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

May 5, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 May 2009 Mardi 5 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TAXATION

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

PENSION PLANS

HOURS OF WORK

WINE INDUSTRY

SENIOR CITIZENS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

SPORTS FUNDING

DRIVER LICENCES

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

ART EXHIBITION

RANAE TENBRINKE

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

CINCO DE MAYO

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

CONCERT IN THUNDER BAY

TAXATION

POVERTY

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 174

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL

SURGE PROTECTOR ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS

RÉSIDENTIELS ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LABOUR MOBILITY /

MOBILITÉ DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

ASIAN AND SOUTH ASIAN

HERITAGE MONTH

LABOUR MOBILITY

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

ASIAN AND SOUTH ASIAN

HERITAGE MONTH

LABOUR MOBILITY

ASIAN AND SOUTH ASIAN

HERITAGE MONTH

VISITOR

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

TAXATION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ROAD SAFETY

ROUTE 17/174

HEALTH CARE

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

TAXATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

LUPUS

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

GASOLINE PRICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 29, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to promote reductions in the use and creation of toxic substances and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 167, Loi visant à promouvoir une réduction de l'utilisation et de la création de substances toxiques et à modifier d'autres lois.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: This bill has been before the House for a while, and it's my assumption that the bill will go to committee. In the event that it does go to committee, I'm sure the government would be interested in having public hearings from sectors in the economy that this will have an impact on. I suspect that our very capable critic, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk, has done a great job in terms of outlining our position.

Let's be clear. The very first thing is that we, on this side of the House, would agree—if I look at the purpose clause, it's a good way to start here. In the purpose clause, it says the purposes of the bill are:

"(

a) to prevent pollution and protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances; and

"(

b) to inform Ontarians about toxic substances."

We would agree with the intent, clearly. I think everyone in the House would. But when you get down into the details, the micro level of the bill, you find out that here we have a litany of red tape. That's what is really referred to: a litany of red tape. We're not opposed to that, but it's when you look at how you'd implement a policy of this nature, when you're dealing with larger industrial sectors, and Ontario trying to be a competitive sector, and safe, let's be clear on that—and a leader, which we're not at the moment. That's probably a discussion that we had yesterday.

But here's the real key: When you look at a sector—for instance, let's take the cement industry, which is very big in Quebec and very big in Ontario. It's certainly very big in my riding of Durham. St Marys Cement has operated quite consistently within our community for many, many years, a good, law-abiding and contributing corporate citizen. At one time, it was owned by a family. In fact, the family who owned it was from St. Marys, Ontario. Now, the consistency argument is that even here in Ontario, we find that there's inconsistency in what's permitted in that industrial sector between Quebec and Ontario.

Then we wonder why we're not competitive. How do I work this through as just one example of one sector by one change of the government? From what I understand, in this bill—and this perhaps would be clarified in public hearings—this industry would be disadvantaged.

The real success story here is this: The federal government has an overarching responsibility here to set standards that are consistent, not just for commercial and trade reasons, but for public health purposes. I then become a bit suspicious that this is more feel-good than actually do-good kind of legislation. It's more of a feeling thing. It's almost like they're pandering to a group of people out there who put the environment ahead of all things. Look, I think that's a respectable and responsible position to take, but it must stand the test of scrutiny.

I challenge the minister, who I know to be a good person, and well-intentioned, to send this for public review—not like the HST, where there was no consultation: They're just going to slam on a tax, probably $2 billion or $3 billion in revenue. We all know that Ontario has a huge revenue problem. In fact, we're a have-not province now; we're getting $400 million or $500 million from the federal government—which is good. But we're becoming less and less competitive, and this is just one more example. I just mentioned one example in my riding: the cement industry being impacted by this.

To do my due diligence as a member representing a very excellent riding with a good mixture of agriculture, residential and business, to the extent that we have three or four major industries—one would be St. Marys Cement, which I mentioned. Another one would be—I'm expecting the members to be listening here; they are doing a lot of work—the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is very big. There's new-build nuclear in my riding. I'm wondering if there would be any "toxic materials," possibly? Well, this is the issue.

Are we going to be consistent in this legislation with Ontario Hydro—the OPG now, Ontario Power Generation—in Darlington and Pickering? They have motors and fans and pumps and all sorts of heavy water and various things that are man-created. Many of them are created by man. I'm wondering how this bill fits into that realm. That's just another constituent of mine, a corporate constituent, if you will, public sector. Of course they're public sector, because I read the salaries in the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, and a lot of them are on that list. They're all my constituents, which is good.

But here's the point. I'm really going to summarize now by saying one thing: The issue is consistency. We shouldn't have one standard in Ontario that isn't consistent with our neighbours, let's say Quebec and Manitoba. That just makes common sense. Most of these companies or individual clients don't operate in isolation. I think it's very important to be consistent with the federal standards. Of course, we should strengthen those standards. I have no problem with that; I'm all in favour of that.

But you know, it reminds me of another recent bill, referred to as the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act. There's another good example. What has happened here in this one is another good example—

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is here, and he's speaking out of turn, perhaps. I'd better mention him, because he was the mayor of the city of Ottawa; he knows what I'm speaking of. In Hudson, they started the push for the cosmetic thing, I'm aware of that, and your government responded to it. The difference is they got it wrong; they really did. The intent is good, we support the intent, but they got the methodology and the transactions wrong.

Why do I say that? I'm getting letters. There's another sector that's affected by this, because it could be related to this toxics bill, when you're talking about pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. These things are man-created. They could be reviewed under the toxic measures. I see this affecting agriculture, not just the cosmetic pesticide piece. I see this having more fingers in everyone's tool shed. I think it's another feel-good government—how do you implement it? How do you enforce it? Who sets the standard? And how come Ontario has different standards than other provinces?

I also find out that the organic farmers are now complaining about this poorly drafted, ill-conceived cosmetic pesticide legislation, which is now going to affect agriculture. They said that they were exempt, but now they're not. Organic farmers use certain types of chemistry and formulas that are innate in terms of their impact on human health, but now they find out that they're going to be affected. And now I'm finding out that the greenhouse industry is affected by this cosmetic thing. Again, these measures—well intended—are inconsistent, and I've made that argument during this.

Federally, they have an organization called the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. They actually study, investigate, have scientists and teams of people that determine what's going to be imported into Canada, whether it's at Home Depot, Canadian Tire, RONA, farmers at co-ops or wherever you buy these things for your lawn. These are liable to come from other provinces and countries, so we have to have consistency of standards. Instead, Ontario has got their own little silo, a whole bunch more red tape, paper and forms for people to fill out and to send in.

If you don't have it, you get fined; an inspector comes in and he fines you, and you say "I did send the"—it's just running out of control.

I'm actually right now becoming extremely frustrated, because everything they have has binders full of regulatory—you've got to get the lawyer. This bill here that we're talking about, Bill 167, it's got the same stuff; I see it right here. It's right in the purpose clause. It says right here: "If a toxic substance reduction plan"—the plan. Who is supposed to be qualified to do that? You'd have to have a PhD in chemistry or microbiology. Dr. Donald Low perhaps would have to do this report. I hope not. It says, "If a toxic substance reduction plan is required to be prepared, a

summary of the plan must also be prepared and made available to the public."

I have no problem with that, but now you've got a small company that is getting started, they bought this product that's approved by the federal government—they brought it in from, say, Nova Scotia. It's got a nice picture of a sailboat on it or something. They bring it in and they make this material, and now they say that they have to submit a plan. Now they have to get somebody with a PhD from Guelph, perhaps several universities, to do a consulting report, which would probably cost in the order of—what would it cost, $25,000? It wouldn't be all that much.

They're selling this thing worth $5, so they'd have to sell about 5,000 boxes to pay for the consultant's report, so they're out of business. That's basically what this is. If this is unsafe, it should be unsafe in Nova Scotia, in Ontario and certainly in BC. But here we have Ontario, which has its own book of rules, its own lab full of PhD physicists and chemists and bureaucracy-creating red tape.

This bill here is, I guess, modelled after the Massachusetts model, which apparently has created a lot of bureaucracy and red tape, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Also, the cement association has made it clear—and I'll read it here. How much time do I have?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Nine minutes.

Mr. John O'Toole: Oh, well, there's plenty of time. I intend to take it all.

This is what the Cement Association of Canada had to say on the lack of a risk-based initiative contained in Bill 167, the toxics reduction bill:

"A risk-based approach focused on quality of effort, rather than quantity, would be both more efficient and effective in reducing such risks." So they're not against it. See, this is the key.

"A legislated requirement to develop comprehensive tracking/mass balance systems and generic management plans for all of the listed toxic substances, regardless of the actual risks posed, would not represent a good use of industry or government resources." Here it is from experts that do it for a living. They go on to say:

"This is a key criticism of the similar blanket approach to release reporting under O. Reg 127/01 and the National Pollutant Release Inventory. The obligation to estimate releases on such a broad number of substances results in low data quality."

You see, you're racking minute, minuscule, obscure—and so you get poor quality, because they're frustrated or perhaps not really qualified. Then you've got to train all these people. There would have to be a new course developed at the colleges to train these technicians who are qualified to go in, do the litmus test or whatever test it is, and it's more bureaucracy. The person's not in, so the plant shuts down, because you have to have this qualified technician to test these various things.

When you look at this, the practicality of just getting the uniformity in standards first would take some time, which you should be working on with the federal government—I'm sure there's a panel of well-paid civil servants working on these kinds of things—and then working with the industry and the sectors to ensure that there's a transition to this. If there's something known to be unsafe, it should be stopped, ceased immediately.

But these substances that they're going to study over the longer term—whoa. Because, look, let's be honest: Everything from the ink in the printer of your computer to the gas you put in the car and to everything you put on—cosmetics, makeup and all the rest of the stuff—is probably toxic. Some of the skin creams are toxic. I'm not surprised that maybe some of these things we're using today—even most of the medication we take is being taken to kill something like some kind of bacteria, and the extra pills they're flushing down the toilet and stuff. I don't know how they get rid of them.

But you've got to be very careful. If you're going to do the job, don't make it sound like you're doing it and then not do it.

The goal and objective is laudable. We support it. The methodology, in my view, is flawed—seriously flawed. Ontario can't go it alone and shouldn't go it alone. I guess that other matters provide that the bill include the following—

Interruption.

Hon. Jim Watson: That's Randy Hillier on line one.

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member from Durham is using his cell phone as a prop. That's not allowed in the rules.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That's not a point of order, but I appreciate the issue being brought to my attention. I return to the member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: The one good point is that it's now true that the member from Eglinton—Lawrence is here. I thought, for instance, that he wasn't paying attention, but he is, and I'm pleased that he is, because I'm sure he'll mention some of the comments to the Minister of the Environment, who has got this bill before us. I would encourage him to actually get the Hansard for tomorrow and give him a copy, because the things I'm saying are very practical in nature, and maybe other people don't get into the how-do-you-implement questions.

Again, in reading this, I listened most intently to our critic, Mr. Barrett, who, I think, summarized our concerns quite succinctly. People were mentioning that there's a leadership race in Ontario for the Conservative Party. There are four fabulous people that are absolutely committed to drawing the people of Ontario's attention to the opposition party trying to hold the fort here. We're trying to hold the fort. We have Tim Hudak, an excellent member. I would say Frank Klees is another excellent member. Randy Hillier is a new member, but he has got a lot of contributions to make, as well as Christine Elliott.

Christine Elliott—there were a lot of media clippings about her this morning. I questioned them on their position on this bill. They want the same thing. They want safety in Ontario first, and they want consistency for commercial and other economic reasons.

I should put this on the record as well, out of due respect: I have in my riding a company that's very highly regarded, and it's involved across the province of Ontario for sure. They are highly qualified. I think the two principal partners worked for the Ministry of the Environment at one time. They saw a need in our communities, in our cities and province, to deal with spills and other tragic environmental events, so they invented a company which abides by the rules. Even their trucks are clean, even their whole training regime—everything I see and hear. There's just a quiet, effective operation.

The company is Detox Environmental. You see their equipment moving around to where they may have had a diesel spill or a traffic accident where there have been some materials spilled. They would be an industry that I would want to comment on this bill in public hearings.

There's more to be said, and most of it has been said by our critic and others. Many people in our caucus wanted me to get up this morning and speak—well, at least one of them did, anyway.

I look at these things in a very practical, implementation method. What I see here is a very laudable, credible and acceptable goal: to make Ontario cleaner, and safer from toxic materials. The young pages here today only get a two-week stint with us, I think. Not that; that is good, and we support that goal. What we don't support is creating more paperwork and red tape—you know what I mean?—and industries, like in my riding, being put out of business because of the litany of new tests, new experiments and new kinds of

definitions. The province should be following the lead of and working in co-operation with the federal government, under Lisa Raitt and maybe John Baird and some of the people up in Ottawa, to get the framework right, to have these toxic materials identified, have a regime for reporting them, a protocol for action required and a method of enforcement. That's really what I want to see.

I'm sure, after my remarks this morning and the comments from some of the members, including a couple of ministers here this morning, that they will probably withdraw this bill and rewrite it, I hope—my remarks, at the very least. But in the event that they don't, we'll be there at the hearings, and we'll be holding their feet to the fire to do the right thing and get it right.

Let's not act carelessly and put the economy of Ontario at risk. This is the most troubling part of it all. It's my understanding that in Windsor there are thousands of people out of work—families. There's an

article in the paper this morning that's very unnerving. The economy is crashing off the cliff in parts of Ontario. This government is tinkering with things that aren't really their primary responsibility, while families are shaking and stressed because of the lack of action and consistency of plan by a government that seems to have lost its way in the middle of its second term. This is one more bill that creates more bureaucracy, more red tape, puts more jobs at risk and potentially puts our economy at risk.

I couldn't ignore the opportunity to put my comments on the record this morning. For that privilege, I thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Before we move to questions and comments, I'm compelled to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 47(c), six and a half hours of debate having taken place on the motion for second reading of Bill 167, this debate will stand adjourned, unless the government House leader specifies otherwise. Government House leader?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Yes, we would like the debate to continue, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened carefully to the comments of my Conservative colleague. Let me say this: There is one area where I think New Democrats can agree with his critique, and that is that the government has brought forward a bill which is so vague, so lacking in definition and so lacking in specifics that it makes it very difficult for anyone involved in this debate to know exactly what the outcomes will be. If someone cares a great deal about the environment and wants to see a more strict application of the law and wants to see a broader development of the law, they're not really certain what is contained in this bill and what this bill is eventually going to do.

By the same token, someone who is trying to run a manufacturing operation—let us say someone who is involved in the chemical industry or the cement industry or even the pulp and paper industry—when reading this bill, would not be offered any clear guidelines as to what they should do, what they should not do, what they should anticipate and what kinds of investments they should make or what kinds of costs they should incur.

This is very much the opposite of what governments are supposed to do. Governments are supposed to provide some transparency, some clarity so that people can understand the law, understand what it applies to and understand what it requires. This is a bill with a fancy name, but it's very hard to determine exactly what the substance is.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd like to add my comments to the bill that's being debated this morning. I'd like to commend the member for Durham for his clear, concise and comprehensive remarks, as always, on this bill. He's pointed out some of the shortfalls that our caucus, the PC caucus, sees in the bill. We look forward to working through the legislation to help make this bill better and have it withdrawn in the end, if that's possible.

Like the pesticides ban, we see that this is more government decision and legislation based on more emotion and concern than actual fact and science. There's a federal program already in place which people say is a world leader. I know in my community of Sarnia—Lambton we're very heavily involved in the chemical industry. I worked for 30 years in that industry and I know the kinds of controls that have been installed over the years. It's certainly advanced dramatically since I first entered the business.

I know I've spoken to a number of industry leaders back there and they've got great concerns at this time in the economy at the introduction of a bill like this. To quote from the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, "The federal risk assessment process is well respected, well resourced, costly," and "Ontario should not try to duplicate" this. The federal program is recognized as "a global leader."

"Ontario would leverage the efforts of the federal government and would apply its requirements for planning reductions to the right substances—those that have been shown to actually pose a risk."

In closing, the question remains, why would we in Ontario be spending our resources and our businesses' resources on an inadequate system that is doomed to achieve little in the way of effective results due to its lack of focus on risk or science?

I think this is just another example of one of these feel-good bills that's going to belabour business at this time when it can ill afford it. I think we need to move forward on this and look to improving it in committee, as the member for Durham said. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Just to follow up on the comments of the member for Durham and as well the member for Sarnia—Lambton, there's no question that we have been critical of the government's approach to this particular bill, this toxics legislation, even though in April 2007 we came out with a proposal requiring mandatory planning on the part of industry with respect to not only the use of toxics, but the reduction and, in some cases, the elimination. So we have been very critical. However, we do put forward a positive approach, which we did put forward actually in April 2007.

We all recognize that five months later, the government attempted to mimic what we had put out to the people of Ontario. But as far as the aspects of our particular plan, to go beyond some of the criticism we've heard this morning of the McGuinty government's approach, we concur and this government concurs with our approach to have industry put together these plans.

We take it further with respect to implementation—and I know the government talks about voluntary implementation, and we find that a little suspect, especially when you hear about the police powers that are contained within this legislation. But we also put forward, to ensure moving forward on implementation, that there be grants, perhaps targeted tax credits, to provide that incentive for business to move forward. We're very clear: We have to create a made-in-Ontario approach to take into consideration how we do business in the economy and, most importantly—and this was said this morning—we have to use that federal work that's already been done.

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

I return to the member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: I was very flattered by the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Hampton from Rainy River, commenting, and more specifically, about how it affects his economy in his riding with the pulp and paper industry. The government's actions over the last number of years have near crippled—whether it's the price of energy or now more red tape, I suspect—how many jobs and communities at risk.

I think it's important that we relate legislation to how it affects the people we're elected to represent. The member from Sarnia—Lambton, who represents an area with the petrochemical industry, would certainly have much to say on this. Why would Nova Chemical and other companies that create jobs and products that are legal and accepted worldwide today be at risk of having more paperwork to do? Our critic, the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, of course, has done a stellar job in terms of just asking the question, "Why, if you want to do this, is it voluntary?"

Now, the stakeholders who are listening this morning, who were in touch with me—I'm looking at their e-mail here. I have one from Kathleen Perchaluk. She says here, "To ensure the Toxics Reduction Act will integrate the best in health protection with a concern for a sustainable economy, a clean environment and good jobs," they want the following 5R recommendations to be followed. So the minister can use this as his leverage.

What are the 5Rs? They are (1) reduce the releases; (2) replace toxic chemicals; (3) restrict use of toxic chemicals; (4) report regularly; and (5) reveal to Ontarians.

These are simple guidelines, but at the same time, let's go back to first principles. We should be working in co-operation with the other provinces and the federal government to make Canada and its economy sustainable, as well as the health of Ontarians and Canadians. This isn't about Ontario and Premier McGuinty doing another feel-good thing. This is about doing the right thing, the right way at the right time for the right purpose. Those ingredients are missing, and I think that the government should rethink and redraft the bill—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage in some discussion of this bill. I'm pleased to have this opportunity, because I think there is a need for this kind of legislation in Ontario. But there is also a need for legislation which is clear, which is transparent, which sets out so that the public—people who are concerned about the environment and people who are involved in the industrial economy—can read and clearly understand what the goals are, what the targets are, what specifically is going to be focused on and what the requirements are.

It seems to me that in the 21st century, when governments seek to pass legislation, there should be that element of transparency to it. There should be that element of clarity to it so that people will know: What does the law require, and what specifically is the law focused on? What are the timelines and targets? What will be the penalties if these targets are not reached within the timelines?

Now, let me say, coming from a manufacturing part of the province, the reason that this is important is that if a manufacturing facility wants to comply with the law, quite often that may involve millions—if not tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions—of dollars of new investment. So you need to know: What is the target?

What is this focused on—clearly, and not some vague notion about, "Well, toxics," without a definition of the toxics that are focused on, and with some vague concept about sometime in the future without mentioning specifically when this is going to come into effect, what it's going to do and what it's going to require. Having legislation like that is no guide whatsoever and doesn't aid, let's say, a manufacturing facility in doing what they may want to do to better protect the environment.

An offshoot of this is that if you're going to have to make a $1-million investment, a $10-million investment or a $100-million investment, you need to know what the timeline is; $100 million doesn't appear out of the air in a few days or even a few years. You need to have clear guidelines. You need to have clear targets. You need to be able to say, "This is what's required, this is when it's required, and this is what we are required to do in order to meet the legislation."

I just want to give you a practical example. Paper mills and pulp mills—and this is the reality—do spew out of their stack certain chemical residues that result from the manufacturing process. At a pulp mill in my constituency in Dryden it was determined, about 10 years ago, that to comply with Ontario's air quality standards, they would have to shut down their pulp mill boiler and recovery unit because it simply couldn't meet Ontario's air quality targets, Ontario's air quality requirements, and they would have to finance and construct a new pulp mill boiler and recovery unit.

To do that was a $750-million investment. Just to do the planning, in terms of the financial planning, the construction planning and the materials planning, was a four-year process. The construction process itself involved close to another four years. Then there was the process of integrating the new boiler and recovery unit into the overall operation of the pulp mill.

This is why when we pass legislation here in the Ontario Legislature there need to be clear targets. People need to know: What is being focused on? What is required? What are the timelines? What must be done in order to meet these targets within these timelines? I can tell you, if you read this bill, none of those things are present. So how is someone who's operating a manufacturing facility in this province to know what they're required to do, what the targets are, what the specific objective is, what the timelines are, and how they must proceed in order to meet the requirements of this law? There's nothing there. The legislation is of no assistance whatsoever.

The McGuinty Liberals say, "Oh, but we're going to put this in regulation, at some later date." Maybe, perhaps, possibly, the government is going to put this in regulation. Again, there is a problem. People need to know with some certainty. You cannot go about changing the law, changing the regulatory requirements every six months and expect that those who are affected will be able to comply. That's why we need some teeth in this bill. That's why we need to be able to understand what is required, when it is required, and what the specific objectives are, the specific targets, the specific timelines, so that either industry or municipalities can comply with the legislation.

I just want to give you an example of how this legislation really fails to meet those requirements. It's not as if this government was drafting this legislation sort of in a fog or in a vacuum. In fact, over the last eight or nine years—just to focus on the last eight or nine years—there have been a number of groups and organizations who have come forward offering expert advice on what needs to be done to address the issue of toxins generally released into our society.

So, for example, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario and the toxics reduction scientific expert panel have all, in the last eight or nine years, come forward with a very detailed analysis and very detailed prescriptions as to what legislation should look like, what legislation should attempt to do.

In fact, the Canadian Environmental Law Association has gone even further. The Canadian Environmental Law Association even offered up to this government model legislation. It looked at legislation that had been implemented elsewhere in the world, it looked at the expert studies and it offered up model legislation for this government to adopt. I'll just read from the Canadian Environmental Law Association model legislation.

They set out a purpose clause, and the purpose of the bill should be: (1) to protect human health and the environment, by reducing the use of toxic substances; (2) to promote the use of safer alternatives to such substances; (3) to recognize the public right to know the identity and amounts of toxic substances in their community from various facilities; and, (4) to apply the precautionary principle and principles of sustainable development to these issues.

So four very clear purposes were defined in the model legislation. What do we find in this legislation that's being offered up by the McGuinty Liberals? Only one of those purposes. The first one that I listed; the purpose of the bill is to "protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances." But the other three purposes that were listed in the model legislation have no place—cannot be found—in this bill. What is wrong with that? I would like to offer up some suggestions about what's wrong with it.

"To promote the use of safer alternatives to such substances": I want to, again, use an example from my part of the province, an example of some specific rules and regulations that were put in place in the mid-1990s and the positive effect they had in terms of this second purpose, providing alternatives. The example I want to use, again, is from the pulp industry. Pulp, when it comes out of a pulping machine in its natural form, is, I guess you can say, sort of brown in colour. But most of us prefer our paper to be as bright as possible for obvious reasons. You can see the print when the paper is bright.

You have a hard time seeing the print when the paper is a dark brown or a grey. In the past, chlorine was typically used to bleach pulp. As we know, chlorine is a very powerful toxic substance—a very, very powerful toxic substance.

I was part of a government in the mid-1990s that said to the pulp industry, "We're not going to permit you to use chlorine anymore," because the downstream pollution effects are so bad, not just on human beings, but on fish and other aquatic beings, and the long-lived aspect of chlorine as it makes its way through the ecosystem is terribly destructive. We said to the industry, "Look, pulp industry, there are alternatives to chlorine bleaching.

And yes, it will require some investment to use those alternatives." But by saying to the industry, "Not only must you stop using this chemical, but you need to move to alternative processes that are more sustainable," we actually did the industry a favour. And the favour was this: You could not sell pulp that has been bleached by chlorine today virtually anywhere in the world. No one will buy it. If you have not moved on to more sustainable processes, to processes that are less toxic for the environment, you would not be able to sell your pulp. That's what I mean.

That's why this second principle, this second purpose, is so important. Yet when you look at this bill, there is no requirement, no movement towards more sustainable processes.

I can tell you that those pulp mills that moved on to the highest level of sustainability—after chlorine was removed by legislation, by prohibition, from the manufacturing process, those mills that set their targets high and moved on to the most sustainable processes are actually doing the best in the world today. Their pulp is sought after by all kinds of users in the secondary and tertiary manufacturing process.

Not only was it the right thing to do for the environment, it was actually the right thing to do for jobs and the right thing to do for positioning that industry in Ontario in terms of the future and future opportunities. We find legislation here which the government patted itself on the back for and congratulated itself for, yet we do not find this important principle set out in this bill.

I said earlier that the bill sets no targets for toxics reductions and no benchmarks regarding the success of the initiative—no targets. So if I'm someone in industry and I want to do the right thing and I read this legislation, I'd be no further ahead at the end of reading the legislation; I'd be no further ahead whatsoever.

If I owned a paper mill or a pulp mill, if I owned a steel mill or if I owned some other kind of manufacturing process, I would not know, at the end of reading this legislation, where I should be focusing my attention, where we should be doing our research, what we should be planning for or what we should be organizing for in terms of where we need to be five or 10 years down the road. As another political spokesperson said a few years ago, it is like eating a sandwich and at the end of the sandwich asking, "Well, where was the meat?" The sad reality is there is no meat in this legislation.

Just to go further, you would expect, and I think that any reasonable person—any reasonable person—would expect that after reading the bill, you would know what particular sectors of our economy or what particular sectors of manufacturing or processing would be affected by this bill. It just seems to be elementary that you would know, "Is my particular operation, is my particular process, included in this bill or not included in this bill?" But lo and behold, if you read the bill, no particular sectors of the economy are included in the bill. Nothing is identified.

If you read some of the discussion paper that was put out by the Ministry of the Environment—by the way, the discussion paper has no particular connection to the bill. The Ministry of the Environment put out a discussion paper and in the discussion paper, it simply said that manufacturing and mineral processing ought to be included in terms of toxic reduction, but that's it.

One is left to say, "Well, manufacturing is very broad." Someone could say making pencils is manufacturing. Someone could say making mousetraps is manufacturing. The chemical industry: Is that manufacturing or is that chemical processing? And that's the difficulty here. In reading the bill, one does not know. One would not come away with any conclusion. One would not be able to tell. If you're running a pulp and paper mill, you wouldn't be able to tell. "Do we need to make investments, do we need to start doing research, do we need to start doing planning to comply with this legislation?" You wouldn't know.

Let me give you some examples that further illustrate this. It's very clear that, for example, if we're concerned about toxins being released into the environment, waste treatment plants and energy generating facilities are some of the highest emitters of toxic substances into the environment. Are they included in this bill or not? Processing plants that take human sewage and process it into sewage sludge on the one hand and then effluent water on the other: Are they included in this bill? Shouldn't they be included? Why aren't they included?

Energy producing plants—a thermal generating station, whether it be natural gas, oil or coal: Are they included? "Are nuclear power plants included?" is a question I think that most people would ask. We recognize that they're subject to federal regulation, but again, this speaks to the total lack of transparency and the absolute vagueness and lack of definition in this bill. I think the government should take it back, start over and do a decent job so that people can actually know what we're dealing with here.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I've got to say, it's interesting. Both Mr. Hampton and I gave speeches on this bill and what's interesting is that he was not present when I gave my speech, and quite frankly he touched on the same issue, which is that it's a question of choices that the government has to make. Are they going to stand for making sure that we don't just have plans but that we set targets, or is this just all about fluff?

Then he talked about the experiences we had back in the early 1990s when we had to deal with the issue of chlorine and AOX. I remember that particular debate quite well as a member of the government of the day. There were a lot of people in northern Ontario saying, "Boy, you can't go down that way in order to tell the manufacturers of paper in northern Ontario what it is they can do when it comes to discharge into the atmosphere, because we're in the middle of a recession, and if you do that everything is going to come crashing down." Instead, our government took the position of saying, "No, we've got to do what's right by the environment."

The other part was that we then sat down with industry and said, "Here are the targets we want you to achieve so that we can make sure we safeguard the environment for our future, but here are the things we're prepared to do in order to assist you to offset what it's going to cost you to move from the use of chlorine and AOX to other chemicals."

As I said in that speech at the time, we were very instrumental in moving a lot of these paper mills to thermal mechanical pulping. Thermal mechanical pulping was a way to get around some of the issues around some of the chemicals they were using and the old way they used to handle wood in the wood rooms of those paper mills. As well, we sat down and looked at what other things we could do. We were in a position where we said, "There have to be targets. You cannot introduce legislation that at the end is just going to make it voluntary for industry to comply, because industry will just do what industry does."

I think it's incumbent upon a government to say, "You need to balance off the interests of the public and the environment against the interests of the corporate bottom line, and there are ways to get to both," but clearly, in this bill, the government is achieving neither. So I'd ask you the question, why is this bill coming forward at all if the government's not prepared to put targets in?

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I would again compliment the members from Kenora—Rainy River as well as Timmins—James Bay. They were speaking about an industry that's in serious peril in terms of its economic competitiveness, and they've outlined a couple of concerns about what this bill specifically would do to that sector, that industry and, indeed, those communities in northern Ontario that rely on that type of employment to pay their taxes.

So the whole thing fits together: You have to have the strong-economy argument, and this bill doesn't really do that. In fact, this bill is going to bankrupt many of the small communities just by poor policy.

The price of energy—the NDP have argued for some time now that there should be a differential in the price of energy that supports an industry, especially in northern Ontario, where they can get the energy from plants—power is actually going right by them on the way down to Toronto, and they could be distributing it at a reduced cost.

This is one more case where red tape and regulations are going to bankrupt part of Ontario. Those are tragic signals that the government should at least commit to working with them to implement this in a fair-handed way, to support the initiatives, the inspections and the drafting of these lists that are required, the toxics reduction plans that are required. These are adding costs. It is downloading costs to businesses that are already in financial constraints. These reports, reporting, and annual things that have to be done in compliance with this rule are interfering in those communities.

In fact, people could argue today that if they're in compliance with what the regulations are in other provinces, why is Ontario trying to disadvantage our communities and in fact bankrupting those communities?

I think this bill needs to be reconsidered. Hopefully, they'll have public hearings on it.

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

I'll return to the member for Kenora—Rainy River.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. Just to reiterate: We do need in this province, as a number of environmental and manufacturing organizations have pointed out, some legislation which speaks to the present and future in terms of the reduction of toxic substances in our everyday lives.

But this legislation simply doesn't do it. This is legislation with a fancy title that doesn't do much. In fact, as I indicated in my comments earlier, it may actually do some damage, because it doesn't set out what clearly is required. It doesn't set out what it applies to. It doesn't set out what the objectives, timelines and targets are.

This is a majority government. It's not a majority government that is in the habit of listening, but on this particular bill I would hope that the government—it really has two choices here. It can go forward to committee and listen to what the people of Ontario have to say, including what has been said here today and in other parts of the debate, and come forward with amendments so that it brings some specificity to the legislation. That's one option for them. Or the government can withdraw the bill, start again and present a bill that actually has some meat in the sandwich. I guess we'll see.

If the government decides to proceed, I would hope this goes out for lengthy, lengthy public hearings so that we have an opportunity to present some amendments that will really put some meat and some substance in the bill, and some clarity and transparency, so that people will know what is required and when it's required.

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

Mr. Gerretsen has moved second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to promote reductions in the use and creation of toxic substances and to amend other Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Government House leader.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The bill is referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

Orders of the day. Government House leader.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): As such, this House is in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1000 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introduction of guests?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. It's not a guest; it's actually page Robyn's 14th birthday today.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Today, page Lindsay Eenkooren of Baden is serving as page captain, and I'm thrilled to be able to introduce Lindsay's family. They're here with us today in the east gallery. Lindsay's father, Dave Eenkooren, and her mother, Sharon Eenkooren, are with us here today. We have Lindsay's grandfather Duke Eenkooren and Lindsay's grandmother Annie Eenkooren. We have Lindsay's grandmother Marg Weber, Lindsay's aunt Carol Brosowski and Lindsay's cousin Kristy Lynn Brosowski. We welcome you all to Queen's Park today.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Today is Ontario Museums at Queen's Park day, and representatives of the Ontario Museum Association, who will be meeting with me and other colleagues in the House, are here in the Legislature this morning. So I would like to welcome all the representatives of the Ontario Museum Association who are joining us to watch question period. Joining us today are Marie Lalonde, Tammy Adkin and Gilles Séguin. Bienvenue. C'est un grand plaisir de vous accueillir.

Mr. Paul Miller: Today is museum day at the Legislature. I'd like to welcome, from the Hamilton area, Ian Kerr-Wilson, who is the manager of museums for the city of Hamilton; also, David Adames, executive director of Tourism Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from York Centre and page Michael Webster we'd like to welcome his mother, Beth Webster, sitting in the east members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My first question is for the Premier. When I was told this morning that yesterday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade announced that your government is getting into the business of picking winners and losers in our economy, I said, "His speech must have been approved by the Premier's office." Premier, was that the case, or was Minister Bryant freelancing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take this opportunity to commend my Minister of Economic Development and Trade for the fabulous work he's been doing on behalf of all Ontarians and to strengthen our economy.

It's no secret that we have, from the outset, been very strategic in terms of how we deployed our resources. There are certain kinds of sectors that we think hold more promise than others for strengthening our economy and creating more jobs. In supplementaries, I'll speak to some of those specific sectors which we think are worthy of our combined support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Over the past number of weeks, we've been hearing about the Premier saying one thing to his caucus while one of his ministers is caught stepping out on him and doing something entirely different. First it was the Minister of Finance doing his massive tax grab behind the backs of your members and the constituents they supposedly represent, and now it's the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Maybe we should call him Czar Michael.

If this is really your policy, what makes you qualified to pick winners and losers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important that we have this opportunity to speak to that, because it speaks to the policy we've had in place for some time now. I believe, and I think my honourable colleague would agree with this, that the days when governments anywhere quietly preside over the gradual evolution of the economy and just sit on their hands are behind us.

One of the things that my Minister of International Trade, Minister Pupatello, would tell you is that when we deal with international investment opportunities, they're always asking the same kind of question: "What specifically will your government do for us? In Tennessee, they'll do this for us. In Germany, they'll do this for us. In Finland, they'll do this for us." We can't possibly satisfy all of those concerns, but what we can do is then focus to specific sectors. We've done that. Digital media, for example; advanced life sciences; green technologies; auto—those are our strengths and we'll continue to build on those.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We know the Soviet Union also had a five-point plan and their government picked winners and losers. We know how that turned out.

If we look at the McGuinty government's track record and the success of their five-point plan, we should all be alarmed about a decision by this government to pick winners and losers. This is the gang who brought Ontario to have-not status for the first time in its history. This is a government that made nine announcements about the Next Generation of Jobs Fund and we still have a billion dollars sitting in the bank. I could go on and on citing mismanagement by this government.

I ask again: Why, Premier, do you believe you and your gang who can't shoot straight are more qualified to make the right investment choices than the marketplace?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the things that we do on a continual basis is we work with economists and the business sector to ensure that we are placing our focus on those areas which hold the greatest promise for Ontario's economy and for new job creation. So that we can take it away from the abstract to a little bit more specific, let me tell you about some of the things we've invested in. Agfa HealthCare: We're co-investing there in a business which is developing software for sharing X-rays and scans over a regional network.

Cyclone Manufacturing makes lighter, more fuel-efficient parts for aircrafts to lower costs for airlines and reduce emissions. Honeywell Mississauga invests in aerospace manufacturing. 2Source Manufacturing develops and manufactures new types of aircraft bushings—and by the way, we're known all around the world for that particular product. These are good examples of investments that represent—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier again: Yesterday's Toronto Star had this to say about the McGuinty sales tax: "Even though Liberal MPPs and cabinet ministers privately share Runciman's concern about the change, the Premier insists it is full-steam ahead...."

Premier, is that why you have dropped the code of silence on your backbenchers—because you're afraid they agree with our party's proposals to reduce the damage your massive tax grab is going to wreak on Ontarians? Is that why you've silenced them to such an extent that the only thing that comes out of them during debate is tripe that has been fed by your unelected political advisers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We think it's really important that as a province we rise to the occasion and deal with this global recession, and we think we have a specific responsibility to demonstrate some sound leadership in this regard.

Ontarians are asking, I think, a pretty simple question, which is, "What do we need to do in these circumstances?"

We think the single most important thing that we can do to deal with this recession, to strengthen this economy and create more jobs is to move ahead with this comprehensive tax reform. We think that's important. We've agreed to that as a government, we've agreed to that as a caucus, and now what we're going to do is ensure that we find opportunities to speak to Ontarians so they better understand why we have to do this and they understand the upsides to this, which are more jobs, a stronger economy, and more wealth to support our schools, our hospitals and supports for the vulnerable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The report that was released yesterday on the residential housing industry confirmed concerns that we've been bringing forward and, as per your direction, those concerns are being ignored by your backbenchers. This was an independent, third party report from an industry and consumer advocate. Up to 21,200 jobs may be lost as a direct result of this new tax. It's going to cost individual Ontarians thousands of dollars to fix up their home or close the sale on a home or resale.

Premier, in the 2003 election campaign, you said, "We're going to make sure that MPPs are free to do their jobs, which is to represent the views of their constituents." Are you saying today that your MPPs, just like you, think the only way to get out of recession is taking more money out of the pockets of already hard-hit Ontarians? Is that your answer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We believe that it's really important that we take certain steps to move forward to confront the recession as it presents itself in our province. Again, as I say, I think the single most important thing for us to do is to move ahead with this package of comprehensive tax reforms.

When it comes to the housing sector in particular, we've tried to be as fair as we possibly can. Now, I'd like to believe, as my honourable friend insinuates, that somehow there's an easy, magical way out of this which causes no disruption and no anxiety and no change of any kind, but that world doesn't exist. We live in this one; it's the real world. But what we have done is we've found a way to ensure that 93% of home sales will remain entirely unaffected by this new single sales tax—93%.

I think that's a pretty significant benefit to Ontario families, but if you are buying a house that's over half a million dollars, there will be the full application of the single sales tax. We have tried to be as fair as we can and preserve—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Premier, in opposition you swore up and down that your backbenchers would be able to represent the views of their constituents. What you didn't say was that your unelected henchmen would make sure backbenchers only get to speak their minds in private or off the record. What you didn't mention were the gag orders, the marching orders and the climate of fear.

Yesterday, the members for Huron—Bruce, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Willowdale, Ottawa Centre, and Mississauga South all ignored the concerns of their constituents and supported your massive tax grab. Premier, why are you muzzling your backbenchers? Why are you going against everything you stood for as a member of the opposition?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've had the privilege to serve Ontarians as the Premier for some five years now, and one of the greatest blessings that I enjoy, apart from the fact that I live here in Ontario, in Canada, is I've been blessed with the strongest caucus that has ever graced the government benches, ever. We work as hard as we can to ensure that any policies that we put forward represent the distilled wisdom of the entire government caucus. I'm honoured to lead this caucus, and I'm honoured to put forward the budget on behalf of the government caucus.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled changes to American corporate tax rules. Essentially, the changes discourage American subsidiaries in countries such as Canada from investing on the basis of low local corporate tax rates. So my question to the Premier is a simple one: Can the Premier explain what these changes mean for Ontario in light of his $4.5-billion corporate tax giveaway?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's difficult to discern what the member is referring to. What I can say is this: The Obama administration is targeting certain loopholes, as I understand it, that are aimed at tax havens. Those havens provide an unfair advantage to those islands, those jurisdictions, against production within the United States.

What we've done is lowered corporate taxes and personal taxes to attract new investment to Ontario. When our tax policy is fully implemented, our corporate tax rates will be lower than Michigan, lower than Ohio, lower than Indiana, lower than California, lower than New York—lower than the 50 American states. And yet we will continue to invest in health care and education, we will continue to afford the best—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Kenora will come to order, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The finance minister might not have read it, and the Premier might not have read it, but I've read it and I'm going to help them all out. What the changes mean is that some of your government's $4.5-billion corporate tax giveaway is going to end up in the hands of the US Treasury, further reducing the incentive for American-based companies to invest in Ontario.

I want to know, why is this government giving up much-needed corporate tax revenue in this province when it will do nothing to create jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We're not. What the member doesn't understand is that we don't have a tax code like the United States does. The member is trying to insinuate that we could take steps similar to President Obama's. The fact is we can't. We don't have that type of tax code; we don't have the kinds of loopholes that were created.

What we can say is this: A comprehensive tax reform package that lowers personal taxes and that creates a fair and more efficient tax system will lower the price of our exports and create jobs. What we can also say is that by increasing the Ontario child benefit, we can help those on the low end of the income spectrum come out of that end of the spectrum and get Ontario to move forward in the future. This government has laid out a plan. It's the right plan. I wish the member opposite would support it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here's the government's logic: It is shovelling $4.5 billion out the door to companies that don't need it, just as the Obama administration signals to the entire world that the era of racing to the bottom when it comes to corporate tax rates is over forever.

Why is this government pursuing a wrong-headed, grossly incompetent economic policy, when our largest trading partner is going in precisely the opposite direction?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In addition to the tax policies we've laid out, we are also increasing the minimum wage and increasing our investments in health care and education. I think the other part of the President's announcement that the member missed was that he's creating tax incentives within the United States, as I understand the package.

What I think is important is to have a balanced package of reforms, a competitive tax structure—a tax structure that's competitive on the personal side for those of more modest incomes and a tax package that's competitive in terms of being able to attract the kinds of investments we're going to need to move forward in a bigger, better and stronger fashion in the future.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the economic development minister made a major speech about picking winners and losers. At the same time, the TTC has chosen Bombardier for a $1.3-billion contract to deliver 204 new streetcars. That means hundreds of new, good-paying jobs at Bombardier's Thunder Bay plant, but this government refuses to commit funding.

Can the Premier tell us: In your economic game, are the hundreds of workers in Thunder Bay, and thousands more in parts plants across Ontario, winners, or are they losers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As my honourable colleague knows, we've recently committed close to $9 billion, I think, in new investment for public transit in the greater Toronto area, moving all the way into Hamilton. Obviously, we want to do everything we can to ensure that those dollars are spent, as much as possible, within the province of Ontario, including for new cars for the transit system.

This particular subject which my colleague raises, the recent announcement from the city of Toronto, is the subject of an ongoing conversation with our government. We have limited resources, and we just want to ascertain that we have the same shared priorities before we can commit to specific projects, as the city of Toronto would invite us to do at this point in time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There's only one thing blocking the Bombardier deal: this government's refusal to put its one-third share on the table. The economic development minister says that Ontario is coming to the table with billions and billions of dollars and is going to pick winners and losers.

Why is this government making Bombardier workers the losers in its game of economic Darwinism?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that her party stood steadfast in opposition to the expansion of the York subway line. I recall speaking to workers at the Bombardier plant in Thunder Bay at the time, and they were very unhappy with that particular decision.

The good news is that we have found a way to invest billions and billions of dollars in new public transit that will benefit the community of the greater Toronto area and Hamilton.

I commit to my colleague, as I have to Ontarians, that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that we benefit the Ontario economy and Ontario workers through those investments.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier makes it seem simple, as if picking winners and losers is just a game where the strong survive and the weak perish. We're talking about real people here, workers with families. When is this government going to quit playing games with people's lives? When is it going to stop trotting out ministers to make insulting speeches and get on with protecting and creating jobs, so that all Ontarians can win and prosper?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can understand that it's in my honourable colleague's interest to push us over to the right and create the impression that somehow that's all we do.

I want to draw Ontarians' attention once again to the balanced nature of our budget. In addition to reducing taxes for people and businesses, we're also investing in the Ontario child benefit and nearly doubling that. We are investing in social housing. We are increasing the minimum wage. We have found a way, notwithstanding the contraction of this economy, to invest new monies in health care, schools, colleges and universities, protections for the environment and the like. When Ontarians take a look at the whole package, they'll see that in fact it's very, very balanced.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Your government declared war on tobacco. Your government has eliminated virtually every tobacco farmer in the province of Ontario. Last year was the last crop, yet last week we learned of a 33% increase in smoking in the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN catchment area.

Minister, you eliminated all your tobacco farmers, yet smoking went up 33%. Will you please explain to this House how this tobacco policy blunder occurred?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would suggest that the honourable member should review his question. I'm really at a loss to understand the action this government has taken that would have created the result he has indicated.

I do know that the federal government had established a program, and it did incent tobacco farmers to relinquish their quota, and when they would do so, they would also commit not to farm tobacco in the future. That was a program that was introduced by the federal government, funded solely by the federal government. The honourable member pressed this government to participate in that. Our government has been steadfast in our commitment that any kind of exit strategy for the tobacco industry would be—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Minister, you never call, you never write. How else can I get your attention?

You have yet to announce your Ontario government's traditional 40% share of the tobacco transition program. As you said, the federal government came through for tobacco families. You said you would be part of a federally led program. These are your Ontario tobacco farmers. You are the Ontario agriculture minister. I feel you have an obligation to lend a hand.

Minister, would you be looking at any residual monies from this 2008-09 budget? When will tobacco country see some cheques from the Ontario government?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The honourable member has, in his second question, reversed himself. In the first question, he asked what this government has done to create the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would like to hear the minister's answer, and I'm sure the honourable member who asked the question would like to hear the answer. Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: In the first question, the honourable member asked why our government did what we did to the tobacco industry. In the supplementary, he's asking when we are going to do something to help with the exit of farmers from the tobacco industry. On one hand, he's blaming us for doing something, and in the supplementary, he's indicating we've done nothing and when will we do so.

What I have said to the people of Ontario, what I have said to tobacco producers each and every time they have contacted me, any time the member has asked—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Lanark, please withdraw that comment. Stand. Ten seconds.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdraw.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: —tobacco industry very clearly. We believe an exit strategy should be funded by the users and not the taxpayers of Ontario.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In Bill 162, the government has made it clear that it has no legal obligation to provide financial assistance to the province's pension benefits guarantee fund. To date, the government has provided a zero-interest, long-term repayable loan whenever the PBGF has insufficient funds to protect Ontario pensions. Why is this government changing the rules and backing away from the fund precisely when pensions are most at risk?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would invite the member opposite to read the legislation and the amendments that give the government considerable flexibility to provide loans and/or grants to pension funds. But I don't want to underestimate the magnitude of the challenge. In the case of Stelco, we provided about $150 million. The member and his party voted against helping those Hamilton pensioners, I might add.

In the case of General Motors, you're looking at $3.5 billion. You're looking at a range of other challenging situations that will make it difficult for this House, and make it difficult to respond in the way I think we all want to. The important challenge is to keep those businesses operating, to keep them profitable and ensure that we don't—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, they're really booming: They are closed down.

The practice up until now has been that the province has always stood behind the fund. Now the government has introduced new provisions in Bill 162 that explicitly say that it has no—no, I repeat—obligation under any circumstances to make any loans or grants to the fund. The Premier has made it clear that the government won't provide the same sort of assistance it has in the past.

When will this government commit to standing behind the pension benefits guarantee fund, as we know it's going to put at risk the pensions of tens of thousands of Ontarians?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, as I said some weeks ago, we have to have an honest discussion about the fact that this fund, the pension—

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite is right: It will be a novelty. This fund has not been properly managed or funded since 1981. In fact, previous governments have done things like introduce the "too big to fail" clause which effectively exempted the largest pensions in the province from contributing.

We have to be fair to all Ontarians, those who have a pension plan and the 70% of us who don't. I suggest to the member that he have a broader look at the whole question of pension adequacy, along with us and the federal government, to ensure—

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

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Labour and deals with the protection of vulnerable workers.

For far too long, past governments have ignored them. We're a government that supports vulnerable workers. In my opinion, one of the government's best decisions on this front was to end the 60-hour workweek early in 2005. Members of my riding of Essex are supportive of this initiative that protects vulnerable workers and supports a healthier work environment for all Ontarians.

I'm concerned by the recent talk in the PC leadership campaigns and their lack of support for vulnerable workers. Many of my constituents enjoy spending time with their families, their children and their grandchildren. We've made it possible for employees to make free and informed decisions about whether they want to work longer hours.

For the benefit of the House and all vulnerable workers, would the minister lay out for us exactly some of the benefits we have initiated for the protection of—

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I would like to thank the member for Essex, and I couldn't agree with him more. I also want to recognize my colleague from London West, who introduced the legislation on behalf of the McGuinty government that ended the 60-hour workweek. When we passed that legislation, we gave employees a genuine choice about working excess hours while preserving flexibility for businesses.

What is wrong with allowing employees to determine whether they wish to work more than 48 hours in a week? Employees deserve that right to make a free and informed decision, whether they choose to work longer hours or use those hours for better work-life balance.

Let's be clear: Proposals to repeal this legislation will not help employees. Members of the official opposition are suggesting that we turn back the clock. We want to move forward. We don't want to go back to the Harris-Eves style of government that—

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

Mr. Bruce Crozier: As the old saying goes, there are only so many hours in a day, and Ontarians are concerned about their jobs and creating that balance between working and spending time with their families. We know now more than ever that people are working longer hours and spending more time commuting to and from work. All of this takes away from time spent with one's children, a partner or family and friends.

I'm proud of the work our government has done to protect vulnerable workers and provide a choice when it comes to how an employee chooses to work. Could the minister please clarify for the members of the House the importance of this legislation.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The system is simple. The employee consents in writing to his or her employer to work up to 60 hours in a workweek, and the agreement is submitted to the Ministry of Labour for review and approval. The worker is then compensated, if he works over those hours, at time and a half per hour. Employees deserve choice again. Our government believes that working Ontarians should have a say in extended hours of work.

Our government has also removed the ability of employers to force employees to retire at age 65. Along with this employee choice, this government is dedicated to the health and safety of all working Ontarians. Our number one priority is to ensure that they come home after work safe and sound. We believe in strong protections for vulnerable workers, and eliminating the 60-hour workweek is a key element of providing those protections.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Bill 132 was promised swift passage by your House leader, and yet it collects dust in some black hole down here while the sheriffs are off to the Countryman's Estate Winery. While $400,000 worth of wine sits in casks, you personally prevent Countryman's access to the marketplace that Bill 132 provides. They won't be here for the Speaker's fruit wine reception, but I'll be at their winery on Thursday as they announce their bankruptcy—more lost jobs, more lost industry, fewer local producers and a continuation of the long, dark streak of Liberal misery throughout Ontario.

Everyone likes Bill 132 and the fruit wine it represents. I do, the industry does, the Speaker, your caucus. Why don't you like it, and why haven't you passed it?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The honourable member identified Countryman's, wonderful fruit wine producers in eastern Ontario. I've had the opportunity to meet with them in my constituency office and I've had the opportunity to sample their wonderful fruit wine.

Our government has, I believe, a very solid record of working with the wine industry. Also, we have been very open to discussing the issues with fruit wine operators. They have presented the notion of the possibility of having fruit wines sold in farmers' markets. This is a new idea, something that we are considering. We are prepared to work with the industry about that.

Interjections.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I hear members from the opposition who are criticizing the actions we have taken so far to work with our partners, but I would remind them that when they were in government for eight years, they did nothing for—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: The bill sits in purgatory as Countryman's finds itself in bankruptcy hell. Your government has one record: broken promises, longer unemployment lines, more tax grabs and have-not status. On Thursday, Countryman's winery will file for bankruptcy. In his words, "Government will not allow my business access to the marketplace."

Bill 132 allows the sale of fruit wine at our markets. Their fruit wines can't get to farmers' markets because that bill sits in purgatory. Countryman's and this entire industry have been hogtied by you for too long.

Dear Minister, if you will not listen to your caucus or the industry, then listen to me and listen to your conscience. Pass Bill 132 and get Countryman's to market. Will you do that?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: As I indicated to the honourable member, we certainly value the contribution the fruit wineries have for rural economies right across Ontario. Fruit wine producers do have the opportunity to sell their product at the farm gate within their community. The conversations that we have had with fruit wine producers in Ontario are that they are looking for opportunities to expand access to fruit wine products, and they have brought us the idea of placing fruit wines in farmers' markets. This is an idea that I'm really very interested in. You know that it does require some collaboration with my ministry as well as other ministries.

I would say to the honourable member in whose name the piece of legislation, the proposed legislation, stands, he did nothing for eight years on this file, and he now comes to this Legislature—

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

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Yesterday, a conference in Thunder Bay revealed a shocking statistic: Up to 10% of Ontario seniors face abuse. Tammy Rankin, an expert on elder abuse in nursing homes, said, "We need to talk about (elder abuse) and make sure politicians are aware of the problem.... People don't realize how often it occurs and the impact it has on the elderly."

Quite simply, Ontario is falling short by allowing 10% of our seniors to fall victim to abuse. Will this minister explain why the government is abandoning so many of our Ontario seniors?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: This government is doing anything but abandoning our seniors. We are acutely aware of the issues that surround elder abuse. We understand very well the statistics that are involved. We understand extremely well that many seniors do not come forward for fear of embarrassment.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: What do we do about it? I'd like to share with the honourable member an announcement, if he would listen. Just two weeks ago, I announced that our government is investing $400,000 through the Ontario Trillium Foundation to set up a helpline—24 hours a day, seven days a week and in 154 languages, which is the face of elders in this province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: That's all we need, another bureaucratic level.

The fact is that this government has failed to take the actions necessary to protect seniors. Our long-term-care facilities continue to be understaffed and are far from meeting adequate minimum care: 3.5 hours a day, hands-on. Retirement homes continue to be unregulated facilities, lacking the standards needed to protect seniors. This government has continually undermined the pensions of seniors, leaving them financially vulnerable in their time of need. Will the minister commit to undoing these wrongs today and begin protecting Ontario seniors, not just creating a phone line?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: There are many different initiatives under way that have taken place within the budget, within the Ministry of Health and within my portfolio to address exactly the question.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'd be delighted to tell you about it, but it's hard when you're talking at the same time.

In the last four years, this government has invested $6 million on our elder abuse strategy. In the budget, changes were made to allow seniors, in the face of these difficult economic times—instead of 25%, it was brought up to 50%—the ability to reach into RRSPs so they are able to address some of the pressures that are on them. When it comes to the matters that are being looked at within the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, if we have the opportunity of a third question of this calibre, my honourable member from the Ministry of Health will address that.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This week is Children's Mental Health Week in Ontario. We know that as many as one in five children struggle with mental health issues at some point in their young lives. Whether it's depression, anxiety or bullying, they need support to get through these difficult times. I've heard from parents in my riding of Hamilton Mountain whose children have faced enormous challenges. In fact, I know that this is an issue that concerns many Hamiltonians.

For example, a recent series by Denise Davy in the Hamilton Spectator focused on the difficulties faced by families in Ontario and across Canada as they navigate the system for their children. Can the minister please outline Ontario's plan to improve mental health services for children and what steps we are taking to implement it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to recognize Children's Mental Health Week. I want to take this opportunity to commend the mental health workers, the parents, and most of all, the kids themselves who are persevering through enormous challenges. I also want to take a moment to thank Denise Davy for the work she has done with the Hamilton Spectator to raise the awareness of issues around mental health.

But I am happy to set the record straight. Ontario does have a plan to improve children and youth mental health services. We released that plan in 2006; it's called "A Shared Responsibility." It's a plan that was developed after extensive consultation to improve services, accountability and coordination. We're moving ahead with the implementation of this plan. We have not been ignoring this sector the way the other parties did when they were in government. We have invested over $60 million since coming to office to support children and youth with mental health challenges.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I know parents in my riding will be glad to hear that Ontario has a plan to improve children's mental health services and that work is being done to make the system easier to navigate. However, I hear that supports for children and youth with mental health challenges need to be better coordinated. For example, there needs to be a continuum of services that include supports in schools, communities and hospitals. We must do this to ensure that no matter where a child or youth lives, or how severe their challenges are, they get the help that they need.

Can the minister please tell this House how she's working with other ministries to ensure that there is an approach that goes beyond government silos?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When it comes to supporting children and youth with mental health challenges, it is absolutely essential that we work across government. That's why my ministry has worked very closely with the Ministry of Education to develop the student support leadership initiative. It's a program that brings together school boards and children's mental health agencies so that teachers and mental health workers are better connected.

I'm very happy that my colleague the Minister of Health has placed a high priority on mental health and has struck an experts' advisory committee that includes representatives from Children's Mental Health Ontario. We also welcome the work that the Select Committee on Mental Health will be doing, and I look forward to presenting at that committee next month. Tomorrow night, I will be in Hamilton, and I will be joined by my colleague at a forum hosted by the Hamilton Spectator. I look forward to hearing directly from parents of children with mental health challenges. What I can tell you is that we will continue to work together. We need every child—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Frank Klees: This question is to the Premier. I was in Thunder Bay for the last two days, and at every meeting that I attended with representatives of local business and local government and individuals, the topic of discussion, top of mind, was the lack of leadership on the part of this government when it comes to the economic welfare of northern Ontario. The latest blow came when the Premier and his Minister of Infrastructure refused to support the TTC's announcement that it had selected Thunder Bay's Bombardier to construct 204 streetcars. That's a contract that's worth more than $1.2 billion and would guarantee hundreds of jobs in Thunder Bay.

Will the Premier today remove all doubt and commit his support to ensuring that—

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

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm pleased to say to the honourable member that later on today, with our Thunder Bay caucus colleagues, I'll be meeting with Mayor Lynn Peterson, the mayor of Thunder Bay, and someone who is very well-known to me. We'll certainly look forward to the opportunity to have a conversation about that community's infrastructure priorities, not to mention the opportunities with respect to Bombardier gaining a greater order book with respect to transit procurement here in Toronto.

To remind the honourable member, our government recently made a commitment for $9-billion worth of transit infrastructure in the greater Toronto area, which in and of itself will influence additional procurement. With respect to the matter in the city of Toronto, we've said that it's important for them to establish what their priorities are, as there had been a wide variety of things spoken about. We will work, as we have been, with the city of Toronto and the federal government to try to find resources to make sure that this procurement moves forward, as it was already announced by the city of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: It's precisely that kind of rhetoric that concerns the people of Thunder Bay. There is a very specific contract that the TTC has awarded. It is worth $1.2 billion and hundreds of jobs. This is an opportunity for this government to take decisive action. It's not about more rhetoric; it's about whether or not this government will stand up with their Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who has said that he's very excited about this.

Why can't the Premier and the Minister of Infrastructure get as excited about this as their colleague, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and stand up for the people of northern Ontario and let them know today that these jobs are secure and that the government of Ontario will stand behind this contract? Will he do that today?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do think that the honourable member, who has both the experience in this Legislature—a former member of a government who witnessed his own government filling in a concrete hole, the tunnel that had been under construction for new transit infrastructure, albeit along Eglinton Avenue, where we've committed to it. I think he's standing on rather flimsy ground.

The member also mentions that the party in question has already entered into a contract related to the procurement. We think it's important that Toronto be prepared to invest in the revitalization of its transit infrastructure alongside that of the province. We have $9 billion committed. We want to be a partner with the city of Toronto in continuing to advance access to transit for Torontonians, but we think it's also important, before people in the public domain commit another level of government for resources which they know had not arrived at a level of commitment, that we proceed with some additional caution. That's why we're working with all parties involved—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, we now know that the dreaded HST will go down in history as one of the biggest tax grabs in the history of this country. Ontarians know that this government is attempting to bribe them with one-time payouts conveniently timed to just before the next election.

One of my constituents has written to me, and I promised to convey it to you today. She writes: "I am self-employed and know that for my business I will have more hassle and paperwork with the HST. I am against it and also against the tax grab it represents on gasoline, home heating fuel, water, hydro, used cars, government and city services, any service for home or business, such as repairs, professional services of any kind etc. The $1,000 will not amount to much after we pay all those bills. This is a tough time for myself and many others and this tax grab will hurt."

To the Premier: Why—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I disagree with the premise of the question. I have here the regulations for the GST and for the PST. There are two of them, and one of them will be gone in a year's time—it will be gone.

This budget is about a number of measures that will make our economy more competitive. It's not just about the single payment to assist consumers as we move to the new single sales tax. It's about permanent tax cuts for low-income Ontarians. It's about having the lowest first bracket in the country. It's about an Ontario child benefit that's the most generous in the country. It's about balance. It's about doing the right thing to ensure that Ontario grows as the economy comes out of this—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I am dismayed at the response. The truth is, the vast majority of Ontarians will pay through the nose forever with this new tax.

Perhaps the government will pay attention to another letter I got from a resident of the Beach, who thinks the government will end up paying the ultimate price.

"I am greatly appalled at the Liberal government's recent announcement to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST.... How could your government think of introducing this tax when Ontarians are losing jobs and hurting financially? Just when I thought your government couldn't be any more misaligned with people they serve, you do this?... Do you think your token $1,000 will actually go to anything that will prove to be beneficial to the poorer recipients?

"I used to be a Liberal supporter but I can't espouse the policies of this party anymore, provincially or federally."

My question: Will this government try to save itself and reverse the tax-grabbing HST scheme?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The NDP have always advocated for more well-paying jobs and this budget will create those.

Let me quote a few other noteworthy individuals who have commented on the budget.

Here is what Hugh Mackenzie, an economist and research associate for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said: "Ontario's 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction for the next few years. It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies. It imposes some coherence on an incoherent federal plan. It increases support for low-income families and individuals. It modernizes Ontario's consumption tax."

I'm with Hugh Mackenzie. I'm with the policy alternatives group. This is the right budget for the right time that will help people in Ontario of the lowest and most modest—

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

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. The Winter Olympic Games are 283 days away. Ontario's athletes will be competing at the highest levels. We need to support them so they can compete effectively. Investment in Ontario's athletes will help them succeed in what are incredibly competitive sporting events. We want our athletes to be on the Olympic and on the Paralympic podiums. We want our athletes to get their share of the medals.

Minister, how are you helping Ontario's athletes get to those winning podiums? What's the government doing to help our athletes turn in winning performances?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I want to thank the member from Willowdale for his question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members may want to settle some of those issues outside of this chamber. We don't need them dealt with in here.

Minister?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: It certainly is a privilege for me to stand in this House to talk about our Quest for Gold program that was recently announced by the McGuinty government. This year, we're in fact putting $10 million in the Quest for Gold program. This will continue to support funding for our high-performance sport athletes in 2009-10.

Supporting Ontario's athletes is an important part of this government's plan to build sport in Ontario. That is why last year $23.4 million was invested in sport across the province of Ontario.

Through our Quest for Gold program, our government provides support to Ontario's high-performance athletes and to our coaches in Ontario. This program is aimed to improve the performance and number of Ontario's—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, Ontario's athletes inspire a culture of sport development in our communities. This encourages us all to lead healthy, active and sporting lives. Minister, this is good for everyone.

Athletes who accept funding are making a commitment to live and train in Ontario and compete for Ontario at the national and international level. To meet the goals set by Ontario of helping Canada win the most medals at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, our support for our athletes has to be effective. Minister, will you commit to continue the type of support the McGuinty government has provided in the past and continues to provide to help these dedicated athletes win for Ontario and win for Canada?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today our Quest for Gold program has provided over $32 million in financial support to high-performance athletes. This program aims to improve the performance and number of Ontario athletes competing at the national and international levels, and contributes to the performance of Canada at international competitions.

Twenty-nine per cent of the Canadian athletes who competed at the 2008 Beijing Olympics were recipients of the Quest for Gold Ontario athlete assistance program; 94 of the 137 Ontario athletes on Team Canada are Quest for Gold recipients; 16 individual Ontario athletes won medals at the 2008 Olympic summer games; and 13 of them are funded through the Ontario athlete assistance program. At the 2008 Paralympic games, 86% of Ontario athletes were recipients of the Quest for Gold.

We continue to support our athletes in—

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

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, a year ago your ministry said that Ontario's new, high-tech driver's licence would be available by the winter of 2008-09 and now your ministry says the licence won't be available on time. In fact, on April 29, Premier McGuinty was quoted as saying, "It's unfortunate that we haven't been able" to get it done.

We estimate that 92,000 cars and 22,000 trucks carrying $650 million worth of products cross the Ontario-US border each day. Minister, could you possibly tell this House why the high-tech driver's licence won't be available on time in Ontario, by June 1?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, it will be. I want to tell the member that when you're establishing a system of this kind, you have to ensure it's foolproof. I know that you, as an opposition member, would be delighted if somehow, when we developed this system, there was a glitch that took place so you could—and you might do that yet. I shouldn't say that you might do that yet. You'll stand up and say, "I just found something wrong with it," or that there's something that's not as secure as you would like.

The government wanted to make sure it was completely secure, so it did the testing of the cards very carefully. It had to consult and comply with everything that homeland security in the United States wanted, and the Canadian border services and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So we went through all of these steps to be very thorough, to have what's available for the people in Ontario in a truly enhanced security document.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: As has been oft quoted, you didn't get it done. Quite honestly, the

article I'm looking at here says, "Border Licences Called a 'Botch-Up.'" It's clear that you've mismanaged the project from the beginning. No one argues with the security issues that you mentioned. What we argue with is saying one thing and not delivering. You didn't get it done, and that's the truth here.

This is affecting the mobility of the economy of Ontario. Quite honestly, my sense is that—there are really a couple of questions here. Will you get this project done on time and on budget? That's the question. Are you on budget or on time, either one or both? Could you answer that question, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: You in opposition have a definition of time and budget. I have seen no deviation from budget at all. We wanted to ensure that it was done properly. Your leader, my good friend Bob Runciman—I'm not supposed to use names—has always been a person in this House who has lectured governments from opposition or, when in government, lectured his colleagues to do things right, to take the proper time to do things right, and I agree with him. He has always been very good at that.

I want to assure the member, first of all, that for people who want to fly, the alternative is of course the passport. There is a Nexus pass available, and we've made this available to the people of the province of Ontario.

I'm sure that today you will have people who will be making application in various parts of Ontario for this, and they'll have it very soon.

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour le ministre des Transports.

People in my riding are worried about this government's latest plan for the Highway-69-to-17 Sudbury southwest bypass. Your plan presently shows two flyover crossings for Southview Drive and Fielding Road, which will virtually cut off access to 1,300 residents and about a hundred area businesses, with implications for school buses, emergency vehicles and property values, not to mention making the daily work commute that much more of a challenge.

My question is simple: Can the minister reassure my constituents that an interchange will be added to the existing plan for the Highway-69-to-17 southwest bypass at Fielding Road?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm very pleased—

Interruption.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm very pleased that I have an answer. Listen, I met with the mayor of the city of Sudbury at the insistence of the member for Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci. We had an excellent meeting. I've known Mayor Rodriguez from way back when he was in St. Catharines. He was a teacher in St. Catharines at that time.

There were representatives of city council there, the representatives of staff. I'll tell you, it was a fabulous meeting. When they left, they were very, very happy that the Ministry of Transportation was listening very carefully to their proposals.

As well, I remember that there is an environmental assessment that takes place. With that environmental assessment, people have an opportunity to call for a bump-up. A bump-up allows for more detailed environmental assessment, in which we'll be able to take into account all of the concerns that people in the area might have about this particular matter. I assure you, we are giving—

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

M me France Gélinas: I was hopeful when I saw the piece of paper come, but I did not get an answer, so I'll ask again.

Firefighters, police officers and emergency medical services are all opposed to the actual plan. They want existing municipal roads to be linked to the new four-lane bypass.

The plan as it exists would be an awful blow to the businesses on Fielding Road, which has about a hundred acres, ripe for expansion, that would become virtually useless. Businesses and livelihoods depend on Fielding Road's access to the bypass to get the 1,300 families from the Mikkola subdivision to their shops. They would suffer also.

Given what is at stake, when can my constituents expect an answer from this minister on the building of an interchange on the Highway-69-to-17 southwest bypass at Fielding Road? Will we get an interchange at Fielding Road?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That is to be determined. Certainly, I've listened very carefully to my colleague from Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci, who represents the people in that specific area. I've listened to the mayor of the city of Sudbury and the representatives who are there. I've received letters in the mail from people. Not everybody is on the same wavelength; I understand that. There are going to be different opinions, because different scenarios would have different impacts on the community.

As a result of this meeting and as a result of the representations made by the member for Sudbury, the letters that have come in, the mayor of the city of Sudbury and all concerned, we are considering very seriously the option that they have provided to us.

I think that the kind of meeting that we had is exactly the kind of meeting that the mayor was looking for. We left with a friendly handshake, and we were just delighted that this kind of openness is available to the people of Sudbury.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington on a point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to grant unanimous consent to the passage of Bill 132.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington is requesting unanimous consent for the passing of Bill 132. Agreed? I heard a no.

Question period has ended. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1500.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: People are trying out the Dalton tax-o-meter, and the results are not good. They have calculated how much the Dalton McGuinty HST tax grab is going to cost them and they can't afford it.

The Premier has received e-mails from these people. He knows how much it's going to take from their families and seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. He knows that they are asking him to scrap this tax, like the retired man who estimated that it will cost him $18,000 over his lifetime; like the woman who has been unemployed for almost a year and estimates that it will cost her $56,000; like the family who already can't afford to take their kids to the movies or restaurants and estimates that this tax will cost them over $34,000.

They are already using money from their line of credit to register their son for soccer. How does the Premier expect them to afford this tax? What expense would he like them to cut?

In the middle of a recession, how can a government implement a tax that would cost people, by their own estimates, $46,000, $78,000 and $120,000 over their lifetime? All these people figured out how much the Dalton sales tax will cost them by using the HST calculator on my website. If you, Mr. Speaker, want to find out how much the tax grab will cost you and all people who are watching, go to www.erniehardemanmpp.com and try the calculator. Then join the PC caucus in telling Dalton McGuinty that Ontarians are struggling and they cannot afford this tax grab.

ART EXHIBITION

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I recently attended an art exhibition, the Cradle of New Chinese Ink Painting Movement, at the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. Its mission is to unveil an innovative program of teaching and learning Chinese ink painting created 40 years ago by Mr. Laurence Tam Chi-sing, a teacher at Wah Yan College in Kowloon, Hong Kong, further educated in the UK and Toronto.

For centuries, the traditional method of teaching to paint was done through the copying of the works of the teacher or the past masters. Inspired by his teacher, the great Chinese painter Lu Shoukun, who stressed creativity, Mr. Tam used basic mathematical principles such as the use of dots and geometric lines to help his students grasp the skill of manipulating the Chinese brush. More importantly, he promoted their learning power and creative ability.

These young students had no way of knowing that they were participating in a revolutionary experiment. This new approach has been recently endorsed by the Chinese education authorities and will be introduced to all teachers and schools.

This art exhibition has been travelling for two years and features many of his students' works. It moves to the University of Toronto from June 6 to June 19. I encourage everyone to take the time to visit, as it is an exhibition worth seeing.

I'd like to thank the Wah Yan College's alumni association for bringing this event to Toronto, and a special thanks to Mr. Tam for sharing his passion of teaching.

RANAE TENBRINKE

Mr. Toby Barrett: For many years, the Royal Canadian Legion has sponsored the Annual Literary and Poster Contest that's open to all Canadian schoolchildren. Dunnville resident Ranae tenBrinke took first prize at branch 142 in her hometown of Dunnville, then proceeded to take top honours at zone B1 and district B in the senior essay contest. Now, the 18-year-old has learned she's been named the provincial champion.

Ranae's essay, in her own words, "Pays tribute to the soldiers who fought in the past and to those who continue to fight in the present. It honours those who had the courage to overcome their fears and pay whatever price necessary for the vision of a strong and free nation. It is a thank you to those who died, those who lived to tell the stories and those the stories inspired. It is not only about remembrance, but it is also about recognition, appreciation and admiration."

The essay is broken into segments: sacrifice, time, fear, freedom, courage and remembrance. It's beautifully written, and Ranae's words are truly wise beyond her years.

Members of the Cayuga Legion—that's branch 159—are proud to be awarding Ranae with her provincial certificate and her medal on May 19. To Ranae, we all say congratulations on your big win and your words, and may others learn from the example you have set.

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I wanted to congratulate the condo owners association that we set up in Trinity—Spadina on April 22. We had about 100 people from the different condominiums represented; in fact, 40 of them. Forty per cent of my riding is made up of condominiums, which is huge when you consider the number. Of course, it has changed the riding quite a lot as a result of the new construction that has come in, mostly condominium-related.

I have to tell you, they came together to talk about establishing a condo owners association of Trinity—Spadina, in particular to give themselves a voice, a voice that will defend the interests of condominium owners and a voice that will defend them against the government, because they've been so unwilling—this Liberal government—to change the Condominium Act to reflect condominiums and to reflect the fact that they have absolutely no voice.

In fact, if there is a dispute, they've got to go to the court system to resolve a dispute between a condominium owner and a developer, a condo owner and a board or a condo owner and a property manager. They've got serious issues that they've got to deal with.

I congratulate them and the new president, Linda Pinizzotto. We expect great things to happen. We urge you to do the same in your riding.

CINCO DE MAYO

Mr. Mike Colle: Today is Cinco de Mayo. It's a celebration of the great history of the Mexican people, many of whom now live in Ontario. Cinco de Mayo commemorates the Battle of Puebla, which took place in 1862 on this day. Mexican soldiers defeated the French occupying forces that were invading Mexico City. This day honours their bravery and celebrates Mexico's triumph over imperialism. Celebrations include battle re-enactments, military parades and festivals filled with food, music, mariachi bands and lots of celebration.

I'm certain that this year's celebrations come at a time when Mexico and its citizens need them most. In celebrating their culture, we must also think of the challenges that the people in Mexico are facing right now. Let us send our thoughts and prayers to those recovering from the flu and hope that this challenge will pass so that the country, the people of Mexico and their friends and relatives who live here in Canada and throughout North America will have a life of hope and a return to normalcy.

Also, I would like to wish the nearly 24,000 Ontarians of Mexican descent and thousands more of Latino background who celebrate this significant day a feliz Cinco de Mayo.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Mr. Ted Arnott: The Minister of Education is demonstrating indifference to the repeated expressions of concern from hundreds of my constituents in the town of Halton Hills. On March 25, I received a letter from the chair of the Halton Catholic District School Board asking me to approach the minister to seek clarification on a school transportation funding issue. The very next day, I spoke to the minister and told her that the school board needed reassurance that their bus funding would not be cut if they continued to bus students from Georgetown South to Christ the King high school.

I continued to follow up with her over the following days, but because the minister refused to respond in a timely way, the board felt compelled to eliminate this bus route for hundreds of students, all in an effort to conform to heavy-handed ministry guidelines. If the minister could still give the board its requested funding assurances, I would hope that it would reconsider its decision to cancel the buses.

On Saturday, I attended an event at the Gardiner Public School in Georgetown. Julie Rossall, a parent of two students at Georgetown District High School, approached me to say that she had little choice but to sell her house in Georgetown South and move closer to her children's school because of the Halton public board's pending bus service cancellation.

That is the hardship that parents are experiencing. I've received countless messages of concern. There is no public transit alternative for Georgetown students.

Let's be clear: The busing problem in Georgetown South originated in the Mowat Block, in the minister's office. The mayor of Halton Hills is asking to meet the minister to discuss this matter. I urge her to do so at her earliest convenience. She has the power to solve this problem, and in the interests of our students she should exercise that power.

CONCERT IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Bill Mauro: I rise today to congratulate the Rafiki Youth Choir, conductor Laurel Oger, pianists Derek Oger and Linda Block, the board of directors and all volunteers connected with the performance on Saturday, May 2, in Thunder Bay.

The Rafiki Youth Choir, the Kuumba Training Choir, the Alumni Ensemble and the Rafiki Youth Choir North Shore performed for two hours in beautiful St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Thunder Bay, thrilling the audience with their excellence.

In Swahili, "rafiki" means "friend" and "kuumba" means "creative."

Special guest Paul Jarman, educator and widely acclaimed composer and performing artist, was in attendance. Paul travelled 33 hours from Australia to be in Thunder Bay for a truly remarkable performance. The audience was thrilled to listen to the world premiere performance of Running with a Dream. This song was commissioned by the Rafiki Youth Choir and written by Paul Jarman about true Canadian hero Terry Fox. It was truly moving and inspiring.

I offer a further thank you to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for having Rafiki rehearse and perform in such a beautiful place; to Delores Dickey for her generous support of the commissioned piece Running with a Dream; to the fundraising committee; to the parents, guardians and families that support this endeavour; and finally to the choristers, an amazing group of young men and women.

Rafiki is a credit and a gift to Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. Again I offer thanks to them and Paul Jarman for a truly remarkable evening. I wish them well in their future endeavours, and good luck in St. John's, Newfoundland, as they participate in Festival 500 this summer.

TAXATION

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify an issue that was brought up in the House last week by a member from the opposition. As it's Education Week, I feel it is especially important that we strive to provide accurate information in this House.

It was stated in the House that the single sales tax will translate into a 13% sales tax hike on the purchase of farmland. The actual fact is that in general the single sales tax—an additional 8%, not 13%—would follow the same tax base and structure as the federal goods and services tax.

Under the GST, the sale of farmland is usually taxable. However, when a farmer sells farmland as part of the sale of a farming business to another farmer, both taxes will be reimbursed after completion of the necessary paperwork.

The sale by individuals of farmland that includes a place of residence is viewed as two separate sales. Under certain circumstances, GST would not apply to the sale of farmland, such as in the case of a sale to an individual related to the farmer who would use the land for farming purposes.

POVERTY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to commend the McGuinty government's commitment to reducing poverty and ensuring that all Ontarians have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

The McGuinty Liberals realize that to compete with the world's leading economies, we need all 13 million Ontarians to be at their best. Helping low-income families to reach higher is no longer just a moral imperative but an economic necessity.

We are helping these families, and all Ontarians, by doing the following: We have increased social assistance rates by 11% since 2003, after more than a decade of frozen rates. We're almost doubling the Ontario child benefit, up to $1,100 a year per child, for low- and middle-income families, beginning in July 2009, two years ahead of schedule. We're investing again in new, affordable housing: $622 million to match federal contributions, to build 4,500 new housing units, and rehabilitating 50,000 existing units. We're moving forward with a plan that, when fully implemented, will provide $45 million annually to ensure that low-income Ontarians have access to quality dental care.

These investments in affordable housing, early childhood development and health care are all key aspects of the McGuinty government's efforts to help all Ontarians.

We recognize that there's more to do, and we'll continue to do the work that has to be done to ensure that all Ontarians have the tools they need to succeed.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 174

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke introduced Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to matching rebates of gasoline tax that the Minister provides to municipalities.

An examination of this bill has shown that it is largely similar in all meaningful respects to another bill already fully dealt with by this House in this session. Both bills propose a mechanism and a calculating formula for some municipalities to receive equitable rebates of gasoline tax revenue for certain purposes, in comparison with other municipalities that receive such rebates for different purposes.

This earlier bill, Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities, was also sponsored by the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The member selected the bill as his ballot item for private members' public business, and Bill 38 was subsequently considered on May 1, 2008. The motion for second reading was lost on a recorded division that day.

The close similarity between the two bills has caused me to consider the provisions of standing order 52, which states: "No motion, or amendment, the su