in northern Ontario; close to 2,100 in Hamilton and Niagara region, my colleague's community; 1,500 in eastern Ontario; 1,400 in the Peel region; 700 in Windsor; and 650 in Waterloo. That's progress, but as I say, there is more work to be done.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government is simply missing the boat when it comes to child care. There's nothing at all in its anti-poverty strategy around child care, nothing in its 2009 budget on child care. Ontario needs a child care program like the one in Quebec or in Manitoba. In Ontario child care costs parents $40 to $60 a day; in Quebec it costs $7 a day.

I need to remind the Premier, child care is a provincial responsibility. This government must provide young children with quality, affordable care so their parents can go back to school, can upgrade their training and skills, or perhaps just go to work. When is this Premier going to implement a comprehensive child care program that protects existing spaces and brings in at least 7,500 new spaces this year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The point with which I will agree, the one that my honourable colleague makes, is that there is more work to be done. But I do want to recognize as well the work that has been done. Again, we are providing parents with an assurance that we will pick up the tab for those 8,000 federally funded spaces for the coming year, to provide them with that breathing space while we continue our conversation with the federal government.

We have built 22,000 new spaces, but beyond that, there are other things we've done to help parents with young children. We are essentially doubling our Ontario child benefit from $50 to $92 per month, per child, which we think is pretty important. We have 530,000 children in smaller classes. Ten thousand more children are receiving mental health support. We have an expanded newborn screening program that is now covering 28 diseases. It's the best of its kind in the country.

I could go on, but the point is this—and I'm sure my friend would want to recognize this: We have made some progress, I think it is substantial, and we both agree there is more to be done.

TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Minister of Education: Here I have with me a copy of a letter sent to the director of education for the Toronto Catholic District School Board. It's dated August 2007 and it comes from your labour relations and governance branch. It clearly states, "Current legislation does not permit trustees to access group life, accident, medical and dental benefits that are provided to employees." And yet, Minister, the trustees of the Toronto Catholic District School Board, against the advice of your staff and board staff, proceeded to vote themselves access to these benefits—

Interjection.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: —and I see you're smiling, so you know all about it.

Minister, can you tell the people of Ontario why you waited one year to address a clear-cut violation of the Education Act? Once again, you got caught by the press.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In fact, between the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2008, when we actually put that board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, under supervision, there was an ongoing attempt to bring that board into compliance with ministry policies.

It's a very good question in the sense that I think the public needs to know that in the fall of 2006, we appointed a special assistance team to report on the Toronto Catholic District School Board's overspending and to address the structural deficit problems that they were having. On December 6, my staff from the ministry sent a letter to all directors, talking about compliance with provincial school board expense guidelines; in January 2007, there was a motion that was approved by the board that wasn't in compliance; and in the next week, later in January, there were communications from the ministry about how the board should come into compliance. And that—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Well, Minister, I don't know how long it takes to say, "Cease and desist, and pay the money back." All this process did not serve the people of Ontario well. The truth is that you knew about this violation—it's a violation of your own ministry policy—and you refused to sanction the TCDSB trustees who illegally voted themselves this raise at the taxpayers' expense.

Your integrity is being compromised here, Minister, on a number of fronts: first of all, failure to report the abuse of nannies in your own community; then failure to include consequences for your principals who failed to report student-on-student violence; and failure to take action on trustees who were in clear violation of rules until a year later.

Minister, your actions are not transparent. You have not been accountable. Do you believe your conduct in two recent events qualifies you to keep your job? Your credibility—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'm going to set the personal attack aside and I am going to answer the substance of the question, because I think it's important that people understand that in so many situations in government, there is due process that must be followed.

If the member opposite took a moment to speak with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who has also sent in supervisors to school boards—and I am personally aware of those situations—then she would understand that it is very important that a minister follow the rules and that in this situation, until it was clear that this board was not willing to comply, it was impossible, and it would have been wrong, for me to begin to initiate the process of taking over this board.

Having said that, we began in the fall of 2006 to work with this board to try to get them into compliance. It didn't work. They are under supervision, and they are under supervision—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today, caregivers Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson testified before the House of Commons citizenship and immigration committee. These women outlined gross violations of the provincial Employment Standards Act, which included 14-hour workdays, unpaid overtime and constant harassment by their employer.

How is it that the minister allowed these abuses to take place under his watch?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for the opportunity to speak to what is happening before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa.

We have said that we would like the opportunity to bring forward what we are hearing from these caregivers. We're hearing at the roundtables and we've heard at the ministry boardroom table that we have a flawed and broken live-in caregiver program. The problem with the program is that there is an imbalance between employers and employees. This profound imbalance allows for these abuses to take place. These women live in fear. They are not calling our employment standards office because they fear that they may be deported by a flawed federal—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: These vulnerable women disclosed almost slave-like conditions in Ontario. When asked how she felt working in the Dhalla household, Magdalene Gordo said that she was mentally tortured, and Richelyn Tongson broke down into tears. These testimonies are a direct condemnation of Dalton McGuinty's failure to enforce his own Employment Standards Act. This is shameful; the minister is shameful.

Is this the standard for employment standards in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I will not take a lecture from that member or lessons from that member when it comes to treating and protecting vulnerable workers in this province. What I will do is continue to meet with the caregivers. At that particular roundtable, where we heard from many live-in caregivers and these two in particular, we provided them with immediate access to our ministry officials through a 1-800 hotline.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You have 10 seconds.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I was happy to hear in that committee meeting this morning that those live-in caregivers have called the hotline and have received assistance from our ministry officials. That is the right approach, I say to the member—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for Minister of Children and Youth Services. It is very important for families to have access to high-quality, affordable child care. Since coming to office, our government has made great progress in expanding the affordability and the availability of child care, despite the federal government's cancellation of our child care agreement.

Recently, however, there have been reports that because of the federal funding shortfall, municipalities may have to reduce the number of child care spaces and fee subsidies available to parents beginning this summer. This is causing great concern in the riding of York South—Weston and beyond.

The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is at Queen's Park today to express their concern regarding the impact of the end of the federal funding for Ontario families. Minister, could you elaborate on how the province plans to maintain the progress we've made despite the reduction in federal child care funding?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for a question that is so very important for families and children in Ontario.

I am very pleased to announce that we're stepping in with $18 million to provide stability for families with kids in child care. This investment will give municipalities the support they need to maintain the existing spaces through the 2009-10 school year and into the summer. It will give us more time to continue advocating on behalf of Ontario families with the federal government. It will also provide greater stability in the system leading up to the anticipated implementation of full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds based on the recommendations of our early learning adviser, Charles Pascal.

We know that now more than ever families need this stability. We won't leave them hanging because of the federal shortfall. I am encouraging families—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Parents in my riding simply want the services to work. They are not concerned with which level of government provides them; they just want the services to be there. It's great to know that the province is coming to the table to deal with this very serious matter.

It's not just members of our community who have been asking but also municipal governments. They are on the frontline of delivering services to the most vulnerable members of society. They do the best job that they can, but, with limited resources, it's just not enough to meet the demand.

Families also, I must say, speak to me often about issues of affordable, clean housing. Access to affordable housing is fundamental to raising children who will be at their best, but municipal governments need help in meeting these demands. More than anything, they are asking for a stable funding formula that will work for them as well as for us.

Minister, what is our government doing to—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member for the question. Minister Matthews and I appeared before the memorandum-of-understanding table with AMO, which is an organization that has been set up by Premier McGuinty to allow us to consult the municipal sector. Minister Matthews heard first-hand from AMO and the municipal leaders the challenges that they would face this year without the funding for daycare in place. I'm very pleased with the Premier's announcement and Minister Matthews's confirmation of that announcement.

On the issue of housing, I will let you know how excited the housing community was when Minister Duncan, in his budget, committed over $622 million to match the federal government's funding announcement, for a total of $1.2 billion. We were able to convince the federal government to come back to the table for housing. We hope that we're going to be able to convince the federal government to come back to the table to support child care, which is vitally needed in this province and across Canada—

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

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. As I was doing a little research for the question today, I typed into Google "Dalton McGuinty's promises" and it came back, "Did you mean 'broken promises?'" Then it came up with the top 50 list of broken promises. It was things like the rollback of tolls and coal-fired plants.

Anyway, Minister, last week, I asked you about Bill 132 and the sale of fruit wines at farmers' markets. You said that it's in committee, and your House leader has promised swift passage. But I have a letter from your Minister of Government Services and he says that he won't allow the sale of fruit wines at farmers' markets.

Minister, which one of you three are telling the truth? Are any of you telling the truth?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to withdraw all three of those comments, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I appreciate the opportunity to clarify for the members of this House and for the honourable member. The bill that he inquired of me about last week has had second reading debate, so it is now up to the House leaders to decide where the bill and when the bill and if the bill will go further.

I, as Minister of Agriculture, have made it very clear, I've spoken with the fruit winery people, and I have some great appreciation for the points that they have made and the fact that they have talked to me about establishing pilot projects for the sale of fruit wines. That is an idea that I have indicated publicly I support. I stand by that, and that is the truth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the minister: Here is a letter dated April 28 from the Minister of Government Services to Mr. Bert Andrews. "My ministry does not have any plans to allow the sale of fruit wines at farmers' markets."

We've heard three different tunes and three different stories. Where I come from, honourable people are honest. There are no lies or misleading and the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Misgivings. Dear minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, you need to say withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Dear minister, will you ask for forgiveness and apologize to this House and the countrymen for your government's misleading statements?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment, please.

I ask the honourable member for the second time to withdraw the comment, please.

I ask the honourable member for the third time to withdraw the comment, please.

I therefore will have to name the member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Randy Hillier, and ask the Sergeant at Arms to escort him from the chamber, please.

Mr. Hillier was escorted from the chamber.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Hon. David Caplan: First of all, I want to thank the member very much. I want to thank the French language commissioner for his report. I'd like to let the member know that our government is committed to ensuring that all Ontarians receive the highest quality of health care, particularly those in the francophone community.

I'd like to thank the commissioner for his report. We are presently reviewing it and looking at its recommenddations. Further to that end, I've set up a working group led by Charles Beer, a former MPP and minister in this place. This group brings together members from the francophone community, from local health integration networks, from the Ministry of Health and from the Ontario francophone association to gather input about the approach to local health integration network francophone community engagement. It's very important to me that as a government we understand that we have a special obligation to two groups: our Franco-Ontarians and to—

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

Étant donné la réponse du ministre à ma première question, ma deuxième question est encore plus simple : est-ce qu'on doit en déduire, par la réponse du ministre, qu'il n'a pas l'intention de faire quoi que ce soit avec les recommandations du commissaire ?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, it's fully my intent to follow the legislation that was passed in this House, that we set up a special arrangement to be able to consult and to work, to plan and deliver services where we have two very special obligations, one with our First Nation partners, and the other with the Ontario francophone community. We certainly will be doing this, and my intent is to make sure that we get this regulation right, which is why we are making a tremendous effort, along with my colleague the minister of francophone affairs, to work with members of the francophone community to establish that relationship and the legal framework that it will work under.

I know that there is a lot of input which has gone into this, I know that the ministry has worked hard, and I know that it was because of the efforts of my colleague that the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner was created, to improve the overall delivery of French-language services in the province of Ontario.

As I said, I look forward to reviewing the report—

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

NURSES

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday marked the beginning of National Nursing Week in Canada, and I'm pleased to say that today is International Nurses Day. The day commemorates all of the important work nurses do in health care systems around the world.

There are many qualified health professionals who have been trained and educated abroad who want to practise in Ontario, and I know that many of these nurses have an aptitude and willingness to work in Ontario's health care system. They could help fill many nursing positions in the province.

I'm asking the minister to tell the House what this government is doing to help internationally trained and educated nurses get the necessary training they need to practise in Ontario.

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member for the question; it's an important one. And I'd like to thank my colleague for taking the time to mention International Nurses Day, because it gives me a chance to express the appreciation that I have and that members, at least on this side of the House, have for Ontario nurses. They work tirelessly to keep the province's health care system strong, and our government is working hard to help internationally educated nurses get the skills they need to work in Ontario.

Our government has already invested nearly $7 million in a program called CARE, Creating Access to Regulated Employment. It's a bridge training project for internationally trained nurses. The program helps to prepare nurses to take the Canadian nursing registration exam.

We also created the Access Centre for Internationally Educated Health Professionals, to help nurses learn about the steps they need to take to practise professionally in Ontario.

I'm determined to continue helping internationally trained nurses find work in Ontario. They're making our health—

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

Mr. Bruce Crozier: The initiative to help train internationally educated nurses sounds promising, and I'm sure that the Ontario health care system will benefit.

My constituents, for example, are encouraged by the recent announcement of a nurse-practitioner-led clinic in the riding of Essex. I know that this is a new way of delivering health care, and one that has seen a lot of success in Sudbury, for example. My constituents are pleased to have access to more primary health care, but are seeking clarification about the role that a nurse practitioner can play in the community.

I also understand that yesterday, Minister, you made an announcement that would expand on the range of things that nurse practitioners can do for patients. Please tell the House your vision for nurse practitioners in Ontario, and why you think it's important to give them an extended role.

Hon. David Caplan: The member from Essex asks another excellent question, and I want to thank him for an important question about our hard-working nurses.

We've committed to creating 25 nurse-practitioner-led clinics around this province, making Ontario a leader in Canada. Nurse-practitioner-led clinics are locally driven, primary health care delivery organizations. They include registered nurses, family physicians and a range of other health care professionals committed to providing comprehensive, accessible, coordinated family health care services.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to introduce Bill 179 in this House. If passed, it would allow nurse practitioners to set or cast a fracture, and dispense, mix or sell certain drugs to manage patient health.

Let there be no doubt, this government is committed to Ontario nurses. We're going to keep training them. We're going to keep hiring them. Our province depends on their skill and expertise, and our great—

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

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, two weeks ago, I asked your colleague the Minister of Economic Development about $358 million that was given to Ontario from the federal government as part of the community development trust fund. To refresh your memory, the fund is intended to help one-industry towns like most of the towns in northern Ontario that are currently suffering. In light of your colleague's comments last week about picking winners and losers, can you tell me if any of this community development trust fund is being spent to help northern communities?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: The gist of your question was directed toward the idea that the government is engaged in activist efforts to try and promote communities across this province by recognizing that we are in competition with other jurisdictions that are making investments by way of loans and grants in order to attract those businesses to those communities.

I can say without any doubt that for all those announcements that the member would have stood up and celebrated in his community because of the investments that government has made to his community, to the businesses and to the jobs there—I can assure the member that we will continue to provide that support to his community and all northern communities as we continue to make the northern Ontario economy as strong as we possibly can, using every single tool in the tool kit. At the end of the day, the members across the way know very well that they will stand up, smile and celebrate those investments, every single one of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, maybe you could send the question back to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, because I'm trying to find out if any of the $358 million was spent in the north.

I was up in Englehart last week and spoke with the mayor of Elk Lake, Terry Fiset. He told me he had seen the question I asked two weeks ago. He saw your answer, and he still didn't know if any money was going to the north, so I'm trying to find out if any of this $358 million went to the north.

The federal government's website states, "Provincial and territorial governments are encouraged to report directly to their constituents on the expenditures financed and outcomes achieved with the funding provided through the community development trust" fund.

Minister, why hasn't this been done? For the second time, could this government please tell the members of the Legislature which communities received money, how much did they get, and how much of the $358 million is left? Did any of it go to the north?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I happily refer this to the Minister of Northern Development.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think it's a great opportunity for me to remind the member opposite, indeed, of the incredible economic contribution we've made through the northern Ontario heritage fund. Since 2003, when our government took office, we have made $400 million in investments, leveraging $1.2 billion in funding, which has gone towards creating over 9,000 jobs in northern Ontario, many of the projects in the member's riding, and we are very proud of that.

We are very proud of the fact as well that our government, the McGuinty government, is supporting an increase in the northern Ontario heritage fund: $60 million last year, $80 million this year and, in fact, going to $100 million. Certainly we have made extraordinary investments in northern Ontario, a program that we have supported greater than any other government, and we're extremely pleased about the jobs—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In my riding, a local small business owner and his clients will become the latest victims of the wrong-headed tax grab, the HST. My constituent Lou Martinez owns a fitness club for kids, kids who come from hard-working families who understand the lifetime health benefits of being physically active. Mr. Martinez says, "We have been trying to convince parents that children's health is important ... and we are seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates."

Why is this government making it harder for families to do the right thing and encourage physical fitness from a young age by adding an 8% tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we're giving that same family a personal tax cut that will more than offset the amounts of money they would spend to cover the single sales tax. That's why the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have supported this initiative.

I'd also remind the member that that small business owner will see his small business tax cut by almost 20%. I hope that he will pass those savings on to those customers who are using that service.

This is the right package for the times to help get our economy back on track. We believe that this tax reform package will leave people in a better financial position and help this economy grow stronger and create more jobs in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I will pass your comments and a copy of today's Hansard to Mr. Martinez.

My constituent has pointed out the irony: The Liberals' unfair tax grab on kids' fitness programs will cancel out the federal children's fitness tax credit. He's also very concerned about his business's long-term viability, given that the HST will increase the cost of his programs by 8%. He says, "If I thought my customers would tolerate an 8% increase, then I would've raised the price myself. Mr. McGuinty is asking me to be his tax collector by charging the families that walk through my doors—the problem is they can always leave and I predict a great many will."

Will the minister do the right thing here today and axe the tax for children's programs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This tax reform package will create jobs in the future. It will give the people the incomes they need to send their children to important programs like this.

Given the crisis in the world economy and what we've all experienced in the last year, the same old same old from that party just isn't going to work. You need to take a different approach. You need to take the approach that four other provinces have taken, that every other country within the OECD, save and except the United States, has done. This is a balanced tax package that will see 93% of Ontarians paying less overall in taxes. That's a good policy. That's the right policy. It's about jobs, and it's about future growth.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. There's absolutely no doubt that jurisdictions around the world are facing tough decisions and choices in the face of the current economic crisis. In these difficult economic times, some governments believe it's easy to cut funding for science research because it doesn't get a lot of votes. Some governments have chosen to cut science funding. For instance, the federal government recently cut the budgets of the three key federal funding agencies and provided no new funding for Genome Canada.

Some governments do get it. They want to build their future. President Obama's recent commitment to invest 3% of GDP on research shows the US and the world that President Obama understands Ontario's drive to the knowledge economy.

In looking to that future while we're facing these challenges, can the minister tell us what Ontario's stance is going to be? Are you going to walk away from our scientists, or are you going to build our future?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say to my friend, we are going to continue to stand by our scientists, and we're going to continue to support them. In the face of this economic crisis, this is no time for us to stop investing in our future. We say to Washington and to the world that we and our best are willing to collaborate with you, but there will be no poaching of our best in this province allowed. That's why earlier this month I was pleased to join a dozen of our world-renowned researchers who stood with our government as we announced the new $100-million global leadership round in genomics and life sciences.

This announcement sent a very clear signal to the world that we will continue to keep our leadership position, that we're willing to collaborate with the very best around the world and that we believe in the transformative power of science. Despite the signals sent by other governments, we have sent the strongest signal—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to thank the minister for his determination to build our future and this government's commitment to do so. In the

article entitled "It's Easy Seeing Green: Scientists Turn Stem Cells Bright Green for Study Purposes," the Canadian Press reported a breakthrough involving a method that turns stem cells green for study in laboratories. Dr. James Ellis, the project's lead investigator at the Hospital for Sick Children, said, "It's like having a spotlight on a person in a crowd in the dark, so you can go straight and find that person in that crowd."

Dr. Michael Rudnicki, scientific director of the Canadian Stem Cell Network, says that the research allows scientists to purify cells "mechanically and otherwise, and also to readily identify them." The researchers have already used this technique, taking skin cells from a patient with Rett syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder, and reprogramming them.

This is the type of stuff that's going on right here in Ontario to continue to foster the quality of research—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say again to my friend that new ideas generate the new jobs of the future for our children and our grandchildren. That's why we committed last year to Ontario's innovation agenda, a commitment of some $3.2 billion, because innovation is one of the driving forces of the 21st-century economy.

I want to say to the Minister of Finance that last month he was able to provide an investment of some $715 million, $400 million of which has been earmarked toward research, both basic and applied, and another $250 million for a new emerging technologies fund. All of these investments are designed to ensure that there are going to be those jobs for our kids.

When I go to Tim Hortons and talk to my constituents about this, they say, "The world is changing. Thank you for investing in the future of our children and our grandchildren." They get it at Tim Hortons.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, and I'm hoping she'll be able to help the kids in my community today. The Centre Roberts/Smart Centre, which saves kids at risk from self-harm and suicide, is about to close without your help. It might be forced into bankruptcy without provincial aid, and last year alone they spent $200,000 more than they had to save kids' lives.

In my opinion, this is work that we need to continue to fund in this province. This chamber has been bailing out industry; I need to count on you and my community needs to count on you to step up to the plate to save the Centre Roberts/Smart Centre from closing, to save the kids at risk not only in the city of Ottawa but right across the province of Ontario. Can we count on you to index their provincial transfer payments?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to assure the member opposite that I am very concerned about this situation and that I have instructed my ministry staff to work with the Roberts/Smart Centre to find a way to continue to provide services for kids who very definitely need them. We are committed to providing children and youth with mental health challenges and special needs with the supports they need to achieve their potential.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the board and the staff at the Roberts/Smart Centre for the work they do for kids in their community. We have been working with them for a number of years to help them become sustainable. A review and subsequent reorganization occurred in 2005 in the hope that it would put them on better financial footing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: The end of the month is coming nigh, and the board has decided to start bankruptcy proceedings on May 30 in order to protect the 150 people who work there. Gordon Floyd, executive director of Children's Mental Health Ontario, says, "It is one of the few agencies in the province that has residential treatment for francophone children. It is generally serving kids at the deepest end." Madam Minister, we can't wait a week. We can't wait a day. When are you going to give these people assurance that they can meet their budget needs now so we can protect all kids, including francophone kids in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said, I am very concerned about this. My ministry staff is working hard to make sure that kids get the services they need. I must say I am delighted to see that the members of the opposition party are now concerned about children's mental health. When they were in government, they froze funding for mental health services. We have restored funding for mental health services, we are improving services for kids, and I welcome their support for kids with mental health challenges.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Last year, half of the children and youth in Ontario who needed mental health services could not get them. The children's mental health agencies cannot meet the needs of Ontario children and as we just heard, the Roberts/Smart Centre in Ottawa, in the Premier's hometown, is close to closing its doors because of a lack of funding. What will the Premier of this government do to ensure that this important centre is not forced to close?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm very sorry, Premier. I'm anxious to answer this question.

Again, I thank the member opposite for the question. As I said in the previous question, we are aware of the situation. We are working with the Roberts/Smart Centre. We are committed to maintaining services for kids in the Ottawa area who have serious mental health challenges. It is good work, it is important work and we are committed to continue to find a solution to this situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: It would be more reassuring if the minister was to make the announcement that they will continue to fund the centre. It's hard to believe that the government is serious about fixing the mental health system for children when Ottawa's only residential program is facing closure; when funding for children's mental health has been frozen for 12 of the last 15 years and the system is at the breaking point; when a residential youth facility in Hamilton closed in March; when, in London, mindyourmind.ca closed on May 1; and now in Ottawa, the Roberts/Smart Centre is in peril. When the need is so great and more must be done, how can this government justify its inaction?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I certainly reject the characterization that this is a government of inaction. In fact, we have increased funding for children's mental health by 20% since we were elected. Is there more to do? Absolutely, yes. We have a very ambitious approach to children's mental health. We are at the final stages of actually determining what services we provide across the province, which is the first step in the transformation of children's mental health in this province.

I can assure the member opposite and all people in Ontario that children's mental health is a very high priority for this government and will continue to be so.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The 10 order paper questions that I tabled on March 2 and March 3 have not been responded to within 24 sessional days, as set out in page 48 of the standing orders, and I seek your assistance in getting those answers from the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member for her point of order, and she is indeed correct.

I would like to remind the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Children and Youth Services that you are required under standing order 97(

d) to file an answer to a written question within 24 sitting days. Your responses are now overdue. I would ask that you give this House some indication as to when the response will be forthcoming.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member that we will have the response in very short order.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I will do what I can to make sure that the honourable member receives the answer in a timely fashion.

DEFERRED VOTES

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006 and to make consequential amendments to another Act / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la Régie des transports du grand Toronto et apportant des modifications corrélatives à une autre loi.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members; this will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1133 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 79; the nays are 5.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CEMETERIES

Mr. Bill Murdoch: On February 19, the assembly passed second reading of Bill 149,

An Act to protect Ontario's inactive cemeteries, introduced by the MPP for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Since the unanimous support of this bill on second reading, my office has had numerous calls from constituents wanting to know when the bill will be sent to committee and then receive third reading and royal assent.

Bill 149 is an important bill in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Like many of my fellow colleagues, my riding has a number of inactive pioneer cemeteries. These cemeteries are for many people their only link to heritage and ancestry.

Many local constituents have expressed to me their fears over the years of these pioneer cemeteries being ripped up or relocated as some of the cemeteries are located in prime real estate locations. Though nothing, thankfully, has happened so far, many constituents worry that it could.

Bill 149 would protect these pioneer cemeteries in my riding and those throughout Ontario. Bill 149 would make sure that the heritage cemeteries, such as Old Durham Road black cemetery outside of Ceylon, would be protected and that important part of Grey's history would be kept for generations to come. The Old Durham Road black cemetery is only one of the many pioneer cemeteries in my riding that need to be protected for generations to come.

I ask today that the Liberals bring Bill 149 to committee and allow it to make its way to third reading.

I would also like to thank the MPP for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Jim Brownell, for introducing such an important bill to preserve Ontario's heritage.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr. Dave Levac: I rise today to recognize an organization that has brought another championship home to Brantford—hockey, that is. On Saturday, May 2, the Brantford Golden Eagles defeated the Stoney Creek Warriors 3 to 2 in game 5 of their best-of-seven series to claim the Sutherland Cup, four games to one.

The Sutherland Cup is a championship for the Greater Ontario Junior Hockey League. The cup returns home to Brantford after a 68-year absence from my community—last won by the Brantford Lions in 1941.

There are so many incredible stories that surround this season's championship run. There's the team captain, Mike McKinley, who spent the last six years with the team working to lead Brantford from the league's worst record to the best of the best.

There's star forward Alexander Szczechura, who led the team in scoring both in the regular season and the playoffs, all the while playing under the wing of his brother Paul, who made his NHL debut in the Tampa Bay Lightning. And there's goaltender Daryl Borden, an Ontario Hockey League cast-off who came home to backstop the Eagles to the title.

I would like to congratulate the coaching staff, led by Scott Rex, general manager Mike Down and the rest of his executive team, and of course the owners and the players themselves. Thank you for working so hard to bring another cup back to Brantford, the Sutherland Cup.

We celebrated this great victory by holding a Golden Eagle party in Harmony Square, showing the team that we thank them and appreciate them. Our entire community says thanks for pulling together. The sky's the limit. Way to go, Golden Eagles.

RIDING OF WELLINGTON—HALTON HILLS

Mr. Ted Arnott: Each spring, I send my constituents an annual report of my activities and my efforts on their behalf. In this year's newsletter I included a survey, and today I wish to share some of the comments I received in response.

"Taxpayers should never be asked to bail out inefficient, non-productive companies," said a man from Erin.

Another man, from Georgetown, had an ominous warning for the Premier: "If the McGuinty government harmonizes the sales tax with the federal sales tax, the Liberal Party will have lost my vote/backing forever."

Some took the time to compliment my staff.

"Just want to say a big thank you to your office staff. They helped [me] get my birth certificate," a woman from Ariss told me.

Said one man from Puslinch, "Let's do what's right for the province and the people, not the party. Can we not just work together for the good of all?"

This from Acton: "I commend Mr. Arnott's efforts in regards to the emancipation bill, disabled, as well as the economy."

Another constituent, from Ballinafad, said, "Thanks, Ted, keep up the good work."

This was balanced by criticism from Elora, from a person who said to me, "You obviously are not looking very closely at what is taking place if all you see is doom and gloom."

Another resident of Fergus summed it up this way: "Personally I do not trust the current provincial government.... Is it getting worse? You can bet on it."

I want to thank everyone who replied for providing me with their suggestions, for my best advice comes from the people that I'm so privileged to represent.

CANADIAN FORCES

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: On April 24, I had the distinct honour of attending a special welcome home gala event, entitled Celebrate Me Home: A Hero's Welcome Gala, at Bingemans in Kitchener.

Colonel-in-Chief Prince Andrew, Duke of York, welcomed home his troops based in the Waterloo region. This was the largest return of veterans to our area since the Korean War. The veterans, almost all reservists in the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada, served in Afghanistan for six to nine months.

This wonderful event was attended not only by veterans, dignitaries and the public, but also by Prince Andrew, who is the regiment's Colonel-in-Chief. Owen Lackenbauer is the honorary colonel, and Tom Jenkins, CEO of Open Text, is their honorary lieutenant colonel.

Along with the 16 local Fusiliers, there are also 42 returning soldiers from the region who are serving in other units. They're part of a larger group of 2,500 soldiers who are returning home, from late March until early May, as part of regular troop deployments and rotation.

This homecoming is an important opportunity for our community to recognize the commitment of members of the Canadian Forces and their families to defend Canadian values. Thank you all for your continued dedication and sacrifice.

FISHING DERBY

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to first congratulate the sponsors, volunteers and all who contributed to the success of the Huck Finn Fishing Day, held on April 25 in my riding of Durham—in fact, in Uxbridge. This is the seventh year of the event, which takes place at the centre of the town, at Elgin Pond, and attracts thousands of young anglers and their families.

The fishing derby was initiated by Pat Higgins, of Canadian Tire in Uxbridge. Along with Canadian Tire, some of the community-minded sponsors include the Durham Regional Police Association; the Uxbridge Times-Journal; the Optimist Club of Uxbridge; Blitzcreek Pro Fishing; of course, the province of Ontario; the Uxbridge Legion, led by Jack Ballinger, who is also a local councillor; as well as Mayor Bob Shepherd, who attended, Gord Highet and Howie Herrema.

I'd also like to take special note and thank the Minister of Natural Resources, Donna Cansfield, for taking time to visit and celebrate the kids' fishing day this year. The minister saw first-hand the community's commitment to the stewardship and enjoyment of Ontario's environment and the outdoors.

Fishing day combines fun and learning, along with an opportunity for families to get together for a great event offered by the community and all of the volunteers.

I'd like to thank the minister personally for making the effort to come and celebrate kids' fishing day in Uxbridge this year.

FIBROMYALGIA AND

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I rise today to bring the attention of the members of this House and all Ontarians to the estimated one million Canadian men, women and children who suffer from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, commonly known as FM-CFS.

May 12 is national awareness day for fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. FM means aching, throbbing, shooting and stabbing pain in the muscles,