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

April 7, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2009-Apr-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 April 2009 Mardi 7 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

ENERGY RATES

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

STEEL INDUSTRY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TAXATION

POVERTY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SMOKING CESSATION

TUITION

DEFERRED VOTES

2009 ONTARIO BUDGET

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GO TRANSIT

WORLD WATER DAY

CHILD POVERTY

OSWALDO RAMIREZ

PATRICIA MOORE

BANGLADESH

RENEWABLE ENERGY

LE CENTRE DE SERVICES

À LA FAMILLE

TAMARACK HOUSE

ONTARIO BUDGET

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

WELECHENKO TRANSPORT LTD.

ACT, 2009

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

TOXICS REDUCTION

MAURICE BOSSY

PETITIONS

TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO BUDGET

CEMETERIES

SALES TAX

LUPUS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HEALTH CARE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 162, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'm sharing my time this morning with the member for Pickering–Scarborough East, the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Pickering—Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I thank the House leader for leading this off for us this morning. I'm pleased this morning to be able to rise here and continue the debate regarding the Budget Measures Act and other matters for 2009.

It's no secret that Ontario is feeling the effects of this global economic crisis that we're all faced with. The impact on our economic growth, the impact on jobs and investments, is directly affecting the province's individuals, its families, its communities and its businesses. Job losses in the province have hurt families—there's no question about that—in the communities throughout this province. I know that my colleagues will be speaking to matters such as this, particularly the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

We've seen job losses in our mills, we've seen job losses in factories, and government revenues continue to decline at this point in time. The challenge that we're faced with in this budget and over the next period of time is very significant, but it's one that the people of Ontario will be able to meet, and they will overcome the difficult economic times we're faced with today.

On March 26, my colleague the Honourable Dwight Duncan, the Minister of Finance, presented our government's sixth provincial budget. This budget takes immediate actions to make Ontario more competitive, not only now but in the future as well. A strong, competitive economy helps families and businesses take advantage of the next generation of growth while maintaining and enhancing the province's very cherished public services.

The McGuinty government's 2009 budget helps families weather this particular economic storm while ensuring Ontario's economy becomes stronger and even more competitive, so that when prosperity does return, not only in Ontario but other jurisdictions—and certainly it will return—families and businesses will benefit.

Five years ago, the McGuinty government was elected on its commitment to improve public services. Ontarians need those public services so that we can each of us reach our full potential. We needed to improve public education, our universal health care, the modern infrastructure necessary to support this province, and support for vulnerable citizens and a greener Ontario. When we came to office in 2003, our schools and hospitals were deteriorating. Class sizes were too large and more doctors and nurses were desperately needed. We were faced at that time with a $5.5-billion deficit.

Between the years of 2003 and 2008 the province experienced strong revenue growth. This period of growth and prosperity allowed our government to make much-needed investments in these key public sector services. For five years, our government has invested in these public services to help ensure Ontarians do indeed reach their full potential. We managed spending in a prudent fashion, not allowing our average annual expenditure growth to exceed our average annual revenue growth. In other words, we ensured that we had more revenue coming in than our spending.

We eliminated the deficit left by a previous government, and our debt-to-GDP ratio is lower than when we came to office. Today there are more teachers in our classrooms, more students in our colleges and universities. More families in Ontario have a family doctor and patients have shorter wait times for various surgeries and other key medical procedures. The Ontario child benefit is providing children who grow up in lower-income families with a better start in life. Our partnerships with cities and towns across the province are leading to infrastructure renewal throughout Ontario.

We've invested in innovative companies and we've cut the cost of doing business.

Our government saw economic storm clouds on the horizon, and as a result we laid a foundation to respond. We are able to continue to support Ontarians because of the five-point economic plan that we put into place. This plan encourages growth and job creation through ongoing investment in skills and knowledge, infrastructure, business partnerships and lowering business costs. Our government prepared for this economic storm by investing $18 billion in infrastructure during the past two years. Shovels are already in the ground; we've seen job creation and sustained more jobs, some 85,000 in 2007-08 and more than 100,000 jobs during the last fiscal year.

However, the scope and scale of the global economic crisis that began in the fall of 2008 were both dramatic and unanticipated by all jurisdictions. Jurisdictions around the world are going into deficit because of declining revenues and the need to stimulate economies. Unfortunately, Ontario is no exception. The province has continued to experience the effects of the global economic challenges, resulting in significant revenue declines.

But in order to help families and businesses being affected by the global recession and continue to take action to ensure Ontario is more competitive, so that our families and businesses benefit when prosperity returns, we too are forecasting a deficit budget.

Changes in the 2008-09 fiscal outlook are primarily driven by revenue declines of $3.5 billion, a decrease of 3.6% from the 2008 budget forecast. As a result, our government is forecasting a deficit of $3.9 billion for the 2008-09 fiscal year and a peak deficit of $14.1 billion in the coming fiscal year. To put this into perspective, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, Ontario's 2009-10 deficit is well below that of the United States. It is about the same as that now anticipated by our own federal government.

Our government has a track record of prudent management of expenditures. We found some $111 million in savings in the past five months. We eliminated the deficit that we inherited. To that extent, we have laid out a prudent plan to balance the budget by 2015-16. To increase efforts to manage spending while protecting core public services, our government has a plan.

We'll hold the average annual rate of growth in core program expenditures below the rate of average annual growth in revenue, adopting efficiency practices and managing overall expenditures, including a $1-billion efficiency target in 2011-12.

We'll expand the mandate of the Ontario Buys program to generate savings in the broader public sector by proposing certain mandatory procurement activities such as collaborative purchasing.

We'll propose to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to freeze MPP salaries at their current level for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

We'll limit salary increases for deputy ministers and senior managers earning $150,000 or more during 2009-10.

And we'll reduce the size of the Ontario public service by 5% over the next three years through attrition and other measures.

The 2009 budget helps Ontario families weather this economic storm, but frankly it does much more than that. This budget invests in infrastructure and skills training to create jobs and help Ontario workers get the skills they need to succeed. This budget supports the most vulnerable Ontarians in these particularly challenging economic times. This budget helps develop new opportunities in the green economy. This budget invests in innovation. The McGuinty government is proposing a comprehensive tax reform package that includes moving to a single sales tax on July 1, 2010, and providing tax relief for people and for businesses.

The 2009 budget announces significant measures to preserve and create jobs today. Proposed initiatives will help people through this tricky economic environment while also enabling Ontarians to contribute to the province's future competitiveness by enhancing our infrastructure base, investing in the skills and knowledge of our workforce and supporting key sectors of our economy.

These actions build on the significant investments that the McGuinty government has made since 2003. Our government is investing $34 billion over the next two years as a relatively short-term stimulus to encourage economic growth and to help Ontario families. This stimulus represents 2.9% of our gross domestic product, which is above the minimum recommendation from the International Monetary Fund for short-term stimulus action. We are looking not only in Ontario, to our federal government and abroad, but looking at international indicators for the nature of the investments that we should be making as an economic stimulus package.

This stimulus package is not only significant in its size, but it also meets the key criteria of being timely, being targeted and being temporary. Strategic infrastructure investments provide jobs in the short term as well as building a strong foundation for tomorrow. The McGuinty government is allocating $32.5 billion for infrastructure projects over the next two years. These will support an estimated 146,000 jobs in 2009-10 and some 168,000 jobs during the period of 2010-11.

This includes a record $648 million in 2009-10 for provincial highway projects in northern Ontario: ongoing widening to four lanes of Highway 69 to Sudbury and Highway 11 to North Bay. Certainly these improvements will be well received by those who use that highway, whether it be as part of a commute, for recreation, or most importantly, for the purpose of transporting goods and services for business purposes.

These expenditures will include the widening of Highway 11 and 17 near Thunder Bay. As I said earlier, I'm sure that the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan will want to reflect on what this is going to mean for his communities.

We're also investing additional funds to improve resource access roads, remote airports, winter road networks and the remediation of the Mid-Canada Line radar sites.

These investments build on our government's $30-billion ReNew Ontario infrastructure investment plan, which will be completed in the 2008-09 time frame, a full year ahead of what had been our scheduled plan. In fact, the province has more than 30 major infrastructure projects under way, each worth more than $100 million. I think it's worth repeating: across this province, 30 major infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million each.

I can speak to just one of those within the broader jurisdiction of where my riding is—the Durham consolidated courthouse, a very significant provincial infrastructure initiative that was planned, implemented and is currently under construction.

Among those shovel-ready projects that are set to go across the province, we're looking to rehabilitate social housing, including energy efficiency improvements and the creation of new affordable housing units for lower-income families, seniors and particularly persons with disabilities. Provincial highway and bridge projects in northern Ontario, the Kitchener-Waterloo region, the Niagara region, Guelph and Brantford certainly are all included.

This is not a comprehensive list by any means, but it does point out some of the priorities and some of the geographical distribution nature of the expenditures that are being made.

Municipal developments, which would include libraries and local transportation projects, are also on the list of initiatives to be undertaken with this infrastructure funding. New medical school spaces, strengthened post-secondary infrastructure, modernized facilities at Ontario's colleges and universities and additional support for research and infrastructure are also to be considered within the infrastructure envelope. We'll also be making capital investments to support and enhance the tourism sector.

The McGuinty government understands the economic benefits of a highly skilled and educated workforce. It's a cornerstone to our future economic growth. That's why this budget allocates nearly $700 million over two years in new skills training, literacy initiatives and enhancements to existing programs to help workers get the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow.

But it's a serious problem that 70% of unemployed Ontarians do not receive regular employment insurance benefits. We need the federal government to ensure that Ontarians have equitable access to the EI program, especially during these particular economic times.

Recognizing the employment challenges faced by our youth in this difficult economic time, we're also increasing spending on summer jobs. We're extending that expenditure for youth by 57% to nearly $90 million in the 2009 year, helping more than 100,000 young people get summer jobs. That would be an increase of approximately 25% from the 73,000 that were supported last year.

Our government is also committed to partnering with key sectors to help them become more competitive so they continue to make major contributions to Ontario's economy. Our budget announces support for key Ontario sectors, which include manufacturing, forest products, mining, agriculture and small business.

Our government is committed to improving the quality of life for Ontarians, particularly those who are most vulnerable in our community. Giving everyone a fair chance to succeed is the right thing to do; it's the right thing to do for our society and it's the right thing to do for our economy. The current economic environment has made immediate measures to support vulnerable Ontarians and families even more critical.

As part of an aggressive strategy to help families being hurt by this recession, we're accelerating the poverty reduction strategy by proposing to speed up the phase-in of the Ontario child benefit a full two years ahead of schedule—and what better way to help support low- and middle-income families than through the enhancement of the Ontario child benefit? This would provide lower- and middle-income families with up to $1,100 annually per child starting in July 2009, almost doubling the $600 they receive now and expanding eligibility to almost 115,000 more families than in 2008.

Additional aspects of the 2009 budget's poverty reduction strategy include doubling the Ontario senior homeowners' property tax credit, as announced in the 2008 budget, so that low- and middle-income seniors living in their own homes would get up to $500 in support for their property taxes starting in 2010, helping more than 600,000 seniors over the next five years. We want to continue working with the federal government to invest $1.2 billion over the next two years to construct new affordable housing and rehabilitate existing social housing.

We're increasing Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program benefits; we're helping low-income tenants avoid eviction by providing more than $5 million annually in stable funding for municipal rent banks; and we're raising the minimum wage to $9.50, which became effective on March 31, our sixth increase since 2003. Additional support for seniors includes further enhancing the Ontario property and sales tax credits to ensure that senior couples who receive the guaranteed minimum level of income from governments would receive the full benefits from these credits.

I'm mindful of the time we have available to us this morning, and particularly mindful of the fact that my colleagues from Thunder Bay—Atikokan and Eglinton—Lawrence want the opportunity to address this Legislature with respect to the 2009 budget measures bill.

We're going to keep investing in innovation. We're going to keep investing in the skills and education of our workers in this province. We're going to keep investing in the infrastructure, in lowering business costs and in developing those partnerships. We're going to keep investing in those who are vulnerable in our communities, and if changing circumstances demand it, we'll change our plan to make it stronger still.

I would certainly ask at the end of this debate, when it's finished, for the members here to support Bill 162 so that we can move forward with this plan so we can invest in Ontario, so that we can invest particularly in Ontarians, so that we can create jobs and improve the competitiveness for tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member indicated that he was sharing his time, I understand, and therefore I recognize the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for sharing his time this morning, and to remind the Speaker that I'll also be sharing the remaining 40 minutes or so with the member from Eglinton—Lawrence.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to our budget bill. As most know, when you present a budget in the Legislature you are presenting a document that obviously is the result of attempting to balance a whole wide range of competing interests. As a government, I suppose one of the measures you use to try to get a sense of whether or not you've been able to strike an appropriate balance is the responses that you get from members of the opposing parties.

I know that when Minister Duncan was presenting the budget here in the Legislature approximately a week or a week and a half ago, we immediately began to see remarks coming from members of the opposing parties that I think, as a member of the government, indicated to us clearly that perhaps we had struck a pretty fair and appropriate balance in terms of the package that we were able to bring forward.

We heard from the members of the official opposition the fact that perhaps the budget went too far; in fact, described as a left-leaning budget by some members of the official opposition. And we heard the members of the third party indicating that to them, perhaps the budget had gone too far, was too much of a right-leaning budget and smacked of the Mike Harris days. So, as a member of the government side, I think it's probably appropriate for us to draw a conclusion that perhaps we came close to striking an appropriate balance in terms of the package that we brought forward in our budget.

We brought forward some pretty radical pieces that we think are necessary under the current situation and economic circumstances that we find ourselves in. One of the parts that I'm especially gratified about is the corporate income tax reductions, especially for the manufacturing sector. As people who have followed this budget closely will know, we have introduced reductions in two corporate taxes: the general corporate tax rate and the manufacturing corporate tax rate.

As I'm sure that most members of this Legislature and members of the public who are interested will be aware, the forestry sector, one that I'm very interested in, has found itself in very difficult economic circumstances. The reduction of the manufacturing tax rate from 12% to 10%, an approximate 14% reduction for them, as well as the elimination of the capital tax, is obviously going to put them in a much better position to compete on a go-forward basis.

I think this is something that the members of the official opposition have found themselves now in a position of expressing a bit of concern about, because clearly these are policies that they were in support of for quite some time, leading up to the presentation of the budget, and now have found themselves—some of them, at least—in the position of arguing against, which is a bit of a surprise.

Members of the third party, as well, I think, were almost a bit disappointed when we introduced a measure that's going to almost double, as was said already this morning, the Ontario child benefit, from about $50 a month per child to almost $100 a month per child—a doubling of the Ontario child benefit fully two years ahead of schedule. Cleary, it's something that we're very proud of over here on this side of the House.

It's not the only poverty reduction measure that we continue to move forward on during very difficult economic circumstances, but obviously, I think it's one of the most significant pieces that we can move forward on. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people in the Legislature, and even in the community, interested in these issues who thought, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in, that the poverty reduction strategy may have been a piece that was pushed to the side. We're all very proud on this side of the House that in fact that was not the case.

We also heard in the budget a part that I'm very excited about: the continued commitment—and I want to underline that—the continued commitment to an investment in infrastructure in the province of Ontario. When we came to government in 2003, we all talked quite regularly about what we felt were three deficits that we inherited: a fiscal deficit, a service deficit and an infrastructure deficit. And we have, since 2003, I think most members would acknowledge, been investing significantly in infrastructure in the province.

Our ReNew Ontario program—$30 billion—has been met and completed, and the budget document brought forward a further commitment of $32.5 billion, $27 billion of that being provincial money that will be expended over the next two years. Clearly, this money is going to go a long way to maintaining and creating jobs in the province of Ontario.

I think we can all look within our own ridings for a lot of examples—personal, local examples—of projects that have occurred over the last four, five or six years that have significantly created jobs and met infrastructure demands that, quite frankly, for a long time were going unmet. Obviously, this infrastructure is necessary for our businesses to remain competitive, so I, for one, am thrilled that this commitment is still there.

We are hearing now from most national governments and subnational governments, I think, all across the globe that one of the things they can do to get us through this difficult economic circumstance that we find ourselves in is to invest in infrastructure. Our budget is doing that, but once again, I think it's important to underline that our government, under the leadership of Premier McGuinty, had identified infrastructure investments fully six years ago.

While we continue that support for infrastructure investment in the province of Ontario through our last budget, I really do want to remind people that we've been there for the past six years, since our election in 2003. We're hearing everybody else talk about it now, but I really want to mention that for us, this has been a six-year commitment. It's especially important for me as a northern and a rural member who is responsible for several small municipalities.

I look at communities in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan like Oliver Paipoonge, Neebing, Conmee, O'Connor, Gillies and Atikokan—very small communities of 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 people. But the determining factor for those communities is that they all manage extremely large land bases, and on those land bases that they manage as municipal organizations, they have very small tax bases from which to support their infrastructure requirements.

So I'm very thrilled that our infrastructure investments over the last six years and going forward now, as exhibited by our $32.5-billion recommendation here in this budget, will continue to help those smaller communities, especially in northern Ontario, meet their competitive needs through infrastructure investment, and also help residents in those smaller communities maintain reasonable and affordable tax rates. Without this investment from our government, (

a) those tax rates would have to go through the roof to support those infrastructure investments or (

b) quite likely their municipal councils would simply make decisions not to make those infrastructure investments because, quite frankly, they wouldn't be able to afford them.

The member for Pickering—Scarborough East also spoke a little bit in his comments about our continued commitment to public services. I think that under the situation we find ourselves in, many people in the Legislature and in the public were afraid. They were worried that our long-standing six-year commitment to public services would not continue to receive the support that it has since we formed government in 2003, especially health care and education—core public services that people rely on.

We know today, as a result of the budget that was introduced a week and a half ago, that is not the case; that we will continue to make those key investments in public services, we will continue to provide them an increased amount of resources so they can continue to provide the services that we all rely on.

I know that in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan we have seen significant investments in the health care field. I had an opportunity about a week ago to run into the CEO at a hospital event in Thunder Bay. Actually, Justin Trudeau was in town and we had a wonderful fundraiser. They raised significant money for the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Foundation at that event. I had an opportunity to talk to the CEO and, I must tell you, he came up to me in an unsolicited nature and thanked me for the investment our government continues to make in the health care field.

I think he was very concerned, given these difficult circumstances, that we might see reductions that would result in significant layoffs. Of course, that hasn't been the case.

I know seniors in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan were thrilled as well, because many of them have been the recipients of an incredible amount of resources that we pumped into the health care sector. Of course, they are the ones who are benefiting from increased access to more cataracts, more hips and knees, more MRIs, more cancer and cardiac interventions. I know they are thrilled to see that is going to continue.

I want to mention a bit, as the member for Pickering—Scarborough East had as well, about where we find ourselves when it comes to our fiscal situation. For five and a half years now we've actually paid down debt in the province of Ontario. The debt is now lower than it was when we came to government. We've paid off the $5.6-billion deficit that we inherited when we came and have run three or four balanced budgets since we formed government in Ontario. We find ourselves this year anticipating about a $3.9-billion deficit, and of course this has been the subject of some debate.

I think it's obvious for all of us that nobody is interested in going into deficit but I don't hear anybody suggesting that there was necessarily a way around it this time. We're finding ourselves in very challenging situations. We know that people are counting on continued investments in key public services and we have some challenges, obviously, in terms of managing this deficit on a go-forward basis.

But I do know that when we look south of the border and find out what is going on in the United States and many other national and subnational jurisdictions on the planet, most people have not found themselves with any other opportunity or option besides deficit financing. We continue to go forward with that under the appropriate measures of moving forward significantly with investments in our key sectors.

One of the things that I found and was very happy to see in our budget, one of the things that I know we as northern members had lobbied for, was continued support for the forest industry, and not only in northwestern Ontario; it's a key, significant player all across the province but clearly has more of a presence in northern Ontario. Our budget contains significant pieces that will continue to support that industry on a go-forward basis. I was thrilled to see that we had some of those key investments still in there.

I have to tell you that over the course of the last three or four years or so, there's been a great effort made—I would say primarily by the members of the third party and their former leader—to try to paint Ontario as being the only jurisdiction that seems to be suffering when it comes to the loss of forestry jobs in Canada, or in North America. They have spent a fair bit of time trying to paint that picture and saying that it's only this government's fault for the reason for layoffs in the forest industry. Of course, people know that's not quite the case.

I want to take a minute just to paint a bit of a picture, if I can, of what's gone on in other jurisdictions in Canada in the forest industry, and tie it back into the resources and the support that we've provided in our budget to continue to try to help this industry get through this very difficult economic time.

As I said, the two jurisdictions in Canada that probably most closely parallel Ontario when it comes to the forest industry are Quebec and BC. They are the only other two jurisdictions that have a forest industry that's on the scale and size of that which exists in Ontario. If you do even the most cursory bit of effort to try to find out what's gone on in both British Columbia and Quebec, it becomes pretty apparent to people that those jurisdictions, which are on a similar scale and size to Ontario, have had, if not similar challenges, more egregious challenges than have actually occurred in Ontario.

The former leader of the third party was in the House the other day speaking on this and he ran off this long litany of communities in northern Ontario. He rhymed them off and announced the mill closure in every one. We're aware of that, and we know that, but what he tries to do is portray that as being the only jurisdiction that has the problem.

Here are some of the jurisdictions in BC: AbitibiBowater in Mackenzie; Domtar in New Westminster; Cascadia Forest Products in Nanaimo; Domtar in New Westminster; Abitibi in Mackenzie, two mills; Canfor Upper Fraser mill in BC, Canfor Taylor mill; Weyerhaeuser Vavenby mill in Clearwater—all in BC. The list in BC—the most recent list that we've been able to get our hands on—clearly shows that in British Columbia, their forestry sector has closed 57 mills since 2003 with a job loss approaching 12,000 people. British Columbia has actually seen more mill closures and more job losses than has the province of Ontario.

But if you listen to the former leader of the third party, of course he would have you believe—anybody who is interested in this issue in the province of Ontario—that there are only mills closing in Ontario and nowhere else in Canada.

If we look to our neighbour Quebec, which is very fortunate in terms of the energy costs that they're able to provide to their industry, here's what has gone on in Quebec: Tembec in Matane, pulp mill closed; Kruger, Trois-Rivières, specialty papers closed; AbitibiBowater, Donnacona, paper closed; AbitibiBowater, Shawinigan, paper closed; Kruger, Trois-Rivières, specialty paper closed; Kruger in Trois-Rivières, closed; Domtar, Gatineau, closed; Bowater, Dolbeau, closed; Bowater, Dolbeau, newsprint closed; Bowater, Gatineau, closed; Kruger pulp mill, Trois-Rivières, closed; Cascades, kraft pulp in Jonquière, closed; Cascades, Saint-Jérôme, fine paper closed; Tembec, Saint-Raymond, specialty paper closed; Kimberly-Clark, Saint-Hyacinthe, pulp and paper closed; Domtar, closed.

The list goes on and on—another five Krugers, another three AbitibiBowaters, another several Domtars and Tembec, and the list goes on and on. In Quebec, almost 9,000 job losses in their forest industry with about 55 or 60 pulp and paper and sawmills closed.

If we listen to the former leader of the third party, he doesn't want people in Ontario, and especially northwestern Ontario, to know that's the situation because he spent a lot of time over the last three or four years trying to convince people in northwestern Ontario that the only place that there is a challenge in the forest industry is in Ontario, and that the only place that there is a problem—it's been laid at the feet of our government as if there was some magic wand that we would wave.

We have brought significant resource to this sector and our budget continued that support. We bring forward a continued and enhanced energy rebate program for those large pulp and paper companies operating in the province, which will provide them with $18 per megawatt—this is a significant resource—a rebate of $18 per megawatt of energy for those large pulp and paper mills still operating in the province of Ontario.

While the focus in northwestern Ontario has often been primarily on energy, it's important to remind people that that is not the only support that we brought to the forestry sector over the course of the last three or four years. The other support that we brought forward has been continued in the budget. In 1992 or 1993, the responsibility for the construction and maintenance of primary and secondary roads in Ontario for the forestry sector was downloaded on to the backs of the companies by the NDP government of the day.

That was about 16 or 17 years ago that the NDP made a decision that now, sawmill companies and pulp and paper companies in Ontario, it was going to be your cost to bear: the construction and maintenance of primary and secondary roads in the province of Ontario. We took that cost back about three years ago.

Until 2004 or 2005, when we uploaded the cost from the forestry companies, about a 12- or 14-year period existed during which the forestry companies had the responsibility for those road networks, as downloaded to them by the New Democratic Party. I don't know how many tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions, that took out of the pockets of forestry companies over that 14- or 15-year period, but I can tell you, it was likely significant. In the last three years, that roads program alone contributed close to $225 million, the roads uploading program that our government brought in.

While we often focus on and spend most of our time discussing the energy piece—and I've outlined briefly for you some of the resource that we have provided for energy support in the province—we have also, over the course of the last three or four years, brought significant help to them in terms of uploading the costs of primary and secondary construction and maintenance off the backs of those companies, and this budget continues that support for that particular piece.

Finally in the budget, we have continued the stumpage rate reductions on a couple of different species in the province of Ontario for forestry companies, which is going to significantly enhance their ability to stay competitive as well.

As I mentioned earlier, in British Columbia, 57 closures and almost 12,000 people laid off in that industry; in Quebec, well over 8,000 people laid off in the industry, and 56 closures; in Ontario, 43 closures, with under 8,000 employees—obviously, a significant challenge for forestry; obviously, lots of people directly affected, experiencing job loss in industries that have been there for generations.

It's important that I highlight that our government has brought significant resource to support this industry, and it's important that I highlight for people interested in this particular topic that it is not only Ontario that has faced the challenge in this industry, despite attempts to paint that as the picture over the course of the last three or four years. It is something that is affecting not only all jurisdictions engaged in forestry in Canada, but quite frankly, across the globe.

I see that my 20 minutes is up, and I'll now yield the floor to the member from Eglinton—Lawrence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I will now recognize the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: It's very frustrating to have only 19 minutes to speak about so many good things in this budget.

I just want to compare what is happening in Ontario and what is happening in the rest of the world, and to understand that we are all globally connected. I just want to put the general international perspective into place.

Many times, we've talked about the global context of this economic meltdown, and it's something that we have to take into account because Ontario is a trading nation and depends on exporting its goods and services, goods especially. If you do a survey of the world, you'll see that the Celtic tiger—Ireland—for instance, is just going through its second budget in six months. It was the tax haven for all kinds of IT companies. Everybody was saying, "Ireland—we've got to copy, emulate Ireland. They have the answers." Well, Ireland is basically, as I've said, in deep, deep trouble.

Another model country was Iceland. Iceland is basically bankrupt. The only thing they're able to do now, their only industry that shows signs of life at all, is tourism. What they're doing in Iceland is, because the value of their currency has fallen so much, if you pick up the Toronto newspapers, television or web, you'll see all kinds of inducements to go to Iceland and buy cheap goods and services in Reykjavik. That's what they're reduced to. It's basically become like a big Walmart because of this economic collapse.

Mr. Peter Kormos: That's not fair.

Mr. Mike Colle: No offence to Walmart. I didn't mean to downgrade Walmart—a lot of good jobs there.

In Hungary—and the socialists across the way will note this; I'm sure they're following closely—the socialist prime minister just resigned because the economy is collapsing in Hungary despite the IMF giving them hundreds of millions of dollars to stabilize their currency.

If you have friends or relatives in Britain, you will see the economy in Britain is in a tailspin like never seen before since the days of Clement Attlee. They've never been in such an economic slump.

Mr. Peter Kormos: The Queen is pawning her jewels.

Mr. Mike Colle: To the point where, the socialist member from Welland says, the Queen is almost pawning her jewels, sad to say.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: And Michelle Obama is helping her out.

Anyways, if you look at Germany, which has one of the most sophisticated, cutting-edge economies, the green economy that we hope will be part of the future economy here in North America, the United States and Canada, despite having the cutting-edge green economy of the world, Germany's economy is in deep, deep trouble: unemployment like you've never seen before in Germany. With all its wind turbines, with all its solar energy infrastructure, with all its innovation, Germany is in serious, serious trouble.

In France there's massive labour unrest. That's what is happening in France. The workers are losing their jobs, cutbacks etc. There's serious labour unrest in France.

If we go to California, the most prosperous, incredible, iconic state of California, we know that they were $18 billion short. They had to be bailed out in terms of survival in California. That's where the American dream is: "Go west, young man." You can't even go to California.

We also have Michigan. You saw the documentary on CBC the other day where you could buy a beautiful two-storey brick home in a nice neighbourhood in Detroit, a reasonable neighbourhood, for $500. For a two-storey brick home in a reasonable neighbourhood in Detroit, for $500 they were trying to sell homes.

In China, 25 million people at last count lost their jobs in the last month—up to 25 million people.

In Alberta, the great oil-rich province of Alberta, all of a sudden their royalties are literally drying up—oil at $50 a barrel. It's on the brink of recession. And BC, the great province of BC.

The other provinces of Canada: Some of them are doing quite well because they're getting equalization money from Ontario. We're still helping Nova Scotia. We're still helping Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick was able to lower taxes with Ontario's money. That's great that they're able to survive somehow with Ontario's money.

But if you look at the whole world, we are in unprecedented times. This is economic climate change.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Capitalism. How do you like it so far?

Mr. Mike Colle: Capitalism is on its deathbed, many say, because of many, many reasons that I won't go into.

The context of this budget has to be understood. This is not an Ontario problem. This is not a Canadian problem. This is not Prime Minister Stephen Harper's problem. It is not Premier McGuinty's problem. It is all of our problem. Every country and every jurisdiction, national and subnational, faces the same horrendous challenge of how we provide goods and services to our populations, and at the same time create a new economy, at the same time balance our books, at the same time create research and innovation that creates jobs for the future.

No one really has the answer. I think everybody has parts of the answer, and those who claim they have the solution are either living in a fool's paradise or they're totally unrealistic. The best and brightest people in the United States, in Europe, in Asia—in the whole world—are trying to grapple with this unprecedented economic climate change. Look at Japan. The incredible economy of Japan is almost at a standstill. Taiwan, which was an economic powerhouse, is caught in this economic climate change.

We've tried to take the best ideas of what they are doing in other countries and jurisdictions. One of the consensus issues is that one of the things you can do to get us through the economy is invest in infrastructure. So in this budget there's an unprecedented investment in infrastructure. When we talk about infrastructure, it means building sewers. I know it's not very sexy or newsworthy, but we have to rebuild and build sewers throughout this province in many of our urban areas, and that creates jobs. We have to repair and build bridges; that creates jobs for men and women. We have to repair and build roads and schools. We have to invest in our public transportation system.

That's what we've committed to in this budget: $32 billion over two years in providing good jobs for men and women who have the ability to work. As you know, in Ontario, when it comes to construction and building—I know that the member from Durham appreciates this—we have some of the most talented and skilled men and women, whether it be designers, engineers, draftsmen, machine operators or people who operate tunnel boring machinery; we have the world's best workers when it comes to construction, bar none in the world. They can match their skills, their work ethic and their engineering capacity with any workers in the world.

We are going to encourage them, with this budget, to rebuild our roads, bridges, sewers, hospitals, schools and public transit so that they're building this infrastructure, which puts money into the economy. That money in the economy will mean that those plumbers—

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: The member from Durham doesn't care about the plumbers, but if the plumbers get a job, if Josephine the plumber gets a job, Josephine the plumber is going to be able to buy shoes for her children, gasoline for her car and groceries at the corner store. That keeps the corner store operator in business; it keeps the shoemaker in business; it keeps the economy active because Josephine the plumber has a good-paying job. That's the way it works. Whether it's Josephine the plumber, the engineer or the construction worker at Local 183, when they work, they buy groceries, they buy shoes and they buy furniture, if they need it.

The important thing is to make sure that our skilled labour, whether they're in Sarnia or in Scarborough, get a chance to work, whether they get a chance to work in building public transit or in repairing our housing stock. The Minister of Housing has fought for the federal government in partnership, and they've agreed to partner in providing $1.5 billion of money for jobs in repairing public housing. Our drywall workers, our plumbers, our carpenters and our sheet metal workers will retrofit the energy systems in our public housing, they will repair the washrooms and they will repair the hallways and the roofs.

These are good-paying jobs for working people. This infrastructure money which is in this budget—$1.5 billion in housing infrastructure alone over two years—means good jobs for highly skilled workers who we have in this province.

Again, the investment in public transit is not only an investment in moving people, it's also an investment in revitalizing neighbourhoods and spurring development. If you fly over Toronto or look at a map of Toronto, where there are major investments in public transit, you'll see that there are apartment buildings, office buildings and there are workplaces because of the access to public transit. If you look at a map of Toronto, all up and down Yonge Street you'll see the concentration of people, apartments and workplaces. If you look along Bloor and the Danforth, you'll see the same thing.

The Danforth line—you'll see that's where people want to live and that's where people want to work, so property values improve and increase. People want to live near public transit. You not only get jobs in building those light rail cars or in digging those tunnels, you also get jobs in building apartment buildings and in building and retrofitting neighbourhoods when you invest in public transit.

If you look up Yonge Street at Finch and up at Sheppard, you'll see the Mel Lastman miracle. North York used to be basically a farmer's field at Sheppard and Yonge, but because of Mel Lastman's vision and his battle to bring public transit into North York, you'll see at Yonge and Sheppard an amazing metropolis—because of that investment in public transit. There were jobs not only for the subway workers; there were also jobs for all the men and women who were building those towers, those apartment buildings and office towers, in the Yonge and Sheppard hub.

That's why this investment that our government is going to make in public transit—along Eglinton Avenue; in Scarborough, rebuilding the SRT; in the Finch line that goes from Humber College in the west all the way out to Don Mills in the east; all along the Finch corridor; and all along Eglinton Avenue—would not only be jobs for the next number of years for the men and women who will lay the track, dig the tunnels, dig the right of way; it will be jobs in the related spinoff industries of building apartments and retrofitting neighbourhood homes. People will gravitate towards those investments.

So there are not just the jobs in public transit. There are going to be more jobs for the Amalgamated Transit Union, there are going to be more jobs, obviously, for the people in the construction trades, but also all the related support services, plus the economic spinoffs in the neighbourhoods. The investment that we're making here in public transit is an investment in the future vitality of cities.

The investment in York region: We sometimes don't pay enough attention to the incredible dynamism in York region. The city of Vaughan, for instance, is almost 300,000 people. They need better public transit, and one of the investments we're making is the bus right of way with Viva in York region that connects York region through public transit. That means people will be able to get to work and people will be able to invest in those transit routes as they're being built in York region.

Brampton: As I've said before, Brampton is one of the largest cities in Canada right now—600,000 people in Brampton. We're investing in Brampton.

Mississauga: There are one million people in Mississauga.

These are cities that need this kind of infrastructure investment so they can continue to provide employment and transportation. The GO expansion is another incredibly good investment that we have in this budget, because where there are GO stations, you take pressure off the roads and you revitalize and expand neighbourhoods.

So these are the incredibly important decisions that were made in this budget, and I'm sure the Minister of Finance knows that there's much more work to do. Given the fact that we're in this unprecedented economic meltdown, there's something very substantive in investing in infrastructure, and there are many other investments we're making, like in public housing and in the energy retrofit investments we're making. These are important investments as we get through these troubled times.

Those investments that we make in public transit and housing—those rail lines for public transit, those subway stations, those retrofitted public housing buildings—will be there for the next generation. So you've got an asset that's going to continue to be there because the investment is going to be made now.

The basic thrust of the budget, as I said, is to try to get us through these troubled times by infrastructure investments. Yes, there is deficit financing here, but as I challenged the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka yesterday when I said, "Name me one jurisdiction in the world that isn't into deficit financing," he could not name one. He knows that every country in the world is faced with the same daunting task.

That's why even Prime Minister Harper, to his credit, who claimed about a year ago that there would be no deficit, saw that the economic climate change was coming and recognized that he would have to go into $56 billion in deficit too. That's what is happening to all the ideological, you might say, governments of the world. Ireland talked about great capitalism, Iceland, great capitalism, but everybody realizes now that there's no more room for straitjacket ideological perspectives.

We have to look at the reality. That's why we've worked with Prime Minister Harper, because he knows that Ontario is critical in the future recovery of this country. The government in Ottawa knows, like we know here, that the public has no room for partisanship when the economy is in such troubled times. That's why we're working with Ottawa in infrastructure; we're working with Ottawa in modernizing our competitiveness. We have to do that. So I'm glad to see we're getting that co-operation, and I hope this budget will get us through these tough times.

I have the greatest of faith that this is a budget that really tries to do what needs to be done. There is no magic solution, but I think it really does a great job of bringing in pragmatism, initiatives of investment and infrastructure, dealing with, again, a very challenging time so we can keep people working and keep food on the table and continue to grow for the next generation.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I listened intently to the three members of the government side who spoke over the last hour. I want to apologize to my mother. She thought I was going to speak in the last hour, and we didn't know the government was going to take an hour, so some other day I'll speak on the budget.

What I want to talk about is the politics of this. Dalton McGuinty in the 2003 election is on the TV in our living rooms, saying, "I won't raise your taxes," and what does he do? He brings in the largest single tax increase at that time of $2.3 billion in new health taxes. He's chronic. Now we have another election in 2007, and just about as many months after the election he does the same thing. After saying, "I won't raise your taxes, but I won't lower them either"—that was the caveat—this time, in the 2007 election—

Mr. John O'Toole: He's a serial liar.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Just a few months later, just about the same timing as he brought in the health tax, he brings in now, again, the largest—

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member from Durham should withdraw that statement. Will you stand up and withdraw?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I heard it too and I ask the member for Durham to withdraw the unparliamentary remark he made.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes, of course.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): You have to stand up and say, "I withdraw."

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now that I'm up, I think the member from this side is true in his responses. I apologize.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Okay, I'll ask the member from Durham one more time. You have to—

Mr. John O'Toole: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

I'll return to the member for Simcoe—Grey, who now has a few seconds.

Mr. Jim Wilson: A short point: I don't know how these Liberal backbenchers can face their constituents. You say one thing in the election, then you bring in historic tax increases. The big issue in the election was taxes and finances. We could see the economy starting to deteriorate. We were warning you on this side of the House to take certain measures. If you want to help the manufacturing sector, help the manufacturing sector. Don't drag every senior citizen and every citizen in this province by increasing basic groceries, haircuts, electricity and hundreds of items by 8%. You didn't campaign on that. Shame on you.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: If I say, "I withdraw," right at the onset, is that a marker for an inappropriate comment during the course of the two minutes?

Look, there's nothing in this budget for the 800 workers at John Deere who lost their jobs down in Welland when John Deere, after almost a century in Niagara region, closed up shop. The most glaring omission from this budget is a buy-Ontario policy. You've got a Premier whose buy-Ontario policy consists of telling people to eat an apple a day. I'm a big fan of Ontario apples but I'm an even bigger fan of Ontario manufacturing jobs.

The government brags about its infrastructure projects; God bless. Many of them are recycled announcements. But that money being spent means nothing unless and until we have guarantees that it's not only going to employ Ontario workers, but that it's also going to utilize products—pipe, iron, steel and machinery—built here in Ontario.

The demise of the manufacturing sector isn't just a modest inconvenience or a blip. The manufacturing sector is the wealth-creating sector. The service sector doesn't create wealth. That's what Ireland, the Celtic tiger, learned. It's only when you have value-added manufacturing that you create wealth. Casinos don't create wealth. They simply separate people from their wealth. It's in the manufacturing sector where you have the value-added component with which you create wealth.

I have a great deal of affection for the last speaker, the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, but far be it from me to suggest that this is the death of capitalism. This is capitalism exactly where it was intended to be. Capitalism: How do you like it so far? Globalization: Has it been good to you too? Because it sure as heck hasn't been good to the workers down where I come from.

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

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm pleased to rise today in support of the government's budget, a budget that is going to reduce corporate income taxes by over $4 billion, reduce personal income taxes by over $10 billion, and at the end of the day make our businesses more competitive. The most important thing a government can do in a recession is to stimulate the economy and level the playing field for our businesses to become more competitive in the global economy, so that they in fact can hire more people, hire more of our fellow citizens, many of whom are facing difficult times.

As a result of record investments in infrastructure dollars, municipalities, hospitals, post-secondary institutions and schools, we'll be able to retrofit buildings from an environmental and an energy efficiency point of view. They will be able to hire more people in the skilled trades.

In my own community, in Ottawa, I'm proud of the fact that we were able to deliver a significant amount of infrastructure money last year, through the Investing in Ontario Act: $77 million. It's going to help clean up the Ottawa River, build more affordable housing and invest in our transit system. All of these capital projects are going to create jobs and get our fellow citizens back to work.

We're investing $35 million in skilled trades building at Algonquin College in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean. Why? Not only is it the right thing to do, but because we have an aging workforce. We need skilled tradespeople—carpenters, electricians and drywallers—to get their certifications so they can go out and work on these important investments.

We've also invested in public transit through the gas tax. The city of Ottawa benefited to the tune of over $36 million to help support OC Transpo.

The personal income taxes are going to put money in people's pockets so they can go and invest in retail businesses throughout our city.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: As we listen to the members opposite, we reflect on three themes, really: taxing, spending and borrowing. As far as taxing, and this issue was raised by the member from Simcoe—Grey, we all will never forget the so-called health tax, the largest tax increase in the history of Ontario. And, yes, I guess it was two elections ago that Mr. McGuinty came into our living rooms and looked us in the eye and indicated, "I will not raise your taxes." He even signed the Taxpayer Protection Act, a piece that turned out essentially to be not worth the paper it was written on.

Very recently, this government now has hit the little guy and the little gal with the so-called harmonized tax, a 13% tax, as we know, on just about everything from coffee to coffins, soup to nuts to gym memberships. The harmonized tax: I think of it as a tax that will probably cause more harm than harmony.

I'm pleased that the forest sector was raised again. We all know of the devastation across northern Ontario, not only in recent times but over a number of years. When we talk about the forest industry, we come to realize there's a difference between the budget speech and the actual budget. The budget speech talks about a 16.7% corporate income tax rate cut for the forest industry and other sectors. If you look at the budget, that 16.7% cut is not in that budget. We will wait for next year's budget. There's a promise that it will be in next year's budget, and we'll just have to take this government on their word.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the available time for questions and comments. I now return to one of the government members to respond, and I recognize again the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I thank the members for their input. I may disagree with it, but I really appreciate the input.

I just want to say one thing, and that is that when we talk about jobs that are, for instance, in public transportation and transit, building subways or streetcars, I know that people in Thunder Bay are happy because those subway cars get built in Thunder Bay. The steel for the subway cars, the steel for the tracks, the steel for the tunnel-boring machinery comes from Hamilton. If they're building subways in Toronto, the sand and gravel comes from the GTA, so the people driving the cement trucks will have jobs. I don't want to see the cement trucks lying idle like I don't want to see the steel plants lying idle. They are good manufacturing jobs because of the investment we're making.

Housing: The wood that will be used in the retrofit, the drywall, the plumbing materials, that will come from other parts of the province. So this investment has a spinoff effect that is important in jobs.

Not everybody can work in a plant. The 9,000 men and women who drive streetcars and buses for the TTC don't manufacture things—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Nobody's working in plants.

Mr. Mike Colle: —but they work very hard.

And the socialist member from Welland doesn't stand up for those 9,000 workers or the 400,000 workers who work in the banks and the insurance companies in the GTA. The over 400,000 men and women who bring a paycheque back to Hamilton, back to Mississauga, appreciate that job in that insurance company because it puts food on the table.

Everybody needs the support—the manufacturing sector, but don't forget people who work in offices and people who drive subway cars or drive buses. They are also part of our economy, and we tried to help as much as we can. Let's pull together as a province through these tough times.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to introduce the family of Everett Kehew, who is page captain today. In the west members' gallery are his father, Bill Kehew; his mother, Helen Mackenzie; and his sister, Jessie. On behalf of all the members here, I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Shortly to arrive at the west gallery is the family of page Renée Bongers, and that is Maria Thorburn and Alistair Thorburn, who are her aunt and cousin, respectively.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I'm delighted to introduce a number of grade 10 students from one of the great schools in Davenport: Oakwood Collegiate. They're about to arrive, so congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member for Kitchener—Waterloo and page Victoria Carney, we'd like to welcome her father, Brian Carney, here today.

As well, on behalf of the leader of the official opposition, some additional guests of Renée Bongers: her mother, Christine; her father, John; and her brothers Lucas and Ian, along with her aunt and cousin, who were just recently introduced.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. It's clear that Ontario is in a recession and it's clear that this government has no plan. On this side of the House we offered suggestions prior to the budget in terms of a plan that would actually stimulate the economy and get money into consumers' hands. We proposed a very specific program with regard to auto sales—a tax holiday on vehicles and the retire-your-ride program. The Minister of Finance said that this wouldn't work.

Here are the facts: In Germany, from January 14 to March 31, 600,000 new cars were sold under that program; €2,500 to retire your ride. It was so successful that they've extended the program to the end of May.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Finance why he refuses to implement a very practical program that would encourage auto sales in this province—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We did take a close look at it. We looked at it both in the context of Ontario's experience with it and in the context of the European experience with it. What we found was that while it did raise, as I indicated to the member opposite, sales in the shortened period—whenever that incentive was on—as soon as the incentive came off, the sales went back, and overall sales did not improve.

We have taken a number of measures that have been endorsed by the automotive manufacturers and by Canadian manufacturers, including substantial corporate tax cuts. We believe that that is the proper mix to respond to the enormous challenges facing the global economy today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Premier, I want to ask this simple question. The evidence is there that incentives work. This government chose not to use incentives; rather, they brought down in this House a harmonized sales tax proposal that taxes everything and everybody in this province. Rather than provide incentives, you're slapping the biggest tax on the people of this province they've ever seen. Everything from funerals to haircuts will be taxed. People on fixed incomes, who are already struggling to keep their homes, are now going to be faced with this government's gift of a tax slam against them.

I'd like to ask the Premier this simple question: Why, when other jurisdictions around the world are providing incentives to consumers to help bring their jurisdictions out of recession, does he insist on slapping people with a tax in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to remind the member opposite, in fact there is a large tax cut here for consumers and businesses: $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts, $4.5 billion in corporate tax cuts, in addition to the billions that we, as a government, have invested in maintaining and preserving jobs in the auto sector here in Ontario.

We have looked at what other jurisdictions have done in terms of the auto industry, and I'd like to remind the member opposite, this is the only subnational government in the world participating in automotive assistance. That's been lost on the member opposite and his colleagues. I would suggest the package we've negotiated with the federal Conservative government, the one that will help get this economy back to the type of growth it needs, is the right package. Those tax cuts for citizens, tax cuts for businesses are—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: For the people and businesses of Ontario it's frightening. He knows full well, the minister does, that the tax cuts that he talks about, that he is spreading out across this province, don't even come close to meeting the gap that he's created between the affordability that people have to pay their mortgages, to get the daily expenses paid in their lives.

Why will this minister not admit that his timing is all wrong, that what people in this province need is a government that understands they're struggling through these tough economic times, that he will set aside this incredible tax grab that he's putting on the people of Ontario and that he'll turn the page and move toward incentives rather than punishment? When will he do that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ninety-three per cent of Ontarians will see a permanent tax cut in their overall numbers. Revenues to the government of Ontario over the first four years will be down $2.6 billion.

These are challenging times. Our government has put together a $32.5-billion infrastructure plan to employ 300,000 people. My colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure will have more to say about that. In the longer term, we have taken the constructive measures that have been recommended by, I should say, virtually every economist and business. I think most Ontarians understand that it is these types of initiatives that must be undertaken to get this economy back on track, to get us the growth we need to protect and enhance the vital public services that all Ontarians require.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the executive

summary report was released from London Economics International. I'm sure you'd agree this is a very reputable firm in the energy sector. They shed some light on how you, Premier, and the Minister of Energy have kept people in the dark in terms of the effects of your so-called Green Energy Act. They've confirmed what we in the energy industry have been warning the government all along, and that is that businesses and consumers in this province will be hit with increases in their electricity bills of at least 15%, and as high as 50%.

Was the Premier aware that this Green Energy Act would result in such a massive rate shock to residents and businesses who already are struggling in these difficult economic times?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that we did appreciate the interventions yesterday. I would say again to the honourable member, I'd be very happy to sit down with him and the team that his caucus has hired to try to compare the numbers.

There are three things that I would like to comment on related to that report. One is that it doesn't amortize the costs the way the costs are amortized in the electricity sector. If we make an investment in transmission that lasts for 50 years, we pay it over 50 years. It has a rate base impact over that time, but they've made different assumptions in the study. It does not give credit to electricity consumers for the benefits of conservation initiatives.

It costs them against the consumers but it doesn't give them any credit for the reduced use that would flow, and it assumes, as an example, that the Green Energy Act would not displace any other projects or expenditures which might otherwise be contemplated. These are three examples where we think the report could be improved. I'd be happy to spend more time working with the honourable member on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Again to the Premier: We've discussed the real projected cost to consumers, including seniors and those on fixed incomes, and it's nothing close to what the Premier and the ministers have been suggesting. We know that the average bill is going to go up by at least 15 times what the minister's saying—and as much as 50 times what the minister is saying—because he said 1%. That's more than $840 per year when you factor in the recent HST McGuinty tax grab.

Premier, why are you so focused on putting the economy of this province in peril, instead of being right and straight with Ontarians and letting them know the real cost of your spend-and-green disguise?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think part of our difficulty in having a discussion with the honourable member on this issue is that he's not even quite sure what his report says, and he's certainly not presenting consistently what I've said with respect to the pricing implications of the Green Energy Act. What we've said is that we think there will be a 1% per year increase associated with the implementation of the Green Energy Act. That's not 1%; that's 1% per year, and obviously that's very different than what the honourable member has presented.

At the heart of it, though, we also think it's important that the group hired by the opposition takes into consideration the opportunities for people in Ontario and here in this Legislature, in our government buildings and in our homes, to reduce the amount of electricity we use. A strong proportion of the cost associated with the Green Energy Act, and captured in its numbers, is for these very initiatives. Why don't they give the people the benefit of the reductions in the actual use of electricity?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: In respect to what the minister has been saying, it's very difficult to present consistently inconsistency.

Ontarians are entitled to have the facts, not muddied waters. We've become, under your watch, a have-not province for the first time since Confederation. This is a time when we need to attract and retain investment, not scare it away with ever-increasing costs. It's clear from the responses outside of this Legislature that more cost-effective ways may exist and should be explored to achieve similar and higher amounts of avoided emissions and build a green economy. Are you willing to pull this legislation off the table, rethink and look at what's best for both the government and the economy and, most importantly, hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. George Smitherman: No, we won't be pulling the legislation back. We are, with the assistance of a legislative committee, looking for opportunities to enhance the bill, and I know that members on that committee are going to work hard to do so. We've always expressed our willingness to consider amendments as they come forward on numerous occasions. I've offered to meet with the honourable member to talk about those.

But he alluded in his question, I think rather vaguely, to the emerging policies of that party on energy. Are they, as six or seven of their members have said, in favour of the continuance, on a long-term basis, of coal? They were once against that, and as a government, we've taken seriously the reductions, moving towards the elimination, by 2014, of coal. Do they believe in carbon capture and storage? That sounds rather expensive to me. They're going to take those smoke stacks and shove them into the ground? Where is their cost foundation for this?

We're moving forward with the Green Energy Act. It's an ambitious and bold opportunity to transition the economy here in the province of Ontario. But we look forward to the opportunities to get more input from the—

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

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The recent budget makes it very clear that there are two fundamentally different approaches to job creation in this House. On buy-Ontario, this government refuses to set a specific level of Ontario content in green energy projects. The NDP says that we need a 60% Ontario content in all green energy projects, as they do in Quebec. Wind turbines and the steel frames that support them must be made here in Ontario. The NDP has a buy-Ontario program with teeth. Why doesn't this government have one?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. We've had a number of opportunities to speak to this in the House and I'm sure we will have more. It's only natural, especially in times of great economic challenge, that we want to do everything we can to support our domestic and our provincial economy. I understand that.

When it comes to monies that we're investing in public transit in the province of Ontario, 82% of those dollars will be invested right here in the province of Ontario, and we are proud of that.

With respect to our new Green Energy Act, we've made provision within the legislation itself to put in place a specific figure, and I would appreciate any advice that the honourable member may offer in that regard.

I'm also advising Ontarians on an individual basis, for example, when we go out there and shop for food, to give preference to Ontario foods. Those are the kinds of things that we need to do on a day-to-day basis. At the same time, we don't want to go so far down that protectionist path that we're saying that we wouldn't want Americans to buy the 85% of the cars that we produce up here for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government likes to talk about the fact that the transit construction work is Ontario-sourced. How could it not be Ontario-sourced? It's construction work. Nobody is fooled by your talk of 82% domestic content.

The bottom line is this: This government says 25% domestic content is good enough in purchasing transit vehicles; the NDP says we need an aggressive buy-Ontario transit program with 50% Ontario content. Why is this government stubbornly sticking to a watered-down Ontario-content requirement that is going to cost us jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my colleague speaks of 25% and 50%; we're at 82%. We're seeing that 82% of all the monies that are going to be invested in public transit will be spent right here in the province of Ontario to support our economy, our workers and their families. We think that's pretty strong and pretty bold.

Again, with respect to our Green Energy Act, we're now going to consider options as to what we might do there to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can to have those dollars spent inside the province of Ontario.

Again, I say to my honourable colleague, if there are specific recommendations she has in that regard, we would welcome those.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government also likes to trumpet something that they're calling Ontario Buys, but Ontario Buys has got nothing to do with ensuring that the multibillion-dollar purchasing budget of this government is targeted to creating good-paying jobs right here in Ontario. The NDP would have a specific domestic content requirement for all purchases made by government, hospitals, universities and schools. There's an idea for you. Why has this government failed to implement a real buy-Ontario program in the midst of the worst job crisis since the Depression?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I may have something that speaks to that specifically: 95% of our almost 45,000 government suppliers are located in Ontario, so we are doing everything that we can. I think that's a pretty impressive figure, but we think there is more that we might do. While my colleague might belittle, for the time, our efforts made through Ontario Buys, we think that we can, as a government, go further than any government has ever gone before without running the risk of being honestly labelled as protectionist.

The other side of this—I understand where my colleague is coming from—of course, is that we are a powerful exporter of goods, and should the rest of the world decide to stop buying Ontario goods, we'll be in serious trouble. So we're going to continue to walk that line—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With each passing day, it becomes very clear that the budget tabled last month is anti-jobs and anti-growth. Each month, thousands of Ontarians are being thrown out of work in the construction sector in this province, yet the government imposes a tax of 8% on the soft costs associated with new housing construction and renovation. Both the industry and the construction trades warned this government against such a move. How could the government impose an 8% tax on the construction industry when thousands and thousands of Ontario construction workers are losing their jobs each and every month?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: An important part of the budget is the $32.5 billion we're going to invest in infrastructure, in schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, public transit and the like. On top of that, there's our Green Energy Act, which is designed to stimulate construction of new renewable sources of electricity, everywhere from remote parts of northern Ontario to farms in the southwest. We think that we're going to do a lot of good when it comes to creating new construction opportunities for workers right across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are the real facts: In the GTA alone, the housing industry generates 360,000 jobs and hundreds of thousands more of spinoff jobs, but demand has fallen dramatically in the past year. Now, many homes are going to be subject to at least a $30,000 tax increase, further reducing demand. Will this government admit that when it comes to the housing industry, its HST is a job killer, pure and simple?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that it's important to understand what we're doing here. We did listen to the housing industry, and we did, of course, want to take into account new costs when it comes to our home buyers. We've provided an exemption for homes at $400,000 and less. I think the federal exemption only goes up to $350,000; we've exceeded that by another $50,000. Furthermore, the full effect of the new single sales tax doesn't take effect until you buy a home that's $500,000 or more.

If you look at all the homes sold annually in Ontario, the overwhelming majority are resale homes—used homes, so to speak. Then there are brand new homes; the overwhelming majority of those are valued at less than $500,000. In fact, they're at less than $400,000. We're talking about a small proportion of homes that are sold on an annual basis that are over $500,000. Our concern was for folks who are buying homes at less than $500,000.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are the facts on the HST: Ordinary families are going to be forced to pay 8% more for gas at the pumps, 8% more for home heating. A struggling GTA housing industry is going to be slammed by a marginal tax rate of 32% on homes priced between $400,000 and $500,000. This is going to cost Ontario tens of thousands of construction jobs and, as a result, reduce demand on other goods and services. When will this government admit that the HST is bad for the GTA housing industry, it's bad for the economy and it's bad for Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One hundred and thirty other countries have already done this; they've put in place a single sales tax or a value-added tax. Four other provinces have also done this as well.

We are confident that we can do this and do it in a way that protects our families: 93% of Ontarians will get a personal income tax cut under our approach. We're putting in place, as well, a new Ontario sales tax credit. This is permanent as well: $260 each for adults and children. We're also going to reduce the level of taxation at the lowest tax level, the lowest income level, so that Ontario's low-income families will pay the lowest level of income taxes in the country. We've tried to be thoughtful, balanced and progressive in doing things that both stimulate growth in the economy and protect families at the same time.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Premier. Premier, as you know, the Smart Systems for Health Agency spent $647 million of taxpayer money, with very little to show for it, before you quietly disbanded it last September. Unlike Quebec, Alberta and BC, which are going to have their e-health systems operating by 2010, Ontario will not have a system until 2015. Premier, the Deloitte report of 2007 was critical of the agency. In response to that report the CEO, Michael Lauber, explained that there was an unclear road map that had been given to it by your government.

I ask you today, although your own health minister refuses to be accountable to taxpayers, will you call in the Auditor General to conduct a value-for-money audit of the agency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: In the member's question there were several items which were factually incorrect. First of all, the road map that the member refers to is the mandate provided by the previous Progressive Conservative government when they set up Smart Systems for Health.

In fact, Smart Systems for Health helped to lay the infrastructure upon which we are building a better and more efficient electronic health strategy for the province. Among its successes, Ontario spent a lot of time and energy building the wait-time information system, for example, to make sure that all Ontarians have access to timely surgical procedures. That is now connected to every surgeon's office in the province of Ontario. I would say that no other province in Canada has this in place.

Moving forward, unlike what the member said in her question, eHealth Ontario is aiming to give every patient living with diabetes in Ontario an electronic health record by 2012. The agency is also tracking the—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The response of the minister is a little bit of a joke. He was in charge from 2003 to 2007. It's unfortunate that he didn't give a road map to the agency. We know there was a problem because they quietly disbanded it.

I say to you, Minister, that there is even more reason for a value-for-money audit by the Auditor General today, given what Deloitte and Touche said, given the fact that none of the information that you said was in public accounts is there, and given the fact that now, in the first three months of the new eHealth agency, we're already finding that spending is more than $200,000 for food, accommodation and catering. And we're now hearing that consultants are flying back and forth to Edmonton and you're paying for it.

Hon. David Caplan: The member is, once again, factually incorrect. In fact, yesterday she issued a news release claiming that the government had spent—

Mr. John Yakabuski: No wonder they don't have a road map; they're always flying.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, you've been interrupting on numerous occasions. I'd just ask you to be respectful.

Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the member doesn't point out that the Conservative caucus itself spent $667,000 on travel, food and accommodation in the year 2007. I think that an agency which has a mandate to have electronic health infrastructure in the province of Ontario is far wiser spending than two thirds of a million dollars by the Conservative caucus on food, travel and accommodation.

But it's even worse: In the member's press release yesterday, she said that the McGuinty government has spent $647 million on the Smart Systems for Health Agency. In fact, it was under a previous Conservative government that $150 million of that was spent. Why is this member trying to hide her party's—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that he just made.

Hon. David Caplan: I'll withdraw, Speaker, but—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Thousands of auto parts workers across the province have lost their jobs, and tens of thousands of others fear every day that they will be laid off. The government has finally stepped up to the plate and provided some assistance to auto manufacturers. However, why is the government refusing to provide similar financial support for the auto parts plants that are equally at risk and that contribute billions of dollars to the Ontario economy?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: Firstly, as the member is aware, assisting the auto manufacturers obviously assists the entire supply chain. As a result of that, the parts suppliers—and you're absolutely right, I say to the member. They're an incredibly important part, not only of our auto industry, but our provincial economy. But assisting the manufacturers assists those suppliers as well.

The United States established a program that, in essence, does what Canada already does for the auto parts suppliers, and ends up doing it more expensively than we have in Canada. So in fact, the financial assistance provided by the US for, in essence, receivables insurance already exists in Canada. We will continue to work with the parts industry to continue to make it a global leader around the world.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, blind faith is not enough to keep the auto parts plants in business. It's not good enough just to hope that the automakers will use their government support funds to pay their suppliers when this is not a condition of the support. It's not good enough to say that the support from Export Development Canada against defaulting on payments will keep auto parts plants alive. Many of Ontario's 600 auto part plants are at risk of shutting down unless the McGuinty government comes through with direct emergency financing of these plants.

Once again, why won't the Premier step forward and ensure that the survival of these plants and the jobs of thousands of Ontario workers are not at risk?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Again, the calls for assistance for the parts industry arose, in part, because the United States treasury announced a $5-billion aid package for the auto parts manufacturers. Under the program, it protects supplier receivables in the event that GM and Chrysler suppliers go under, in exchange for a fee of about 2% to 3%. In Canada, that system, that program, already exists. Last year, the charge was 0.75%, and it ends up covering 90% of the value of the shipment and is used pretty widely. Requests obviously continue to go, and last year, my understanding is the crown corporation provided $3.2 billion in such funding to the industry alone.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Answer.

Hon. Michael Bryant: We have the program in place. The fee is less than it is in the United States, and I'm confident that that program will continue to have that kind of success.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs . Yesterday, together with the Premier, you hosted the fifth annual Premier's summit on agri-food. I'm proud to say a number of the participants are from my riding in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

For the past five years, the Premier's summit has provided a forum for farmers from across Ontario to engage with our Premier and our minister to discuss both the challenges faced and the opportunities that exist in agriculture and the agri-food sector. As a government, we have always invited the input of our farmers, and, as a result, we continue to provide support with over $1.2 billion in farm income support programs. We are encouraging innovation in the sector through the Premier's award for agri-food innovation, which is presented to the award recipients at this annual summit.

Could the minister provide this House and Ontario's farmers with more information about the Premier's award for agri-food innovation?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm very appreciative of the question from the honourable member. We did have an excellent summit yesterday. Certainly our agriculture partners very much appreciate that our Premier is the first Premier in the province of Ontario to annually gather agriculture leaders to provide us with some advice.

After the summit in 2004, by the way, the Premier was so impressed with the innovation that was reported at that summit that our government created the Premier's award for agri-food innovation. It's a $2.5-million program that's awarded to outstanding farm innovators. This year, the deadline for applications was December. We had more than 180 farmers participate in the program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Answer.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: As a result, there were awards made yesterday: the Premier's award and the minister's award, and there will be 55 regional awards—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: The minister and the ministry staff worked hard and were very dedicated to hosting these summits, along with the Premier, and that is very much appreciated by farmers. My farm constituents have told me how much they appreciate our recognition of their important contribution to our provincial economy and the opportunity for their representatives to speak directly with the Premier and the minister.

The Premier's summit puts the spotlight on agriculture in Ontario and allows our government to foster innovation, which is a critical area for partnering with this industry. The fifth annual Premier's summit on agri-food demonstrates our continued commitment to Ontario's agriculture and food sector. Ontario's agri-food industry generates more than $33 billion annually to our economy and employs approximately 700,000 people. I can't say enough about how important this sector is to the economy of this province and to our—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The summit is a tremendous opportunity to showcase the innovation that's taking place on the concession roads right across rural Ontario.

I'd like to just offer two examples that were recognized yesterday. The first one was for the Premier's award. Fifth Town Artisan Cheese Co. from Picton received $100,000. Now, this is the innovation that's happening at that business. They are Canada's only platinum LEED dairy. They're a cheese manufacturer, and they use sheep and goat cheese. This is a state-of-the-art facility. They use solar, wind and geothermal technologies. The dairy sustainability theme is carried through the entire enterprise with environmentally friendly waste processing, as well as green cleaning agents.

The minister's award winners were Hillside Gardens Ltd. from Bradford—this innovation showcased traceability—

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

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Many families in my riding do not have a family doctor. One family of four was told by their retiring doctor that their patient files would be sent to a record storage and retrieval service and they would be charged a small courier fee to retrieve their records.

Minister, this family contacted the service, and they were told it would cost them $339 each for the family of four for their medical records. Do you feel it's reasonable to charge this family over $1,200 to retrieve a copy of their medical records?

Hon. David Caplan: It's difficult for me to comment on the case. I'd be very happy if the member would want to forward to me the correspondence or any records that have been provided.

The member started her question talking about there being many without family physicians. I can tell the member that we're doing much to reverse the years of inaction, to boost access to doctors and to family health care in Ontario. I can tell you that we've turned a corner and that we now have more doctors per capita after a decade of decline. There are 1,794 more doctors in Ontario today than there were in 2003. In fact, this past year the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario registered a record number of physicians in the province of Ontario.

I would be very happy to review the case that the member has brought forward. I would be very interested in seeing the details and I would be happy to follow up with the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, I'm happy to forward you the e-mail for this one particular family, but the reality is that this is a retiring physician who is practising in my community and hundreds of families are affected, not one.

People without a family doctor are subjected to being treated like second-class citizens by your government. This family does not have a family doctor or access to all the services they would have if they were part of a family health network. Are you going to force this family to pay over $1,200 to get access to their medical records, especially at a time when they don't even have a family physician?

Hon. David Caplan: I think the member wrote her supplementary without listening to the answer to the question. I said I would be very happy to review the matter. The member is clearly not interested in a reply.

The facts of the matters are these: These fees, as such, are regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I would be happy to review the matter, but the facts of the matter are clear: When the member's party was on this side of the House, they did nothing to increase the supply of doctors in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, it took the action of this government to reverse that trend. We've increased medical school spaces, we're—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member—you asked the question. I would just encourage you to please listen to the response. Ten seconds.

Hon. David Caplan: The member is not interested in a response; rather, a platform and grandstanding. Our government has taken action to increase the supply of doctors. In fact, 2008 was a banner year for the registration of physicians in the province of Ontario, something that all members of this House should celebrate.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I stood alongside my steelworker brothers and sisters to support the remaining 600 National Steel Car workers who are on strike, trying to keep their jobs from going to Alabama. These workers have already been hit hard by reduced hours, and now they're being asked to take a 25% cut in wages and benefits. I offered to meet with the National Steel Car's CEO to find out how we can get back on track, for example, with the Canadian Wheat Board to keep hundreds working and supporting the local economy.

Will the Premier contact National Steel Car chair and CEO Greg Aziz to work out a plan to keep this company operating in Hamilton?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member knows that this province has one of the best labour relations records in the entire world. We're confident that the parties will work together. We know that when the different interested parties meet at the bargaining table to resolve their differences, they can get an agreement done. We have always felt that that is the best place to resolve differences. That's why 97% of all collective agreements are done without work stoppage. That's because we have employers and trade unions and employees and all stakeholders rolling up their sleeves, working together to keep our province moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I cannot believe that answer.

National Steel Car is the largest single-site rail car plant in North America, an ISO 9001 company whose rich Canadian history includes building rail cars, passenger trains and planes, the Avro. The workers at National Steel Car and US Steel-Stelco need a plan from this government to keep the steel industry going to create ripple-effect jobs across Hamilton industries. For example, the Premier could contact the federal minister responsible for the wheat board to encourage him to buy Ontario-made rail cars and not lease them through an American company.

When will the Premier meet with National Steel Car to find creative solutions and to work out strong, competitive incentives to keep National Steel Car in Hamilton and from going to Alabama?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I say to the member is that we continue to work with all parties to ensure that a collective agreement can get done. And we do this—

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I don't think the member wants to listen. But what we do——

Mr. Paul Miller: You're not answering the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to please listen to the response. Thank you.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I know that the employer and the trade union are doing everything they can to come to a collective agreement. I know that because our Ministry of Labour mediators and conciliators are there assisting. They are the best in the country. They are called upon to be at the table to help the parties resolve those differences so that they can get on with working and moving forward. That's why we have the best labour relations that this province has had in over 30 years.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As our province moves forward in building a knowledge-based economy, we know that investing in skills and education is a priority. Attracting more people to post-secondary education and training will ensure that Ontario's workforce remains on the competitive edge in the global economy. In my own community, St. Clair College and the University of Windsor are doing tremendous work in promoting their programs and encouraging more students from all over Canada, and around the world, to seek education there.

We know that post-secondary education will be essential in the new economy. With more students on our campuses, we are seeing additional strain on our facilities, classrooms and labs. Minister, what have you done to ensure our post-secondary education institutions are able to withstand the influx of students?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question and he certainly raises a very important point of the value of the bricks and mortar side of post-secondary education. I've been very proud that this government, particularly in this mandate, has put a real emphasis on infrastructure at our colleges and universities, both through the 2007 fall economic statement and the 2008 budget.

Through both those budgets, we invested $190 million at 12 different colleges across the province to increase space and address equipment shortages, creating 13,000 new spaces for students, 4,500 of which are apprenticeship students. On the university side, those two economic statements invested $264 million for capital projects, linking education to economic growth and competitiveness, and we've invested $400 million in campus renewal.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I know that St. Clair College and the University of Windsor were pleased to receive over $15 million in deferred maintenance and equipment renewal investments last year. This money is helping them to expand classrooms and ensure students are learning on up-to-date equipment that prepares them for today's modern workplace. With the recent economic downturn, it is essential that we do everything we can to create jobs in the short term while improving Ontario's competitiveness in the long term. Investing in post-secondary infrastructure does just that.

Recently our government announced that we will be investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure projects over the next two years. Minister, how do you plan on moving ahead with a long-term infrastructure plan for our campuses?

Hon. John Milloy: I was very pleased that the most recent budget of several weeks ago complemented what had come forward in the fall economic statement and the budget of a year ago, and that was a commitment of $780 million for our province's colleges and universities. Of course, we are working very closely with the federal government and want to see this funding complement a similar program that came forward from them.

At the same time, the budget also contained an additional $35 million for new medical school infrastructure. This capital investment will support the creation of 100 new medical school spaces across the province of Ontario and add to our government's priority of increasing the supply of doctors.

We are working very closely with Ontario's colleges and universities and the federal government to make sure that this funding gets out the door as quickly as possible and—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, buying a home is the single largest investment that many of us will make in our entire lifetime. Governments should do what they can to support that important Canadian value of home ownership, but this Premier is throwing one roadblock after another in front of middle-class families trying to buy a new home. The Premier knows that almost 40% of all new housing in the greater Toronto area is priced at more than $400,000. If a family were to choose Toronto, they'd face the new McGuinty-Miller land transfer tax and now a brand new 8% sales tax.

Premier, why are you taxing homes out of reach of middle-class families in the GTA?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has put together a tax cut package for average Ontarians that's unprecedented in the history of Ontario: $10.6 billion. We'll have the lowest tax rate on the first bracket. We've also provided the most generous sales tax credit in the country compared to all the other harmonized provinces.

This package is the right package of corporate tax cuts, business tax cuts, that will stimulate this economy and get us to better and stronger growth so that we can continue to maintain and enhance our vital public services—education, health care—and a better environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: That has got to be some massive rebate if it's going to beat the $32,000 tax hike you're going to impose on middle-class families buying a home in the GTA.

This also impacts on resale homes. The Ontario Real Estate Association estimates that the Dalton McGuinty sales tax will add $2,300 to the cost of a real estate transaction. From legal fees, moving costs, commissions and home inspection fees, the McGuinty-Miller land transfer tax in Toronto is up to $3,500 more per home and has already resulted in a 23% drop in sales, let alone the impacts of your so-called Green Energy Act on the cost of home heating.

Premier, given that we want to get out of this recession, private sector job creation will be key. Why are you trying to strangle the construction and home building industry?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member opposite: I just said a moment ago that we have a very generous sales tax that will effectively exempt 75% of new homes in Ontario. Actually, new home sales went up 16% in Nova Scotia and 12% in New Brunswick after the implementation of the single sales tax in those provinces.

I heard Mr. Hudak say on TVO's The Agenda that he doesn't think our $32.5-billion infrastructure—he says, "I don't think that's the right approach." Christine Elliott said that she read about Tim's position on that and personally believes that we should keep it. Who speaks for that party over there? Are they for a harmonized sales tax? Are they for an infrastructure plan? Who stands and speaks for that party? I can tell you this: This government speaks—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. We've been doing very well.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. The Premier talks regularly about building a caring Ontario, one that provides the tools for all Ontarians to participate and contribute. Last year, the Minister of Children and Youth Services shut low-income people out of the closed-door hearings on the government poverty plan, and then the government never reported back on what they heard from Ontarians who are losing their jobs and falling into poverty. Now the government is restricting its hearings on the poverty reduction plan to just two half-days in Toronto; again, denying the opportunity for poor Ontarians outside of Toronto to speak about the struggles that they are facing.

If the Premier really cares about Ontarians, why won't the government hold broad-based public hearings across Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can't speak to the specifics of any committee decisions with respect to what kind of travel they're going to do, but I can say that Ontarians who have paid some attention to our government and the approach we've brought to dealing with issues of poverty affecting too many Ontario families I think will come to the conclusion that our heart's in the right place.

Take a look at this most recent budget. We are just about doubling the Ontario child benefit. We brought forward a commitment that we were to deliver on in 2011 to 2009, from $50 a month to $92 a month. We're putting $1.2 billion into retrofitting social housing and building more affordable housing. We're going to ensure that our low-income earners pay the lowest level of income taxation in the country. So I think it is unfair to accuse us of not understanding and not reaching out to Ontario families who are affected by poverty.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: If the Premier really wanted to build a caring and thriving Ontario, his government would strengthen the Poverty Reduction Act. They would put in place a citizen advisory committee to monitor the poverty reduction strategy, as they have done in Quebec. They would require all ministers to consider and report on poverty impacts of new legislation, as they've done in Quebec. They would put an ambitious long-term goal for poverty reduction in the act, as they did in Quebec. And they would require poverty reduction strategies to include a full range of strategies, as in Quebec.

Is the McGuinty government restricting public hearings to two half-days in Toronto because they know that people living in poverty will compare other jurisdictions and say that this bill is simply not good enough?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Listen, I understand that it's never good enough, not only as a constant refrain coming from my colleagues, but in many ways, I personally believe that whatever we have done, there is still always more left undone. And we're going to try to find ways to build on that. But I think, in fairness, it is worthy to stop and consider that we are the first government of any political stripe to put in place a poverty reduction strategy, with some targets, with some specific strategies and with some accompanying legislation. We think that is a good foundation on which to build.

I'm always open to more suggestions from my colleagues opposite, but at some point in time we're going to stop the presses, because somebody over there is going to get up and say, "Moving forward in the way that you have is a good start."

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week was a big week for transit in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton. I understand that it was always the intent of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006, to merge Metrolinx and GO Transit. If the proposed legislation passes, it will mean great things for transportation across the region.

Metrolinx's regional transportation plan has a number of initiatives to improve public transit, and I've heard from many in my riding who would like to see these initiatives implemented, and implemented quickly. There are also those from Hamilton who use GO Transit regularly. I have heard from these constituents that they would like to know more about the effect that this potential merger may have on future public transit plans. Can the minister tell us exactly what the merger of GO Transit and Metrolinx will mean for the people of Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I appreciate the member's interest in public transit. Recently, we announced that this government plans to merge Metrolinx and GO Transit. We believe that, if passed, this legislation would create a single transit agency able to move quickly to take The Big Move, Metrolinx's regional transportation plan, off the drawing board and actually into service. It will bring the considerable expertise of both agencies together under one roof and allow us to get shovels in the ground quickly on key projects. The proposed new agency will deliver better customer service, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create almost 430,000 Ontario jobs.

I want to assure the member that GO Transit will continue to remain visible in terms of an operating brand and transit service. There will be no service disruption. We will continue to work with municipal governments to knit together a regional transportation network that will serve all their constituents even more effectively.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Minister, I'm pleased to hear that, if passed, the legislation will maintain GO service and that we will see projects move forward at a quickened pace.

Many Hamiltonians took great interest in the final regional transportation plan, as congestion is an issue I hear about quite often from my constituents. Many of those living in Hamilton commute to Oakville, Mississauga and even Toronto.

As part of last week's announcement, we saw funding for five major projects across the GTA and Hamilton. As well, we saw new funding for a variety of GO projects from Niagara to Bowmanville. I'm hoping that this is only the beginning. Could the Minister of Transportation please share with this House what the proposed merger will mean for public transit, especially for those living in Hamilton?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Hamilton plays an integral role in this government's vision of a seamless regional transit network for the five million people living in the GTA and Hamilton. The top 15 transit priorities in Metrolinx's regional transportation plan include projects for Hamilton, such as express rail on the Lakeshore line from Hamilton to Oshawa and rapid transit in downtown Hamilton from McMaster University to Eastgate mall.

Last Wednesday, we saw the province invest $3 million in a study that will support Hamilton's evaluation of its rapid transit corridors. This funding is essential for planning, design and environmental assessment work to help bring rapid transit to Hamilton on the two proposed corridors. The proposed merger of Metrolinx and GO Transit will allow projects such as these to move faster, getting more people out of their cars and onto public transit. We have a very ambitious plan and we are in the process—

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

SMOKING CESSATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion and it's related to products designed to promote health, but I feel compelled to ask the minister for a commitment first. Since past behaviour is often the best indicator of future behaviour, I feel that I should ask the minister if she will commit to answering a question that pertains to her portfolio without deflecting to one of her colleagues. Simply put, will the minister answer a question that I put about health promotion? If I do that, will you answer it?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member for his comments and I would like the member to know that whenever he thinks about a question and asks me a question that pertains to my ministry, I will be very pleased to answer it.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I, too, applaud the answer.

Prior to the last provincial election, your predecessor announced that as of August 2007, the government would be eliminating the RST on nicotine replacement therapies, including the patch, sprays, inhalers and more. Your government even included this announcement in the election platform, claiming that they would help even more Ontarians quit smoking by removing the provincial sales tax from nicotine patches and making those and other therapies more widely available. Now your government is breaking that promise and hiking taxes on those very same products.

Are you no longer interested in helping Ontarians quit smoking, do you no longer think that nicotine replacement therapies are effective, and if you do, why have you been so silent? Why have you not defended Ontarians from your government's attacks on their health?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government is certainly committed to helping Ontarians break the cycle of tobacco addiction. In 2007-08, we provided close to $15 million for cessation programs, services, training and public education. So far in 2008-09, we have allocated $9.7 million to support cessation products. Whether it is public education, tobacco control legislation or support of people who want to quit, we have been proactive. And 93% of Ontario's taxpayers will pay less personal income taxes because of our budget. This is very important because it means that Ontario families will have more money in their pockets to spend. Families with an income of less than $160,000 will—

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

TUITION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Colleges, Training and Universities: The largest arts and science faculty in Ontario voted yesterday in favour of a flat fee. This fee is equivalent to a five-course load even if students only take three or four courses. Does the minister agree with this flat fee as a way of compensating for the fact that Ontario universities are dead last in Canada in per capita student funding?

Hon. John Milloy: I had a chance to comment on this yesterday. The honourable member is aware that we have a regulated tuition framework in the province of Ontario. Under that regulated tuition fee framework, universities may charge students tuition fees on a program or flat-fee basis. He may be aware that the University of Toronto already has a number of programs that are charged on a flat-fee basis, as do 10 other universities across the province. It's my understanding that Carleton University, my alma mater, has had that in place for 25 years.

The question is about the tuition fee framework. Is the policy brought forward by any university consistent with the tuition fee framework, which not only limits the amount of tuition increase that can affect a student; it also mandates universities to make sure that they provide any additional financial help? Because our number one goal is to make sure that no student is ever denied access to university—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Perhaps GO should charge transit riders a flat fee for a 100-kilometre trip no matter how far they're really going, or LCBO customers who buy three or four bottles could be charged for five. It is simply ridiculous to charge students who are already reeling from an enormous debt load and some of the highest tuitions in the province for courses that they're not taking. Does the minister approve of the flat fee that U of T is proposing?

Hon. John Milloy: The program of flat fees has been in place for decades. At Carleton University, it has been in place for 25 years. The issue is ensuring that students do not face financial obstacles when they wish to go to colleges or universities. I'm very proud to be part of a government which has brought in a tuition fee framework which has doubled the amount of student aid, which has worked very hard to make sure that students have the support they need. I find it passing strange for a member who was part of a government which saw tuition fees skyrocket, which cut upfront grants, to stand up and have the gall to talk about not supporting students.

DEFERRED VOTES

2009 ONTARIO BUDGET

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to the budget motion.

On March 30, 2009, Mr. Runciman moved that the motion moved by the Minis