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

April 23, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 23 April 2009 Jeudi 23 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TEMPORARY HELP AGENCIES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO BUDGET

PENSION PLANS

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

VIOLENT CRIME

GREEN POWER GENERATION

PENSION PLANS /

RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

NURSES

PENSION PLANS

WATER QUALITY

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

MARKHAM STOUFFVILLE HOSPITAL FUNDRAISER

ONTARIO BUDGET

PENSION PLANS

PEEL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

BEYOND THE BLUE BOX

ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE

TORONTO WEST COURTHOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPERTY TAX

DEFERRAL ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE REPORT

DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH

PETITIONS

CEMETERIES

PENSION PLANS

ROAD SAFETY

CHILD CUSTODY

PENSION PLANS

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

CEMETERIES

AIR QUALITY

TOM LONGBOAT

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(PROTECTION FOR ARTISTS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(PROTECTION DES ARTISTES)

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS

AMENDMENT ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF LEMONS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LE COMMERCE

DES VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

(DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LES VÉHICULES

DE PIÈTRE QUALITÉ)

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(PROTECTION FOR ARTISTS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(PROTECTION DES ARTISTES)

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS

AMENDMENT ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF LEMONS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LE COMMERCE

DES VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

(DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LES VÉHICULES

DE PIÈTRE QUALITÉ)

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TEMPORARY HELP AGENCIES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

Mr. Fonseca moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters / Projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne les agences de placement temporaire et certaines autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing some of my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Brampton West.

I'm very proud to be able to participate here and to discuss some of the measures that we're bringing forward with Bill 139. This bill would amend the Employment Standards Act to enhance protections for employees working through temporary help agencies. Our intention is to strengthen the Employment Standards Act and to ensure that assignment employees working through temporary help agencies are treated fairly.

I want to commend the standing committee for the work that they did in completing public hearings and clause-by-clause review of the bill. The committee heard from 62 presenters, who provided insightful comments on our legislation. As well, last May we consulted with 19 stakeholder organizations representing employees and employers, and we received another 120 written submissions.

Our consultation dealt with issues that had been brought to our attention by individuals and groups, as well as through employment standards inspections and investigations. We covered five main topics: (1) the elect-to-work exemption in the Employment Standards Act; (2) barriers to permanent employment faced by temporary help agency employees; (3) fees charged to workers by temporary help agencies; (4) the liability for Employment Standards Act violations; and (5) information given to temporary agency employees about their assignments.

I know that all of us here in this chamber have a long work history, and I look to retrace my work history, and I date it back about 25 years ago. As a teenager, I was looking for a job in the summer. As you know, teenagers want jobs so they can purchase some of the things that they would like to have in their lives. It could have been—I think at the end of the day it was a Sony Walkman; today it may be an iPod. Well, I saw an ad for jobs where you could make as much as $20 an hour.

I called up this organization, and they said, "Come on in." I went down for a meeting at their office, and when I came into the office they said, "Oh, sure, we're going to be putting you with a company where you're going to be able to make up to $20 an hour." I thought, "Wow!" Back in the 1980s, this was big dollars, $20 an hour. I thought, "Okay, this is great." So the next day I was off to this company. They gave me a little slip of paper: "Here's where you have to go." They didn't tell me much about what I'd be doing. They said, "You'll be making some calls."

I showed up at this company and I guess that was my first experience working through a temp help agency. I didn't even think of it as a temp help agency, but that's how it worked: I saw the ad, made the call and went to that organization, which would be considered a temp help agency. They sent me to what is called a client-employer, where I was going to do that work. I arrived at that job and went down a number of stairs into a basement where they had set up a call centre. It was a telemarketing job. I got in there and there was little orientation, little training, little supervision.

They put me down at a desk and linked me up with a buddy. This young woman sat with me for about 30 minutes: "Here's how you've got to make the calls." I'm not going to tell you what I was selling out there, because I don't want to hurt the reputation of a large company that had employed this call centre to make calls for them to sell their product, but what I can tell you is that it was a horrific experience.

Nobody in that room made more than minimum wage—nobody. I am sure of this. When they talk about making $20 or $30 or $50 an hour and you see some of these ads, they are—well, I'm not going to use the word, but I can tell you that those ads are somewhat misleading to potential employees.

So I got in there and started making these calls, and I'm being hollered at by this individual who was, I guess, if you want to call him that, a manager of this call centre: "You got to make more calls; you never can take no for an answer. You've got to sell, sell, sell." Anyway, I put up with this. And about that individual, I felt that there was a case to be made there around violence and harassment. I'm delighted also that in this chamber, just the other day, we proposed legislation to deal with violence and harassment in the workplace.

That is very important, because I'm sure that this individual—today there would be a lot of calls coming in to my office at the Ministry of Labour about the types of practices that he was using to, as he would call it, motivate employees to do this work.

I lasted almost three days. Every day I said, "You know what? I can't do this. This is crazy, the type of environment that people are working under in this call centre." But as a young worker—I wouldn't call myself a vulnerable worker but a young worker—who was looking to make some money to be able to buy some of those things like the Sony Walkman or a pair of sneakers, or whatever it might be, I put up with it. By the third day, I said, "This is just unacceptable," and I walked away.

I called up the office that had sent me to this client business and said, "Will I get paid?" They said, "That's your problem, and you shouldn't have walked away. You should have finished the job. And no, you're probably not going to get paid."

I didn't do anything about it. I didn't know what my employment standards rights were. I just chalked it up to an experience that I did not want to go through again. And I am delighted that I am in this position today and have the privilege to be able to stamp out these types of practices and help those vulnerable workers, those employees who are out there looking to find a job—sometimes their first job.

Many of these employees are new Canadians just arrived here in Canada who don't know their rights, don't know that these types of practices are completely unacceptable and don't know where or who to call—where to get help. Bill 139, if passed, will change that for the better; it will bring accountability and transparency to the sector.

I also want to say that I have met with many, many great temporary help agencies that are doing all the right things. They are addressing employees' rights. They are ensuring that the workplaces that they are sent to are healthy, safe, clean, are holding to high standards. For all of them, this legislation would help in terms of levelling the playing field and weeding out those unscrupulous organizations out there that are deceiving employees, that are not treating Ontarian workers the way that we would like them to be treated.

As I said, the five main points that this legislation, if passed, would address—let's go back into what happened with my work experience through a temporary help agency 25 years ago. It will be completely different if Bill 139 is passed, because here's what would have happened. Let's rewind again.

I would have called this organization and would have gone in. They would have told me about the type of employment that I would be going to and the type of job that I would be going to. With this legislation, they would be mandated now to provide me information. I would have to know everything about the organization that I called—the temp help agency. They would have to provide me with the information of the client employer, where I was going to be going to work. When I say "the information," that's the address, the corporate name, the phone number, the person who is in charge there, all the information that any employee should have.

They would also provide me with hours of work, description of work and ,if possible, the length of my employment, the length of the contract—would I be working there for a week or would I be working there for three months? In some instances, it's not always possible, because it depends really on that business, and, depending on how busy they are, they may need you for a few days or they may need you for a few months. Sometimes they are unsure. But all that other information would have been provided.

Along with that information that would be provided to the worker that's working through a temporary help agency would be their rights in this province of Ontario, their employment standards rights. So I would have had that card. I would have gone to this employer. I would have seen right away that maybe the health and safety standards were not really up to scratch here. I would also have been able to address what was in my contract. If my contract said I'd be making so much per hour, I'd want to make sure that I was making that amount per hour.

There are things like the training that I would be receiving around health and safety, and information—when I left that job and walked away from three days of work, probably the hardest work I've ever had to do because of the circumstances—that company got my services for three days for free—for free.

Today, on that information card, I would have the number of the employment standards claims office. I would have picked up the phone and made a call, and I would have said, "I've done this job. Here's who sent me over there. I've not been paid for those three days of work." That claim would go in, and officers from employment standards would start to investigate and be able to try to recoup those funds.

I can tell you that millions and millions of hard-earned dollars by Ontario workers have been left behind this way, because employees don't know their rights and feel they don't have any other recourse. They don't want to stay in that employment, they walk and they leave that money to that employer, and that is absolutely wrong.

Today, you can go onto a website, 24/7, and make that claim very easily in the comfort of your home or at a library or wherever you have access to a computer. That will help, and we know it has helped, because the number of claims we got, once that online service was available, just jumped by thousands. It's actually something we are addressing, because we didn't know how popular or how much the service would be accessed. But I can tell you that it has been a tremendous success. Because of that, we have hired more employment standards officers to deal with those claims.

What we, in this chamber, can all be proud of is that those employees who would have walked away—because we know we weren't getting those many thousands of claims—are now able to recoup those hard-earned dollars. I think that's very important. It will make a big difference in their lives. So these are some of the changes.

Another one that, in my experience, was not really impacted—I wasn't looking for permanent employment; I was looking for a summer job—is around barriers to permanent employment. One thing, in the extensive consultations we had, speaking with employees and advocacy groups that are working on behalf of employees who work through temporary help agencies—is that they were feeling, and rightfully so, that they could never, ever secure permanent employment because they were being bound by contracts between the temporary help agency and the client's employer.

How these contracts work is that the temporary help agency makes a contract with ABC corporation, and within that contract they say, "Whatever employees we're sending you, if you one day decide to hire that employee, you're going to have to pay us so many hundreds or thousands of dollars to retain that employee as one of your permanent employees." Many organizations saw this as a barrier, and they weren't employing these terrific employees, even if they wanted to; they thought it was somewhat cost-prohibitive. And the employees also saw that as a barrier for them to make that jump to where there may be a perfect fit between that individual and that company.

Once an employee who is working through a temporary help agency starts with a company, from day one they may do a couple of days of work or they may do many, many months or years of work with that organization. They are now able, after six months, to become a permanent employee, and that corporation, that company—small, medium or large—has no contractual obligation to pay the temporary help agency any more dollars. That is one of the barriers that will be taken away if this legislation passes here in this chamber—getting rid of that barrier. We want to see people in meaningful employment.

We want to see workers across Ontario in permanent employment. We know it's good for helping strengthen and build our communities. It's good for family. When it's a permanent job, it's the type of job that gives people that security to be able to invest in the community, buy a residence, a house, and have some roots. We saw that as very important.

There was another issue that I found very, very alarming that came up, and I'm so delighted that this did not happen to me. Looking back 25 years ago, I could have been vulnerable to this.

It is where a temporary help agency puts up an ad, calls you in—lures you in—saying, "You're going to be able to make $20 an hour," or "You're going to make $1,000 a week." Well, for somebody who's a vulnerable employee or someone who's a vulnerable citizen, someone who is looking for any kind of work, or a student or a young worker who is thinking, "Wow, that much money, and I really need the job"—but then they bring you in and say, "Yeah, we are going to get you that job, but what you're going to have to do is, there is an upfront fee" of $500 or $100, or whatever the fee is, for that temporary help agency to go find you a job, to get you that job.

You have to pay to work. I think this is unacceptable. That practice would also be prohibited if Bill 139 were to pass in this chamber—another good thing that would help those workers that are working through temporary help agencies.

We've really brought a balanced approach to this, because we have worked closely with employees that have shared their stories and advocacy groups but we've also worked closely with ACSESS, which is an organization that represents many of the temporary help agencies. I think I've said in the chamber that I've spent more time with ACSESS than with pretty much all of the stakeholders that I have in labour. We spent many hours at the boardroom table at the Ministry of Labour discussing many of these issues so that we could bring forward that right, balanced approach, so we could get this right.

As I said, there are many, many temporary help agencies that are doing the right thing. They are upholding high standards. They are providing information today to their employees. When they're working with a company, they go in and check that company out and make sure that their standards—where that employee is being sent—are also of a high level. With them we can level this playing field in Ontario. We can weed out the types of companies that are now using these poor practices that are preying on vulnerable workers. We heard much of this through our committee hearings.

There were a number of amendments made. One was purely technical in nature, and was to clarify our intent that temporary help agency employees are afforded the same rights as other, regular employees. We put forward an amendment that would allow a temp agency to provide information on assignment orally.

I talked about what information they would get and I held my hands out like it would be a card or a paper information. Well, it will be. But what happens is, if you're working through one of these agencies, I understand the temporary help agency would make a call to your home and say, "You're going to a particular company." They may not be able to get you all that information on a card in a timely fashion because you may be off right the next morning.

They can provide that information orally first over the phone or through an e-mail or whatever, and then they can get you the information in short order so that you do have that card and you have all of the information that you need about that employer, the description of your work, the hours of work, etc., as I'd mentioned.

Another amendment came up, and this one deals with termination and severance. When we first introduced Bill 139, it contained a

section which stated that if a temp agency employee did not receive an assignment in a 35-week period, that the employee would be considered terminated. Well, during public hearings we heard that the 35-week period would have a negative effect on temporary help agency employees, and our intent has always been to treat temporary help agency employees exactly the same way that all other employees are treated in the province of Ontario. So as a result, we've amended Bill 139 to reflect the deemed termination periods in the Employment Standards Act.

If Bill 139 should pass, temp agency employees who have not had an assignment in 13 weeks out of 20 would be considered to be terminated. They would then be entitled to either notice of termination or termination pay and severance pay, if it is applicable. This is the same rule as for all other employees. These are the main amendments that were put forward during committee, and those amendments really touch on the value and the principle of fairness.

When we look at legislation at the Ministry of Labour, we always look at it through a number of lenses. One is fairness, and the others are health and safety for our workers, so this is the right approach. It is a fair approach and it treats those workers who are working through temporary help agencies the same as all other workers in Ontario.

One thing I failed to mention also is, in a regulation that we changed back on January 2 of this year—and prior to changing this regulation, there was something called "elect to work." What happens with "elect to work"—and we heard from many, many employees who worked with the temp help agencies and we asked, "How long have you been working with them?" "Well, you know, I have been working with them for five years. I have been with them for one year. I've been with them in all my employment here in this country.

For the last seven years I've been working through temporary help agencies." Well, for those seven years, or five or one or a number of months, that individual was not entitled to public holiday pay because of something called "elect to work."

We asked, "Do you really have the right to say, 'No, I don't want to take that assignment. I don't want to take that job' when your temporary help agency calls?" And I guess they do have the right to say no. But guess what? If you say no—I don't know if it's once or twice, but if you say no, because maybe you're sick, or because they call you at the last minute and you can't find child care, or you can't work things out with the family and other commitments that you have, you try to keep saying no, and what they say is, "That's it. You're not getting any more calls," and that job is pretty much terminated.

That's happening quite a bit out there. So you keep saying yes. Really, you're working consistently for these temporary help agencies. You're working for many—they've told us, "I've been working with them for one year, five years, seven years, and never received holiday pay—ever,"

whereas their co-workers and others in society are receiving holiday pay. Well, that changed on January 2, 2009. These workers now will receive their due holiday pay, and that is something we should also be proud of, if this legislation passes.

We don't want second-class citizens in Ontario. They work hard. They work consistently. They were being deemed "elect to work." We know, that in the vast majority of cases, that was not what was really happening because they felt compelled to go to work or not get any future work. That has been changed in terms of the elect-to-work provision.

Let's look at this piece of legislation not in isolation but as part of our poverty reduction strategy. I want to thank my colleagues, and in particular the Minister of Children and Youth Services for her support, her advocacy, her hard work and for the messages she has brought to me with her consultations on poverty reduction in the province of Ontario. She heard from many of those who are in poverty and working through temporary help agencies how Bill 139 would help them and their families a great deal in addressing their situation.

As part of the poverty reduction strategy, these changes through Bill 139 would provide enhanced opportunities for these workers. They would be able to give many of these workers hope. That is the type of Ontario I think all of us want to see, one where we work together, where there is a level playing field, where there is fairness. We're helping employees who have low incomes find security.

Can you imagine how stressful it must be for somebody who has worked for seven years jumping from job to job to job through a temporary help agency, never being able to find that permanent employment? When I say "difficult," not just difficult physically and financially, but difficult emotionally; the stress on an individual who doesn't know where they may be after three weeks of employment, who doesn't know if they will have a job after that.

Even if they've had such a wonderful work experience with an employer, that employer, having a contract with an agency that maybe prohibits them, because of the financial constraints, hiring that person permanently—these changes will make a world of difference to an individual like that, a vulnerable worker. That individual will also make a difference to our communities and the type of communities that we're trying to build in this province.

I want to say that since 2003 at the Ministry of Labour, I, with my predecessors, under the leadership of the Premier, our government and our caucus all working hand in hand—we've done a lot to modernize labour standards in the province of Ontario. We have done that always looking out for the welfare of our workers because they build this province. They are the ones we work for. They are the ones who pay taxes. They are the ones we have the honour and privilege of being here for, to be able to provide those health care services, educational opportunities and quality of life in all parts of this magnificent province that we live in.

That modernization has been one where we have, today, the best labour relations that we've had in 30 years, where we have made numerous amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address health and safety in the workplace—there is legislation that is going through the House right now that, as I mentioned, was just introduced this week to address violence and harassment in the workplace, another initiative that will help in terms of creating the environment, the climate that we want to see in our workplaces.

The employment standards I mentioned in terms of the modernization of the employment standards: We always try first to work through awareness, education, information, working in partnership with employers, employees, trade unions and labour, all working together because we understand that we are all in this together in what we're trying to build here in Ontario, which is a place where people can have opportunity, be able to hope and dream and see a better life for themselves and their children, and strengthen their community.

That's why, with that work, because we've worked in partnership—we've worked together; we've worked as a team—we have those types of labour relations here in this province that we haven't seen in 30 long years. Because of that hard work, we've been able to modernize labour standards when it comes to occupational health and safety, when it comes to employment standards to safeguard our employees, and ensure that they understand what their rights are as employees—and employers also, so that they know what their responsibilities are.

But we do that always through consultation, through listening to all stakeholders, making sure that we have the right approach and that we get it right, because what we are safeguarding is our most precious resource in this province, and that's our people. We want to ensure that when millions of Ontarians leave their homes every day, shut their doors and go to work, whatever work that may be—it may be in health care, manufacturing, education or construction—they come home safe and sound. That is something that sits with me every minute of every hour of every day.

The privilege that we have to be able to protect millions of people is second to none, and they deserve that. They deserve that because they work very hard, they pay their taxes, and we want to have them continue to work and be productive. But the best way that we can be productive in this province is to stay healthy and to be safe.

I can tell you, the hardest thing about being in this job as Minister of Labour—the hardest thing that I've had to experience has been with my BlackBerry. Predecessors of mine would know this and others may know this, but as Minister of Labour, whenever there is a fatality in this province, when a worker is killed, automatically I get a BlackBerry message. Those are the most difficult messages to read. They are messages of tragedy, messages that you know will impact the family and friends of the individual and the community forever. They will be impacted forever.

Last year, there were 100 of those messages that came in to Ministry of Labour BlackBerries. This past year, that number has dropped. It has come down to 78, which is good. That's a positive trend. But in my opinion—and, I'm sure, in the opinion of everybody in this House—not one message should come in. Not one is acceptable. What is the number? Is it 50, is it 30, is it 20, is it 100? It shouldn't be one; it should be zero. The number should be zero.

That's why we take this very seriously. We want to make sure that our young workers, inexperienced workers and veterans are safe and healthy in their workplaces—and there are some very dangerous workplaces out there. We understand that. We have people who work in construction, mining, health care or education. It really doesn't matter where you work. Every place has risks, and what we say is that those risks have to be assessed and best practices put into place so that we don't continually hear about individuals who have been killed or injured in the workplace.

We have much more work to do, and we will continue to do that work. We'll roll up our sleeves. There are some out there that do not want to implement those best practices, and that's why we've increased the number of inspectors at the Ministry of Labour. Those inspectors go out, first, always to work with employers, with education, with best practices, working through our health and safety associations that have a sectoral approach and can help that employer in whatever sector it may be. That's what we're there to do—to help.

But when that work is not done and we find that there is equipment that is unsafe, when we find that there are business practices that are putting workers at risk, that's when our inspectors have to do a job of issuing orders, making sure that change is going to take place in that workplace, so that individuals are safeguarded. That is the right thing to do if we want to build a province that is one of fairness, one that has the values of compassion, one that understands that our people are the number one reason we are here in this chamber and why we work as hard as we can to ensure their health and safety.

I want to commend the 430 inspectors who are out there working on behalf of the Ministry of Labour across this province for the work they do with employers and on behalf of all Ontario workers to make sure that there are safeguards in place so that the millions of hard-working Ontarians go home to their families safe and sound each and every day.

By having all the members in this chamber support Bill 139, we will be helping the many thousands—actually, millions—of workers who do temporary employment; I understand it's 11% of our workforce. We will be helping those millions of employees in order to give them hope, to safeguard them, to ensure that they are not treated as second-class workers, to make sure that barriers that are before them today are taken away, to let them know that they are part of a province that believes in fairness and that they are being treated with dignity and respect.

On that note, I want to thank all the members in this chamber, those who were at committee and all those who may be watching today—the advocacy groups, the employers we met with and the associations—for their hard work on this piece of legislation. If it passes, we can all be very proud that we're building the type of province that we want. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Before I go on to the next speaker, I will stop the clock and take a moment to welcome to Queen's Park Mr. Larry O'Connor, who served as the MPP from Durham—York in the 35th Parliament and is now the mayor of Brock.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I'm proud to speak on Bill 139, a bill that would enhance Employment Standards Act protections for temporary help agencies. I hope our government can count on all members' support, as it affects some of the most vulnerable in our society: women, new immigrants and visible minorities.

The standing committee has now completed its public hearings and clause-by-clause review of the bill. I had the privilege of participating in this committee. We heard from a number of delegations. I'm now satisfied that our bill provides a balanced and fair approach to the needs of employees in the temporary help agency sector.

Two years ago, I introduced a private member's bill on this issue. I am very proud to have led the consultations on this issue as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, and I'm proud that our government has taken up the cause of these vulnerable workers. They are excessively represented in the lowest-paying and most insecure forms of work. I believe that Bill 139 would help provide much-needed oversight in this industry.

Bill 139 would remove some barriers to permanent employment that are impossible for employees of temporary agencies to overcome. Agencies would not be able to prevent a temporary employee from taking a permanent job with a client. Agencies would not be able to charge temporary-to-permanent fees to a client after six months or more have passed since the employee was first assigned to the client. They would never be able to charge the employee a temporary-to-permanent fee.

Bill 139 would also put an end to the unscrupulous practice of charging people a fee just to be considered for an assignment. It would prohibit charging fees for such items as resumé preparation and job interview preparation. People being charged these fees are frequently at the end of their tether and desperate for work. They should not be forced to decide between feeding their kids and getting a job—not in Ontario.

The bill would also strengthen employment standards protections for temp agency employees. Sometimes, vulnerable workers won't make complaints because they're afraid of repercussions if they do so. Bill 139 would prohibit client agencies from engaging in reprisals against assignment employees for asserting their rights. The agency, as the employer, would continue to be prohibited from reprisals against employees.

I have heard many stories of people not being able to get wages owed to them after they have worked for a temp agency. Under Bill 139, the Ministry of Labour could require the client of an agency to give monies it owes the agency to the ministry if an employee has not been paid. The ministry would, in turn, give the employee the wages he or she is owed. This may make it easier for them to get the money owed if the agency fails to pay.

I have been involved with this issue for a number of years. I have received many complaints of fraudulent, fly-by-night employment agencies and I've heard endless horror stories as a result of the questionable practices of fly-by-night, fraudulent employment agencies.

This bill would level the playing field for agencies that obey the law and have practices that are fair to employees. We have to protect people who face tremendous barriers to exercising their rights. Bill 139 would go a long way to help ensure that temp agency workers enjoy the same protections as other regular workers. These are important changes to the Employment Standards Act. These changes are one of the first steps our government is taking in its poverty reduction strategy.

These are changes that would help some of the most vulnerable workers in our province, workers with little employment security and low incomes. They, like everyone else in our province, deserve dignity and respect. I fully support Bill 139 and I urge all members to support this legislation so that it can become law and those who have turned to us for help will receive it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: It's interesting listening. I want to pick out one line from what the minister had to say, and that is something that we can all agree on, which is that the most important asset that we have in Ontario is our people. That's absolutely true; I don't think anybody from any side of this House would have any disagreement with that. So I don't understand why it is that we keep debating legislation that, given the framework of the times, stands to hurt so many people.

I have spoken to stakeholders, particularly in my own riding of Thornhill, who are involved in the temporary agency business, and what I'm hearing is that temporary agencies, at this point, are doing land office business for one primary reason and that is that the disappearance of so many permanent jobs in Ontario has put people in a position where they have no alternative but to go to temporary agencies to find ways to feed their families.

The concern that I have about Bill 139 and that I'm hearing from the temporary agency community is that in implementing the kinds of standards that are being discussed, forcing accounting and accrual mechanisms to be put into the temporary agency framework that are not there now, will result in temporary agency work—three-month contracts, that kind of thing—out of the province. These contracts will go to other provinces or they will go to the United States.

Given the time, I could provide individual examples, and probably will in debate, the point being that in trying to address that issue of the most important asset in our province being its people, you have to take into account what you're trying to do and when you're trying to do it. I think that Bill 139 needs a very good look at the committee level and a real review before it's enacted, because it may actually hurt the people it sets out to help.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I too listened with interest to what the Minister of Labour had to say, as well as the member from Brampton West. Bill 139 talks about temporary agencies. Some of the comments made by the minister really apply to temporary workers. Only some temporary workers are really placed by an agency. A lot of organizations, agencies and employers out there have and continue to have temporary workers. This bill will do nothing to prevent them from being treated, using the words of the minister, as "second-class citizens."

The bill has made some steps forward to prevent all sorts of exploitation of people by temporary agencies—we talked about the fees, the back pay, the severance—but it also leaves huge gaps that would allow temporary agencies who place full-time workers to basically shift what they're doing to avoid being covered by this law. At the core of it is that when we talk about the millions of people in precarious employment, the people placed by temporary agencies are only a small part of the millions of people in Ontario who work in precarious employment and for which this bill will do nothing.

So we will continue to have what the minister is trying to avoid: millions of people who will be treated as second-class citizens because they will continue to be temporary workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Johnson: I would like to thank the Minister of Labour, the member from Brampton West, the member from Thornhill and the member from Nickel Belt for their comments on the bill, in particular the Minister of Labour for his compassionate comments and the history that he provided of his own experiences going through this.

I was fortunate to be able to sit in on one of the public hearing sessions two weeks ago. We heard from many people involved in the temporary employment side of things and some of the issues that they have had to deal with.

I think we all have to agree that the temporary agencies provide a valuable service, especially in these times of economic challenge when so many people are searching for employment. Many of our young people rely on temporary agencies right now to get their foot in the door, and it provides them with job experiences.

But we have to protect our most vulnerable workers to make sure they've got the protection in place so that they can get the experience and not be mistreated in the workplace. With this bill we are making sure that they are not unfairly prevented from accessing permanent jobs, by removing a lot of the barriers that they face at this point in time: prohibiting temporary agencies from charging fees to workers for such things as resumé writing and interview preparation.

My own daughter has experienced this herself, and it's not right that you should have to pay for any kind of service like this when you're getting a job. If temporary workers have done a good job in their temporary placement and they've now come to the end of the term, if there are fees charged that would prevent them from gaining permanent work at this point, it's unfair.

I believe that this act, although any piece of legislation may not be perfect, definitely makes steps in the right direction, and I support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd first like to recognize the Minister of Labour's remarks on this temporary employment agency bill. More importantly, because the Minister of Labour is here, I'd like to recognize all of the retirees from General Motors who are here to watch the Minister of Labour really also explain to them how come there are no jobs.

We are talking about temporary jobs; we're lucky to have a job in this province today, and this bill does not do exactly what it says. If you look at

section 74.2, if I read it, I think the member from Nickel Belt had it right. This part of the bill "does not apply in relation to an individual who is an assignment employee assigned to provide professional services, personal support services or homemaking services as defined in the Long-Term Care Act, 1994 if the assignment is made under a contract." So there are exemptions in the bill. Let's be honest with the people of Ontario: The exemptions are government employees, basically. You are the one that actually is the employer in long-term care and CCACs. Yes, you are. If you don't know, you should know, and if you don't know, you shouldn't be the Minister of Labour.

That being said, I am for fairness with employees including, on this side, fairness in contract relationships with employees. Those contracts were made in good faith. Some do want temporary work and some are facilitated by a contract agency—often, indeed, nurses who don't want to work certain periods of the year or certain times of the day, or they want certain types of work. Maybe these agencies can do a decent job. But I think people should be covered by the Employment Standards Act. I don't think there should be any exemption for that.

This afternoon we are going to be having questions directed at the Premier or the Minister of Finance to treat the conditions of employees fairly. That's really what's required in Ontario, to treat people fairly, and this bill does part of that but it doesn't complete the job.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Minister of Labour, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for Thornhill, the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and the member for Durham for their comments. I'll just speak to how the member for Thornhill and the member for Durham from the Conservative Party here feel that there should be two classes of citizens in this province. Those who work through temporary help agencies—this is what they were saying here: They feel that they should not be treated fairly and they should not have dignity and respect within the workplace. We feel that that's not right, and we want to level the playing field for those workers working through temporary help agencies.

I'm speaking to the gallery that is here today, and I welcome you. Thank you very much.

I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for her comments, but she may not understand the legislation as well. The legislation has put in place the elimination of barriers to those workers; has taken away the elect-to-work that was before them also so they would not get holiday pay; has ensured that they can now move from temporary employment to permanent employment without barriers or restrictions; and has made sure that termination and severance pay are the same as for all other workers in Ontario. They will be treated exactly the same now as all workers in Ontario, and we feel that is fair and the right thing to do.

I want to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for his hard work on committee, for understanding the issues very well and for understanding that we're working with both employers and employees to make it right for all workers in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. I just remind honourable members to speak through the Chair, not directly to the gallery, especially today, as the galleries are likely to be full.

Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to stand down our lead speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is it agreed? Do we have consent to stand down the PCs' lead speaker? Agreed.

Further debate?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'm pleased to stand and give some comments on this piece of legislation. It was interesting listening to the Minister of Labour speak to this bill and speak about the experiences that he had as a student working for a temp agency. There was a certain amount of—he wasn't treated very well in that experience, and I can well understand that. I would agree with the minister that temp agencies—in fact, every agency, every employer in Ontario—should live up to the Employment Standards Act in this province.

Unfortunately, this bill that is being brought in isn't necessarily going to do that, first of all, and secondly, he's using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. The effect of this bill is going to be that it is going to drive employment out of this province at a time when we desperately need employment of all sorts.

We would love to have employment at the higher salaried levels, at the higher payment levels. There's an interesting statistic that I would hope isn't lost on the government. We were living in a different world then, but in 2007 there was a statistic that the average wage in Ontario was $6,500 less than it was in the United States. How that $6,500 related to the revenue stream that the government has was that if Ontario's average salary was $6,500 more, the government would reap $29 billion in tax revenue—$29 billion more. So higher wages are a good thing; they're a good thing for government.

Imagine what we could do with an additional $29 billion that is there with very little effort and no expenses, other than the creation of higher-paying jobs. This bill is not going to accomplish that.

If you can imagine a company that imports products from the Far East: They come in and they need repackaging. They come in on a sporadic basis. If it's a clothing item, for instance, it might come in at this time of year. It might be, let's say, golf shirts. They come in and they need to be repackaged, put in different sizes. That's something that takes perhaps two or three weeks, to handle a number of containers. Temporary workers might be hired to do that kind of work.

If we put barriers in front of those people to hire those temporary workers, if we make those temporary workers more expensive to hire, it is easy for those companies to move their location, to move their place of operations to the port of arrival of that container. That container may arrive in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey; it may arrive in Halifax; it may arrive in St. John's; it may arrive in Vancouver; it may arrive in various places across this country. Once it's in a container, it can move to various places across this country. It's very easy for that to happen.

The distribution from those major cities where containers arrive to the rest of Canada can also be done very, very easily. The truck communications and the rail transportation that we have across this country are highly sophisticated and can handle a lot of those situations, so it's very easy for those companies to move. Capital has wings and it travels easily. It travels no more easily than in industries that hire at the lower end of the wage spectrum because in the lower end of the wage spectrum, there is a dearth of capital involved. The capital that is involved is tied up in the goods that are coming into the country. Those situations will be leaving Ontario under this bill.

Couple that with this government's action on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regulations that were brought in last year, where the cost to an independent builder or construction company is probably $11,000 a year, minimum, and that's an additional cost to those companies. That's something that is going to make their life more difficult to exist in Ontario in a very, very difficult economic time.

Add to that the continuing increase in minimum wage. Let me be clear. I would love everyone to make $50 an hour. It's just not possible in a real world for those kinds of things to happen. You have to be competitive with other jurisdictions. I've prefaced my opening remarks to say what a great thing it would be for this province and for this country to have our average wage much higher than it is.

But in order to do that we have to increase our productivity, we have to increase our competitiveness, and we have to maintain that competitiveness with other jurisdictions that right now, quite frankly, are eating our lunch because we are so uncompetitive in so many areas, which is why Ontario has the slowest rate of job growth or the highest rate of job losses in the country as we speak. That's a sad thing for Ontario, which has always led the way as far as job growth, economic investment and growth. It is a difficult thing when those situations face the once-great Ontario.

Of course, Ontario also became a have-not province on the first of April. The federal government gave Ontario $14 million in subsidies as a have-not province for the first time in Ontario's history. On April 1, they gave us $14 million. It's the only time that the provincial government has ever received that kind of money, and this government didn't take advantage of it with a photo op. There was no photo op for the $14 million that was handed over by Ottawa to Ontario on April 1. It's amazing that that photo op was missed by this government. Apparently they were hoping that no one would notice.

But the $14 million is the first time in Canada's history, in Ontario's history, that that kind of money has flowed from Ottawa to Ontario. That indeed is a very sad, sad thing for Ontario to be experiencing.

The industry is extremely concerned about the temp agencies. Yes, the minister had an experience with a temp agency that perhaps wasn't the best experience in the world. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to recognize that there are some agencies out there that take advantage of the regulations and the rules, and they run as close up to the line as they possibly can. But the vast majority of temp agencies are good, solid companies which treat their employees fairly. After all, their future depends on people who come and supply their labour and services.

They treat that raw resource, if you will, fairly and equitably in every way. That, of course, represents the vast majority of those agencies. I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that there are companies on the other side of that equation as well.

However, they are concerned about the direction that this is going in, and one of the key issues is the timing of this legislation. We find ourselves in Ontario, and in fact in Canada and the world, in an economic slump, in a recession that is said to be the worst that we're going to experience in our lifetime. It's the worst recession that we've seen since the 1930s.

Earlier this week, the Bank of Canada announced that its overnight rate will be reduced to a quarter of 1%, a record low. It said it will maintain that record low interest rate until the middle of 2010. That is a year and a bit out; it's a year and a quarter away. We're going to be looking at that one quarter of 1% interest rate—I think that's probably the longest period of time that the Bank of Canada has guaranteed interest rates in Ontario's and Canada's history.

It bespeaks the significance of the economic situation that we find ourselves in at this point in time—and this government is bringing in legislation to make it more difficult for people at the lower end of the economic scale to find work and to remain employed. So I have a great deal of difficulty with the timing of this particular legislation.

There are, I think, three major concerns that the employers and businesses have relating to this legislation. One is the continuance of employment while not working. This is a situation where a student is employed during the summer, finishes his employment and goes back to school but is deemed to continue to be employed, and there is some flow of money at some level to that employee even though he is no longer working. That's a cost to the companies which has never been part of the temporary workers' service, and that is of very real concern to their continued profitability.

The termination and severance situation is another one that gives them real pause. If you go back to the example of the breaking up of containers that I used earlier, and the distribution of golf shirts or any other widget that might come into this country, a worker who works there for two weeks in that distribution would be subject to termination and severance allowances. Even though he came to work knowing that it was a two-week job and the salary would be less than this, knowing everything about the situation that he faced, this bill would insist that he get more than he had agreed to.

That is a real concern, because that would make that industry just that much less competitive. So, off those jobs go to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and perhaps some of them would even end up in British Columbia.

The third real concern that the businesses have in this area is the regulating of business terms and client fees within the service agreements. This is where the government is involving itself in the agreements that people have in a contract and does nothing but add to the costs. The government is adding 100 inspectors in this area. Again, I have no concern with the adding of 100 inspectors to ensure that people are treated fairly and—I think I'm being cut off. I have no problems with people being treated fairly.

I do have a problem when that fairness adds to the cost of doing business in this province at a time when we should be encouraging employment, and encouraging employers, not discouraging them.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I'd like to ask all to join me in welcoming a good friend of mine whom I rode the buses with here to Queen's Park, a retired General Motors skilled trades worker, Mr. Roland Weigel.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I want the chamber to welcome a few thousand-plus auto workers, auto worker retirees, their friends and families, other trade union supporters and people advocating for pension protection who are in the chamber and gathered on the front lawn of Queen's Park today.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I am delighted today to introduce 46 people from the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings who have travelled—I think they started their journey at 6 o'clock this morning—to join us in the Legislative Assembly to see how our democratic system works.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: It's certainly my pleasure to welcome my daughter, Jasmine Mitchell, to the House today.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent to wear the green ribbons today in support of the Gift of Life campaign. The green ribbons will be provided to all the members. I believe we have unanimous consent.

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

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to welcome Bob Cassidy, superintendent with the Waterloo District School Board, who is joining us here at Queen's Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the Parliament of Australia, led by the Australian Senate president, Senator the Honourable John Hogg. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I would like to introduce Mark Douglas with us today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. One of the items of your budget bill that's causing concern, and rightly so, is the fact that you're providing yourself and your Minister of Finance unfettered access to the pension benefits guarantee fund, giving you the unilateral entitlement to top up the fund with taxpayer-funded grants that don't need to be repaid, the fact that you're changing it—I would suggest, under the shadow of darkness—from a loan to a grant for the purpose of apparently paying claims. In the same breath, you've stated emphatically that you have no intention of bailing out pensions with taxpayer money.

Premier, if that's the case, why are you ramming this budget bill through, giving yourself the entitlement to do just that? Why is it even in the budget in the first place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity; I had a chance to speak about this yesterday, and I'll speak to it again today.

There is a pension benefit guarantee fund in the province of Ontario. It was started in 1981. The upshot is that it's grossly underfunded at present and grossly inadequate when it comes to meeting pressing needs. There was some debate as to whether or not government had a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to provide additional funds to this particular pension benefit guarantee fund. We believe that is not the case. What we're doing, through our budget, is making it clear that we don't have that responsibility, but we are reserving the right, that maybe at some point in time it may be—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Perhaps my friends opposite are all-seeing and all-knowing with respect to all future circumstances. I'm not.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: "We won't do it but we want to have the right to do it": That sounds like a true Liberal. The Progressive Conservative caucus stands with, I think, all Ontarians on being concerned with this Premier and, some would suggest, a bankrupt conscience, saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite, which he's suggesting is quite appropriate right now. That's the case with the McGuinty sales tax, where you're talking to your caucus, saying one thing, and your minister was in Ottawa signing a deal.

Yesterday you said you reserve the right to make a contribution to the pension benefits guarantee fund—you just said that again—if it serves the public interest. We think the public interest would best be served if you provided an open and transparent mechanism to know why you're doing that.

Premier, if you're telling us today that you're not saying one thing and doing another, will you amend your budget bill to include a transparent reporting mechanism to the Legislative Assembly before the Minister of Finance can grant one taxpayer—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That sounds sensible to me, and I'm not sure why we can't do that, and when the Minister of Finance gets back from his trip, I will take it up directly with him. I'm just not prepared to say here today that there is no circumstance of any kind at any time that might arise—whenever—where it would not serve the greater public interest for us to put money into the pension benefit guarantee fund. Perhaps my honourable colleague can say he knows that with absolute certainty, but I can't.

What I have said is that, given the circumstances as I understand them today, our government is not prepared to do that. But there may arise a time in the future. I think my honourable colleague makes an interesting and, I would also argue, sensible suggestion, and we will seriously consider that.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: If it's a sensible suggestion, which we believe it is, why don't you make a commitment rather than suggesting you'll look at it? Given your sorry track record of saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite, I believe that Ontarians have a right to be suspicious. What are your real motives in shoving through this unilateral right for you to grant taxpayers' money to a fund that you said yesterday you won't top up?

If you're not hiding any motives here, will you commit with an amendment to your budget bill that you'll give full disclosure to the Ontario Legislature and to the Ontario public before you grant a single dime to the fund? This is taxpayers' money, not yours. Will you make that commitment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I'm not sure I can add much to what I've already said. I think it is a sensible suggestion. We will seriously consider it. I'm leaning toward it myself, but again, this is the first time I've heard it.

What I can say is that there is a broader pension concern here, and I would invite my colleague to give some thought to that as well as what we might do together—together with the federal government—when it comes to addressing the fact that there is a growing sense of income insecurity among all Ontario and Canadian retirees, not just those who have the benefit of pensions, either defined contribution or defined benefit pensions, but for the 65% or so of Ontarians and Canadians who don't have any pension.

We need to figure out a better way to ensure that, as all of us get on in age, we're going to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living in retirement.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Premier: Not too many years ago the Premier said, and I'm quoting from Hansard: "'Public hearings'; those two words go together nicely if you believe in true democracy." As you know, Premier, the Progressive Conservative caucus requested public hearings on your budget bill. We proposed public hearings—that's your definition of true democracy—in hard-hit communities like Goderich, Guelph, Peterborough and North Bay, communities that have lost thousands of jobs, and what was your answer, Premier? You slammed the door in our face and in the faces of all those hard-hit communities.

You and your sheep-like backbenchers voted it down. Premier, do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've had an opportunity to have some extensive debate on our budget bill. We're looking forward to holding committee hearings as well. I'm not sure there was ever any more extensive consultation conducted by any previous Minister of Finance at any time. Obviously, given the state of our economic challenges—this being the biggest economic crisis in some 80 years—it was very important that there be a thorough level of consultation, including inviting—for the first time ever, to my knowledge—direct contact with the leaders of the opposition parties in meetings with the Minister of Finance.

We think it's very important for us to move forward as quickly as we can, allowing, of course, for these committee hearings to take place, and we look forward to engaging in that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Many areas in this province are suffering under your watch. In Huron—Bruce, 500 jobs disappeared when Volvo closed; 200 jobs with CanGro closures; 170 jobs when Wescast Industries and Dunline Rubber closed; in Guelph and Wellington, W.C. Wood, 200 jobs lost; Better Beef, 360 jobs lost; Imperial Tobacco, 550; ABB Manufacturing, 280 jobs lost.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, Premier, with respect to job losses, yet the members representing those areas followed your orders, Mr. True Democracy, and voted against public hearings in their ridings.

Premier, perhaps the Speaker will allow this: What's your definition of true democracy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think one of the things that Ontarians want us to do is to bring what assistance and what solutions forward that we might in response to this economic challenge. That's what our budget represents. It's an effort to build both a more caring and a more competitive Ontario.

The business concerns that my colleague raises are real, and nobody can deny that. That's why we plan to reduce business taxes in the province of Ontario. That's why we intend to reduce taxes not only for our corporations, but for our small businesses as well. That's why we want to get on with our budget. That's why we want to move forthwith in an effort to bring that assistance. We want to continue to make massive investments in infrastructure as well, so that we can create those jobs on the ground right now, in keeping with the intent of our budget.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The Premier gives very limited acknowledgment of the dire straits facing many communities and Ontarians today. Many individuals, families, communities, are facing unprecedented challenges. These are Ontarians who deserve to be heard, but your backbenchers have made it clear that obeying you and turning their backs on their constituents is their priority. Even your acolytes in the editorial offices of the Toronto Star can't believe how far you've drifted from your lofty rhetoric of just a few years ago.

Premier, will you reconsider? Accept our proposal for extensive public hearings on your budget bill. Do the right thing.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: For months, my honourable colleague has accused us of failing to take action in the face of a serious economic crisis. So we tabled a budget in this Legislative Assembly. It takes aggressive action in response to this economic crisis. It invests over $32 billion in infrastructure. It proceeds in a sensible way to reduce business taxes. It proceeds in a sensible way to provide tax relief to our families, especially our lower-income families. We now decide that we want to get on with this and bring that relief to the people of Ontario, and he says, "Slow down. You're moving too quickly."

I know where Ontarians stand: They want us to get on with this. They're out there on the front lines. They're experiencing the full consequence of this recession. They've charged us with bringing relief to them and bringing forward some kind of a solution. Our budget represents that relief and that solution, so we're looking forward to moving forward with it.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. In the gallery today, there are dozens of auto workers and pensioners, and there are thousands more outside. I ask this question to the Premier on their behalf and on behalf of all Ontario workers: How is it possible for this government to say to these workers, who have paid into pension funds their entire working lives, that it refuses to take action to ensure that they are going to get every last pension penny owed to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think one of the great Ontario and Canadian values that ought to inform this debate, of course, is fairness.

The first thing I'd like to draw to my honourable colleague's attention is the fact that, so far, Ontario taxpayers have come to the table with $1.3 billion—that's just of late—in order to provide assistance to the auto sector working here in the province of Ontario. We think the single most important thing we can do to help those retirees in the auto sector is to put their companies on a sustainable footing to make sure that they can continue to carry on business. That's why we brought $1.3 billion to the table. We've already put out $750 million that has flowed to the Chrysler corporation, and we look forward to continuing to work both with Chrysler and GM.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier knows that people are working hard all of their lives, and at the very least they should be able to expect, when it comes time to end those working lives, that they are going to be able to count on the retirement income that they have put away themselves over decades of time in the workplace. So I'm going to ask the Premier one more time: How does this Premier have the nerve to say to these hard-working Ontarians that their provincial government refuses to do whatever needs to be done to guarantee that their pensions are there when they need them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my colleague again that I think $1.3 billion is fairly significant, and I'm not sure that's the end of it; we'll have to wait and see how things unfold. But I can say to my honourable colleague that while it might be argued—and, in fact, I think it legitimately can be argued—that what has happened to the workers is unfair, I think we need to find a way to be fair in terms of the solution that we bring forward.

It's not just the CAW retirees that ought to concern all of us, but the fact that many pensioners, and the overwhelming majority of Ontarians who don't have the benefit of a pension, are staring into some considerable economic uncertainty in their later years. That's why I've asked Prime Minister Harper if he might not convene a national summit where we can come to grips with this together—all the provinces, all the territories, with our resources—to see what we might do to ensure that there's income security for our retirees.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government just tabled a budget bill that contains $4 billion in tax breaks for corporations that need it the least. It's going to take another $3 billion by adding 8% to things like home heating bills, gas for the car and even the morning coffee and doughnut, but there's no money in this Premier's budget to protect the pensions of the people in these galleries and millions of Ontarians like them. Whose side is this government on? Because it is certainly isn't on the side of hard-working women and men across the province.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are, I guess, a few solutions that might be considered, and I just think we should be fair in terms of considering the consequences of the solution put forward yesterday by my honourable colleague. She says that we should create a CPP equivalent here in the province of Ontario. Were we to do that, it would require that we take 5% off every paycheque and business—that every paycheque for every employed person would be reduced by 5%, and businesses would have to pay another 5% on top of that. If you're self-employed, the NDP want to take another 10% off your paycheque. So that's one solution.

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, she should understand the consequences of whatever she proposes. If we're talking about creating a CPP equivalent in the province of Ontario, sometimes it's important to think before you speak. It requires an additional 5% cost to employees and an additional 5% cost to employers. Those are the consequences of what she is proposing.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: This is a sorry and shameful spectacle that we're seeing from this Premier this morning. There is a fund whose sole purpose is the guaranteeing of Ontario's pensions. For five years now, New Democrats told this Premier that the fund is full of holes, that its funding is inadequate. We told him clearly that if bad times hit, the whole thing was going to come tumbling down like a house of cards. Why didn't he listen then and why isn't he listening now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: When it comes to the auto sector in particular—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think one of the things of which we can be proud in Ontario is that we are the only subnational government anywhere in the world which is stepping up and taking some responsibility and making some considerable effort for our auto sector. There is considerable support for the auto sector being offered in Japan, in Germany, in many parts of Europe, in the Scandinavian countries, of course in US and in some parts of South America. But there's only one subnational jurisdiction in the world which is also saying, "We want to be there and we want to do our part," and that's us.

As I say, we've made a commitment of $1.3 billion. We've disbersed $750 million already. I think that is considerable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is acting like he hasn't been in government for the past five years—and he has. He's had all that time to fix this problem. He knows that the monthly guarantee of $1,000 is wholly inadequate and should be raised to $2,500. He knows that the formula for financing the fund is totally broken. He should have fixed it when we had good economic times. How can he possibly stand here in this House and continue to claim otherwise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure if during the previous five years there was ever a single reference by any member by the NDP to the pension benefit guarantee fund and now it's become a very important issue.

I want to remind my honourable colleague that we are anticipating that the economy in Ontario will contract by—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Bob Rae, that SOB.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Welland will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I withdraw. I sob for Bob Rae.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are warned by the official opposition that we ought not to put a single penny more into the pension benefit guarantee fund. We hear from the NDP that we should throw caution to the wind and throw as much as it takes into the pension benefit guarantee fund. On this side of the House we have a responsibility to be balanced and to try to be fair. I think the single most important thing that we can do for those CAW workers is to put those companies on a sound financial footing—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What we are talking about here is the retirement income of hundreds of thousands of retirees in this province, and it is owed to those workers—to Ontario workers, some of whom have given their lifetimes to their employer. This government's response? Shut down the debate on its flawed budget bill—a budget bill that contains harmful changes to the very fund that's supposed to be guaranteeing those pensions for those workers. With so many workers and pensioners worried about their economic security, how can this Premier continue to defend his government's approach?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague is mistaken in terms of the response that we're putting forward. Our response is to do everything we can to keep these companies alive. Every time we have worked with the auto sector in the past, made shared investments in the past, the NDP voted against that kind of support and those kinds of partnerships. I have yet to hear them say that they are in favour of the $1.3 billion that we are tendering, that we are putting forward, to support the auto sector in the province of Ontario.

If you were to ask the retirees, they would agree that the single most important thing we can do to provide them with the security, the confidence and the reassurance that they're looking for is to put those companies on a sound financial footing. That remains our single most important objective, and we will not stop until we succeed.

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. You've heard of Joe the plumber? I want to introduce you to Mark the painter. Mark, stand up. Mark Douglas lives with his family in Georgetown. He owns his own business, goes to work every day, pays his taxes and hopes for a better future for his family, his community and his province. Last year, the Minister of Finance wrote to Mr. Douglas promising him that Ontario "would not agree to harmonizing the GST if that would increase the tax burden on Ontario taxpayers, particularly with respect to basic essentials such as home heating."

Premier, why did you force your Minister of Finance to break his promise to Mr. Douglas and the people of Ontario?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: Let me say at the outset that I'm happy to work with the member with respect to the gentleman who is in the gallery and—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please.

We welcome all of our guests to the Legislature to observe the proceedings, but we just ask that you not participate in the proceedings as well.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is remarkable that we have a situation here where, in fact, everybody from Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on the one hand to the vast majority of jurisdictions on the other hand support this particular tax approach. Why? Because we are an export-oriented jurisdiction and, as an export-oriented jurisdiction, particularly with respect to Quebec, we don't want companies having to pay twice. This will make our province even more competitive. It will strengthen our economy. It will allow for more growth. I say to the member it is absolutely, without question—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Renfrew will withdraw his comment, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The only thing that this tax will do with regard to economic development is destroy economic development in the province of Ontario. I'd like page Cameron to deliver this letter over to the Premier so he can see it for himself.

I'm privileged to represent Mr. Douglas and the rest of my constituents in this Legislature. Premier, you should listen to Mr. Douglas, if you won't listen to your own backbenchers. He says your new 13% tax is yet another broken promise. He says it will ruin businesses like his; it will dramatically increase the price of fuel; it will drive legitimate businesses into the underground economy.

Again, Premier, why are you ignoring legitimate concerns like these? Why did your government break a written promise to Mr. Douglas?

Hon. Michael Bryant: What has happened to the Conservative Party of Ontario? The Conservative Party used to care about the economy. The Conservative Party used to support the kind of tax changes that would grow business. This is the Conservative Party that up until the tabling of the budget supported harmonization of taxes. This is the party that used to support tax cuts. Now we have a situation where the government of Ontario brings in tax changes called for by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, by everybody, from Roger Martin of the Martin prosperity institute to every leading economist in Ontario, yet this party is against those tax cuts.

We're in favour of growing the economy. We will do so with these tax changes. I honestly don't understand what has happened to the Ontario Conservative Party.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Not only is the existing pension system in crisis, but there is also the ongoing crisis of those who don't have any coverage at all. On the Liberals' watch, those with any sort of workplace pension have declined to less than 35%. An increasing percentage of those with pension coverage don't have defined pension plans anymore.

What does this government intend to do about the 65% of Ontarians who have no pension plan whatsoever and face a retirement without dignity and security?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague makes a good point, but I would ask him to grab some time with his leader. We need to reconcile their competing demands. The fact is, they're not easy to reconcile, but I will also say there is some legitimacy to both those concerns. We do have a concern about the CAW retirees, for example, and we do have some concerns about all those retirees who don't benefit from any kind of pension.

I think we've always proven, as Ontarians and as Canadians, that we are at our best when we approach these massive challenges together. This doesn't just affect retirees in Ontario, it affects retirees right across the country, and that's why I'm asking Prime Minister Harper to convene a national summit where we can come together and begin to come to grips with this challenge.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: What I take from that answer is that the government has absolutely no idea how to expand coverage in this province. New Democrats believe that every worker in this province should be covered by a workplace pension plan. New Democrats believe that after a lifetime of hard work, the least we owe Ontario workers is a retirement with dignity and security. New Democrats believe that there are very concrete things that can be done to expand coverage and that the 65% of Ontarians who have no coverage, can't afford to wait any longer.

How can it be that after more than five years in office, this government has no plan to make sure that the 65% of Ontarians who have no pension plan can retire with dignity and security?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my colleague offers no suggestions with respect to where the money would come from to help folks who find themselves in difficult times in their retirement. I want to remind my honourable colleague that the economy, we project, will shrink by two and a half per cent this year.

I'll remind him that we're running some considerable deficits, that we're investing thirty-two and a half billion dollars into infrastructure, and that we've found a way to increase funding levels for education, for health care, for post-secondary education and for things like the Ontario child benefit and affordable housing. I would ask him, where would he find the funds necessary to invest in making our retirees more secure at this point in time? I think it's a big challenge; I think we need to come together nationally to solve it.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Two shootings in the span of the last 48 hours have deeply affected the community of York South—Weston. The first incident on Tuesday evening has claimed the life of a 19-year-old man, and from media reports I understand that the victim was shot several times in the back. Yesterday evening, another young man was shot several times in the head and in the leg near a bus shelter, and he is fighting for his life.

Minister, my riding has had a very high incidence of violent crimes in the past year. Gun crime on our streets affects not just those who are involved, but also people who are just going about their everyday life. The community has been working very hard to find solutions. What measures is our government taking to tackle these appalling acts—

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank Mrs. Albanese, the member for York South—Weston, for the question and for being such a very, very strong advocate for safety in her community. I would also like to offer our collective condolences to the victims and to the entire community of York South—Weston.

Our government is committed to keeping communities safe, which is why we've made substantial investments into specially targeted initiatives. Our unprecedented $74-million guns and gangs program includes the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy. That's known as TAVIS, and TAVIS incorporates officers from the Toronto Police Services drug squad, guns and gangs task force and intelligence services, who work directly with communities so that a multi-pronged approach to tackling violent crime can be developed. Our government has also added—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I thank the minister for the answer, but I'm still deeply concerned about the residents of York South—Weston. My question is again directed to the Minister of Community Safety.

Statistics indicate that my riding is one of the most affected by crime and violence. As you can imagine, I too often hear serious concerns about safety, security and violence in my community. I know that my constituents welcome the new 250 police officers in the city of Toronto. I'm also very glad to have learned from the Toronto Police Services that officers from the TAVIS community response unit will be assigned to our neighbourhood during the summer. While I'm happy about the work that is being done in my riding, I am still deeply concerned about the rate of violent crime in York South—Weston.

Can the Minister please tell this House what further action my community can expect to ensure their safety and their security?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I appreciate the member's concern for her community and I would like to assure her that our government remains committed to doing all we can to keep Ontarians safe. We will continue to develop strategies with our policing partners and other ministries to provide a multifaceted approach to tackling violence in our communities.

Ontarians concerned with gun violence expect their political leaders at all levels of government to proceed in a manner reflective of their concerns. Again, we call on the federal government for a handgun ban, for the continuation of the long gun registry, and we support the Canadian Police Association in their call for the federal government to live up to their commitment made in 2006 for an additional 2,500 new police officers on the streets of Canada. In the end, it's all about safety of Ontarians, and the McGuinty government is willing to work with everyone to ensure we achieve—

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

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, appeared before the standing committee on Bill 150. He asked that the province conduct a formal study into the health effects of wind turbines, since he has done a survey of people living near these turbines and found that the majority suffered from headaches, sleep disturbances and depression.

I ask you, Minister: Will you urge your Premier to do this in-depth analysis of the potential health risks of wind turbines?

Hon. David Caplan: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I have had the chance to meet with Dr. McMurtry, and the Premier has spoken with him as well. We know him to be an esteemed medical practitioner, one who has been extraordinarily dedicated to the health of people in the province of Ontario. That's why we think it's really very important as we move forward that the Ministry of the Environment, which will have responsibility for establishing things like minimum setbacks, has the advantage of all necessary health information on that basis.

Accordingly, we think that there is merit in making sure that we continue to arm ourselves with the best possible information to make those decisions. We will be working closely with the Ministry of the Environment to establish that in a fashion which offers strong protections both for the natural environment and certainly human health.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's regrettable that this government is not prepared to respond to the concerns of individuals like Dr. McMurtry. Certainly we read in the paper today and we hear on CBC that people share his concerns about the health effects of wind turbines. In fact, Minister of Health, your parliamentary assistant acknowledged on April 15 in London, in response to a very tearful presentation from the Ripley Group, that she was, "Sorry that the wind farm ... caused these health issues and caused grief for your families." Members of this group spoke of experiencing symptoms such as itching sore eyes, heart pounding, high blood pressure and irritability.

Minister, will you conduct a formal study into the health effects of wind turbines, as requested by Dr. McMurtry?

Hon. George Smitherman: We do want to thank all the members of the Legislature and especially the many people of the province of Ontario who came to offer views with respect to the implementation of renewable energy.

We do think that there's a lot of merit in the various positions that were brought forward, and we do agree most certainly that it's our obligation to make sure that, as we move forward with more renewable energy in the province of Ontario, we do so in a fashion which is complementary to health concerns—keeping in mind that, unlike that party, we're committed to eliminating coal, which is a very, very substantial health concern for people, causing at least 2,800 premature deaths in the province of Ontario. We've noted the reversal of policy on the part of that party in the debate so far.

But yes, we most certainly do think that it's important to inform ourselves with studies related to health matters. We think that Ontario is a big enough place that it's possible to both move forward with more renewable energy and certainly do so in a fashion which is consistent with protecting human health.

PENSION PLANS /

RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. M. le premier ministre sait que la garantie mensuelle de 1 000 $ est complètement insuffisante et devrait être augmentée à 2 500 $. J'aimerais lui lire ce qu'on a dans le Hansard.

A quote from Hansard from October 13, 2004, Ms. Andrea Horwath: "I call on the government today to act by immediately increasing the monthly amount guaranteed by the pension benefit guarantee fund from $1,000 to $2,500." I could quote again from May 15, 2005, and many more times.

Mais ce que je voudrais savoir—le premier ministre agit comme si ce n'est pas lui qui était le chef du gouvernement pendant les cinq dernières années, les années de prospérité. Il sait que la formule de financement du fonds est inadéquate. Ma question est la suivante : est-ce que le premier ministre va augmenter la garantie mensuelle à 2 500 $?

What I'm saying is, the NDP are asking that we increase the maximum benefit payable out of the pension benefits guarantee fund from $1,000 to $2,500 per month. We don't have the money to do that. That's the honest answer, with respect to that. I think that we can find a way collectively, as 32 million Canadians, in the face of this great challenge that is going to force some considerable difficulties on retirees right across the country. But we don't have the resources at this point in time to take this pension benefits guarantee fund and change it so that the maximum benefit goes from $1,000 to $2,500—

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

M me France Gélinas: J'apprécie un peu la réponse directe du premier ministre, qui n'est pas prêt—

M. Rosario Marchese: Pas beaucoup.

M me France Gélinas: Mais pas beaucoup, non. Les travailleurs du nord de l'Ontario sont inquiets face à leurs pensions, surtout ceux de l'industrie forestière, quand on voit plusieurs organismes qui font faillite. Puis, on voit également la décision du gouvernement d'arrêter les débats sur le budget qui, selon nous, a des défaillances, surtout parce qu'il contient des changements plutôt douteux face aux pensions.

Donc, ma question est : quelles sont les actions du premier ministre pour adresser les craintes des travailleurs—des travailleurs à la pension, des travailleurs à la retraite—dans le nord de l'Ontario ?

L'hon. Dalton McGuinty: Les inquiétudes qu'ont les travailleurs qui se trouvent dans le nord de l'Ontario sont presque les mêmes que celles de tous les travailleurs, regardless of where they happen to find themselves in the province of Ontario. I've had the opportunity just recently to visit northern Ontario once again. I visited a sawmill in Chapleau that is 51% owned by the First Nations community. We are pleased and proud to partner with them to strengthen that particular industry.

We've made investments in the forestry sector in general. We put a plan in place to provide about $1 billion in supports to the forestry sector. We'll continue to look for ways to support workers in northern Ontario.

When it comes to retirees in the north, they face the same kinds of challenges as retirees in the south, who face the same kinds of challenges as retirees right across this country. I think a national challenge demands—

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

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. My constituents are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits that they derive from buying Ontario food products. It's well known that food produced by Ontario's farmers is among the freshest, safest and best-quality in the world.

Our government took a major leap forward in supporting this movement when it launched the multi-year Pick Ontario Freshness strategy in 2008. Buying Ontario meat, eggs and dairy products supports local economies in rural Ontario and helps farmers get a fair price for their hard work. Buying Ontario food also helps to protect the environment, as the food has to travel fewer kilometres, therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Could the minister please share with this House what our government is doing this year to promote local foods and how our government is leading by example?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I appreciate the question from the honourable member, who does a great job promoting Ontario foods. Her family is responsible for producing some of it.

Our government has worked very hard with our industry partners, and they've told us that when we promote their products, that's good for their business. That is why our government has invested $8 million in our Pick Ontario Freshness branding and marketing campaign.

We have also invested $3 million in the Ontario market investment fund. This is a program that helps our agri-food industry groups and local food networks to develop ways that they can even better promote food from their region. We have also invested $1 million in our farmers' market strategy. And just this year, we have committed $8 million annually in new funding so that we can promote the purchase of quality Ontario foods by our public sector institutions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I know that the minister continues to work hard at fostering and cultivating partnerships in the agri-food sector. These partnerships between local producers, processors and grocers along the food chain are crucial to ensuring that Ontario's increasing demand for Ontario food products is met.

The Premier recently hosted our government's fifth Premier's Summit on Agrifood. This annual summit is an excellent opportunity for industry partners to network with one another and to generate new and exciting business opportunities. Farmers I've spoken with in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex appreciate the direction that our government is taking in partnering and working closely with them to meet the challenges that face their sector, while at the same time helping to advance new economic opportunities for farmers through our Buy Local strategy.

Could the minister please provide this House with more information about the strategy and the results that we've been seeing across the province?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think a very important piece of this is, yes, we have made and will continue to make significant investments in promoting Ontario food products. What I'm also very happy to announce today in the House or to relay to members of the public is that it is having an impact. We know that 96% of Ontarians recognize that Foodland Ontario is local, and that is up from 94% last year; 87% of principal grocery shoppers express a propensity to purchase Ontario foods; and 69% are aware of the broader range of Ontario food products beyond just fruit and vegetables and that it now includes dairy products, meats, deli and bakery, and that's an increase of 40%.

What's really significant as well is the Savour Ontario program, which is designed to promote Ontario foods in eating establishments in the province. The number of establishments has increased from 40 to 100. That's a 150% increase—

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

NURSES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm going to try the Minister of Health one more time. Ontario's registered nurses are gathering this week at their AGM, and in their press release they reiterate that you must live up to your commitment to fund 3,000 nurses immediately this year.

Minister, there is a nursing shortage. Will you listen to the RNAO, alleviate the strain being placed on nurses in their workplace as they attempt to provide the care patients need, and will you commit to fund what they're asking for—the 3,000 desperately needed nurses—immediately?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to reiterate the commitment that this Premier, this finance minister, this health minister and this government have made to our nurses. We have hired 10,000 to date. We are committed to hiring an additional 9,000 nurses. It will, regrettably, take us longer than we had originally anticipated.

But I want to speak very directly to the member's point because she regretfully omits a very important fact. If you were to go to Workopolis and look at nursing positions in the province of Ontario, currently, in April 2009, you would find 500 positions that are being sought for nurses to go to work in hospitals, in long-term care and in community care across the province of Ontario. I refuse to accept any lecture from this member, who was a part of a party that cut nurses, that compared them to hula-hoop workers—6,000 positions lost. Our record—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: This minister needs to stop playing politics. Personally, I am reading from the RNAO press release. It is you they are asking to live up to your commitment to fund the 3,000 nurses immediately. That's their press release; it's not mine. I would say to you, Minister, that we're also seeing layoffs of nurses in the province of Ontario. I ask you again: Will you listen to RNAO? They're going to ask you tomorrow when you and the Premier appear. It's their number one priority. Will you immediately live up to your promise to fund the urgently needed 3,000 more nurses?

Hon. David Caplan: I think it was very clear that the member had written her supplementary without, of course, listening to the answer, and I understand that the member is embarrassed by her sorry record when it comes to supporting the nurses of the province of Ontario. I accept no lectures from this member. I have been very upfront with our nursing partners that we are supporting them in a way they have not seen under a Conservative or New Democratic Party government. Ontario nurses know that we have put more resources behind them. They know that we have hired 10,000 nurses to date and we do have a plan to hire an additional 9,000 nurses.

Our budget very much spoke to the fact that in the face of the greatest global economic challenge in any of our lifetimes, we are continuing to support health care to the tune of a 4.7% increase this year over next. That includes hiring additional nurses, hiring nurses in hospitals, in long-term care and in the community.

I reiterate to the member: Please go to Workopolis. You will—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. According to the National Council of Welfare, a whopping 38% of elderly single women live in poverty in Ontario. This number means that more than a third of these women are struggling to put food on their tables and pay their bills in what should really have been their golden years. It is no surprise that elderly women have higher poverty rates. They also have much lower rates of pension support.

Does the Premier agree that elderly women should not have to live a life of poverty and that they deserve the dignity of a pension after a lifetime of work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member for his question. This government is very determined to fight poverty, and we have shown it in the six years that we have been in power, especially with the poverty reduction strategy.

We exclude no one. Older women are also included in the fight against poverty, and we are determined that we are going to help them. For those who need assistance, Ontario Works or ODSP is also available to them.

Every case is being looked at, and if they qualify; according to their criteria they will receive support from this government. We exclude no one in our fight against poverty.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Perhaps the minister didn't understand the question. This question is about them being in poverty because they don't have access to a pension, so I'll ask it a little bit differently.

The fact of the matter is that women are overrepresented in part-time employment, service and retail sectors. Even if they work their whole lives, that's where they work. Women represent two thirds of minimum wage earners and earn 29% less than men. The majority of women workers do not have access to a pension even after a lifetime of work.

My question is a tough one. It's not about welfare rates; it's about pensions. Will this government commit today to ensuring adequate pension coverage for all of Ontario's seniors, both women and men, so that they no longer have to live a life of poverty?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, it's a very good question. As a woman, I'm very concerned about the financial security of women. I know that when I visit seniors' homes, there are a lot of women who live on their old age pension and often live in poverty.

Your question goes above what this government can do. We need to look at pensions on the national scene, and that's what the Premier has suggested today. We should call a summit on pensions to ensure that people who are paying into pensions can receive them and those who are not can have security in their old age.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Source protection committees have been actively working across the province on plans to protect the sources of their drinking water. There are two committees active in my area: Saugeen, Grey-Sauble and Northern Bruce Peninsula, and Ausable, Bayfield and Maitland Valley.

Huron—Bruce is an agricultural region. Both of these committees have a strong and committed agricultural membership. Farmers are very good stewards of our environment, but they are concerned about how they will be affected by the Clean Water Act.

Minister, from the work done across the province so far, can you tell me how source protection will affect our farmers?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As the member knows, there are 19 committees working on these source protection plans for about 40 different source protection areas in the province. Most of these committees are finding, after they've been studying this for the last couple of years, that there are very few threats, in actual fact, even within the 100-metre zone around municipal wells across Ontario.

The policies that these source water protection committees are planning will be locally developed and will address significant drinking water threats. It's a science-based framework; it will concentrate their effort on high-risk activities. It's all about reducing risks to our groundwater and surface water. These committees are doing great work, and we want them to continue with the work so that they can plan for the areas around these municipal water wells.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister. I know that farmers will be pleased and reassured to hear that the work done so far indicates that the requirements resulting from source water protection planning will be reasonable and that the potential requirements would be based around what are already best practices. I know we all recognize the fact that manure and fuels that are improperly managed can be a threat to our water, and I am confident that the committees can find existing activities that are acceptable best practices and allow them to continue.

Minister, I know that we are only part of the way through the science-based assessments of threats to water quality and quantity. By 2012, committees will have completed source protection plans that must include policies and actions that need to be put in place to manage. As we move towards the full implementation of source water protection, what can farmers do to—

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: As the member knows, we've made funding available for the landowners to take such risk reduction actions in advance of the final source plans that are currently being done. As a matter of fact, $28 million was made available over a four-year period of time. This money has been made available since 2007, particularly for landowners who may eventually be impacted by the source water protection plans.

If a farm, for example, is located near a municipal drinking water well or a surface water intake, that farmer is eligible now for funding available through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to better protect the drinking water source. The ministry has funded about 400 of these local projects so far, and the program is being delivered by most of Ontario's conservation authorities.

As we're completing our consultations across the province, we are aiming to update this program so that we can make the funding available, particularly in those—

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

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you've been promising a new transportation funding formula for schools since 2003, yet you have delivered nothing while lurching from crisis to crisis. Under your watch, the needs of rural schools continue to be ignored. Our school transportation reality is something you just don't acknowledge.

Minister, how are you able to come up with millions of dollars for Toronto swimming pools but when it comes to getting our children in Renfrew county to and from school safely, you tell our boards to cut costs? Toronto gets pools while Renfrew county gets empty promises and ultimatums. Why?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I choose never to lurch.

We have an absolutely concrete plan. We've been putting more money into transportation since we came into office. In fact, this year alone we've increased transportation funding by almost $183 million; that's a 29% increase since we came into office.

What we have been doing across the province is working with boards and asking them to work together so that we've got kids on buses in a rational way, on routes that make sense to all of the community. We've got boards working in consortia. And in fact we're introducing a fuel escalator/de-escalator into the budget this year, which is something that bus operators and boards have been asking for so that they can have some predictability on what their fuel costs are going to be.

So, quite to the contrary of what the member opposite is saying, we've been working very closely with the boards and with the transportation industry to bring some rationality to school bus transportation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, Renfrew county pioneered the transportation consortia. They need no lessons from you.

You are mandating school boards in Renfrew county to cut transportation costs or face penalties. They are faced with making changes that could see some children waiting for the bus out on a dark rural road well before 7 in the morning. Some working parents, who have children who will be picked up at different times on two different routes, could be faced with making the choice between leaving young children home alone or leaving their jobs.

Minister, it's time for you to show some respect for families who live in rural Ontario. Will you get your priorities straight and stop putting Toronto pools ahead of rural schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I met this week with the Ontario School Bus Association. We have a very strong working relationship. We are asking boards to work together, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and that makes perfect sense for everyone across the province—not just rural kids, but kids in northern communities and kids in urban communities. What we've said to boards is that they look at the efficiency reviews and look at the work that has been done, and all we're asking in this budget is that they move to those levels of efficiency.

That means that the boards do need to work together and they need to come up with routing plans that make sense across a jurisdiction, because the fact is that buses going down a road can take kids that go to Catholic schools; they can take kids that go to public schools; they can take kids that go to French schools. We've been working with the boards, and we'll continue to work with those consortia. Those—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. I've asked the government repeatedly to bring Bill 6, which ensures that all laid-off workers get every cent of their severance, vacation and back pay they earned, onto the committee agenda for public consultation. The responses that I get have nothing to do with Bill 6, with wage security, with pensions or with my question. Auto workers I visited at Aradco in Windsor had to weld themselves shut inside the plant to get the company's and the government's attention.

I'll try again. I'll speak slowly for them. When will this Premier actually respond to my question and bring Bill 6 onto the committee agenda for public consultation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member must be aware that he would be burdening this province with what he is proposing with billions of dollars in extra taxes for our employers. That is not the right thing to do when we're trying to create jobs. What we have asked for is, with the bankruptcy and insolvency—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The answer to the member is to change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is under federal jurisdiction. We agree that the employees should be moved to super-creditor status. That is something that would go a long way to helping employees across this province.

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to congratulate the member from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for convincing the Conservatives to allow him back into the caucus—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. That's not a point of order.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1134 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm introducing—Speaker, they're not actually here yet; they're tied up with security, but I will get it on the record here: Mr. Brian Rutherford, Lynn McCullough, Jan O'Neil, Joe O'Neil and John Vanderhorst—just a few of the many who are here today to express displeasure with the government on the pension issue.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure today to rise to say that recently the Premier of Ontario has been giving Ontario citizens mixed signals on the future of Ontario. Today, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrators on the front lawn here representing union employees and other citizens of the province. They are very angry and upset at the uncertainty surrounding some of the important decisions in Ontario.

We all know that our economy is in rough shape. There are over 300,000 families with no paycheques. We also know that in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty just cut, ended and closed debate on the budget, with the remaining question of why. What is he hiding? We know that the budget has the slick plan to introduce the new Dalton tax of 13%. Why? And why at this time, given the economy and the jobless state?

I also raise the question about the pensioners. You, Premier, should have intervened five or six years ago, to be sure. Employers should be required to pay up. Why did you continue to ignore expert advice and not deal with the issue? You had the opportunity to require this to be addressed.

Who's in charge over there? What's the plan? Are you just going to let people sit in their own stew?

MARKHAM STOUFFVILLE HOSPITAL FUNDRAISER

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I recently attended the Pakistan National Day gala in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. The purpose of this event, which consisted of a wonderful evening of dinner and entertainment, was to raise public awareness and funds for the Markham Stouffville Hospital expansion. The Herculean efforts of the Pakistan National Day gala celebration committee raised the extraordinary sum of $500,000 for the hospital. This was the organizing committee's seventh fundraising dinner for the Markham Stouffville Hospital, and, as always, it attracted a wide range of business, professional and community leaders.

Markham Stouffville Hospital was built to provide care to a community of 110,000 people in 1989 and currently serves a population of 300,000. It has long had a profound impact on my community and urgently needs to expand. Over the years, it has received funding from a number of sources, including individuals, community organizations, businesses and, of course, the government of Ontario. The decision of the organizers of the Pakistan National Day gala to assist the Markham Stouffville Hospital reflects the sense of community felt by our Canadian-Pakistani neighbours.

I commend the tremendous humanitarian efforts of the Pakistan National Day gala celebration committee and its chair, Mr. Khalid Usman, a former Markham councillor, who demonstrated the importance of building bridges within our community.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I want to take a look at what Mr. McGuinty has been saying in the past about democracy and how he seems to say one thing and do something totally different, as we saw this week when he rammed through the budget bill without giving the public in the province of Ontario the opportunity for public hearings and input.

It was quite different back in 1997, on March 4, when he proclaimed: "Democracy imposes responsibility on those who govern. Democracy gives the people a voice, but it also compels those who govern to listen to that voice. Democracy isn't just something that takes place once every four years. Democracy is what is supposed to happen in a free society each and every day."

It's regrettable that Mr. McGuinty did not heed his own words this week as he instead decided to time-allocate the budget bill and not allow for the public to speak. He didn't take the opportunity, as he thought in 1997 should happen, to listen to the voices of those people.

He also said: "'Public hearings'; those two words go together nicely if you believe in true democracy." He said this on December 6, 1999. How different, his words from his actions.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: At the Protect Our Pensions rally today on the front lawn, I was standing with my brothers and sisters in the labour movement, who are deeply concerned about the state of their pensions. I now stand in this Legislature to make sure that the calls for pension protection from workers all across Ontario are heard.

Those at the rally today worked hard all their adult lives, believing that when they retired, they would have a pension to live on. They are forced to live in uncertainty now. Pensions have been underfunded, and this government has done nothing to protect these workers.

Workers have had to rally many times to have their voices heard. It's time for the government to listen to their needs.

I spent Monday and Tuesday in Windsor at CAW rallies, and again today on the front lawn, raising the important issue of pension protection for thousands of Ontarians.

Bill 17, which I brought to the House earlier in this year, would raise the pension benefits guarantee fund to $2,700, which will solve many of these workers' problems. I hope that it will not suffer the same fate as Bill 6.

Ontarians have earned and deserve their pensions, and they are waiting to hear how you will protect them. They are listening. What do you have to say to them?

PEEL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: Last month, the William Osler Health Centre announced the selection of Zeidler Partnership Architects as the firm that will lead the team of professionals charged with the responsibility of redesigning and developing the Peel Memorial Hospital site. The formation of the project team is a major step forward, setting the stage for the preliminary decommissioning work to commence at the site this spring.

Zeidler is an international architectural firm headquartered in Toronto, with other offices in Canada, the US, Europe and Asia. Zeidler is known internationally and nationally for developing healing spaces that inspire a sense of community as well as create an environment of wellness.

A redeveloped Peel Memorial Hospital will play an important role in Osler's family of hospitals by providing Brampton, Etobicoke and surrounding communities with urgent care, ambulatory care, outpatient surgical procedures and specialty services. The focus of the new site will be on primary care as well as chronic disease prevention and management.

The redevelopment of Peel Memorial Hospital site is a priority for my community. This announcement will bring health care service providers and partners together to consider how best to deliver a new campus of health services that will serve the growing needs of Brampton.

I look forward to working with the project team to create a leading-edge facility in the downtown core which will meet the future health care needs of residents in Peel.

BEYOND THE BLUE BOX

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Yes